Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 23

OWS-Tea Party section
A comparative section may be need. Yug (talk)  13:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party: populist brothers
 * OWS and Tea Party Agree: Big Banks Are a Big Problem
 * 10 Differences Between OWS and The Tea Party
 * Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party: How They Appear on the Web
 * Occupy Wall Street: One of the Top 10 Most Popular News Stories of 2011


 * That's true, I've read a lot of comparisons.  Be— —Critical  18:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I continue to collect sources here, everyone can add too : ). Then, if someone is interested to start the writing: be bold. Yug (talk)  23:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest a new article for that--we already have complaints about this one being too long. Gandydancer (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't belong in this article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gandyd and Somedif. If a new article comparing and contrasting this movement and the Tea P would be created (taking care to avoid OR) then I would be open to adding a sentence in our article with a link to that one.--NYCJosh (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh Brother (...where art thou?).
M&Ms says:

The article reads like a load of old garb. There is no objectivity in the writing.

Also the word malfeasance is used as a verb when it is not a verb.

All in all, the article is packed with the rhetoric of someone who believes passionatetly in this movement. This is not appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.155.16.96 (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly what I've been saying! S51438 (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Naturally anyone who's opposed to the movement will see imbalance as long as there is any semblance of neutrality. -A98 98.92.187.48 (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If that were true, the same would be true of people who support the movement. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 13:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Domscheit-Berg, potential resource
In 2011, Daniel Domscheit-Berg was named by Foreign Policy magazine to its list of top global thinkers, with Sami Ben Gharbia and Alexey Navalny. He stated Occupy Wall Street was the Best Idea. In print, on page 60, #24 for shaping the new world of government transparency.

99.181.136.135 (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems secondary, at best. Some plausible value, unlike most of the "list of top global thinkers" you've added.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason why we would add that to the article other than pushing your POV that the OWS movement is right? What does Foreign Policy magazine have to do with top thinkers? What makes his opinion notable? Him being named a top 100 thinker on a random, irrelevant magazine certainly doesn't. Is this informative or relevant in any way? Let's think about this.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It belongs in the authors and academics section. No reason not to put it in.  We eventually have to work on splitting the article, but I don't really want to till it's a little better developed.   Be— —Critical  20:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There's plenty of commentary already. That particular quote does not seem to add any new of unique information. If there was a particular, notable or unique reason why the Domscheit-Berg made that assertion then it might be different.--Factchk (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticism Assimilation
I think the criticism section should be assimilated into the rest of the article into their respective sections. The entire Organization and group processes section is a bubbly paragraph of how majestic the movement is, but there has been criticism. We should cute/paste some information from the criticism section into the other sections not only for accessibility but to keep things NPOV.--Jacksoncw (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the criticism section is only a part of what it will be, so let's get it straightened out and then consider your suggestion.  Be— —Critical  20:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * He's got a point, though. Praise is sprinkled liberally throughout the article wherever it might be topically relevant, but much of the criticism is being pigeonholed into its own labeled section for no reason other than it doesn't reflect positively on the movement. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 03:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a lot of praise, but I did revert a bit from the "The Conscience of a Conservative" in the Washington times, which is no more reliable than huffington post on the other side. In fact I just got done cleaning out a lot of POV text and sources from both sides of the debate.   Be— —Critical  07:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Commentary About Lack of Message
I've added a quote from Matt Taibbi's recent piece in Rolling Stone about the protests. The quote itself provides an alternate opinion that some in the protests feel that the movement is a good in and of itself. I'm not sure if this is the right place for it so I decided to put in the Demands section and see how everyone reacts to it. If something like this already exists elsewhere in the article please let me know. I'm happy to debate placement, notability, etc.--Factchk (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you using two accounts on this article? Are you User:Factchecker atyourservice?  Be— —Critical  08:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, that's not me. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 13:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC

Curious to know if anyone feels this would be better served somewhere else. I thought it offered an alternate goal of the protests but if consensus is against then I understand.--Factchk (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I liked it but it seems we have so much already...Gandydancer (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is from my talk page: It was a judgment call, and as with all Wikipedia edits bore the unpleasant possibility of deleting something someone cared about. Partly it was the source: Rolling stone is very liberal, and also not focused on such things as OWS.  It's not a bad source, but it's also not the best.  It did offer a different perspective, but in an encyclopedia you want the major perspectives, you don't want to try and be comprehensive.  There's another consideration: if we aren't going to use republican sources such as Fox News, we have to be careful not to use sources with a high bias on the other side either.  If there are biased sources, they should be mainstream news outlets such as the Wall Street Journal or The Washington Post or NBC or CBS, or more academic sources such as The Chronicle of Higher Education (Chronicle Review).  So it was a judgment call.  I'm not going to revert you if you put it back in.  Be— —Critical  03:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Propose adding link to WeAllOccupy Directory
http://wealloccupy.com We All Occupy Directory / Resource Lists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wealloccupy (talk • contribs) 07:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 December 2011
The Occupy movement originated as US Day of Rage, an idea published on news blog Wikileaks Central on March 10, 2011 by Canadian editor Heather Marsh, reporting action taken by Wikileaks Central writer Alexa O'Brien and modeled after the Day of Rages being held at that time in the Middle East and North Africa. Early promotion by the Wikileaks Twitter and blog was reported as being instrumental in the group's success. It was renamed after an article by Adbusters.

70.66.36.9 (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like you've made a valid assessment. I concur with adding this historical anticedent to the "Origin" section.--DeknMike (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This overwhelmingly goes against common understanding of the protest as it's been reported in mainstream media, so proceed with caution. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 15:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this new editor just made this up. It needs to be removed from two other OWS articles as well = which I'm going to do right now...Gandydancer (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It may go against common understanding and what is coming out of the sound-bite US media, but it is sourced and supports the global linkage. --DeknMike (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at the first source it does not say US Day Of Rage was the first to "invent" OWS. As it says in our article, they threw their support in along with several other groups.  If you can show otherwise, please provide a source. Here:  Gandydancer (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It also bears repeating that "common understanding" is primarily what Wikipedia aims to present, and that the "sound-bite US media" is a major component of that. Views that are too far out of the mainstream are at risk of being excluded entirely in pursuit of compliance with WP policy. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 06:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

edit request, dead link
In the Background subsection 'Zucotti park encampment' there is a link to NY Post story   which does not come up when I click through. It's been "Page not found" for at least 2 weeks now. I couldn't find another link to the story, if it exists. Can someone please fix this or remove the text attributed to it? It's a reference for this questionable bit: "...many businesses surrounding the park were adversely affected.[81]". Thanks. -A98 98.92.187.205 (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Questionable reference. FYI, all you have to do is google the link. Why in the world won't you get a username?  Be— —Critical  09:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If the link has been broken for two weeks, why haven't you said anything about it before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.47.34 (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This shouldn't matter. No point in asking. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 16:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Add quote by Arnold Mindell?
Hi all. I'd like to suggest adding a quote by Arnold Mindell to the notables section. Arnold Mindell is the founder of process work, also known as process oriented psychology, author of twenty books including The Deep Democracy of Open Forums, and originally coined the term deep democracy in the early 1980s in his book Leader as Martial Artist.

Here is the quote, which comes from his Facebook page:

Deep Democracy sees any group as a whole consisting of 3 experiential levels I. individuals+environment, II. people +parts as shared inner feelings+dreams (like projections), III. a field that influences moods, feelings+realities. Sense the field+represent each part. It’s inner +outer work—(in dreams, everyone does this naturally). Facilitation is everyone’s responsibility. “Leader” types without facilitator-ship are old fashioned, thinking awareness+power are theirs. Yes, 99+1, all please take a firm stand, then all, please use awareness+ OCCUPY EVERYTHING :-). This helps the world change from power to awareness paradigms.

https://www.facebook.com/Arnold.Mindell 25 Nov 2011

Ddfx (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Quite unencyclopedic and the guy is not notable IMO. Also his field (psychology) is not related to OWS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Add quote by Cornell West?
"We the people of the global Occupy movement embody and enact a deep democratic awakening with genuine joy and fierce determination... Just as justice is what love looks like in public and tenderness is what love feels like in private, deep democratic revolution is what justice looks like in practice."

from http://occupiedmedia.us/2011/11/a-love-supreme/

Ddfx (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Less unencyclopedic than the previous quote suggested (Mindell), and West is at least a notable figure, but still: it's not the purpose of WP to reprint every slogan and bit of rhetoric that somebody says in connection with OWS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. West is already in the article with a good quote.  But thanks for offering some ideas! Gandydancer (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Organization and Group Process
There have been complaints that the Finance Committee isn't using funds correctly or not at all, I added this information but it was removed, not sure who or why. I'd like some advice on what information should be used and how to add it from | this source.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd guess it was felt that it is not notable. Gandydancer (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * How is that not notable?--174.49.47.34 (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Certainly much more notable than, e.g., the system for dumping recycled dishwater into the park, or any number of other bits of fluff. I'm curious how you could have "added" this, though, since as an IP you're not allowed to edit a semi-protected article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I comment as an ip because during the day I have to change computers and reconnect to wi-fi multiple times. I don't feel like logging in every time I have something to say on the discussion page. 174.49.47.34 and this ip are both me, Jacksoncw.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Quote for footnote
Would anyone with paid WSJ access mind amending the reference for this claim by adding a quote of the relevant language that supports it? That would seem to be the best practice in view of the paywalled nature of this article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I put some of that text in but not all of it. I don't know if it's all sourced. I think I got it out of this text, see if this is what you want:

Be— —Critical 07:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm having trouble seeing support for the claim that National polls during October and November consistently showed more people approving than disapproving; the source does not appear to make this claim, which would make the sentence OR. I'm also not seeing the specific numbers (59% and 22%) claimed in the WP-article sentence. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 01:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That's the part I didn't put in.  Be— —Critical  06:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Having trouble understanding what you mean. Are you saying that part of the claim is unsourced?  Because I removed it as being unsourced and it was restored by an editor saying "look at the third paragraph", so what I am asking is that if there is some source text supporting the claim, could someone who has access to the article please put it in the footnote for the benefit of readers who can't get behind the paywall?  Otherwise, and if there's no source text supporting the claim, the claim needs to be removed. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 14:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If that's what they said, then take it out, since that's not a proper response to sourcing. If they want it back in, they can specify the source and put it in the appropriate paragraph.   Be— —Critical  20:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Douglas Schoen article
I've pulled the following:
 * On Oct. 10 and 11, the polling firm Penn, Schoen & Berland interviewed nearly 200 protesters. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, 98% would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and 31% would support violence to advance their agenda. Most are employed; 15% are unemployed. Most had supported Obama; now they are evenly divided. 65% say government has a responsibility to guarantee access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement. They support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, and are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary.

The problem here is that Douglas Schoen's (currently employed as a Fox News political analyst) opinion piece (here) is controversial and has been accused of misrepresenting the data that the firm he is a part of pulled from his sample (200 protestors). For example, the following articles are highly critical of the piece:


 * Benen, Steve. "Douglas Schoen isn't helping his reputation" at Washingtonmonthly.com


 * Legum, Judd. "Doug Schoen Grossly Misrepresents His Own Poll Result to Smear Occupy Wall Street" at thinkprogress.org.

This poll should definitely be included, but not by way of Schoen's anti-Occupy Wall Street piece. It requires a neutral source. If Schoen's opinion piece is included somewhere, so to need be the responses. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll just say that Washington Monthly and ThinkProgress are not exactly neutral. Kelly  hi! 21:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting they be used as a source for the poll, of course. I'm just illustrating criticism of the poll. More:


 * Maloy, Simon. ""Polling" And Concern-Trolling Occupy Wall Street" at mediamatters.org


 * Weigel, David. "Doug Schoen, the Official Anti-Spokesman of Occupy Wall Street" at slate.com


 * If anyone has suggestions for a neutral source handling the poll and its criticisms, we need to use that. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing about WP policy suggests that we must exclude this poll or the Schoen WSJ analysis from this article, and mainstream press isn't transformed into fringe material just because some bloggers criticize it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 21:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I flatly state that the poll most be included, albeit not by way of Schoen's opinion piece. But how are you somehow missing that these are all political commentators, including Schoen (whose article is in WSJ's opinion section), and not just "some bloggers"? Not your best attempt at a spin, but I must say that I find your consistent love for the outdent tag to be endearing. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You can "flatly state" whatever you like; WP policy does not require that we exclude Schoen's analysis. And yes, it's pretty obvious that the people making political commentary are all political commentators; if you want to make a notability claim, I'll take a single WSJ piece by an expert in the field over four random bloggers, who don't seem to have any particular credentials of note, any day—especially when some of these pieces that allegedly deserve equal (or greater) weight turn out to contain no actual substance (e.g. one of those four columns says nothing on the subject except "Schoen wrote a dishonest column full of claims that couldn't be backed up by his own research. Hey, what's a campaign ad if not bogus claims not backed up by research?"). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 22:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, when I "flatly state" something, I do so in the hopes that others will pick up on it, including yourself. The one article you're referring to sets out to illustrate how these "poll findings" are being used as fodder for campaign ads. For those keeping track, here's also a piece highly critical of both Schoen's declared as status as a Democrat and his methods from the Huffingtonpost:
 * "Douglas Schoen, Fox News Contributor And Democratic Pollster, Fundraising For GOP Candidate" at huffingtonpost.com.
 * Again, what I'm illustrating here is that Schoen's interpretation of said findings in his Wall Street Journal opinion piece has met with criticism of his methodology. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fabulous. As an experienced WP editor, you should know that doesn't mean it must be excluded from the article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 22:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, upon inspection, it's clear that the HuffPo piece says zero about his methods. It merely says he's a partisan that's helped republicans and sharply questions whether he has genuine Dem street cred. Please be more careful when you are telling other editors what sources say. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 22:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You might want to inspect a little closer; the "methods" I'm referring to include his presenting a particular brand of criticism (i.e. Fox News typical) alongside his declared status as "Democrat". This, as I've illustrated, he has been repeatedly criticized for; i.e. according to these various references, it's tactical and misleading. In fact, the Huffington Post article above references the following article in its first paragraph:
 * Hananoki, Eric. "Fox News "Democrat" Schoen to do fundraiser ... for a Republican" at mediamatters.org
 * But yes, indeed, experienced editor that I am, I therefore state—again—that if Schoen's opinion piece goes anywhere, it need go in the criticism section, as it is criticism, and the fact that Schoen's interpretation has met with criticism needs to be included as well. The poll itself, meanwhile, needs to be in the demographics section from a neutral source. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not understanding the objection - are you (or your sources) claiming that the poll is fabricated due to ideological bias by Schoen? Are the blogs that are objecting to the results neutral? The "Fox News contributor" thing seems irrelevant, especially given the ideological nature of the blogs you've listed as sources. Kelly  hi! 22:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the issue isn't the poll itself. It needs to be included like any other poll. The issue is a follow up opinion piece by Schoen being used as a source for it, which has been criticized as being misleading from the various sources above. Schoen himself is a subject of some controversy, as seen above. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought you were referring to "methods" of Schoen's, particularly his methods of analysis, that have something, anything, to do with the quality of the analysis, rather than rhetorical methods used by partisan talk shows he appears on.


 * Also, not that I disagree with putting Schoen into the criticism section, but have you noticed that both criticism and praise are liberally scattered throughout the article? If we were to carefully segregate all criticism and praise into their own discrete sections, the article would look very different.  Presently, it seems that individual items of criticism or praise appear in the topical section that is most relevant to the criticism or praise. Doesn't seem a huge problem to me. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 22:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you mean the partisan talk show that employs him? He's a Fox News political analyist. Anyway, his opinion piece is just that; there's nothing technical about it, and basically just reads as an anti-OWS rant, full of hyperbolic statements expressing his personal opinions. It's typical fare. What isn't typical is it being used as factual material in the demographics section here. Like I've said, and another user in an earlier thread stated when this came up, it needs be wrangled into the "criticism" section as that's quite plainly what it is, regardless of where whatever else may be. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your claims are not borne out by reality. "Rant full of hyperbolic statements expressing his personal opinions"?  Where do you get that?  It is quite clearly expressing his professional opinion as a public opinion analyst—one that seems to be held in relatively high regard by reliable sources, and one that is explicitly stated to be based on professionally conducted research.  Nothing in it whatsoever sounds like a rant.  It is written in a disinterested tone.  And it was never presented as factual material; it was ONLY ever presented with a clear attribution to the author.  I sincerely doubt anyone is going to be confused into thinking it's objective fact just because it doesn't appear in a section explicitly labeled "criticism".  It was never presented as anything more than it is—his informed professional opinion on a subject on which he appears to unquestionably be an established expert. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 23:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but "Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people" doesn't sound like flat, personal opinion to you? Now that's rich. And the guy is in no way shape or form objective—he's a Fox News employee—so I would appreciate if you'd drop that byline; it's just ridiculous. And, yes, it was presented as statistically factual; the criticisms above illustrate exactly why that's a problem—the poll itself doesn't match up with said claims. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's obviously his professional opinion, based on professional research, on a subject on which he is an expert, and is presented as exactly that. There is no magic "this guy works for Fox news so we ignore his worthless opinion" button you can press on WP in order to automatically exclude a well-sourced, relevant, and very notable opinion.


 * (And no, the opinion piece was never presented as anything other than the thought of Douglas Schoen. If there is relevant and notable criticism, of course that is fair game for inclusion, but not as a basis for excluding the Schoen analysis). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 23:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Nay, Factchecker, there is no such button, but there is a requirement for neutrality, and the ideology here is thick and deep and must be taken into consideration before being presented as fact; opinion piece goes into opinion (including at the Wall Street Journal) and criticism ought to go in criticism here. It is unclear how Schoen's two other partners interpreted the data as, for example; this is Schoen's personal interpretation and commentary, published on a sister website to that of his employer, Fox News. All of which is entirely relevant, as the several criticism pieces above point out. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutrality is a requirement for WP articles, not individual claims made by individual sources. If we required the latter rather than the former, a vast swath of WP articles would be permanently stuck in Stub status due to inability to add any content to them. We need not present ideology or opinion as fact, and the Schoen analysis you removed did not do so.  Finally, any and all analysis or criticism of Schoen's analysis must, like any other analysis or criticism, be published in a reliable source if it is to be reflected in a WP article, and should only be given the weight it has been given in the mainstream press—in other words, a piece in the WSJ will generally be given more weight than multiple blog posts even if the blog posts call the guy a filthy liar.


 * So, since you seem to have vowed to remove this material so long as there is no "balancing" commentary, let's hear your proposed article text reflecting the "other side"? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 23:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't state opinion pieces as fact here. There's no compromise about that here. If there's subjectivity from Schoen, which there clearly is, it's solely in the realm of his opinion. I don't need to lecture you on that. Attempts to weasel around the criticism won't be considered, either. As for the criticism, it would read something like "According to Fox News analyst Douglas Schoen ...." and then "Some political commentators have been critical of Schoen's analysis ..." with attention to what critic said what. Standard procedure. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This entry did have a criticism in our article for quite awhile - seems someone deleted it. Would the Washington Monthly article be a good one to offer an opposing viewpoint to the op-ed? Gandydancer (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed a claim he misrepresented his results, and an accompanying analysis of the results, neither of which were in the sources cited. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 00:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's on the lower end of what we should use as sources, but not unacceptable. The way it's used here, it's just stating some rather obvious stats about their beliefs, not to push a point the way it's used in Doug Schoen's opinion piece.  The piece by Steve Benen, lead blogger of The Washington Monthly seems of equal merit.  If they disagree over the facts, perhapse we would be wise not to use either.  We might consider going straight to the numbers.  Be— —Critical  00:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm all for just linking straight to the PDF and I agree with you. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Bloodofox, would you please stop attacking Doug Schoen. He is a living person and subject to WP:BLP everywhere within WP. As much as it may dismay you, Fox is a reliable source, and TP huffing and puffing about his connection to FNC does not make him suddenly not a reliable source, anymore than it makes the far left Think Progress a reliable source. His opinion is just as valuable and/or notable as the many on the left (like KO) that you and your brood are using to puff up this article. Arzel (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * All the sources you've mentioned here are "reliable" according to Wikipedia standards, whether anyone here likes it or not. I suggest you write a letter to the sources critical of Schoen if you feel they're picking on him. As for my "brood"; care to elaborate on what that may be, exactly? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Fox news can be used for some things, but is a questionable source. Be— —Critical  03:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)If Think Progress is considered a reliable source than the standards for WP have fallen off the cliff. Your brood, is you, BCritical and your fellow Think Progress and MMfA reliable souce believers.  About all they are reliable for is their opinion, much like Newsbusters on the right, and those that use them as a primary source always are editing from a biased point of view.  Those that say FNC is a questionable source have no backing in reality or published journalistic studies as well.  Arzel (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * FNC = Fox News Network? It's questionable on Wikipedia.  Do not call your fellow editors a "brood."  Thinkprogress is not an RS for most things, and probably should not be used here.  The Atlantic, however, is an RS  Be— —Critical  06:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't be around much over the next few days, but don't forget to think about what counter-commentary, if any, you wish to "balance" the Schoen opinion piece. And, it's probably best to avoid unreliable sources (such as ThinkProgress, which demonstrates its unreliability by manufacturing fake claims that Schoen never made and then refuting those in an attempt to argue that he "grossly misrepresented" his results; funny that they had to misrepresent Schoen's claims in order to say what they wanted to say). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 16:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone stating that Fox News is not a reliable source for Wikipedia had better be able to back that up with consensus. Huffington Post IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE on Wikipedia and this has been shown to be the general consensus of the community as a whole. Stop playing games on sources you don't like. Fox is as reliable as MSNBC or CNN. Just because half the stuff they post is biased in your perception proves nothing. And this comes from a liberal with little respect for the network...but that is not how Wikipedia determines a source as relaible.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said in the other thread (below) where you also made such a bold claim against HuffPost as RS, that's not an accurate summary of WP:RSN discussion on HuffPost's reliability. Opinions of WP editors vary widely, as they do with Fox News. So we judge news pieces by their own merit. Only a month ago you yourself said "The Huffington Post can be used as a reference with caution." -A98 98.92.183.93 (talk) 07:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardless, it should be clear that claims that Fox is "not reliable on WP" are clearly false. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Fox is at least just as ideological and questionable as the Huffington Post, as are any Murdoch outlets. That should be obvious enough. Now, I see that you've just attempted to add back the poll information sourced through Schoen's opinion piece just as it was despite this discussion (presuming I wasn't watching?), but we need a solid, neutral source for this poll material free of Schoen's ideological filter. Where Schoen's opinion piece is employed, it needs to be clearly labeled as exactly that. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Both sources are partisan, but Fox is a major, long-standing international news organization.  HuffPo is a blog that turned into a mega-blog hosting numerous other bloggers.  Apples, oranges. And I didn't do anything "presuming you weren't watching", but thanks for continuing to ABF.  I waited for days for you to say anything that would indicate a sound policy rationale for excluding this.  You didn't.  I also invited you to suggest sources and article text to achieve whatever "balance" you wanted.  You didn't.  I'm not going to argue with you about explicitly labeling the piece an opinion piece, but the article text would be ridiculous if we did that in the case of every POV opinion piece in this article. I assume you don't object, however, to also labeling the responses to Schoen as opinion pieces, as well.


 * Finally, I really would immensely appreciate it if you would stop making personal attacks in your edit summaries and here on the talk page. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 19:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, those "days" were a major holiday there, and if you wanted some questions answered you could have asked here.


 * Regardless, "Factchecker", I'll give you credit for one thing here; you can be funny, whether you intend to or not. Complaining about "personal attacks" for me referring to you as "ideological" (which, flatly, you are—and that's no attack, but a fact), and then stating "You don't seem to grasp WP policy very well" despite you being well aware of my long history on Wikipedia and large amount of authored GA articles. But what's funnier is your apparent lack of grasp of it, as pointed out by BeCritical (which is exactly what I'd have pointed out). The double standard reminds me of you referring to me flatly as a "dick" and an "asshole", and then going to a arbitration board when I accuse you of editing from a purely ideological standpoint. Well!


 * And, of course, Fox is hardly 'any other news organization'; it is a highly partisan major news organization, it just happens to be the best known of Murdoch's many media outlets, all of which have a similar political bend. That's the neutral fact of the matter. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have your fingers stuck in your ears? I did ask those exact questions here, as I pointed out; you made no response, as I pointed out. So it's silly to suggest that I didn't bring it up.


 * Yes, I've complained about the actual personal attacks that you actually made and continue to make because WP you want to edit this article in ways WP policy doesn't support. You started with the personal attacks because you didn't have a sound policy argument.  I complained about it and called you a dick, and you now pretend as if this is both a defense for the attacks you made and justification for you to continue the same attacks.  It's not.  You're even trying to make it sound like *I* started making personal attacks and then complained about 'your' attacks, when all I did was call YOU out for making personal attacks (it's in the dozens now) and called you unkind names in two brief comments complaining about the personal attacks and asking you to stop.  Since you refused to stop then, and refuse to stop now, Yes I've complained to WQA rather than stoop to your level.


 * Not even sure what to make of your "any other news organization" comment. Are you quoting somebody else?  Yeah, Fox is partisan.  So is HuffPo, which is of obviously lesser stature than Fox news.  So what?  We're not talking about anything that appeared on Fox news.  Rather, you want to be allowed to exclude well-sourced material by a relevant expert because you think his association with Fox means he isn't to be trusted.  But WP policy does not, in letter or in spirit, allow you to do that. Tough luck.  (You also seem to think he isn't allowed to call himself a Democrat if he doesn't lean towards the far left of the party; not really sure what to make of that.  Plenty of real, genuine Democrats are Fox news contributors.  One of my best friends is quite far left, farther than me, and appears on Fox all the time to represent a Democratic view.  And he is certainly not faking it.)


 * Finally, it's unclear to me where you got the idea that BeCritical "pointed out" that I was wrong about any WP policy. Seeme he was actually agreeing with me.  And he'd be right to do so: WP does not require or even suggest that sources used in articles must themselves be neutral; that's a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV, which, as I pointed out to you before, requires that articles be written from a neutral point of view.  As should be obvious, this often involves including material from partisan sources.


 * At this point, I'm not even sure why I'm even making a good-faith attempt to argue policy with you when you continue to attempt character assassination. Maybe I should start attributing dishonest motives to you, too.  Wouldn't that be fun?


 * "Factchecker", please, spare me further attempts at defending Fox News. It's quite clear that you edit with a strong pro-Fox point of view. And, yes, the "level" you've stooped down to in the past is base, grade-school name calling, which you're simply not going to be able to drag me down to. And now you're being dishonest as well; I frequently pointed out that Schoen's opinion piece without criticism was WP:UNDUE, as keen as you apparently are on it. I've also frequently pointed out your ideological editing, and I will continue to call a duck a duck until that duck stops acting like a duck; that's not a personal attack, that's pointing out the objective obvious.


 * Further, you consistently attempt to describe Schoen in the manner that Fox attempts to do so, going with same of forced, false balance by highlighting that Schoen once worked for the Clinton administration (nigh three presidential terms ago) despite his heavy Republican partisanship, as outlined in the criticisms above (and see WSJ blurb at the end of his article that ignores his Fox News position for maximum news blurb use; nice!). If you haven't seen any of the numerous criticisms of this guy out there, then you've intentionally got your head in the sand. I highlighted several of them above; he's hardly the neutral "expert" you'd like to make him out to do be—like you, he's working with a strong right-wing ideology in hand. No amount of text bolding is going to change that, unfortunately. And, come on, I'm not interested in any yarns about "quite far left, farther than me" friends anyone may have.


 * Earlier I argued that Schoen's opinion piece was not neutral—as in not a neutral source for data, data which was previously plainly taken from his opinion piece. As someone who has participated in perhaps nearly 100 article review processes on Wikipedia, I'm well aware of the neutrality policies here, thanks. I am also aware when someone's attempting to spin them in their favor. We do not present data from an opinion piece by a News Corp employee as simple fact on Wikipedia, whether or not you'd like to present them as "a professional pollster who once worked for the Clinton administration", just as Fox does.


 * Now, to be clear, while I was gone you posed no questions to me, unlike what you say above. Who are you trying to kid? Seriously, if you want to edit here without hassle, you're going to need to try to be a little more neutral or that ideological stance is going to catch up to you, as you're not going to find me relenting any time soon. Good luck attributing "dishonest" motives towards me; primarily because it'll be tough to figure out my political views. Am I a libertarian? Am I a socialist? Am I a mystic Sufi? Am I COMMUNIST? Uh oh! You won't know because I'm not here to push my views on anyone. :)


 * Sure, you can always resort to base name calling again, I guess (I request that you try something more creative than "dick" or "asshole" though). Also, say, how many reverts has that been for you in the past 24 hours? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm no longer going to respond to comments that contain personal attacks. Please redact them. The nastiest thing you should be saying about me on a Wikipedia talk page is to claim that I am pushing POV (though in actuality, it appears that's what you're doing). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 01:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Poll data?
Okay, so using the poll itself as a neutral source for it in the article, exactly what data to we include? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * We should include the part that Schoen includes along with his opinion on it. It was sourced to the article with his opinion and his opinion should be placed in the article as well as the poll. He is a notable expert and we can attribute it as his opinion, keeping NPOV. Regardless of whether you think his employment at Fox News is relevant or whether you think Fox News is a reliable source or not, there is no consensus saying it isn't. You have given no actual grounds for which to filter or exclude any of this material or his opinion.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * See any of the numerous criticisms above and comments about Fox News/News Corp all over this talk page. No one in their right mind would claim Schoen is neutral; Schoen's ideological spin is clear, and Wikipedia is not a platform for it. A user above suggested we go straight to the PDF to maintain neutrality, which I agree with. The question now is what to include from the results. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to grasp WP policy very well. No one said Schoen is neutral -- nor is anyone quoted in this article really neutral on the subject of OWS.  WP does not require that sources be neutral.  By the way, be careful to avoid OR while deciding for yourself what material from primary sources should be included. You won't be able to say much without committing OR. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 19:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, right on, we don't have to have neutral sources, we have to have reliable sources which we report neutrally. It's not OR, but could easily be SYNTH, if we use it to make a point.  I think it would be pretty easy to hit the high points of that data.   Be— —Critical  20:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If I understand right, we have to take account of the double answers:

15.Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is performing his job as President? 44% Approve 9% strongly approve 35% somewhat approve 51% Disapprove 24% somewhat disapprove 27% strongly disapprove 5%Not sure

Be— —Critical 21:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, BeCritical, and your comment regarding reliability and neutrality is exactly what I would have responded with. As for questions, I guess we should just flatly hit the major ones. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

MISLEADING Description of Douglas Schoen
Bloodofox: you keep reverting and reverting to ensure that Douglas Schoen is explicitly described as a "Fox News analyst". This is misleading, technically factually incorrect, and POV-pushing.

Schoen's bio says he is a "contributor" to Fox news, the WaPo, and the WSJ, has advised Mike Bloomberg and Bill Clinton, and has lectured at Harvard, Columbia, and Penn. You are cherry-picking the "Fox" affiliation and seem to be presenting it in a false light, insofar as it appears he is just as much a "WaPo political analyst" and a "WSJ political analyst" as he is a "Fox news analyst" -- to say nothing of the fact that none of these is his principal occupation, which in fact a pollster, i.e. a founding partner and chief analyst at a prominent polling firm. You keep trying to justify that only the Fox label is appropriate, insisting that this is his "current occupation", contrary to fact.

Really it is clear you are trying to push POV by including this (again, cherry-picked) description in order to imply that he is just another uncredentialed, right-wing partisan talking head like Glenn Beck, which he's not—Harvard magna cum laude, Harvard Law, doctor of philosophy from Oxford, lecturer at the Institute of Politics at Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government, the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University. If you are going to insist that "Fox" appears in that sentence just because you and some blogger think that he needs to be smeared in this fashion, I'll insist we give a more thorough reading of his CV in order to prevent the highly imbalanced, partisan-POV-pushing impression you are trying to make it have.

I also find it noteworthy that even the sources you cite have nothing of substance to say except to call him a liar, but say nothing to back that up, and imply he shills for Fox. Nothing but vacuous ad hominem attacks. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 01:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Since you seem to have done the same, I'm just going to paste here what I wrote on my talk page:


 * He's both a pollster and a Fox News employee; yeah, he "shills" for Fox. Firemen work for fire departments. It's not "POV-pushing" to assert that that's his job. What's POV-pushing is when you reach a decade behind to cherry pick his employment under the Clinton administration. Stick to his current employment and spare me the smokescreen.


 * I guess you also didn't bother to type into Google "Schoen Fox News analyst"; Fox identifies him as exactly that (when it's convenient for them, apparently). So, yeah, it might have been a good idea to try that before jogging through his lecturing circuit and education above.


 * You're also wrong; we now have that he's currently a pollster and a Fox News analyst, which are both solidly factual. Further, anyone sorting through the numerous references I've outlined above (and, well, most any articles about Schoen from the left wing he claims to belong to) will see there's far more to criticism of Schoen and his methods than that "he's a liar". Here's another recent critical piece about Schoen we can add to the pile:


 * Gertz, Matt. "The Wash. Post and Fox's "The Wash. Post and Fox's "leading Democratic political analysts"". mediamatters.org


 * And from it a notable quote pointing out Schoen's darling status in the Murdoch/News Corp circuit: "The Post also didn't disclose that Caddell and Schoen both work for Fox News, which spent the last election cycle pulling hard for Republicans, up to and including providing millions of dollars in donations from its parent company to GOP-linked groups."


 * All that said, please refrain from spamming my talk page if you're going to just paste it all here as well. A note when you attempt to open arbitration cases involving me would, however, be welcome. Thanks. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I did Google for any sign of Schoen being generally referred to as a Fox employee or analyst. Most sources don't describe him that way, so it shouldn't be surprising I didn't find anything.  If we're going to tell readers information about his background that is "solidly factual", we'll also include mention of the other news outlets he's a contributor for, as well as additional details about his career.  This is necessary in order to prevent the description from being misleading and POV-pushing.  It would be better if you would simply cease the attempt to label Schoen in a POV way, though; we haven't labeled the numerous liberal and far-left liberal sources in this article in the same way, in order to broadcast their perceived political leanings to readers. It seems a patent NPOV problem that you insist on labeling a non-far-left source in this way.


 * And yeah, I sorted through the "numerous references" above. They're all partisan blog pieces by non-notable people that lack credentials anything like Schoen's, and that criticize Schoen for being affiliated with Fox News and for not being Democratic enough, or rather, that he's faking being a Democrat; one of them (the ThinkProgress posting) says he misrepresented his results, but that article misquotes him and only refutes things he never actually said.  The Washington Monthly article attacks his methods only by referencing the false ThinkProgress claims. The only other piece that says anything about his methods merely questions how the poll respondents were selected; the author has no expertise in the field and admits he does not know how they were selected, but complains they couldn't possibly representative of the movement, without suggesting what kind of poll would yield representative results.


 * Anyhow, if you're going to try to cherry-pick the loaded "Fox News analyst" description, we're going to give his full background and mention the other news outlets he works for, because it's not our goal here to describe people in misleading ways.


 * By the way, I also reverted the title of this section back to what I called it when I created the section. Please don't remove the word "misleading" again.  Thanks. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 14:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Fox News describes Schoen as a "Fox News analyst"; he's an employee. The other outlets he's contributed to now and then are irrelevant for the purposes of the news blurb.


 * Notably, earlier you also attempted to claim that Fox News doesn't employee Schoen on BeCritical's talk page, but were swatted with references demonstrated to the contrary. [Nice try]. From the attempts at weaseling out of Schoen's profession and presenting him as a neutral figure, to defending Fox News whenever the subject comes up, to general WP:LAWYERing around policies that you're familiar with, you've well demonstrated yourself to be a highly ideological user.


 * Your criticisms of the criticisms above are entirely irrelevant; you're a highly partisan editor. They exist and there are many of them. That's all this article cares about.


 * Further, your grade-school personal insults, refusal to notify me when opening arbitration cases that involve me, fondness for posting the same material as you've posted here on my talk page (at the same time no less—wtf?) and your general ideological, scorched earth stance on editing says volume about you as an editor, and I urge anyone else to take note. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You have presented nothing whatsoever to show that Schoen is an "employee" of Fox News but merely an occasional "contributor" to the other outlets; that's just an unsourced POV you are trying to push. You also present nothing to substantiate that he is getting paid by Fox but not WaPo or WSJ. Just because he gets referred to as a "Fox news analyst" in the text of some piece shows nothing at all.  The claims of random, uncredentialed bloggers making claims about his relationship to Fox, also, show nothing.  Your claims I am "weaseling" are baseless, and at no time have I presented Schoen as a neutral figure, as I've already pointed out, so it's dishonest and misleading to pretend I am claiming something I am very obviously not claiming.


 * You, sir, are the highly ideological user who wants to exclude commentary by a well-credentialed, notable expert at any cost, or merely to give him a misleading and POV-pushing label if you can't exclude it altogether. I have tolerated dozens of insults without responding in kind, with the exception of the single brief period during which I called you two nasty words in response to your numerous insults, and at no time have I attempted to base any arguments on ad hominem attacks, which is practically all you have done despite thousands of words typed on your part; at least 3/4ths of it is your character attacks and nothing more.


 * You keep repeating a name-calling incident that was quite justified (based on your ongoing insulting and uncivil behavior) in an attempt to make it sound like I am the one making PAs, when clearly it's been you all along, as evidenced by the fact that you are still unable to even discuss this issue without going on and on about how allegedly ideological I am. You are almost flat-out LYING when you claim I've refused to notify you about arbitration cases I opened, as I opened a single case and immediately notified you.  (And no, un-archiving already-existing comments that were removed by a bot, and reposting them without adding anything is not opening a case while failing to notify you).  You also say I have a "fondness for posting the same material as you've posted here on my talk page" based on a single comment that I reposted here after deciding that's where it should go.  And on the WQA complaining about your personal attacks, you went off on some tangent about how I use OUTDENT too often.  If your purpose is to make ad hominem attacks and nitpick on silly and irrelevant trivia in order to distract from any rational discussion of a relevant content policy, I guess I can't stop you. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 19:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Referring to someone as a "dick" or an "asshole" on Wikipedia is under no circumstance justifiable. These are the basest forms of personal attacks possible and speak for themselves. Your talk of personal attacks holds no water; I've accused you of ideological bias, and will continue to as you continue to act in turn. Your defense of 'you made me do it' also isn't doing you any favors.


 * Further, no, you absolutely did not contact me upon reopening the arbitration case. Anyone can see that from my talk page. That's pure weaseling. As for spamming my page; I will repeat, if you're going to do it on my talk page, then do it there, and if you're going to do it on this talk page, do it here. Don't spam my talk page in some kind of spite post.


 * I've produced numerous sources that refer to Schoen as a Fox News employee, including Fox News. And, as demonstrated by various critique pieces—including those reaching back into 2007—Schoen is regarded as highly ideological and as little more than a Republican party fundraiser in the circles he and Fox claims he belongs to. I've produced ample evidence to this, despite your harking back to him being "well regarded" and so very professional, while you return to the mantra of his critics being unworthy to worship at the Altar of Schoen due to his superior credentials. This isn't rocket science. What's bizarre here is your continued attempts at defense about the guy. Do you have some horse in this race, "factchecker"?


 * And, by the way, I mentioned your use of the outdent tag because you were using it every few responses. It was getting disruptive, just like capslock or over use of bold. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Zzzz. If you don't have anything sensible or civil to say, don't say anything at all. I'm not going to stoop to this finger-pointing and name-calling and accusing the other guy of dishonest motives. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 15:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have left both FOX and MSNBC mention out of the article. Readers may find that information at the articles for these people. Gandydancer (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I argue that removal of his employment at Fox News presents a biased picture; he's as much a pollster as he is a Fox News employee, and anyone else would get exactly the same treatment. Just because "factchecker" here will go to any length to raise a stink about it isn't a reason to give Schoen any special treatment over anyone else. I should also point out that "factchecker" is flatly lying above; had he done a Google search for "Douglas Schoen Fox news analyst", he'd have found that Fox themselves describe him as a "Fox News political analyst" and he's widely described as such elsewhere. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that both previous inclusions (FOX and Clinton) were used to attempt to bias the reader's view of the poll. I was the one that first removed Clinton saying that it was not related and have followed this discussion to this time.  For this Criticism section I have come to believe that anything other than the fact that he is a pollster and the other is a journalist are appropriate.  I am not siding with anyone, just doing what I believe to be best for the article. Gandydancer (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that you feel that his current employment at Fox News as an in-house political analyst is somehow not as noteworthy his position as a pollster? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The only thing that is relevant is the profession and expertise that made his opinion notable on the question in the first place: he is an established, well-regarded public opinion analyst. That's why his analysis was respected enough to be published. You're the one trying to slap cherry-picked, POV-pushing labels on him. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 19:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * @ Bloodofox. Was I not clear?  I said, "I have come to believe that anything other than the fact that he is a pollster and the other is a journalist are appropriate".  Perhaps it would have been better if I had worded that "nothing other" rather than "anything other". Gandydancer (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * @"Factchecker": He's a Fox News employee writing for a sister News Corp/Murdoch media outlet; The Wall Street Journal. Gee, I wonder what the relevance is, and how hard it is to get published by your employer.


 * @Gandydancer, your reasoning was unclear. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * He's self-employed. His employer is Penn, Schoen, and Berland -- the polling firm he founded.  Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 21:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That's flatly ridiculous. He is indeed a pollster, but he's also well established to be a regularly paid by—yes, in other words, employed by—Fox as a Fox News Analyst, just like any other Fox News employee. There's no getting around that. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if you produced anything at all to show that he's not only on the Fox payroll, but primarily employed by them, and not on the payroll of the other outlets, and not primarily employed by them, and not primarily employed by his own firm—which you haven't done, and probably can't do—it would be SYNTH for you piece that all together to label him in a particular way in order to push a POV. So this is really neither here nor there. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 21:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, you're not convincing anyone, "factchecker". I've produced probably around a dozen references referring to Schoen's employment at Fox News and even various commentators detailing issues with Schoen not disclosing it. I direct anyone reading to any of those references posted above. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fabulous. None of this substantiates what you want the article to POV-pushingly claim, i.e. that "Fox News analyst" is his One, True, Current Occupation That Absolutely Must Be Mentioned If We Discuss The Man At All. Cheers. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 00:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, numerous source identify him as a Fox News Analyst. The POV in avoiding this term is entirely yours. It's not even Fox's, who you so forthrightly defend at every corner. Further, we're only discussing that he's a Fox News Analyst as much as he his a pollster, not whether he should be struck from the article; please don't present the case as otherwise. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Describing him as a "pollster" is directly relevant to the data being presented, and shows he has expertise on the subject. Mentioning his affiliation with Fox presents a particularly relevant POV he has which is directly relevant to OWS. Its a matter of editorial judgment. Mine would say, the reader needs to be informed of his possible POV, but deciding whether or not he has POV and what it is should be up to the reader. Thus, mentioning Fox is a good way of heading the reader in the direction of questioning, but which way that questioning will lead will be up to the reader's own POV. It's a way of fine-tuning Wikipedia's neutrality. Not mentioning his democratic affiliation or Clinton et seq is a way of leaving the reader neutral, since it's highly likely that in general he's more republican than anything. We could avoid the hassle of all this by just giving his name and the data, which is probably the preferable solution. Be— —Critical 01:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This doesn't make sense. You're saying we should mention Fox to give the reader a wink and a nudge and a tip-off that he's a Republican partisan—but we should specifically avoid mentioning the ties that would suggest he's anything other than Republican—because you think he's a Republican?  In this sentence we need to either make no suggestion of his political leanings, or give a balanced picture of the affiliations from which readers could infer what his political leanings are.


 * Note that the article already reflects two responses to Schoen's analysis, even though those responses are blog posts by non-notable people in online publications of at least questionable pedigree (and notwithstanding the fact the criticisms are vacuous and rely on guilt by association and unsubstantiated claims of dishonesty.) The "OMG THIS GUY WORKS FOR FOX NEWS" angle ought to be adequately covered by the quote already in the article describing him as the "quintessential Fox News democrat" (nice substance in that argument!).  The POV from that sentence doesn't need to be injected elsewhere just to skew the overall picture in favor of that POV. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 14:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * These opinion pieces are just as notable as Schoen's, as much disdain you may have for them as much as you may wish to to dismiss them. Schoen wrote an opinion piece on the Wall Street Journal, a sister News Corp/Murdoch media outlet toFox News, who employs him. The POV here is your own; if we were neutrally covering Schoen, as anyone else, he'd be described by way of his current employment status—Fox News political analyst and pollster. You've previously stated that you don't want him to be conflated with the likes of people such as Glenn Beck (presumably due to Beck's previous status as a Fox News employee). I don't think that's valid reasoning. Let the reader decide how they feel about Fox News instead of sweeping his employment under the rug. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's fairly obvious those pieces are nowhere near as notable as Schoen's. Posting something on the interwebs is no substitute for expertise, solid academic and professional credentials, and wide recognition of your expertise and credentials. (And again, the criticisms themselves are based almost exclusively on guilt-by-association/name-calling and dishonest misrepresentations of what Schoen said, though I'll thank you in advance for noting that I am not trying to insert material saying that.)


 * If you really wanted to "let the reader decide", you'd agree that we can either say nothing about his background, or give a balanced picture of his background. Instead, by cherry-picking the label you think most effectively undermines his credibility, and refusing to mention labels that don't undermine his credibility, but are equally relevant and well-established, you're attempting to push POV.  QED. The end. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 19:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You're entitled to your opinion about Schoen's background, who you seem to revere. I also see no dishonest representation at all on the part of these critics. The critics we're currently citing are just as notable as Schoen, and the criticism seems to be widespread regarding Schoen's interpretation of the results of the 198 person survey. I refer readers to them above. The internet has a bevy of critical pieces on Schoen to draw from if we need more.


 * Nah, we're not cherry-picking anything here; that's what you were doing when you were attempting to add his work under the Clinton administration (nigh three administrations ago). We're disclosing his current employment status. That's pretty straightforward, standard practice, and completely neutral. Ignoring his Fox News Analyst position in favor of solely representing him as a pollster is what presents the POV problem. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In response to your totally irrelevant comment on what I personally think of Schoen, I don't revere him—but if you think the credentials and expertise of the other people stack up against his, let's hear it, in detail. Otherwise, it's clear Schoen has the reputation and expertise that the others lack.


 * And if you think you have an argument that a couple of unheard-of blogs and the online edition of a niche political magazine stack up against the WSJ, the most widely circulated newspaper in the US, and one of the most highly respected, let's hear it, in detail. Otherwise, it's clear that these sources deserve far less weight than the WSJ.  You're already getting a free pass on this, in virtue of the fact that these vacuous and non-notable claims are being included in the first place.


 * And if you think you have a source showing as an objective fact that the only affiliation worth mentioning is "Fox News analyst", and that we absolutely must mention this if we say anything about him at all, let's hear it, in detail and with carefully explained references. Otherwise, it's clear we need to give a balanced presentation of his media affiliations that doesn't cherry-pick the Fox link in order to undermine his credibility.


 * I'm guessing you're going to respond by saying you've already done all of the above. But you haven't.  Put your money where your mouth is and show us the correctness of your arguments—don't just claim correctness.  Let's see the sources and arguments, right here in reponse to this comment.  Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 20:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Folks, I simply refer you to the numerous responses I've posted above. Centrify's gushing descriptions of all things Murdoch/News Corp should give it all away. Type Google "Schoen Fox news analyst"; tada. Right wing to left wing to Fox themselves, it's common practice to refer to Schoen as a Fox News Analyst and a pollster, and it's POV to do otherwise. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't produce a single source that shows the only reasonable way to identify him is to call him a "Fox News analyst" and ignore his other affiliations and everything else on his CV. No such source is out there to be found. You're trying to push POV by cherry-picking the description in an effort to undermine his credibility. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 20:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, all that's on the menu here is referring to him by way of his occupation, which you're desperately trying to avoid. He's a Fox News Analyst and a pollster. You've proposed we also mention that he worked under the administration Clinton three administrations ago, and, er, doesn't work for Fox News. The first option is POV cherry-picking. The second is flatly wrong. Respond with as many face-off, "bottom line" posts as you want, but at this point I'm just prepared to refer the reader to the numerous articles I've posted above, and, well, plain old Google for common knowledge. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * At no time did I suggest we should mention the Clinton link but ignore the Fox link; please don't lie about what I've said and done.


 * Produce a source that shows we should refer to Schoen as a Fox News analyst and not a WaPo analyst and not a WSJ analyst and not author, former advisor to Clinton and 15 heads of state, Harvard/Columbia/Penn lecturer, or anything else, or there is really nothing to discuss here. We can't and won't mention the one link that undermines his credibility while ignoring the others. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 20:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with centrify, when Obama comments on something after losing the office, and we put his comment in wikipedia, we aren't just going to put his relevancy as whatever his "current occupation" is, we would mention that he was a former president. Same should be done with Shoen as his other occupations are completely relevant and notable. Although I don't think that working for Fox News undermines your credibility, it has more viewers than CNN now and is much less bias in my opinion.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't help the discussion to inject a political taunt into a Talk page comment. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 17:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand that by defending Obama you think you are establishing some sort of middle-ground with the libs on this page, but understand that that was not a taunt, but an analogy. When Obama loses the office, which he will either next year or 5 years from now, he will no doubt comment on political events. People won't say "Obama, engineer at...." or whatever his current occupation is at the time, they will say "Obama, former president....". I am saying the same should be done for Schoen in this case. It was not a taunt but an analogy, please don't misunderstand me.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's quite a stretch to say that a two-term President "loses" the office when he quits at the end of his second term, so the comment sure sounded like a taunt. I'm sure you understand. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 12:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Why no mention of the Freddie/Fannie related criticism of "Occupy..."? and other suggestions for more balance...
Suggestion: The article leans towards marketing "Occupy". Regular review of the article can keep it relatively neutral.

To some commentators, OCCUPY's simplifying all economic evils into one cause i.e. "Wall Street" is their worst failing. This repeated criticism could be more fairly represented in the article. Some specific suggestions for better integrating this and other responsible criticisms follow:

Review the article regularly to make sure that responsible, sourced criticisms don't end up merely pooled at the bottom, but stay integrated in all appropriate paragraphs where the OCCUPY ideology is discussed.

Expand the Criticism sections to include the widespread criticisms of "Fannie and Freddie". Many commentators have discussed Fannie and Freddie as the Ultimate Bad Marriage between misdirected governmental activists and private lenders. This would represent a significant group of critics.

Require WIKI article writers to provide detailed, specific objections to sources they wish to discredit. For instance, a commentator's words should not be discredited merely because he/she works for a certain disliked network. (For instance, saying someone works at Fox News does not automatically make that person a liar. Prove the specific charge!)

Similarly, a source should not be discredited merely because they are of a certain political party. Unless the party is clearly an extremist group (Nazi party, Communist party, verified terrorist group...) being a Democrat or Republican should not - alone - negate a person's comments. And neither an Occupy protestor nor a Tea Party member should be discredited "merely" because they are of that emerging protest group. Prove your charge with specifics!

There is some attempt to keep this article's content neutral, but cheerleading for the Occupy movement does seem to break out regularly. Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is based on the reliability of sources primarily, not specific people. This is so we don't use our own judgment too much.  Thus, your suggestion we prove things against people is specifically what we don't have to do here: we come to consensus on the general reliability of the source, and use it accordingly.  There might be some exceptions, of course, for example an eminent scholar who writes as a guest in an unreliable source.  But not in general.  Re "Fannie and Freddie," is that a criticism or a proof for OWS?   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  18:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Change request
Please change this line:

A survey of roughly 1,000 adults conducted from November 10th to 14th found that majorities of nearly identical size felt that Occupy Wall Street, and the Tea Party, respectively, did not share their values.

to

A survey of roughly 1,000 adults conducted from November 10th to 14th found that 27% of Americans felt that Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party shared their values.

to more accurately reflect the information in the source. The figure is stated inversely which isn't necessarily statistically equivalent. Thanks.

174.137.113.43 (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Your suggestion would make the statement less accurate in two distinct ways:


 * (1) it would imply that it was the same 27% of respondents that felt OWS and Tea Party shared their values. That's not what the survey said, and if you stop and think it may become obvious that it's probably also untrue.


 * (2) The actual concrete figures stated in the source were that separate majorities of 57% and 56% felt that OWS and Tea Party did not share their values, as you can see from the following source text:


 * "Fifty-seven percent of respondents said the the Tea Party does not share their values, compared to a statistically equal 56% of respondents who indicated the same about the Occupy movement."


 * Hence it's your suggestion that would invert the figures stated by the source. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 01:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Twenty-nine percent of Americans say the Occupy Wall Street movement shares their values, the same proportion who say Tea Party shares their values, the survey found." Herpa derp.  Reading is hard. 66.235.1.215 (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Reading is, indeed, super-duper hard. Basic reading comprehension should reveal to you that the phrasing suggested by IP 174 would misrepresent the source. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 11:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Tea PArty comparison
Under the demographics section, it says "Some news organizations have compared the protest to a left-leaning version of the Tea Party protests." I added a rebuttal from the Washington Times and it was deleted. Any objections to me adding a jist of | this rebuttal?--174.49.47.34 (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The link you have provided is dead/broken. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is the address: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-conservative/2011/nov/17/occupy-wall-street-no-tea-party/ --174.49.47.34 (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've seen similar opinions from more right-leaning commentators. Its fair to call it a rebuttal but its placement is entirely dependent on the context in which it is inserted.--Factchk (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a highly biased source, and if we use it we should also use sources such as the huffington post, which we've agreed not to do. In addition, it's talking about the occupy movement in general, not specifically OWS.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  03:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, I haven't agreed to anything, there has been consensus against the Huff Post's reliability, but I have seen nothing about the Washington Times. Huff Post isn't even on Washington Time's level. And quit changing your story, when YOU want to add liberal sources, bias doesn't matter, just reliability, but if it's a conservative source, bias does matter, get your facts straight. Your POV pushing is disruptive. I'm re-adding the information because it is notable, it IS actually specifically about OWS and it IS reliable. --174.49.47.34 (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If the author of an opinion article does not even have a page here I do not believe that he, alone, is notable enough for the article. Gandydancer (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Not true 174.49.47.34, we have to exclude highly biased or unreliable sources on both sides.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  22:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Exclude highly biased sources? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 05:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Essentially. If a source for example says it exists to promote socialism and socialistic causes, we would not think of it as a reliable source.  If it is merely liberal, in that it is not there to promote but to report and discuss liberal causes, it might be RS.  The same goes for sources on the right, there is a difference between promotion and focus.  There are certain sources which pretend to be objective, and which Wikipedia, as a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia, accepts as RS.  There are certain other sources which are accepted as RS because while they are focused on the right or left, have generally high quality journalism, I would guess that Mother Jones and the Wall Street Journal are examples.  Some sources, however, are neither known for their factuality or accepted as unbiased, and we should generally try to avoid them.  Fox news and alternet for example, IMHO.  You will find more RS on the left than the right, due to the academic bias of the left, again per WP:MAINSTREAM.  It's a complicated issue and we are generally better off just looking at sources individually rather than making generalized statements as I did above.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  05:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you're conflating bias with lack of reliability and misstating the aim of NPOV. A biased source presenting a biased view of a subject may easily be reliable in the sense that WP aims at, and NPOV may even require that the view be reflected.  The neutral point of view is achieved by carefully gauging the weight a claim or view deserves, based on its prevalence in the mainstream, and by carefully attributing and packaging that view where this is necessary due to a conflict or tension between multiple widely-held views.  What presents a problem for WP purposes is a source that is biased and unreliable (in the sense that it lacks established oversight, editorial control, fact-checking, etc.)—or a source that is biased and presents a niche or fringe view that deserves no weight.


 * Now, what you're saying can probably be rephrased in the terms I just described, by saying that HuffPo/WashTimes either lack the requisite controls, or often present views that deserve no weight. But if I'm right, this is by no means an unimportant distinction. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 06:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We're saying about the same thing it looks like. Washington Times was founded by Rev. Sun Myung Moon as an instrument to promote ideology.  He called it "the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world."  We have reason to use it with caution.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  08:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

So the fact that its founder is a Christian makes it unreliable? I'm glad you aren't editing any Christian articles. Do you have any legitimate reason to believe that it isn't a reliable source other than the fact that you have a vendetta against Christians? I'm guessing that if he was the leader of a Mosque and was writing political article you wouldn't have a problem with that. I would also like to point out that with this article, religious ideology is irrelevant because, as the article strenuously emphasizes, there are people of many faiths, including Christianity, participating in the OWS movement.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, the fact that its purpose was stated by its founder as a platform for POV pushing is relevant. You're right, religious ideology is irrelevant since Jesus would not advocate tax relief for the rich.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  01:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hahahaha, that may have been the most ignorant and arrogant comment I have ever read. I bet you thought that was clever. Jesus wouldn't advocate bullying the "rich". He also doesn't represent all religions, so "religious ideology is irrelevant since Jesus..." was just flat out stupid. And you talk about the rich like they are inherently bad people. | In 2009, the top 1% of income earners earned 16.9% of adjusted gross income and paid 36.7% of all federal individual income taxes. The top 1% has a steadily decreasing annual income, yet it has a steadily increasing tax rate. I would go out on a limb and say that the "rich" aren't receiving "tax relief". You still haven't given a legitimate reason why the Washington Times wouldn't be considered reliable; the paper isn't used for pov-pushing and that specific article had no religious pretenses or at all. You are just grabbing at whatever you can to keep this rebuttal out of the article--174.49.24.190 (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I've certainly read a lot more ignorant and arrogant comments than Be's! I dunno - maybe I read more than you do? Gandydancer (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I am going to re-add the information unless there are any legitimate objections.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)