Talk:Occupy Wall Street: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Occupy Wall Street article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30Auto-archiving period: 3 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Occupy Wall Street. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Occupy Wall Street at the Reference desk.

To-do list for Occupy Wall Street: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2015-01-27 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Please add related link to Model Community Bill of Rights Template for Occupy communities http://envisionseattle.org/2011/12/model-community-bill-of-rights-template-for-occupy-communities.html Stubs : Finish and merge #Long term background (3⁄4 done). Or a separate article ? Update : SOURCES confirmed interesting to review. Mark the line {{done}} when inclusion is  Done. —Democracy Now! coverage index (to watch daily) —Twitter RSS flux with recent sources : on #Occupywallst (tweeter) (to watch daily) —Captain, Sean (Oct. 19). "The Demographics Of Occupy Wall Street". {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help) —The Class War Has Begun - an analysis connecting OWS with the Depression era Bonus Army —History frowns on violent response to protests follow up interview on Rachel Maddow show — Sharlet, Jeff (Nov. 10). "Inside Occupy Wall Street". Rollingstone.com. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help) — very detailled article on OWS early stages. —Dickinson, Tim (Nov. 9). "How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich". RollingStone.com. p. 8. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help) — very detailed article on recent US taxes/fiscal history and how the GOP led to fiscal unbalance, 8 pages.

Pepper spraying of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 3 October 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Occupy Wall Street. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

A news item involving Occupy Wall Street was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 2 October 2011.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

In the beginning of the article dates are mention without giving the year, making the information useless, unless someone can find out what year the events happened the dates should be removed.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

No mention is made of the thousands of people who showed up at the park at 6am to prevent the eviction, many prepared to be arrested, and that this was a cited reason the cleaning was postponed. Could this be added?

68.196.114.161 (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-goldberg-occupy-wall-street-20111011,0,1468226.story

Note the quote by NYC General Assembly exec Brian Phillips:

"My political goal," Phillips says, "is to overthrow the government."

Thoughts? Centrify (talk) (contribs) 13:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds interesting - as do the sources linking some specific labour unions to the group. More and more the group sounds like the "anarchists" of a century or so ago. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a highly one-sided opinion/attack piece rather than a news article and I think that we need more sources before using it to add overthrow of the government as a 'goal' of the protests. A reference to this article in terms of media reaction to the protests seems appropriate though.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a goal of the protests; a goal of a chief organizer of the protests. And it is apparently a direct quote from an NPR source. This ought to be all we need viz. sourcing, and IMO it's quite worthy of inclusion. At any rate, if we were to disqualify sources based on them being "highly one-sided", what would we be left with at this article? Centrify (talk) (contribs) 14:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the protests have an 'organiser' or 'leader', they are very organic. Currently this article also covers all of the Occupy protests (1,300 worldwide and growing fast) and they certainly do not have any organiser or leader or single spokesman. The Goldberg article looks to me like a smear piece, worthy of inclusion in some way but not as a reliable source for the goals of these protests.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you want to call the head of communications for the "NYC General Assembly". It's clear he has some kind of organizational role, which is presumably why NPR singled him out to interview [1], regardless of whether one really thinks that this movement was so spontaneous as not to require leadership. I'd say it's quite relevant and notable to note that his goal is to "overthrow the government". Centrify (talk) (contribs) 14:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has done a pretty good job citing reliable sources establishing that this protest may be formally "leaderless" but has key leader-ish people that organize its activities. The NYCGA (and its moderators) is the vehicle by which info is shared on the ground, and the on-site OWS media center update the "unofficial" website, disseminates info via twitter/social media, and communicates regularly with other protest sites via skype. The views of these key leaderish people is surely relveant to where they are steering the group that they influence, IMHO. MPS (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so that we're clear, "the 'anarchists' of a century or so ago" or still here, and we have certain standards by which someone can be considered an anarchist. They have to positively self-identity as one, and any movement or project they take part in has to also identify as one. The concern over whether the whole Occupy project should be labeled as anti-statist should be geared to whether the project as a whole espouses that view; not an organizational functionary, or "leader", as some seem to want to put it. The opinions of this author seem to be a minority; a majority of media reports that the whole of the project has a message control problem, and WP:WEIGHT would insist that we not pin objectives and goals on the whole due to the outspoken opinions of a single person, leader or not, anarchist or not. --Cast (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify whether you object to attributing the statement to Phillips and identifying his role in the protest? Centrify (talk) (contribs) 19:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RSOPINION: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers." Since Jonah Goldberg's opinions are fringe, even for U.S. conservatism, WP:WEIGHT would exclude reporting them. TFD (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear to me how you could identify the statement as Goldberg's opinion, but suppose for the sake of argument that we source that direct quote to NPR instead of the Goldberg article; does that address your objection satisfactorily? Centrify (talk) (contribs) 19:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[2] appears to be RS for the quote AFAICT

PHILLIPS: My political goal is to overthrow the government. We want to get rid of the corrupt(ph) - get rid of the Federal Reserve, and you know, get rid of all the too-big-to-fail companies and just reconstruct the entire government, so...

For his role as communications chef:

PHILLIPS: So the media group, we went and did a little meeting, and I introduced myself and, you know, I said I have this to offer with my skills. And everyone said yes. Everyone agreed and voted that I can do that.

Does this answer any issues raised? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you had some random guy walk up to the media group in New York, say "I've got skillz" and everyone else said, "Ok why not?" and you now think it is encyclopedic to associate his personal opinions/objectives/whatever with a broader movement that is in 70 cities because a random group of people in a park didn't thoroughly vet his resume/background? I disagree. --David Shankbone 22:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much it sounds like the OWS groups are not particularly oriented to management systems found in corporations. That does not, however, negate the RS nature of the NPR interview (and a number of other sources which interviewed the person). [3] Macleans from Canada. [4] The Guardian. [5] CBS News. [6] NZ television. [7] Albany Times-Union. [8] BBC News. [9] Columbia Journalism Review. [10] Sacramento Bee. [11] including foreign press where he is identified as a "Google consultant." Does not quite sound like a "random guy" in the first place, and it appears he is generally regarded by the press as the "communications director". Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Weight negates it. "Appears to be" something isn't our standard. Brian Phillips and his personal opinions are not relevant to a broad national movement that hasn't endorsed him as a leader nor endorsed his personal beliefs. --David Shankbone 22:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Weight instructs us to reflect the weight that material is given in reliable sources, not the weight that WP editors think should be given. This exact statement by Phillips has been printed by NPR, the Houston Chronicle, The Boston Globe, Vermont Public Radio, The Baltimore Sun, The Orlando Sentinel, the Columbus Dispatch, the NY Post, etc., and that's only including a cursory search of 2 pages of search results wherein I ignore any source that doesn't have either government funding or a print edition and a US city name in its title. Whether or not the leaderless movement wants an unofficial spokesman, it has one. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then it belongs on an article about Mr. Phillips. Quoting wp:Undue: "To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." You need to provide a source that indicates Mr. Phillips's views are representative of the movement, and that he holds some official capacity and not just some team leader of a group of people living in a park who volunteered to help handle the media. Lastly, it's possible that this one-off, singular statement is not reflective of Mr. Phillips' views, or that he didn't mean it to be taken as hyperbole. --David Shankbone 00:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who has "official capacity" in a leaderless protest movement? If it's not the people who are there and have apparently been voted into certain positions that result in them being discussed on news and radio, then who is it? Only AdBusters? Does being Michael Moore or Anonymous somehow count as leadership purely by virtue of far-left/anarchist street cred?

Further, how do we as WP editors gauge prevalence of views if not by looking at what's in mainstream media reports? I'm not persuaded that this is in fact a fringe view. A sociology professor featured on ABC news described the movement as "massive resistance to capitalism". A month before the protest, AdBusters itself apparently felt compelled to urge prospective protestors not to rally around the "overthrow of capitalism", and as the protest kicked off, the editor-in-chief of AdBusters, speculating as to what "one demand" the protestors would formulate, suggested it "could be some stupid lefty thing like 'overthrow capitalism'". I see a minority view that is obviously significant enough for the only truly official organizers I'm aware of, AdBusters, to feel like they had to privately warn against it and publicly distance themselves from it... prior to it actually being reported pretty widely in the news.

Our current article describes a purported list of demands posted by a single anonymous online user; it then goes on to say that this list was disavowed by an admin user of occupywallst.org (perhaps that's our leadership council, somehow?) and that it was not "proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly". Are there other "officials" of this NYC General Assembly, besides Mr. Phillips, that do speak on behalf of the movement? And if so, how do we know who those people are? Again, we don't go by what's in the media? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 03:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This all sounds like WP:SYNTH to me. Regardless of your intention, pairing an entire movement with one person's off-hand, singular remark effectively pairs that movement with "overthrowing the government", and that's not accurate nor encyclopedic. We need a source that says OWS is about overthrowing the government, or overthrowing capitalism, before it's appropriate to start implying those views belong to the entire movement. We are here to present facts relative to the movement, not relative to Brian Phillips. --David Shankbone 12:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now, the way I understand policy, it's OR/SYNTH to second-guess the weight given something by reliable sources. If you disagree with this, I'm not sure I see why. And if you instead agree, I don't see your rationale for suppressing this. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are two issues here: 1) Brian Phillips and his role with OWS; and 2) "My political goal," Phillips says, "is to overthrow the government." I don't necessarily have an objection about mentioning some of the people who have appeared to take "leadership" roles, I have an objection to including their personal philosophies and issues, many of which aren't relevant to the movement as a whole. If you feel Phillips is an obvious choice for inclusion, and you feel a quote should be used, then it should be one where he is not speaking for himself, but for the movement (which is a tenuous proposition). Your CBS source has this: "Our mission is to change the system," said Brian Phillips, an ex-Marine. "Mainly get the corporations out of the government," Phillips said, "and the fact that they have financial influence in all the decisions in lawmaking. It's a corrupt system." That quote is more worthy of discussion than the one at the top of this thread. --David Shankbone 22:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't seem to have put forth a compelling policy reason why the Phillips quote should not be included, even if attributed. Everything you have said boils down to your judgment that the statement is not representative enough of the movement as a whole. But it's not WP policy for us to vet material in this way. We say what reliable sources say. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where one person is identified as a spokesperson by dozens of reliable sources, it is inane to deny that such sources view the person as a spokesperson. And it is absolutely not SYNTH to use what the reliable sources say. Lastly, as long as the words are attributed to the proper individual, WP:BLP is fully complied with. Cheers - but trying to keep out information which is fully sourced, relevant to a topic, and not of undue weight is contrary to Wikipedia's stated goals. Collect (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think asking to include this is an obvious joke and the wording of both source and fatchecker show that they are thinking in terms far from grasping how such movements operate - as collect already tried to explain. --92.202.19.121 (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Demans and Goals section, can you please add this as the third paragraph under "Public Discussion over focus":

Although there is not yet an official declaration that encompasses all demands of the entire Occupy Movement, one group is building on the wisdom of many to address the unifying concern: the economy. The “American People’s New Economic Charter” is a crowd-sourced document that is deliberately inclusive and is paving the way for an action plan.

thank you. JenYouWin (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many suggestions have come in as for us to list the "demands" or whatever for OWS. However the problem is in determining who really speaks for all those people? We need to rely on WP:RS saying this or that document is representative. In this case what started as a "A Crowd-sourced Expression of Popular Will - Created by & for the 99%" changed to "DUE TO REPEATED SABOTAGE OF THIS TEXT AT APPROX. 8:00 AM EDT (Eastern US), TUESDAY, 10/4, FREE EDITING ACCESS HAS BEEN CLOSED. Only members of the Charter Collaborative can edit and comment." Is that what democracy looks like? LoveUxoxo (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons; a carefully sourced list is available at completeconfusion.com 184.66.134.125 (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite surprised that there is so much attention on the wikipedia page relating to ambiguity on what the occupation is demanding. On September 30, the New York General Assembly published this concise statement. It should definitely be mentioned on this page, probably in full:

http://nycga.cc/2011/09/30/declaration-of-the-occupation-of-new-york-city/

As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage. They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses. They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation. They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization. They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices. They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions. They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right. They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay. They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility. They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance. They have sold our privacy as a commodity. They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press. They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit. They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce. They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them. They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil. They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit. They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit. They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media. They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt. They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas. They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts. *

To the people of the world, We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power. Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone. To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal. Join us and make your voices heard!

• These grievances are not all-inclusive.

--Lskil09 (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's tough claiming to represent the voice of the people, when the people have declared they have no one voice. Any any case, we are not a Samizdat publishing house. Love the "These grievances are not all-inclusive" part though, I'll have to use that line myself. LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - for sure, it's only a statement from people in NY. But while they can only speak for themselves, they were the first and biggest group to speak. Since none other group (to my knowledge) have, I think it still warrants a prominent mention on the wikipedia page - even with the "non-representative" provisos. You may also like to see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ju_N9wreGI&feature=player_embedded#! --Lskil09 (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Kaczynski got The New York Times and Washington Post to publish his manifesto in full. Even with that degree of coverage we don't include the manifesto verbatim in that article. When NYCGA's declaration gets significant coverage in reliable sources, a couple of sentences in the article, and an external link should be considered. By the way, regarding its tone, Sean Penn called and asked if you could turn it down a notch. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sheer fact that there is the provisio of "These grievances are not all-inclusive" means that we can not make an objective statement in regard to the demands being made, and would be forced to rely upon ambiguous language: "The grievances include, but are not limited to, _____".While that is a delight for legal briefs and legislation, it does not make a good addition to an encyclopedia. Additionally, your request that the entirety of the text be posted in full is a bit too far. Yet again, if more sources pick up on this information to make it meet the requirements for WP:SPS then an appropriate summary might be made available. If the Magna Carta is given a summary version (with links to the full version appropriated), then it would stand to reason that a self-published list of demands would not be posted in full. Ampersandestet (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A google news search for "Declaration of Occupation" does return hits, but unfortunately most of the are Bay Area Indymedia and the like. Articles like this and this are really mocking in tone a bit paternalistic in tone, but sympathetic. A NYT search returned hits for several opinion pieces, and I looked at one CityRoom story. I guess my point is, "its not been taken seriously". LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was one prominent reporting of the declaration I'm aware of. Keith Olbermann read the declaration in full on his show and then later interviewed its author's on air.

• Keith Olbermann reads the first collective statement of Occupy Wall Street
• Keith Olbermann speaks with ‘Declaration of the Occupation of New York City’ co-authors Ryan Hoffman and Lex Rendon
• Ryan Hoffman and Lex Rendon on the making of the Occupy Wall Street Declaration

--Cast (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Olbermann is a commentator, and only one individual. I still doubt its notability. Ampersandestet (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, well if there's one person who I would guess would have done that it's Olbermann. I wouldn't say that's enough yet, but getting closer. So if mention of it was to be in the article, where? 3.3.1 Organizational processes and infrastructure > New York City General Assembly? Problem is it is conflicting with the whole "Public discussion over focus and lack of "official list of demands"" section which is about public commentary about the, uh, lack of demands. I can only imagine the fun we would be having in 1936 editing the demands Republicans side in Spanish Civil War article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no list of demands. . . here is our list of demands ! It would require a lot of editing in order to incorporate the fact that a formal demandless organisation grew to be an organisation that wrote down demands that only some of them might agree to. Ah, there is a definite lack of objectivity and I fear that any direct statement will just be wrought with WP:WEASEL. But, I digress. I feel that inclusion of that information needs to be carefully written when it is appropriate and notable to do so in a format that does not contradict any other information nor invoke any manual of style errors. Ampersandestet (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking at the same declaration? This declaration lists no demands. It lists grievances. Anyway, I think this should go under the demands and goals, in a separate sub-section on grievances. --Cast (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is more a fault of the section title. I would prefer the title change to "Grievances, demands and goals" and maybe parse all three out below in sub-sections(?).— Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveUxoxo (talk • contribs) 2011-10-13T18:49:44‎

Apologies, I meant grievances. In any case, I question the inclusion of grievances, simply due to the fact that they are not complete and there is no indication that the entirety of the protesters claim them as their own. It will need to be drafted very carefully once it is notable in order to avoid "some protesters" without making it a universal claim. I really do not feel as if that would be possible, unless the organisation that published the list of grievances is the sole representation of the protesters named. . . but that is a rather dangerous precedent. How do you propose to include this information ? Ampersandestet (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; 'grievances' would be an appropriate sub-heading. Hmm but i don't think the universality difficulty is too problematic. At the start of the subsection we could put that individual protesters "can only speak for themselves", and the general assemblies only reflect the temporary majority consensus in that one area, at that one time (?) --Lskil09 (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I were handling this alone... I would quote it at an extreme minimum, or wouldn't quote the declaration at all. I would quote the interview on how it was drafted as an example of the consensus decision making process in the section on the General Assembly. Then, in the section on grievances, I would also quote the interview on why they decided to draft this list of grievances. That way the article remains consistent on the point that the GA only speaks for a given moment. And if Keith Olbermann made any pointed comments about why it is a list of grievances, and not a list of demands, I would quote that too—and he has. Observe 1:40—2:27 of Olbermann's recitation, which begins with this preamble: "That the document that I will read in full in a moment is not a list of laws to be repealed, nor politicians to be elected, may only confuse the precocious 9th graders now passing for TV anchor news men these days; but the absence of the kind of painted footsteps with which they used to mark the floors of dance instruction studios is, in a way, breathtaking. The two-by-four that Errol Louis described. [In an earlier interview, Errol Louis described the occupation as being like the city of New York has been hit by a two-by-four.] It implies that there is so much to change—that such a tipping point has been reached—that some easy-to-apply Band-Aids are just not going to be enough. And it implies that the commentators and politicians and moneyed-interests that do not come to understand the scope of what must change will be without influence and without power before they realize that the change has happened." --Cast (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very clever Cast, an interesting approach. LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this approach. Ampersandestet (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a reasonable way to get consensus on beginning a sub-section for this topic. Is someone with editing privileges able to have a go drafting/publishing something now?--Lskil09 (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the idea of quoting reliable third party sources (e.g. not blogs/forums/homebrewjournalism) who have reported on the document and who rightly attribute the document to the "protestors" who wrote it and approved it but not necc. everyone there. Agree that we don't need to quote it ... we can find a summary of the document and attribute the summary to a journalist/analyst. MPS (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A blog is not automatically a good or bad source, per WP. If needed, I'll search out and spell out for any eidtor the policy that makes this clear - I done this at least two or three times around here already. Por Nada TheArtistAKA 05:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Lawrence Lessig is trying to call a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution. And here's his informer site. Should this be added to the article? Dualus (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.callaconvention.org/ has more information. Dualus (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Informer.com and callaconvention.org are not reliable third party sources. Wait until reputable journalists report on it before including. MPS (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about this author and law professor? Dualus (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found a Marketplace Morning Report and Dan Froomkin piece which were much less verbose.[12] Dualus (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Ratigan apparently has this at http://www.getmoneyout.com/

"No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."

Does anyone know whether we're likely to get instant runoff voting if the electoral college is abolished? Dualus (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Auerbach has one at http://cavebear.com/amendment/

"Corporate and other aggregate forms of organization are neither Persons nor Citizens under this Constitution and shall have neither protections, rights, nor legal standing under this Constitution. This Amendment shall not be construed to deny or disparage the power of Congress or the Several States to enact legislation that defines rights, powers, limitations, liabilities, and standing of such corporate and other aggregate forms of organization."

Are there any more out there? Dualus (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that all of the graphs in Income inequality in the United States end before 2008. So I asked about it and was told that this site had more recent data, and to ask to improve them on Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop. Would someone who needs less sleep than I do please do the needful? Thank you. Dualus (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop#Income inequality after 2008. Dualus (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that graph since it was clearly original research. Editors must take care to not present their own original research. Arzel (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are referring to a graph being discussed in a different section, but you still might want to read WP:OI. Dualus (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like opinions regarding this wording from the Celebrity section:

NYT best-selling author and SMU economics professor, Ravi Batra, wrote an article in Truthout in support of the OWS movement.[137][138] Batra argues that legislative changes since the Reagan Presidency, with regard e.g. to taxes, benefits, mergers & acquisitions, have contributed greatly to increase the inequalities and economic problems in the USA. Ravi Batra has special relevance to the OWS movement as the intellectual who popularised the concept "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions, in his best selling books in the 1980s. In 2007, he wrote a book titled "The Golden New Age: the coming revolution against political corruption and economic chaos".[139]

I had edited this editors previous (similar) entry to read:

Author and economics professor, Ravi Batra, wrote an article in Truthout in support of the OWS movement. Batra argues that the tax and benefit legislation in the USA since the Reagan Presidency has contributed greatly to the inequalities and economic problems. He suggests the OWS movement push for their repeal.[137]

His section is currently about twice as long as the other personalities - the average is about four or less lines. It does not need to include the SMU or the "best-selling" wording. His books and further opinions, etc., may be found at his article. Gandydancer (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yoo hoo...still looking for feedback. Look at this guy's article and I'm not even sure he should be in the article - we certainly can't list every Tom, Dick, and Harry with their views on the protest. How many people have ever heard of this guy? Furthermore, I am not happy that the editor that wants this info included believes that s/he is above commenting on the talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, you made extensive changes to the article without discussing with anybody. Second, it seems you need to keep up with the edits. For instance, I reverted before you posted here.

13:03, 15 October 2011‎ Plankto (talk | contribs)‎ (97,002 bytes) (→Celebrity commentary: Agree with Gandydancer and revert own changes, fix) (undo)

Length is a function of relevance and secondary sources. Batra has plenty of notability concerning OWS as is now brought out more clearly in the text - thanks to your prompting.Plankto (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, if we are going to split hairs, you made an extensive change when you decided that a (presently) little-known author deserved twice the length of article space as any other "celebrity" in the list. Second, you made your edit while I was making my talk page edit, and to say that I was not keeping up with edits is absurd. As for your statement, "Length is a function of relevance", can't disagree with you there! And that is exactly why I trimmed your edit. Gandydancer (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding notability, Batra's books were #1. on New York Times Best Seller list for months on end in late 1987. He has been featured in Time and Newsweek magazines, been on all the major networks, etc.. He was awarded a medal by the Italian Senate in 1991 for accurately predicting the downfall of Soviet Communism in 1978. At the same time, he predicted the downfall of Capitalism within 25 and 50 years. For what its worth, it's all playing out as predicted.Plankto (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Gandydancer here, when I saw the long-version I thought it was giving far to much weight to one person's opinion over others.LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please suggest what text you think is irrelevant and warrants being omitted.Plankto (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using the word "best-selling" twice in the first paragraph is appalling. With that and putting in a plug for one of his books those edits are using this article as a coatrack to talk about Batra. I don't want to ask why you think Batra's opinion carries so much wore weight than others, I'm sure you have your reasons. Other people have their reasons why someone else deserves mention in this section, which is rapidly becoming WP:TRIVIA. But it is somewhat arrogant of you to think that your opinion as to notability decrees that it should be given twice as much content as others. LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LU, it seems you didn't bother to check what was in the article since the changes were made in my 13:03, 15 October 2011 edit. It was different from what Gandydancer put up on the talk page. I assumed people checked what was on the page itself. He also failed to check it in his 15:44 edit on that day. So your conclusions are based on old information. I've trimmed the entry to a bare minimum in view of the feedback.Plankto (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having a a NYT bestseller in 1987 does not satisfy WP:NOTE. If there is significant coverage of Batra's opinion from verifiable third party sources, then perhaps it might merit inclusion. The length and tone of the section borders on violation of both WP:SOAP and WP:UNDUE. My vote is for immediate deletion. Bowmerang (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a fishing expedition to establish non-notability? As for "significant oppinion" on this article of October 11, it is already developing. Of course, there is an endless stream of hits on Google regarding his earlier work and his notability is established from all directions - also what I wrote above. For instance, the nationally syndicated radio personality and author, Thom Hartmann, has Batra on his show regularly. At the same time, Batra is not popular with the establishment - just like the OWS movement.Plankto (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you are the one who has been on a fishing expedition. Take a look at our copy and note that Barr, Moore, and Klein were the first to speak at the event and are very well-known. West is well-known as well, spoke within the first few days and drew a crowd of 2000. Fiasco was involved even before the initial event and Ruffalo was also involved from the start. Like Sarandon, who was also involved in the first few days, they are well known for their activism and attended the protest. Žižek is the first (other than Klein) foreign personality to speak at the event. Note, also, that one did not have to go to Truthout to find information on any of these people's connection to the protest - it was reported in every major news service. As Bowmerang has pointed out, a bestseller 20 years ago does not satisfy notability, and appearing on a talk show from time to time does not either. Furthermore, we have to keep in mind that even personalities such as Paul Krugman, who is certainly well-known and had an article in the NYT (rather than Truthout) does not have any copy. I agree with Bowmerang in that the Batra section should be removed. LoveUxoxo, do you have an opinion on removal? Gandydancer (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gandydancer. The original text was too wordy and otherwise poorly written. Gandydancer wrote the same essential information in fewer, simpler words. I would make it even shorter:

Author and economics professor Ravi Batra, wrote in support of the OWS movement. Batra argues that the tax and benefit legislation in the USA since the Reagan Presidency has contributed greatly to the inequalities and economic problems. He suggests the OWS movement push for their repeal.

The fact that it's "an article" is trivial. The source (Truthout) is already in the footnote, where it belongs according to WP style.

I do think Batra is notable, however. He's published a lot in popular sources. I don't know much economics and I recognize his name. --Nbauman (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nbauman, I'm glad to note that there are editors here how know something of this national debate which has taken place largely outside the mainstream media. Indeed, Batra has long been speaking of a coming financial crash which would lead to a civil revolt against the injustices. Finally when it occurs, and protesters actually take to the streets, using the language and reasoning of Batra, some here think it non notable because their awareness extends only to the mainstream coverage of any such debate, which is almost negligeble.Plankto (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good input Nbauman, however do you feel that perhaps by including Batra we may be on a slippery slope to including every published and recognized personality in our article? For instance, as I type these words Paul Krugman is speaking on CNN as a panelist of four speaking on the protests. His opinion is for the "positive" position while Steve Forbes has a somewhat different point of view. Or take Chris Hedges, very popular best-selling author who also has a weekly column on Truthout - to be "fair" should not his opinion be included as well? In other words, where will we draw the line? Obviously the line must be drawn somewhere or the section will get so bloated that it may need to be deleted as a whole. IMO, it is better to keep it pared down to the few that are both widely familiar and actually spoke at the Occupy Wall Street protest (with perhaps a rare exception). Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add: I do feel that opponents to the protest such as Hannity, etc., should be included because it is obvious that they would not be speaking at the event. Gandydancer (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the text as it now stands after Somedifferentstuff edited it further at 09:39, 16 October 2011. It was Somedifferentstuff's decision to retain the longer version after I trimmed it down. Further the para has been moved to last before the roster of other notables by name only:

Author and economics professor, Ravi Batra, wrote an article in Truthout in support of the OWS movement. Batra argues that legislative changes since the Reagan Presidency, with regard e.g. to taxes, benefits, mergers & acquisitions, have contributed greatly to increase the inequalities and economic problems in the U.S. He suggests the OWS movement push for their repeal.[157] Batra has special relevance to the OWS movement as the intellectual who popularised the concept, "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions.[158][159] In 2007, he wrote a book titled, "The Golden New Age: The coming revolution against political corruption and economic chaos".[160]

The para draws out Batra's link to OWS movement, as something of its intellecutal godfather, and as such contains highly relevant information. Paul Krugman, by comparison, has not discussed the need for a revolution against the political influence of the wealthiest 1%. His Nobel prize in Economics reflects his participation in establishment economic policy discourse for many decades. He is a recent arrival, a neophyte, when it comes to the concerns of the OWS movement. Batra has, however, been active in writing and trying to raise the awareness of the dangers and injustices of crony capitalism for over three decades. I support retaining the para as is.Plankto (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a source to back up this statement: Batra has special relevance to the OWS movement as the intellectual who popularised the concept, "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions.[157][158] Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to add that it's very important that such a source substantiate the claim that he has special relevance to OWS because he popularized that concept — it's not enough to merely provide references for the fact that he popularized the concept, while leaving unreferenced the claim that he has special relevance to the movement. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance is clear as stated. However, you are both formally right that adding 2 and 2 together is not enough to include something in Wikipedia(OR). I have not found a source for the statement on the net, as OWS is such a young movement. That said, let me recall that Batra's article on Truthout on 10/11/11 is titled "The Occupy Wall Street Movement and the Coming Demise of Crony Capitalism" already represents a link between the author and the OWS movement. Moreover, there is already plenty of discussion of his recent article, including at the OccupyWallStreet web site [13]! That is a significant link indicating major relevance of this author to the movement. On October 13, author and radio show host, Thom Hartmann, had Ravi Batra on his show to discuss the OWS movement [14]. Thom mentions in the intro to the interview the relevance of Batra to the ongoing developments - as having predicted it all and written books about it. [15]. There is also growing discussion on this article on many other sites, including the DemocraticUnderground [16] and others [17], [18],[19],[20],[21]. So, you get some sense of the relevance based on my percursory web search. In view of the above, I suggest the actual phrasing of the "relevance" be adjusted to suit the already established published facts by acceptable sources. Moreover, I would only caution that the facts themselves are emerging at a rather fast clip as these are still early days in this popular movement and likely the relevance of Ravi Batra to this movement will be better brought out on the net as more time passes. So, if there is a desire to go strictly by the rules for this entry, it should be in the same way the WP criteria is applied to any other entry on this page. Other phrasing can then be identified to get this central idea across in line with what is in the available sources. Plankto (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, listing references to blogs, opinion pieces, and self-promoting articles does not in any way satisfy WP:NOTE. "I suggest the actual phrasing of the "relevance" be adjusted to suit the already established published facts by acceptable sources". Which we would be happy to do if you can provide verifiable third-party sources. As it stands, this section has four references. Three of which simply mention or discuss Batra's books (no mention of OWS anywhere), and the other leads to Batra's article on Truthout (his opinion, without coverage from third-party sources, is not notable). Bowmerang (talk) 05:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the para fulfulfills WP:NOTE. I've presented numerous verifiable third-party sources in my comment above. We can add some of those in the article. The OWS movement is a manifestation of Batra's language, his prediction and concerns. Nothing more is needed to prove the point of his relevance or the specific ideas - they are so prominent in both places and now recognised by third party verifiable sources, even if not spelled out word for word in the sources mentioned. You do not correctly reflect the sources given. Indeed, on Hartman's web page, the article is cited as it is on the OWS site. As for the comments on relevance, check out the Hartman interview with Batra on October 13.[22]Plankto (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now Plankto has added this edit, including the block quote, to the timeline article resulting in the entry for Batra's Truthout article the most wordy of any day's entry. I deleted it but it won't surprise me if he puts it back... Gandydancer (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since Plankto has not yet provided verifiable sources to back up his claims, I decided to take it upon myself to find some for him. I used Google news, Bing news, and Yahoo news in the hopes of finding at least ONE article that is reliable. I have yet to find a single one that mentions Batra's significance to the OWS movement. At this point, any mention of Ravi Batra in the celebrity commentary section fails to satisfy WP:NOTE. Bowmerang (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see a clear policy rationale for including material on Batra, but I question whether WP:NOTE is the relevant policy recommending against such inclusion. Rather, what seems to be lacking is a documented connection between OWS and Batra (or Reich, for that matter). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean WP:NOTE. I think my thoughts were along the line of failing WP:V and WP:UNDUE. Bowmerang (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments.

First, as this is early days, the link between anybody and OWS is hard to establish. For instance, should attendance at a rally and some spoken words rate higher than a published article directed at the movement? Not all national figures could be in NYC! Second, there are plenty of references to Batra in the blogosphere, newspaper and magazine articles, interviews, etc. The problem with a scholar like Ravi Batra is that he is non-establishment and largely overlooked by the academic economist and media establishment. While he was loved as a theoretical economist, as soon as he started talking about exploitation and depression, they've only wished for him to shut up and go away. In 1988, when Batra's book had topped the New York Times Best Seller list (non-fiction), Milton Friedman said he "wouldn't touch Ravi Batra's writings with a twelve foot pole." That pretty much set the tone for his ex-communication from the establishment academia. That, however, is mentioned only to make the point that there is still precious little by way of discussion of his ideas by other economists. There are exceptions, one symphathetic economist wrote a textbook fleshing out his inequality thesis in terms of a mathematical model, but his contribution was also ignored. Does it matter that the economist establishment missed the biggest crash in US history in 80 years but Batra didn't? Of course, it does. That said, Ravi Batra is frequently interviewed and covered in the alternative community, like on the Thom Harmann show. He is also a frequent guest on grass roots level shows in the new age/neo humanist community[23], [24] and[25] Do we adjust the standard for inclusion based on a subject matter with such sociological characteristics? I think we should. Third, in 1988, political commentators worried if the Democratic Party would begin to adopt his terminology, like "Share of wealth held by the richest 1%" or "wealth concentration". The concern was that it would ruin civilized discourse and embolden class conflict? How things change, as President Obama has now used the term "99%" and is aligning with the OWS movement as Batra has suggested. Batra is the intellectual percursor of the OWS movement, if there is one. It is easy enough to see and show, if the multifarious online sources are used. If he is not notable as per some hoity toity definition, then neither is the OWS movement. Should we wait until academic journals write learned studies about OWS to describe the phenomenon on WP? Of course not. Fourth, Batra is now being discussed on several places on www.occupywallst.org.

"Educational Forums as a FORCE FOR CHANGE (User Submitted) Posted Oct. 14, 2011, 8:59 p.m. EST (2 days ago) by Diogenes01. An Educational Forum should be arranged with the following authors: Naomi Klein SHOCK DOCTRINE, Dr. Ravi Batra -GREENSPAN'S FRAUD, THE MYTH OF FREE TRADE, THE COMING GOLDEN AGE, Thom Hartmann ATTACK ON THE MIDDLE CLASS, Johnson and Kwak -THIRTEEN BANKERS, Joseph Stiglitz FREEFALL, Jeremy Scahill, BLACKWATER, Michael Taibbi, various articles in Rolling Stone magazine, Paul Krugman THE UNRAVELING OF AMERICA, Michael Perino, THE HELLHOUND OF WALL STREET, Senator Byron Dorgan+ Repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 - see youtube.com, And the best documentary—“INSIDE JOB” Directed by Charles Ferguson".[26]

and

"This will be revised and rewritten several times, hopefully with more of your ideas, until it can be sent to a law firm for editing in legal term, that is, if consensus wants to use this idea. I put this together after reading an articulate and informative article (above) by an economist, Ravi Batra, who explains in layman's term how we got into this plummeting economic situation. He suggested presenting his list of repeals to Obama as an agenda,"[27]

Surely, if people in the OWS movement are seriously considering his ideas, there is a crystal clear link.

Again, I think the current entry is quite modest in its scope and should stay. Plankto (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely feel that Batra's section, though considerably improved, still contains a lot of fluff. I'd be fine with keeping the first two sentences, though I'd like to find some verifiable sources to give them credence. Mentioning Batra's book on this article looks to me like WP:SOAP. Also, we'd need a verifiable third-party source to back up this claim:

"Batra has special relevance to the OWS movement as the intellectual who popularised the concept, "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions."

Until one is found, I suggest the offending sentence is removed... But that's just my two cents. I'd like to hear the thoughts from other editors and develop some sort of consensus. Bowmerang (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain the connection a bit more. The book Regular Cycles of Money, Inflation, Regulation and Depressions was published in 1985 and republished in 1987 as The Great Depression of 1990. It became no. 1 on the NYT best seller list in late 1987, remaining there for many weeks. As such, there is tons of material on it in all national newspapers, tapes of news hours, etc. Importantly, on the topic of wealth disparity, or concentration of wealth, there is extensive discussion on pages 7, 32, 113, 121-131, 139-140, 158 and 160. In Table 1 on page 127, there is data for the "Share of wealth Held by the Richest 1 percent" for the years 1810-1969. On page 126 there is the quote "...as the concentration of wealth rises, the number of banks with relatively shaky loans also rises. And the higher the concentration, the greater is the number of potential bank failures." The book then describes that wealth concentration rose prior to 1929, followed by a major collapse. Batra predicts the same will happen if the 1% share rises. It did and a major collapse took place, again! He says a major problem was the decision to cut taxes on the wealthy. This also happened again from the Reagan era. Batra was wrong on the timing of the major bust up, but correct in his analysis. The fact that he wrote this in a best seller and put the ideas out there in the 1980s, was not lost on Robert Reich, who republished these ideas in his 2010 book, after the big bust. But Batra's thesis is much more than this. He writes about social change following the breakdown of the capitalist system, when "the influence of wealth is swept aside" by the many harmed by the unjust system of greed and selfishness of the few. The OWS movement is such an uprising and it has now adopted this terminology. That is a fairly straight forward link. However, the recently appearing OWS movment has not been closely studied yet or its antecedents in scholarly journals. But that will come.Plankto (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a hoity toity definition of notability that we are speaking of - it is Wikipedia policy that was intended to avoid the very situation that we are dealing with here. The section is titled "Celebrity commentary" and to this time Plankto has been unable to establish that Batra would be considered a celebrity. Plankto asks if we need to wait till Batra's economic philosophy becomes more well-known, and the answer is yes we do need to wait. By definition celebrity means a person who has a prominent profile in the media and is easily recognized. Appearances on the Thom Hartman show, and article in Truthout, current buzz in the blogs, and certainly an entry at the occupywallstreet.org are not enough to establish Batra as a celebrity commentator for our article. If there is not argument other than Plankto to keep the segment, I suggest it be deleted. Gandydancer (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There is plenty of evidence for notability - which you dismiss all too lightly. Also, it doesn't help your case to distort what I have said. Plankto (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has not been an acceptable argument to show that Batra meets the criteria for the celebrity section (a person who has a prominent profile in the media and is easily recognized) and I have removed his name from that section. Gandydancer (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gandydancer, if Ravi Batra is deleted as per your narrow criteria, that would require the elimination of the likes of Slavoj Žižek, Remy Munasifi, John Carlos, David Graeber, Chris Hedges, Stéphane Hessel, Jeff Madrick and Richard D. Wolff from the section. Is that where you are headed with this? There is a lot more material on Batra on the net, like [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. I have reinserted the section. Plankto (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you forgot to mention is the fact that other than Žižek, none of those people have any copy. Žižek is not well-known in the U.S., but he is known world-side. Furthermore, he attended the protest and was the first foreign person to speak. If you want, you could add Batra's name to the list of others. Gandydancer (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the sources you provide above mention anything about Batra's connection to Occupy wall street, and it's a blog on DailyKos! You have not provided a single verifiable third-party source that connects Batra with Occupy Wall Street during this three day discussion. You're right in saying that we would have to delete some celebrities from the list as per our "narrow criteria" (WP:V is one of the three core content policies). But that's just it, we DO need to clean up the celebrity section. I'll get on that right after we reach consensus on Batra. I can already tell you that Slavoj Zizek [33], Remy Munasifi [34], John Carlos [35], Stephane Hessel [36], and Jeff Madrick [37] are mentioned in verifiable sources. You seem fixated to the idea that because Batra holds certain significance to you, he holds significance to the OWS protests. It sounds like consensus is building toward deletion of his section. Thoughts from other editors? Bowmerang (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did delete it this morning, but he put it back. Gandydancer (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You guys speak from different directions. Gandydancer puts up a celebrity criterion and fails to see it excludes a bunch of others in the section. You put up a connects to OWS criterion and find that marginal figures qualify because they happened to be photographed with a guitar at the protest. I've given you guys loads of references linking Batra to OWS and him being a celebrity - but none of it is good enough because it isn't the NYT or WSJ - even if he's been in the NYT and WSJ on numerous occasions. It seems you guys have it out for Dr. Batra. What gives? Plankto (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MY CRITERIA is WP:VERIFY. I suggest you read it. Bowmerang (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The focus is on verifiability of facts. To verify, a source must be deemed reliable. Self-published material by individuals is for instance not acceptable, for obvious reasons. However, "Several newspapers host columns they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control". I've given plenty of sources that match this description. "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." In the case of verifying a link between Dr. Batra and the OWS movement, the facts that a) the OWS website has discussion of Batra's ideas and b) he has written an article with OWS in the title and the content is aimed at the movement are in themselves proofs enough. No other fact is being checked - only the existence of a link between Dr. Batra and the OCW movement, i.e. information about "themselves". However, for good measure, other sources of this link have been given. Now my question to you: HAVE YOU READ ALL THE WP FLAGS YOU ARE WAVING? Plankto (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say, ""Several newspapers host columns they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control". I've given plenty of sources that match this description." I don't think I've been asleep at the wheel, but I missed all those "plenty of sources". Could you please present them again? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you have provided match that description. Bowmerang (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming a bit tendentious. Tempers can flare up. As I am sure you are decent people, acting in good faith, as I am, I suggest we take a rest on this debate and ask neutral edtiors to get freshly involved and resolve the matter. All they have to do is read through the above summary and make a decision. How does that sound? Plankto (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it became a bit "tendentious" for me a long time ago. Also, in all my years of editing I've yet to see a suggestion to just leave a dispute till more "fresh" editors become involved to solve the matter. But if that's what you want, it's OK with me. Since you have had no support to keep your addition I will delete it till "more neutral" editors have a chance to voice their opinions. Gandydancer (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Inside Job (film)? 99.190.82.204 (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, enough is enough. Extensive discussion with no support for this addition to the celeb section and Plankto now says he will keep it in the article till new "fresh" editors come along to agree with him and reverts my deletion saying "rv Gandydancer. No agreement for him to delete. Waiting for neutral editor. See talk". Since it now seems that all this time spent in discussion has been a complete waste of time and my time is better spent to improve articles rather than endless unproductive discussion, I won't waste my time with further attempts to reach an agreement with this editor. Gandydancer (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In an editorial titled "The 10 Richest Celebrities Supporting Occupy Wall Street," Celebrity Net Worth wrote, "Occupy Wall Street's slogan 'We are the 99%' is derived from the idea that they represent the difference in wealth that separates the top 1% and every other American citizen... So why are multi-millionaire celebrities showing up to offer their support and grab attention? And why is Occupy Wall Street taking them seriously?""

There is absolutely no evidence that OWS is taking these people seriously as is impleid. There is also no reason why rich celebrity person shouldn't support policies for the benefit of low income earners and cohesion within society. --Rebestein (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Net Worth appears to meet the standards for reliable sources. A better idea would be to find a source which presents a counter idea, or suggest a rephrasing. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is obviously embodied in the rhetorics, not the media source as such. The rhetorical question "Why are..?" is a classic pattern of demagogy. It seems to suggest a contradiction while there is none. My suggestion is "deletion", not rephrasing. --Rebestein (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "demands and goals" section of the article does not include any reference to the issues people bring to the front in http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/

People on this site talk about problems of not having healthcare insurance, high healthcare costs, no jobs or low paying jobs and/or jobs below education level, high loans, insufficient 401k pension funds, loss of jobs / property value / ... due to the financial crisis. These people obviously are protesting to do something about these problems. It should at least be mentioned in goals.

And yes, health-care is a human right according to Franklin D. Roosevelt and the United Nations and many many others.--Myodus (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a news source that provides this information? Gandydancer (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The global financial system is mentioned often in association with OWS, shouldn't there be a wikilink to the wp article? 99.35.13.16 (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems reasonable to me. Does anyone disagree? Gandydancer (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The words are there, but not the hypertext yet. 99.56.122.147 (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Activists affiliated with the anti-corruption Occupy Wall Street movement take to the streets in numerous cities worldwide, including Times Square, Sydney, Rome, Taipei, Tokyo, Toronto, Berlin, and Madrid, in a day of coordinated mass protests. (BBC) (XinHua net)(Seattle Times) (BusinessWeek) (Macleans) (Wall Street Journal) Riot police clash with protesters in Rome, with at least 70 people reportedly injured after masked rioters infiltrate the peaceful protests and attack property in the city. (BBC) 99.19.46.238 (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-corruption? Source? Most sources say "anti-capitalism". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most? List your source here please. 99.56.123.111 (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should I say, all, rather than most? I haven't yet found a source which didn't note that it was called anti-capitalist, if not actually calling it anti-capitalist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "anti-capitalist" is a fairly accurate assessment of a very significant strain of the protests. However, it's true that we do need reliable sources to substantiate such a claim. I've seen such sources, but I certainly can't say I have found that all sources on the subject describe the movement as anti-capitalist, by any stretch. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updated ... Activists affiliated with the anti-corruption Occupy Wall Street movement take to the streets in numerous cities worldwide, including Sydney, Rome, Bucharest, Taipei, Tokyo, Toronto, Berlin, and Madrid, in a day of coordinated mass protests. (BBC) (XinHua net) (Seattle Times) (BusinessWeek) (Maclean's) (Wall Street Journal) (Toronto Sun)(Times of India)(BusinessWeek)(San Diego Union-Tribune)

97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still unjustified and unsourced. I'll revert your incorrect unsourced description, again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears sources have been added for anti-corruption. Did you read those Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin? Your comments seem extreme and unjustified. 99.119.131.17 (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a crowd figure for the Saturday, October 15, 2011 march in Times Square, recruitment center, New York City, from "Crain's Business New York".Dogru144 (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crain's New York Business added where? 99.56.122.147 (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the location in the infobox should be changed back to the park, not "worldwide". "Occupy" protests and possibly Occupy Wall Street protests may be worldwide, but this one is just at, well Wall Street. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, although I would prefer "New York City". LoveUxoxo (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that "New York City" is the best choice.Gandydancer (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that both the communist and NAZI parties are in support of OWS. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10/figures-nazi-party-throws-support-behind-occupy-wall-street-movement/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.195.49.73 (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a publicity stunt for the "american nazi party", which is incredibly fringe with only 400 followers on twitter. If you find reputable news articles that go further in depth, feel free to add stuff about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.72.132 (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP cautions us to "[b]eware of claims that rely on guilt by association", and although OWS is not technically a living person, I'd say that admonition is very relevant here. I'm sure Jonathan Lee Riches would love for the world to know he supports OWS too, but that doesn't mean we should (or do) say so on Wikipedia. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed twice now some original research. The graph that was in the Background Section is original research. It was compiled by a WP editor. The basic information for the line of the graph is not OR, but tying the graph to points in hisotry implies that wealth disparity was a trigger for the Great Depression and the 2008 Depression. This is the very definition of original research. Taking information from two sources and presenting a new interpretation. A RS is needed to make this connection, and I have not seen anyone make the connection between the two. Arzel (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed (though I found the graph interesting, it lacked direct referencing to the statistics - it just went to a home page)--Львівське (говорити) 21:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OI. Dualus (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This chart was inserted with the caption "A chart demonstrating increases in the annual income of the top 1% of wealthy persons in the U.S. before economic crises", thus implying a causal connection that is not advanced by any of the cited sources. That's basic OR. Note that even WP:OI prohibits images that "illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". Furthermore, in terms of overall article structure, any image or graph that is used on this point really ought to be anchored to sourced WP-article text rather than just left off to the side, constituting a sort of orphan subsection. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Here is the new version of the graph, with references to verify the information:

Obviously, the disparity of wealth distribution is increasing in contemporary times, and there seems to also be an historic precedent.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See also We are the 99% article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to my above comment. The caption advances a claim not made by any of the cited sources. If I'm wrong, please point out where the sources advance this claim. If they don't, it's OR that can't be in the article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to clearly be relevant economic background, so I don't understand how it can be OR. It's background, as the LA Times says in their article "Occupy Wall Street shifts from protest to policy phase": "Meanwhile, the income disparity between the top earners and everyone else has soared. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in 1980 the share of all pre-tax income collected by the top 1% of earners was 9.1%; in 2006 it was 18.8% (federal taxation cut that share to 16.3%). In 1980, the average income of the top 1% was about 30 times that of the lowest 20% of households; in 2006 it was more than 100 times that of the lowest quintile." Jesanj (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, cause and effect. Robert Reich makes the argument in his most recent book for causation. He says the mechanism is excess cash that is not being spent fuels speculative bubbles.[38] Jesanj (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Graph references:

• “Tax Data Show Richest 1 Percent Took a Hit in 2008, But Income Remained Highly Concentrated at the Top.” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
  
• “By the Numbers.” Demos.org.
  
• “Income Gap Is Widening, Data Shows.” The New York Times
  
• Hiltzik, Michael (October 12, 2011.) “Occupy Wall Street shifts from protest to policy phase.” Los Angeles Times.”

Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already looked at the sources, as already discussed. Could you please quote any text from any source that directly advances the implication contained in the caption? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The NYT article I guess is sufficient (ie. the protests revolve around this subject, this subject has received previous media coverage). The other reference has the same table from a journal article, however this current graph seems to be building on the work (which may be OR? or simply just extending the work. The CBPP source does the same, which all in all is sufficient for my vote for its inclusion. Just make sure this topic is directly related and sourced to be on what the protests are concerned about. I think one sticking point may be the "Great Depression" note on there, which seems to imply there is a correlation between that and the current issue, which is OR.--Львівське (говорити) 23:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind removing the OR? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source that argues causation to the article and removed the OR tag, in case someone didn't notice. Jesanj (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- I added this reliable source to the graph's caption:
  

Hiltzik, Michael (October 12, 2011.) “Occupy Wall Street shifts from protest to policy phase.” Los Angeles Times.” Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Others have been adding to the graph. Here's the current version:

Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's both original research and a probable copyright violation, as the graph data is copied from http://inequality.org/inequality-data-statistics/ . Unless they released the data, or the graph author reconstructed the graph from US Government data (probably copyright-free), the graph needs to go. The graph labels are original research (allowed, if not polemic), but the graph, itself, is a copyright violation. The caption text doesn't seem to be supported by the references, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Data was released and freely available on the website when I created the original chart in Nov 2008, looking now its still available here. In the end it is government data and is copyright free. - RoyBoy 03:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Revised version of graph caption (as of 07:05, 17 October 2011), improved by other Wikipedia users:

Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are still significant problems here. The wording of the caption appearing immediately above still incorrectly implies that the first four sources advance the claim that the wealth inequality directly causes economic crises; the sources do not say this. The published claims by Batra and Reich appear to be well-sourced and notable, but there is still the problem of connecting them to OWS without conducting OR. Is there anything published anywhere saying that OWS protestors were influenced by these economists? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a gotcha matter. The data and the presentation is common knowledge for people that have been following the news and are honest. If we take the chart directly from the newspaper then there is a fair use issue. Give us a break; the chart here is the equivalent of paraphrasing. It is NOT original research. Spend a few minutes googling and you will see.Dogru144 (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "gotcha matter". I've been following the news and I'm honest, but it's not even clear what you are saying is "common knowledge", and even if it were, WP articles on contentious topics are built on reliable sources, not purported "common knowledge". A good rule of thumb is that if I have to fire up Google to verify material you've added to a WP article, that material fails WP:Verifiability and should either be sourced or should not be included. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have two left wing sources, (with Ravi Batra being a socialist), and they just both happen to say that we in the middle of a repeat of 1928? This is completely violates NPOV and destroys all credibility.

If you want to add something, how about we add a hypocrisy section that illustrates how since FDR, 80 years of bloated government spending, oppressive taxes, nanny state laws, all mostly by democrats and blue republicans, has cause the current economic crisis, and point out the irony that these OWS guys are protesting the wrong street? Logical fact (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that income inequality and whole 99% vs. 1% thing are motivating factors for this protest, a version of this graph is appropriate given that reliable sources are mentioning what the graph illustrates in the context of OWS, especially in a background section.[39] No? Jesanj (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say a version of the graph is appropriate for the article. Just not this version. Illustrating wealth inequality is relevant; but arguing that wealth inequality causes economic crises is beyond the scope of this article. Bowmerang (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd be OK if we removed mention of the Great Depression from the image above? It's not like mentioning that gigantic bit of economic history makes the image argue for causation. I completely understand that it can be seen as implying causation, but that's still a subjective interpretation. Jesanj (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still on the fence about whether or not we should mention the Great Depression. What I have real problem with is the additional commentary by Reich and Batra below the graph. Any such argument that connects wealth inequality with dips in the economy more appropriately belongs in the articles Wealth inequality or Wealth inequality in the United States. Even then, they must have verifiable sources. Bowmerang (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with mentioning here, given the relevance of this concept to the OWS movement, that Ravi Batra popularised it as the "Share of wealth held by the richest 1%" and developed a theory around it and then made a prediction based on it in 1985, which was realised in slow motion through the 1990s and 2000s - with the big whallop taking place in September 2008. His work and these events are all public knowledge and well cited. Reich then republished the same information in a 2010 work.Plankto (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to think that this graph is almost propaganda, in that it's proving a point, or supporting their point, rather than demonstrating something. It's not a picture of a cat in the cat article. I think that the graph should go away not because it's OR, but because it's POV. I support the movement, but I also strongly believe that this article should be neutral, and this graph isn't neutral. Hires an editor (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you think of another graph that would be better? Dualus (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the current version of the text under the graph. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/business/in-private-conversation-wall-street-is-more-critical-of-protesters.html
• related article http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/us/romney-perry-and-cain-open-wide-financial-lead-over-field.html

97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the titles

• In Private, Wall St. Bankers Dismiss Protesters as Unsophisticated by Nelson D. Schwartz and Eric Dash October 14, 2011
• Romney Beating Obama in a Fight for Wall St. Cash by Nicholas Confessore and Griff Palmer October 15, 2011 (this one seems indirect) 99.119.131.17 (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not immediately clear to me how or whether sources such as these should be reflected in the article. At the very least, such sources—discussing criticism of the protests by people associated with the targets of the protests—should be treated with care and not given too much weight. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox has a template section for arrests and injuries, but lists only arrests. Anybody care to take a stab at summarizing the injuries? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per various articles, such as here: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-10-05/local/30261631_1_peaceful-protest-biggest-protest-brooklyn-bridge Currently there's no sub-heading for legal issues (either for or against). This should probably be added. --Lskil09 (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this page requires a sub-heading for legal issues just yet. I would say this information belongs in the Brooklyn bridge section. Bowmerang (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I don't know enough about the suit to add it there. Dualus (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added this to the Bridge section with the following text:

On October 4th, a group of protesters who were arrested on the bridge filed a lawsuit against the city, alleging that officers had violated their constitutional rights by luring them into a trap and then arresting them; Mayor Bloomberg, commenting previously on the incident, had said that "[t]he police did exactly what they were supposed to do".

Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Bowmerang (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed on http://conconcon.org that Lawrence Lessig co-chaired the Conference on the Constitutional Convention September 24-25 with Mark Meckler, co-founder and national coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots, the largest Tea Party movement group. Have there been any other examples of cooperation or coordination with the Tea Party? I am reminded of this Venn diagram from this blog post. Does anyone know how many of the 3,500 Tea Party Patriot chapters are in accordance with the OWS constitutional amendment demands? Dualus (talk) 07:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be relatively clear that this really isn't an example of any "coordination" between OWS and the Tea Party. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Dualus (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an example of collaboration by Lessig, an arguably liberal law professor, with a Tea Party group founder. Q:How is it an example of collaboration between OWS and the Tea Party? A: Unless there's something you're forgetting to point out, it's not. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe that Lessig is not involved with OWS? We have a news report that says he wrote a manifesto for them. Dualus (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could have sworn that the news report contained a journalist's opinion that 'something Lessig wrote' "could serve as a manifesto" for OWS. Not the same thing by a long shot. Being a source of inspiration for a protest movement is also not nearly the same thing as being a part of it, much less a major part. So what we have here is an example of someone whom OWS protesters admire collaborating with a single Tea Party leader. Again, not even the same ballpark as saying the OWS is collaborating with the Tea Party. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find any reliable sources which support the idea that Lessig is not part of the movement? Any reason to believe that the Tea Party Patriots aren't behind it? Dualus (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is required to establish a connection, not refute one. Imagine if I asked you to find a source showing that Karl Rove is not the mastermind of OWS? The burden is on an editor wishing to add content to establish that it is well-sourced. You haven't done that and you're not going to find any sources that will support a Wikipedia statement that OWS is "coordinating with the Tea Party" because a person who is a source of inspiration for OWS happened to co-author a book with a Tea Party leader. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Co-chaired a Conference on the Constitutional Convention, the book is a monograph. Dualus (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Lawrence Lessig has its own talk page, and if you create an article on Mark Meckler, that will have its own talk page too. This is the talk page for Occupy Wall Street. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm worried about User:Amadscientist deleting well-discussed graphs and references. I've informed them about WP:3RR but I can't fix reference 55, which currently says, "Hill, A. (October 4, 2011)" or replace the graph because of it. Please see this diff for the problem. And please fix it. Dualus (talk) 08:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that user could have taken a less confrontational approach, but please note the burden is upon editors wishing to add material to provide sourcing and policy justifications for including the material, and to generate consensus for its inclusion. Consensus is generally generated at the talk page, and forcibly inserting the material while it is under discussion is generally frowned upon, and tends to lead to edit-warring which in turn generates animosity and finger-pointing. It's much better that the disputes be hashed out on the talk page before edits are made. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not take a confrontational approach, I edited and was "Confronted" by Dualus in an uncivil manner who does not understand Wiki policy. It was this member who began edited warring and reverting WITHOUT reason. We have a deletion discussion on an image WITH direct context to this article and an image WITH NO context that keeps getting placed back in.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel much the same as Amad. here; I've put our interactions in chronological order at User talk:Dualus#Images must have context. Dualus (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was not meant as an accusation. I was just trying to defuse possible hard feelings by taking a conciliatory tone and suggesting that perhaps there are valid points to be made on both sides of this dispute. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point Centrify, but I also see Dualus making accusations of vandalism, threatening administrative action and general unacceptable behavior for a Wiki editor working in good faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it is uncivil to refer to another editor in any other manner than their real and full user name.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention this section accusing another established editor as making "Drive by deletions" Rude is not what this is...it's becoming harassive.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe it would be best if everyone calmed down. By the way, people refer to other editors using abbreviations all the time. I have never heard anyone suggest it is uncivil. This just looks like a relatively ordinary content dispute, with some heated comments being thrown about. Let's just de-escalate and move on. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, just because you never heard it suggested before does not mean it is not uncivil. Why do you think it was mentioned...because obviously the other editor didn't realize it either. If you wish to de-escalate it...maybe you should not reply this thread. It didn't help.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to offend. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't offend me.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You offended me when you deleted most of my Marketplace Morning Report reference, and pretended you knew about Wikipedia policy when you didn't. I'm sorry you don't like being called a vandal or by an abbreviated name, but can you point to one place anywere that says it's impolite to abbreviate a pseudonym? Dualus (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previous consensus has been that it would be an NPOV or Weight or similar violation to have the article say or imply that OWS is so-broad based as to include conservatives among its ranks. Please see the most recent prior discussion. Recently the term was re-inserted without apparent discussion. I will revert. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where was that discussion? The Tea Party Patriots' national coordinator co-chaired the constitutional convention, and George Will likes it. Dualus (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent removal of material reflecting the Rome protests/riots seems unobjectionable in a narrow sense (although I question the wisdom of having a separate article for shunting off related protests), but seems to raise obvious POV-forking concerns. For example, the OWS article generally sees fit to discuss the offshoot movements in other countries, such as OccupyLSX, at least insofar as they present a positive face; why, then, should the uglier side be tucked away in an obscure side-article? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article now deals primarily with the protests in New York, with the "Occupy" protests article the main article for the overall "Occupy" protests/movement. Leaving aside the fact that many sources state that the Rome protests were as much or more influenced by Spanish protests as the "Occupy" movement, having a very detailed paragraph about the events in Rome in this article is completely incongruous. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the recently added Antisemitism section. It solely based on the quotes of two individual protesters, and because of this, did not represent the character of the OWS protests at all. I think was just added for the sake of stirring up controversy. 2 people doesn't even justify saying "some have expressed antisemetic views" in the article. It's irrelevant and has no traction at this point.--Львівське (говорити) 14:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worse yet, this was already discussed. It should have been clear that consensus was against including anything of the sort. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue in that other article was a lack of reliable sources. That is not the issue here.

Given that the article Tea Party Protests cites several examples of alleged racism without having any proof (such as video recordings), how can real examples with real video evidence of proof not be included in this article?

Mk2z0h (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If two people in the crowd at a Nicks game said some anti-semetic comments, would an antisemitism section be allowed on the NBA article? A couple people does not represent the OWS protests, or their character at all. If the were groups of people doing this, and the media was reporting on this, then sure. At this moment you're just cherry picking for sensationalism--Львівське (говорити) 16:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, these examples have been reported by reliable sources. The previous discussion merely concluded that YouTube is not a reliable source.

Secondly, Tea Party Protests cites several examples of alleged racism, without any video proof. In fact, an offer of $100,000 for such video proof has never been claimed. But in this case, there is video proof. A claim with video proof is far more notable than a claim without video proof.

Mk2z0h (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS--Львівське (говорити) 16:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Video proof, or indeed any form of "proof" is not necessary for an included section on this article, but rather our concern is with giving undue weight to this concern, which could give a reader a misinterpretation of the nature of OWS. In the case of the Tea Party, undue weight would also be a concern, and while that article should not state that the nature of the Tea Party is one of racism, it can be reported that commentators have referenced this as an accusation against the Tea Party, and that the media has concerned itself with this issue. As the media has given more measure to the celebration of Yom Kippur at Zuccotti Park, should we instead present a section on OWS being a Jewish movement? Hardly, though perhaps that celebration may be mentioned in the demographics section. All things added must be put into perspective. Please do not misunderstand our concerns. --Cast (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Just to be clear, there is photographic "proof" for racism at Tea Party events.^{Tea Party Leader Dale Robertson Ousted for N-Word Sign} That has led to several of the allegations of racism at Tea Party events, but in the case of that article, the section was not titled "Racism" as you have titled the section you wish to include in this article "Antisemitism". Rather, it has been titled "Racial issues" and room has been provided for inclusion of comments and reports from defenders of the Tea Party. You have not attempted to include any defending commentary for OWS. --Cast (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Figured I'd Google around and see if better sources exist on this (in honestly, I'm not following the protests much out of headline news). Anti-Jewish protesters at Occupy Wall Street ("A conservative group has highlighted incidents of antisemitism and anti-Israel activity at the Occupy Wall Street protest.", " the right-wing Emergency Committee for Israel, there have also been several incidents of visibly anti-Jewish behaviour") Anti-Semitism tainting Occupy Wall Street protests ("Several anti-Semitic incidents have been reported during "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations in New York as Jews were blamed for the turmoil in America's financial markets. In addition, anti-Israel signs were raised against "Israel's occupation of Gaza".), Anti-Defamation League keeping an eye on ‘Occupy Wall Street’ (" the ADL is not prepared to charge the movement as a whole with anti-Semitism.")--Львівське (говорити) 16:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this issue was settled. If this editor is concerned about similar information at the Tea Party article s/he should fix that article, not play tit for tat and put it in this one as well. It should be removed. Gandydancer (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. (I just don't want to get into an edit war so I figured we'd get consensus for these 2 sources as well) (I have no idea what the tea party has to do with this)--Львівське (говорити) 16:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the nature of the protests against large banks in a major metropolitan city with a large Jewish community, numerous antisemitic stereotypes are bound to be made by some elements of a protest. It would be interesting to know what other Occupy protests around the country have had to say on the matter. The issue is too new for it to have been fully addressed, but it should be interesting to see if this becomes an issue in the weeks and months to come. For now, we should be clear that having anti-zionist and anti-Israel (in regards to Gaza and the West Bank) should not be automatically construed as antisemitism, as these are criticisms of ideology and national policy. The Ynetnews.com article features a video which contains clip of a discredited YouTube "character" who seemed to be interested in gaining negative attention at the price of making both antisemetic and racist attacks and jokes, and was being attacked for this by other OWS protesters, and juxtaposes that man with people holding up signs protesting the occupation of Gaza. Its a pro-Israel perspective attempts to lump policy criticism with wingnuttery. We'll need to be very careful about how we use some references for just this reason. Not all media reports will be equal in value.--Cast (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum As I write this the issue has already been settled. However, I can see this issue coming up again at some point, so I'd just like to follow up on that video ad we've linked to. Cenk Uygur and The Young Turks have produced a response: Occupy Wall Street Anti-Semitic Say Conservatives. Uygur addresses this ad concisely, and if this ever comes up again it would be good to recall this rebuke. --Cast (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree with you--Львівське (говорити) 16:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this section. It does not belong in this article. Its very misleading to this movement. A couple random protestors doesn't warrant this section being here, it needs to be notable people who are inciting antisemitism for this to be relevant. Not to mention the section was added by a Wikipedia user with a history going back only a month and no user page or info which leads me to believe this is a personal agenda of the user who added it for personal reasons and not because its relevant. Lets give people the actual information about whats happening with this protest folks and not mislead them. RazorBrainsAndWisdomStains (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, you've only been here a month and also have no user page...pot/kettle?--Львівське (говорити) 16:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also in fairness, there's nothing wrong with being a newbie and having no user page so long as one is not engaged in combative POV-pushing editing. Not passing judgment on whether the other user is in fact doing that, but if he is, other rednames have every right to call that out. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to include any of these claims, we should also include this Al-Jazeera article, which discusses the political background to these allegations. RolandR (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an op-ed piece, would that count as a reliable source?--Львівське (говорити) 16:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting everyone. Since the consensus is against including the section, I won't add it back in. Mk2z0h (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and add something about this http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/17/us-protests-idUSTRE79G55O20111017?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=71 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.72.132 (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Dualus (talk) 05:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the context in this section for the image used?

Background

In mid-2011, the Canadian-based group Adbusters Media Foundation, best known for its advertisement-free anti-consumerist magazine called Adbusters, proposed a peaceful occupation of Wall Street to protest corporate influence on democracy, address a growing disparity in wealth, and the absence of legal repercussions behind the recent global financial crisis.^[26] According to the senior editor of the magazine, “[they] basically floated the idea in mid-July into our [email list] and it was spontaneously taken up by all the people of the world, it just kind of snowballed from there.”^[26] They promoted the protest with a poster featuring a dancer atop Wall Street's iconic Charging Bull.^[27][28] Also in July, they stated that, "Beginning from one simple demand – a presidential commission to separate money from politics – we start setting the agenda for a new America."^[29] Activists from Anonymous also encouraged its followers to take part in the protest which increased the attention it received calling protesters to "flood lower Manhattan, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall Street".^{[30][31][32][33]} Adbusters' Kalle Lasn, when asked why it took three years after Lehman Brothers' implosion for people to storm the streets said:

"when the financial meltdown happened, there was a feeling that, 'Wow, things are going to change. Obama is going to pass all kinds of laws, and we are going to have a different kind of banking system, and we are going to take these financial fraudsters and bring them to justice.' There was a feeling like, 'Hey, we just elected a guy who may actually do this.' In a way, there wasn't this desperate edge. Among the young people there was a very positive feeling. And then slowly this feeling that he's a bit of a gutless wonder slowly crept in, and now we're despondent again."^[34]

Although it was originally proposed by Adbusters magazine, the demonstration is leaderless.^[35] Other groups began to join the protest, including the NYC General Assembly and U.S. Day of Rage.^[36] The protests have brought together people of many political positions. A report in CNN suggested that protesters "got really lucky" when gathering at Zuccotti Park since it was private property and police could not legally force them to move off of it; in contrast, police have authority to remove protesters without permits from city parks.^[37]

Prior to the protest's beginning on September 17, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg said in a press conference, "People have a right to protest, and if they want to protest, we'll be happy to make sure they have locations to do it."^[36]

It has been compared to "the movements that sprang up against corporate globalization at the end of 1990s, most visibly at the World Trade Organization summit in Seattle"^[38] and also to the World Social Forum,^[39] a series in opposition to the World Economic Forum, sharing similar origins.^[40][41] A significant part of the protest is the use of the slogan We are the 99%, which is in part stated in defiance of recent trends regarding increases in the share of annual total income going to the top 1% of income earners in the United States.^{[42][43][44][45]} Former labor secretary Robert Reich argues that the concentration of wealth leads to economic crises by fueling speculative bubbles.^[46][47]

--Amadscientist (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The very last sentence is the only context. I would say the argument that is trying to be made is that when the top 1% make a certain amount of total income the result is a speculative bubble (per Reich) and that speculative bubble is a direct causation of these protests. Reich makes the first argument, although it doesn't explain all of the other speculative bubbles that have crashed, and I am not sure I understand the direct link between the two. The housing bubble burst isn't very similar to the market crash of 1929. It is a causal link that editors are trying to make. Arzel (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm uncertain if there is sufficient context for the chart to be in this article, the direct link is explained in the Great Depression. To clarify, this isn't simply about "speculative bubbles", when the economy becomes top heavy it fundamentally cannot function; and whatever bubble happens to be active becomes the scapegoat. However, the lasting instability (ie. lack of recovery, leading to depression) for a developed economy is rooted in inequality. There are details to the story, but the chart offers a clear lesson from history. - RoyBoy 01:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Northamerica1000's most recent edit introduced the obviously false claim that the top 1% of US income earners earn more than the remaining 99% combined. Can we please hash these disagreements out on the talk page and fashion a consensus text instead of engaging in drunken-commando-style editing? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any context to qualify this image use on this page and it appears to be original research with no references. There is also a problem with copyright.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: See above: Talk: Occupy Wall Street: Additions to graph - Definitely not original research. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, I think it's relatively clear that many (if not most, or all) OWS protestors are upset about wealth inequality. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but that is not context. That's called a "Given" and we don't do that on an encyclopedia. We need to establish true context or the image has no legitimate reason for use.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If sources supporting that claim have not been specifically cited, it shouldn't be too hard to find some. I'd guess that numerous sources already used will show that. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added some context.[40] Jesanj (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jesanj. Would anyone object to the added information and references being added directly to the section prose and not just in the image summary. In this way, should the image be deleted (there are some copyright issues), the information will remain.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Here's the current version of the graph and its caption (as of 21:29, 18 October 2011), with context. Copyright concerns regarding the graph itself are being discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:2008 Top1percentUSA.png. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  

• Comment - Here's another reference I recently added: Stieber, Zack (October 7, 2011.) "Media-Savvy Protesters Join New Era of Unrest." The Epoch Times. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add the following link to the External Links, Related websites section. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JWPJM3N with the text, Occupy Wall Street Survey Michael.Moosman (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. Whatever that's for, it is not in the spirit of an encyclopedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}} Add an additional new source to the following statement "Participatory online discussion forums have been emerging for citizens to submit and vote for specific agenda items."

Link https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JWPJM3N Text "Occupy Wall Street Survey". surveymonkey.com. October 15, 2011. Retrieved 2011-10-17.

This source is a place that Occupy Wall Street members go to vote for specific agenda items. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.Moosman (talk • contribs) 03:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Michael.Moosman (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources.--JayJasper (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reliable source.  Chzz  ►  04:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)  Not done[reply]

There are a number of youtube videos being used as references. The Wiki guideline on user submitted videos is pretty simple. [41] [42] [43] I think we need to make sure all these videos are being correctly used here.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}} Occupy Philadelphia

RGPatterson (talk) 03:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See List of "Occupy" protest locations--JayJasper (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable source.  Chzz  ►  04:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)  Not done[reply]

The link to Occupy Philadelphia was added to the "See also" section, if that was the intended request.--JayJasper (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission wikilink, as related to ...

• Political_action_committee#Super_PACs
• Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

99.56.122.147 (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This FiveThirtyEight blog post is interesting, with numbers suggesting the movement is more popular in the Western US, but not in the South. "The true overall figure might have been somewhere on the order of 100,000 protesters. That’s pretty big, but not as big as the largest day of Tea Party protests in 2009." Does anyone have good international numbers for the weekend? Dualus (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post says, "Rallies were held in more than 900 cities in Europe, Africa and Asia, as well as in the United States, with some of the largest occurring in Europe. The demonstration in Rome turned violent, and more than 70 people were arrested in Manhattan on Saturday night, but crowds elsewhere were largely peaceful." But that was on Saturday the 15th. This followup from the 16th has the same count. Dualus (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the intro says only 600 cities, someone should update it to say 900. Should the 100,000 figure be included as well? Dualus (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing 600 cities to 900 is fine. My only problem with the 100,000 estimate is that the blog post states that the median estimate was 70,000. It's probably an underestimate, but the 100,000 figure is a guesstimate. I would change the statement in the lede to say "at least 70,00" or "estimates range from 70,000 to 100,000 protesters". Bowmerang (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article specifically says 70,000 is likely an underestimate and a more accurate figure is 100,000. We have to remain true to the sources. Dualus (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ten of these in big red font: "Cite error: <ref> tag with name "truth-out" defined in <references> is not used in prior text; see the help page." DS Belgium (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody deleted the original full reference and link, and left the subsequent reference. Somebody else will have to go through the earlier drafts and find the original reference. If there are any copy editors who enjoy doing things like that, they will be useful and appreciated. --Nbauman (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a bot for that. Someone should ask at WP:BOTREQ. Requested. Dualus (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Why You Shouldn't Compare Occupy Wall Street to the Tea Party posted by Ishaan Tharoor Tuesday, October 18, 2011 at 5:00 am
• How Marketers Would Brand Occupy Wall Street by Brad Tuttle October 18, 2011
• Taking It To The streets by Michael Scherer Monday, Oct. 24, 2011

97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpt from graphic accompanying Taking It to The Streets on page 24 ...

Occupied Territory. A TIME poll shows more voters support the protesters than the Tea Party

with a source: This TIME/Abt SRBI poll was conducted by telephone October 9-10 among a national sample of 1,001 Americans ages 18 or older. The margin of error for the entire sample is +/-3% points. The full questionaire and trend data may be found at www.SRBI.com.

This appears to be the poll mentioned: http://www.srbi.com/Economics_2011_Poll.html 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Dualus (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, why do we have a section devoted to the anti-Semitic gadflies and other fringe views? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a lot of press stories about fringe views among the protesters, but I'll leave it to others to decide whether to take it out. Dualus (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD#Length says an article this size should have at least four paragraphs, doesn't it? About a week ago it had a decent intro before the "Background" section was created, but now it's scrawny. And out of date: It says 600 international cities when the Washington Post, cited above, says 900. Would someone please make a decent intro for this thing? Hint: Summarize the important parts in the order they appear in the article. Dualus (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fleshed the intro out a little. Is everyone okay with this? Dualus (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why 'Populism' Shouldn't Be Obama's Battle Cry; A leftward tack could appeal to protesters but leave voters cold in Politics & Policy BusinessWeek October 13, 2011, 5:00 PM EDT by Devin Leonard 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forward-looking prescriptive op-eds are not the most reliable sources. Dualus (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surviving Zuccotti Park: How the Protesters Stay Warm, Fed, and Cheery 10/18/11 at 08:23 AM by Tim Murphy 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Dualus (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting addition, thank you Dualus; WP:Tea 99.190.82.204 (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone keeps deleting it, but you're welcome anyway. Dualus (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Chicago Occupy Austin, and Occupy Kansas City (wp article?) are also mentioned. 99.56.120.237 (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost is reporting that Jimmy Wales has expressed support. Should this be added to the article?

Added to list at end of "Celebrities" section. Dualus (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Will has expressed his support. How many other conservatives have? Dualus (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

uh, maybe i'm missing something, but that sure doesn't sound like an expression of support to me; more like a cackle of disdainful glee.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"a cackle of disdainful glee" - good one! yeah, I think so... Gandydancer (talk) 10:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to try to summarize all the sections for the intro, but I'm very discouraged that people keep deleting a legitimate summary of the polls. Maybe I'll try to summarize more for the intro tomorrow. WP:LEAD is clear that the intro should be a summary of the article, and polls capture the many "reactions" in a way that summaries of non-aggregate facts can not. Moreover WP:LEAD#Length is clear that only two paragraphs is way too short for an article of this size. Dualus (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The polling data is transitory. (How many article leads include recent poll data?) The lead is not where you place an update section. TheArtistAKA 06:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The point of summarizing the article is to make a quick, concise overview of the overall article. By trying to summarize polls you are giving undue weight (possibly how it is perceived) to a specific portion of the article in a way that may not have the consensus of editors, or as mentioned above, objection may be to that portion which changes too rapidly.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALso WP:LEAD#Length is not truly clear about that...it's a suggestion that may be used. The article is very long...and the lede could be much longer....but it also shouldn't have references. If the lede is a summary of the article then the references will be in the body of the article. But even that is a consensus matter. While it won't make Feature status as is, GA is far more forgiving if that is your goal.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, WP:LEAD#Length gives a precise mathematical guideline which clearly indicates that the intro should be at least three paragraphs. How exactly is summarizing the most recent polls giving undue weight to anything? My summary of conditions at the protest was also removed, so your argument is disingenuous at best. Dualus (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a discussion occurring regarding a proposal to redirect many of the "Occupy" articles to this Occupy Wall Street article, occurring here: at the administrator's noticeboard. Please feel free to comment regarding this matter there. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My inclusion of the fact that the American Nazi Party has publicly supported OWS under an "organization" section was reverted on the basis that it wasn't notable enough. [44] However, this has been reported in several mainstream news sources and has a lot of hits on Google, so clearly people are interested in learning about it. The Daily Caller, Fox News, the Los Angeles Times and others have all mentioned it. What is it specifically that makes the support of this organization "non-notable"? The ANP not having its own Wikipedia article does not seem like a good reason. If it should not have its own section, is there a better place in the article that it could go?Boothello (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 11:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should add a fair use rationale and upload a copy to enwiki while Commons admins try to figure out the implications of Feist v. Rural in Lower Elbonia. Dualus (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Occupy Wall Street spreads to Portland.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 17 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) 13:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]