Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Excessive list of locations in infobox

Would it not be better to just list the countries the protests are taking place in? I think at least all the US cities should be replaced simply by United States. It serves to nothing but to disrupt the article with an unreadable list of every single town there has been a protest. For those interested, there already is a separate article with the list of locaions. —Filippusson (t.) 10:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It's going to have to be done sooner or later fellas... LoveUxoxo (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

See: List of "Occupy" protest locations and its talk page. MPS pointed out the problem on the talk page there. I personally checked all of the infobox cities and references and made sure they were incorporated into the list. I then removed all of the cities and references from the infobox to avoid duplication problems. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Racial issues

there seems to be an anti-semitic streak among the protesters. i would like to add a new section titled racial issues to cover this part of the story. any objections? [1] Darkstar1st (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

One nutball doesn't equal an "anti-semitic streak among the protesters". It didn't either when there was this guy. All you've done now is elicit another discourse about agent provocateurs. Have you no decency sir? LoveUxoxo (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

And before it gets said, TWO nutballs isn't a streak either. Have you ever been on a college campus? LoveUxoxo (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, many objections to that being given undue weight. 67.142.161.30 (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There was already a discussion on this, and the same consensus was attained. There is no merit to this. OpposeAmpersandestet (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

OccupyWiki.org

Only up today, I believe, but in a few days this site may want to be reevaluated for inclusion in External Links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.129.51.253 (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Photo of "Writer and 2006 New York gubernatorial candidate Malachy McCourt at Zucotti Park"

This guy hardly seems notable and isn't even mentioned in the article. Does this image add anything to the encyclopedic content we've got? There are already numerous images. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur and do find that a replacement image should be found and attributed accordingly, if an image is necessary at all. Ampersandestet (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Several editors have been generously uploading images they have taken (and good quality too). I'm sure there is something illuminating that could be put in its place. No more boobies though, we've discussed that to death. LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the internet powered off of [expletive deleted] or GTFO ? Agreed, there should be a better picture, hopefully of someone listed in the article. Ampersandestet (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The Internet might be, but Wikipedia isn't. I'm a little torn on the photo, too. On one hand, Malachy McCourt is not a nobody by any stretch; on the other hand, it's a stretch to call him a politician since he ran for office only once. I think for a section devoid of photos, it works; but if someone were to remove it I wouldn't object. --David Shankbone 04:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed it as there is no real objection to the matter. If there are any further objections, I guess they can be discussed here. Ampersandestet (talk) 04:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Chronology of Events

Please add the following in the chronology of events. 9/29/2011: The American People’s New Economic Charter initiated.

Thank you.JenYouWin (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Jen

Citation updates needed

Despite some great work being done, the article is still very heavy on references to forums, blogs, social media, etc. I recommend the removal of those sources as soon as possible, to avoid having sections of the article get removed. Let's take a look at WP:Reliable and freshen things up. Tgeairn (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe there is a general consensus around these lines, and it is a definite "to be done" on my list, however time-exhausting it might prove. Ampersandestet (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street, a racist movement

There are many reports of anti-semitism (on video) and I cant confirm nor deny but it is said that white people may not speak unless someone else lets them speak. This needs to be covered. I noticed that the Tea Party page has a million words of negatives so for neutrality this needs to match. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.227 (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any examples of what would be considered reliable sources that discuss this? LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

In the least, the "endorsement" list should include overseas endorsements, like the one by Iran's top leader, who claims that "Ultimately, it will grow so that it will bring down the capitalist system and the West." I don't think Iran is very pro-Jewish, and certainly this feeds into that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.235.192 (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Provide sources or we're only going to assume you're making stuff up. The Tea Party article has sources for its statements. Neutrality does not mean giving equal weight but giving due weight to the sources. If most of the sources about the Tea Party portray things that you find "negative," most of the article will summarize sources which portray events that could be seen as negative. Calling editors bigots is not an acceptable or mature way to handle it. If your accusation of anti-semitism and racial restrictions has no sources, we should not cover it because we don't even consider a single person's made up claim on a talk page to be a source. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There was one lone loon who goes around New York being videotaped getting into confrontations with people by egging them on over race, sexuality, gender, religion, etc. He was at OWS one day, egged on a Jewish man, and then it went viral in the conservative blogosphere. It's my understanding he was kicked out of the park since he was only there for self-promotion. Here's one earlier video of him if you want to get the flavor of this, uh, "performance artist"[2]. NPOV requires us to keep fringe attention seekers who look for media out of the article --David Shankbone 00:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There's also a video of a different anti-jewish protester. As well as mentions of pro-palestinian anti-israeli signs being carried by some protestors that jewish organizations might view as antisemitism. So there might be something worth mentioning here, at least as much as racism is in the tea party article. But we can't draw our own conclusions it has to be an outside source making the allegations before they're included (preferably not some blog). Helixdq (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Agent provocateurs are present in most protests, and their goal is to disrupt and discredit the movement from within. The fact is, the protesters are demonstrating against social and ecomomic racism, so his concerns are ridiculous. The Tea Party, OTOH, has a verifiable racist element that is woven into the fabric of their arguments, so there is no comparison. Viriditas (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A person who allows participants to openly give their views on a subject is not an "agent provocateur" -- he's a journalist. An effort to hide the views of these protestors is the problematic issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.235.192 (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

An effort to include views of actors hired to discredit the movement (agent provocateurs) is also an issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like the OP is not being given any credence (and rightfully so), but should we actually consider something about antisemitism, let's be precise in our terms. Being "pro-palestinian" or "anti-Israel", are not the same thing as antisemitism. One can oppose the actions of a state without bearing ill will to a broader ethnic group. If I decry the lack of Somali government intervention in piracy, it doesn't mean I'm racist. It means I have an issue with actions or inactions of the state. If a protester is specifically calling out jews in general, then it's antisemitism. That's not necessarily so for calling out Israel, the state.204.65.34.156 (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't believe the hype. The agent provocateurs have been unmasked: [3] Viriditas (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You surely must be joking, this is nothing worth to mention and much more importantly: a partisan website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.44.21.48 (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

foreign section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street#Foreign_responses

Seems approriate to ahve and expand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herp Derp (talk • contribs) 17:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I love this section, foreign comments are so biased and funny to read. Yug (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Although many people who lean socialist may not like North Korea because many have referred to them as an example for why socialism doesn't work,... I think the bottom line is if a government responds and in this case North Korea in the same way as China has, then you keep them there. MJJ509 (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's woefully biased. With the exception of Canada, Greece and Poland they're all states that would take any opportunity to stick a knife into the US. The Canadian comment is vague, the Greek comment is from someone that has brought their country to its knees and is anxious to pin the blame on anyone else and the Polish one is from a proud trade unionist who is not involved in the running of the country and as such is just a personal comment rather than a national opinion. It's hardly rousing international support and yet it is presented as such. danno 23:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Facebook Attendence

The section "Protest Spread Worldwide" has information on how many people say they are attending protests on Facebook. That is not really solid or notable information and I think the section should be rewritten. Thoughts? XantheTerra (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I sort of agree, but am divided on this one... counting Facebook RSVPs smacks of Original Research... plus, those aren't actual attendance figures ... although I think it is notable that Ashton Kutcher has like a kajollion twitter followers ... I am leaning towards the notion that it is not good for these numbers to be under the heading, "Protests Spread Worldwide" since placed under this rubric it makes them sound like worldwide attendance figures. MPS (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That was my edit. I don't see any problem with it in that I copied the figures from my source, The Daily Telegraph. Gandydancer (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have issue with the figures from the source, which I did read. I just do not think that what people say they will do on Facebook is important enough to merit inclusion in the article.XantheTerra (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing the facebook information as those were figures from one week ago. That information is neither current or important. In my mind, the online attendance means nothing. But if someone feels differently, you can change it, I guess. XantheTerra (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge "We are the 99%" article in to "Occupy Wall Street" article???

Should the article We are the 99% be merged with this article??? I already suggested that it be on the articles own page. AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• No. A part of the "We are the 99%" is a significant online movement which to cover in full would have content extraneous to this article. JORGENEV 00:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what content could you possibly put into the We are the 99% article that would be extraneous to this one? Turkey trots to water...the whole world wonders. LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The extensive debate about the accuracy of the slogan and its status as a meme on the internet maybe? JORGENEV 05:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem that I see about discussing "the extensive debate" is that in practice that gets represented in content in Wikipedia by giving three (or six, or whatever) quotes on one side and an equal amount on the other (or not). "WARThree quotes on each side. What is it good for?" Absolutely nothing. Give the reader one line that the accuracy of the slogan is debated. We can fit that in here, no problem. As for encyclopedic content regarding internet memes, I'll admit, that's not my forte. LoveUxoxo (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• No. This article is large enough as it is; I don't see the value of merging other articles into this. Moreover, "We are the 99%" is common to all Occupy movements, and could be linked to from articles about any of the protests to explain the meaning, so it makes sense to put it in its own article. Bennetto (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"Protests spread worldwide"

The last sentence in this paragraph (actually, now it's the second-to-last) is followed by no fewer than eight footnotes. If all those footnotes are really there to substantiate a single sentence, it would seem several of them are unnecessary. And if, instead, some of those footnotes are actually there to substantiate claims appearing earlier in the paragraph, then those notes are misplaced. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked through all of those footnotes and most of them are just general links to occupy related sites that do not directly support any of the sections statements. For example, one footnote merely links to a e-mail directory of occupy sites. I could get a reputation for being one who wants to remove everything, but I only saw one site that look worthy of keeping. As I have posted above I don't think Facebook and Meetup pages belong here. XantheTerra (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Despite WP:HUMAN I can't add the protest in Dublin, Ireland - verified here and here and the organisers' website.86.42.195.97 (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Obama administration has just approved a $168.9 million loan guarantee to the owner of Zuccotti Park

Source

I think this should be mentioned in the article.

What do other editors think?

Mk2z0h (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a bit of a fringe claim. Has anyone else picked up the story? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether true or not, I think it's irrelevant. It immediately leads to a "So what does that have to do with OWS?" --David Shankbone 22:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

My vote is that this story sounds speculative and i don't even understand what their claim is--it sounds too similar to the "Soros-funded" mis-[in my opinion]-connected story-line) -

though it is 100% "1%" of an article (to use the adj)

How has no one on this page or the article mentioned (I searched) either word: TARP / tarp

Sorry for the mis-posting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.179.205 (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the note. Regarding Tarp, it's a good question, and the only answer that I have is that we are trying to keep from defining the movement's issues until the movement defines itself. That seems to be happening more. Could you provide some mainstream sources that identify Tarp as a principle cause of the protests. I know it is, but if you could help us out with some links to newspaper/magazine stories that would be awesome. --David Shankbone 22:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

i think i'm literally the first person that thought of it. Or some news editor would have used it and it would spread. Er, "spread the tarp" is actually a good slogan. So i think i got it first (or it's not as catchy as i think :) For the record, doesn't the symbolism provide a perfectly good legal argument why the tarps should be allowed?

--Jon Stone 67.84.179.205 (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC) (whatever those do)

Why are some tarps legal and others not? --David Shankbone 22:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the movement is defining itself as slowly as it needs to, to stay as inclusive as possible. And I don't think there is a 1% - 99% division, as this logical proof provides: there is support in the top 2% etc, therefore there is support in the 1% too...

The movement succeeded. There is majority support, so only care must be taken, and discourse, and bravery. It may not be 99% by head count, but it will be!

Yes yours is better — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.179.205 (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, everyone. Since the consensus is against inclusion, I will not add it to the article. Mk2z0h (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

resource related to Anna Hazare

• Occupy Wall Street: What Businesses Need to Know ... The demonstrators are asserting their stake in American business posted on Harvard Business Review October 14, 2011 8:27 AM via Bloomberg Businessweek; excerpt ...

  The anti-corruption sentiment had been smoldering for decades until it burst into flame with the jailing last August of Anna Hazare, widely regarded as a trustworthy, honest, and humble social activist. Despite longstanding complaints about bribery and cronyism, the vehemence of the subsequent demonstrations took government officials and others by surprise. In some respects, there are parallels with Occupy Wall Street: The U.S. movement draws its greatest media attention when protesters are arrested, and despite longstanding complaints about the financial industry’s role in the recession and worldwide downturn, industry leaders were blindsided by the tenacity of the demonstrators in lower Manhattan.

99.190.85.250 (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Boston and Tarek Mehanna

I removed this which was in the "Week 4 (October 8 – October 14)" section under the premise that this article is OWS, not the specifics of other occupy movements other than mentioning they exist. Another editor feels differently. Along with the fact that it is Boston, not Wall Street, it doesn't concern the (basically) economic message of the protest, and manages to call Tarek Mehanna an "accused terrorist" (who?). Anyone else have an opinion? LoveUxoxo (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the rmv-- any other information can go on the "Occupy" Protest wikipage. Ampersandestet (talk) 07:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

We have a section on protest around the world and a picture of one in Portland, Oregon. It is pretty much safe to say that the protest is not just about economics and he has been arrested on aiding a terrorist attack. Truthsort (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Not shutdown -- encampment still there

• Defended by 3000 NYCers, Bloomberg faces first defeat, and, perhaps for the first time in 2500 years, democracy wins!
• This needs to be put at the head of the article, and there needs to be Wiki News reporting--John Bessa (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This POV-pushing and OR-laden edit needs to be removed from the article or edited drastically. I won't do it myself, because I already made a reversion at this article today; I'll rely on another editor to do it. But what you added is utterly inappropriate. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Just made a "drive by" edit... Not sure if it was already solved, but I just moved the part about "current situation: Bloomberg rebuffed! first time ever!" to the timeline section and molded language to be a little more NPOV. my edit diff here Could someone check the refs to see if there is any information to be added. Thanks, MPS (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the drive-by MPS, is much better, LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Further edited and moved to the "Sanitation" section. Comments? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"As of October 11, the City had not received one complaint about sanitation at the park"

Some problems with this. What the supporting source actually says is that when called for comment, an unidentified city worker said there had not been a single complaint registered at the Sanitation Department's dedicated 311 line regarding sanitary conditions in the park. This is very different from saying there have been no complaints about sanitation, a claim which seems to be refuted by the fact that Bloomberg actually ordered the park to be vacated so it could be cleaned, as well as other sources discussing complaints about "unsanitary conditions and offensive odors" which have "reached a fever pitch". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This claim has been repeated in other sources, and this section could be far more expanded with other material I am aware of that disputes the city/Brookfield statements about the condition of the park. And both the City and Brookfield have as clear a bias as a protester quoted saying the park is sparkling clean. If reliable sources print stories that dispute the condition of the park as a filthy trash hole we are going to use them. --David Shankbone 01:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

But you certainly aren't implying we should have let the inaccurate factual claim stand. I edited it to reflect the cited source and prevent the article from contradicting itself. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Reuters says a police officer on a scooter ran over a protestor.

Reuters states: "One police officer ran over a man's leg with his scooter."

However, this video of the incident shows that the police officer on the scooter was going well below walking speed, and that the protestor deliberately lied down on the ground, and placed his leg in harm's way.

If this incident gets reported in the wikipedia article, we have to explain this, because it was actually the protestor, not the police officer, who instigated this incident. The Reuters article is worded in such a way as to put the blame on the wrong person.

Mk2z0h (talk) 06:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

In the rush of the news cycle initial stories are often incorrect. However, you can't write in the article "...but as can been seen in this video" and then explanation of what the video shows because that is WP:OR. LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

just say, "According to Reuters, One police officer ran over a man's leg with his scooter" ... and see if you can find a publicly released police report that tells the police's side of the story. MPS (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 15 October 2011

Please add the following link, this link contains current images from the New York Occupy Wall Street movement and will be updated on a regular basis: http://paulhodara.blogspot.com/2011/10/occupy-wall-street.html Phodara (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: per WP:EL --Jnorton7558 (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

See also list

The "See also" list should NOT be alphabetized. Specific protests should be sorted in chronological or anti-chronological order, and the few non-time-specific articles should be listed separately. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that time-specific articles have been moved a different section, which ordered alphabetically. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

why is the seealso section now listing specific "Occupy Peoria" type protests and their websites? I thought we moved all that over to List of "Occupy" protest locations. MPS (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting source

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

Note the quote by NYC General Assembly exec Brian Phillips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whatever you want to call the head of communications for the "NYC General Assembly". It's clear he has some kind of organizational role, which is presumably why NPR singled him out to interview [4], regardless of whether one really thinks that this movement was so spontaneous as not to require leadership. I'd say it's quite relevant and notable to note that his goal is to "overthrow the government". Centrify (talk) (contribs) 14:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

[5] appears to be RS for the quote AFAICT

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

For his role as communications chef:

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

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

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

Pretty much it sounds like the OWS groups are not particularly oriented to management systems found in corporations. That does not, however, negate the RS nature of the NPR interview (and a number of other sources which interviewed the person). [6] Macleans from Canada. [7] The Guardian. [8] CBS News. [9] NZ television. [10] Albany Times-Union. [11] BBC News. [12] Columbia Journalism Review. [13] Sacramento Bee. [14] including foreign press where he is identified as a "Google consultant." Does not quite sound like a "random guy" in the first place, and it appears he is generally regarded by the press as the "communications director". Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changes to the Demand Section

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

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

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

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

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

Declaration of Occupation

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

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

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

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

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

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

• These grievances are not all-inclusive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to make a graphics lab request?

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

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

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

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

Edit request: demands and goals: Healthcare and more

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

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

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

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

Location

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

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

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

"Arrests/Injuries" section

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

Deletion request

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

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

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

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