Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:36, 23 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.

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.

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 ☏

For one thing, inclusion would seem to reflect original research. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:19, 13 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)

I thought there was a gang of six backing you up. And, really, presuming a "lack of objection". Don't be silly. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:27, 10 April 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)

Yeah, with a boatload of primary sources. Not cool. Gang of six? Gang of six? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Note for perusal of mediators/DR helpers: the section has I think two primary sources, which were referenced by reliable secondary sources. I don't even think they are necessary to the section at all, but it is nice to have them there for the reader. B——C_ritical 18:16, 10 April 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)

Once you said there was a gang of six? Gang of six? Gang of six? Gang of six? Gang of six? Number nine? I'm really want to know who they are. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:22, 10 April 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)

Okay guys, time to bring in the DR process again. Let me first say that I'm sure the section sourcing could be improved, but there is no real motivation to improve it since there are no specific objections to the sourcing. There is also a complete lack of collaborative spirit on the part of those removing content. If you don't want to go through this long process, please bring up specifics now. I think it has been made clear that by whatever title, and whatever form it may take, one side here thinks that the information on economic trends is essential. Perhaps it is not given enough weight, even with the disputed section, in my opinion. But we definitely need outside help, and I will be arguing that the sources clearly call for a section just like the one removed, given the above quotation. Equizon says above that the objection is that the sources don't state connection to OWS, but that is not true, as I've already said to no response. B——C_ritical 13:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with DR, should fly like a lead baloon. I won't be part of it. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Back to collegiality

I think if there are very specific objections to any text, we will be able to deal with them. I'm talking something along the lines of sentence "X" says Y, but the source for X does not say Y. Very specific. I'm very open to changing the text based on such feedback, or to getting better sourcing, or explaining how current sourcing is sufficient. I would be glad to go over it line by line with anyone willing to engage at that level. B——C_ritical 20:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps "Goals" should be "Issues and goals"...

....and expanded appropriatly to include the economic issues as researched and referenced to wikipedia guidelines along witht the other main issues?--Amadscientist (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Reset

Ok, so from here I believe the section "economic background is unjustifyed by content that is original research. I feel the section first should be renamed "Main issues" and it be expanded and copy edited to be withing guidelines for OR and synthesis and that we not extrapolate past what the reference or the article is about. To claim the CBO as background is disingenuous in my opinion as the CBO report is after the fact, but still more needs to be done to have better direct context to this subject and not make bold claims that are clearly disputed. Let us take baby steps.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's take baby steps. I would like to get your reaction to the quote (repasted from above) which says that the data within the CBO report gives details of the economics behind 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.

To me, having read that quote, it looks like you're the one doing original research by saying we shouldn't make the connection between OWS and the CBO report. Also there are quite a few other very good sourcing making that same connection. It seems you are disputing the sources on this point. Is that not so? B——C_ritical 21:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Who said that? I said it isn't "Economic background" and just because a reference mentions OWS doesn't mean it supports a claim being made. I said the CBO report has a connection, but it came out after and may well be "reaction" to. References must have a direct context to the subject and references must support claims. Issues and goals have been combined but there and some issues have been found. Further cleaning up is required.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If you are copy pasting the work of others here to make a point, could you at attribute the quote. It just makes it easier to understand your point better.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You can use that reference to cite a claim but certainly not to justify the use of references that have no context to OWS. That reference also cannot be used to claim the CBO report as economic background, just that economic inequality was not championed or supported on the national stage until Occupy, It does not establish the un-named economists or their reports as the actual background and speaks in general terms with no mention of how it relates directly to the NYC protest and not just the overall movement. It's pretty broad strokes to me.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the quote is from here. We will simply have to disagree that the quote above does not say that the CBO report shows what Occupy was reacting to in the economy. How many sources on this do you need? This? this? this? this? Are those enough to convince you that the CBO report needs to be discussed relative to OWS? You removed a source from the economics section. It would be very helpful to me if you would paste material here along with objections, and allow me to try to source it more specifically or modify it, instead of removing sources and text. Or better yet put tags and put objections on the talk page. I might just replace stuff with something else from a more specific source, or fix it some other way. B——C_ritical 22:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Those are great suggestions. But I don't need to paste material here for you to source it. Why was this not sourced properly to begin with, with prose and claims that are supported by references that have direct context to the NYC Occupy protets? I have not looked at all your links as yet but will. I think you misunderstand me as you are defending something I make no claim against...the CBO report surely can be discussed in context to OWS.....just not as economic background as that is a contentious claim for such a report and references need to discuss the subject of the CBO report with context directly relating to the article subject. You can't just use any reference that discusses the CBO report.....it must have context to the article subject as related to the claim it is citing.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree "it must have context to the article subject as related to the claim it is citing". The source you removed is kind of a different case. I'm not sure it matters, but this links to it, and it seems to me that, especially given the graphic, such linkage is clearly meant to make the connection. But it really doesn't matter, there are a lot of sources. I am happy enough with the headings as you have them now, so if you feel that the data now belong in the article when they are under the heading of "Economic issues," that's all that's important to me. I will make an effort to rewrite the section using somewhat different sourcing and make other improvements. B——C_ritical 23:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's keep that image as an example of the data in general and try not to use it as justification for prose. Misplaced Pages allows OR in images and the work has been discussed as being such. This is why the image is referenced with the citations but they are not expanded on in prose. A huge debate and much discussion has long held that the image should be included but how much from the image sources to be used as references in prose has never been looked into to my knowledge.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

And, of course, I have no problem with the report itself used as a primary source but lets always have a secondary source to accompany any claims that are likey to be disputed.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, well with that I'm not sure we disagree on anything. I think the section needs expansion and revision, and I have more sources to do that. Do you see any particularly bad problems with the text now? B——C_ritical 00:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but very specific claims...just a sec.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.[38

(I think I had an edit conflict and realised this was missing when rereading) This seems to be referenced with a chart. Which one, This is tertiary. The charts here are all linked to the source. We should use that as the reference.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.

This is using a primary source to make a claim. This needs a secondary published source that makes this claim in context to OWS.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 the incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive.

What is the source for this claim? Is this extrapolated from the CBO report or is this somehow related to the reference of collected charts?

I think that's pretty much my only other concerns with that section.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That was the source you removed, here. It is a very useful source, and I hate to lose it. It's the only secondary source relating those specific stats to OWS. We can either decide that the material is sufficiently relevant and use that source, or I can substitute other stats which say basically the same thing from other sources. I have this source, which gives a lot of data we could use. I think I already checked it out as good on the RS/N. Do you see any problems with using it? B——C_ritical 00:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's place that in the article to-do list as needing secondary sourcing with direct context and comment out (<!) for now with that indirect source added back in. When a direct source is found as the main citation we add it and uncomment. Is that agreeable? (What this does is preserve the information and refs until properly sourced to a published claim that says basicly the same thing on top of the secondary source that has no context to OWS but is relevent and the primary ref tha needs proper context for claim etc.)--Amadscientist (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Commenting out is cool. I think I know what you mean about the sources but let me repeat it: we comment out till we can find secondary RS that make the various claims? And you're okay with the Guardian source, right? B——C_ritical 03:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it was the consensus that Gaurdian should be treated as opinion and attributed to them and the author of the piece so please use if no other choice is there, but it would work for me.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And we should use other sources as much as reasonably possible. B——C_ritical 05:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Where is the discussion about this article tag? El duderino (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I put it on because of some disruption, but it is no longer needed. B——C_ritical 03:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Goals and section apprpriateness - don't trip (:--}>-2012-04-12T19:36:00.000Z">

Don't trip, I took out the following in hopes it can be placed in sections besides "Goals" since this stuff has very little to do with goals. You got from Rushkoff media reception and OWS leadership structural uniqueness. Then there's some news about what happened to OWS in the winter. Let's see if we can sinuate it all into existing sections, or find new sections if needed. Finally, the goals section is now about goals.

This is a, stale, news update

On March 17th, Occupy leaders declared the six-month birthday from the moment their movement started with a bold Twitter message, “In our first 6 months we changed the national conversation. In the next 6 months we will change the world.” The movement was mostly dormant during the winter months but avows renewed enthusiasm, larger demonstrations, and a general strike all leading into the 2012 election season.

Television reporters reception

Douglas Rushkoff said mainstream news reporters on television, who he said were failing to "accept the inevitability of their own obsolescence", have wrongly presented the protesters as an incoherent "random, silly blather of an ungrateful and lazy generation of weirdos".

Rushkoff said "... we are witnessing America's first true Internet-era movement, which – unlike civil rights protests, labor marches, or even the Obama campaign – does not take its cue from a charismatic leader, express itself in bumper-sticker-length goals and understand itself as having a particular endpoint

This is opinion, pure and simple, but not necessarily goals

Are they ready to articulate exactly what that problem is and how to address it? No, not yet. But neither are Congress or the president..."</ref>

Yes, people keep adding and subtracting things, and we have to keep track and put the good stuff back in and prune out the unnecessary or outdated. B——C_ritical 19:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)"> ">

Not liking the section headers or the order. Goals must come after issues.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Rushkoff the participant/propogandist

He's leading a teach in here. It shouldn't be hard to find an RS saying the same stuff, but one who is not part of the solution, as it were. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Rushkoff

Rushkoff is an OWS activist. Besides being a minor intellect, Chris Hedges or Matt Taibbi are way above his league, can he be a RS too? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not mainly about people, but about the publication. CNN is a good source. So I can't answer that, I'd have to see where the articles are published. B——C_ritical 23:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

So if CNN, or some other big news operation, wasn't the source, it would not a RS? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is the exception for well known experts, but generally yes it is about the publisher. That applies to all our sourcing. B——C_ritical 01:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd take a look the bottom of the Rushkoff piece. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What is it you see there? B——C_ritical 01:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A very clear statement disclaimer. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

If you think it is less reliable than the usual opinion piece in an RS, then you should take it to the RS/N and see if others think you're right, and we can adjust any text accordingly. As it is, this seems a fine source if attributed, as with other opinion pieces in RS. B——C_ritical 04:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, what happened to "it is about the publisher"? Your latest says nothing "about the publisher". Has a goal post just moved? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does. RS = publisher. B——C_ritical 05:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Is a reliable source an opinion. Yes, as long as the opinion is from a reputable journalist/academic from a secondary published source. So you need both the reputable author and the published source. Most publishers will not publish the opinion of un-notable figures and we do not accept self published sources even if they are notable and reputable authors. But when writing an encyclopedia we would identify any connections the author has to the subject. So if you are using such opinion and not having identified the author as having a connection to the subject in some form, it could be a problem for some or most. Journalist have become as much of the subject in many cases and require secondary sourcing at times. In other words...is this something Rushkoff is saying or something someone else is stateing he has said. If written as his opinion is it attributed to the author as an OWS supporter who actively takes part in demonstrations in some form etc.? This is kind of a weight issue. How much do we use of known supportive journalist and how are they being attributed. Are we just using their names and the publication...or are we also mentioning them as an "OWS participant/speaker/writer/journalist". Knowing who is writing from within the subject and who is writing from outside looking in, is important.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Media theorist and OWS participant Douglas Rushkoff. OK...but is he just participating. Showing up is participating, listening is participating...so, while I even made the suggestion above, with Rushkoff I would be more specific. Perhaps OWS lecturer/author would be more accurate and encyclopedic?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

We can do waay better than Rushkoff. Chomsky, or Hedges are two that come to mind. Musn't aim low. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Media theorist and OWS participant Douglas Rushkoff. OK...but is he just participating. Showing up is participating, listening is participating...so, while I even made the suggestion above, with Rushkoff I would be more specific. Perhaps OWS lecturer/author would be more accurate and encyclopedic?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

At the moment he's being used to source that they are concerned about collapsing environment and World Bank lending practices. Otherwise he is not even necessary- see edit to follow. B——C_ritical 07:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

And BTW, we can state what they want in Misplaced Pages's voice, because we have sufficiently good sources to do so: The Christian Science Monitor and Businessweek. B——C_ritical 07:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about the voice thing, but the vimeo video can't be used to reference his credintials like this.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

He lead a teach in, what else do you need to show anyone beyond a doubt that he is a participant. There is no way to view/interpret it otherwise. Variability is satisfied. But shoot, here it is from the horses mouth. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You mistake my intent or I mistake yours. You seem to be justifying him as a participant as if I refused to believe so. I feel he is more than a participant and you show it here yet say "There is no way to view/interpret it otherwise". Of course there is. Be specific, as there are passive particpants and active participants and we could sound more encyclopedic when speaking of a notable figure to the subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

How do you passively participate? Hug a crystal and send good vibes is all I come up with, and that is my construct because a Google on "OWS passively participate" (w/o quotes) didn't draw jack. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Um... guys, I took him out entirely a while ago... B——C_ritical 07:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Understood Becritical, but it is an important point that AKA makes. When we do attribute a figure within the protest as defining OWS in some manner, how do we present that figure in the article. Don't worry. This isn't a dispute. Just Him expressing his doubts to the need to attribute a lecturer of the movement as anything more than a participant. Something that can be defined of even those that are listening to him. Yes, in a protest there are passive and active participants. There are two sides to a conflict and there are organizers if not leaders within the movement itself. It is unavoidable, but consensus determines just how we present each person with whatever level of either expertise or involvment.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Trout, trout tout To everyone involved! Just cool it and let's take a step back and meditate for 30 minutes or whatever and refocus. We all know where this type of unraveling pre-drama discussion leads us to in the end so let me be a passive forum moderator and deliver the utmost whacking of these three trout that can be conjured as hypothetically possible. (giving everyone 2 black eyes, and broken jaws) Carry on, 완젬스 (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Passive participation is not a contradiction ( the term is used on a number of Wiki articles) or an oxymoron as passive does not contradict participation. It simply means "the condition of submitting to the espoused, legitimate influence of one's superior or superiors.". So, as a passive participant one would "submit' themselves to either influence or a percieved superiority ( like listening to a lecturer with expertise). When we use a specific individual to use for their over arching opinion and name them in the article (any article) we would determine who they are in context to the subject. An Academic who is known for their published work and research on a specific period of history within a wikipedia article would be introduced within the prose with their level of expertise and how it relates to the subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll have that in English, please. Now that the theoretical parameters have been attempted -something about submission to "superior" entities, real weird for a profoundly anarchist influenced movement. But never mind, I could do without an attempted clarification of that. But we still don't know what they do and what they can't do to keep from going active in the whole shebang. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, actually we do. While OWS as a movement is new...protests and demonstrations are not. We know there are active participants who organize and take an "active" part in the occupation in terms that are more precise than just being there and occupying the space. Some will take a stronger and more active part in the protests. Facilitators are active participants. Workshop memebers in the NYCGA and leaders and organizers from those are active participants. While supporters who stay at home are not even participating at all in the actual demaonstration...they may be active in other areas that define them as participating at a lower level. Let's look at it this way. Who are the active participants in any demonstration? We are not even confined to just the demonstrators, because they are only one side of a conflict.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

AKA has the right to discuss his concerns and we all have the right to a civil discussion. No harm no foul. Lets not get carried away with trouts. They should not be used to disrupt a conversation that is not heated and please don't accuse others of wikidrama in the middle of the discussion you are not part of. It's a little incivil.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, you know I'm just trying to disarm the "talk page negativity" from possible emotional escalation. Carry on the conversations, and treat all my friends with proper courtesy--just as they will treat you. I'm humbly eyeing my goal I have set forth for this weekend, :-). Good riddance, 완젬스 (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not know who your friends are...but that has nothing to do with this site nor does a pledge to treat any of your them any differently than anyone else. Of course they will be treated with respect...if they are respectful. If they act as you do..I have to wonder how civil they may be. but "they" can prove themselves as individuals here as you do. Try not to go overboard like starting a Misplaced Pages Project someone else had proposed without discussion. There is incivility on many levels. You start that project without discussion of naming when you didn't propose it or add to the discussion OR join it. I have to say...that's pretty rude.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is that cryptic message about eyeing your goal linked to a video of a physical fight. This concerns me greatly.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This is why most editors frown on external links in posts on talk pages. They are seldom fully explained and leave the recipiant more confused than before the post. It amounts to little more than chat and doesn't work towards improving the article. Misplaced Pages is not a social network and many people misunderstand the need to keep posts on individual articles to the subject at hand , which is the improvement of the article...not the subject of the article. I think your intentions must be considered good faith at the moment as in looking at the video it seems to be about the chip eating man who walked inbetween the conflict. So I will take the meaning as such and simply ask that you please consider waiting longer before stating an opinion that the discussion has degenerated into a fight. AKA has a very unusual form of communication just as you seem to have. But inbetween the lines one can see what he is saying the longer one is in contact with his style of posting. As for external links in talk page discussions. It's best not to redirect editors off site and best to keep links to wikipedia article and discussions. Since many external links are not being set up by yourself 완젬스(Wanjemseu), it is possible you may mistakingly lead someone to a bad link with malicious malware. Most people will not use these links for this reason so you are pretty much wasting a good amount of effort for something that is not a clear form of communication.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Now you may slap me with a trout...just one please. =)--Amadscientist (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, there is a relevant discussion at WP:ANI / User promoting a movement about this article and possible COI/other issues with User:완젬스 (Wanjemseu). El duderino 23:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Goals section removals

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Occupy_Wall_Street&diff=487794058&oldid=487776941

Since AKA doesn't seem to subscribe to WP:BRD and reverts until other people start discussions, here I go again. AKA says the ref doesn't support the text. I see everything there though. Note: This diff now includes other substantial removals that basically whiddled the Goals section down completely. I originally struck this out because I was mistaken, but now AKA has did indeed reverted me again without discussion, along with BeCritical's reverts/fixes too. I've now restored the removed content. As with all controversial edits, AKA needs to discuss these major chop-outs before making them, rather than bullying his way into imposing his version of the article. I'm close to opening an WP:RFC/U. Equazcion 01:03, 17 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I can understand the frustration you must feel in seeing edits removed, but I see nothing anyone has done to begin limiting how they edit except in cases of clear edit warring. You have made a revert but have failed to justify it with much more than "you don't see it". OK...I'll look at it, but what if I see it. AKA does't actually need to discuss his edits before he makes them. He just should discuss them as he makes them if there is an actual need. It's up to him really, unless it crosses into edit warring.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

He has crossed into edit warring, over and over again. Controversial edits should be discussed in the first place beforehand, but failing that, if reverted, he should be discussing then rather than reverting again as he did. That's edit warring. WP:BRD is there to outline in practice how policy should be followed. Equazcion 04:45, 18 Apr 2012 (UTC)

No. WP:BRD is not policy and you need to show with diffs how he reverted more than 3 times in a 24 hr period or how the amount he did revert was edit warring. Your last edit made some changes that go against the current consensus and did not say anything about the use of a forum post from the OWS website as a reference. That is unacceptable, sorry. You also changed the Goals header with no discussion at all in all of this and I didn't even see the ref you placed in your above post in the dif.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring is not 3RR. You can edit war without reverting 3 times, and even be blocked for it. See User_talk:MikeWazowski#April 2012 for example. When your edit is reverted and you revert again, it is indeed edit warring. If a forum post was being used as a reference, that particular bit could be removed without reverting the entire thing. I changed the header because others had already changed it 3 times, and I was attempting compromise wording. Note that Amadscientist has now again chopped out the content, which I expected, as AKA and Amadscientist seem to be tag-teaming this article. With his edit summary of simply "Unconstructive edit", we still have no rationale for the removal as a whole. Equazcion 05:07, 18 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I note that you are stating conflicting information about 3RR, but again....you still need to show with difs how the amount of reverts he made amount to edit warring. Any claim without a reference or referenced in an unacceptable way may be removed. You made a post to complain about another editor's edits, but said absolutely nothing about your own until they were reverted and still do not justify why they should be included but complain about the removal. I am sorry. Now get over it or simply seek dispute resolution, but your bold edit on the header was unconstructive and had no consensus and I don't agree with using your header for a number of reasons including.... that it was not very encyclopedic in tone.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I put the 99% Declaration information back in. That does seem to pretty much state what the Salon.com refernce is saying. This had been a much longer line that was not supported by the reference but it seems OK now.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to run, but BRD is a description of what one does if one is not violating policy... and is therefore a description of policy. I'll be able to edit again soon and read up on this. Cheers B——C_ritical 09:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The use of BRD here was simply attempting to "direct" another editor's behavior. If there are infractions then BRD need not apply but Misplaced Pages:Edit warring. If we are to truly follow WP:BRD than we would want to pay close attention to WP:BRD-NOT which states:

BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.

and

BRD is best used by experienced wiki-editors. It requires more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure. You can also try using it in less volatile situations, but take care when doing so. Some have even taken to simply declaring their intent by adding the shortcut "WP:BRD" at the front of their edit summary. This seems to help keep people from taking as much offense at proposed changes. In a way, you're actively provoking another person with an edit they may (strongly) disagree on, so you're going to need to use all your tact to explain what you're aiming to achieve.

I suggest we look very closely at the entire page and see BRD as just a "method" of trying to work in a similar manner and remember this is something that is in no way required as it can be very difficult to achieve on these types of pages. This page has always had the same basic editors working on it since almost the day it started and they are of varying levels of experiance as Misplaced Pages editors. When BRD is applied or invoked, I would hope those doing so would strictly adhere to:

...provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.

I know that when the little tact is used and nothing provided based on policy and guidelines is given, any discussion would go awry.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that the series of edits you're defending began with User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous changing the "Issues and goals" section title unilaterally himself, to simply "Goals", and then removed everything that didn't fit that description alone. You're now berating others for changing it back and replacing that content ("your bold edit on the header was unconstructive and had no consensus", when AKA's edit was actually the bold one, and I see no discussion regarding it). Furthermore the section title he changed was originally your own proposed section title, when you also proposed expanding the section to include the content AKA removed. I'll also note that AKA has thus far made no attempt whatsoever to discuss these concerns. I'm beginning an RFC below to get more opinions on this. Equazcion 14:33, 18 Apr 2012 (UTC)

And AKA continues, still no participation in this discussion: . Equazcion 16:46, 18 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Er? Could you rephrase that, shorten it or explain further? I apologise, but I have a hard time understanding what you're saying sometimes. Seriously. But the Goals section header is a very old header, and if my edit was to change the header to Issues and Goals and he makes it Goals and I don't make a fuss like you....so? What? What are you saying man? Spit it out.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

RFC

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Per What to do if you see edit warring behavior, I've begun this RFC to request opinions on the disagreement above regarding what constitutes edit warring. Take a look through that discussion and offer your thoughts. The edits being discussed occurred within this section of article history. Advice regarding the particular content being disputed is also welcome. Thanks. Equazcion 14:33, 18 Apr 2012 (UTC)

The edits themselves have not been discussed - the D part of BRD, the way they were made is EQ's only issue. My summaries, as MadSci noted, give good explanations for reverts. Now, if those summaries, and thereby the actual edits were addressed, we would have something of substance-not form-to talk about. Wikilawyering is not a first option, but in this case it seems to have been the only one taken. Also amusing is the term "unilateral": all edits are unilateral, the very essence of BOLD. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to wait for others to comment rather than repel them by getting into another back-and-forth here with the involved editors, but just a note on my use of "unilateral": That was in response to Amadscientist's claim above that my change to the section header was done without discussion (ie. unilaterally). I was pointing out that AKA's original header change was just as undiscussed, if not more so. Equazcion 17:25, 18 Apr 2012 (UTC)

That would be BOLD in effect. As for staying out of "back and forth", is the ping pong champ retiring? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

So you made an RFC for a definition of Edit Warring on this talk page....for what reason? I know what edit warring is and have made no bold claims. You invoke the advice of WP:BRD against the very spirit of the essay and collaboration, by using it as a way to make demands on the behavior of another editor. That's just not reasonable. You use the blanket term "edit" warring as your complaint but I am not sure if your have even really laid out your actual dispute in difs properly. I respect that you discuss and that you encourage discussion, but please remember this is an actively edited article that does have issues and is part of at least one current project call for editor collaboration. There are administrators (our elders council-so to speak) that you can seek advice and council from. Sounds so old world...but it worked for the Roman's and is working well for Misplaced Pages. But this seems to be a bit of a distraction and almost seems to be seeking answers to questions that, while you have the right to seek....doesn't seem to have the tone I would expect from a side on the right in this issue. I hope we can work out the differences from all editors but if you decide to take these routes just remember your own actions and words. AKA and I barely get along most of the time and yet you had to throw in the "ever popular" "Tag team" accusation. Good lord...I have been accused of tag teaming with so many people I have lost count. Yeah, you're not standing on the most solid ground with this RFC but knock yourself out.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been equally frustrated by AKA's editing practices. I don't think this RfC is going to get us anywhere... it is a community wide problem and shouldn't be addressed here. What do you do about aggressive editing practices coupled with ignoring other editors, and insistence on misinterpretation of policy in the face of correction? There should be some better mechanism for dealing with this. As it is, such practices are either effective, or else they require extreme dedication from other editors. Those editors have to waste MOST of their editing time trying to deal with the low-level disruption. That is the case on this article. And it is worse because some of AKA's edits are just fine, and some of his understanding of policy is also fine. It's just that not all of his practices and understandings are okay, and they seem impossible to correct. Then again, I thought the same about MadSci, and we're getting along at the moment (: So perhaps there is a possibility of working things out here. In the last round with AKA, I did get an administrator's opinion, who called it low-level disruption, and another threatened to block if the edit war continued. You don't see it on his talk page because he blanked the warnings. B——C_ritical 21:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That idiot admin thought I was edit warring over edits that no one had yet objected to. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That is why it is always best to have the difs on hand for this sort of thing. Make the 3RR or Edit Warring report and/or seek advice from a third party. We all have something unique to contribute, its just getting past how much we don't like of each others opinion, style and methods! LOL!.....no seriously. =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amadscientist (talk • contribs) 21:39, 18 April 2012‎

As some of you know I am unable to get much involved right now, but I do continue to read everything on the talk page. As usual I am in complete agrement with Be. MadSci and I have our ins and outs but I know he's a good editor. As for AKA, he is so eratic I never know what to expect next. If ever I thought an editor was PWD, it would be this editor. Gandydancer (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Shucks, nah (:--}> — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk • contribs) 00:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Rtnews template

I've removed the Russia Today news template from the page, as it had raised concern because it pointed to a single trending news page, rather than a selection of trend pages, and after discussion in the appropriate places, it's easier to remove it than it is to add lots of other trend pages, as I don't know of any (don't have time to look). Penyulap ☏ 03:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

First sentence/source in "Participation and organization" section

The first sentence of this section contains generic, outdated info, and cites to a piece that actually contains only criticism of OWS/NYGA. The outdated info (e.g. meetings every Thursday at 7pm in Zucotti Park!) should be removed, and a generic source should be found for the generic information.

And let me just add that I am shocked, shocked, that all mention of the criticism contained in the piece has been removed from both this article and the "reactions" article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Does this edit address your concern?. And that reminds me, to get to work on the criticism section at the reactions article. B——C_ritical 20:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Goals expansion

I think the goals section could use expanding. I specifically notice the Federal Reserve isn't mentioned at all, and in the main OWS article, that seems like a blatant hole. While goals are currently summarized fairly well, that's pretty much all that's present right now -- a summary. This is the Occupy Wall Street article, so this is the place where the details should go. Each goal currently listed could have a paragraph. The csmonitor.com ref has a pretty succinct rundown. What does everyone think of summarizing that here?

I'm suggesting this here first since the Goals section has been the subject of so much contention, and I don't want to start expanding it just to go through another round of reverts. Hopefully we can establish some consensus here first and avoid that. Equazcion 20:14, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Definitely support this. It is needed per WEIGHT. B——C_ritical 20:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, I believe that the recent edits to the Goals section caused one of the errors you just corrected. I think it used to read "more equal distribution of income." B——C_ritical 20:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The goals section has always been a huge problem by containing more information then the actual goals of the movement. I think it's time to talk about what is the encyclopedic way to cover the subsection. Who are the references we go to and why? Is there some counter information to consider and of what weight should it be given and why? Etc.. First, who's goals should be mentioned in this section? There are many. Lets see what the ones who started it say at the top of the section starting with the Two Adbusters personalities we see mentioned in "Origins" as well as David Graeber. That's three people to check and see what secondary, published sources show they see as "Goals" of the protest. Also see what is on the two official sites, NYCGA and OWS.org. The last thing to look at would be the crowd and the goals they seem to be expressing. So I would like to outline an expansion of the goals section, not by actual subjects...but by the secondary, published information we find from:

• Kalle Lasn

• Micca White

• David Graeber

• The NYCGA Official site

• The OWS Official site

• The protesters on the street

--Amadscientist (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That's why I pointed out a specific reference above to use. I think steering relatively clear from primary sources might prevent problems. Equazcion 01:48, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I have had my problems with that as synthesis of "goals" from a list not stated as "goals" but targets. Primary sources have their place, behind secondary sources that make claims about the primary one. We can avoid OR by sticking to the basics of the goals per "origins' and then a subsection for "shift in goals" or something similar if needed.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

As BeCritical has pointed out, the focus shouldn't be on adhering to the section title. We want to detail the movement's motivation, so let's decide on what should go in such a section first and worry about what to call the section later. Equazcion 08:07, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

No. Focus should be on goals and we should not be deciing what goes in it but attempting to set some perameters as suggestions. But I guess you just want to dispute resolution your way into the article. --Amadscientist (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the problems with AKA here, just the content. Why exactly do you think focus should be on goals alone? If most of the secondary sources focus on targets or issues instead, why not focus our section thusly to avoid the synth problems you've described? Equazcion 08:48, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

So we want to describe what the protesters see as the problem. For that we have the economic information, primarily. We maybe should do more to describe what they see as the political and social problems. Then we want to describe how they think the problem should/could be solved. That's currently the "Goals" section. We are trying to describe the entire viewpoint of OWS, and especially with this holistic movement that will not lend itself to easy section titles. MadSci has a plan of action above which looks pretty good as far as I see. I looks like it would cover their solutions and their analysis of the problems. Equazcion, do you like it? Does it require something? B——C_ritical 19:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

My primary concern here is to make everything rock-solid verifiable and not include content that can be argued down later as undue opinion. Amadscientist's suggestion seems fine in terms of organization, ie. first stating the AdBusters version etc. But I think it would help the problems we've been having if we start from secondary sources that have run through the goals/targets/viewpoints/etc and summarize them, rather than start from primary sources and then pick and choose bits from secondary sources that back those up (as is my understanding of Amadscient's suggestion). The former seems less likely to invite arguable POV and weight concerns -- we'd leave it up to the agreed-upon secondary sources to determine what gets included, that way we have the best shot at avoiding those questions. The contentious topic and resulting messy editing history here calls for an extra-sensitive approach to avoid more problems, in my opinion. Equazcion 19:23, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

If you say so. I didn't use primary sources on the economic stuff. B——C_ritical 20:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say you did; but aside from that, what's your opinion of my suggestion? Equazcion 20:21, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Oh, definitely use secondary sources, and only use primary ones to flesh out a little. B——C_ritical 20:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I might not be expressing myself clearly. Many of the content removals in the history of this article were done because this-or-that person's opinion shouldn't be here, this info isn't important enough, etc etc. I'm seeking to avoid this by coming to an agreement on a couple of secondary sources that run through the goals/viewpoints of the movement themselves with some degree of completeness, and basing our section off them to determine inclusion -- rather than leaving it up to our own judgment, and risking inviting more removals. I think my suggestion differs significantly from Amadscientist's above, so please express your thoughts on this. Equazcion 20:36, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

In other words, he wants to start with people we know are significant and then go to the sources, you want to agree on the sources and then produce the content. Your way sounds like it would indeed be better for producing content which would be unassailable. I do doubt, however, that the removals will stop just because we do an exemplary job of sourcing. But it's still a good idea. B——C_ritical 20:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm AGF'ing even though I have the same doubts. But I think if the removals do indeed continue, this will give us an added leg to stand on later. Equazcion 20:51, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

True. B——C_ritical 21:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Equazcion's explanation of my idea are offbase and incorrect. It is difficult to have a discussion with someone i can niether understand or understands what i am saying.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

BeCritical re-stated my suggestion, so perhaps reading that would help you understand what I'm proposing. Or do you not understand either of us? If there's anything in particular you'd like clarified, please tell us what it is specifically. Equazcion 23:37, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Question

What are we going to do about AKA's continued disruption? B——C_ritical 00:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

First, how is it defined as disruption and by who or whom? I know I have made major changes and some stood and some didn't as have most of us. What is disruptive exactly? The constant changes, or changes to material you want included? if it is the latter just try putting it back and see what happens or just keep talking about it here. Let's face it the article is only seven months old and if we are already tired of discussing the same thing over and over just say what your willing to live with. Right now I see no huge problem with letting him edit and then looing over the whole subject again in light of the changes and see how claose they are, make changes where mot and listen to the argument. If I am just putting something back because there was a silent consensus or a previous consensus and he explains himself in the revert and I agree with it I am not going to fight to put it back in. The 99 Percent Declaration mention seemd OK, but he took it out and i put it back in and he took it out. I am still OK with that as I did not think it even deserved the mention but i gave it a shot putting it back in to see what would happen. It was taken out and I agree with that.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I tried an RFC which went nowhere, so next we could compile diffs and post to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring -- but this is a difficult problem to illustrate, since AKA's disruption is so... "quiet". It might be best to get an admin or two involved here first (again)? Equazcion 01:08, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Well...there is another option and if Becritical would like to give it a try it might work. Project OWS has peer review, I just haven't set it up yet. But this might be a way to solve the immediate problem.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I think all the OWS peers are here at this talk page where we've been discussing AKA's issues for quiet some time, and that hasn't yielded any progress. I think we need an uninvolved audience rather than merely a different page to discuss on. Equazcion 01:20, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. That may be true but something tells me they are not answering your quest here, good sir knight.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, you are here and you didn't get an audience by request. So is this just an a general announcement?--Amadscientist (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I think maybe the correct process is wp:RfC/U. That gives the user the best chance of actually learning and responding. The requirements have to be met, not sure if they already have been, like the requirement of trying to work things out on the user's talk page. For me, what is most disruptive is that he edit wars his changes in (as even MadSci mentions above) instead of discussing on the talk page when reverted. A close second is he does not understand things which are basic around here, like sourcing policy, but does not accept correction even when backed by consensus of others. The most recent edits seem to be making up rules about what is or is not an RS, and he does not review the sources (apparently). I think this is also a matter of POV, as I've noticed his edits on Allan Greenspan, as well as here seem to be pushing in one direction Yeah, he supported that one, so another reason why he was such a fuck up who had to repudiate his ideology to MR Waxman. MadSci, not sure what you mean by peer review, or specifically how it would work here? B——C_ritical 03:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not getting the problem with the Alan Greenspan edit, did he, in fact opposed the legislation at issue? I rest my case. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Deal with the D of BRD, and address the merits or lack of merits of the edits. Somebody defend, if they can, and this I have to see, using as an RS on micro economic theory Deborah L Jacobs, a lawyer who writes on how to write tips updating Linkedin after getting fired, or, and this one takes the cake "You Can Get Richer Pinching Pennies Like Warren Buffett", and the others, such as "5 Career Lessons From The 2012 Academy Awards", are typical of her output. Using her as a source for defining economic terms is inexcusable. Try Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, Paul Volker or even the disgraced Alan Greenspan (the devil still gets his due), and I will have no problem excepting the source. But a lightweight, in every sense of the word, and who seems more devoted to SEO bait than anything else is bottom feeding. And we don't have to sink so low. Also, when a section is titled Income inequality, no editor has any business inserting food insecurity or health insurance matters, unless there is a good source (I really shouldn't have to spec "good", but I do) that says that the two are directly related. This was not done. Intuitively it would seem to be correct, but a source is needed to make the connection otherwise SYNTH is in play. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This is great, but it would be helpful if you'd describe concerns like these at the time of the reverts, rather than waiting until people are ready to take you to noticeboards and RFC/U. You need to discuss when someone reverts you, and you need to do it no matter how obviously correct you believe you are. Equazcion 03:50, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Then you'll be glad that I did explain edits in edit summaries. There is no obligation to clear every edit in talk, but there is every obligation per BURDEN to explain why Jacobs is being accepted as an RS. She is not — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk • contribs) 01:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No, not every edit. Just those that come after a revert. Otherwise it's edit warring. Edit summaries don't count as discussion. Equazcion 01:22, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Something I got from Dispute resolution was seperating what is an editors behavior from the edits they make on top of whatever is being discussed on the talk pages. Peer review would be for content disputes but if behavior from another editor is a problem you can always start a converastion at the project talk page asking how to deal with a difficult issue to seek the opinion of those who may have similar interests. Other than a straight 3RR or Edit Warring report you would have to use the Dispute Resolution board or Misplaced Pages:Community sanction.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm tired of changing the name of the section to meet little caveats about what can go in a section with a particular name. The section is supposed to be about what the protesters are mad about re economic related conditions. Name it whatever you want but stop taking out relevant information because it doesn't meet the new current title we tried to satisfy you with this time 'round. And questioning the source for that is fine. We can argue and discuss it and improve it. No problem there. But discuss, per Equazcion. I think one principle which needs to be discussed here is that obvious things should not be questioned. Was the definition obviously right? Of course it is. That's how the protesters define the situation, whatever the source. Sources here aren't even necessary if the information isn't challenged. So the question is, why are you challenging? Challenging the obvious is just making trouble for editors. If you truly challenge the facts, then that is a different story. And I see no reason that Forbes would be non-RS. Whatever you may think of her, that is your original research. Are you saying that Forbes has no editorial oversight? No, Forbes is a perfect source for the claim. B——C_ritical 04:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps then a compromise would be to have a section about what the protesters are mad about, titled appropriatly and a seperate section on the "aims" or "goals" of the protest. But we have to stop using references and sources that do not support claims directly. And if we are using sources to make economic claims we really should be using reputable and known, mainstream academic sources and not just any article that suits our needs for the moment and never when it is not the exact intent of the source.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about the titles: I think it's entirely appropriate to have a broad interpretation of a heading, but whatever people want. You are also right that sources should support claims directly, and wherever it is pointed out to me that they do not I agree they should be changed. This doesn't mean we can't summarize in our own words though. I disagree that we must use academic sources for economic claims. That isn't how sourcing works on an article like this. What you are suggesting would entail either silence, or original research. If we were able, for example, to cite the CBO report directly to illustrate what OWS is mad about, then you would be right. But since we can only use sources which are about the article subject, OWS, we have to use the sources we have. Forbes, for example, is a good source for economic claims. Let's use a little common sense, too: the claims which AKA constantly tries to remove are claims we know are true. You know, I could wikilawyer everything you put in that I know to be right, or I too could make up my own rules like AKA. But I don't challenge unless I feel there is something truly objectionable which does not serve the reader. B——C_ritical 18:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe all economic claims must have academic sources. That does not mean that the Goals of the protests that are economic concerns cannot be referenced. All claims, regardless of whether they be summarries of our own beliefs or words, that are likely to be challenged must have secondary reliable sources to make claims of fact.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the claim of that requirement is coming from, unless it's just personal opinion. To say that Forbes isn't a reliable source for economics is odd. Is there some policy you could refer us to where you're getting this from? It similarly doesn't matter if people think they're "likely" to be challenged -- only if they actually are challenged. Again I'm not sure where that's coming from. Equazcion 01:52, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, these are made-up rules. B——C_ritical 05:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Income inequality

OK, it's time to deal with this per Misplaced Pages policy and not just because editors feel it is a part of the subject. We need more than references with titles that mention OWS to include this income inequality information in this manner. There is no context to the subject. If the reference makes no claim of connection or context to OWS then why are we using it. It's synthesis to pull facts from sources, but if there are no facts to pull then what is the source being used for but illustrative purposes. We need secondary sources to verify but they must also make direct claims to facts in relationship to the subject. All this stuff is puffery in it's own section and is undue weight. I have expressed concern above and i was allowing editors to deal with my concerns without urgency but it is clear now that at least one editor is claiming disruption by changing deleteing disputed material, but have as yet not deat at all with concerns and disputes to inclusion I brought up. I feel it is best to remove this section again as the last revert failed to discuss in detail what their reasoning was for returning the information. Per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Original research: Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

First, if the article is to mention Income Inequality it must have direct context to OWS and it must have a secondary RS to support ALL claims of fact and or opinion in one manner or another. This is not the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. It is disputed, has been disputed and needs referencing within policy. So here is what I propose:

We stick to what the secondary primary sources are saying with DIRECT context to OWS AS THE SECONDARY SOURCE claims...not us as editors. For example.

..the question of who’s to blame for the unprecedented levels of income inequality we’re currently seeing in America is an important one for Occupy Wall Street.

There. Direct context from PBS So use it to say that "Record high levels of income inequality and who is to blame for it, is of great importance to OWS protesters.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Say what you want about it, but the Occupy Wall Street movement does have one thing right: It's made headlines pointing out the income inequality of the last three decades. According to a Congressional Budget Office study that came out in October, income grew for the top 1 percent of households by 275 percent over the last 30 years, while the middle 60 percent of households saw their income grow by just under 40 percent. "We Are the 99 Percent" resonates with a lot of voters in the middle.

from . It can be used to source the next line such as:

"The movement's has gained the attention of newspaper and televsion news for drawing attention to 30 years of inequality."."--Amadscientist (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I will go through these refernces and see where direct context is used.

37.^ a b c Occupy Wall Street And The Rhetoric of Equality Forbes November 1, 2011 by Deborah L. Jacobs

38.^ a b c d Occupy protestors say it is 99% v 1%. Are they right? The Guardian Data Blog, by Simon Rogers, Wednesday 16 November

39.^ Cozy relationships and ‘peer benchmarking’ send CEOs’ pay soaring The Washington Post with Bloomberg, special report on Breakaway Wealth, By Peter Whoriskey, October 3, 2011

40.^ Ratcheting up pay with peer comparison The Washington Post with Bloomberg, October 3, 2011.

41.^ Income Inequality The New York Times March 22, 2012

42.^ Occupy Wall Street: More popular than you think By Brian Montopoli October 13, 2011 "the vast majority seem to share the protesters' sense that the economic deck is stacked"

43.^ United in Our Delusion By David Cay Johnston October 11, 2010, as cited by The Guardian Data Blog

44.^ "Financial wealth" is defined by economists as "total net worth minus the value of one's home," including investments and other liquid assets.

45.^ Recent Trends in Household Wealth in the United States: Rising Debt and the Middle-Class Squeeze—an Update to 2007 by Edward N. Wolff, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, March 2010

46.^ Wealth, Income, and Power by G. William Domhoff of the UC-Santa Barbara Sociology Department--Amadscientist (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Your references to policy are of course correct, but you imply that they are being broken. I do not think that they are. I'd like for you to say specifically which source(s) is not adequate. Did you do that above and I missed it in all the hassle? If so just tell me and I'll go try and find it, or maybe you can paste it here. I'm not aware that there are needed sources being used which merely reference OWS in the title. For example, this source is highly related to OWS, not just the title. B——C_ritical 02:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Is anything really ever "broken" on Misplaced Pages? Perhaps, but that is not my implication. Simply that there was no direct context in the prose to the information as it relates to OWS. How the sources were used in direct context to OWS was non existent. It was just statistical data and did not have any real relationship to OWS. The prose didn't even bother to try and set up the concept of income inequality in context to the protest. It just starts despensing facts from a different subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps nothing is ever truly "broken", but you started this with "it's time to deal with this per Misplaced Pages policy and not just because editors feel it is a part of the subject" so I think you should show how policy is being violated, because otherwise this is just another discussion about what we "feel" is right. Equazcion 04:29, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

He started it by blanking the section! And MadSci per your response above, if it's not sufficient to have the economic data be given context by the rest of the article, then a sentence or two of introduction would be sufficient, and no need to blank the section. B——C_ritical 04:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I love it. "He started it". Did "he"? As I recall this is the subject that we discussed above and we were supposed to be finding context to the subject. No work was ever been accomplished and someone removes it and another editor (Equazcion) returns it but fails his burden of proof so I remove it as OR and state exactly why I see it as such in detail to policy and discuss examples of what I mean and...of course Equazcion just ignores it and demands I show how policy was violated when i already did.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't say "he started it". That was BeCritical. I'm the guy above him, who said you started "this" section of discussion, with a quote. I'm not demanding anything you didn't claime to be providing yet now say you don't think is necessary: You wanted to hold everything and go back to policy rather than "feel"ings. You now say it "is not your implication" that anything is "broken" -- So, if the content doesn't violate policy, what exactly is your argument? Back to the "feel"ings? Equazcion 05:51, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Who said I was talking to you Equaz? OH...that's right you have to keep distracting the discussion so you don't ever have to justify your revert of returning information and yet NOT meeting your burden to explain why it was returned.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps no one, not that that was the point. So back to it: What exactly is your argument against the content, since we seem to have abandoned the "deal with this per Misplaced Pages policy" sentiment? If it doesn't violate policy, as you say, why exactly is it being removed? Equazcion 06:00, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Burden met below. Equazcion 06:14, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

The income inequality information is not "off limits", there are just "limits" to how the information pertains to the subject in an encyclopedic manner. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. While income inequaltiy relates to OWS it does not do so on it's own. Statistical data does not have relevence unless a secondary, published source makes it directly.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You're referring to weight, it seems, and income inequality is what OWS is all about. So it seems to pertain to the subject rather drastically. And, again, this rule that a source must mention a connection to the topic is made up. Articles contain sources that back up surrounding facts without making such connections all the time. If you're getting this requirement from some policy, which one is it? Equazcion 05:56, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

You can say "income inequality is what OWS is all about" but that is original research. You would need a secondary, published source making the claim to use it in the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you actually disagreeing that income inequality is fundamental to OWS? Or just requesting a source regardless? Equazcion 06:01, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this point could possibly be challenged, but here's a source: . Page 2 describes the economic gap. So, shall we restore the section? More: . Equazcion 06:28, 23 Apr 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)
2. Cite error: The named reference autogenerated1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. "Occupy Wall Street, Six Months Later". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 17 March 2012.
4. https://twitter.com/#!/OccupyWallStNYC/status/181030494371201026
5. BARR, MEGHAN. "6 Months Later, What Has Occupy Protest Achieved?". ABC news & Routers. Retrieved 17 March 2012.
6. FARNHAM, Alan. "Springtime for Occupy: Movement's Plans For Coming Weeks and Months". ABC News. Retrieved 17 March 2012.
7. Occupy Wall Street: It’s Not a Hippie Thing By Roger Lowenstein, Bloomberg Businessweek October 27, 2011

• 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
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment