Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:08, 10 April 2012

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 Misplaced Pages? 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: 15 days

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 Misplaced Pages? 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: 15 days

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.

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

OWS (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject OWS, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.OWSWikipedia:WikiProject OWSTemplate:WikiProject OWSOWS Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. 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 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. Sociology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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. United States: Government / History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Low-importance).

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.

Template:Rtnews

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

Occupy Wall Street was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 10, 2011). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Pepper spraying of the 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.

Npov / Globalize

Hi guys, I didn't want to template the article, as you guys are chatty enough and watching the page, so I shall explain.

The Responses section, besides being too short, violates policy, specifically, it's in a point of view of the United States of America. You can read the FAQ of the relevant policy here. I think I mentioned you may consider including a summary of the Occupy London (and others) as they are in direct response to OWS. That would help the article.

Otherwise, are you guys getting along much better talking things over ? I saw the article frozen when another editor came along, but you guys seem to be doing a bit better than that. Penyulap ☏ 23:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree the responses section needs to be longer. We've encountered some resistance there. Equazcion 23:48, 19 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Those diffs have no issue with expanding the current section, and one directly suggests that the section should be bigger than it is. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like it if you were right, but it seems to me that 완젬스 has said there (quite blatantly) that he'd like the section to be shorter. He's demonstrated as much with his edits, too. Equazcion 03:21, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)

완젬스 needs to stick to policy rather than what he thinks is good for the movement. B——C_ritical 03:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is specifically about Occupy Wall Street, and since it occurred in this country it would not be surprising that most of the coverage is here. However, linking in that section to the Occupy movement would give the jumping-off point for the international perspective. B——C_ritical 00:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Certainly it occurred geographically in the US, however that will not limit coverage within this article of it's effects outside the US, it violates a good few policies, and notability has no borders. The occupy London article can no more suggest that movement sprung up from nowhere than this article can ignore the reactions to ows overseas. The coverage of ows in comparison to Occupy London is more to do with demographics possibly, and less to do with geography, and the media coverage is again marginalized in western countries, which serves to distort coverage still further, it is an interesting subject that's for sure.

Anyhow, it's not possible to leave holes in this article and suggest it is ok because there is a link to another article. Each article must be self-contained and give a proper summary of it's subject by itself. You might get some guidance from Misplaced Pages:Summary style, I'm not sure, there is often room for improvement in documentation, it's often too long for many editors to wade through.

The length of the article is nothing to worry over, it's the gaping holes that are bringing down the quality, when an article is high quality, size and length have no meaning at all. Maybe we can ask 완젬스 to help here, here, here or on the Largest organisms article and then OWS won't look so big after all. Just cut'n'paste mostly from the lede of the other occupy articles into the reactions section, and tidy it up and it'll be looking better in 20 minutes. Try not to simply revert each other, or anyone, but try to edit, or work out what the editor was wanting to improve, and help them improve it, try to aim to edit their text, if you must, to leave your own edit green in the summary :) you'll be less likely to be having an edit war with them that way. Penyulap ☏ 05:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Love to see the text (: B——C_ritical 05:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

click the eye and your wish is granted. Penyulap ☏ 11:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, rather than frequently posting that you are unsatisfied with the article because it has big gaps, why don't you go ahead and write up a section that you feel the article needs to remedy your problems with the article. Place it here or in the article, whatever your desire. Gandydancer (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Been there, done that, any other questions ? Penyulap ☏ 14:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• I changed the title of this section to "Npov / Globalize". Northamerica1000 04:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks good Penyulap ☏

An editor is adding non-notable filler material

Gandy is edit warring against me on this issue here. My point I'm trying to argue is that it is WP:NOTNEWS which is hardly encyclopedic at all that some protesters attempted to do something, but failed which falls upon deaf ears. I think she still wants the timeline/chronology section as that's basically what she's trying to turn this article back into. I've already added her sentence to the timeline article here and apparently that's not good enough. I'm always against adding garbage-filler & low-quality crap into an article which I have so much pride in here on Misplaced Pages and offline. 완젬스 (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a fine and very subjective line between news and not-news. An attempt to re-occupy the place where it all started is pretty significant to the movement as a subject. Whetherit's something that can go in a timeline or not is no indication of whether it belongs here. There are lots of time-based events in the article, especially the zucotti park section. Equazcion 23:49, 28 Mar 2012 (UTC)

The reaction by police is significant- as significant as the attempt at re-occupation. This article is about ongoing events, and something like that should probably go in for a while and then be deleted if it turns out to have been only of temporary significance. With Occupy, I think we can't wait 6 months or however long to see if something is still significant. We have to keep it up to date on a weekly basis. B——C_ritical 04:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin supplanting OWS from the "social issues" platform

Sadly, the whole "99% against 1%" issue has been hijacked by "white-hispanics against blacks" vis-à-vis the Trayvon Martin scandal & the proselytized media. This reaction (which is highly atypical from our ally the New York Times) is reflective of the general public at large. Sadly, the OWS movement is losing the "social issues" platform to the other minority group of the democratic party. The democrats, as we all know, are a coalition party, which means they represent the poor, the minorities, the LGBTQ, the atheists, the environmentalists, and the trial lawyers; but, the mainstream media has been our allies and have always been sympathetic to our cause of OWS.

A quick "inside bio" about me--I have roots into the OWS movement via facebook & email (owing to the fact I'm a minority since my ethnicity is Korean) and that has granted me "off the cuff," honest, and heartfelt advice which I have always shared with my fellow Wikipedians, such as here and here I "confirm" myself and who I really am through my confirmation about Ben Cohen & Jerry Greenfield being the two "we lost 2 multi-multi-millionaire investors who have net worth of ~$500 million" that OWS lost (but through concessions we won them back and the New York times article written by our fellow 99%er Erick Eckholm along with Jess Bidgood, Robbie Brown, Dan Frosch, Ian Lovett, Carol Pogash, Steven Yaccino, William Yardley, and Kitty Bennett (5 of 8 whom respond politely to our correspondence requests sent out by our media team).

So, with the "hijacking" by Trayvon Martin, I'm unsure of where to help you guys. I gave a lengthy heartfelt post here about where I stand, but the truth is that Trayvon Martin has stolen "airtime" from the limited social issues platform which we struggle to compete with against the Cindy Sheehans and the Sandra Flukes who all get their 15 minutes of fame; however, the Trayvon Martin scandal has eaten into our prelude of setting up Mayday (May 1st) which was supposed to be our monumental comeback. Here is a quote from the NYTimes piece:

*the movement needs to find new ways to gain attention or it will most likely fade to the edges of the political discourse, according to supporters and critics

They need to think of new ways to garner attention and connect with people around the country.”
the movement has seen a steep decline in visibility

activists have had less than a handful of marches this year and no longer have any encampments in Oakland, once a stronghold

the few protests in the past few weeks have been smaller than the ones last year

With less visibility, the movement has received less attention from the news media, taking away a national platform.

Occupy activists acknowledge that building and maintaining a populist movement is daunting

The movement’s staying power will depend on the success of several events planned for the coming weeks. Despite recent actions that have fizzled, including an Occupy Corporations day in February, organizers are planning a strike and demonstrations on May 1, International Labor Day

the lull in attention over the past few months was due to the group’s focus on building up capacity for larger events

Whether Occupy has a resurgence, it has already had a significant influence on American politics, making economic inequality — and specifically the top “1 percent” — a major issue in the national dialogue (no longer true, thanks to Trayvon Martin)

In December, 48 percent of Americans said they agreed with the concerns raised by Occupy, although only 29 percent approved of the way the protests were being conducted

“The movement was not in the news as much coming into 2012, and the nation’s focus and our polling turned to the Trayvon Martin,” said Michael Dimock, an associate director of research at Pew.

News coverage of Occupy has fallen off significantly since late last year, according to an analysis by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

In October, coverage of Occupy made up 6 percent of the news generated by news organizations in the United States. That number climbed to 14 percent in the middle of November and then slid to 1 percent in December. The number remained below 1 percent in January and February and has been so small this month that the Project for Excellence in Journalism said it was equivalent to no coverage.

That's all I can quote without gagging on my own vomit. (and one last mention for my credibility of who I am, I talked about the bomb threat here on the talk page regarding the Nov 17th day of mass action) so if anybody still doesn't believe me, I'm kinda/sorta ready to "come forward" and out myself so that I can be ready to lead on the 2012 development of the OWS article heading into Obama's reelection on Nov 3rd. I've always branded myself as the "most pro-OWS editor" here on the talk page, and that has given me incredible leeway to delete antisemitism, shrink irrelevant stuff, and expand the funding section to include all 5 names who demanded (on fb) that we do it! Now I'm ready to do more, but the only thing stopping me is the Trayvon Martin media frenzy which not even our NYTimes allies know how to shake off. It really proves that regular people are "news consumers" and readily act as "sheeple" because only Obama and Harry Reid and Debbie Wasserman Schultz are the only good politicians who are ready & willing to receive the support of the OWS movement.

I hereby call off my "leadership change predictions" which were to happen in April, and now (just as this article spells out, we're all left clueless & nobody knows what is going to happen next. As editors, I want to remind everybody to ignore fringe reports by the NYTimes by editors such as Michael S. Schmidt who no less authored his own "pet article" on Trayvon here. The media frenzy which the OWS media team was instructed to "build up" leading to a May 1st culmination looks clearly impossible thanks to Trayvon Martin. Sure there are linkages of the occupy movement trying to cash in on the Trayvon Martin media maelstrom; but, we here at Misplaced Pages must realize how unpredictable our movement's position is in. We live in (and link to reliable sources of) a 24 hour news cycle, which means the occupy movement cannot take its existence for granted.

On the Misplaced Pages side of all this, we must rise above WP:Recentism even though I complain a lot about the 2011 stragglers. We must remain entrenched to preserve OWS's legacy as a historic social movement, perhaps the most momentous success since the civil rights movement. I find heartfelt truth in Van Jones's statement who perhaps said it best, " Occupy movement pretty much saved the entire country from destruction." He also said (in his new book: Rebuild the American Dream) that we need more than just reelecting Obama--we need a head of state that’s willing to be moved, and a movement to do the moving,” said Jones, the former West Wing insider-turned-disillusioned outsider and a lightning rod for conservative critics who recently spoke at an Occupy rally (although perhaps to hawk his new book, I dunno).

In conclusion, this article needs to remain resilient for the long haul; yet, it must be willing & able to "pounce" on new 2012 stuff if it contradicts the old 2011 stuff. The movement is dynamic and it will culminate on May 1st and continue through this election season. If we as Wikipedians are to stay on top of conflicting news stories within the NYTimes, we should dismiss the fringe lunatic reporters such as Michael S. Schmidt and not let him supersede an upstanding, esteemed journalist such as Erick Eckholm. We must also commit as editors to keeping this article stable, accurate, and drama-free until early November. With tremendous appreciation and solidarity, 완젬스 (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Income inequality (and unemployment) verses wealth inequality

Let me take a quick straw poll. Is the movement against "wealth" inequality (the overall net worth of an individual?) or the "income" inequality (the yearly income including dividends, stock, real estate, and tax breaks?).

The separate NYCGA article

Does it hurt or help the movement to dive into detail about the "inner workings" about the NYCGA process, including such events as the expulsion of the 99_Percent_Declaration? I'd love to start that article but it would kinda/sorta dispel the whole "leaderless" facade which has kept the movement great, and provided some cover for us to duck into when questioned about "what are our concrete goals?"

Is our movement inclusive or exclusive to the Ron Paul faction of our movement?

Our article currently reflects an infinitesimal contribution by the undeniable "good conservatives" such as this kid who are undeniably a part of our movement. Thankfully, none of the main contributors of this article (equaczion, somedifferentstuff, NorthAmerica, BeCritical, Penyulap, Gandydaner, FactChecker, TheArtist, etc) are supporters of Ron Paul; but, a real (albeit inconsequential) part of our movement lies in the hands of Ron Paul tin-foil-hatters. Maybe we should balance our article with at least 1 pic of a ron paul supporter, or greater mention in the "demographics section"? Up to you guys, I dunno--this was just brought to my attention yesterday by a couple guys on facebook.

Should we create an article about the origins/leadup to the OWS movement?

There is tremendous academic research on this--way too much to ever read about. There are tons & tons of expert professors who chime in their 2 cents (basically their own TL;DR) about the movement, as well as books written about the movement (some of which I own and can attest to). So is this proposal a good idea?

The 99% declaration and the July 4th constitutional convention in Philly

This is a "3rd rail" of the occupy movement; but, at this point, I have no problems invoking WP:IAR. The question I have for you guys is: How much do we give credence to this notable, recognizable offshoot of OWS? Sure it ain't pretty, (and it was touched by Midas's golden meatpuppet Dualus, so it's stigmatized possibly beyond redemption) but I've been kindly introduced to more of this faction's agenda, some of which is a dealbreaker to me (such as term limits--if Russia can reelect Putin 3x, why can't we reelect Obama 3x?) and some of which are wholly inline with what our movement has been all about (such as glass steagall, free healthcare/medicare for all, and ending charter schools) so I'm 50/50 on this proposal, so I tacked it on last as my most mediocre suggestion. (simply a yes/no vote by the first two people gets my endorsement)

Other ideas

Does anyone else have broad, sweeping changes they want to propose and tack onto my short list of 5 proposals? Create a new subsection right below this area. 완젬스 (talk) 10:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As usual, I don't doubt your good intentions, dude, but's it's really sounding like you are campaigning to be the OWS Official Embedded PR Guy At Misplaced Pages and, among other things, need to give WP:COI and WP:NOTFORUM a careful read. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Missing Vital External Link...

Missing External Link: Purchased on July 20th, 2011, Occupywallstreet.com was the first site up subsequent to Adbusters, and it utilized facebook forums and twitter feeds. Some would say that it was instrumental in the first 8 weeks in getting the message out across the nation via facebook, twitter and the internet social networks.

You can find more information on the origins of occupywallstreet.com here: http://takethesquare.net/2011/08/15/what-is-the-nyc-assembly-to-occupywallstreet-on-sept17-and-who-is-behind-it-notes-from-august-13-nyc-antibanks/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Occupywallstreetcom (talk • contribs) 10:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 April 2012

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

Missing Vital External Link Purchased on July 20th, 2011, http://occupywallstreet.com/ was the first site subsequent to Adbusters. Utilizing social network feeds and facebook forums, the domain was vital to spreading the initial call to action on Sept. 17th, and subsequent. I think you should add it as an external link.

Occupywallstreetcom (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: Please read our policy on external links. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the objection to it's inclusion ? Penyulap ☏

Project Occupy

WP:OWS--Amadscientist (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Economic Background

This section is indeed OR and has almost no context to the subject but is simply back filling a section as if it is a part of the subject and not just the opinion of the subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There was a talk citation] to say this had been resolved otherwise. Problem is, I don't see any such consensus as alleged. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I checked that and indeed there seems to be no consensus formed with that discussion for inclusion.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street/Archive_28#We are the 99% -- We can have another discussion but I'm not sure why you guys are removing the section based on your own minority opinion, yet again. I'll say it again: Even if there were no established consensus (there was) you don't get to war in your preferred article state in the meantime. Equazcion 00:20, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)

No, I removed it because you had reverted what I percieved as a logical and well worded explanation using Misplaced Pages policy as the basis for the opinion and edit by AKA. I believe you returned it for the reason you stated.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

And it is not "warring" to remove content reverted by another editor who has not established either a consensus or referred to a discussion that shows consensus. Please review what consensus is, as defined for Misplaced Pages...it is not a majority rule sir.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What's striking is that no one has denied that it is OR. That's the ignored elephant in the room. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The OR is hereby denied. Anyway, AKA is under the impression that the opinions of the protesters matter, as opposed to the RS. Of course if there is any slight bit of OR in it, point that out and we will discuss how to fix it. But it is disruption to remove whole sections for generalized, unstated claims. If you have problems first be specific about them, and second, when your claims are refuted by multiple editors, don't edit war. The POV tag is for removing one of the most most highly relevant and well-sourced parts of the article, without which the article does not give the full reason behind the protest. B——C_ritical 05:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Weak. We are not here to explain OWS, we are here to use RSs, and all the better if they provide background without being OR or SYNTH. Now, please, name one ref connects the economic background to OWS's awareness of that specific nugget of background. I extracted the only two that did make the connection in a meaningful way for the We Are the 99% section. Also, let's not forget the burden to justify the restoration lies with the would be restorers. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not actually disruption when more than one editor agrees and only two reverts have been made-one from each. As for the POV tag, it is surely needed for more than AKA removing a section and my revert to keep it out for now. It is OR. There is nothing in the references that show that this wasn't a reaction by others after the fact as the CBO report came out in October. The information is relevent in other areas but is not a section titled "Economic background"...that is OR. I added the only real link (and even that was small and simply removed). There is no real context to the movement and protest in this manner. Again, mention the report, but in chronological order and with due weight to the information. The first protest was planned from August and took place on Sept 17, 2011. The section was based on the CBO report that came out in October. Undue weight and original research to claim as economic background. For this to have a proper reference it would not mention the CBO report and be about the things mentioned by Adbusters or other organizers as to exactly what economic background led them there.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that instead of removing the section, you could have merely asked for a source stating that this is indeed the economic background for OWS? If you want better or more specific sources, that's fine, but just removing stuff instead of discussing and being specific is not fine. What I would like is for people to look at the links in this article. The sourcing is an interconnected web. Just for example, this links to this, thus allowing us to use the latter. And there are other sources. But without specific objections it is impossible to see exactly where anyone would feel the sourcing needs to be improved. Further, it is impossible to work with people who merely edit war out entire sections and rather than attempt to work together. Again, please be SPECIFIC about your objections, and we can deal with that. Just to demonstrate, here is a quote showing the economics of the CBO report are the economic background for OWS.

In the 1990s, economists began producing a string of studies documenting rising income inequality in the United States... But the idea did not take a central place on the national stage until the fall of 2011, when it was championed by a diffuse group of activists who began a protest called Occupy Wall Street. Their demonstrations were aimed at corporate greed, the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations and, especially, income inequality in America...The debate took on greater specificity with the release of a report in October 2011 by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirming that income inequality had grown in the United States. According to the report, the top 1 percent of earners more than doubled their share of the nation’s income over the previous three decades.

B——C_ritical 06:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh, in Oct 2011, OWS could not have had the benefit of CBO's research. It's impossible to be background. I think economic foreground is another section, perhaps.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

So why remove the section rather than renaming "economic context of OWS?" And no one said that the CBO report was economic background, rather that the data inside of the report detailed the economic background of OWS, see the quote below. B——C_ritical 07:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Aside from your perceptions of what is or is not acceptable, the fact remains that there are two editors that again bring up that this section fails to be what the section is claiming...economis background. It has been edited down to nearly nothing, and wasn't much to begin with. If the CBO report showed a direct link to the occupy movement that would be acceptable but it is not. It is refering to economists. It's synthesis to state this is about the Occupy Wall Street protests in this manner.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

For the record I did link to a discussion in my revert , which basically did show consensus (6 to 2), not that majority rules in general but that's nevertheless a pretty clear consensus. Certainly no justification for cutting out the section when you're clearly in the minority, even assuming there "is no consensus" as you claim -- "no consensus" doesn't equal exclusion, especially if you're in the minority. Equazcion 06:50, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)

"6 to 2" is false. Who are the six ? I can't find that many, and I haven't done drugs in years. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You need to point out specific facts that need to be looked at, rather than giving a general 'this is simply all ____' (which might fly when nearly everyone is in agreement, but not when there's significant contention -- that requires specifics). Also if you guys are going to keep on cutting out entire sections for drafting here this is going to continue being a mess of a situation and a tl;dr talk page. The beauty of a wiki is we can edit this stuff while it's live in the article and save this talk space for... well, talk. You need to lose the all-or-nothing mentality and start collaborating. You make an edit, we make an edit, we gradually come to agreement. That's a wiki. This talk page draft thing is just not efficient. Equazcion 06:50, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)

What is MadSci not hearing? The source above, among others, makes a direct connection between the report and OWS, and I even got one stating that the data in the report is the background for OWS. Or are they actually removing the section because of some caveat about the title relative to the text? How about "Economic context?" Or, MadSci, are you saying that someone stated that the report is "about OWS" as in "The CBO report on OWS?" Rather, our sources state that the CBO report detailed the economic situation that OWS was complaining about (but was not "about OWS"). B——C_ritical 06:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a repetition of old discussions. Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street/Archive_28#Chart sources -- AKA also held the mantra that we're "not here to explain/justify OWS" and demanded sources connecting the financial stats to the movement. He acknowledged that the information was the basis for the movement and refs saying so must exist, but demanded someone else find them before the material was placed in the article. It was similarly explained to him there that if he acknowledges accurate information, demanding refs as a bar to adding content is just lawyering. You challenge content when you doubt it, not merely because no ref is actually there. If you want a ref, go find it. Don't remove content you agree is accurate. It's ridiculous to have to repeat this same exact discussion and I'll be replacing the section soon. Equazcion 07:07, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Look, I hate to seem like I'm bragging, but I know that there is research relied upon by OWS, or at least I'm buying the line of the ref that says, I added that to the article. And I didn't do any OR. Sorry, I do seem like I'm braggging. But, oh well. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Great, you know there's research relied upon by OWS. That's not the standard for inclusion though. An article on a subject can use sources that don't mention that subject. Equazcion 07:17, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)

You're not getting it. I put it the article, and I did it w/o OR or SYNTH. Try doing the same. The article is about OWS, and the correctness of its meme is established. No more needs to be done. So, about that gang of six, who are they, that is by name? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The whole economic background section is still gone, as far as I can see, so the financial statistics that led to the meme are still missing, even if its first uses are there. That section wasn't OR or SYNTH. If the movement is based on the 1% vs. 99% economic imbalance, and we have reliable sources showing that imbalance, that's enough. You're basing your SYNTH claim on your own criteria that the sources must mention OWS. There is no such requirement. Equazcion 07:40, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I'm all ears. What "financial statistics led to the meme"? Not the one you think did, but you can not- because you have not -produced refs for. Still waiting on that gang of six list too, while you're on that so far an unsubstantiated assertion kick of late, well maybe of earlier too. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Any statistics that show the 1% vs. 99% economic imbalance in the US. If you accept that the meme is based on that imbalance, we just need refs that show the existence of said imbalance. Again, refs that don't mention the connection to the article's subject in order to support its surrounding facts are perfectly acceptable. Articles do that. You haven't provided any support for this claim that such refs would equal OR or SYNTH, except a vague notion. I'm all ears. Equazcion 08:27, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)

We're not about truth here. You gotta show that OWS was aware of them, not you think they were aware of them. Have a look at WP:SYNTH. No acting like that policy doesn't exist. Gang of six? How's that tally coming around. I'll keep an eye out for it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I never said I thought they were aware of them. It doesn't matter if OWS was aware of the particular referenced stats we use in this article. The movement is based on the economic imbalance, and we can show the economic imbalance. If a movement is against ritual killings in Africa we could bring references showing that those killings occurred, even if the movement wasn't aware of those particular references. You're applying your own special criteria here that has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages's requirements. Equazcion 08:38, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Done, like weeks ago. So gang of six now. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree that such refs are fine, since you think it's been done already. Though the imbalance is pivotal to this subject and isn't adequately summarized here with due weight. The removed section accomplishes this. Can I assume you support its re-insertion then? Equazcion 08:51, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I'll wait til tomorrow before re-inserting the section, at which point I'll take a lack of objection as consensus. Equazcion 09:13, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Then please take my objection in advance and save some time. There is no consensus for this material and concerns have been raised before. I can re add the image as that does have consensus for inclusion.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If you object then please state why. The section is relevant and sourced. Why should it not be included? Equazcion 09:38, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Merely stating "I object" doesn't equal an argument, so again, I'll take lack of one as consensus to re-insert tomorrow. Equazcion 10:13, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)

You may take whatever you wish, its actions that need consensus and explanation. One editor has expressed his opinion with a bold edit that was reverted, but that revert was reverted by another editor. We don't have an edit war, we have a temporary consensus on exclusion until an argument can be made to include. I see no argument that sways me yet to alter my opinion. The section is something the Occupy movement article would have with better references perhaps and better context with titling and wiki naration/prose.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. If it did, whoever made the first edit would always get to require burden of proof from the other side. This isn't first-come, first-served. When there's an edit war, both sides are required to discuss (unless you can point out your version in some policy).

I've presented my argument, but here it is again: The economic imbalance is pivotal to this subject, and currently isn't summarized with due weight. The argument against has thus far been that the removed section's refs don't state a connection to OWS, but that is not the standard on Misplaced Pages -- refs supporting the facts surrounding an article's subject don't need to mention that subject. If the movement is based on economic imbalance, we can provide refs that show that imbalance without them needing to mention OWS itself.

As in my example above, a movement calling attention to genocide in Africa can have refs in its article that report on those deaths without referring to the movement. The standard being applied here, by AKA and Amadscientist, is original and not Misplaced Pages's. Equazcion 10:30, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)

You're mischaracterising this as an edit war. It's not. A revert is not always an edit war and neither is the removal of content. You are edit counting and starting from the wrong spot at that. "The first one"? Who is the first one? There are two editors who agree with it's exclusion and two that disagree. If one editor makes a deletion and it is reverted but the reverting editor fails to make a convincing argument another editor may revert that decision. This is a collaboration. I understand what Becritical is arguing even if he doesn't understand me, but I don't understand your argument as you seem to be mistakeing a few things. I took a look and this argument goes back to November and both AKA and myself have raised it. There has been no clear consensus for inclusion and some good arguments made for exclusion for coatracking and some argument for keeping and detailed explanation as an examination of the issue. I still have a problem with the title of "Economic background", as well as the CBO information itself as it is not background if it came out two weeks after the protests had been ongoing. What it is, is an economic issue being raised as part of the protests and I believe AKA has stated we have established this much in the article and this information is being presented in a manner that is OR. Just mentioning Occupy Wall Street does not mean a reference supports the claims being made fully. This is synthesis by claims not supporting references in the manner written and titled and is undue weight for that reason and that, even though economic issues may be central, this should be addressed with a section like "Issues of concern"-"Protester concerns" etc.. The economic side is unduly over weighted with no other issue getting this attention. Perhaps they should be covered but with a much better section with better references and subject context to this as the "Occupy Protest" in New york and not the movement which started later.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

1. http://takethesquare.net/2011/08/15/what-is-the-nyc-assembly-to-occupywallstreet-on-sept17-and-who-is-behind-it-notes-from-august-13-nyc-antibanks/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• High-importance sociology articles
• C-Class New York City articles
• Mid-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• C-Class United States Government articles
• Low-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• United States Government articles with to-do lists
• C-Class United States History articles
• Low-importance United States History articles
• WikiProject United States History articles
• United States History articles with to-do lists
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Former good article nominees