Talk:Occupy Wall Street

Dates are in MDY format, with the year being 2011 if unspecified.

Request for comment

Should the fact that the American Nazi Party & the American Communist Party have endorsed the OWS be mentioned in the article? Here are some sources showing how widespread this has been reported. Town HallSunshine State NewsDrudgeThis one is amuseing, Occupy ResistenceCharleston Daily MailThe GazetteWAPOIB TimesFox NewsSF GateThe HoyaNewsmaxFuse TVFox againLife NewsWashington TimesMedia Matters for AmericaMichigan MessengerNew York PostDelaware County Daily TimesBoston HeraldLA TimesJacksonville CourierA Belgian paperTehran timesIsrael today MagazineFox NationThe BlazeDaily CallerIrish centralAugusta ChronicleFlorida Time Union

Should the fact that antisemitism has also been widely reported be reflected in the article.513 hit on G news The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Nazism discussion

• No, not until the Nazi Party supports OWS with money or man hours, and the fact is widely reported. A simple endorsement without concrete support is an empty endorsement. It is WP:Undue weight to list empty endorsements. Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No, the sources above are widespread, but I wish you'd point out the best ones per WP:RS. Even those I looked up thinking they were the best like the Boston Herald turned out to be crap [1]. Is there anything good in that list? B^e——C_ritical 01:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I had the same experience - I picked three I thought must be the "best" and they were total crap. Then I quit looking... Gandydancer (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes - The Nazi Party and Communist Party are fringe - but the coverage of their support is not. This is widely spread, and there is no reason to keep it off. Toa Nidhiki05 02:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No: The ANP has done nothing else except issue a non-committal, meaningless and purely self-serving statement of "support". Support means a lot more than lip-service, especially when the lips are serving no one but themselves. Such statements are therefore not notable, and should not be mentioned at all. It serves no legitimate encyclopedic purpose. We don't mention Hitler in the article on vegetarianism, do we? Same rule applies here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No. This is little more than a smear campaign run by sections of the media. Wikipedia should have no part in it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I see that TLAM is still citing 'Media Matters' on this, in spite of the headline in the linked article: "The Latest Desperate Smear Of Occupy Wall Street Protests: The Nazis Like Them". Ridiculous... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Not yet It may yet become evident that those in the movement share those views, but simply being supported by them would be a guilt by association. Also, I fail to see this as a "smear campaign" as ATG would say since the media has by and large not reported on any of the transgressions committed by OWS participants. Arzel (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No - Seems like an obvious case of guilt by association. Hundreds of "groups/parties" have mentioned support for OWS. Why just mention these two? NickCT (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes - Mention these two because it is widely covered and they are fairly significant. It's also covered that the Black Panthers support the group so we should add that in there too as controversy because that's what it is. AndyGrump is nothing more than an apologetic propagandist come on here to do damage control for his OWS buddies.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No, because it's not true, apparently. I think it's just a false meme. Looking at the sources, I'm skipping the one likes Drudge and the Tehran paper and a lot of the rest of them because they're obviously not reliable sources... looking for entities with some kind of reputation, I come to the Boston Herald. It's an opinion columnist, and he says that OWS is endorsed by a list of entities including the American Nazi Party and the government of the People's Republic of China... this seems unlikely to be true, so I can't trust this source... next, the reputable LA Times... but its a gossip column (the "Ministry of Gossip")... it says "Meanwhile, the American Nazi Party on Sunday issued a statement of support for the Occupy Wall Street crowd" and they have a link. But the link is here, which has says nothing of the sort, is not any kind of official statement, and doesn't mention Occupy Wall Street or come close... so this appears to be false. (There doesn't seem to be anything about Occupy Wall Street on the American Nazi Party website, that I could find.) Moving on, we have to drop a little in reliability, let's look at the Jacksonville Courier... it is not a news story but something called "Open Line", which may be an opinion column but is not signed and, inferring from its name, is just a place where readers can post stuff... whatever it is, it appears to be a stream-of-consciousness post by a stoned or deranged person... it says ""The Wall Street Mob has gained some interesting supporters. Among them, The American Nazi Party..." with no support for that. I have zero confidence that the writer is reliable or even sober. How many more of these do I have to look at? And these are the best ones. My patience is exhausted with this subject and with the the editor initiating the RfC, who appears to be a troll. (FWIW, even if it was true it's trivial, of course.) Herostratus (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

[2] The ANP report was archived, so yes they have endorsed OWS. You appear to have missed a great many of the reliable sources which were posted, such as Fox, Politico, Washington post. Perhaps you ought look again at the sources presented? The point is this is widely reported on, millions of people will have read about it and then look here and see not a word, this damages wiki`s credibility. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, fine, but still. Who is the American Nazi Party and what is their organizational structure? Does that page constitute an actual endorsement by vote of any central committee, or is it basically some blogger who has discovered the wonders of the CAPS LOCK key? How many members do they have? What is there notability in the public discourse? If their name was "American Committee for Public Knowledge" instead of the inflammatory word "Nazi" how notable would this be? The fact is that I could convene a meeting of myself and my cats, call ourselves the Trotskyist Front, create a blog and endorse OWS, and if this was picked up by Drudge and Fox News and the Tehran papers, so what? This is maybe one step above "OWS was endorsed by Mrs. Pinckney Pruddle of 27 Hummingbird Lane, Sandusky, Ohio". It's not a notable event, at all. Herostratus (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Your fallacious argument of a meeting with your cats doesn't do a very good job at hiding the fact that you are clearly biased, nor does the equally fallacious comparison with a fictitious other statement. Whether or not *you* think a party is relevant is irrelevant. The fact that it was so widely reported makes it relevant, which is what people have been correctly arguing here.

• No per NickCT. Why not start a List of individuals and organizations that have endorsed Occupy Wall Street? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No The first source provided is an editorial in Townhall.com. Townhall.com is, according to its Wikipedia article, "a web-based publication primarily dedicated to conservative United States politics". I suggest that The Last Angry Man gain familiarity with two important Wikipedia policies, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. Opinions expressed in fringe publications satisfy neither. Do you read this publication, or did you find it while Google-searching for a source that supports your POV? TFD (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Townhall has a full editorial staff and meets the criteria as [[W{:RS]] The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• No because it's just guilt by association. Nothing could be more opposite from how these protests really are, than by linking them to Nazism. 완젬스 (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No ANP is not relevant, their support is not relevant. Connecting them and their alleged support to the OWS is WP:SYN and even throwing the ANP, nevermind Nazism in the article is WP:UNDUE.--Львівське (говорити) 08:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes Support is reported in WP:RS. WP is not censored. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• yes widely reported as fact. supports OWS with money or man hours, that is a benefactor/volunteer, not endorsement. Boston Herald turned out to be crap, http://mediamatters.org/blog/201110180001 Oct 18, Todd Gregory. non-committal, meaningless and purely self-serving statement, none of which are requirements for notability. a smear campaign run by sections of the media. Few members of the ANP can actually read, no chance in hell they are members of the press. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No It's a poorly-sourced fringe issue attempting to link the movement to the Nazi party. I don't see this sort of accusation in the hundreds of articles that have been written on the protests in the mainstream media. Gandydancer (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC) poorly sourced? The American Nazi Party chairman, said, "My heart is right there with these people. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No Absolutely not. Not only are the groups fringe, but there are no reliable sources reporting any connection whatsoever. Beyond the reporting that this is a right-wing attempt to connect the groups to the group this article is about, there is no sourcing at all. Seeing as there is definite sourcing about the attempt to connect these groups to these protesters, perhaps we should look at the attempts to enter the information in the same manner. The editor/s who are making these attempts all seem to have the same goals. Dave Dial (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No We don't serve as the mouthpiece for the American Nazi Party. Hipocrite (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No Obvious fringe problem but inclusion is also a weight problem: there is not any indication why this is a significant item that merits inclusion. The import of information should be obvious to our readers, but at the very least we should be able to explain its inclusion to our readers. Saying "Nazis support OWS" leads to the question, "So what?" and there is no good answer. The opinions of Nazis hold no value in any society. wp:GHITS and politically-motivated Op-Eds aren't persuasive. This is the same guilt by association nonsense that Americans saw in the 2008 election with Hamas endorses Obama; Al Qaeda endorses McCain. --David Shankbone 23:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No Lots of groups are trying to co-opt this movement, but it is a de-centralized, non-hierarchical movement. That gives it a low Drag coefficient that, miraculously, attracts many groups whose own agendas are floundering. For example, why is there widespread union support for OWS? The Union leadership announces their support. So that must mean everyone who belongs to such-and-such union needs to fall in line. Right? But then read the fine print. Because the bottom line is the "Union bosses" realized they were losing their own Rank and file to the movement (ie., their people were showing up at the occupy locations). Let's just say it was "expedient" for the unions to show support for the Occupy movements. But Unions are part of the OWS mix. They aren't dictating anything to OWS. OWS is not part of the Unions. Unions need OWS alot more than OWS needs them. (I would guess that the Nazi movement needs help with their own "rank and file", not to mention a HUGE credibility gap. Again, NO. If you need more examples of groups or individuals claiming support, I can name many more. How about Elizabeth Warren taking credit for providing the philosophical underpinnings and ballast for OWS? That's interesting Ms. Warren: if that's the case, then Warren is an anarchist in her roots, and is only (oh by-the-way) incidently running for public office. Could go on and on with examples of many groups and factions wanting a slice of the "OCCU" - pie. Christian Roess (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No Based on what I've read, there doesn't seem to be any actual tangible connection between the ANP and the OWS movement (not even a diminutive one). AzureCitizen (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• No unless we specifically mention all other groups as well that have voiced support. The list mentioned above, if it's started, could be a place for this information. --Dailycare (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• No (My unelaborated !vote) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes There's a discussion of the response to OWS from several other political bodies (the White House, Congress, 2012 political candidates) as well as the reaction from the public, celebrities, unions, Venezuela, etc. Of course a list of people and groups who support OWS is pointless and uninformative, but if and only if 1.credible sources are used and 2.those sources talk about the response more specifically than saying "the American Nazi Party supports the OWS movement" then just because you don't like the group doesn't mean their reaction is less deserving of mention than that of the Vatican. At a glance it doesn't look like many of the sources above are non-pov but that isn't fatal (to including the ANP's response, not to using the sources!). Re: the fringe problem, I have to agree with Toa Nidhiki05 that while the groups themselves are Fringe their response may well be poignant. And, frankly, if the only unifying feature of participants is membership in the 99% then why should the ANP be excluded? --68.149.110.63 (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• No Does not seem to be notable enough. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes There is no reason not to mention position of ANP. But, of course, this mention should not be ambiguity or impression that the Nazis supported this movement through their actions or money. --Luch4 (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Anti-semitism discussion

• Yes - Widely covered, notable. Anti-sementism is an element of the views of many OWS campers, and as they have no real leadership or manifesto, it warrants coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 02:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No - again, it seems to be a smear campaign. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No:There is no evidence that anti-semitism is shared by a significant proportion of OWS participants outside of a tiny minority. The fact that the movement has a few kooks in it is not surprising, nor is it notable enough to warrant mention here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes - Widely noted with many examples. No sense in hiding it under the rug. There is no requirement that it be shown to reach some magic number of people to be incorporated. Such faulty logic would dictate that nothing bad ever be reported because one could simply say that none those that do bad things don't represent the movement. If it was one or two incidents then probably not. It is clearly far more than that. Arzel (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes - ...with requisites. The article on the Tea Party solved the issue of reporting on alleged racism by not trying to account for how widespread racism was, or by simply stating the Tea Party movement was racist. Rather, it focused on the discourse of some accusing it of racism while others defended it, and it focuses on a few major events. Similarly, this article need not state that the Occupy protest movement has an antisemitism problem, but rather has been accused of it, and it could include references to supposed events and counter arguments. This should likely fall not under goals, or philosophy, but rather as a sub-section on reception. --Cast (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No - I scanned the list of articles that came up in the nominators link. The two serious sources that appear (i.e. the New York Times & Washington Post Article) refute the anti-semitic charge or point out that it's marginal. If we do want to add a sentence about anti-semitism it would have to be so heavily qualified that it probably wouldn't be worth mentioning. NickCT (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Commentary and the Wall Street Journal also had pieces (they may be opinion but they claimed facts). I think we should have a section to the effect that, "Many notable conservative figures have claimed that the OWS movement is anti-Semitic, particularly because of criticisms of Israel, but others, including the Anti-Defamation League, have investigated and concluded that this is not true." Why do you object to a statement like that? --Nbauman (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• No, per NickCT. Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• 'No. The nominator's link produces nothing of value. Doing my own search, I find (in reliable sources as opposed to polemic blogs etc.) only the same stuff that NickCT finds, to the effect of "some bloggers have claimed anti-semitism, but it appears to not be true". Not notable. Herostratus (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No per NickCT. I would just point out that the Washington Post link is an op-ed column, not a news article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  re the op-ed column - Duly noted. Apologies for not stating it as such. NickCT (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• No The first source provided is an editorial in Townhall.com. Townhall.com is, according to its Wikipedia article, "a web-based publication primarily dedicated to conservative United States politics". I suggest that The Last Angry Man gain familiarity with two important Wikipedia policies, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. Opinions expressed in fringe publications satisfy neither. Do you read this publication, or did you find it while Google-searching for a source that supports your POV? TFD (talk) 06:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• No But I think maybe 1 sentence, with a response as user Cast has proposed, but not a whole entire section, which I'm against. 완젬스 (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• yes, if the tea party can have a "racial issues" section, so can ows. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  There's no way an entire section will ever get consensus over here, like over at the tea party article, so 1-2 sentences, take it or leave it. If you're trying to divert attention away from the issue by comparing it to the tea party, you'll be hard pressed to convince anyone. 완젬스 (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  See WP:CONSENSUS to brush up on what it says, because that's what is common (and applied) to both articles. 완젬스 (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• No - seems WP:UNDUE to me to use individual comments and turn it into a standalone section. Unless this becomes a relevant part or chunk of the protests, then no. Unless it gains traction in the media in some form, then no. Until then, all of this can be summarized into a single sentence - a section is too much weight.--Львівське (говорити) 08:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes The incidents are being reported in WP:RS. Ironically racism by Tea Party members is only alleged. OWS members actually went on anti-semitic rants on TV! I saw it! – Lionel ^(talk) 09:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  There are plenty of references for Tea party members shouting racial epithets (see [3] for example). The question isn't whether one or two guys within a much larger movement are racist/anti-semetic. The question is whether racism/antisemitism is a pervasive theme within a movement, or whether it represents a viewpoint pushed by a significant portion of a movement's members. NickCT (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  The question is not if ows is racist, rather the several reports of the ANP endorsement the movement is notable. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  What's the difference? It's still guilt by association, and will attract edit warring & make the article unstable. Can't anyone else see that? 완젬스 (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  Typical wikipedia mob rule, published racism undue here, not undue at tea party. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  If you're not in the majority, then just wait your turn. You're trying to change an OWS article during the height of OWS popularity. If you bring up a proposal (an entire section!!!) on antisemitism knowing it will fail, is just disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point which everyone knows nothing good will come from it. It just creates division between editors when the article still has plenty of peaceful improvements we could instead discuss otherwise. If you know an entire section will never gain consensus, then propose something more popular so that the "mob" will agree with it. When you're on the side of the minority, the burden is on you to work with the majority (unless you're like Dualus who bypasses consensus) because without consensus, even the most noble & well-intentioned edits will never stand, and you know that. The tea party is de facto racist whereas only 2 reliable sources have barely said anything usable about OWS being antisemitic (because as user NickCT said) the statement would have to be so heavily qualified, that it wouldn't be worth mentioning. 완젬스 (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  re "rather the several reports of the ANP endorsement the movement is notable" - I think you should be posting your comments in the section above, but as I said above, OWS has reportedly gained the support of the latino community,former leaders of ACORN,labor unions,Kayne West,the mayor of Richmond, California, Jay-Z, vetrinarians, Canadians, etc etc. Should I go on? Get the point? You want to mention all of these groups? If not, why are you so focused on the ANP? NickCT (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  Jayz, vets and acorn, you left out Communist Party USA, The American Nazi Party, Revolutionary Communist Party, Black Panthers, Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan, CAIR, Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, Hugo Chavez, Revolutionary Guards of Iran, The Govt of North Korea, Communist Party of China, Hezbollah, a regular who's who of obscurity. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  Ok.... But you're missing the point. You said we should mention ANP b/c their support has been noted in RSs. I pointed out that an endless slew of folk's support has been noted in RS, and that it's not piratical to mention them all. Again, why are you so focused on highlighting support from particular groups? NickCT (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• No Absolutely not. There are no reliable sources reporting any connection of this accusation whatsoever. Beyond the reporting of anonymous people who have shown up at some protests, there is no sourcing at all. Dave Dial (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources which mention it, your saying there is not is pointless. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• No Again, Wikipedia is not the mouthpiece for the far-right Wurlitzer. Hipocrite (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Nor is it a mouthpiece for the leftwing nutjobs of the OWS, wiki reports on what reliable sources have written. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• NO - This is more desperation from the Far Right. It's a story generated just like the recent ACORN connection given by an anonymous source to Fox News in the last few days. Christian Roess (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes Seems to have generated a great deal of controversy and has been covered in a great many reliable sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• No, per NickCT and Dave Dial. --Dailycare (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, I think it deserves a small paragraph which names the major players in the smear campaign and has a thorough refutation. Smear campaigns are a notable part of politics. "This right-wing attempt to discredit both the Occupy Wall Street movement and the Democratic Party’s hesitant embrace of it is reprehensible."[4] I also saw an organization of Jews condemning the smear campaign.[5][6]. So yeah, it's notable and thoroughly refuted as a smear campaign of the Right. B^e——C_ritical 20:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes - I don't understand this discussion. The issue is not whether there is credible evidence that OWS is anti-Semitic, but whether WP:RS have said it was. I take the position that there is no significant anti-Semitism. We should give the (false) charges, and then the rebuttals. Then readers can decide for themselves, and I'm sure the weight of evidence will overwhelmingly convince them of my position. The alternative is to ignore the issue completely, and people looking on WP for information on the charges will get nothing, rather than WP:NPOV explanation of the charges and the rebuttal. Commentary and the Wall Street Journal editorial page are WP:RS, whether you or I like them or not, and even though they're frequently wrong. Other people have made this point above, and I don't see any responses to it. Can anyone explain why they don't agree with my position? --Nbauman (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Note to admin who closes

Please take into account the lack of actual policy based reasons for excluding this content. Several editors have said there are no reliable sources regarding the antisemitic remarks being made. This is patently false, it was deemed a serious enough matter by the Anti Defamation League[7] to release a statement on the matter. Some say no as they believe it is a smear campaign, this is not a policy that i am aware of, nor have any sources made this claim that I know of. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the antisemitism discussion? Or the Nazism discussion? (or both?) 완젬스 (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The antisemitism discussion, I will create a subsection for the ANP discussion as basically the same arguments have been put forth there as here. The Last Angry Man (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to bring to your attention: Adbusters "Accusations of antisemitism". I think this makes any antisemitism remarks at OWS extremely relevant. Especially in light of the opening paragraph of the Origins section: "In mid-2011, the Canadian-based Adbusters Foundation, best known for its advertisement-free anti-consumerist magazine Adbusters..." 74.101.47.220 (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Null edit to prevent archiving The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Note I found sufficient RS for covering this in a small paragraph. B^e——C_ritical 21:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ali Khamenei discussion

Ayatollah Khamenei on Occupy Wall Street: "It will bring down the capitalist system and the West". Should it be in the article? --Luch4 (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Not all or nothing: presenting a 3rd option

So do the yes's and no's agree to compromise and just have a single, well-written sentence, as myself and others have said can be summarized? If so, then let us work on that sentence here, so we have something to look at from those who voted "yes" and we'll see their proposal below. 완젬스 (talk) 08:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

At one time we did have a short discussion with a good ref, but it's long gone. This situation is similar to the incident when a "protester" took a dump on a police car...or so it was said. I believe that we need to remember that there are thousands of homeless in NYC, and most of them live in the very same area that the protest is being held. Not to paint all the homeless with the same brush, but many of them are addicts and/or have serious mental problems. These people have been doing such things in NYC long before the movement established their occupation of the park, but it did not make national news. Same thing for racists - there's nothing new about blaming the Jews for our financial problems - and I can imagine that the protest would draw this sort of racist to the occupy site like bees to honey. Rather than report that the protesters are Nazi, Jew-hating, Commie, dirty hippies, etc., I believe that the information could be covered in an unbiased manner. If we had a reference... Gandydancer (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed 100%, and the onus is on people who want to include it. Quick question though--are you saying the "good ref" is long gone? Or the discussion is still in archives or had been deleted? I think a single sentence, in context (with how rare that antisemitism is) can be added, as long as it is put into the proper perspective. There's no way an entire section on antisemitism will ever see the light of day here, and I think the nazism has even less of a chance than antisemitism. 완젬스 (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find it. For all I know my memory could be wrong. I know we both agree that the task of any editing at all in this article was such a hellish experience till Dualus was banned that it was hard to keep up with what the hell was going on. Gandydancer (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if these are the refs from the inclusion I remember, but these two turned up from the past article. [8] and [9]. Gandydancer (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source, Media Matters, that explains the issue, "The Latest Desperate Smear Of Occupy Wall Street Protests: The Nazis Like Them]". We could use that story for the article. TFD (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Good finds, Gandy, I'll check it out it. Thanks for link thefourdeuce but not quite controversial enough! ;-) 완젬스 (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Media Matters is not a reliable source. It is like asking the arsonist who started the fire. Arzel (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I would go that far, lol. They're a private non-profit, so they can allow their editors/bloggers more unrestricted and "no strings" journalism & blogs. It's a good site, has lots of recaps & summaries of what the other sides are saying. Each video is like a miniature documentary--highly recommended and very informative for any Wikipedia editor who works on poli-sci articles. 완젬스 (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

MMfA has come up many times at RSN and is rs. You are confusing the neutrality of a source with its reliability. Certainly it is true that right-wing blogs are playing up the Nazi Party story. TFD (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are multiple reliable sources for the Communist Party Support: http://www.cpusa.org/communist-party-heralds-occupy-wall-street-movement/ http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/17/red-white-and-angry%E2%80%A8-communist-nazi-parties-endorse-occupy-protests/

Sources for Nazi Party support: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201110180001 http://www.americannaziparty.com/news/archives.php?report_date=2011-10-16 http://whitehonor.com/white-power/the-occupy-wall-street-movement/ http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/blog/american-nazi-party-urges-members-join-occupy-protests

I also have reliable sources for many more so called "fringe" groups like the Black Panthers, CAIR, and the Socialist Party USA who express support for the OWS movement.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If you have them, let's see them. 완젬스 (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

These groups may all support OWS, however with a U.S. population of 312,577,000 and most of these groups having less than a couple of thousand members, how can it be justified to add whatever they may believe to the article? I don't think the Black Panthers have any - aren't they defunct? How many are in the American Nazi Party - I'll bet it's not many. Gandydancer (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

American Communist Party - 2,000 Gandydancer (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want the sources, 완젬스, then here they are.

Socialist Party USA: http://www.socialistparty-usa.org/occupywallstreet.html; http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/10/21/18694303.php; http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/17/thedc-morning-commies-and-nazis-sure-do-like-occupy-wall-street/

CAIR: http://www.washingtonpost.com/the-council-on-ameri/2011/10/21/gIQAgawr4L_photo.html; http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=298c6f637e745b40f9bc04560&id=00ff1bf3e7

Hezbollah: http://almoqawama.org/?a=content.id&id=25969; http://almoqawama.org/?a=content.id&id=25867

Black Panthers: http://www.occupyoakland.org/ai1ec_event/black-panthers-david-hilliard-melvin-dixon-and-eseibio-halliday/; http://www.insidebayarea.com/top-stories/ci_19150533

I am not going to make a giant list of all of them because their are too many. But I have sources for many more.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Not necessary -- There are little to no reliable sources that even mention these groups, and the ones that do are either biased and not reliable sources for this article, or mention the attempted connection by right-wing blogs. etc.. If, in the future, these attempts do not subside, the only addition should be about the smear attempts. Dave Dial (talk) 14:51, November 9, 2011 (UTC)

I disagree,anonymous, ever single one of those sources are reliable and none of them are "right-wing". And if we are going to nullify sources because they are bias, then Huffington post, New York Times,and all these other extremely liberal media outlets should be nullified as well. And don't these Occupiers claim to be "grassroots" and have "no political leaning" (even though their funders and leaders and speakers are all democrats)? Since they claim that, isn't it irrelevant what political leanings sources have? Your argument is invalid and the fact that these groups support OWS is absolutely notable. This is no smear attempt, I was asked to give sources for these groups by another editor, and it is undeniable fact that they do support the OWS movement. Also, according to Gallop Polling, the OWS is a Fringe group, so there is no need to smear it, it is already smeared.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• A single well-written sentence that makes it clear that both of these are being pushed by the far-right American press would be acceptable. Hipocrite (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• What's in the article right now seems to at least have equally contradicting opinion. Can we live with it and the very short mention in lead or do we need changes?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

What you have added is perfect, the mention of the antisemitic remarks with the rebuttal is NPOV and balanced the way an article ought to be written. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed 100%, and I have to say as the most vocal critic of including ANY momentum-halting criticism of OWS, I must proudly say that Amadscientist (an editor I admire for being a great Wikipedian) has written the content in such a way as to make both sides happy. Somebody give this man a barn star! (I've given him one already too recently) 완젬스 (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Null edit to prevent archiving The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that the protest is against economic inequality, both quotes from Peter Schiff are highly notable.

NPOV requires that both sides of the debate be included. Peter Schiff is one of the few Wall St people who has been willing to defend his wealth. Both of these quotes are highly notable, and should be included:

Businessman and CEO Peter Schiff said to a protestor, "I employ 150 people, how many do you employ?"Peter Schiff Schools 'Occupy': 'I Employ 150 People, How Many Do You Employ?' Fox News, October 26, 2011 Schiff also wrote an opinion column where he stated, "I own a brokerage firm, but I didn't receive any bailout money... Yes, I am the 1% - but I've earned every penny. Instead of trying to take my wealth away, I hope they learn from my example."In Defense of the 1%, by Peter Schiff, safehaven.com, October 28, 2011]

I don't think there's been any better criticism of the protestors than this. To not include it deprives readers of the entire picture.

Given that Schiff is a target of the protest (because he's in the richest 1%), both of his quotes are highly notable.

Gb8pGFyohbcg (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please remember, Wikipedia is not a soapbox (WP:SOAP) or a place to post editorial content. This article is about a movement, not individual personalities. You are more than welcome to edit this page but please use reliable sources, rather than FOX "News". 173.133.187.239 (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Moi

Here's an additional reliable secondary source for "I employ 150 people..."--Nowa (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Gb8pGFyohbcg (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Fox News is a reliable source, IP 173. FYI. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

True, but the Washington Post is considered to be less controversial than Fox News. Gb8pGFyohbcg (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Anybody care to discuss what was the rationale for removing this quote? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I say we should put this under the criticism section, especially since there is an "expansion needed" tag. It is reliable and notable, let's put it in.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from whoever removed it, or anyone who can speak to the rationale for removing it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It seem like a legit item. B^e——C_ritical 22:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it belongs and deserves to be in the article. His comment seems like a reasonable representation of the 1% and it's not too harsh, not too bland, but just right. 완젬스 (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone for your comments! Gb8pGFyohbcg (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV does not require that both sides of the debate be included. Balance in the article should not give undue weight to a smaller fringe opinion when an opposing opinion has more weight and coverage. The policy is to balance equal arguments...NOT BALANCE ALL ARGUMENT!--Amadscientist (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Contentious claims, unsupported by sources, about Zucotti park raid

A user keeps adding the following text:

The November 16 edition of The Rachel Maddow Show showed footage of police seeming to make a deliberate effort to damage items found in Zuccotti Park with knives and sawzalls before they were removed. Most computers retrieved were found smashed..

I previously removed both individual sentences, pointing out that neither is supported by the sources they cite.

The first claim is simply not made anywhere in the incredibly low-quality source (a blog named "SuperMomWannaBe"), which mentions a quote by Rachel Maddow talking about cops using sawzalls but says nothing about cops "seeming to make a deliberate effort to damage items", which seems to be POV-pushing OR.

The second claim is also not made in the cited source, which simply mentions that there were smashed computers but certainly doesn't say that cops smashed "most" of the computers. Furthermore, it should be noted that this is just a Wordpress posting by the "People's Library Working Group", cross-posted on Daily Kos, and so as I said before, if any claim actually made by this post is included in the article, it should be attributed textually. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm the editor who placed that in the article. And I stand by my reporting, of the report by The Rachel Maddow Show. What the complaining editor failed to note is the link to the show segment within the source mentioned. Go to 6:50 in the video and you will see the same material I am referencing. Now that I have found the posted official transcript (you have to show more text) here's the exact quote of what I was referencing. "New York City police officers dressed in riot gear, handed out a written notice to the protesters telling them where their personal articles from the encampment could be retrieved, which sounds lovely until you saw what they were doing to the protesters` personal belongings. There were reports that police use knives to cut up the sturdy military-grade tents that were the best hope of surviving winter down there. You can see police here cutting down the protesters` tent poles with hand-held saws, with sawsalls." You want to play with the phrase "seeming to make a deliberate effort to damage items" we all know "deliberate" is a difficult concept to prove, but that certainly is the impression left by the reporting and the video. There is no love and care being given to these people's belongings, quite the opposite is clearly occurring. No its not an exact quote, an exact quote would be a copyvio and the source wasn't available at the time I posted that. And if you don't like the source on the smashed computers, the same kind of content is mentioned here, here, here and commented on here. I'll go ahead and repost that content with the better sources. And to the complainer, Cenrify, your multiple personalities on this same talk page certainly carry the look of you trying to be deceptive and skirting the intent of WP:Sock. Choose a name and post consistently with that look. Trackinfo (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

None of what you said justifies the text having been in there in the first place. Taking a source that points out cops took the camp apart with sawzalls is not even remotely the same neighborhood as "police made a deliberate attempt to damage items", which is very POV-pushy and, as you admit, not supported by the source. Also not sure what to make of your accusations about using multiple names or "skirting the intent of WP:SOCK". I post under one name and clearly indicate the name I used to post under, which I haven't used for some time now. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The material you're adding misrepresents the sources it cites. Plz stop. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have now placed the entire exact quote so there is no possible misrepresentation. Trackinfo (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to the direct quote. Thank you. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Douglas Schoen article

I've pulled the following:

On Oct. 10 and 11, the polling firm Penn, Schoen & Berland interviewed nearly 200 protesters. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, 98% would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and 31% would support violence to advance their agenda. Most are employed; 15% are unemployed. Most had supported Obama; now they are evenly divided. 65% say government has a responsibility to guarantee access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement. They support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, and are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary.

The problem here is that Douglas Schoen's (currently employed as a Fox News political analyst) opinion piece (here) is controversial and has been accused of misrepresenting the data that the firm he is a part of pulled from his sample (200 protestors). For example, the following articles are highly critical of the piece:

• Benen, Steve. "Douglas Schoen isn't helping his reputation" at Washingtonmonthly.com

• Legum, Judd. "Doug Schoen Grossly Misrepresents His Own Poll Result to Smear Occupy Wall Street" at thinkprogress.org.

This poll should definitely be included, but not by way of Schoen's anti-Occupy Wall Street piece. It requires a neutral source. If Schoen's opinion piece is included somewhere, so to need be the responses. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll just say that Washington Monthly and ThinkProgress are not exactly neutral. Kelly ^hi! 21:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting they be used as a source for the poll, of course. I'm just illustrating criticism of the poll. More:

• Maloy, Simon. ""Polling" And Concern-Trolling Occupy Wall Street" at mediamatters.org

• Weigel, David. "Doug Schoen, the Official Anti-Spokesman of Occupy Wall Street" at slate.com

If anyone has suggestions for a neutral source handling the poll and its criticisms, we need to use that. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing about WP policy suggests that we must exclude this poll or the Schoen WSJ analysis from this article, and mainstream press isn't transformed into fringe material just because some bloggers criticize it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I flatly state that the poll most be included, albeit not by way of Schoen's opinion piece. But how are you somehow missing that these are all political commentators, including Schoen (whose article is in WSJ's opinion section), and not just "some bloggers"? Not your best attempt at a spin, but I must say that I find your consistent love for the outdent tag to be endearing. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You can "flatly state" whatever you like; WP policy does not require that we exclude Schoen's analysis. And yes, it's pretty obvious that the people making political commentary are all political commentators; if you want to make a notability claim, I'll take a single WSJ piece by an expert in the field over four random bloggers, who don't seem to have any particular credentials of note, any day—especially when some of these pieces that allegedly deserve equal (or greater) weight turn out to contain no actual substance (e.g. one of those four columns says nothing on the subject except "Schoen wrote a dishonest column full of claims that couldn't be backed up by his own research. Hey, what's a campaign ad if not bogus claims not backed up by research?"). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, when I "flatly state" something, I do so in the hopes that others will pick up on it, including yourself. The one article you're referring to sets out to illustrate how these "poll findings" are being used as fodder for campaign ads. For those keeping track, here's also a piece highly critical of both Schoen's declared as status as a Democrat and his methods from the Huffingtonpost:

• "Douglas Schoen, Fox News Contributor And Democratic Pollster, Fundraising For GOP Candidate" at huffingtonpost.com.

Again, what I'm illustrating here is that Schoen's interpretation of said findings in his Wall Street Journal opinion piece has met with criticism of his methodology. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Fabulous. As an experienced WP editor, you should know that doesn't mean it must be excluded from the article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, upon inspection, it's clear that the HuffPo piece says zero about his methods. It merely says he's a partisan that's helped republicans and sharply questions whether he has genuine Dem street cred. Please be more careful when you are telling other editors what sources say. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You might want to inspect a little closer; the "methods" I'm referring to include his presenting a particular brand of criticism (i.e. Fox News typical) alongside his declared status as "Democrat". This, as I've illustrated, he has been repeatedly criticized for; i.e. according to these various references, it's tactical and misleading. In fact, the Huffington Post article above references the following article in its first paragraph:

• Hananoki, Eric. "Fox News "Democrat" Schoen to do fundraiser ... for a Republican" at mediamatters.org

But yes, indeed, experienced editor that I am, I therefore state—again—that if Schoen's opinion piece goes anywhere, it need go in the criticism section, as it is criticism, and the fact that Schoen's interpretation has met with criticism needs to be included as well. The poll itself, meanwhile, needs to be in the demographics section from a neutral source. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not understanding the objection - are you (or your sources) claiming that the poll is fabricated due to ideological bias by Schoen? Are the blogs that are objecting to the results neutral? The "Fox News contributor" thing seems irrelevant, especially given the ideological nature of the blogs you've listed as sources. Kelly ^hi! 22:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the issue isn't the poll itself. It needs to be included like any other poll. The issue is a follow up opinion piece by Schoen being used as a source for it, which has been criticized as being misleading from the various sources above. Schoen himself is a subject of some controversy, as seen above. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were referring to "methods" of Schoen's, particularly his methods of analysis, that have something, anything, to do with the quality of the analysis, rather than rhetorical methods used by partisan talk shows he appears on.

Also, not that I disagree with putting Schoen into the criticism section, but have you noticed that both criticism and praise are liberally scattered throughout the article? If we were to carefully segregate all criticism and praise into their own discrete sections, the article would look very different. Presently, it seems that individual items of criticism or praise appear in the topical section that is most relevant to the criticism or praise. Doesn't seem a huge problem to me. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean the partisan talk show that employs him? He's a Fox News political analyist. Anyway, his opinion piece is just that; there's nothing technical about it, and basically just reads as an anti-OWS rant, full of hyperbolic statements expressing his personal opinions. It's typical fare. What isn't typical is it being used as factual material in the demographics section here. Like I've said, and another user in an earlier thread stated when this came up, it needs be wrangled into the "criticism" section as that's quite plainly what it is, regardless of where whatever else may be. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Your claims are not borne out by reality. "Rant full of hyperbolic statements expressing his personal opinions"? Where do you get that? It is quite clearly expressing his professional opinion as a public opinion analyst—one that seems to be held in relatively high regard by reliable sources, and one that is explicitly stated to be based on professionally conducted research. Nothing in it whatsoever sounds like a rant. It is written in a disinterested tone. And it was never presented as factual material; it was ONLY ever presented with a clear attribution to the author. I sincerely doubt anyone is going to be confused into thinking it's objective fact just because it doesn't appear in a section explicitly labeled "criticism". It was never presented as anything more than it is—his informed professional opinion on a subject on which he appears to unquestionably be an established expert. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but "Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people" doesn't sound like flat, personal opinion to you? Now that's rich. And the guy is in no way shape or form objective—he's a Fox News employee—so I would appreciate if you'd drop that byline; it's just ridiculous. And, yes, it was presented as statistically factual; the criticisms above illustrate exactly why that's a problem—the poll itself doesn't match up with said claims. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's obviously his professional opinion, based on professional research, on a subject on which he is an expert, and is presented as exactly that. There is no magic "this guy works for Fox news so we ignore his worthless opinion" button you can press on WP in order to automatically exclude a well-sourced, relevant, and very notable opinion.

(And no, the opinion piece was never presented as anything other than the thought of Douglas Schoen. If there is relevant and notable criticism, of course that is fair game for inclusion, but not as a basis for excluding the Schoen analysis). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Nay, Factchecker, there is no such button, but there is a requirement for neutrality, and the ideology here is thick and deep and must be taken into consideration before being presented as fact; opinion piece goes into opinion (including at the Wall Street Journal) and criticism ought to go in criticism here. It is unclear how Schoen's two other partners interpreted the data as, for example; this is Schoen's personal interpretation and commentary, published on a sister website to that of his employer, Fox News. All of which is entirely relevant, as the several criticism pieces above point out. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality is a requirement for WP articles, not individual claims made by individual sources. If we required the latter rather than the former, a vast swath of WP articles would be permanently stuck in Stub status due to inability to add any content to them. We need not present ideology or opinion as fact, and the Schoen analysis you removed did not do so. Finally, any and all analysis or criticism of Schoen's analysis must, like any other analysis or criticism, be published in a reliable source if it is to be reflected in a WP article, and should only be given the weight it has been given in the mainstream press—in other words, a piece in the WSJ will generally be given more weight than multiple blog posts even if the blog posts call the guy a filthy liar.

So, since you seem to have vowed to remove this material so long as there is no "balancing" commentary, let's hear your proposed article text reflecting the "other side"? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't state opinion pieces as fact here. There's no compromise about that here. If there's subjectivity from Schoen, which there clearly is, it's solely in the realm of his opinion. I don't need to lecture you on that. Attempts to weasel around the criticism won't be considered, either. As for the criticism, it would read something like "According to Fox News analyst Douglas Schoen ...." and then "Some political commentators have been critical of Schoen's analysis ..." with attention to what critic said what. Standard procedure. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This entry did have a criticism in our article for quite awhile - seems someone deleted it. Would the Washington Monthly article be a good one to offer an opposing viewpoint to the op-ed? Gandydancer (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed a claim he misrepresented his results, and an accompanying analysis of the results, neither of which were in the sources cited. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It's on the lower end of what we should use as sources, but not unacceptable. The way it's used here, it's just stating some rather obvious stats about their beliefs, not to push a point the way it's used in Doug Schoen's opinion piece. The piece by Steve Benen, lead blogger of The Washington Monthly seems of equal merit. If they disagree over the facts, perhapse we would be wise not to use either. We might consider going straight to the numbers. B^e——C_ritical 00:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for just linking straight to the PDF and I agree with you. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Bloodofox, would you please stop attacking Doug Schoen. He is a living person and subject to WP:BLP everywhere within WP. As much as it may dismay you, Fox is a reliable source, and TP huffing and puffing about his connection to FNC does not make him suddenly not a reliable source, anymore than it makes the far left Think Progress a reliable source. His opinion is just as valuable and/or notable as the many on the left (like KO) that you and your brood are using to puff up this article. Arzel (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

All the sources you've mentioned here are "reliable" according to Wikipedia standards, whether anyone here likes it or not. I suggest you write a letter to the sources critical of Schoen if you feel they're picking on him. As for my "brood"; care to elaborate on what that may be, exactly? :bloodofox: (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Fox news can be used for some things, but is a questionable source. B^e——C_ritical 03:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)If Think Progress is considered a reliable source than the standards for WP have fallen off the cliff. Your brood, is you, BCritical and your fellow Think Progress and MMfA reliable souce believers. About all they are reliable for is their opinion, much like Newsbusters on the right, and those that use them as a primary source always are editing from a biased point of view. Those that say FNC is a questionable source have no backing in reality or published journalistic studies as well. Arzel (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

FNC = Fox News Network? It's questionable on Wikipedia. Do not call your fellow editors a "brood." Thinkprogress is not an RS for most things, and probably should not be used here. The Atlantic, however, is an RS B^e——C_ritical 06:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I won't be around much over the next few days, but don't forget to think about what counter-commentary, if any, you wish to "balance" the Schoen opinion piece. And, it's probably best to avoid unreliable sources (such as ThinkProgress, which demonstrates its unreliability by manufacturing fake claims that Schoen never made and then refuting those in an attempt to argue that he "grossly misrepresented" his results; funny that they had to misrepresent Schoen's claims in order to say what they wanted to say). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone stating that Fox News is not a reliable source for Wikipedia had better be able to back that up with consensus. Huffington Post IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE on Wikipedia and this has been shown to be the general consensus of the community as a whole. Stop playing games on sources you don't like. Fox is as reliable as MSNBC or CNN. Just because half the stuff they post is biased in your perception proves nothing. And this comes from a liberal with little respect for the network...but that is not how Wikipedia determines a source as relaible.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said in the other thread (below) where you also made such a bold claim against HuffPost as RS, that's not an accurate summary of WP:RSN discussion on HuffPost's reliability. Opinions of WP editors vary widely, as they do with Fox News. So we judge news pieces by their own merit. Only a month ago you yourself said "The Huffington Post can be used as a reference with caution." [10] -A98 98.92.183.93 (talk) 07:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, it should be clear that claims that Fox is "not reliable on WP" are clearly false. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Fox is at least just as ideological and questionable as the Huffington Post, as are any Murdoch outlets. That should be obvious enough. Now, I see that you've just attempted to add back the poll information sourced through Schoen's opinion piece just as it was despite this discussion (presuming I wasn't watching?), but we need a solid, neutral source for this poll material free of Schoen's ideological filter. Where Schoen's opinion piece is employed, it needs to be clearly labeled as exactly that. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Both sources are partisan, but Fox is a major, long-standing international news organization. HuffPo is a blog that turned into a mega-blog hosting numerous other bloggers. Apples, oranges. And I didn't do anything "presuming you weren't watching", but thanks for continuing to ABF. I waited for days for you to say anything that would indicate a sound policy rationale for excluding this. You didn't. I also invited you to suggest sources and article text to achieve whatever "balance" you wanted. You didn't. I'm not going to argue with you about explicitly labeling the piece an opinion piece, but the article text would be ridiculous if we did that in the case of every POV opinion piece in this article. I assume you don't object, however, to also labeling the responses to Schoen as opinion pieces, as well.

Finally, I really would immensely appreciate it if you would stop making personal attacks in your edit summaries and here on the talk page. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, those "days" were a major holiday there, and if you wanted some questions answered you could have asked here.

Regardless, "Factchecker", I'll give you credit for one thing here; you can be funny, whether you intend to or not. Complaining about "personal attacks" for me referring to you as "ideological" (which, flatly, you are—and that's no attack, but a fact), and then stating "You don't seem to grasp WP policy very well" despite you being well aware of my long history on Wikipedia and large amount of authored GA articles. But what's funnier is your apparent lack of grasp of it, as pointed out by BeCritical (which is exactly what I'd have pointed out). The double standard reminds me of you referring to me flatly as a "dick" and an "asshole", and then going to a arbitration board when I accuse you of editing from a purely ideological standpoint. Well!

And, of course, Fox is hardly 'any other news organization'; it is a highly partisan major news organization, it just happens to be the best known of Murdoch's many media outlets, all of which have a similar political bend. That's the neutral fact of the matter. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Poll data?

Okay, so using the poll itself as a neutral source for it in the article, exactly what data to we include? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

We should include the part that Schoen includes along with his opinion on it. It was sourced to the article with his opinion and his opinion should be placed in the article as well as the poll. He is a notable expert and we can attribute it as his opinion, keeping NPOV. Regardless of whether you think his employment at Fox News is relevant or whether you think Fox News is a reliable source or not, there is no consensus saying it isn't. You have given no actual grounds for which to filter or exclude any of this material or his opinion.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

See any of the numerous criticisms above and comments about Fox News/News Corp all over this talk page. No one in their right mind would claim Schoen is neutral; Schoen's ideological spin is clear, and Wikipedia is not a platform for it. A user above suggested we go straight to the PDF to maintain neutrality, which I agree with. The question now is what to include from the results. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to grasp WP policy very well. No one said Schoen is neutral -- nor is anyone quoted in this article really neutral on the subject of OWS. WP does not require that sources be neutral. By the way, be careful to avoid OR while deciding for yourself what material from primary sources should be included. You won't be able to say much without committing OR. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, right on, we don't have to have neutral sources, we have to have reliable sources which we report neutrally. It's not OR, but could easily be SYNTH, if we use it to make a point. I think it would be pretty easy to hit the high points of that data. B^e——C_ritical 20:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If I understand right, we have to take account of the double answers:

15.Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is performing his job as
President?
44% Approve
9% strongly approve
35% somewhat approve
51% Disapprove
24% somewhat disapprove
27% strongly disapprove
5%Not sure

B^e——C_ritical 21:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, BeCritical, and your comment regarding reliability and neutrality is exactly what I would have responded with. As for questions, I guess we should just flatly hit the major ones. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Length

I know I'm somewhat of an "intruder", but this article is way too long, goes against recommended Wikipedia policy, and needs its size to be decreased. Thanks, Magister Scienta^talk 05:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

So how would we divide it up? Which divisions would you recommend? B^e——C_ritical 06:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Music videos, parodies, graywater recycling of dish soap, the section where it didn't get much coverage during the first 5 days, goals and international response (send this section to occupy movement), chronology (this section I will work on this weekend), and I think the question should be re-framed: What do we really want to keep? 완젬스 (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I would go with the tried and true method of moving some of the larger sections to their own article (e.g. Background of Occupy Wall Street, Reaction to Occupy Wall Street) and then having the summary of that article on the OWS page. This was done with the History of ancient Egypt article for example. Cheers, and thanks for the speedy response. Magister Scienta^talk 15:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

완젬스 makes an excellent point. My own thought is, rather than move key info such as the background section to a separate article, better to move the fluff and trivia... if necessary. A reader coming here should at least get the basic information about this movement, its goals/aims/etc., as well as public opinion, and events on the ground that have actually occurred. Much of the meat of this movement lies in what people have said about it, as well as protesters' interactions with police, such as the pepper-spray incident, people getting mass-arrested while taking a particular stand at a particular time, etc. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree that we need to keep the basics here. But I see no reason to tag an article unless there's some contention about things, and there's not here. B^e——C_ritical 20:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No reason to insists on multiple issues, there is contention about one thing here, the length, which is way too long. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

What standards should be used to fairly - per consensus - shorten the article? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

For starters, I think the reaction section can be given its own article. Let me just clarify, this does not mean I think it shouldn't be covered, but that its description in this article is overly-deatiled and is non-essential. I think most people would agree that celebrity reactions to OWS are not core parts of the article. Again, this is just one place out of many more that something is going to have to be done about. Cheers, Magister Scienta^talk 22:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree on the reaction section, but not on "many more." B^e——C_ritical 22:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we agree to shrink the Reaction and Media section of the article? By the way, I apologize if I came off a little strongly in one of my previous responses, no hard feelings. Magister Scienta^talk 22:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the various reactions should be spun off, but media reaction is part of that, per the way I resorted the headings. The media section is small. Actually, I don't see any good natural way to split off the article. It should be kept together till someone can figure out how to do it. The only really natural break is the Chronology section which already has been, and perhaps needs to be just cut down here. Perhaps also the political response parts. B^e——C_ritical 01:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You know far more about this article than I do, I'll leaving any of the potential splitting up to your discretion. Cheers, Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 02:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please hang around MS - it is good to get a new editor to give some perspective. I've been here from the start almost and I know I may want to hang on to some things...for instance we've got the first speakers: Barr, Klein, West, and..."the Slovenian guy" (sp?), and then Hedges as the first one mentioned after the park was closed. On the other hand, I may have grown so close to some sections that I've lost perspective. So, it is always good to have a new editor to work with. What is your impression when you read this or that musician preformed at the park? Gandydancer (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, new people are good (: B^e——C_ritical 03:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Let me just start by complimenting you and Gandydancer on the wonderful work you both have done to this article. To be more specific here are the parts of the article that I think ought to be moved elsewhere (most likely to their own article or to part of a newly formed one): 2012 Presidential candidates reactions to OWS, Celebrity reactions, and Parodies. Additionally, I would make Background of Occupy Wall Street its own article. Cheers, Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 05:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. This article has been VERY difficult for several reasons. Firstly, we have had several very difficult editors (the worst one is now banned) and secondly, with no spokesperson for OWS, it has not been easy to find copy to use. And then (IMO) the New York Post kept printing fringe crap like "OWS Protester Gives Birth To Alien Monster Baby!!! Undisclosed sources say the baby clearly had little horns!!!...blah, blah, blah". But back to the article. I find myself in agreement with BeCritical in that the background is very important to the article - I would not want to see any of it removed. As for Presidential candidates, I'd be happy to see that cut to a couple of sentences. Parodies? I can't even remember what we've got, so obviously it has not made too much of an impression on me! As for Celebs, other than Barr, who IMO really distinguished herself as the first one to speak, I wouldn't feel bad to see them all go, though hopefully to a separate article. Keep Authors and academics. I know that many good editors feel a strong rush to redo the Timeline section - I do not. But certainly, I will bow to editor consensus, which seems to be do it ASAP. Gandydancer (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

ADD: In responce to 완젬스|완젬스: Music videos, (AGREE) parodies, (AGREE) graywater recycling of dish soap, (AGREE) the section where it didn't get much coverage during the first 5 days, (DO NOT AGREE) goals and international response (send this section to occupy movement) (...perhaps AGREE - though some other editors have suggested sending other stuff to that article and it is or will soon be quite large itself) Gandydancer (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Location

The protest in the US is beyond just New York. There are occupy protests across the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.171.229 (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

What would you like changed? Magister Scienta^talk 22:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street doesn't share a lick of common ground with Occupy Oakland because Occupy Wall Street is merely a Socialistic protest advocating for Socialism with nothing but bizarre demonstrations; the Occupy Oakland is an Anarchic movement while the rest of the country is merely protesting against their state government.

CentristFiasco (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupy movement in the United States

Should probably be merged or something... I tried to say it here but got voted down. Anyway, if you have time to give the situation attention. B^e——C_ritical 20:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Economic basis of the United States Occupy Movement

I suggest that this could be a well-sourced article to replace the We are the 99% article, and indeed that the arguments about sourcing of the 99% section above would be immediately settled with this slightly broader view. In addition, change the section to "Economic basis" in this article. B^e——C_ritical 23:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Project Renew: The Article for the Occupy Movement

Okay,

I've been looking through this article and other articles in relation to this movement; I'm disappointed on the content and the writing prose that is introduced in all of the articles on this topic. The information given and how it is sourced is unbelievably, badly structured and very imitating on the mere fact that not everybody is a "king of HTML". We need to think about this for a moment and outline in this thread what this movement is really about. I suggest that all of you rule out any partisan views of any kind and rule out any partisan news organizations like; MSNBC, FOX, CNN, ABC, CURRENT, RT AMERICA, and others. We shall all be critical on what this movement is about and how to write an established encyclopedia article on the matter. Wikipedia has absurd standards which invalidates its credibility amongst academics and historical encyclopedias such as; Britannica. Let's first outline for the new article:

1. Occupy Wall Street is Set in New York City, New York.
2. Occupy Wall Street was Marketed on AdBusters.com, a Anti-Establishment Website.
3. Occupy Wall Street Violated Laws in Regards to their Occupation of Parks in which are Private Property.
4. Occupy Wall Street is an Anarchic Movement; It Lacks No Central Leadership. Celebrities or Public Figures who support them aren't considered to be their leaders by any means. Michael Moore is part of the "1%" and merely profiteering off the movement. The Democrats are part of the "1%" and are looking for an edge to gain seats in the 2012 Election. This movement doesn't have a lick of demands, they explicitly stated that they don't want demands. This protest is a mere "troll" protest without any real, plausible demands and advocates anti-Capitalistic messages, anti-Semantic messages and lastly radical Socialist-Communist views are presented throughout the protests and their supporters. This is backed by taking a look at their own website, their forums, their chat room and on the ground.
5. Occupy Movement Globally /=/ Occupy Wall Street. Occupy Movement Globally, particularly in Europe are protesting against Socialism in their country, Occupy Wall Street/America is protesting for Socialism... Totally different protests, here.

CentristFiasco (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to rule out reliable sources. Your list of "facts," for an outline are disputed - points 2, 3, and 4 are merely one view - there are alternative views that are expressed in the text. Hipocrite (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

While Wikipedia does state that partisan sources should be handles with caution you list sources that are not considered partisan. Look...I don't care what everyone's perception's are. Back it up or expect criticism.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

CF, much of what you write above flies in the face of WP:Original research and WP:Reliable sources. I welcome you to contribute to Wikipedia, but you won't enjoy the experience until you learn our polices, guidelines and the culture behind what we do what we do, which is typically evidenced by an established history. That's not necessary, but when you come here for one issue and tell us Ur doin it wrong you aren't likely to be persuasive. Many of us have been at this encyclopedia for half a decade or more, and there are reasons why we operate the way we do. I encourage you to stick around and learn them - we'd love that! --David Shankbone 08:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverted a POV edit

I have reverted this edit. It violates WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT - specifically, it states as fact that "This protest is merely against government establishment in which mostly all protesters identify with radical leftist political views on the lines of, Social Democracy and Communism but there are few who identify with anarchism which reflects the numerous messages in regards to signs and chants presented throughout. It is still questionable whether the protesters are demonstrating for a justifiable purpose or have concise, sound, and plausible demand that they wish to implement to get them to stop protesting..." In addition to being a word salad, this is merely on point of view, and should not be stated as fact. Further, the revised lede does not reflect the body of the article. Hipocrite (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

How does it violate it? Do your research, a matter of fact read through the article on here, this is a good summary. CentristFiasco (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not an undisputed fact that "This protest is merely against government establishment," that "mostly all protesters identify with radical leftist political views," that "It is still questionable whether the protesters are demonstrating for a justifiable purpose." That's just the tip of the iceberg. Make a concrete proposal for change and we can discuss it. Hipocrite (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Academically, if you've researched from all angles of the political spectrum and on their site, plus the ground then you'll know this is indeed a radical leftist protest. The Tea Party protests were a radical right protest, this is verified by observance and mere knowledge on political ideologies. CentristFiasco (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please provide sources backing up all of your disputed claims. Review Tea Party protests, noting that at no point are they described as "radical right." Mere knowledge is not acceptable for wikipedia - we need sources to verify your claims. Hipocrite (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Mere knowledge on the political spectrum as in knowledge of ideologies in terms of views, systems of government, and such. I've given concrete terminology in the info box describing the cause for this protest what it seems to be the advocates. What can't you not understand? This is the protests that advocates such systems. CentristFiasco (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please provide sources that back up your assertions. Hipocrite (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

For the introduction when throughout this long article it gives proof? No. I've provided articles under the terminology for the reader to read more about the view... What about your read more about Social Democracy or Socialism can come back to me. CentristFiasco (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please point out where in the article it states that adbusters is "Anti-Establishment," that the protest is "merely against government establishment," that "mostly all protesters identify with radical leftist political views on the lines of, Social Democracy and Communism," that "It is still questionable whether the protesters are demonstrating for a justifiable purpose or have concise, sound, and plausible demand that they wish to implement to get them to stop protesting," and that "CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC NEWS, and others that these protests are unquestionably weak in substance." Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It's in the "origin"... "advertisement-free anti-consumerist magazine".... Really? Do you not know that this is the "word salad" that you assume my writing is... Come on' bro, don't be stupid. Anti Consumerist is Anti Capitalist = Advocate of Socialism or Communism. CentristFiasco (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You are engaging in WP:OR. Anti-consumerist is not anti-capitalist. Anti-capitalist is not Socialisim or Communism. Adbusters is not "mostly all protesters." Please adress 'all of my points - not just one. Hipocrite (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You're misreading my post... I said, Adbusters is an Anti Establishment website in which promotes anti-commercialism as what the article with a source entails. The protesters who were inspired by a advertisement on this site are anti-establishment too judging by their messages, "demands" and overall nature of the protest itself. This whole protest is advocating Socialism or Communism, bro. CentristFiasco (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

CentristFiasco, edit warring is not the way to gain consensus for your edits. B^e——C_ritical 00:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Who judged them "anti-establishment?" Please provide a source that did that. Thanks. Please provide the source that determined that "This whole protest is advocating Socialism or Communism." Finally, you may call me Hipocrite, Hip, or H. You may prepend that with "Mr," at your option. I am not your "bro." Hipocrite (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

CF please stop your disruptive editing. Discuss changes in the lede before you decide on your own what should and should not be there. Thank you. BeCritical, thanks for fixing my mess... Gandydancer (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not about anybody judging anybody but it's your terminology that leads to links... Anti-Commercialism is linked to Socialism/Communism, read it up on it. CentristFiasco (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a source that links the protestors to Anti-Commercialism to Socialism/Communism. I contend that you are wrong - misinformed. Hipocrite (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a introduction, bro. You have be as broad as possible in an introduction, what's the point of having a long ass article with details in specifics and a long ass introduction with too many sources? The introduction is a "overall" or "overview" and shouldn't require sources but it should be balanced in the view. This is what I delivered. CentristFiasco (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have asked you not to call me bro. I contend that your introduction does not reflect the article - I've asked you numerous times to point to where in the article the false statements in your introduction are located. You have declined to provide them. You have violated our bedrock policies - WP:OR and WP:NPOV. You have broken our bright-line rule on edit warring - WP:3rr. I think we're done here. Hipocrite (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

@CF: Your disruptive changes WP:DE are unacceptable under WP policies. They consitute soapboxing WP:SOAP based on original research {{WP:OR]] and synthesis WP:SYNTH not supported by reliable sources WP:RS and against consensus WP:CONSENSUS. Furthermore, you are editwarring {{WP:EW]]. Stop now and read the policies. Then propose any changes you would like to make on the talk page first and get consensus. Your changes must conform to WP policies and be supported by reliable sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This article has some serious problems with OR, Synthesis, POV and POV pushing, unreliable sourcing and undue weight to absolute crap. Anyone may edit this article in a bold way without permission from others here. Period. Any attempt to make other editors bow to this fabricated policy are NOT going to be accepted. Anyone may edit this article with or without posting on the talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not true, especially in an article which has been semi-protected because of Tendentious editing. -A98. 98.92.183.44 (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Per Hipocrite, CentristFiasco's arguments in this discussion thread are tragically misguided and showing a very pronounced POV. CF's arguments are problematic beyond question. --David Shankbone 08:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

@ Amadscientist To suggest that my behavior is NOT acceptable is absurd. When an a new editor goes around making edits with summaries such as "learn to read you idiot", "...you fool", or "trying to hide the truth, huh?" and makes an edit to change the lede to read, This protest is merely against government establishment in which mostly all protesters identify with radical leftist political views on the lines of, Social Democracy and Communism but there are few who identify with anarchism which reflects the numerous messages in regards to signs and chants presented throughout. It is still questionable whether the protesters are demonstrating for a justifiable purpose or have concise, sound, and plausible demand that they wish to implement to get them to stop protesting; it has been reported on numerous mainstream media outlets such as; CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC NEWS, and others that these protests are unquestionably weak in substance, is certainly good enough reason to ask this editor to quit editing without talk page discussion first. Gandydancer (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

While an editor might make a bold edit on a contentious article, if that edit is contested the editor's next step is to take it to talk. If an editor is consistently adding content that is controversial definitely yes, that editor would be wise to start with a talk page discussion. As the banner above indicates, the process of editing on a contentious articles is not the same as on other articles. If an editor is consistently editing against consensus, then either the majority of editors are wrong and the editor should ask for outside help or the editor with the contested edits is out of line and possibly disruptive so again outside eyes may be needed. The easiest procedure is to talk about it before posting it which should make editing easier for everybody. (olive (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC))

The New York Review of Books resource

Zuccotti Park: What Future? December 8, 2011 The New York Review of Books Michael Greenberg November 10, 2011, page 12 & 14 in print ... Footnotes:

• 1) See Kate Taylor, "Wall Street Protest Is Hurting Area's Families, Bloomberg Says," The New York Times, November 2, 2011. ↩
• 2) On November 9, a group of protesters embarked on a two week march from Zuccotti Park to Washington, with plans to hold rallies along the way. According to their website, the protesters planned to arrive in Washington by November 23, the deadline for the so-called Congressional Supercommittee to issue its recommendation for at least $1.5 trillion in additional cuts to be undertaken over a ten-year period. ... See United States Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction
• 3) Unions once represented a third of American workers. Now they represent 12 percent. See Joseph Stiglitz, "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%," Vanity Fair, May 2011
• 4) See Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen, and Jean-Paul Fitoussi, Mismeasuring Our Lives: Why GDP Doesn't Add Up (New Press, 2010).

97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105 99.181.134.134 (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Who is taking the bold move to close discussions?

Seriously, this has to stop. Just because you don't personally agree with something or you feel enough has been discussed, DO NOT TAKE IT UPON YOURSELF to close discussions after one day. That is not within Wiki guidelines and shows a POV being pushed. Just stop. If you can't handle the freedom of speech Wikimedia Foundation stands for...stop editing here.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, capping disruption is pretty common in my observation. B^e——C_ritical 00:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Well then, you are in the wrong place sir. I call that disruptive. It's just another dishonest way to get one's way and goes against the spirit and policy of Wikipedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with Amad, agree with Be. Those closed threads were started by a disruptive editor using the talk page as a forum and he was blocked. -A98 98.92.183.93 (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he was blocked or if you agree with me. This is about closing threads not about the blocked editor. Don't take it upon yourself to determine what is disruptive and what actions should be taken. If he was blocked and it was for the disruption on this page...I find that odd considering the disruption STILL occurring on this page by others and those threads are not closed. If we start that, what keeps others from closing threads they think are disruptive?--Amadscientist (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure it matters. And you can't seriously lecture others with a directive like "Don't take it upon yourself to determine what is disruptive" [11] right after you say "I call that disruptive" [12] .. or else you don't understand the concept of collaboration. At this point you're arguing about arguing, which is rarely (if ever) constructive. -A98 98.92.183.44 (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, he/she was only blocked for 48 hours and will likely return. Closing the perceived threads as disruptive does not accomplish anything. If they decide to return it simply becomes uncivil behavior that further aggravates the situation and pushes someone away as a Bite issue. He wasn't blocked for disruption. He was blocked for edit warring. Since this was not the issue he was blocked for it seems unusual to take that step.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have observed disruptive threads being closed as a rather routine matter, and, this being Wikipedia, if one editor can do it another can also. If you disagree that the content was disruptive, then re-open the threads and continue the debate. But don't think this is not pretty standard practice at Wikipedia. B^e——C_ritical 19:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing and the bias of editors and authors

All editors have bias, as do all authors of articles. But to determine what is an acceptable source takes more than claiming, "That's not RS". You must show how the community has determined this. Huffington Post is NOT a reliable source per the consensus of the general community yet it is used here against the consensus of editors many, many times. Now I see others saying that major news organizations such as Fox News are not acceptable at Wikipedia? Really? Back it up or it's just a fabricated claim. Sorry, but you can't use one source against consensus and then fabricate something against a major news organization just because you don't like them.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's an accurate summary of WP:RSN discussion on HuffPost's reliability. Opinions of WP editors vary widely, as they do with Fox News. So we judge news pieces by their own merit instead of your general thumb down or up. And I notice only a month ago you yourself said "The Huffington Post can be used as a reference with caution." [13] -A98 98.92.183.93 (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I never use Huffington Post as a source, unless it is a source for a person's own words. If Henry Kissinger wrote a piece for HuffPo about OWS, I might find it notable and might source it as an extraordinary historical figure's words about the movement. But beyond that, HuffPo is no more a reliable source for facts than NewsBusters or DailyKos. So much has been writen about OWS, that if the only source for a particular piece of information is HuffPo without corroboration from other sources, then that information is better left out. --David Shankbone 08:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Why anyone would not use good reporting from Huffpo? I think there is a silly bias of at play, and Arianna had a little fun with a NY Times interviewer who shared it. (emphasis added for the hell of it)

NYTI think that hiring a slew of traditional journalists seems counter to the model that made buying you appealing to AOL.

AH We already had 148 journalists on payroll at The Huffington Post. I don’t know how you can say that.

NYT I look at your writers much less than I find myself clicking on stuff that’s been aggregated or the more salacious, boob-related posts.

AH That’s really a shame. I think you’re missing out. Jason Linkins is doing some of the best media writing. Amanda Terkel’s coverage of Afghanistan has been ahead of the curve. Shahien Nasiripour has been breaking news constantly on Wall Street reform. Maybe you should be reading more of that and clicking less on the boobs.

Yes IP editor, I did say that as that is what the consensus is. Further more, that consensus stated that IF Huffington post is used, it is NOT used as fact but opinion and attribution to the author is required. I don't see that here. What I see is the liberal bias of Huffington Post being used for the biased opinion as fact.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The same can be said for using Fox News' biased opinion. -A98 98.92.183.44 (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(Oh, "IP editor" was me - my goof) Why do you say it? Reporting is reporting, and good reporting is undeniably on the Huffpo, as the ignored quote makes clear. If the alleged consensus is so, how can it be defended and why would anyone allow it to stand?The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked at that link the IP editor left to RS sourcing. It is not any of the discussions that took place about Huffington Post. And where are the discussions referring to Fox News as not being reliable?--Amadscientist (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Then you didn't really look. [14]. And you can search for Fox News discussions in WP:RSN archives yourself, there are plenty. -A98 98.92.183.44 (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The link I left as "IP editor" works, but just in case, it can be cut and pasted using this http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/magazine/mag-03talk-t.html. Por nada. It is definitely a discussion about the Huffpo, but if it didn't get used in a previous discussion here, so what? Is there a defense, besides one of tradition or authority, for not using the fine reporting of the Huffpo such as Arianna so clearly established as undeniable? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Fox news [15] is to be used with extreme caution, [16], and opinions on the Huff Post are similarly divided. They should be used, if at all, with extreme caution. B^e——C_ritical 19:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that both Fox News and Huffington Post fall into the same category as questionable sources that, if used at all, should only be used with more reliable sources that corroborate their information. The format for both sources is too polemical; they are best not used in my opinion. --David Shankbone 01:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What is not "polemical" about most, if not all, good reporting? Woodward and Bernstein, Sy Hersh and Izzy Stone were all polemical reporters. I've looked at a few Wiki policy pages and not one admonished against polemical reporting. If it did, we could not use Matt Taibbi's reporting on Goldman Sachs, though it has held up as incredibly reliable. I sense a straw man objection. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

We have good evidence that Fox, at least, spreads falsehood. HP is considered to have less editorial oversight than many. B^e——C_ritical 05:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The above notice board discussion did not actually reach a consensus. It comes close to one in regards to climate change but I call all of that "No consensus".--Amadscientist (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Now, Be, if you brought "good evidence" don't you think you might share it with your classmates? Just askin'. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Anon, how many times do I have to post something before it's posted? Please read the discussions before commenting as if you know what's been said. It's disruptive, because when you say something so blatantly out of sync with reality, people think you know what you're talking about. As Hitler put it "in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods." Please don't think I am accusing you of a lie, merely not reading my posts. B^e——C_ritical 03:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes exactly, the discussion was "no consensus it's reliable," so I think we need to use it with caution if at all. Both of them, Fox And HP. B^e——C_ritical 07:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL! No, there is consensus that Huffington post is a biased partisan publication and therefore cannot be used to reference facts. This community consensus was made over a course of several notice board discussions that came to a consensus. The Fox discussion is one and was no consensus made on anything. No consensus means that no community decision was made.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Fox News is not reliable; in addition to the concerns and discussions that BeCritical cited, they have repeated too many known falsehoods, including two "Lies of the Year" from the Pulitzer Prize winning Politifact. We should not use them. I'll also add that its parent company, News Corporation, is not reputable and is under investigation by the U.S. government for foreign corrupt practices, as well as involved in a far-reaching corruption investigation by the British Parliament. --David Shankbone 23:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Fox news is used several times in the article. Perhaps it should be removed. B^e——C_ritical 23:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The only way I can see the use of Fox or HuffPo is 1) for opinion; or 2) that a second reliable source corroborates what Fox News reported. That invariably leads to the question of why use the Fox source, but I think removing sources can be disruptive. Moving forward we should refrain from using either of these. --David Shankbone 23:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. B^e——C_ritical 00:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I can agree to that.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This is crazy talk. There is simply no comparison between FNC and Huffpo, and frankly it is a little disturbing and insulting to even have this discussion here. BeCritical, David, if you want to go down the RS path I suggest you do it in the correct arena. BeCritical, you should find it highly ironic that the Opinion survey you cited earlier would based on current information show FNC viewers to be far more correctly informed than there counterpoints on the cost of the Obama Health Care legislation and the effect of the Recovery Act. Just because FNC does not toe the Liberal line does not make it unreliable. Arzel (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No, there's no comparison. They're individually unreliable sources. If you want to take it up again on the RS noticeboard, I suggest you do that... please post a link here. I'll post the evidence above, you post your evidence or arguments, and we'll see what other editors think. B^e——C_ritical 01:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Fox News is unreliable, even to many conservatives, not because it doesn't "toe the Liberal line" but because it practices irresponsible journalism. There are plenty of examples in the FNC article and a daughter artilcle, Fox News Channel controversies (and in archived discussions). Activist-minded editors like User:Arzel have managed to keep out much of the valid criticism there but that shouldn't be allowed to carry over here. -A98 98.92.189.168 (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Show me a single news organization that is perfect. I find it HILLARIOUS that the OWS activists here are calling me an activist because FNC reports on some of the dirt associated with OWS while the rest of the liberal media largly ignores the dirt while jumping on any transgression that was ever done by any single person that said they were a tea partier. Forgive me if I laugh away the extreme hypocrasy represented by editors here. Arzel (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you're frustrated with MSM coverage of the Tea Party, but this is no place to take it out. -A98 98.92.185.15 (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have read some of the stupid "FNC is not a reliable source" sections in the past. The one above is specific to AGW, for which the AGW crowd here on WP don't view anything as reliable unless published in an academic journal, (but that is a discussion for a another time). Fact is FNC is a reliable source, and you are simply wrong. QED. Arzel (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss it. Take it to the RS/N so we can have outside opinions. Till then, the consensus is that FNC is unreliable. B^e——C_ritical 01:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't MSNBC, you can't just keep repeating a lie until it becomes true. FNC is reliable, and your opinion here means nothing. Arzel (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

And how many times have you repeated the lie that Fox is reliable.. 98.92.185.15 (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

We do not need to have a Wikipedia-wide ban on a source to declare the source problematic for use on a particular article. In addition to the concerns listed above, Fox's sister News Corp property the New York Post has had some of the most biased reporting about OWS (infamously calling the protesters "animals"). It can be disruptive to use some sources for a particular subject, and I have always found HuffPo problematic. If we are using information that can be classified as "only reported by Fox News" or "Only reported by Huffington Post", we shouldn't use it here, so they are just not needed. --David Shankbone 02:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

How is Fox news problematic or questionable? You can't just say "I think fox news is questionable and therefor it must be added as opinion". What about Fox News is questionable,is it simply the fact that they tend to be conservative and don't agree with your viewpoint? In my experience, fox is very professional and factual. But HuffPost HAS been reviewed, and it actually HAS gotten consensus in that it should be used with caution and always be attributed as an opinion to the editor it was written by. I agree with AmadScientist. We need to take a long look at anything attributed to HuffPost and make sure it is following guidelines set by Wikipedia and set by consensus. And Becritical, last time I checked, it was "innocent until proven guilty". There has been no "consensus" on Fox News's reliability, and having controversy alone does not make it unreliable. Your opinion that it is not reliable is not fact and as you said, this is not the place to discuss it making this entire section a farce. --174.49.47.34 (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Fox news being unreliable is not fact, it's science, per the above. B^e——C_ritical 21:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

How many times did you fail science class in school? Just asking because you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Arzel (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"Deaths" in the article, but there haven't been any

If indeed This article is about the protests in New York City. For the wider movement, see Occupy movement., and if there have been no reported deaths in OWS/NY, then why do we have this "Deaths" section here? I added the lead-in sentence saying there have been no reported deaths in NY connected to OWS, but it seems to me this section should not be here at all. Tvoz/talk 09:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

If there haven't been any deaths at OWS itself, then maybe the section should be taken out, but I have no knowledge of that section. B^e——C_ritical 19:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The section is gone now, as it should be. It was actually a subsection of "Incidents" along with a "Crime" subsection. There were deaths reported in New Orleans, Oakland, Vermont and Salt Lake City. -A98 98.92.189.102 (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Effect affect

Quote:

"Meals were served at a cost of about $1,000 a day and some visitors ate at nearby restaurants,[71] however local vendors fared badly,[72] and many businesses surrounding the park were adversely affected.[73] "

From my talk page:

Hi - I effected a change in the affected sentence in Occupy Wall Street.... the correct usage in the OWS article is "affected" - the businesses were adversely affected by the free meals being served - as a verb "effected" would mean to bring about or accomplish something - so you could say the chefs effected a change in how people were fed or something llike that - but in the article, the businsess surrounding the park were most certainly affected not effected. Google "affect vs effect" and you'll see many sources confirming what I'm saying. Cheers Tvoz/talk 08:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

They had an influence, but it wasn't a subjective emotional one, it was a causative one, an effect. I think I'll bring it up on the talk page and see what others think (; B^e——C_ritical 19:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone got some enlightenment for us? B^e——C_ritical 19:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The verb form of affect has two meanings. You refer to the first, "subjective emotional one" but the more common usage "denotes having an effect or influence <the weather affected everyone's mood>. The verb effect goes beyond mere influence; it refers to actual achievement of a final result <the new administration hopes to effect a peace settlement>. - merriam-webster.com/dictionary/effect. Strunk&White put it even more succinctly: "Effect: ..as verb, means to bring about, accomplish (not to be confused with affect, which means 'to influence')." - [17] Thus "affected" is correct in this case. However, both of the sources given (#72, Wall St Journal, and #73, New York Post) are editorially conservative so I think this claim needs balance in our article. -A98 98.92.183.44 (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Why does the mere fact that these are conservative opinions deem them with a need for immediate balance? Isn't it the information itself that should be the consideration. If there is a counter argument or theory that contradicts the information, then it deserves a weighted mention in proportion to it's notability. Just any information to balance a political side seems un-encyclopedic unless the argument itself is worthy of note.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC) itself.

OK, whoa - I was merely making a grammatical point, saying that "affected" is the correct word. As for balance of sources, the best thing always to do is to see if there are other reliable sources that make a different notable point, and if so, rework the text and add the other sources. There may or may not be any, and yes, do this only if the counter-argument is notable. This, of course, goes both ways - we should also not be adding right-wing or conservative points of view just to be able to claim balance. Sometimes there is only one way to look at a matter. Tvoz/talk 00:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

But back to the grammatical point - the food in the park had an effect on the surrounding businesses, but that translates to saying the businesses were affected - there was an impact on them, created - or effected -by others. That is what I meant by I effected a change in the affected article - I did something - verb - effected a change - upon something - the article - which was affected. The point is that the businesses didn;t do anything - they didn;t create a change on an effect - they were the receivers, they were affected. Tvoz/talk 01:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The two sources in question -- Wall St Journal and New York Post -- are both anti-OWS so they are inclined to report critical responses from local businesses. Thats why they need to be balanced. Other news outlets report mixed reception from local business, if they report it at all. "Business Owners Divided on Occupy Wall Street" - MSNBC. Some even report the opposite: for instance, businesses complaining more about the police barricades than about the protesters themselves. -A98 98.92.186.248 (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There may also be a question of WP:due weight.

• Ref [72] "Food Vendors Find Few Customers During Protest" - WSJ, reporter talked to five businesses. That article even begins by qualifying the perspective: "A tiny sliver of the 99% championed by the protesters say they have been directly hurt by Occupy Wall Street"
• Ref [73] [18] (page not found) - NYPost

-A98 98.92.186.248 (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by anti-OWS or how that relates to reliable sources unless you simply mean they are biased and partisan, but that does not beg for balance of the liberal side unless the information is as notable as the argument it is used to "Balance". In other words, the neutrality of the article isn't in there being all sides equally covered....but each given it's due weight. Some may argue what is or isn't due weight, but I don't think we need to define the sources to a point of adding balance in what could be seen as POV or synthesis of weight, by elevating a fringe idea just to balance an article. Just be cautious.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Since one of the two sources is either a decayed link or never existed in the first place, and the other one is from a conservative news outlet which has campaigned against OWS in its editorials and in its "regular" coverage, these claims need to be qualified and/or balanced or simply removed. Do you have corroborating sources? I think the term anti-OWS is clear enough. -A98 98.92.189.168 (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

May not be reliable [19] B^e——C_ritical 21:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

(od) Also see this effect/affect discussion (edit war) on Global warming and wine please. 99.35.12.139 (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal at the Criticism section

Note: this thread was archived then restored to active talk space for further discussion. -A98 98.92.186.126 (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility. As a widely distributed statement by one Tea Party group put it, demonstrators want "a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don't have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills." That framework shapes the "I am the 53 percent" backlash (53 representing the percentage of Americans who pay income tax, a figure that ignores other forms of taxes levied). One of the "53 percent" message-based images that went viral, in an appropriation of a clever Occupy Wall Street tactic, admonishes the protesters to "suck it up you whiners." In other words, earning your way is the American way![20] "The Chronicle, based in Washington, D.C., is the major news service in the United States academic world."[21]

"The conservative criticism of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that it is a "growing mob" (House majority leader Eric Cantor) of "shiftless protestors" (The Tea Party Express) engaged in "class warfare" (GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain) whose grievances - whatever they are - are far outside the political mainstream. The polls don't back that up. A new survey out from Time Magazine found that 54 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of the protests, while just 23 percent have a negative impression. An NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, meanwhile, found that 37 percent of respondents "tend to support" the movement, while only 18 percent "tend to oppose" it."[22]

But as they have, conservatives and Tea Party activists have rushed to discredit the comparison and the nascent movement. They have portrayed the Occupy protesters as messy, indolent, drug-addled and anti-Semitic, circulated a photo of one of them defecating on a police car, and generally intimated that Democrats who embrace them are on a headlong road to Chicago 1968. [23]

These seem to me to be just the kind of sources we should generally require for an article. Also, they are directly giving summaries of a particular position of a particular group, which is what we need for writing an encyclopedia, that is we need an overview. I recognize that people are not going to like what they say, but that's not a legitimate reason for removing the information. It might be a reason for finding similarly high-quality sources to expand the coverage or give more context. But not to remove it or engage in original research or synthesis (as with some of the other edits[24]). Having read the quotes from Rush Limbaugh and others, and noting the other quotations used in the sources, I do not have any impression that the removed text was inaccurate in any way relative to how conservatives have criticized and portrayed OWS. I would appreciate people's comments. B^e——C_ritical 21:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sigh! That's what was taken out long before my summary was taken out [25]. The problem here is that our RS summarize the criticisms, but the original criticisms were so inflammatory that even the summary of our RS's summary is inflammatory. B^e——C_ritical 04:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

I found another source [26] It's not helpful except in that it confirms my suspicion that the text I put in is probably an accurate reflection of what's out there. B^e——C_ritical 06:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Words used by the primary sources: "parade of human debris," "They will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you," "stupid," "Abject tools," "idiots," "great threat," "Doink rank amateaurs," "they think they're so tough," [27], "“jealous’ Americans who "play the victim card” and want to “take somebody else’s” Cadillac," "mobs," [28]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See section below

Summary question re criticism section

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

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

Here is the text in contention:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We could use direct quotes from primary sources, although that's not the kind of sourcing we're supposed to use in Wikipedia. But if you read above a little more closely, you'll see that the words that we would use from the primary sources would be no more intellectually stimulating. I'm sure you've seen the quotes. But here's a bit of Rush if you want it [29], and here is Cain. You seem to be contending that using the RS secondary sources is causing us to be less kind to the critics, but the quotes will tell you that the source's characterization is an accurate reflection of the reality. B^e——C_ritical 18:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've taken another look at the Chronicle source [30] and I notice that the line about 'ingrates' and 'fear of responsibility' is actually framed within a comparison to the Tea Party. But this context is lost in Becritical's summary criticism: Many conservatives see the OWS protesters as ingrates who fear responsibility and are envioust of the rich, saying that OWS protesters want big government to make it unnecessary for them to work . Worse, the second half of that summary refers to a Tea Party leaflet. And the next sentence is more criticism from the TP -- "shiftless, messy, drug-addled, anti-Semitic" -- Is this RS? I'm not convinced that petty insults from the TP belong in this article. And one more thing: as it stands now, the criticism section starts with conservative bloggers -- is this appropriate? At minimum it should be moved to the 2nd or 3rd paragraph. -A98 98.92.184.135 (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

I wasn't referring to the Chronicle source, I was referring to the WSJ source you provided recently[31]. After the "pigeonholed" remark read the beginning of the next paragraph. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The sources are not questionable. Your suggested sources -primary sources- are. If you think the summary was a misrepresentation, then help me write it better. But don't try to keep the info out of the article. The question we need to ask ourselves is, "How do reliable sources summarize the criticism of Occupy Wall Street, and how do we accurately summarize what the reliable sources say?" We are to summarize, we must not modify what the sources say. B^e——C_ritical 20:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

And here is yet another quote from an RS, which I found by accident:

The conservative reaction has been similar. A great many conservatives stress the conditions among the tents. They crow that Americans will never fall in line behind a bunch of scraggly hippies. They dismiss the movement as a fringe collection of left tendencies, along with assorted homeless, mental cases, and petty criminals. They argue that the Democrats made a huge mistake embracing Occupy Wall Street as an expression of economic and social frustration.

[32] a piece by Matthew Continetti, "a conservative journalist and associate editor at The Weekly Standard."

I'm posting the above because it is exactly the same kind of summary given by the other RS, and objected to by editors on this page. Please, allow these sources to be summarized. [33] [34]B^e——C_ritical 20:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

New version of text summarizing how RS have characterized criticism of OWS

Old text:

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

New text:

Many conservatives see the OWS protesters as ingrates who fear responsibility and are envious of the rich, saying that OWS protesters want big government to make it unnecessary for them to work. Conservatives and Tea Party activists say OWS is a shiftless, indolent, messy, anti-Semitic and drug-addled mob of unemployed left-wing zealots engaged in class warfare, and that the protester's grievances are far removed from the political mainstream.On October 5, 2011, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh told his listening audience: "When I was 10 years old I was more self-sufficient than this parade of human debris calling itself Occupy Wall Street." Glenn Beck said on his internet television network GBTV, "Capitalists, if you think that you can play footsies with these people, you are wrong. They will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you. They will do it. They’re not messing around." Newt Gingrich, front-runner in the Republican presidential primary race said "All the Occupy movements starts with the premise that we all owe them everything. Now, that is a pretty good symptom of how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country and why you need to reassert something as simple as saying to them, go get a job right after you take a bath." insert other quotes?

References

• [35]
• And many conservatives and Republicans have mocked the Occupy demonstrators, characterizing them as unemployed slobs or shills for unions, seeking to turn the nation into a giant people’s collective.

Comments

What a highly contrived piece of work. Lump together the complaints and then strike them down with a classic NPOV of "however" from a singular poll in time. We do not exist within a vacumn, and you should not try to frame a retort on a singular poll favorable to your point of view. The result is a rather nice example of WP:OR I must say. You should go get it published somewhere if you think it belongs. Arzel (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There is certainly no OR, but the text can be improved. That is the process here. I also found a few more RS, all saying the same things. The poll sentence is dispensable. B^e——C_ritical 01:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

So the section after However can be removed from your wording? It is that linkage which is the OR, specifically synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no synthesis of material. The source says "...are far outside the political mainstream. The polls don't back that up. A new survey out from Time Magazine found that 54 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of the protests, while just 23 percent have a negative impression. An NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, meanwhile, found that 37 percent of respondents "tend to support" the movement, while only 18 percent "tend to oppose" it." We could be more specific and say "However, polls do not back up the characterization of OWS as outside the mainstream, since 54% of Americans have a favorable impression of the protests, and 23% percent have a negative impression." This is why I like the constructive criticism, it forms better text in the end. B^e——C_ritical 01:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What does having a favorable or unfavorable opinion with OWS have to do with anything in the sentences preceeding it? Your logic suggests that the sentences prior to "However..." are negated because 54% of poll respondents on Oct 13 (well before the most recent stuff) have a favorable opinion. To top it off you don't even see the synthesis? Arzel (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like User:Arzel didn't even see or read the additional sources above. He's still harping one "one poll" and regurgitating tired complaints. The above is not synthesis. It is perfectly valid to balance criticism. He just doesn't like balance. -A98 98.92.186.126 (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this was a job well done. I see no significant problems and I think all the major criticisms were represented and articulated succinctly --David Shankbone 05:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, the word ingrates and the tone of the sentence is not in the Reliable sources. And OWS is far outside the political mainstream according to many other polls, contrary to bias, liberal Time Magazine's survey done relatively early on in the movement. Your summary is simply not accurate or NPOV and needs a lot of work before it gets put in. And I'm not surprised Shankbone over here likes it, he has been adding every bubbly picture he takes with his smiley little captions describing how majestic the OWS movement is. And if you want to add the Time poll, you should also add the many other polls that support the theory that the movement is outside mainstream politico, including the one done by Quinipiac that is in the Public Opinion section.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the word "ingrates" is in the sources, and the tone is a bit less strident in my summary than in the sources, I think anyway. Here is the source (one of the best) and also quoted above. The poll will have to be taken out of the final version as you say. If you are Arzel, stop making statements about the sources without reading them. Otherwise, please no offense. B^e——C_ritical 21:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There are several notable personages such as Rush and Gingrich who have made notable statements critisizing OWS, and the quotes should be included. B^e——C_ritical 23:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Gingrich, but I'd prefer someone of a higher caliber than Limbaugh, who is on the same level as Ann Coulter. The less polemicists we use (I realize Gingrich skates a fine line) and the more 'serious' critics (say George Will or Charles Krauthammer) the better. --David Shankbone 23:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that... okay, you tell me what we do about that, because these people are notable. They speak for a huge segment of the population. To speak from the other side, why would we ignore their criticisms? What kind of censorship is that? I'm not really opposed to leaving out quotes (not that Gingrich said anything much nicer), I just don't know how we should handle it. B^e——C_ritical 01:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I read an article by George Will and didn't find anything usable. Any suggestions? B^e——C_ritical 06:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

@becritical, We shouldn't ignore their criticism; we should add their quotes but not what some bias liberal website thinks about their quotes which is what you keep trying to do. Also, you can't put words in conservatives' mouths either. You keep trying to put the word ingrates in there, but no conservative actually said ingrates and it is defamatory to imply that they are so unprofessional. Add the quotes, that's fine, and if you can find sources that oppose the quotes, add those too. But we can't "summarize" a conservatives' viewpoint accurately when the information is coming from a liberal website. Add the quote, and just the quote, and don't add words like "ingrates" that aren't actually quoted from conservatives.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

As Factchecker_atyourservice said above, "You don't seem to grasp WP policy very well... WP does not require that sources be neutral." To which I responded "Hey, right on, we don't have to have neutral sources, we have to have reliable sources which we report neutrally." You need to do further research. Read the quotes, and you will see there is no question of professionalism. B^e——C_ritical 20:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)