Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 17

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— —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— —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— —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— —Critical  00:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Another image continuously removed that likely passes Fair use guidelines
This image has been continuously removed from the article. Any comments and suggestions are welcomed. — Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

thumb|center|250px|The [[New York Times had changed its media coverage of the event on October 6th, 2011 ]]


 * This image has consensus to remove regardless of it's fair use tag. The image has been manipulated for a purposeful attempt to create a point of view. Absolutely not a usable image for this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove Agree.  Clearly not allowed.  It has WP:OR written all over it.  Arzel (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I disagree with the term "manipulation" used above to describe this image, and just about everything people do is "purposeful." The image simply demonstrates a difference in reporting on the New York Times (NYT) website about an Occupy Wall Street protest event. The image only uses part of the articles from the NYT website, likely to maintain copyright integrity. The only point-of-view matter here is the NYT's point-of-view in their reporting. There isn't a particular point-of-view in the image caption, which simply states that NYT had changed its media coverage, and the image simply shows two versions of an article from the NYT website. I disagree that this image is "absolutely" not usable. It is appropriate to include and demonstrates how media has covered Occupy Wall Street events. Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Also, simply adding a reference to the NYT website to the image caption would eliminate any claims of original research. The content is all from the NYT website, a reliable source. Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Utterly wrong. Read WP:SYNTH and stop adding the image because it (and its caption) are plainly original research. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, whoever is buggin' to say there's something there between the two edits, let alone that it's noteworthy in a hornets nest of opinion such as rages here. The outrage here is there's nothing outrageous . 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This image is not worthwhile as it does not show anything of import. It is a violation of synthesis and it is trivial noise. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

thumb|center|250px|The [[New York Times had changed its media coverage of the event on October 6th, 2011 ]]
 * Comment - Here's a version with a reference to the NYT: Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Simply adding a link to the main page of the New York Times website doesn't make the image referenced. The image is unreferenced.  You've been adding it for weeks in defiance of both content policy and consensus. Do not add it again. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 16:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – Sure it does, these are just screen captures from the NYT website. Technically, this type of reference is a primary source. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The link you provide doesn't even link to the allegedly changed version of the text, nor is there any way to verify that the "previous" text from the image actually appeared on the NYT website. And even if you had links to both, the image and its caption would still be OR and unusable in any WP article.  Your refusal to get this point is disruptive and tendentious.  Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The assessment directly above this comment that there isn't "any way to verify that the "previous" text from the image actually appeared on the NYT website." is incorrect. Web pages are often archived. Refer to: Internet Archive - Wayback Machine, as a reference. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if you're right about that, as I already said, it doesn't matter because you can't perform your own analysis of events or coverage and insert that into the article. '''The material cannot be used — period. Do not add it again.''' Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 17:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – I didn't create the image. Rather than stating orders about what I can or cannot do, perhaps consider waiting for other Wikipedia users and contributors to respond to this discussion, to obtain consensus. Your order above is inappropriate, and against the spirit of Wikipedia. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It really doesn't matter who created the image if it was not discussed in any source. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 17:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – The source of the content is the source. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * How is that relevant to anything? Using your rationale, I could photoshop some image of a NYT page to say "Barack Obama is a member of Al Qaeda" and insert it into an article on Barack Obama, add a link to the New York Times website, and call it "sourced".  But that's not how it works.  Please recognize that every other user commenting on this subject has pointed out that this is inappropriate.  There is already a consensus not to include this image, to say nothing of the policies that forbid original research. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 18:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – You could do that, but it's not my rationale, it's your rationale, in the context of your statement. Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to have missed the point, which is that I can't do that, because WP policy forbids it, just as it also forbids you to advance an unpublished claim using an image and its caption. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 19:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – The image simply portrays differences in media presentation from the same media source (The New York Times). Images in Wikipedia are not required to be referenced with reliable sources or otherwise be deleted or removed from Wikipedia articles per an argument of not being referenced in another source. This would set a very poor precedent, in which only images that have been covered in reliable sources could be used in Wikipedia articles. Images are used to enhance Wikipedia articles and provide context. Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Per Factchecker's WP:BARACKOBAMAISNOTAMEMBEROFALQUEDA rationale. Pure WP:OR and useless on this or any other page. Has no encyclopedic value whatsoever.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  19:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * NorthAmerica, you seem to have ignored my comment above on the same subject. Images do not provide a way to bypass the rule of No Original Research. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 19:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Please allow time for other users to respond to this discussion. This is a discussion about use of the above-stated image in the Occupy Wall Street article. A request for community comment has been placed for this discussion (see above). If two images of New York Times (NYT) articles from the NYT website placed next to one-another are deemed as original research, then discuss the matter on the discussion page for the image, which has already been proposed for deletion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Outsiders questions
Question - What is tiring to demonstrate here anyways? - I now have looked at the two reports (articles) being used here for this image - I take it all are aware they are 2 different headlines by two different reports at two different times, one was not changed out for the other - they are both still there to be looked at. In fact I can find 5 reports from that day that saying this in 5 different ways. Moxy (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I can only assume this is supposed to demonstrate some shadowy media conspiracy to mislead the public about the protests. Or something like that. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The above assessment (by User:Factchecker_atyourservice) is original research, whereas the image caption is not. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The page defining WP:NOR reads "This page in a nutshell: Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." The image and caption advance a claim (that NYT changed its content blah blah blah) that is not advanced at all, let alone "clearly" by any published source. Hence they are OR. QED. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree Factchecker statement is OR (as hes guessing your motives) but hes not tiring to add it to the article is he? Would have to explain why this is odd - As news papers write many many articles on the same topic in the same paper all the time (nothing odd here). There was no retraction nor a change to any of the articles - they are simply 2 different articles  by two different people reporting about the same thing in a different manner.Moxy (talk)


 * Comment – Here is the only "motive", the title of this section: "Another image continuously removed that likely passes Fair use guidelines", and "This image has been continuously removed from the article. Any comments and suggestions are welcomed." Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Silly comment. I was talking about your (supposed) motive for adding it to the article (or whatever connection to the article topic you think it has), not your motive for posting it on the talk page.  You can't seriously suggest that you added it to the article because you wanted to provoke a discussion about why it was being removed from the article; that doesn't even make sense. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – This discussion is about inclusion of the above-stated image in the Occupy Wall Street article. Nothing else. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The image is pure synthesis, and its notional point is trivial. A useless image in this or any other article. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - How is the image synthesis? Did the New York Times create a synthesis of its own content? How is the image "trivial"? The image is just a representation of varying coverage from the same reliable source. How is this image entirely "useless"? Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeez -- once again, please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You, or the author of the image and its caption, created synthesis of two different NYT articles (or two different revisions of one article).  What's the substance of the synthesis?  The substance of the synthesis is that "the NYT changed its article content from [PREVIOUS VERSION] to [CURRENT VERSION]."  This is a claim not advanced (or even discussed) in any source.  That's original research.  The particular type of original research that this represents is synthesis.  Now that that has been explained for the 10th time to you (or maybe twentieth?) -- will you finally accept that WP policy prohibits this, and recognize that there is an overwhelming consensus against using this image (as there has been for weeks).. and stop adding the image, and stop asking the same question repeatedly when that question has been given a clear and straightforward answer? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 19:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS), please slow down with comments about your opinion about my edits, and allow time for other users to respond to this discussion. This is a discussion about use of the above-stated image in the Occupy Wall Street article. A request for community comment has been placed for this discussion (see above). Thank you in advance for your consideration. Northamerica1000 (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you make incorrect and misleading statements about policy, I will respond immediately. And you have been pushing this for WEEKS.  "Other editors" have had plenty of time to consider this, and they have repeatedly, and without exception, rejected this content for multiple policy violations.  There has been a consensus not to include this for weeks.  "Consensus can change", as they say, but that's irrelevant if consensus doesn't actually change, and WP:CCC doesn't mean you can just ignore consensus and keep beating the dead horse in the hopes that someone will finally agree with you.  I once again strongly urge you to read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 20:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS), please allow time for other users to respond to this discussion. This is a discussion about use of the above-stated image in the Occupy Wall Street article. A request for community comment has been placed for this discussion (see above). Thank you in advance for your consideration. Northamerica1000 (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) Nothing I am doing is stopping other users from commenting; (2) Users have already had weeks to comment on this; (3) during those weeks, users have already previously pointed out that this image and caption are inappropriate; (4) even in this discussion that you have taken it upon yourself to rehash, numerous users have again responded and they have all repeated the same objections which have previously been stated to make this image and caption inappropriate; (5) you ignore all of the above and keep demanding that the image go in -- this is not discussion -- it is just disruptive editing and refusal to get the point. Please stop.  You've already been asked to drop this repeatedly yet you continue to ignore the consensus against this content. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 21:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Change the caption – to, "A comparison of New York Times coverage about events on October 6, 2011 on the Brooklyn Bridge." Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

thumb|center|250px|A comparison of New York Times coverage about events on October 6, 2011 on the Brooklyn Bridge.


 * Delete. The new caption fixes nothing about how trivial and unimportant the image is, how it shows nothing worth describing in this or any other Wikipedia article. It is still synthesis. Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that. Still OR.  The comparison itself has not been made or discussed in any source, and is thus OR. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 21:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * — If people want the image deleted, feel free to comment on the file's discussion page: here.— Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't change the subject, please. Please recognize that policy forbids inclusion of this OR image and caption in the OWS article.  Please also recognize that consensus is that this image cannot be included in the OWS article, and this has been the consensus for a long time.  Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 21:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In the interests of offering policy aid between different sections/interests of this article, the image does seem to be original research. Be— —Critical  09:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as obvious original research/synthesis. Be— —Critical 09:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Coverage in this article ends on November 4; please continue it with these sources
There seems to be no information in this article of anything since November 4, while I'm getting more news from all my usual sources. Here are some stories which I would like to see integrated into this article, please:


 * 1) http://gothamist.com/2011/11/12/occupy_wall_street_to_attempt_to_sh.php
 * 2) http://www.thenation.com/article/164553/veterans-occupy-wall-street
 * 3) http://publicreligion.org/newsroom/2011/11/2011-american-values-survey/
 * 4) http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/11/09/365552/tom-price-99-percent-movement/
 * 5) http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/11/occupying-the-tea-party.html
 * 6) http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/11/10/366678/gop-presidential-candidate-roemer-releases-video-asking-america-to-listen-to-occupy-wall-street/
 * 7) http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/11/10/start-ups-and-safety-nets/
 * 8) http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-10/politics/30381330_1_harvard-yard-harvard-students-harvard-campus
 * 9) http://www.thenation.com/article/163719/occupy-wall-street-faq
 * 10) http://gapolitico.com/2011/11/11/democratic-party-of-georgia-treasurer-address-occupy-athens/
 * 11) http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/11/09/364816/99-percent-against-bush-and-cheney/
 * 12) http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/1112/Officials-crack-down-on-Occupy-Wall-Street-camps-around-the-country
 * 13) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicholas-carroll/occupy-wall-street-and-th_3_b_1083243.html
 * 14) http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/11/10/piers-powell-occupy-wall-street.cnn

Thank you. 208.54.38.238 (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have any sources that aren't left-leaning and in overwhelming support of the movement? In other words, is there anything factual in there worth noting other than pov pushing logos or trends? We have more than enough of that.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Some of them are not RS, but others are as the CS monitor. Be— —Critical  01:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit template is for specific requests, not a list of sources you want integrated to the article. C T J F 8 3  03:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Political Leaning
While reading the article, I noticed that every time any thing added from a right-leaning source is labeled as "right-wing" but nothing sourced to left-leaning sources is labeled as such. We either do it for everyone or no one. I am asking for consensus on whether to label all the left-leaning sources as "left-wing" as well or remove all the "right-wing" labels. --Jacksoncw (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove them, there is not need for labeling really. And in fact if the source used does not label them then it is WP:OR to do so. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The Supposed Polls
This article is littered with the claim that "polls show most people agree with OWS" and they are all referenced to these to sources: http://swampland.time.com/full-results-of-oct-9-10-2011-time-poll/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20120052-503544.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/us/politics/wall-st-protest-isnt-like-ours-tea-party-says.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

The first two have no information of anyone's opinion of the OWS movement and the third one says: "So far, most Americans do not align with either movement. In a USA Today/Gallup poll taken last weekend, 26 percent of those polled said they were supporters of the Occupy movement, while 19 percent identified as opponents, and 52 percent said they neither supported nor opposed it. Meanwhile, 22 percent said they were supporters of the Tea Party, 27 percent said they were opponents, and 47 percent said they were neither. But the large majority — 63 percent — said they did not know enough about the Occupy goals to say whether they approved or disapproved. In the early days of the Tea Party movement, a similarly large percentage did not know much about it."

Just notifying that I removing all the parts in the article where it says "polls say most people support the movement" or something along those lines because there is nothing in the referenced material about that.--Jacksoncw (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Before I do, I want to ask if anyone else sees anything with this information in any of these sources in case I missed something.--Jacksoncw (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Why don't you update the article with the latest polls instead of deleting the old ones? 208.54.38.219 (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Why would I not delete polling information that doesn't exist, it isn't "old" it is non-existent, that's why. And btw I already have put the latest poll in the Public Reaction section.--Jacksoncw (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen lots of good sources which have information about polls. Be— —Critical 02:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I am referring to the parts in the article where it says a majority of American agree with the protesters. It says it multiple times and the references sourced for that information are those three links. No where in those links is anything that says a majority of Americans agree with the protest, which is my point. The information is not accurate because it isn't found in the sources referenced, meaning it doesn't exist and we should delete it.--Jacksoncw (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You're wrong about the first source not mentioning. The first source says

Q11. IN THE PAST FEW DAYS, A GROUP OF PROTESTORS HAS BEEN GATHERING ON WALL STREET IN NEW YORK CITY AND SOME OTHER CITIES TO PROTEST POLICIES WHICH THEY SAY FAVOR THE RICH, THE GOVERNMENT’S BANK BAILOUT, AND THE INFLUENCE OF MONEY IN OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM. IS YOUR OPINION OF THESE PROTESTS VERY FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE, VERY UNFAVORABLE, OR DON’T YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE PROTESTS TO HAVE AN OPINION?

VERY FAVORABLE 25%

SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE 29%

SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE 10%

VERY UNFAVORABLE 13%

DON’T KNOW ENOUGH 23%

NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 1%

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/full-results-of-oct-9-10-2011-time-poll/#ixzz1dYEB3B00

You're probably right that they don't say "agree." So the text should be changed accordingly, I look forward to your edit. Be— —Critical 03:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That's why I asked if anyone saw something I didn't before I removed it, but the second two say nothing about it, so I am going to change the wording and referencing to the first source. Thanks for checking.--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall St. donated $20,000 to Occupy Oakland, which was then deposited in Wells Fargo.
I added this to this article.

Occupy Wall St. donated $20,000 to Occupy Oakland, who then deopsited it into Wells Fargo on November 7, 2011, the very bank whose windows Occupy Oakland had smashed just a few days earlier. Wells Fargo spokesman Ruben Pulido said that this desposit "demonstrates that even Occupy Oakland understands — firsthand — the value and service that Wells Fargo provides its customers. Wells Fargo welcomes the 100 percent of Americans to allow us to help them meet their financial needs."

Mk2z0h (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * reads like an advert for Wells Fargo, and anyway doesn't pass WP:WEIGHT for this article. Wait a few weeks and see if it has any lasting impact on the general story. Be— —Critical  02:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The comments by Pulido were sent out as an email to news media after the deposit came to light, and certainly looks like he's taking a victory lap of some kind. Whatever the case, it may deserve some minor note on Occupy Oakland as a footnote in their financial dealings—other articles went into greater detail about why this decision was made, including how several of the OO members were upset but went along with this grudgingly, for the benefit of those in jail for whom the money was needed. The San Francisco Examiner isn't known for being a very good paper anymore. Personally, I'm glad to see they went with practical necessity, rather than ideological purity, but that's not important. Regardless, it doesn't belong on this article, as it isn't notable in the wider context of the Occupy movement. --Cast (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, it does seem appropriate; not in this article, but in Occupy Oakland, where it actually appears. I see much of the trivia that used to be here has either been removed or just moved somewhere I can't find it.  If the latter, shame on you.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if we are going to mention that "similar demonstrations were either ongoing or had been held in over 70 major cities and over 600 communities in the U.S.', don't you think we ought to say something about them?--Jacksoncw (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * sounds notable to me, smashing the windows of a bank, then opening an account a few days later highlights the confusion about what ows believes. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:59, 13 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).

:</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)

Edit request from, 10 November 2011
There should be some mention under the "Demands and goals" section and the "Week 8 (November 5-November 11)" section of the recent emergence of The Declaration of Desperation, a document which attempts to direct and narrow the goals of the Occupy Movement. The text is published at thedeclarationofdesperation.wordpress.com. This text is a part of the ongoing attempt to give the movement direction.

Source:

"[-] AFarewellToKings 1 points 1 day ago

You are absolutely right. OWS 2.0 and replace the fist. This movement is going to die if it doesn't move to the next level, and time is quickly running out.

I'm trying to reconcile three realistic approaches. The first approach I found was The 99% Declaration https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/ Holding a National General Assembly in Philadelphia July 4th 2012 and using the Committees of Correspondence model that proved successful in 1774, well, it just doesn't get more American!

Then I found http://thedeclarationofdesperation.wordpress.com/ The Declaration Of Desperation. WOW! but theghostofthomasjefferson said to me: "I wrote the Declaration of Desperation. I believe the 99% Declaration is an ineffective document. The Occupy Movement will fail if it is adopted. For it will alienate the American People. This is not a question of politics, of right or wrong. This is a question of intelligence. We must be smart. We enjoy popular support, for now. But to preserve America's good will, we must keep our demands narrow: end the corrupting influence of money in politics. That is something a majority of Americans can get behind. That is something a social movement can achieve. And then, and only then, can the other issues be successfully pursued."

And then bensdad informs me of his Amendment idea. I love his approach too.

I think "OWS: Moving Forward" leads to a meeting in Philly, not DC. Declare the occupation over today 11/11/11

Philadelphia would be a perfect place to launch your Plenitude Economy working group. It's excellent too.

sign me up : )"

Source:

"gavemehope November 7 Permalink +1 -1 (+1 / -0 ) Have you guys seen this ? What do you think ? http://thedeclarationofdesperation.wordpress.com/

Agrees: whitefeather skoalbiteskoalbite November 8 Permalink +1 -1 I don't like things that attract attention for emotional/affective value--but this may appeal to plenty of others. That said, it's actually full of good data that I am attracted to (though it lists the old census bureau data--which I forgive because the new stuff only came out today). "

Source:

"ThomasJefferson 6:20PM Permalink EditFlag+1 -1 "gavemehope November 7 Permalink Flag+1 -1 (+1 / -0 ) Have you guys seen this ? What do you think ? http://thedeclarationofdesperation.wordpress.com/

Agrees: whitefeather skoalbiteskoalbite November 7 Permalink Flag+1 -1 I don't like things that attract attention for emotional/affective value--but this may appeal to plenty of others. That said, it's actually full of good data that I am attracted to (though it lists the old census bureau data--which I forgive because the new stuff only came out today).

gavemehope November 7 Permalink Flag+1 -1 (+1 / -0 ) I share your concern for that @skoalbite but it seems pretty genuine to me. He has another link here. Dec of desperation. Maybe you should share your concerns with him particularly about the data. I trust your opinion when it comes to that greatly.

Agrees: whitefeather skoalbiteskoalbite November 8 Permalink Flag+1 -1 (+1 / -0 ) This is actually a really really good report, and it's actually a good debate, unlike the sort you find in the American media."

The data has been changed.

@skoalbite

Regarding the emotional/affective value of the text:

This is necessary. American politics is an exercise in pathos. We will not win without feeling, without emotion, without indignant rage. In fact, it is our great ally and strength, if we use it wisely."

Paine1776 (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Paine1776, can you please cite your sources? We can't just add willy nilly. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Whether it is the "beginning of a shift in the movement" or a "significant event" of week 8 should be sourced to third-party references. — Bility (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Could you please list exactly what changes you would like, where you would like the changes, and what sources verify those changes? Also, it looks like this is something of a hot button issue, if the changes appear to be radical or controversial, consensus would be necessary before any changes could be made. --Ella Plantagenet (talk) 21:03, 13 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)