Talk:Occupy Wall Street

Template:Rtnews

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

potential resource from Talk:Occupy movement in the United States

from Talk:Occupy movement in the United States#WSJ and Foreign Affairs resources (from Talk:Tea Party movement#WSJ and Foreign Affairs resources) ...

See The Future of History; Can Liberal Democracy Survive the Decline of the Middle Class? by Francis Fukuyama January/February 2012 Foreign Affairs,

A reprint of Fukuyama's Foreign Affairs article, from Francis Fukuyama on the decline of the middle class posted on Friday, Jan 6, 2012. It is archived on PNHP's website. Excerpt ...

It is conceivable that the Occupy Wall Street movement will gain traction, but the most dynamic recent populist movement to date has been the right-wing Tea Party, whose main target is the regulatory state that seeks to protect ordinary people from financial speculators. Something similar is true in Europe as well, where the left is anemic and right-wing populist parties are on the move. ... In the United States, for example, although the Tea Party is anti-elitist in its rhetoric, its members vote for conservative politicians who serve the interests of precisely those financiers and corporate elites they claim to despise. There are many explanations for this phenomenon. They include a deeply embedded belief in equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome and the fact that cultural issues, such as abortion and gun rights, crosscut economic ones.

See Income inequality in the United States and more importantly Wealth inequality in the United States.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.35.14.75 (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2012‎ (UTC)

Problems with Reaction [sic] section

In summary, the section says nothing. Substitute gun control or gay marriage for OWS, and you wouldn't have to change any other wording.

Among the general public, opinions of OWS have varied over time, and there are contradictions between the data collected by various polling agencies. Many prominent politicians, academics and celebrities of varying degree have weighed in with their reaction and responses. Mass media of all genre [sic] as well as labor unions, the banking industry and business people have given statements and given both financial as well as moral support.

1. Reaction is singular but...
2. opinions of OWS have varied over time, - need the what, how and when here. Otherwise this is pointless and obvious. What else would have the opinions done over time?
3. there are contradictions between the data collected by various polling agencies. Yep, nothing to see here, move along.
4. various polling agencies When are polling agencies not various?
5. Many prominent politicians, academics and celebrities of varying degree have weighed in with their reaction and responses. Yeah. So?
6. Mass media of all genre as well as labor unions, the banking industry and business people have given statements and given both financial as well as moral support. Yeah. So? And Genre is singular. And the banking industry. You mean the whole stinking banking industry, each and every one of them?

. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This was nothing but extending your flippant remarks and says nothing new, but simply singles out the prose line by line to say more of nothing. There is no mention of any policy, guideline or misuse of such. You bring up some grammer over some individual word use, but I am not even sure you are correct there.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

One word: dictionary. But, since the obligation to be helpful is felt, why are there the words "genres" and "reactions"? You know, plural forms of singular words. Ironic, the section said nothing about the reception of OWS except what has been said of all political movements of the same scale. Pointing out emptiness in the quoted text masquerading as something-as it were-is an application of heretofore lacking critical faculties. But an apparent act of transference is at work; saying something lacks substance is not insubstantial, quite the opposite. It is a plea for substance. Logic has a purpose, even here. Not that I'm the best speller, but it's "grammar". I'd take the above as a gentle ribbing of what needs fixing by whomever would claim the section as worthy of inclusion. References from secondary sources would help.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You offer little more than critical commentary here and barely any contribution of value. You generously offer ridicule dispensed with grandeur but what substance your statements have is lost in over expressed idealism. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Now now now, let's simmer down. Without making any comparisons, I have made idiotic edits, but have always appreciated humor - which more sensitive souls would call ridicule - as an effective way of pointing out my errors. I have never been too humble to eat crow. In the words of art historian Bernard Berenson "I don't stick to a mistake", but then again, "you can lead a horse..." I would, however, in any case, start coming up with sorely needed references for any section I added to an article, or at least promise to. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do I have my doubts to such saccharin suggestions? Could it be that you don't attempt to make changes but simply point out deficits for enjoyment?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no. I don't feel inclined or qualified to research the section, but would hope I could prod others into fixing-or junking-it. Since we agree, why has creator of the section let it stay deficient? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is your choice not to edit of course. The aricle was split and the section was not created (it already existed) but summarized quickly during the work.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I hardly need permission to abstain, or have some obligation to not comment on what so blatantly, as we seem agree, has "defecits"-none of which have been defended. Even the singular/plural issue. Hmmm. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

*Brushes chin with fingers* Hmmmmmmmmmm.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ooo, burn. Anything else learned at the playground today? Any plans to get some decent refs goin'? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no plans to work on the references at the moment, no. The section as you so eloquently pointed out could well describe a number of other subjects. It does not say anything is in dispute aside from a perception of grammatical error. As generic as that summary may have been, I felt the claims were unlikely to be disputed and felt no obligation to add references as it was summarizing a section that contained them (for better or worse).--Amadscientist (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Artist, your sarcasm and arrogant attitude is getting pretty old. We all have a bad day from time to time, but you just won't quit. If you don't like the summary write a new one. Gandydancer (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh look, a scolding, and though I have had bad days, lately my dog hasn't died, my sweetheart hasn't left me, and the 49ers recent loss to the Giants is something I have learned to let go of and move on. So, I'm doing OK. Nonetheless the solicitude is appreciated. But I'm wondering: when did speculation about my personal issues, or anyone else's have a place on a WP talk page? Still, it's easy to throw around charges of sarcasm-and I thought it was irony that was in my employ-and arrogance, especially when the accusing editor won't either support the charges or deal with substantive issues, such as bad, empty writing and no refs. As for arrogance, I don't know nothing about that, especially if I'm to be compared to an editor who will not, I mean flat out refuses to, source a non-lead section. I positively shocked by this of that position. (Since suspicions of insincerity seem to be the robust here, let me make this clear: I really am shocked, not shocked, shocked.) If an editor will not use references, and unless there is a policy that permits no citations with a simple wave of the hand along the lines of "Yo, bro, there another article with those refs, so why you wanna make me hafta put 'em over here too?" the section has no way to remain. So without that policy is produced and explained, not just cited (and there is a WP policy against that cheap ploy), ctrl X will be needed. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of Crime section (again)

I just updated the wording for the Crime section, but it bothers me to see it so "unprofessional" (for lack of a better word) sounding. Considering that the protest is now a worldwide movement and that the park was closed many weeks ago, it just seems silly to be including information about what tactics were used to defuse violent confrontations, an EMTs broken leg, the age of the woman that was assaulted, and on and on. I am wondering what we can agree on. Can we agree that the section is now too long/specific?

Yes. As an encyclopedia, we don't just follow the sources, but the general historical weight. Those things had more weight earlier, and now they have very little weight. We just think how it might be covered by any other encyclopedia in a couple of years. Those things are no more weight now than they will be in a couple of years or 10. B^e——C_ritical 03:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be limited to notable incidents. Groping by man with warrants and by cook in the kitchen, the need for female only tents, the need for internal security volunteers, and the protesters comments with regard to a molotov cocktail and macys.Racingstripes (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

All of this could just be spread through the article. Just a suggestion.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm sure we can agree on something. Racingstripes, what are the "molotov cocktail and macys" incidents about? Gandydancer (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The incident in which a protester made references to a molotov cocktail going through a window in macy's, then fellow protesters yelled at the police for arresting him.Racingstripes (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

At first reading I thought that Amadscientist's idea wouldn't work, but looking at the section again I'm thinking it could mostly be worked into the preceding Park Occupation section. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You want to make the crime section into a subsection of Zuccotti Park occupation subsection? Making a subsection of another subsection is fine with me.Racingstripes (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Does it have to have it's own subsection? Can't all of the information be placed in the section Gandy mentions and what doesn't can be placed in either "chronolgy" or most pertinent spot?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does. This is essentially a controversy section which is very common in wikipedia. Just about every article that is as notable as OWS has a controversy section. If this section should be blended into the chronology section then why not the origin section and just about the entire New York City Protests section. We break articles in sections and subsections to make the articles easier to read. Racingstripes (talk) 06:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Racingstripes, it really isn't that common and in fact is not the proper way to write a nuetral article. Controversy and criticism sections, such as this, are not a way to create an encyclopedic article. It is "Common" on wikipedia for articles to have many mistakes, that does not mean it is standard or even suggested to make them. We are trying to clean up the article to fit within the Manual of Style guidelines and policy towards improving the article for higher rating such as GA and FA. It does not need to have a crime section. It doesn't. In fact...it should not have the section for the very reasons I stated.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm tending to agree with Amadscientist and BeCritical. At this point I believe that most of the crime section would be best moved into the Zuccotti Park occupation section. As other editors have said, over time individual incidents need to be wrapped together and reported in a more general manner. For instance, many instances of police brutality have been reported and we had a substantial amount of copy in the article devoted to them, but over time it has dwindled to a sentence or two - and I hardly think that anyone would be arguing for a title or subtitle of "Police brutality", which has been as significant as crime. Gandydancer (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there would be anything wrong with a police brutality section. But the thing about police brutality its a little bit of crying wolf, and thats an entire different discussion.Racingstripes (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It is the same thing actually and Gandydancer worded it very well. I think you have bias that you clearly can't see. Not an insult. Everyone has bias of some kind, but we write an encyclopedic article in a neutral manner and a "crime" section within a subject not related to crime is not neutral.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has 5 core pillars that represent the essence of what this encyclopedia stands for. These pillars represent the fundamental principles that we, as editors, should be striving for, not ignoring. "Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles"[Pillar 5]. You may personally feel that "crime" and controversy sections are important, but it is exactly like believing in your own "truth". Pillar 2 states (in it's entirety):

• Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in other areas we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person.

So I understand that some editors are less forgiving about anyone that removes information of any kind or disputes a portion or section they feel strongly about but neutrality is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. We have had consensus to alter the information and exclude the section for some time now, but I feel that we are being patient and not attempting anything that would be perceived as disruptive, however clearly you are the single holdout. 3 editors have weighed in and consensus is clearly not for inclusion of a Crime section. If we were to begin the change to exclude the section and begin transferring information to other sections as stated above, what would be your reaction?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding weight/notability... what objective rationale are there for and against including this section? (Or the amount of content in it.) As a benchmarking exercise, I tried looking for mention of openly carried guns in Tea Party movement and Tea Party protests, since the topic got media attention at the time. Also tried looking for crime and arrests at Super Bowl and Rose Bowl Game, since it's typical for a couple dozen arrests to be made at a Rose Bowl game (not including the parade). Came up empty-handed there, but did find mention of over 50 player arrests in 2007 NFL season. Also the "media also commonly noted that the 2006 Bengals had more arrests than wins" in 2006 Cincinnati Bengals season, and in History of the New England Patriots found that the "1995 season was also marked by the Patriots' first home appearance on Monday Night Football since 1981. During the Patriots' last appearance on the program, a number of fans in attendance proved to be rowdy and uncontrollable and there was an abnormally high number of arrests." Personally, I'm rooting for the Patriots in a non-rowdy way this year, and back on topic I agree with BeCritical here. PubliusDigitus (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The title's point of view is of crime in general, not crime that the group has committed....like storming a building in mass or some notable riot or act of civil disobedience. Due weight should be observed, in at least not grouping random acts to place a label on them in this context. Why not "Victim"? It's a point of view as well. Reading the information itself you see the victims of these crimes are being reported as being protesters as well. Theft within the protest group and sexual assault, assault etc. The one exception is the threat a man made about committing an act, but details show no proof he intended to carry out the threat. That piece is a crime a protester committed, but the crime was of making the threat. Why place this among the protester on protester "crimes"? This associates that random act of a protester with the acts against protesters just by placing them in a single section toegether. The information is best served where it can have direct context to the events and subjects is other sections.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOV/Noticeboard discussion

This has been brought up at the Neutral Point of View/Noticeboard for discussion. Please comment here[1].--Amadscientist (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Per notice board suggestion and the compromise here of moving all the information into the above section, I have placed the crime section back into the Zuccotti Park as a sub section and retitled as "Security Concerns" for the time being. I can live with this with a reassessment of quality to match the similar articles used as examples for this article to segregate negative information.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

New source

New source If anyone wants to add this to the crime section: Todd Stanes (January 31, 2012). "Occupiers Dump Condoms on Catholic School Girls". Fox News Radio. Retrieved February 1, 2012..--v/r - TP 15:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. Right now this article's scope is restrained to the New York protest itself and not the general movement over all....the information needs to have context to the subect.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Need refs for Reception section

Except for leads, in all cases sources are needed, and another WP article can not be one of them. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your comment doesn't make sense. If your establishing a link to another article (as the Reception section is doing) then it makes sense to summarize what is in the other article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

WP articles are not sources. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about sources. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your source is none other than the article and your judgement. What WP policy allows for no refs? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, policy states that refs need to be used when the information may be challenged and I don't see anything there that anyone would challenge since it is very general info. Gandydancer (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm challenging the information. That obliges sources. Period. If there are no secondary sources that say what the text says, WP:SYN, it will have to go. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That is not a challenge of the information, but a dispute about content and guidelines....none of which you show to support your view. Consensus is for inclusion.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Artist, as you very well know, the sources for all of that info are in the new split article. If it bothers you so much I can't see why you don't hunt down the references yourself rather than force the rest of us to hunt it down. Scientist did a lot of work to do the split and you should be willing to help rather than just complain about it. Gandydancer (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It might "bother me so much" that I could just delete it for no refs. Some more responsible editors have a greater responibility to fill. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as WP:SYN....you are yourself synthesizing the facts. First, WP:SYNTHESIS is in regards to material that advances a position. The summary does not advance any position. It is, in fact, so generic that you disputed that in itself. There is nothing in Wikipedia that obliges an editor to succumb to a filibuster of a single editor.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It's been challenged, now deal with it. Where are the refs? You are obliged to produce them or a policy that allows otherwise. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not obliged to do anything. I am a volunteer just like everyone else.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I write stuff and feel no need to feel responsible for it, either. Oh brother. There is WP:Burden. which means, you broke it, fix it. 05:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because you make a noise here doesn't mean a tree has fallen in the forest.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

All challenged text needs sourcing, and the burden is not on me. Before descending too far into rhetorical silliness, what policy allows for the unsourced referencing another WP article. When has that been sufficient, and are there WP good articles to serve as examples? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not a GA rated article. One does not need to show GA level standards for inclusion in a C rated article.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Summary style - "Basic technique":

Basic Technique

Further information: Wikipedia:Splitting

Longer articles are split into sections, each several good-sized paragraphs long. Subsectioning can increase this amount. Ideally many of those sections will eventually provide summaries of separate articles on the subtopic covered in that section (a Main article or similar link would be below the section title—see {{Main}}, {{Details}},...) Each article on a subtopic is an encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section, which will be quite similar to the summary in its 'parent' article

Directly below this it states in the "References" section-Each article on Wikipedia must be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit. The Verifiability policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation. This applies whether in a parent article or in a summary-style sub-article.. However, this has an exception in consensus as being a trivial issue and does not warrent references at this time. Exceptions are noted at the top of the guideline and states: This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. What this means is, the same guideline that states a lede need not be referenced if the information and reference is found in the body of the article holds true here as well for ignoring the rule you seem to be battering around about referencing all text. It's not text...its the claims the text is making. We don't add an inline citation for every finished word.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Burden also states:

Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article.

--Amadscientist (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

To "summarize"

The issue of referencing all text is not true. It's the claims being made not the text. As for any challenge being made requiring referencing on challenge alone, that as well is not true. A challenge still requires a burden as well. The article was split and a summary was made. It is not a perfect section, but neither is the actual article it comes from and sits in. Improvements can certainly be made. Should they be made depends on the article and there is no need to push others to a standard that cannot be shown to exist here when consensus holds that no references are needed for the moment. No one is saying there are no references or that they can't be used. Just that the summary does not require them at this time. Guidelines and policy are not being violated. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We appear to agree on how lacking this article is, but even though some editors may be aiming low, a GA article would be a good way to convincingly falsify my position. Let us get rid of one strawman quick: no one has insisted on inline citation for every finished word, and shame on MadSci for suggesting so. Although it's easy to say lede rules can apply to a section, it ignores a clear difference; ledes, when done correctly, have RSs in the article, not in another article. The policy cited that above imagines that fully sourced sub sections of an article - with all required refs - will become separate articles, and the happy result is that both will be fully sourced. That has not happened here and it is a common sense question to ask why non-lede material only ref another article: something just not allowed. Regarding what merit a challenge must have before causing action, what unreferenced WP policy on challenges is being relied upon, or is this another fanciful interpretation of policy? Does it exist, or is it a manufacture only found on this Talk page? A section can never be a summary of another article; it is a section of it's own. For all intents and purposes, it does not exist when editing OWS. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but it is your standard as to what constitutes "when done correctly" and I am not seeing it. You wish to apply standards of GA. Wikipedia:Good article criteria

There is a major point not answered. Leaning on a policy that results in fully sources sections and saying it justifies an unsourced section is a perversion. Also, a GA example would falsify my argument. At this point, any example of what is being proposed - an unsourced summary of another article would be a surprise, so even a crummy example might do. As for what standards we should model, I'm under no illusion that the current group of editors have any ambition of producing a GA with OWS. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A GA article is...

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section:

Lead section

The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement.

You have not demonstrated that the section summary needs to be referenced. There is no explanation to anything being contentious or having violated a BLP policy or any MOS violation with regards to references and inline citations. Consensus has simply not felt the section, as it is summarized right now, requires immediate action.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning up the article

I have been going through the article to update wording, etc., and have reached the Zuccotti Park occupation section. (Sorry to say, I have effed up a few references and do not know how to fix them.) Hopefully, if we continue to update, etc., our expert copy editor Ryanwould will take over and tidy things up. It would be good to say, "I've worked on the OWS article" rather than be too embarrassed to mention it, wouldn't it? :-P Gandydancer (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point! LOL! After dinner...I'll take a look at what I can do to help as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't have a chance to look at those references, but I will eventually.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going through the article from the top and discovered some copyright issues. Here is the text as written by Andrew Fleming for the Vancouver Courier:

Frustrated by a growing disparity in wealth and the absence of legal repercussions for the bankers behind the recent global financial crisis, it suggested readers take to the streets to demand change.

Source [2]

I have copy edited the section to also include more specifics from source #5.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit to chronology

Removing information not related to the New York Protests that has no direct context to subject. Much of this is from the article on the overall movement and is not about the specific events on this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else notice the difference in the strength on the article from the beginning, how it starts off documenting a protest that inspires a worldwide movement to it's end where the article simply "reports" on a flashmob. There seems to be some puffery in this section.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 sections needs a lot of work. The recent "Move In Day" of Oakland was widely reported on, and A.N.S.W.E.R held a nationwide anti-war protest on Feburary 4th, joined by Occupy, that was reported on and quite notable(in certain cities). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.66.64 (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This article isn't about the Oakland protests.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The section is too long and may be too detailed. Right now, all information that could be found that had no direct context to the NYC protest was removed. This could be its own article.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was interesting to watch how our information changed over time. BTW, good work - keep it up! (I get tired just thinking about all the work you are doing...) Gandydancer (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Kalle Lasn prose and quote

Adbusters' Kalle Lasn, when asked why it took three years after the implosion of Lehman Brothers for people to begin protesting, said that after the election of President Barack Obama there was a feeling among the young that he would pass laws to regulate the banking system and "take these financial fraudsters and bring them to justice." However, as time passed, "the feeling that he's a bit of a gutless wonder slowly crept in" and they lost their hope that his election would result in change.

This adds no encyclopedic value to the article. Kalle Lasn is giving his opinion and, while the MOS is satisfied with the attribution in the prose etc, why is this of importance? The person is making claims that are being given prominence in the article with no real context to the subject. It's about his opinion as to why people didn't protest sooner. How is that really relevant? When asked? - Who asked.... Why asked? It is randomly placed because it has no real "place" to put it. Its not promotional, but it is giving excessive focus to something unrelated from a person that has/or had only a small role to begin with. While The president may well be a public figure, he is still a living person and this claim seems unreasonably focused on a person with no direct context to the subject as well. It seems overly political in nature and adds no encyclopedic value.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I sure would like to keep that quote! I didn't add it but I've always felt that in a few words he expressed the sentiment of those of us that consider ourselves Liberals to a T. Since Lasn is the one behind the worldwide movement, a quote of his is certainly noteworthy. As for calling the president a gutless wonder, I don't see that as "overly political" at all...and I'm not sure what that means anyway... As for "direct context", the direct context is that so many of us thought that Obama was going to step in and take the bull by the horns and make some long-overdue changes. But not only did that not happen, he turned out to be, in our opinion, as thick as thieves with the very individuals/corporations that we thought he was going to go up against. Gandydancer (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed...I concede there is some small context. Let's try trimming it down perhaps and copy edit for a more encyclopedic tone. Let me try a shot.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

First CNN quote

The Sonia Katyal and Eduardo Peñalver quote was removed again. But this time it was removed after I read the actual reference. The quote is not a fit here. It was placed in this location and on this page as it was believed to have context to the subject, but the quote really isn't about the beginning or origins of the protest in New york, but of the over all movement in general. Here is the source [3]. This should be used on the Occupy movement article.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Protest" section

The reason I changed that was for a more neutral encyclopedic tone and breakdown of the specifics in the overview. That could also be "demonstrations", as the 'protest" is a series of "demonstrations". "Goals" is a subject of the makeup of the NYCGA or other entities not the Occupy Wall Street protest. When looking at the subject, we should step back and see it from a distance and analyze what the parts of the subject are and how to structure an encyclopedic article. The subject is "Occupy Wall Street"...but what is that as a subject? Is it the individual groups? Is it Adbusters? Is it Anonymous? Is it the New York General assembly? No...Occupy Wall Street is a conceived idea. It is an original social protest that spun off worldwide. There is an origin and then background here and not reversed because the ideas came together with the facts, nearly simultaneously and the people are what took that idea to come together and create an event. I have separated the sections in an overview of the breakdown of the concept and physical make-up of the subject itself. 'Goals" is pamphlet like, in that it promotes the ideas of those goals with undue encyclopedic weight.

The "Zuccotti Park Occupation" section was originally "Support system". It (along with nearly all sections) had much different section headers just a few months ago. We separated the group from the subject and took what was a pamphlet like heading and gave it a more neutral title. I don't personally like the title "Security concerns". I think the entire section, if kept (and we are keeping it for now per and NPOV/n compromise) should also contain the police information from the reaction article. Separate the POV use of 'concerns’ and just title the whole thing "Police and security" so that we include this information in the most neutral manner possible in a manner that has encyclopedic value and covers, with direct context and focus, the issues as they pertain to the subject. "Goals" in and of itself is not exactly POV without the pertinent prose that makes it the POV of that specific goal, but the word itself means direction. What is a protest?

A protest is an expression of objection, by words or by actions, to particular events, policies or situations.

What is a goal?

A goal or objective is a desired result an animal or a system envisions, plans and commits to achieve

The protest is the expression of objection to events and goals are the objective of the human system put in place or that came together to create a “movement”. A goal is a part of the human equation-The Occupy Movement. It would be a sub-subsection within ‘organization’ inside the “Protest” section with the use of the singular per MOS, if there isn’t enough for a full section it would just be inside the Protest section as prose.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

C'mon Amadscientist--we have history together on this article and I've loved working with you, but this duplicitous hyperbole is terribly familiar to Dualus. Please stand down on this issue, ok? It's not worth the Dualus-style type of journey any editor should be forced to traverse with you. Let's prevent it before it starts ok? I'll create a fork to occupy movement which is giving way too much credit to your brazen audacity. I deserve far more sensible argument than this spewy, unintelligible condescension. Philosophical and cognitive dissonance like you posted above stymies any possible road to productiveness. Worse, however, is you were never like this when we collaborated some weeks ago, so I interpret it as a deliberate effort of yours. Please don't be the next casualty to blindness of other people's feedback--it's not just the issue of changing section titles, but I've been saddened watching other people tell you helpful feedback at various noticeboards/talk-pages which you seem to disregard their assessments when they're just trying to nudge you back a little bit in the right direction. We're all in the 99% so we should all work together, even if you have to collaborate alongside myself, BeCritical, Gandy, or the up-and-comers who I've watched contribute fabulously to the OWS articles and their talk pages. Let's lead and set a good example. 완젬스 (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, lets calm down a bit. I gave my reasoning and made my edit. I didn't add material, I just arranged it. Any deletion of content is about what you object to and has nothing to do with my edit. I changed a section header and explained my reasoning to you and even went as far as keeping the section as a subsection...and it should probably be in the singular form "Goal". Whatever deliberate effort you percieve is just your perception. I'm just editing a wikipedia page not doing battle in the arena.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Amadscientist--I guess your reasoning was just way too abstract that it felt terribly unfamiliar to me. The reason I'm trying to jump the gun because I was eyeing some major layout changes that I was fixing to announce also, but then the title difference really undermined the categorization of information. I'll share my layout recommendations tomorrow, but no more spelling out definitions inside quoteboxes like "goal" or "protest" then asking rhetorical questions like "what is a goal?" then going off on a tangent like that again. English is my second language and it felt way too "artsy fartsy" when I'm trying to take this article seriously, because the occupy movement is going through leadership overhauls this month (for better or for worse...) so I'm back into the fray to help make sure OWS isn't portrayed in a bad light (rape, crime, etc...) by hopefully keeping the article well written so readers don't lose sight of the main idea. More on that later, but please welcome me back, my good friend. Your tenacity and tenure on this article is a great virtue. 완젬스 (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I take a very encyclopedic view on this subject. Crime, for better or worse is piece right now as a compromise I agreed to. However I believe it should be with the police information, checked for references, OR RS, claims BLP issues etc. and retitled as "Police and security", left as the same subsection to Zuccotti Park. That is what I hope to do in the near future, but the last agreement set the article's rating back and I am making an effort to go through the entire article to make it as neutral as possible. That section has yet to be discussed in full now that it is back and the dispute about its inclusion is settled for now. But it can use some improvement. The image in the first section could be better and I will find something suitable. I just finished checking the first section and clearing out a lot of dead weight. If the article is able to get a consensus on the Police and security section it could be a B article again....with the red link errors fixed and some more work on checking claims etc. I was a little surprised how long this article went without a mention how the whole thing began when it’s all in the references. There is a lot in the references...sometimes the exact same thing in lined up citations. Sorry dude....I'm artsy fartsy....not that there's anything wrong with that. My point about the "goal" thing....is where does it fit in the article in an encyclopedic manner? A Goal is something a system of people look towards. The same people who make a protest. The people that make up the "protest' are the ones asking for a "goal". It's a sectioning thing. Think -"Chicken and the egg". What goes first? The system of people (the NYCGA etc.) or what they are trying to achieve? Placing one before the other can make this look like a pamphlet. It should be a header describing the group of people who have a goal. The goal is not as important as the people and the event. It is a part of it, but encyclopedic value is what I was aiming at.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of course you are welcome back 완젬스|완젬스, but IMO at times your exuberant endorsement of the movement on this talk page has been problematic. I would hope that in the future when you state your opinions, you state they are your opinion and not the opinion of the group of editors that you consider to have similar beliefs to your own. I don't like to see you making statements that suggest we are all good buddies that need to stick together to present an article that will promote the OWS goals. Like in any other fast-moving article that I have edited, it is my goal to present factual information and eventually, once the event has stabilized, to weigh the importance of that information as I decide how to present an encyclopedic article. Gandydancer (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, not to brag guys, but here backs me up that in fact I do have insider information. (see the chat on Gandy's talk page!) I strongly believe that I should voluntarily refrain from editing sections of the article which I have conflict of interest, while not refraining from areas where I have no motivation at all. Additionally, with the upcoming changes from the nycga, new leadership, and new "movement" message expecting to be announced in March, I want to invite both of you guys to work on Occupy Movement as much as possible, since a lot of people hear about occupy wall street through Wikipedia. A lot of readers can pick up on the subtleties we are able to weave impartially into the article. I'll finish writing to each of you on your respective talk pages, other than to say there will be a lot of clarity which will come out of occupy's leaders starting in March, and that clarity needs to be ingrained into the articles, from sources like the New York Times. I have personal communication with the press committee of OWS, and they have connections to New York times and they collaborate before writing major "state of the movement" pieces like the one published yesterday evening (or in print this morning) which I got a phone call about Friday. Before I got involved in the early stages of ows's explosive growth in organization, I started all right here, where my loyalty remains stronger than my loyalty to Occupy movement, which is what Gandy is saying, too. This encyclopedia will be around a lot longer than just ows, but few times in our lives does anyone get a chance to get so close to the core of a grassroots movement in improving democracy. Thanks to you both, it's always been a pleasure working with you, and I hope you'll migrate over to the occupy movement article when leadership overhaul is complete. 완젬스 (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Where did I say anything about where my "loyalty remains"? I have no interest what-so-ever in a conversation with you on my talk page and it was only that I was caught off guard that I responded in the first place. As I said above, I have found some of your posts here problematic and your above post is a good example of that. Gandydancer (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) When you wrote "it is my goal to present factual information [...] present an encyclopedic article" which comments on your role--to serve the best interests of Wikipedia, and not to let favorable/unfavorable personal bias for or against occupy wall street to hinder your capacity to serve Wikipedia. I make no mistake to correct any misunderstanding which was caused when you accidentally responded to me on your talk page in the first place. here (which was only because you were caught off guard, allegedly...) Even though I still don't understand how you could backtrack like this, I will respect your wish to cease that discussion on your talk page. I apologize for being rude, but I felt as if my good will was/is being disrespected, and I'm simply trying to correct that. I've already done a lot of good work earlier today on making the chronology section more concise, and the engagement on the talk page to get feedback on my suggestions for crowd numbers. I hope to be judged on that stuff, rather than explaining what I thought you meant when you wrote about what your goal is. If you think about it from my perspective, it's an easy mistake to infer a conclusion about loyalty to Wikipedia based on that unambiguous sentence. Additionally, you've been part of Wikipedia since before the occupy movement got started. Hence, I combined a formulation of these two things to draw an inference of where you might stand regarding personal commitment to the goals/views/activism of the occupy movement here on Wikipedia. 완젬스 (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Dude...you may be too close to this.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

완젬스|완젬스, you were not rude though perhaps I was. But I would prefer to keep our discussions on target here rather than get into personal experiences. Gandydancer (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no target except an encyclopedic documentation of events. I said dude...not "rude". I am saying that you sound like you have a major conflict of interest and you sound like you have a direction you want this article to take based on personal knowledge or what a group and spoken to you about.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The lead

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is a protest movement that began September 17, 2011 in Zuccotti Park, located in New York City's Wall Street financial district. The protests are against social and economic inequality, high unemployment, greed, as well as corruption and the undue influence of corporations on government—particularly from the financial services sector. The protesters' slogan We are the 99% refers to the growing income inequality and wealth distribution in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population. OWS was initiated by the Canadian activist group Adbusters and has led to Occupy protests and movements around the world.

It needs expansion and should reflect what is in the body of the article. On this controversial subject it should have references for claims likely to be disputed, but it should be longer. Especially the part where we are defining what something means. Solid sources are needed and right now one claim about the 99% slogan was not solidly referenced and we should at least point out that one weakness to fix.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There was a 3-paragraph lead which I'll go back and check the archives and compare side by side. 완젬스 (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is an ongoing series of demonstrations in New York City based in Zuccotti Park in the Wall Street financial district. Initiated by the Canadian activist group Adbusters, the participants are mainly protesting social and economic inequality, corporate greed, corruption and influence over government—particularly from the financial services sector—and lobbyists. The protesters' slogan, "We are the 99%", refers to the difference in wealth and income growth in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population.

The first protest was held on September 17, 2011. Demonstrators created a small campsite at the Park with a governing body that meets within a general assembly. There has been some crime reported, however New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has described the protesters as generally law-abiding folks that don't cause trouble or break the law.[5] Police have been accused of some improper tactics, including pepper spraying non-threatening protesters and leading some marchers into a supposed trap during a bridge demonstration. There has been strong support from trade unions and a number of academics and nationally known personalities.”[6] [7]

In its first month, similar demonstrations were either ongoing or had been held in over 70 major cities and over 600 communities in the U.S.. Worldwide Occupy protests similar to OWS have occurred in over 900 cities. Some commentators have said that although the movement is not in complete agreement on its message and goals, it does have a message which is fairly coherent. [8] There has been some criticism. Local residents of the area surrounding Zucotti Park have voiced various complaints.[9] More extreme claims have also been made including antisemitism but some journalists have disputed allegations.

Furthermore, this is the best way to deal with the criticisms all at once, so we can not let crime be an issue at all. (this was back when we deleted the crime section and whitewashed the rapes & sexual assualts) Furthermore, I'm glad all the antisemitism stuff was censured off the article as well. We've made a lot of great progress on keeping this article free from anti-OWS editors who want to sabotage our movement. Specifically, thanks to the veteran editors of this article who have done a great job subtly removing this stuff over time when it becomes quietly forgotten. ;-) I love "consensus" because nobody can stop the majority, which helps everyone--just like OWS! 완젬스 (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

We need to give readers an idea of (approximate) size per month?

As I was condensing the chronology part of the article, I thought "wouldn't it be cool if we could give approximate size of the crowds monthly?" since not anybody seems to be doing this yet, maybe we can be the first? I'd love to know the average number of protesters per day during Oct, Nov, Dec, and Jan as well as the peak number, and the minimum number. The influence of cold weather, and the influence of mayors cracking down on occupy encampments, both are "missing" from the article, and I wanted to share this idea. I'd love to have concrete numbers to compare OWS Oakland against OWS Zuccotti park, specifically to know how Mayor Quann stacks up against Mayor Bloomberg vs the other cities. I still have a lot of work to do, but wanted to throw the idea out here to discuss! 완젬스 (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It has to be something that is not original research and would need solid references.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I've passed "editing 101" and I know that you can't disregard WP:OR or WP:RS (at least without consensus, that is...) but does anyone else care if a sentence goes into each paragraph of September, October, and November? I'd like to know the peak (or "max") and the average number of occupiers for those 3 months, up until the Nov 15th ban on camping. If we can find solid references and isn't original research, is this information valuable or interesting? (I still notice we have the greywater discussion pretty well covered--showing that length is still an issue...)

The protesters constructed a greywater treatment system to recycle dishwater contaminants. The filtered water was used for the park's plants and flowers.

How about if we delete those two sentences, and add three sentences like I'm proposing to chronology? Is there sufficient interest? 완젬스 (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be interesting if you can find references. Gandydancer (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarity issues

I see discussion from reading this talk page and the talk page of Occupy Movement and notice Wikipedians are catching on to the distinguishment between "the encampments" verses the actual movement, because the movement is still ongoing, even if it is "dead in the UK" or Mayors have stepped up their police-facilitated evictions. The NYCGA is still functioning at 100% capacity, and they have not scaled back to "part time" or work any less now than they did before. Given the gradual absences of physical presences (such as marches or encampments) marking the status of the occupy movement, I have two proposals:

• The first proposal is that we ask ourselves "Is this article, Occupy Wall Street, about physical presence located at zuccotti park which embodied the nationwide occupy movement?" (note: this is stuff which is inherently unclear, but is consensus coalescing around the clear idea of the movement being able to exist yet without people on the ground?) Otherwise, some have argued in inner circles of ows leaders (read here) that hypothetically the use of occupy funds to provide for food/shelter to artificially extend the protests however long we want to:

(this is the relevant excerpts from the link in case you don't want to click and read the whole thing)

This is what the Occupy encampment has become: A band of homeless protesters with no place to go. Amid accusations of drug use and sporadic theft, they've been sleeping on church pews for weeks, consuming at least $20,000 of the funds that Occupy Wall Street still has in its coffers. Their existence is being hotly debated at Occupy meetings: Are these people truly "Occupiers" who deserve free food and a roof over their heads?

"We don't do this out of charity," said 34-year-old Ravi Ahmad, who works for Columbia University and volunteers with Occupy in her spare time. "We do this so that whoever wants to work in the movement can work in the movement. This is a meritocracy."

But money is draining rapidly from Occupy's various bank accounts, which currently amount to about $344,000. Including church maintenance costs and meals, living expenses are more than $2,000 per week.

The movement that denounces corporate greed and economic inequality has been fighting to stay afloat in the city where it first began. Media attention and donations have dropped off. And although protesters regularly meet to plan demonstrations, recent marches have had none of the spectacle that captivated New Yorkers and watchers worldwide.

If the physical presence of the occupy movement in new york city can be called "occupy wall street" while we clarify that the movement is nationwide, and not definitively linked to the encampment at Zuccotti Park, then it allows us to treat the article in a more consistent tone than it is now. Until earlier today, there was still stuff about Chicago on here--we are confusing the readers if we the editors don't have a definitive agreement of what encompasses "occupy wall street" and what it entails.

This would then allow "goals" and other movement-specific sections to be discussed more concertedly, because we the editors would all agree on the same definition of what this article covers, what the occupy movement article covers, and what this article doesn't cover. Already, when I was thinking of the antisemitism inclusion battle from months past, it is no longer applicable because this article is no longer obfuscated with the occupy movement, which has evolved on its own during my absence to my liking. (I'm not re-discussing antisemitism, just using it as an example to remind everyone how much more we tolerated inclusiveness of information beyond the scope of this article.)

I'm naturally thinking (and have been asked to present this question to the Wikipedia community at large) if the general consensus is to treat the various cities on this template as "occupy cityxyz" and refer to them as just their encampments? (especially when cities like oakland differ so much and seemingly have their own goals autonomously from their nycga leaders) Or just as their encampment plus marches? Or for as long as we spend money on food/shelter to artificially keep enough people on the ground to attract at least 1 news van (which was in fact the old criteria when money was free-flowing, but as you can imagine quickly burns through resources). The linked article, in addition to this article may be of guidance, especially as the movement seeks to recommit itself to clarity. (and of course the new york times is a reliable source in case the other source isn't)

My second proposal is to suggest that it's about time to start the nycga article, especially as the encampment at new york is no longer what it was back in October. 완젬스 (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be asking some very broad questions. Perhaps what you are interested in is a community wide agreement on consensus and that isn't such a bad idea, it's just not something the community has organized on yet. What really needs to happen is an Project to get all the interested editors together to collaborate with consensus on this and other issues specific to Occupy articles.

As far as the direction of this article, it should be treated, like all large articles, with some "over arching" source or reference for direction and forcus. Right now the only over arching source is the media in general. We can't take one particular media source as that would be POV, but if we treat this in a manner consistant with socialogy and anthropolgy, we maintain encyclopedic value. The subject is being treated as a protest alone, subject to it's name and location. It may well be that we define each article by the "Occupation" and city name as that is what each article pertains to. That location's city name.

Now, if what you are asking is "Do we identify the subject as the "protest" or the "organization" running it, the human system itself then it isn't a matter of internal decision making of the groups or groups involved. In other words, their direction is't a matter of concern, we just make note of it when a source is located and if it's notable. The article is about the notable, reliable, published information. Is Occupy Wall Street an actual organization? Perhaps it is as well, but the over arching sources we have define it as a protest or series of protests. That is set, and only the sources can define that. We shouldn't try to do otherwise. Is there an Occupy Movement. Yes, and we have an article for that. Is there an Occupy Wall street portest? Yes and we have an article for that (this one), But if what you are asking is...is this really all one subject......I say yes, but....and this is a big but....we would need to begin merging and trimming a number of articles. If there were to be one central article it would be the Occupy Movement article, not the Occupy Wall Street article. I would also say that since so many of these articles are so short, the main Occupy Movement article could include section summarized with the main cities and a single article of all "Occupy {insert city name here} articles be merged into "List of Occupy protests".--Amadscientist (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to what Scientist said. We have been challenged a few times with the suggestion that now that the park is closed to camping this article is "all done". We did not agree with that suggestion. I know that the NYC group is doing some Occupy Homes work and some other things...Occupy DOE...etc., but I don't see much news on what they are doing these days. As for the broader movement, it will be a huge effort and I think it's too soon to attempt it. I guess I am not much help... Gandydancer (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW I think I used the above source and added this info a while back:

Since the closure of the Zuccotti Park encampment, some former campers have been allowed to sleep in local churches, but how much longer they will be welcomed is in question and even former park Occupiers debate whether or not they can continue to provide funds and meals for homeless protesters. Since the police raid, New York protesters have been divided in their opinion as to the importance of the occupation of a space with some believing that actual encampment is unnecessary, and even a burden.[114] Gandydancer (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that OWS is a geographically local faction of a global social movement, with its own set of direct actions (like the Zuccotti Park encampment), a loose collection of people (NYCGA, direct action participants, financial supporters, etc), and possibly some other distinguishing values and practices. I see Occupy Wall Street as different from other "Occupy X" factions for a couple reasons, colored through my lens of living in the US. One distinguishing feature is that Occupy Wall Street was the first to get widespread attention. The generally accepted narrative is that OWS started what is now called the global Occupy movement. (Where earlier events are credited as influences or somehow precursors.) The other difference is that "Occupy Wall Street" is often used as shorthand for the whole Occupy movement. I'd guess that's because of its "first" position and/or because of how Wall Street's relationship with the US government is illustrative of some of the core "Occupy" issues. So while the "faction" approach may work well to characterize other Occupies (and Oakland is a notable example with differing values and tactics), Occupy Wall Street is a little trickier because it has also become a brand. Just my opinions... clearly this is OR/synthesis! PubliusDigitus (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

subsection

Originally posted by Amadscientist:

Is there an Occupy Wall street portest? Yes and we have an article for that (this one), But if what you are asking is...is this really all one subject......I say yes, but....and this is a big but....we would need to begin merging and trimming a number of articles.

Exactly! The decision to this question means we would have to be consistent across ALL occupy related articles. This has been long overdue because most anon editors who come to this page and still post stuff about Scott Olsen (oakland guy) are rightfully confused because this question has not been "rippled" through wikipedia yet. Obviously this question deserves input from the other "occupy cityxyz" editors, but I'll take care of that as well. 완젬스 (talk)

It could use input by the community as a whole as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me also point out to this page's editors--amad's central question is the right question which needs to be asked. There needs to be some sort of "over-arching" media source which is like the top-dawg so to speak. It's my opinion that we place more weight on most recent articles rather than articles from 2011, and we place more weight on what the wikipedia community judges to be deserving of the most weight. 완젬스 (talk)

Due weight is given to RS references in regards to the information not date of publication unless a change has been made to facts.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Understood, but do you agree (everything else considered equal) that if a Feb article contradicts a December article, that the idea about how coverage & journalism regarding the occupy movement and occupy cityxyz will generally tend to improve over time? Journalists themselves who were "new" to covering the movement were a lot less familiar during the early months, just as when they covered the tea party. (see this striking nbc analysis on racism claims) Therefore, we as editors should place greater emphasis on 2012 facts when they contradict 2011 facts. Maybe we can wait until the next major ows article hits the nytimes early next month. I'll be able to give you examples when the information becomes available. 완젬스 (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If you look at this article from NYtimes available online Saturday evening (or in print, sunday morning) you'll see that it was written EXTREMELY thoroughly from journalistic standards, and has been sent out to all the following people, before the author Erik Eckholm signed off on it (and his editor signed off on Erick Eckholm):

Reporting was contributed by Jess Bidgood from Boston, Robbie Brown from Atlanta, Dan Frosch from Denver, Ian Lovett from Los Angeles, Carol Pogash from Oakland, Steven Yaccino from Chicago and William Yardley from Seattle. Kitty Bennett contributed research.

They also sent out advanced copies to the nycga, and it was leaked to the leaders of all working groups, which is why you won't see ANY argument from the occupy leaders about the content of what's written in the article. Even Kitty Bennett who "contributed research" leaves the logical assumption which means she may have talked/emailed to additional people, other than the 8 people listed as assistant reporters to Erik Eckholm's major "state of the movement" news story, which is definitively a non-editorial piece, which is the highest journalistic standard. The next major story to discuss the status of the occupy movement as extensively as the effort that went into this story won't be for another 3 weeks (as long as there's not a shooting or breaking story, of course) so I hope to give it huge "weight" in advance, because by the time it will be published, it will be the most recent article we have. 완젬스 (talk)

No. When I say "over arching"...I mean a source that can be seen as the best over all coverage of the subject by an expert...not a journalist and not a single article in one paper. I know there have been a number of journal studies done on the protests by experts on such things as activism, sociology etc. or even a recent book that covers everything from the beginning to January might be acceptable with consensus, I cannot agree to a single New York Times article as an over arching single source. And when i say that, I mean direction only...not as the single reference given the most weight, but a single aource large enough to cover the subject in detail and then use the information to find other RS sources saying the same thing or going in the same direction.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm saying that an esteemed journalist from the NYTimes along with a panel of experts and researchers should be our Magna Carta especially if other news companies all say the same thing afterward. Any book or journal study is usually agenda-pushing in one way or another, because everybody wants to be the first to define the movement and "get the group's message out" which is why we don't use those sources on this article. Even Lawrence Lessig is trying to spam his book to the occupy movement. I think that NYtimes article is the best written current summary on the state of affairs so far. Weren't you impressed with the harshness and brutal objectivity when you read it? (also, link me a couple of those scholarly studies if you have them bookmarked) 완젬스 (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, if you guys don't know already, HuffPo is very lax about letting bloggers become journalists and letting opinion/editorial stories be wrongfully labeled as news stories, or actual reporting. I'm not speaking ill of HuffPo, but I wanted to point out the argument to give an article like the Nytimes story about 10x more weight than a typical huffpo story about the occupy movement. 완젬스 (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

second issue

Now, about Gandy's point, that the article is "all done" since the camping ban has been enacted--of course I agree with Gandy, because once you open the possibility of misinterpretation, then you open the floodgates of pov editors who will start discussing the "legacy of occupy wall street" and other misguided sections which will drag down the quality of this article. This article (occupy wall street) will be the last page to be "over" simply because we'll have to re-explain in detail to every editor who is misguided by the lack of clarity which we as editors have facilitated. Until every occupy cityxyz article is very clear, and until the occupy movement article is very clear, then it is way too premature to consider this article about the wall street "occupation" to be announced as officially over.

In short, I want increasing clarity and so do the readers who read wikipedia and search for "occupy wall street" or "occupy movement" or "occupy homes" because we editors who have worked on this article know the differences between those three things, but not everyone is as clear. In fact, I remember reading an article on Wikipedia about something which was closely linked to something else, and it was terribly unclear what the boundaries were between the two separate articles. Once this article is increasingly clear for a couple weeks (and hopefully it "sticks" and feels correct) then hopefully the other articles will coalesce around the consensus which started here, as amad pointed out in his central question.

I'd like to hear what you guys think about the idea of my suggestion to this problem. I consider "occupy wall street" to be the movement itself during the first few weeks--i.e. there is ZERO "boundary" between the movement itself, and this article, until the movement spread nationwide. (of course, we'll need reference as to when this happened) Then I'd say in the article that the "zuccotti encampment" evolved as the physical presence of the occupy movement, which ended on Nov 15th, but included a select few official after-ripples around New York City, as well as segue into the NYCGA article which I feel should be created later this week. The nycga works "full time" even after the encampment closed, and for this reason, I still consider "occupy wall street" to be ongoing and active, because each week they are making goals, running the website, organizing & controlling the other movements (via inter-occupy), and doing interviews with political leaders and the press.

For us to say "it's over" would require us to clearly inform the readers that it's not over, but simply the movement has been lifted off the ground, and that it no longer needs to physically manifest itself around the clock to still be considered active. Hopefully since it is now Feb 2012, this makes a lot of sense, and would have fell on deaf ears if I raised these suggestions shortly after Nov 15th (because it hasn't had time to sink in). The onus is on us to research these issues on our own (and read various media sources--the more recent the better) to assist us in forming consensus. Once we tackle these issues of clarity, then our article will be more clear to its readers/new-editors, which will assist editors at other occupy cityxyz articles. I also fully agree with getting rid of as many cities as possible on the occupy template (especially the smaller cities) because really only about 3 deserve entirely their own devoted article (dc, oak, nyc) and the rest can be adequately handled in a couple paragraphs on this page.

There's no rush on this effort to gather consensus, because it's a HUGE proposal and deserves a lot of careful thought and consideration. I recommend reading different reliable sources about the movement/protests/encampments and defer to the judgment of journalists because that's what we're supposed to follow anyway. Our article is supposed to reflect what is verifiably published by reliable sources. This argument taken here will be what allows us to do the same on the other occupy pages, which is also why we need their input because this is a very wide group of editors. Once I read the responses here, I'll put some rfc's on the other relevant talk pages. 완젬스 (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Crime section labled "Security concerns"

A NPOV/n disussion led to a suggestion by an admin to allow the material for now and call it simply "Security" concerns. The compromise meant that the article would include a segregated section on negatives and the article would be reassessed as C rated. The Compromise was due to a filibuster of one member while all others editors were in agreement to at least place it within the Zuccotti Park section. But it was not an agreement that locked that section in place or even with the exact name. A concern is a point of view. Police and security or security alone is neutral. Police inormation needs to be expanded here a bit.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, perhaps because I don't understand how ratings work. I thought that security was a good idea. I agree that security/violence should be included. I don't see that so much as negative/positive information. Why don't you try something that seems to make sense and we'll see how it reads? Gandydancer (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to bring this up again. Then bring it up again. It has been discussed several times.Racingstripes (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy for us to have a fresh start on this question also. Like it or not, there are bad apples in our movement which need to be briefly mentioned. Luckily, they will be relegated to the "cityxyz" articles, rather than on the Occupy Movement article, which keeps the message from being detracted by drama makers like the black bloc in Oakland. 완젬스 (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Civil disobedience

This is something missing from the article. Should it be a section?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember any broad use of civil disobedience used. Do you? Gandydancer (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Trespassing on private property? Camping without a permit? —WWoods (talk) 07:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There was lots of 'direct action' which I think is more correct than the phrase 'civil disobedience' like when they blocked the streets of wall street, to disallow bankers & stock traders to go to work inside their buildings. 완젬스 (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There is actually very little direct action, but civil disobediance itself. "Direct action" may not be descriptive enough.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The affinity groups and "security culture" from day 1 has stressed absolute secrecy about direct action. Don't you remember November 17th and this poster they used? If you've been to these camps, they don't just sit around all day and play drums. A lot of crowds gather just hoping to see violence on announced days of direct action, especially when we advertise it openly. There is also plenty of coverage on it: http://goo.gl/xXQyn (just from 2011 in nyc) 완젬스 (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

POV-pushing

"On October 5, thousands of union workers joined protesters marching through the Financial District, resulting in about 200 arrests later in the same evening when dozens of protesters peacefully stormed barricades blocking them from Wall Street and the Stock Exchange."

"After midnight on November 15, police delivered notices that protesters had to temporarily vacate the park to allow cleaning/sanitation crews access. Police moved in around 1:00 AM on November 15 and arrested about 200 protesters who were peacefully practicing non-compliance."

As this article becomes increasingly "summarized" with details of stuff that actually happened being buried in numerous sub-articles, let's take care that our "summaries" not be infected with POV-pushing, eh? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I take responsibility for adding the words "peacefully" because I have issue with "storming the barricades" as it seems too violent (just like amad changes the word "crime" to "security concerns") which I'm now guilty of. In fact, now that I see this picture it does look unpeaceful and looks like they are trying to overpower the police who are holding the barricades up. Thanks for your civility and constructive feedback. 완젬스 (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"Thanks for your civility and constructive feedback." Huh? Next time, do something! The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)