Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 16

Dead link
Reference 240 is dead. 4 Links

Christina Boyle and John Doyle. "Pepper-spray videos spark furor as NYPD launches probe of Wall Street protest incidents". The Daily News. Retrieved October 11, 2011.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

NYT resources

 * At Scene of Wall St. Protest, Rising Concerns About Crime by Cara Buckley and Matt Flegenheimer, published November 8, 2011, A23 & A25 in print (9th).


 * Occupy Movement Inspires Unions to Embrace Bold Tactics by Steven Greenhouse, published November 8, 2011, page B1 & B6 in print (9th)

99.109.126.73 (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Both very good reads. Gandydancer (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I just added it as a reference, good find. 완젬스 (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead summary has bias with mentioning crimes?
Why emphasis the rape allegations, drug allegations, assault allegations, or other acts which belongs to individual behaviors on the lead. We don't have "There has been some crime reported, including accusations of sexual assault" in the Republican party's article lead because Cain (individual) have been linked with sexual assault, and other republican have been linked to crime. The WP:LEAD should be a summary, an introduction, not a shopping list of punctual facts, pro or cons. Yug (talk)  23:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why specific crimes are mentioned when the importance of those crimes as they relate to OWS isn't obvious. I would prefer a "Supporters say....Critics say..." approach, which is more standard.  I would prefer that the lead more resemble the Tea Party movement article's lead, which does not contain racism allegations, nor does it say anything like, "Tea partiers carry guns to their rallies".  There actually isn't any criticism at all in that article's lead, but an explanation about what the TP movement is about. -- David  Shankbone  23:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * One, because there is no evidence Cain did anything. Two, you are targeting a particular individual rather than an unnamed group of them. Three, the GOP is much larger in size than the OWS.
 * Crimes are a significant deal in relation to the event, including rape. These crimes are happening at numerous Occupy locations, and by a wide group of people. These deserve attention rather than censorship. Putting something like "Journalists and media outlets have noted incidents of crimes such as rape happening at the protests" is perfectly NPOV and, I'll say, the only way to neutrally address the obvious issues.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  23:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Today NYC Mayor Bloomberg said, "I will say in all fairness to the people down there, we watch very carefully and they generally do not break the law," but you are saying that crime is a major factor of OWS? The city doesn't agree with you.  -- David  Shankbone  00:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You lose points for straw-manning. This is about "noteworthy enough to belong in the lead" or "not noteworthy enough to belong in the lead" which is not the same thing as "major factor" or "not major factor". Thanks, 완젬스 (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * From wp:LEAD: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic" I used "major factor" instead of "important to the topic", but let me refactor: Today NYC Mayor Bloomberg said, "I will say in all fairness to the people down there, we watch very carefully and they generally do not break the law," but you are saying that crime is a noteworthy factor of OWS to a degree that it should be in the lead?  The city doesn't appear to agree with you. -- David  Shankbone  00:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the mayor of NYC a WP:Reliable Source especially when it says:


 * I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, and in fact I agree with you that crime is not a major factor. Let's get back to the issue of whether or not crime belongs in the lead, which I have not currently made up my mind one way or the other yet. But generally speaking, we wiser Wikipedians don't believe everything we hear from politicians, and we certainly don't let politicians statements have much standalone clout either. Remember Joe Biden saying violence (such as rape) was up 3-fold in Flint Michigan? I'm not saying I don't like Bloomberg, but he's not a reliable source. We supporters of OWS generally think politicians are half of the problem, and we the people are the solution. 완젬스 (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Mayor of New York City is a reliable source about crime, since he is in charge of the police force. That alone makes him a reliable source.  And since he is a vocal critic of OWS, both of the protesters and of their views, he is not trying to make them sound good.  -- David  Shankbone  01:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Across the precinct, there has been a rise in the number of crimes reported and arrests made in the four weeks leading up to Sunday (4-week period ending Nov 6th) compared with the same period last year: this year there were 446 criminal complaints, up from 362 last year, and 404 arrests, up from 323 during the same four weeks in 2010. But the number of summonses issued for criminal activity fell by a third to 205, from 330 last year. Agree to disagree, 완젬스 (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * An increase in crime in the precinct is not evidence that it is caused by the OWS protesters themselves. It is also possible that the increase in the homeless population and other antisocial types who are unaffiliated with the movement but drawn to Zuccotti Park for the free food, medical care, clothing, etc., are responsible.  I understand that you feel a criminal element is "important" to OWS and thus it belongs in the lead, but I disagree.  -- David  Shankbone  01:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep saying what I support? I'm the most vocally "pro-OWS" editor on this page, if you haven't been around the block a time or two on this talk page. ;-) This shows me more evidence of your proclivity of resorting to straw-manning other editors. No harm, no foul. I'm guilty of wasting talk page space here on this issue, now I gotta get back to work. 완젬스 (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree Yug. I believe the lede is far too detailed in other instances as well, for instance the mention of Roseanne Barr and the Hipster Cop.  Gandydancer (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been asked to edit lightly in areas where I am too "pro-OWS" but I have removed the two sentences mentioning hipster cop and Roseann bar. See WP:LEAD where it says:


 * The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview.
 * I think this is an important point missed by some editors. 완젬스 (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

We should also mention the police responding to a shooting at Occupy Vermont as well as the man arrested for throwing a molotov in the World Trade Center. Both directly related to Occupy Protests.--Jacksoncw (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Most of the reported incidents are not even related to the NYC site and should be moved to the articles that they are related to. I added to the lede that the mayor says that overall the protesters are law abiding and peaceful. Gandydancer (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if we are going to mention that "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.", we should probably say something about them.--Jacksoncw (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I took some stuff out. See my edit summaries for justification, I took it out in bits with a summary for each. Be— —Critical 05:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

potential resource (Herman Cain)
Herman Cain on Occupy Wall Street. 99.109.126.248 (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPiSzCDChX4 Here is the exact interview from above. 완젬스 (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is his damage control video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcWompIc--U 완젬스 (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Just saw this video of Obama comparing OWS to the Tea Party? Seriously? Wow, I see it's already in the article too. Nice job guys, as it's highly relevant. I can't find anything else about Herman Cain on OWS, I've been checking for 20 minutes. 완젬스 (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a soapbox, comments like "his damage control video" are nonconstructive, your point of view of republicans and the OWS movement is pretty obvious at this point. I was told youtube videos are not reliable sources.--Jacksoncw (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a soapbox, comments like "your point of view of republicans and the OWS movement is pretty obvious at this point" are non-constructive. In all seriousness, 완젬스 (talk) 03:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably most of the youtube stuff should be taken out. There may be exceptions. Be— —Critical 06:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I found a few a while back and removed them. Youtube itself isn't an automatic problem it's the content. No copyright material misused. As example..it can be an MSNBC video of an interview or story, but it has to be from MSNBC's Youtube site. Context to article of course, etc.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

POV tag due to whitewashing of the lede
The removal of all mention of criminal actions from the lede makes the article biased, would the editor who removed it explain why he did so please. The Last Angry Man (talk) 06:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The criminal actions aren't notable for the lead in the context of the overall protest. If we are going to drill down that far in the lead, we would have to include a summary of every other section of the article, which would make the lead too long.   Be— —Critical  06:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It kinda does. LOL! Sorry, but the lead of an article should summarize whats in the article. Due weight is a concern many have for specific items, but have not really argued for what reason one thing is being given undue weight. The subject is not all roses and sunshine and editors need to face that fact. This is not a pamphlet being handed out at the protest. We should not write it that way. There should be a neutral overview of facts onto the page in ways that are easy to read and easy to understand in terms of what is being said. While this is an event that is ongoing in the real world most of the information in this article deals with the major aspects of event those far. What those major things are are whats actually in the article. So make a lead from what consensus already agrees on in the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Way back someone was discussing the lede and length. Length in terms of what should be covered is not an issue. You don't mean keep it short and nothing negative, because that's not neutral, or encyclopedic so do you mean just the biggest controversies from the article? What's an acceptable negative to mention. What is a good argument for exclusion of negative material in the lead. NPOV means to give due weight to there importance to current scholarly work. The lead should not just be the opening it's a summary.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It could certainly be longer. Ledes can be up to four paragraphs and, considering the length of the article, the lede should probably be longer than it currently is. I have no opinion on what should be in the lede, but just made sure to give equal weight to all of the overall sections. Silver  seren C 06:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

(out)A single line should do really, how bout "There have been reports on minor and some major felonies being committed."? The Last Angry Man (talk) 06:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are levels of summarizing. A huge article is highly summarized, in that not all aspects are covered in the lead.  A simpler article might have all sections summarized.  In an article like this, you give a definition and paint with an extremely broad brush.  Also, the lead was highly selective in just what crime was spoken of, and made the protesters to be perpetrators and ignored any possible victimization.   "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."  It seems to have been a big POV push as written. Also, the source was used only in the lead.   Certainly Angry Man's suggestion above is very unacceptable.   Be— —Critical  06:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is so much editing going on in this article I haven't paid too much attention. Maybe I missed something, but I must ask

Why is there an unsubstantiated, unsourced accusation of antisemitism in the lede? Has there been a discussion about this that I missed or has someone just dropped that in? Trackinfo (talk) 06:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Because I didn't want to do too much bold editing all at once, but I just took it out. Be— —Critical  07:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your user name belies your actions, you are not even remotely critical are you? What exactly is worng with the line I have suggested? And why remove the anti antisemitism? This is what I mean by article whitewashing, all reports which may cast OWS in a bad light are suppressed. The Last Angry Man (talk) 07:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, where are you getting that from in the article? In the crime section, a good bit for the lead would be "OWS protesters staying in Zuccotti Park are dealing with a worsening security problem with reports of multiple incidents of assault, drug dealing and use, and rape and attempted rape."   Be— —Critical  07:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * While I tend to think the need for specifics is always going to be contentious for some, at it's core Angry man is correct and I suspect the perception of white washing by some is because there's been some scrubbing going on. OK, we don't think specifics are due weight. I can accpt that. Others may wish to think about living with that. Right now we are nut shelling the lede, but due weight to equal contradicting view or major parts of the article must be covered in some manner.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do the article first, then the lead, though.  Be— —Critical  07:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Angry Man, where do you get off saying removing unsourced content is whitewashing. You want to leave a negative comment like that in the lede of the article because . . . you dream there is something negative to say, great, lets run with it?  Wikipedia deals with reliable information.  Furthermore, with a movement this big with no leadership, even if you could find one well sourced antisemetic comment by one individual, can you sufficiently pin that remark on all the other individuals in this movement enough to justify placing it in the lede?  The lede sums up what the rest of the article is about.  From a distance, it certainly is not a trend in any of the sources I read. Trackinfo (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Were do you get off making unfounded allegations? The lede is meant to be a summary of the article, there is mention of the antisemitic remarks(which are widely reported on) and their rebuttals in the article, that is how it is meant to work you know, you can say sorry now. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism Section
Why even bother mentioning what Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have to say in this article? I suggest getting rid of that, they have no relevance to this movement. --Caute AF (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's to help build solidarity, so the page could grow some momentum. Now that we're past the critical "hump" of needed momentum, it's fine if you remove it. We initially put it there to make them look bad, but we don't have to let their comments litter our article. Kinda like the "recycled watering of plants" which was a good idea early on, but outlived its usefulness and relevance. 완젬스 (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just reread it again. It's not even valid criticism, so I removed it. 완젬스 (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I will not argue the point, however I have felt all along that critics such as Limbaugh and Beck are as important to the article as the supporters are. Keep in mind that they have the support of millions of Americans. As for being outdated, isn't that what we basically do - document the past? Gandydancer (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it was cherry-picked and does not honestly reflect them. It's just like if you used this abortion comment by Obama which some right-wingers also cherry-picked to try and sum up Obama's view on abortion. It's flatly dishonest to aggrandize people who do not agree with us on OWS, and it undermines our integrity to this article if we overlook these subtle points and hold a double standard for certain points of view. 완젬스 (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That seems reasonable. Gandydancer (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It astounds me and you people ave the audacity to admit your blatantly deceitful tactics in this discussion page.So you added useless information that your admittedly cherry-picked just to make Beck and Limbaugh look bad? And now that it has served your purpose it is OK to delete it? The editors of this article should be ashamed of everything they have done. This has passed the point of ridiculousness. It is amazing how this extremely controversial movement that, according to gallop polling, has less than 20% support from the overall American population has next to no mention of any criticism at all. And the criticism it does have is half-baked, not real criticism about irrelevant things from irrelevant authorities just so you editors can say "look, we are NPOV". Then when anyone brings this forward you get all your friends to log on and give opposing "consensus" and the same 10 editors are the only ones giving consensus.I am appalled.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I undid this edit before reading the comment here. (When the edit was made, the editor should have written "see discussion page"). I agree and I put Beck and Limbaugh's criticism back in there. It is relevant since it is both of their initial comments made about the movement. They said little or nothing about the movement when it started and when they TOOK the opportunity to make a statement (the movement was growing and they couldn't ignore it, apparently) this is what they came up with. They do speak for millions and here's their opening sally. Gandydancer is right on both accounts. They represent millions and wikipedia does "document the past". Christian Roess (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If we are going to have a criticism section, then Beck and Limbaugh should be in it. I don't think we need to put inflamatory quotes in, however.--Nowa (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Are there any sources that discuss criticism towards the movement not from the far right or conservatives??? User:Morrison1630 15:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't these Occupiers claim to have no political leanings? So how is that relevant? If they were all from "fart-right sources" would that make them not notable or somehow inaccurate because they don't agree with your world-view?--Jacksoncw (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to avoid the Limbaugh etc. quotes. They are criticisms from influential sources on the Right.  Whatever we may think of the quotes, if well sourced they are notable criticisms.  Be— —Critical  01:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Good Article?
Should we attempt a good article nomination?

What is a good article?
A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

.</li> <li>.</li> <li>:</li>
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

</ol> --Amadscientist (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Would be nice. Someone would probably come along to help on a significant article like this. Then on to FA.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  07:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This is definitely not good article material.

-Not Stable- Not only is there still major debate in the discussion page about significant changes but there has yet to be any serious contributions with controversies in them.

-Doesn't cover major aspects- The OWS movement is very controversial,gallop polling shows that less than 25% of the population agree with the movement, yet there are little to no serious controversies outlined in this article and I believe this is due to censorship of material by a select few editors(One of them actually admitted to reverting edits because it would "hurt the movement").

-Not Neutral- The article was largely written by people in support of the movement and that shows in the article. Some people in discussion page admitted to adding feigned controversy just to make "Glen and Limbaugh look bad". There is a tiny criticism section although the media has largely reported things like trash on the streets, multiple rapes, defecation, violence,the keeping of people from their homes and jobs, and the injuring of many civilians that had nothing to do with the movement.

-No List Incorporation- Editors (including myself) have tried to include these controversies and controversial groups in list format in the article many times and each time have been reverted with with illegitimate reasons.--Jacksoncw (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say there is a lively debate and consensus is being formed on the talk page (that's a good thing) but the article itself is not unstable. But we don't have to really debate that as I am willing to live with your assessment.


 * With only a general message I can only assume you mean things like the negative police reaction and controversies which I think is thin, but the hipster cop thing I think is interesting. What do you think should be added and is there anyway we can incorporate into prose? Editors generaly prefer prose over list insertion. List may be perceived as puffery I believe. There are a good deal of supporters but that is not a bad thing either, there should be due weight given to controversies but consensus determines that. --Amadscientist (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is not stable enough to reach GA status. There are constant edit wars, new content is added and removed daily, the editors here show a serious disregard for neutrality. Censorship of content which may cast the mob in a bad light. I could go on but what is the point really? The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, not stable enough, constant edit wars, several activists who show a disregard for Wikipedia, and this movement is nowhere near its peak yet. 완젬스 (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Unstable indeed, this article will not be complete or near GA status until we see the conclusion of this movement. User: Morrison1630 —Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC).
 * There is no mention of the hundreds of arrests in the police section under reaction. The High Income Support section should note George Soros as a funder and supporter of the movement. The criticism section starts off with "Conservatives criticise Occupy Wall Street" as if conservatives are the only ones criticising the movement. This should be changed to "Critics say" or something along those lines. Under the criticism section, everytime an entity is mentioned that has republican leanings, it is called "right-wing" but any responses or information given from left-leaning entities doesn't get labeled as such, this is POV pushing. We either label everyone for their political leanings or no one. Almost the entire article is explained by democratic news outlets or by the OWS itself, but very few responses are given from any other viewpoint except in the criticisms section. This has a long way to go before I would consider it NPOV.--Jacksoncw (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and that is a very good point, and should be brought up in the criticism discussion section Jackson. User:Morrison 15:34, 11 November (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morrison1630 (talk • contribs)

Regardless of anything said above by TLAM or Jackson, hell no — this is NOT good article material, despite the patient efforts of numerous editors. I don't think it ever will be. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 20:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is nowhere near stable to be a GA anytime in the near future. Moreover, I would claim that it wouldn't be eligible for GA until (or if) the entire Occupy movement blows over, which may be quite a while. Not to mention, look at this talk page – there are disputes and signs of edit warring all over the place (though commonplace for an article on an ongoing event). –MuZemike 02:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Lede
The lede currently doe not summarize the article, there is no mention of the rapes, attempted rapes, sexual assaults, drug dealing, weapons, defecating in public areas (such as on a police car). Nor is there mention of the people who have endorsed the protests. All these need to be mentioned in the lede. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying it doesn't mention the individual subjects or a critical opposing view represented?--Amadscientist (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I have added more.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am saying that the lede is meant to be an overview on the article in brief, as such anything in the article should also be mentioned in the lede, as in the specific items I mentioned in my previous post. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand you feel there should be more weight to these issues but they don't have that weight in the article. They are brought up in the lead however.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It doe not matter how I "feel", it is policy. The lede must reflect what is in the article, currently none of the criminal activity is mentioned at all. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Guidelines are not absolutes in regards to lead content. Please link the guideline that you refer to for this.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Or better yet...what's the main stuff you object to not going in besides full lists.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That was all in the body of the article already and i moved it all into a controversy section and added a line in the lead.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly believe that writing "there has been some complaints" actually covers rape, attempted rape, sexual assaults, drug dealing, defecating in public, drug dealing and other random acts of violence? Please stop whitewashing this article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Whenever I hear the word "whitewash" used in reference to a WP article, alarm bells go off in my head. Are you really making the claim that these events have been high-profile enough that they need to be not just mentioned, but actually enumerated, in the lead?  Assuming you are, I'll object that listing specific criminal allegations and police reports in the lead would be undue weight to incidents that have received comparatively little attention from the press.  Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 23:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Comparatively little attention? How about this, this, this or this? The crimes are very well covered and have received attention in major news outlets. These allegations wouldn't be undue in the lede.--Jacksoncw (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure of that? 514 hits on G News 45 mill odd on google Seems widely reported to me. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, comparatively little attention. Meaning, relative to pretty much every other aspect of the protests, it has received little attention. By definition, we can't give full-detail coverage in the lead of everything that's significant and discussed in RS's and mentioned in the article. Putting these details in the lead would basically be cherry-picking and highlighting one of the most negative aspect of the protests just because it is negative. This would be undue weight. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really, for NPOV you have to have some of the bad stuff in the lede as well as all that sugar. Also you seem to forget the majority of reports are the same old same old, the press is more or less repeating itself. But for neutrality you need to have some controversies in the lede. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Straw man, or just a bad argument. Mentioning controversy in the lead doesn't mean we have to list out every kind of allegation there's been.  Again, undue weight to something that has received comparatively little attention from the press.  Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 20:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy subsections
These sections can be expanded with sub-subsections if needed. Be bold, but not reckless.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This really needs some of the controversy of the police and their early action added to the police subsection section for accuracy with due weight, It's mentioned in the time line but missung from the body of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be a breakdown of John Nolte's list of incidences. With 200+ at this current time, it seems that one sentence is not enough when the footnote contains links to 200+ stories. Because there are a lot of things happening that involve the OWS in general this section should show that. Complaints that it will get too large are veiled attempts to hide truth. It is true that there are a lot of incidences, of course there are - civil disobedience and permanent camping naturally will bring more of these stories out. It is not only fair, but accurate to break down the reports. SurfinCowboy (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone needs to unlock this article so things can be fixed.
There are so many errors in this article like this one, On Nov 10, 2011, A man was arrested at OWS for breaking EMT's leg. Who is EMT? Do you mean a person who is a EMT? Also there a lot of Weasel words, like Some and Many. What do these protesters want? That is not really clear in the article either. And these protesters, do they want everyone to be poor? I mean, how are these protesters working if they are there 18-24 hours a day? I just don't understand this? Do the protesters want big business to shut down? Or give their profits away? Funny how the protesters don't like big corporations, yet they don't mind using McDonald's bathrooms,toilet paper,soap and towels.--99.177.248.92 (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * On Nov 10, 2011, A man was arrested at OWS for breaking an EMT's leg, according to NBC. 


 * I took care of the edit request, do you have another specific recommendation for how to improve the article? 완젬스 (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Tea Party movement requires established editor, don't see why this should be different. What character set is "완젬스"? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hangul. 완젬스 (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say the opposite; this article should be full-protected. Opening the flood gates would make it worse, not better. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Let the community see what all 3 of you would propose as the lede
The lede section is changing WAY too quickly, that the rest of us can't keep up. Instead of arguing with each other in circles, please submit independently the version you stand behind. That way the other editors can see whose version to support, and make constructive changes to (rather than the current chaos which only you 3 editors understand each other's proposals most clearly) for the sake of transparency. For the sake of editors who are just joining in or waking up, please show them your vision for the lede, so we can have a productive discussion that way we can all collaborate transparently, rather than wading through the thick sludge of edit histories you 3 have enormously created.

(section break for discussion area)
I think for an article this important (the "parent" ows article) that making edits to the lede, having an unclear dialogue on the talk page, and battling against each other will effectively shut everyone else out (because of the effort to entrench ourselves and get a handle on the vision each of you have) so please share with us the type of lede each of you are proposing, so that way the rest of the community can make a more informed decision of which editor to invest our help we're willing to provide? If nothing else, it will unfold into a discussion where we can do marginal analysis and decide collectively, item by item, on what shall or shall not get a mention in the lead. Thanks, 완젬스 (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not edited the lede. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My perfect version would be where we all get to contribute in a collaborate effort and not be reduced to what we have to keep out because "Fill in the Blank". There are always ways to add information in the lead in a concise way. If it's the dispute about what to "allow" in, can we at least agree that a nut shell approach is not an improvement to the article? That's would be the first good subject to collaborate on. Do we want a short nut shell intro or a lead section that has a proportionate amount of prose summarizing what we form consensus on including? No minimum no maximum other that the guideline limits? (OK...that's two things).--Amadscientist (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I support, endorse, and encourage this part you said, "a lead section that has a proportionate amount of prose summarizing what we form consensus on including" which is why I want to know what the three of you are unambiguously proposing to have included, and where the differences between the 3 of you definitively rest at. I want concrete examples over the exact items each of you want (or don't want) included, so we can clear out the assumptions. 완젬스 (talk) 08:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Re: I have not edited the lede. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that, which is why your section is momentarily empty. Would you mind giving us some sorta idea about your vision for the lede? It's one thing to make suggestions, but to propose and defend a complete lede requires leadership & intestinal fortitude. That would be great; however, if you're not willing to do that, would you at least provide the link to edit history of a version of the lead you like the most? I think all 3 of you have good intentions, but the message is totally lost on outsiders. For our sake, we're just asking for clarity & transparency. 완젬스 (talk) 08:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason I care about improving the lead is because I already posted on AmadScientist's talkpage here 7 hours ago because that is clearly the most unstable section, which needs the most work. With Dualus no longer forcing us to deal with his red tape, then we get to decide what parts of the article to work on (rather than us all being devoted 24/7 full time to stop Dualus's unstoppable influence to the various OWS articles). We have proven to ourselves that we can reach agreement on the antisemitism discussion yesterday, so let us come together today and prove we can do it again. All I want is to have a good lede to our article, while everyone has the desire today to improve it. Let's get started by letting the community know who wants what included, so we can get behind the most sensible proposals. Let us stay optimistic in one another. We can collaborate effectively if we know who supports what. Until then, we have to make guesses and fill our own uncertainties with unnecessary assumptions. 완젬스 (talk) 09:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well...I've made some pretty bold edits. There is clearly no consensus for the larger summary I had made and there may only be weak silent consent now for what's there. I'll step back from that and let others decide what more could be added and if any one else disputes it. Maybe the condensed nut shell is the consensus that is holding right now as some small compromise. I'll stick to checking references for a while.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Yug for contributing the November 8th version. This was a great benchmark for comparison to the time I last remember the lede being halfway decent. 완젬스 (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought that the following version was quite reasonable. It seems to survey the major points and address the concerns of those that believe it is important to include a mention of crime, local complaints, and anti-semitism.

--Gandydancer (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I also think that Gandy's version is reasonable. -- David  Shankbone  13:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Throwing my support behind Gandydancer's lede as well! See edited version below I am proposing--Amadscientist (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I too support Gandydancer's lede. Thanks for everybody's participation, collaboration, and comity. 완젬스 (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No,you people keep trying to censor material so we don't "make the OWS look bad", we should leave it as it was and specify what the allegations are in a short list, it wouldn't take very much space and there are plenty of references. --174.49.47.34 (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Show us your proposal. 완젬스 (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Lede proposal
Pretty much what Gandy proposed with slight copy edit:

--Amadscientist (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The quote from Bloomberg news had to go. It gives too much weight to a source and undue weight to Bloomberg. Also just said Mayor.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Too much weight for the mayor of NYC?? Gandydancer (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also added police liaison info..--Amadscientist (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, I'm sure we're moments away from reaching a strong and resilient consensus on the lede section. It's amazing what we can get done, thanks to user:Spartaz (the admin who blocked Dualus) because the only goal the rest of us ever wanted to achieve was simply improving the article, which we've succeeded fabulously for the past two days. I hope our momentum continues. 완젬스 (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Saying "There has been some crime reported" does not really convey the seriousness of what has taken place. Please replace it with my suggestion "There have been reports of minor and some major felony's" This will convey the seriousness of the sexual assaults without being explicit. The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How can a felony be minor? Isn't a minor criminal infraction simply a misdemeanor? Once you've been convicted, plea guilty, or plead no contest (and adjudicated guilty), then that person becomes a felon. 완젬스 (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Why do you prefer this wording to the existing wording: Unions as well as a number of academics and celebrities have been supportive.”[12] [13] Gandydancer (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Apart from jumping on the bandwagon and endorsing OWS, what support have unions given? The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think he's right, even if it's a line. This isn't disney land yet we lamost sound like we're describing a theme park. There has been serious crime including an Oakland shooting death yesterday. We cannot continue to make the New York article lead off with the impression it's all fun and games. I will add a neutral piece to the extreme claims. The "strong" description seemed POV for union support--Amadscientist (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I "strongly" disagree! (That's supposed to be funny.)  The union is strongly supporting the movement and the academics and nationally-known personalities that have spoken out for the movement have done it with a great deal of forceful language.  Keep in mind that I am bending way over backwards to include some of the issues that some editors want in the lede, but am willing to concede to their concerns. Gandydancer (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have seen that the nurses union do far more. What is strong? They showed up and that's support but what is the basis in the article that their support is "strong". Bear in mind the nurses were "Strong" supporters of Jerry Brown and this seems like more solidarity, not political support in a manner justified for the view "Strong".--Amadscientist (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the following info is pretty much ancient history related to the first weeks of the protest. Why do you feel it's still so important that it should be in the lede:  Early in the protest the media was criticized for failing to cover the demonstrations. Gandydancer (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not married to it. It's gone.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "There has been some criticism."? "voiced various complaints"? This hardly summarizes the violence and crime. There have been multiple reports of rape and sexual assault, many cases of drug dealing, civilians have been kept from their homes and jobs and even hurt by the protesters. And there has been a huge amount of criticism in the media. Stop trying to sugarcoat the movement. There has been some criticism and there have been various complaints isn't good enough.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

(out)Regarding the antisemitism, I recall seeing a source from a Jewish group which also refuted the allegations, I am going to try and track it down as I believe it will be a better balance than saying "some journalists" The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of due weight and that is exactly what that is...a summary, not a full account. You seems to feel there should be more weight to the lead in that direction so please tell us why and not make accusations of sugar coating as it is not constructive really.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * User:The Last Angry Man, remember we don't want undue weight to any group in the lead. We may be able to use it as reference to change that to "Specific groups have"...but if we begin to name individuals beyond the president we may just see others editors desire other groups and people mentioned in the lead.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, a little remiss of me to forget that. We can add it as a reference. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion:

--174.49.47.34 (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have references for all of that. And like it was said before, these events have been largely shown on major news outlets and this cannot be called undue.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Unacceptable POV not in the article. "what incoherent demands the movement had at the start have been crowded out by attention given to the number of plates thrown at cops and the number of tear gas canisters lobbed back." please stay with what is in the body of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:BITE 완젬스 (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)174.49.47.34 (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Who bit the newcomer? What I did was say they had an unacceptable level of POV--Amadscientist (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. Are the assault/sexual charges against OWS officials, or against individuals ? if against individuals in a public space, OWS can't be set as accountable for these attacks. Or wikipedia is joining a smear campaign. 2. Some commentators (Richard D. Wolff and others) also said "the movement is perfectly coherent, when you occupy WALL STREET, who can say it's not clear is a liar." Yug (talk)  17:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Discuss. Accusations are not civil--Amadscientist (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ? I simply don't understand your meaning. I simply state my opinion. Yug (talk)  18:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That was a quote? LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A quote reworded by myself, Wolff and some others had such opinion: it's not rational to say OWS haven't clear message when everyone understand well that they occupy Wall street because of its role within the current economic situation (crisis), its representation (the riches gamblers), and continuing as if nothing happened. My position is just, insist on "OWS message is not coherent/clear" sound quite like an unfaithful point raised by opponents. Yug (talk)  22:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the double post, servers are screwing up. I thought it was wierd that the lead said "there is some criticism" but doesn't report any of that criticism, so I just added that in there. But other than that excerpt, I think my proposal is appropriate.--Jacksoncw (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Nut shell lede
It's too small, and early impossible to add anything else without being undue weight. Someone be bold and just try a longer lead just so a broader amount of information can be summarized with due weight to each item in relationship to the size of the article to the size of the lead. Please.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Images and formatting
There are some excellent images, but there are too many to stagger all of them without interfering with the formatting and headers of small sections. We need to be careful with placement for low resolution screens to keep small portions of prose becoming squeezed between pictures. Otherwise some of the pics will have to go. I took extreme care in the placement. if there are objections we will then have to deal with which images to remove. I'm ignoring the human microphone image being placed out of context to prose but we need to keep that in mind with adding more.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean like cell phones? Because most monitors now are pretty hi res.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  20:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Most is not what people have at home. We need to keep this in mind. This is not aimed at a particular audience but to the general reader. Not everyone has a high resolution monitor and all images are still formatted by testing lower resolution settings.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the article has an extremely large number of images, and they're pretty much all promotional in nature. WP articles are not supposed to be advertising brochures. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 20:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For the most part the only one I know of off the top of my head is the Human Microphone image that was moved up. There are too many images in the Zuccotti park section. Maybe lose the sanitation or grey water image. Neither add much value to the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Partisan sources, blogs and opinion peices
A partisan blog is not a reliable source. A partisan website with editorial over site may still be used with caution and within consensus. Even a partisan blog from a major news source must be attributed to all opinion being used and to the weight of the information being added. If it's a controversy you need to reference it with something pretty strong. No personal blogs, no open source wikis etc.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Polls in the lede are contentious
They add undue weight to a particular poll and do not reflect accurate information to the reader. They are an "As of this time" figure that will undoubtedly be disputed. Some are also ancient history and no longer have a bearing on the subject moving this fast. Tomorrow they may drop by triple digits and rise again the next day.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That can be said in the lead. I contend that if we are going to include one issue which has little weight, such as the response of local residents, then we certainly have to include something with much more weight, such as unions or the opinion of the country.  One can say "as of" in the lead.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  21:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say we cut back further. Why mention anything but the most essential. If you want to start adding then I want to start adding and then everyone one wants to add something.....not like were really collaborating are we? No one wants this and can't live with that or this shouldn't be there. No. If it isn't about the protest itself it should stay out until we all agree what the lead should be. Because right now we are cutting nearly everything negative so nothing positive should be allowed either, support or criticism. Just the basic facts and keep everything else in the body.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I agree, but people wanted to have stuff in the lead that made them out to be criminal. I'm fine with the lead as here because it gives a definition and then says what their cause is about.  The three things that are most prominent in people's minds, definition, goals, and the slogan.  Once you go beyond that it's difficult to decide on WEIGHT.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  22:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't assume why people want or don't want something. It just makes it harder. There are things that do make them look like criminals....so? There are things that make them look like angels. We need to be encyclopedic and neutral and then content that is accurate and well sourced, given due weight will be appropriate no matter what.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't make an assumption, you are: I said they wanted stuff in the lead that made the protesters out to be criminal. I didn't say they wanted it there to push a POV.  Or, at least I didn't make that assumption in text, and since I didn't then you were supposed to refrain from calling me on it ( Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  00:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism Section
Why even bother mentioning what Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have to say in this article? I suggest getting rid of that, they have no relevance to this movement. --Caute AF (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's to help build solidarity, so the page could grow some momentum. Now that we're past the critical "hump" of needed momentum, it's fine if you remove it. We initially put it there to make them look bad, but we don't have to let their comments litter our article. Kinda like the "recycled watering of plants" which was a good idea early on, but outlived its usefulness and relevance. 완젬스 (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just reread it again. It's not even valid criticism, so I removed it. 완젬스 (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I will not argue the point, however I have felt all along that critics such as Limbaugh and Beck are as important to the article as the supporters are. Keep in mind that they have the support of millions of Americans. As for being outdated, isn't that what we basically do - document the past? Gandydancer (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it was cherry-picked and does not honestly reflect them. It's just like if you used this abortion comment by Obama which some right-wingers also cherry-picked to try and sum up Obama's view on abortion. It's flatly dishonest to aggrandize people who do not agree with us on OWS, and it undermines our integrity to this article if we overlook these subtle points and hold a double standard for certain points of view. 완젬스 (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That seems reasonable. Gandydancer (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It astounds me and you people ave the audacity to admit your blatantly deceitful tactics in this discussion page.So you added useless information that your admittedly cherry-picked just to make Beck and Limbaugh look bad? And now that it has served your purpose it is OK to delete it? The editors of this article should be ashamed of everything they have done. This has passed the point of ridiculousness. It is amazing how this extremely controversial movement that, according to gallop polling, has less than 20% support from the overall American population has next to no mention of any criticism at all. And the criticism it does have is half-baked, not real criticism about irrelevant things from irrelevant authorities just so you editors can say "look, we are NPOV". Then when anyone brings this forward you get all your friends to log on and give opposing "consensus" and the same 10 editors are the only ones giving consensus.I am appalled.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I undid this edit before reading the comment here. (When the edit was made, the editor should have written "see discussion page"). I agree and I put Beck and Limbaugh's criticism back in there. It is relevant since it is both of their initial comments made about the movement. They said little or nothing about the movement when it started and when they TOOK the opportunity to make a statement (the movement was growing and they couldn't ignore it, apparently) this is what they came up with. They do speak for millions and here's their opening sally. Gandydancer is right on both accounts. They represent millions and wikipedia does "document the past". Christian Roess (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If we are going to have a criticism section, then Beck and Limbaugh should be in it. I don't think we need to put inflamatory quotes in, however.--Nowa (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Are there any sources that discuss criticism towards the movement not from the far right or conservatives??? User:Morrison1630 15:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't these Occupiers claim to have no political leanings? So how is that relevant? If they were all from "fart-right sources" would that make them not notable or somehow inaccurate because they don't agree with your world-view?--Jacksoncw (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to avoid the Limbaugh etc. quotes. They are criticisms from influential sources on the Right.  Whatever we may think of the quotes, if well sourced they are notable criticisms.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  01:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Celebrity photos
I photographed David Crosby and Graham Nash at their OWS concert yesterday. Is it too much to have both Morello and Crosby/Nash photos? Both the concerts and the performers are significant to OWS in their own ways, but I don't want to overload the article with famous people photos (here's the gallery at Commons). -- David  Shankbone  00:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As usual, great photo! I believe this would be excellent to add.  I don't feel we have too many photos at all.  I wish that many articles had more photos, but often they just are not available.  IMO you have really done a great job with your selections and the way they have been placed in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Great job here with the photos and their placement. Really some of the more crucial photographs of this movement are in this article. Maybe this article should have its own photo section on this page; of course there is this page which is a must see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street. Christian Roess (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys - those were big compliments. Feel free to prune what I add; I'm trying to be discerning.  -- David  Shankbone  03:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the great addition! Old rockers jamming for protesters, an historical addition. Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Good Article?
Should we attempt a good article nomination?

What is a good article?
A good article is&mdash; <ol> <li>:</li>
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

<li>:</li>
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

<li>:</li>
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

<li>.</li> <li>.</li> <li>:</li>
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

</ol> --Amadscientist (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Would be nice. Someone would probably come along to help on a significant article like this. Then on to FA.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  07:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This is definitely not good article material.

-Not Stable- Not only is there still major debate in the discussion page about significant changes but there has yet to be any serious contributions with controversies in them.

-Doesn't cover major aspects- The OWS movement is very controversial,gallop polling shows that less than 25% of the population agree with the movement, yet there are little to no serious controversies outlined in this article and I believe this is due to censorship of material by a select few editors(One of them actually admitted to reverting edits because it would "hurt the movement").

-Not Neutral- The article was largely written by people in support of the movement and that shows in the article. Some people in discussion page admitted to adding feigned controversy just to make "Glen and Limbaugh look bad". There is a tiny criticism section although the media has largely reported things like trash on the streets, multiple rapes, defecation, violence,the keeping of people from their homes and jobs, and the injuring of many civilians that had nothing to do with the movement.

-No List Incorporation- Editors (including myself) have tried to include these controversies and controversial groups in list format in the article many times and each time have been reverted with with illegitimate reasons.--Jacksoncw (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say there is a lively debate and consensus is being formed on the talk page (that's a good thing) but the article itself is not unstable. But we don't have to really debate that as I am willing to live with your assessment.


 * With only a general message I can only assume you mean things like the negative police reaction and controversies which I think is thin, but the hipster cop thing I think is interesting. What do you think should be added and is there anyway we can incorporate into prose? Editors generaly prefer prose over list insertion. List may be perceived as puffery I believe. There are a good deal of supporters but that is not a bad thing either, there should be due weight given to controversies but consensus determines that. --Amadscientist (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is not stable enough to reach GA status. There are constant edit wars, new content is added and removed daily, the editors here show a serious disregard for neutrality. Censorship of content which may cast the mob in a bad light. I could go on but what is the point really? The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, not stable enough, constant edit wars, several activists who show a disregard for Wikipedia, and this movement is nowhere near its peak yet. 완젬스 (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Unstable indeed, this article will not be complete or near GA status until we see the conclusion of this movement. User: Morrison1630 —Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC).
 * There is no mention of the hundreds of arrests in the police section under reaction. The High Income Support section should note George Soros as a funder and supporter of the movement. The criticism section starts off with "Conservatives criticise Occupy Wall Street" as if conservatives are the only ones criticising the movement. This should be changed to "Critics say" or something along those lines. Under the criticism section, everytime an entity is mentioned that has republican leanings, it is called "right-wing" but any responses or information given from left-leaning entities doesn't get labeled as such, this is POV pushing. We either label everyone for their political leanings or no one. Almost the entire article is explained by democratic news outlets or by the OWS itself, but very few responses are given from any other viewpoint except in the criticisms section. This has a long way to go before I would consider it NPOV.--Jacksoncw (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and that is a very good point, and should be brought up in the criticism discussion section Jackson. User:Morrison 15:34, 11 November (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morrison1630 (talk • contribs)

Regardless of anything said above by TLAM or Jackson, hell no — this is NOT good article material, despite the patient efforts of numerous editors. I don't think it ever will be. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 20:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is nowhere near stable to be a GA anytime in the near future. Moreover, I would claim that it wouldn't be eligible for GA until (or if) the entire Occupy movement blows over, which may be quite a while. Not to mention, look at this talk page – there are disputes and signs of edit warring all over the place (though commonplace for an article on an ongoing event). –MuZemike 02:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy subsections
These sections can be expanded with sub-subsections if needed. Be bold, but not reckless.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This really needs some of the controversy of the police and their early action added to the police subsection section for accuracy with due weight, It's mentioned in the time line but missung from the body of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be a breakdown of John Nolte's list of incidences. With 200+ at this current time, it seems that one sentence is not enough when the footnote contains links to 200+ stories. Because there are a lot of things happening that involve the OWS in general this section should show that. Complaints that it will get too large are veiled attempts to hide truth. It is true that there are a lot of incidences, of course there are - civil disobedience and permanent camping naturally will bring more of these stories out. It is not only fair, but accurate to break down the reports. SurfinCowboy (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone needs to unlock this article so things can be fixed.
There are so many errors in this article like this one, On Nov 10, 2011, A man was arrested at OWS for breaking EMT's leg. Who is EMT? Do you mean a person who is a EMT? Also there a lot of Weasel words, like Some and Many. What do these protesters want? That is not really clear in the article either. And these protesters, do they want everyone to be poor? I mean, how are these protesters working if they are there 18-24 hours a day? I just don't understand this? Do the protesters want big business to shut down? Or give their profits away? Funny how the protesters don't like big corporations, yet they don't mind using McDonald's bathrooms,toilet paper,soap and towels.--99.177.248.92 (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * On Nov 10, 2011, A man was arrested at OWS for breaking an EMT's leg, according to NBC. 


 * I took care of the edit request, do you have another specific recommendation for how to improve the article? 완젬스 (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Tea Party movement requires established editor, don't see why this should be different. What character set is "완젬스"? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hangul. 완젬스 (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say the opposite; this article should be full-protected. Opening the flood gates would make it worse, not better. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Let the community see what all 3 of you would propose as the lede
The lede section is changing WAY too quickly, that the rest of us can't keep up. Instead of arguing with each other in circles, please submit independently the version you stand behind. That way the other editors can see whose version to support, and make constructive changes to (rather than the current chaos which only you 3 editors understand each other's proposals most clearly) for the sake of transparency. For the sake of editors who are just joining in or waking up, please show them your vision for the lede, so we can have a productive discussion that way we can all collaborate transparently, rather than wading through the thick sludge of edit histories you 3 have enormously created.

(section break for discussion area)
I think for an article this important (the "parent" ows article) that making edits to the lede, having an unclear dialogue on the talk page, and battling against each other will effectively shut everyone else out (because of the effort to entrench ourselves and get a handle on the vision each of you have) so please share with us the type of lede each of you are proposing, so that way the rest of the community can make a more informed decision of which editor to invest our help we're willing to provide? If nothing else, it will unfold into a discussion where we can do marginal analysis and decide collectively, item by item, on what shall or shall not get a mention in the lead. Thanks, 완젬스 (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not edited the lede. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My perfect version would be where we all get to contribute in a collaborate effort and not be reduced to what we have to keep out because "Fill in the Blank". There are always ways to add information in the lead in a concise way. If it's the dispute about what to "allow" in, can we at least agree that a nut shell approach is not an improvement to the article? That's would be the first good subject to collaborate on. Do we want a short nut shell intro or a lead section that has a proportionate amount of prose summarizing what we form consensus on including? No minimum no maximum other that the guideline limits? (OK...that's two things).--Amadscientist (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I support, endorse, and encourage this part you said, "a lead section that has a proportionate amount of prose summarizing what we form consensus on including" which is why I want to know what the three of you are unambiguously proposing to have included, and where the differences between the 3 of you definitively rest at. I want concrete examples over the exact items each of you want (or don't want) included, so we can clear out the assumptions. 완젬스 (talk) 08:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Re: I have not edited the lede. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that, which is why your section is momentarily empty. Would you mind giving us some sorta idea about your vision for the lede? It's one thing to make suggestions, but to propose and defend a complete lede requires leadership & intestinal fortitude. That would be great; however, if you're not willing to do that, would you at least provide the link to edit history of a version of the lead you like the most? I think all 3 of you have good intentions, but the message is totally lost on outsiders. For our sake, we're just asking for clarity & transparency. 완젬스 (talk) 08:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason I care about improving the lead is because I already posted on AmadScientist's talkpage here 7 hours ago because that is clearly the most unstable section, which needs the most work. With Dualus no longer forcing us to deal with his red tape, then we get to decide what parts of the article to work on (rather than us all being devoted 24/7 full time to stop Dualus's unstoppable influence to the various OWS articles). We have proven to ourselves that we can reach agreement on the antisemitism discussion yesterday, so let us come together today and prove we can do it again. All I want is to have a good lede to our article, while everyone has the desire today to improve it. Let's get started by letting the community know who wants what included, so we can get behind the most sensible proposals. Let us stay optimistic in one another. We can collaborate effectively if we know who supports what. Until then, we have to make guesses and fill our own uncertainties with unnecessary assumptions. 완젬스 (talk) 09:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well...I've made some pretty bold edits. There is clearly no consensus for the larger summary I had made and there may only be weak silent consent now for what's there. I'll step back from that and let others decide what more could be added and if any one else disputes it. Maybe the condensed nut shell is the consensus that is holding right now as some small compromise. I'll stick to checking references for a while.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Yug for contributing the November 8th version. This was a great benchmark for comparison to the time I last remember the lede being halfway decent. 완젬스 (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought that the following version was quite reasonable. It seems to survey the major points and address the concerns of those that believe it is important to include a mention of crime, local complaints, and anti-semitism.

--Gandydancer (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I also think that Gandy's version is reasonable. -- David  Shankbone  13:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Throwing my support behind Gandydancer's lede as well! See edited version below I am proposing--Amadscientist (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I too support Gandydancer's lede. Thanks for everybody's participation, collaboration, and comity. 완젬스 (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No,you people keep trying to censor material so we don't "make the OWS look bad", we should leave it as it was and specify what the allegations are in a short list, it wouldn't take very much space and there are plenty of references. --174.49.47.34 (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Show us your proposal. 완젬스 (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Celebrity photos
I photographed David Crosby and Graham Nash at their OWS concert yesterday. Is it too much to have both Morello and Crosby/Nash photos? Both the concerts and the performers are significant to OWS in their own ways, but I don't want to overload the article with famous people photos (here's the gallery at Commons). -- David  Shankbone  00:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As usual, great photo! I believe this would be excellent to add.  I don't feel we have too many photos at all.  I wish that many articles had more photos, but often they just are not available.  IMO you have really done a great job with your selections and the way they have been placed in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Great job here with the photos and their placement. Really some of the more crucial photographs of this movement are in this article. Maybe this article should have its own photo section on this page; of course there is this page which is a must see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street. Christian Roess (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys - those were big compliments. Feel free to prune what I add; I'm trying to be discerning.  -- David  Shankbone  03:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the great addition! Old rockers jamming for protesters, an historical addition. Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)