Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 21

Project Renew: The Article for the Occupy Movement
Okay,

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


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

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


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

While Wikipedia does state that partisan sources should be handles with caution you list sources that are not considered partisan. Look...I don't care what everyone's perception's are. Back it up or expect criticism.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * CF, much of what you write above flies in the face of WP:Original research and WP:Reliable sources. I welcome you to contribute to Wikipedia, but you won't enjoy the experience until you learn our polices, guidelines and the culture behind what we do what we do, which is typically evidenced by an established history.  That's not necessary, but when you come here for one issue and tell us Ur doin it wrong you aren't likely to be persuasive.  Many of us have been at this encyclopedia for half a decade or more, and there are reasons why we operate the way we do. I encourage you to stick around and learn them - we'd love that! -- David  Shankbone  08:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Contentious claims, unsupported by sources, about Zucotti park raid
A user keeps adding the following text:

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

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

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

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


 * I'm the editor who placed that in the article. And I stand by my reporting, of the report by The Rachel Maddow Show.  What the complaining editor failed to note is the link to the show segment within the source mentioned.  Go to 6:50 in the video and you will see the same material I am referencing.  Now that I have found the posted official transcript (you have to show more text) here's the exact quote of what I was referencing.  "New York City police officers dressed in riot gear, handed out a written notice to the protesters telling them where their personal articles from the encampment could be retrieved, which sounds lovely until you saw what they were doing to the protesters` personal belongings. There were reports that police use knives to cut up the sturdy military-grade tents that were the best hope of surviving winter down there. You can see police here cutting down the protesters` tent poles with hand-held saws, with sawsalls."  You want to play with the phrase "seeming to make a deliberate effort to damage items" we all know "deliberate" is a difficult concept to prove, but that certainly is the impression left by the reporting and the video.  There is no love and care being given to these people's belongings, quite the opposite is clearly occurring.  No its not an exact quote, an exact quote would be a copyvio and the source wasn't available at the time I posted that.  And if you don't like the source on the smashed computers, the same kind of content is mentioned here, here, here and commented on here.  I'll go ahead and repost that content with the better sources.  And to the complainer, Cenrify, your multiple personalities on this same talk page certainly carry the look of you trying to be deceptive and skirting the intent of WP:Sock.  Choose a name and post consistently with that look.  Trackinfo (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * None of what you said justifies the text having been in there in the first place. Taking a source that points out cops took the camp apart with sawzalls is not even remotely the same neighborhood as "police made a deliberate attempt to damage items", which is very POV-pushy and, as you admit, not supported by the source. Also not sure what to make of your accusations about using multiple names or "skirting the intent of WP:SOCK". I post under one name and clearly indicate the name I used to post under, which I haven't used for some time now. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 16:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The material you're adding misrepresents the sources it cites. Plz stop. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 16:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now placed the entire exact quote so there is no possible misrepresentation. Trackinfo (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to the direct quote. Thank you. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

For the introduction when throughout this long article it gives proof? No. I've provided articles under the terminology for the reader to read more about the view... What about your read more about Social Democracy or Socialism can come back to me. CentristFiasco (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please point out where in the article it states that adbusters is "Anti-Establishment," that the protest is "merely against government establishment," that "mostly all protesters identify with radical leftist political views on the lines of, Social Democracy and Communism," that "It is still questionable whether the protesters are demonstrating for a justifiable purpose or have concise, sound, and plausible demand that they wish to implement to get them to stop protesting," and that "CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC NEWS, and others that these protests are unquestionably weak in substance." Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * CentristFiasco, edit warring is not the way to gain consensus for your edits. Be— —Critical  00:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


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


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

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


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

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


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


 * @CF: Your disruptive changes WP:DE are unacceptable under WP policies. They consitute soapboxing WP:SOAP based on original research {{WP:OR]] and synthesis WP:SYNTH not supported by reliable sources WP:RS and against consensus WP:CONSENSUS. Furthermore, you are editwarring {{WP:EW]]. Stop now and read the policies. Then propose any changes you would like to make on the talk page first and get consensus. Your changes must conform to WP policies and be supported by reliable sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This article has some serious problems with OR, Synthesis, POV and POV pushing, unreliable sourcing and undue weight to absolute crap. Anyone may edit this article in a bold way without permission from others here. Period. Any attempt to make other editors bow to this fabricated policy are NOT going to be accepted. Anyone may edit this article with or without posting on the talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not true, especially in an article which has been semi-protected because of Tendentious editing. -A98. 98.92.183.44 (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Hipocrite, CentristFiasco's arguments in this discussion thread are tragically misguided and showing a very pronounced POV. CF's arguments are problematic beyond question. -- David  Shankbone  08:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Amadscientist To suggest that my behavior is NOT acceptable is absurd.  When an a new editor goes around making edits with summaries such as "learn to read you idiot", "...you fool", or "trying to hide the truth, huh?" and makes an edit to change the lede to read, This protest is merely against government establishment in which mostly all protesters identify with radical leftist political views on the lines of, Social Democracy and Communism but there are few who identify with anarchism which reflects the numerous messages in regards to signs and chants presented throughout. It is still questionable whether the protesters are demonstrating for a justifiable purpose or have concise, sound, and plausible demand that they wish to implement to get them to stop protesting; it has been reported on numerous mainstream media outlets such as; CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC NEWS, and others that these protests are unquestionably weak in substance, is certainly good enough reason to ask this editor to quit editing without talk page discussion first. Gandydancer (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


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

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


 * Seriously, capping disruption is pretty common in my observation.  Be— —Critical  00:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then, you are in the wrong place sir. I call that disruptive. It's just another dishonest way to get one's way and goes against the spirit and policy of Wikipedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Disagree with Amad, agree with Be. Those closed threads were started by a disruptive editor using the talk page as a forum and he was blocked. -A98 98.92.183.93 (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if he was blocked or if you agree with me. This is about closing threads not about the blocked editor. Don't take it upon yourself to determine what is disruptive and what actions should be taken. If he was blocked and it was for the disruption on this page...I find that odd considering the disruption STILL occurring on this page by others and those threads are not closed. If we start that, what keeps others from closing threads they think are disruptive?--Amadscientist (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure it matters. And you can't seriously lecture others with a directive like "Don't take it upon yourself to determine what is disruptive" right after you say "I call that disruptive"  .. or else you don't understand the concept of collaboration. At this point you're arguing about arguing, which is rarely (if ever) constructive. -A98 98.92.183.44 (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, he/she was only blocked for 48 hours and will likely return. Closing the perceived threads as disruptive does not accomplish anything. If they decide to return it simply becomes uncivil behavior that further aggravates the situation and pushes someone away as a Bite issue. He wasn't blocked for disruption. He was blocked for edit warring. Since this was not the issue he was blocked for it seems unusual to take that step.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have observed disruptive threads being closed as a rather routine matter, and, this being Wikipedia, if one editor can do it another can also. If you disagree that the content was disruptive, then re-open the threads and continue the debate.  But don't think this is not pretty standard practice at Wikipedia.   Be— —Critical  19:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

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


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


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

Wall Street Journal is not a poor source
In this reversion, Jacksoncw appears to argue that the Wall Street Journal is a poor source. This is the WSJ's news section, not their opinion journalism. Please be clear as to what the problem with this information is. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

To see the information that is cited, one must subcribe to the website, I'm sure that is against some policy. In discussions above many users suggested that News Corp Groups like Wall Street journal are in the same group as Huff Post and should be used with caution. I think it is undue weight as well.--Jacksoncw (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "against some policy"
 * WP:PAYWALL says "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." Ian.thomson (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * sighs* No, you are not correct. In the future please do no delete stuff just because you may think this or that, such as "I'm sure that is against some policy".  Exactly who above said the WSJ should be used with caution?  Why is it undue weight? Gandydancer (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Multiple people said News Corp. groups like WSJ and Fox News are unreliable under the Douglas Schoen discussion. One guy's thoughts make the entire paragraph, which is undue; and I think it may be OR as well but I can't tell for sure because I can't see the hidden information without paying money.--Jacksoncw (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Those multiple don't know what the heck they are talking about. WSJ, FNC and the like are reliable sources.  Arzel (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @JAcksoncw: You misunderstood the discussion on Schoen, which referred to the opinion section of the newspaper, which is not reliable. Their news reporting, though, is very reliable, and that's what the matter is here.
 * The information is not "hidden". You can see it, for free, at your local public library, which almost certainly has WSJ archived, or can request it for you, for free, if they don't. To insist on sources that can only be viewed for free on the internet is absurd to the extreme. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears there is strong consensus that the WSJ news section is a reliable source, and that articles behind paywalls can be used. Given this, I don't see a reason to continue, here. Hipocrite (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not going tot ake time out of my day to drive down to the library and request that they order a copy os an article written by WSJ just to verify a source cited on wikipedia that looks undue and may be OR. But I do think information should be free and that you shouldn't source information that has to be subscribed to see.--Jacksoncw (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, fine, but that just means you have to leave it in the article. Read the sourcing policy.  It's not as if Wikipedia doesn't have a longstanding policy on this.  Also, it's not behind a paywall.  You can access it.  Just paste some text into google and click the link that comes up.  It works for me, that's how I got it.   Be— —Critical  19:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * While it would be nice if all of our sources were free, Wikipedia does not nor cannot operate on excluding a source that is not free. I'd agree with BeCrit on this. Unless you can verify that a source creates OR, discussion on it is pointless. Undue doesn't have to do with the reliability of the source but with the weight the source creates with in context of the article itself.(olive (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC))

The New York Review of Books resource
Zuccotti Park: What Future? December 8, 2011 The New York Review of Books Michael Greenberg November 10, 2011, page 12 & 14 in print ... Footnotes:
 * 1) See Kate Taylor, "Wall Street Protest Is Hurting Area's Families, Bloomberg Says," The New York Times, November 2, 2011.
 * 2) On November 9, a group of protesters embarked on a two week march from Zuccotti Park to Washington, with plans to hold rallies along the way. According to their website, the protesters planned to arrive in Washington by November 23, the deadline for the so-called Congressional Supercommittee to issue its recommendation for at least $1.5 trillion in additional cuts to be undertaken over a ten-year period. ... See United States Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction
 * 3) Unions once represented a third of American workers. Now they represent 12 percent. See Joseph Stiglitz, "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%," Vanity Fair, May 2011
 * 4) See Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen, and Jean-Paul Fitoussi, Mismeasuring Our Lives: Why GDP Doesn't Add Up (New Press, 2010).

97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105 99.181.134.134 (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed linking arrow from footnote. 99.190.86.93 (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Effect affect
Quote:

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

From my talk page:

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


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

Anyone got some enlightenment for us? Be— —Critical 19:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


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


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

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

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


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

There may also be a question of WP:due weight. -A98 98.92.186.248 (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref [72] "Food Vendors Find Few Customers During Protest" - WSJ, reporter talked to five businesses. That article even begins by qualifying the perspective: "A tiny sliver of the 99% championed by the protesters say they have been directly hurt by Occupy Wall Street"
 * Ref [73] (page not found) - NYPost


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


 * Since one of the two sources is either a decayed link or never existed in the first place, and the other one is from a conservative news outlet which has campaigned against OWS in its editorials and in its "regular" coverage, these claims need to be qualified and/or balanced or simply removed. Do you have corroborating sources? I think the term anti-OWS is clear enough. -A98 98.92.189.168 (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * May not be reliable  Be— —Critical  21:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

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


 * I guess you're the same person? Anyway, I was told by an expert you're correct (:  Be— —Critical  06:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you mean me, no i'm not at IP-99. Anyway, I see that the 2nd source I bulleted above is still dead. Should the 2nd half of that sentence be removed? -A98 98.92.188.12 (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Too long?
Isn't this article very long compared to most wikipedia articles? Other articles that would be longer seem to be broken up into several with a main article linking them together. Why not break it up into a bunch of articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripet (talk • contribs) 05:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * See here. Magister Scienta talk  (Editor Review)  23:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 December 2011

 * TakeWallStreet.org

Mrwebeditor (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * See the box above - unclear what you are asking to be done. Tvoz / talk 08:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.--Nowa (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Nazism discussion

 * No, not until the Nazi Party supports OWS with money or man hours, and the fact is widely reported. A simple endorsement without concrete support is an empty endorsement. It is WP:Undue weight to list empty endorsements. Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the sources above are widespread, but I wish you'd point out the best ones per WP:RS. Even those I looked up thinking they were the best like the Boston Herald turned out to be crap .  Is there anything good in that list?  Be— —Critical  01:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I had the same experience - I picked three I thought must be the "best" and they were total crap. Then I quit looking... Gandydancer (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes - The Nazi Party and Communist Party are fringe - but the coverage of their support is not. This is widely spread, and there is no reason to keep it off.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  02:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No: The ANP has done nothing else except issue a non-committal, meaningless and purely self-serving statement of "support". Support means a lot more than lip-service, especially when the lips are serving no one but themselves. Such statements are therefore not notable, and should not be mentioned at all. It serves no legitimate encyclopedic purpose. We don't mention Hitler in the article on vegetarianism, do we? Same rule applies here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No. This is little more than a smear campaign run by sections of the media. Wikipedia should have no part in it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, I see that TLAM is still citing 'Media Matters' on this, in spite of the headline in the linked article: "The Latest Desperate Smear Of Occupy Wall Street Protests: The Nazis Like Them". Ridiculous... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not yet It may yet become evident that those in the movement share those views, but simply being supported by them would be a guilt by association.  Also, I fail to see this as a "smear campaign" as ATG would say since the media has by and large not reported on any of the transgressions committed by OWS participants.  Arzel (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No - Seems like an obvious case of guilt by association. Hundreds of "groups/parties" have mentioned support for OWS. Why just mention these two? NickCT (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes - Mention these two because it is widely covered and they are fairly significant. It's also covered that the Black Panthers support the group so we should add that in there too as controversy because that's what it is. AndyGrump is nothing more than an apologetic propagandist come on here to do damage control for his OWS buddies.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, because it's not true, apparently. I think it's just a false meme. Looking at the sources, I'm skipping the one likes Drudge and the Tehran paper and a lot of the rest of them because they're obviously not reliable sources... looking for entities with some kind of reputation, I come to the Boston Herald. It's an opinion columnist, and he says that OWS is endorsed by a list of entities including the American Nazi Party and the government of the People's Republic of China... this seems unlikely to be true, so I can't trust this source... next, the reputable LA Times... but its a gossip column (the "Ministry of Gossip")... it says "Meanwhile, the American Nazi Party on Sunday issued a statement of support for the Occupy Wall Street crowd" and they have a link. But the link is here, which has says nothing of the sort, is not any kind of official statement, and doesn't mention Occupy Wall Street or come close... so this appears to be false. (There doesn't seem to be anything about Occupy Wall Street on the American Nazi Party website, that I could find.) Moving on, we have to drop a little in reliability, let's look at the Jacksonville Courier... it is not a news story but something called "Open Line", which may be an opinion column but is not signed and, inferring from its name, is just a place where readers can post stuff... whatever it is, it appears to be a stream-of-consciousness post by a stoned or deranged person... it says ""The Wall Street Mob has gained some interesting supporters. Among them, The American Nazi Party..." with no support for that. I have zero confidence that the writer is reliable or even sober. How many more of these do I have to look at? And these are the best ones. My patience is exhausted with this subject and with the the editor initiating the RfC, who appears to be a troll. (FWIW, even if it was true it's trivial, of course.) Herostratus (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The ANP report was archived, so yes they have endorsed OWS. You appear to have missed a great many of the reliable sources which were posted, such as Fox, Politico, Washington post. Perhaps you ought look again at the sources presented? The point is this is widely reported on, millions of people will have read about it and then look here and see not a word, this damages wiki`s credibility. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, fine, but still. Who is the American Nazi Party and what is their organizational structure? Does that page constitute an actual endorsement by vote of any central committee, or is it basically some blogger who has discovered the wonders of the CAPS LOCK key? How many members do they have? What is there notability in the public discourse? If their name was "American Committee for Public Knowledge" instead of the inflammatory word "Nazi" how notable would this be? The fact is that I could convene a meeting of myself and my cats, call ourselves the Trotskyist Front, create a blog and endorse OWS, and if this was picked up by Drudge and Fox News and the Tehran papers, so what? This is maybe one step above "OWS was endorsed by Mrs. Pinckney Pruddle of 27 Hummingbird Lane, Sandusky, Ohio". It's not a notable event, at all. Herostratus (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your fallacious argument of a meeting with your cats doesn't do a very good job at hiding the fact that you are clearly biased, nor does the equally fallacious comparison with a fictitious other statement. Whether or not *you* think a party is relevant is irrelevant. The fact that it was so widely reported makes it relevant, which is what people have been correctly arguing here.


 * No per NickCT. Why not start a List of individuals and organizations that have endorsed Occupy Wall Street? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No The first source provided is an editorial in Townhall.com. Townhall.com is, according to its Wikipedia article, "a web-based publication primarily dedicated to conservative United States politics".  I suggest that The Last Angry Man gain familiarity with two important Wikipedia policies, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT.  Opinions expressed in fringe publications satisfy neither.  Do you read this publication, or did you find it while Google-searching for a source that supports your POV?  TFD (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Townhall has a full editorial staff and meets the criteria as W{:RS The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No because it's just guilt by association. Nothing could be more opposite from how these protests really are, than by linking them to Nazism. 완젬스 (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No ANP is not relevant, their support is not relevant. Connecting them and their alleged support to the OWS is WP:SYN and even throwing the ANP, nevermind Nazism in the article is WP:UNDUE.--Львівське (говорити) 08:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes Support is reported in WP:RS. WP is not censored. – Lionel (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * yes widely reported as fact. supports OWS with money or man hours, that is a benefactor/volunteer, not endorsement.  Boston Herald turned out to be crap, http://mediamatters.org/blog/201110180001 Oct 18, Todd Gregory.  non-committal, meaningless and purely self-serving statement, none of which are requirements for notability.  a smear campaign run by sections of the media.  Few members of the ANP can actually read, no chance in hell they are members of the press.   Darkstar1st (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No It's a poorly-sourced fringe issue attempting to link the movement to the Nazi party. I don't see this sort of accusation in the hundreds of articles that have been written on the protests in the mainstream media. Gandydancer (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)  poorly sourced?  ''The American Nazi Party chairman, said, "My heart is right there with these people.  Darkstar1st (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No Absolutely not. Not only are the groups fringe, but there are no reliable sources reporting any connection whatsoever. Beyond the reporting that this is a right-wing attempt to connect the groups to the group this article is about, there is no sourcing at all. Seeing as there is definite sourcing about the attempt to connect these groups to these protesters, perhaps we should look at the attempts to enter the information in the same manner. The editor/s who are making these attempts all seem to have the same goals. Dave Dial (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No We don't serve as the mouthpiece for the American Nazi Party. Hipocrite (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No Obvious fringe problem but inclusion is also a weight problem: there is not any indication why this is a significant item that merits inclusion. The import of information should be obvious to our readers, but at the very least we should be able to explain its inclusion to our readers.  Saying "Nazis support OWS" leads to the question, "So what?" and there is no good answer.  The opinions of Nazis hold no value in any society.  wp:GHITS and politically-motivated Op-Eds aren't persuasive. This is the same guilt by association nonsense that Americans saw in the 2008 election with Hamas endorses Obama; Al Qaeda endorses McCain. -- David  Shankbone  23:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No Lots of groups are trying to co-opt this movement, but it is a de-centralized, non-hierarchical movement. That gives it a low Drag coefficient that, miraculously, attracts many groups whose own agendas are floundering. For example, why is there widespread union support for OWS? The Union leadership announces their support. So that must mean everyone who belongs to such-and-such union needs to fall in line. Right? But then read the fine print. Because the bottom line is the "Union bosses" realized they were losing their own Rank and file to the movement (ie., their people were showing up at the occupy locations). Let's just say it was "expedient" for the unions to show support for the Occupy movements. But Unions are part of the OWS mix. They aren't dictating anything to OWS. OWS is not part of the Unions. Unions need OWS alot more than OWS needs them. (I would guess that the Nazi movement needs help with their own "rank and file", not to mention a HUGE credibility gap. Again, NO. If you need more examples of groups or individuals claiming support, I can name many more. How about Elizabeth Warren taking credit for providing the philosophical underpinnings and ballast for OWS? That's interesting Ms. Warren: if that's the case, then Warren is an anarchist in her roots, and is only (oh by-the-way) incidently running for public office. Could go on and on with examples of many groups and factions wanting a slice of the "OCCU" - pie. Christian Roess (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No Based on what I've read, there doesn't seem to be any actual tangible connection between the ANP and the OWS movement (not even a diminutive one). AzureCitizen (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No unless we specifically mention all other groups as well that have voiced support. The list mentioned above, if it's started, could be a place for this information. --Dailycare (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No (My unelaborated !vote) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 23:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes There's a discussion of the response to OWS from several other political bodies (the White House, Congress, 2012 political candidates) as well as the reaction from the public, celebrities, unions, Venezuela, etc. Of course a list of people and groups who support OWS is pointless and uninformative, but if and only if 1.credible sources are used and 2.those sources talk about the response more specifically than saying "the American Nazi Party supports the OWS movement" then just because you don't like the group doesn't mean their reaction is less deserving of mention than that of the Vatican. At a glance it doesn't look like many of the sources above are non-pov but that isn't fatal (to including the ANP's response, not to using the sources!). Re: the fringe problem, I have to agree with Toa Nidhiki05 that while the groups themselves are Fringe their response may well be poignant. And, frankly, if the only unifying feature of participants is membership in the 99% then why should the ANP be excluded? --68.149.110.63 (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No Does not seem to be notable enough. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes There is no reason not to mention position of ANP. But, of course, this mention should not be ambiguity or impression that the Nazis supported this movement through their actions or money. --Luch4 (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, widely covered by reliable sources. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure – Just an example of an unpopular racist group failing to obtain free press by making a statement of solidarity. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Anti-semitism discussion

 * Yes - Widely covered, notable. Anti-sementism is an element of the views of many OWS campers, and as they have no real leadership or manifesto, it warrants coverage.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  02:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No - again, it seems to be a smear campaign. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No:There is no evidence that anti-semitism is shared by a significant proportion of OWS participants outside of a tiny minority. The fact that the movement has a few kooks in it is not surprising, nor is it notable enough to warrant mention here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes - Widely noted with many examples. No sense in hiding it under the rug.  There is no requirement that it be shown to reach some magic number of people to be incorporated.  Such faulty logic would dictate that nothing bad ever be reported because one could simply say that none those that do bad things don't represent the movement.  If it was one or two incidents then probably not.  It is clearly far more than that.   Arzel (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes - ...with requisites. The article on the Tea Party solved the issue of reporting on alleged racism by not trying to account for how widespread racism was, or by simply stating the Tea Party movement was racist. Rather, it focused on the discourse of some accusing it of racism while others defended it, and it focuses on a few major events. Similarly, this article need not state that the Occupy protest movement has an antisemitism problem, but rather has been accused of it, and it could include references to supposed events and counter arguments. This should likely fall not under goals, or philosophy, but rather as a sub-section on reception. --Cast (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No - I scanned the list of articles that came up in the nominators link. The two serious sources that appear (i.e. the New York Times & Washington Post Article) refute the anti-semitic charge or point out that it's marginal. If we do want to add a sentence about anti-semitism it would have to be so heavily qualified that it probably wouldn't be worth mentioning. NickCT (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Commentary and the Wall Street Journal also had pieces (they may be opinion but they claimed facts). I think we should have a section to the effect that, "Many notable conservative figures have claimed that the OWS movement is anti-Semitic, particularly because of criticisms of Israel, but others, including the Anti-Defamation League, have investigated and concluded that this is not true." Why do you object to a statement like that? --Nbauman (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, per NickCT. Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 'No. The nominator's link produces nothing of value. Doing my own search, I find (in reliable sources as opposed to polemic blogs etc.) only the same stuff that NickCT finds, to the effect of "some bloggers have claimed anti-semitism, but it appears to not be true". Not notable. Herostratus (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No per NickCT. I would just point out that the Washington Post link is an op-ed column, not a news article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * re the op-ed column - Duly noted. Apologies for not stating it as such. NickCT (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No The first source provided is an editorial in Townhall.com. Townhall.com is, according to its Wikipedia article, "a web-based publication primarily dedicated to conservative United States politics".  I suggest that The Last Angry Man gain familiarity with two important Wikipedia policies, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT.  Opinions expressed in fringe publications satisfy neither.  Do you read this publication, or did you find it while Google-searching for a source that supports your POV?  TFD (talk) 06:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No But I think maybe 1 sentence, with a response as user Cast has proposed, but not a whole entire section, which I'm against. 완젬스 (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * yes, if the tea party can have a "racial issues" section, so can ows. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no way an entire section will ever get consensus over here, like over at the tea party article, so 1-2 sentences, take it or leave it. If you're trying to divert attention away from the issue by comparing it to the tea party, you'll be hard pressed to convince anyone. 완젬스 (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:CONSENSUS to brush up on what it says, because that's what is common (and applied) to both articles. 완젬스 (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No - seems WP:UNDUE to me to use individual comments and turn it into a standalone section. Unless this becomes a relevant part or chunk of the protests, then no. Unless it gains traction in the media in some form, then no. Until then, all of this can be summarized into a single sentence - a section is too much weight.--Львівське (говорити) 08:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes The incidents are being reported in WP:RS. Ironically racism by Tea Party members is only alleged. OWS members actually went on anti-semitic rants on TV! I saw it! – Lionel (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of references for Tea party members shouting racial epithets (see for example). The question isn't whether one or two guys within a much larger movement are racist/anti-semetic. The question is whether racism/antisemitism is a pervasive theme within a movement, or whether it represents a viewpoint pushed by a significant portion of a movement's members. NickCT (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The question is not if ows is racist, rather the several reports of the ANP endorsement the movement is notable. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the difference? It's still guilt by association, and will attract edit warring & make the article unstable. Can't anyone else see that? 완젬스 (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Typical wikipedia mob rule, published racism undue here, not undue at tea party. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're not in the majority, then just wait your turn. You're trying to change an OWS article during the height of OWS popularity. If you bring up a proposal (an entire section!!!) on antisemitism knowing it will fail, is just disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point which everyone knows nothing good will come from it. It just creates division between editors when the article still has plenty of peaceful improvements we could instead discuss otherwise. If you know an entire section will never gain consensus, then propose something more popular so that the "mob" will agree with it. When you're on the side of the minority, the burden is on you to work with the majority (unless you're like Dualus who bypasses consensus) because without consensus, even the most noble & well-intentioned edits will never stand, and you know that. The tea party is de facto racist whereas only 2 reliable sources have barely said anything usable about OWS being antisemitic (because as user NickCT said) the statement would have to be so heavily qualified, that it wouldn't be worth mentioning. 완젬스 (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * re "rather the several reports of the ANP endorsement the movement is notable" - I think you should be posting your comments in the section above, but as I said above, OWS has reportedly gained the support of the latino community,former leaders of ACORN,labor unions,Kayne West,the mayor of Richmond, California, Jay-Z, vetrinarians, Canadians, etc etc. Should I go on? Get the point? You want to mention all of these groups? If not, why are you so focused on the ANP? NickCT (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayz, vets and acorn, you left out Communist Party USA, The American Nazi Party, Revolutionary Communist Party, Black Panthers, Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan, CAIR, Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, Hugo Chavez, Revolutionary Guards of Iran, The Govt of North Korea, Communist Party of China, Hezbollah, a regular who's who of obscurity. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok.... But you're missing the point. You said we should mention ANP b/c their support has been noted in RSs. I pointed out that an endless slew of folk's support has been noted in RS, and that it's not piratical to mention them all. Again, why are you so focused on highlighting support from particular groups? NickCT (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No Absolutely not. There are no reliable sources reporting any connection of this accusation whatsoever. Beyond the reporting of anonymous people who have shown up at some protests, there is no sourcing at all. Dave Dial (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources which mention it, your saying there is not is pointless. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No Again, Wikipedia is not the mouthpiece for the far-right Wurlitzer. Hipocrite (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nor is it a mouthpiece for the leftwing nutjobs of the OWS, wiki reports on what reliable sources have written. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * NO - This is more desperation from the Far Right. It's a story generated just like the recent ACORN connection given by an anonymous source to Fox News in the last few days. Christian Roess (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes Seems to have generated a great deal of controversy and has been covered in a great many reliable sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, per NickCT and Dave Dial. --Dailycare (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it deserves a small paragraph which names the major players in the smear campaign and has a thorough refutation. Smear campaigns are a notable part of politics.  "This right-wing attempt to discredit both the Occupy Wall Street movement and the Democratic Party’s hesitant embrace of it is reprehensible."  I also saw an organization of Jews condemning the smear campaign..  So yeah, it's notable and thoroughly refuted as a smear campaign of the Right.   Be— —Critical  20:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes - I don't understand this discussion. The issue is not whether there is credible evidence that OWS is anti-Semitic, but whether WP:RS have said it was. I take the position that there is no significant anti-Semitism. We should give the (false) charges, and then the rebuttals. Then readers can decide for themselves, and I'm sure the weight of evidence will overwhelmingly convince them of my position. The alternative is to ignore the issue completely, and people looking on WP for information on the charges will get nothing, rather than WP:NPOV explanation of the charges and the rebuttal. Commentary and the Wall Street Journal editorial page are WP:RS, whether you or I like them or not, and even though they're frequently wrong. Other people have made this point above, and I don't see any responses to it. Can anyone explain why they don't agree with my position? --Nbauman (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, instances have been widely covered by reliable sources. This should be covered like alleged racism is at the tea party movement article. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes - The anti-Semitic comments were documented by Fox News, ABC, CNBC, MSNBC, NBC, and CNN. One woman was even fired from her job as a teacher when she said on national television that they needed to "drive the Zionists" out of the United States.  I don't think it's a question of saying that the entire movement is anti-Semitic.  I don't agree with them, but even I don't believe that rubbish.  But if we are going to apply these standards to the Tea Party, then it is only fair that the same standards be applied to Occupy Wall Street.  What's good for the proverbial goose... Quendishir (talk)

Note to admin who closes
Please take into account the lack of actual policy based reasons for excluding this content. Several editors have said there are no reliable sources regarding the antisemitic remarks being made. This is patently false, it was deemed a serious enough matter by the Anti Defamation League to release a statement on the matter. Some say no as they believe it is a smear campaign, this is not a policy that i am aware of, nor have any sources made this claim that I know of. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the antisemitism discussion? Or the Nazism discussion? (or both?) 완젬스 (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The antisemitism discussion, I will create a subsection for the ANP discussion as basically the same arguments have been put forth there as here. The Last Angry Man (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Not all or nothing: presenting a 3rd option
So do the yes's and no's agree to compromise and just have a single, well-written sentence, as myself and others have said can be summarized? If so, then let us work on that sentence here, so we have something to look at from those who voted "yes" and we'll see their proposal below. 완젬스 (talk) 08:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


 * Good finds, Gandy, I'll check it out it. Thanks for link thefourdeuce but not quite controversial enough! ;-) 완젬스 (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Media Matters is not a reliable source. It is like asking the arsonist who started the fire.  Arzel (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure I would go that far, lol. They're a private non-profit, so they can allow their editors/bloggers more unrestricted and "no strings" journalism & blogs. It's a good site, has lots of recaps & summaries of what the other sides are saying. Each video is like a miniature documentary--highly recommended and very informative for any Wikipedia editor who works on poli-sci articles. 완젬스 (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


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

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

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

I also have reliable sources for many more so called "fringe" groups like the Black Panthers, CAIR, and the Socialist Party USA who express support for the OWS movement.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have them, let's see them. 완젬스 (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * These groups may all support OWS, however with a U.S. population of 312,577,000 and most of these groups having less than a couple of thousand members, how can it be justified to add whatever they may believe to the article? I don't think the Black Panthers have any - aren't they defunct? How many are in the American Nazi Party - I'll bet it's not many. Gandydancer (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * American Communist Party - 2,000 Gandydancer (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I am not going to make a giant list of all of them because their are too many. But I have sources for many more.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessary -- There are little to no reliable sources that even mention these groups, and the ones that do are either biased and not reliable sources for this article, or mention the attempted connection by right-wing blogs. etc.. If, in the future, these attempts do not subside, the only addition should be about the smear attempts. Dave Dial (talk) 14:51, November 9, 2011 (UTC)

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


 * A single well-written sentence that makes it clear that both of these are being pushed by the far-right American press would be acceptable. Hipocrite (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What's in the article right now seems to at least have equally contradicting opinion. Can we live with it and the very short mention in lead or do we need changes?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What you have added is perfect, the mention of the antisemitic remarks with the rebuttal is NPOV and balanced the way an article ought to be written. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed 100%, and I have to say as the most vocal critic of including ANY momentum-halting criticism of OWS, I must proudly say that Amadscientist (an editor I admire for being a great Wikipedian) has written the content in such a way as to make both sides happy. Somebody give this man a barn star! (I've given him one already too recently) 완젬스 (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

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

If I said I support the OWS, would my name be included in the article? As I get it, OWS is no way connected to both parties, so leave them alone. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

UNDUE WEIGHT
User:becritical added this, "Conservatives see the OWS protesters as ingrates..." - He has this attributed to only one source which creates an undue weight issue. How do we know conservatives refer to the protesters as ingrates? Because one article says so? You need to back this up with more than one mainstream source if you want this to be in the article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I also found this odd. What about all those Ron Paul supporters out there in the streets with signs? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, one source would be sufficient if it's a good source (which it is), but that sentence is supported by all the sources, including the conservative ones. Also, the claim is that they see them as, not that they say they refer to them that way.  This is the source characterizing, not quoting.   Be— —Critical  00:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * List all the sources that refer to them as ingrates. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The obsession with the word is inappropriate. One source for that is sufficient, and other sources support the meaning, as well as the quotes.  But okay, how about we take out the word "ingrates?"  Does that satisfy you?   Be— —Critical  01:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * However, the other source which most directly supports that specific word is CNN "ungrateful and lazy generation of weirdos." Ingrate means an ungrateful person.  So that's at least two directly supporting the word.  Now, you have something to explain: why did you take out that large bit if all you're concerned about is that word?   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  02:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Right now it reads "some conservatives and tea party activists say", But as you said yourself "the claim is that they see them as, not that they say they refer to them that way." So shouldn't it read: "some tea party activists and conservatives see them as and not say? Also, you should move the citations to be after each specific phrase attributed to that source so readers don't have to look through them all to verify one claim.--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We could say "see them as" if you wish, although in actuality for the most part they only say that they see them as (to extend your logic). The meaning is the same, however.  And no, there is no reason to move the sourcing for two sentences of about 72 words.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  04:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There certainly is a reason, for the ease of the audience. Wikipedia strives to be easy to read and verify, and it would be much easier to verify if the exorbitant 5 sources for 2 sentences were organized rather than cluttered at the end, leaving the reader the nuisance of sifting through each of the articles to verify content.--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your concern for readers is touching, but readers will not be going over it that closely, or if they are they will not mind reading a couple of quotes in the references which will take them two minutes. And as for the editors here, I'm sure they have all taken the two minutes to read the source quotes.  Maybe even some of them read a bit of the articles, too.  References do not need to be placed after each word, making them redundant and truly cluttered.  Let's get the content worked out first, and we can go over the source placement again later if you wish.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  04:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with user:Jacksoncw. You need to place the pertinent references within the sentence so editors don't have to waste time sifting thru the sources. I've removed the material until this takes place. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Then it's off to either AN/I, or mediation. I haven't decided which yet, and will be back probably tomorrow.  Cheers.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  13:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on anything else, footnotes should be placed as closely as possible to the specific language they substantiate. For example, if one of your sources ONLY substantiates that X claims Y, but not the rest of the sentence, the footnote should appear right after "X claims Y" rather than just being tacked on to the end of the sentence. This is standard practice in some (perhaps many) academic circles, including academic legal writing. And more importantly, this is the best way to clearly convey to the reader exactly which source substantiates what claim. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 19:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You can't use the Chronicle as a reliable source. This isn't a news article, it's an opinion piece.  Opinion pieces are not reliable.  Taking this guy's opinion and crafting it to appear as if it is a fact that "conservatives see OWS protesters as ingrates," is original research.  Malke 2010 (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * These are, I believe, what we call Newspaper and magazine blogs or similar, and I already checked them out on the RS noticeboard. As I said before, the word "ingrates," though reliably sourced, is not necessary.  But trying to keep the entire paragraph out of the article, or removing full sentences when you disagree with one word is unacceptable.  It is also possible to attribute, as with "According to conservative and political commentators such as X and Y, conservatives see..."  But the way you are doing this makes it seem as if you just hate the content and will not participate in the editorial process except to stonewall.  Thus, I'll be requesting mediation.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  01:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In this case I agree with the editors that suggest that the refs should be within a sentence rather than grouped at the end of it. Gandydancer (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted above, which is here, regarding conservatives and "ingrates". Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * People obsess over that word which we could take out. But that word alone was not removed.  No one has said that my summary of the sources was in general unjustified by those sources.  I don't have to source every word, I can paraphrase as an editor.  I did a good job of that, or if I did not people should have helped me with the text, rather than attack it.  We are supposed to edit together.  But I see no constructive suggestions, only complaints, mostly about a single word which we could take out.  Can the sources in general be paraphrased as saying what I put in?  Yes.  Do they sometimes use the exact words I used?  Yes, and that's further justification for them.  Is there any doubt that the summary of how conservatives have generally portrayed OWS is accurate?  No, I don't think there is.  So, what is the objection?  There are no substantive objections that I can see to the general summary.  So help me with the text if you think it can be bettered, but don't just make up any complaint you can, or it will look as if you just want to keep this material out of the article.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  09:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus Rock Mafia - IT'S A LIBERTY WALK! video supporting OWS 500,000 at time of writing ,,,and less than a week old
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovs0fpFgeqw Miley Cyrus Rock Mafia - IT'S A LIBERTY WALK! support OWS ....She should be added under wealthy supporters Bionaught (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Youtube isn't a reliable source, and you really need a second-hand source instead of original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Done  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  01:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)