Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 26

Cleaning up the article
I have been going through the article to update wording, etc., and have reached the Zuccotti Park occupation section. (Sorry to say, I have effed up a few references and do not know how to fix them.) Hopefully, if we continue to update, etc., our expert copy editor Ryanwould will take over and tidy things up. It would be good to say, "I've worked on the OWS article" rather than be too embarrassed to mention it, wouldn't it? :-P Gandydancer (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point! LOL! After dinner...I'll take a look at what I can do to help as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't have a chance to look at those references, but I will eventually.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going through the article from the top and discovered some copyright issues. Here is the text as written by Andrew Fleming for the Vancouver Courier:




 * Source


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

Copy edit to chronology
Removing information not related to the New York Protests that has no direct context to subject. Much of this is from the article on the overall movement and is not about the specific events on this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone else notice the difference in the strength on the article from the beginning, how it starts off documenting a protest that inspires a worldwide movement to it's end where the article simply "reports" on a flashmob. There seems to be some puffery in this section.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The 2012 sections needs a lot of work. The recent "Move In Day" of Oakland was widely reported on, and A.N.S.W.E.R held a nationwide anti-war protest on Feburary 4th, joined by Occupy, that was reported on and quite notable(in certain cities). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.66.64 (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about the Oakland protests.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The section is too long and may be too detailed. Right now, all information that could be found that had no direct context to the NYC protest was removed. This could be its own article.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


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

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


 * I sure would like to keep that quote! I didn't add it but I've always felt that in a few words he expressed the sentiment of those of us that consider ourselves Liberals to a T.  Since Lasn is the one behind the worldwide movement, a quote of his is certainly noteworthy.  As for calling the president a gutless wonder, I don't see that as "overly political" at all...and I'm not sure what that means anyway...  As for "direct context", the direct context is that so many of us thought that Obama was going to step in and take the bull by the horns and make some long-overdue changes.  But not only did that not happen, he turned out to be, in our opinion, as thick as thieves with the very individuals/corporations that we thought he was going to go up against.  Gandydancer (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed...I concede there is some small context. Let's try trimming it down perhaps and copy edit for a more encyclopedic tone. Let me try a shot.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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


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

Need refs for Reception section
Except for leads, in all cases sources are needed, and another WP article can not be one of them. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment doesn't make sense. If your establishing a link to another article (as the Reception section is doing) then it makes sense to summarize what is in the other article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP articles are not sources. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about sources. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your source is none other than the article and your judgement. What WP policy allows for no refs? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, policy states that refs need to be used when the information may be challenged and I don't see anything there that anyone would challenge since it is very general info. Gandydancer (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm challenging the information. That obliges sources. Period. If there are no secondary sources that say what the text says, WP:SYN, it will have to go. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not a challenge of the information, but a dispute about content and guidelines....none of which you show to support your view. Consensus is for inclusion.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Artist, as you very well know, the sources for all of that info are in the new split article. If it bothers you so much I can't see why you don't hunt down the references yourself rather than force the rest of us to hunt it down. Scientist did a lot of work to do the split and you should be willing to help rather than just complain about it. Gandydancer (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It might "bother me so much" that I could just delete it for no refs. Some more responsible editors have a greater responibility to fill. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as WP:SYN....you are yourself synthesizing the facts. First, WP:SYNTHESIS is in regards to material that advances a position. The summary does not advance any position. It is, in fact, so generic that you disputed that in itself. There is nothing in Wikipedia that obliges an editor to succumb to a filibuster of a single editor.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been challenged, now deal with it. Where are the refs? You are obliged to produce them or a policy that allows otherwise. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not obliged to do anything. I am a volunteer just like everyone else.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I write stuff and feel no need to feel responsible for it, either. Oh brother. There is WP:Burden. which means, you broke it, fix it. 05:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because you make a noise here doesn't mean a tree has fallen in the forest.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

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


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


 * Summary style - "Basic technique":

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

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

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


 * We appear to agree on how lacking this article is, but even though some editors may be aiming low, a GA article would be a good way to convincingly falsify my position. Let us get rid of one strawman quick: no one has insisted on inline citation for every finished word, and shame on MadSci for suggesting so. Although it's easy to say lede rules can apply to a section, it ignores a clear difference; ledes, when done correctly, have RSs in the article, not in another article. The policy cited that above imagines that fully sourced sub sections of an article - with all required refs - will become separate articles, and the happy result is that both will be fully sourced. That has not happened here and it is a common sense question to ask why non-lede material only ref another article: something just not allowed. Regarding what merit a challenge must have before causing action, what unreferenced WP policy on challenges is being relied upon, or is this another fanciful interpretation of policy? Does it exist, or is it a manufacture only found on this Talk page? A section can never be a summary of another article; it is a section of it's own. For all intents and purposes, it does not exist when editing OWS. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but it is your standard as to what constitutes "when done correctly" and I am not seeing it. You wish to apply standards of GA. Good article criteria
 * There is a major point not answered. Leaning on a policy that results in fully sources sections and saying it justifies an unsourced section is a perversion. Also, a GA example would falsify my argument. At this point, any example of what is being proposed - an unsourced summary of another article would be a surprise, so even a crummy example might do. As for what standards we should model, I'm under no illusion that the current group of editors have any ambition of producing a GA with OWS. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Manual of Style/Lead section:


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

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

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

What is a goal?

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


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

First of all, lets calm down a bit. I gave my reasoning and made my edit. I didn't add material, I just arranged it. Any deletion of content is about what you object to and has nothing to do with my edit. I changed a section header and explained my reasoning to you and even went as far as keeping the section as a subsection...and it should probably be in the singular form "Goal". Whatever deliberate effort you percieve is just your perception. I'm just editing a wikipedia page not doing battle in the arena.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Amadscientist--I guess your reasoning was just way too abstract that it felt terribly unfamiliar to me. The reason I'm trying to jump the gun because I was eyeing some major layout changes that I was fixing to announce also, but then the title difference really undermined the categorization of information. I'll share my layout recommendations tomorrow, but no more spelling out definitions inside quoteboxes like "goal" or "protest" then asking rhetorical questions like "what is a goal?" then going off on a tangent like that again. English is my second language and it felt way too "artsy fartsy" when I'm trying to take this article seriously, because the occupy movement is going through leadership overhauls this month (for better or for worse...) so I'm back into the fray to help make sure OWS isn't portrayed in a bad light (rape, crime, etc...) by hopefully keeping the article well written so readers don't lose sight of the main idea. More on that later, but please welcome me back, my good friend. Your tenacity and tenure on this article is a great virtue. 완젬스 (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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


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


 * 완젬스|완젬스, you were not rude though perhaps I was. But I would prefer to keep our discussions on target here rather than get into personal experiences. Gandydancer (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no target except an encyclopedic documentation of events. I said dude...not "rude". I am saying that you sound like you have a major conflict of interest and you sound like you have a direction you want this article to take based on personal knowledge or what a group and spoken to you about.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

Clarity issues
I see discussion from reading this talk page and the talk page of Occupy Movement and notice Wikipedians are catching on to the distinguishment between "the encampments" verses the actual movement, because the movement is still ongoing, even if it is "dead in the UK" or Mayors have stepped up their police-facilitated evictions. The NYCGA is still functioning at 100% capacity, and they have not scaled back to "part time" or work any less now than they did before. Given the gradual absences of physical presences (such as marches or encampments) marking the status of the occupy movement, I have two proposals:
 * The first proposal is that we ask ourselves "Is this article, Occupy Wall Street, about physical presence located at zuccotti park which embodied the nationwide occupy movement?" (note: this is stuff which is inherently unclear, but is consensus coalescing around the clear idea of the movement being able to exist yet without people on the ground?) Otherwise, some have argued in inner circles of ows leaders (read here) that hypothetically the use of occupy funds to provide for food/shelter to artificially extend the protests however long we want to:

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


 * I don't have much to add to what Scientist said. We have been challenged a few times with the suggestion that now that the park is closed to camping this article is "all done".  We did not agree with that suggestion. I know that the NYC group is doing some Occupy Homes work and some other things...Occupy DOE...etc., but I don't see much news on what they are doing these days.  As for the broader movement, it will be a huge effort and I think it's too soon to attempt it. I guess I am not much help... Gandydancer (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW I think I used the above source and added this info a while back:
 * ''Since the closure of the Zuccotti Park encampment, some former campers have been allowed to sleep in local churches, but how much longer they will be welcomed is in question and even former park Occupiers debate whether or not they can continue to provide funds and meals for homeless protesters. Since the police raid, New York protesters have been divided in their opinion as to the importance of the occupation of a space with some believing that actual encampment is unnecessary, and even a burden.[114] Gandydancer (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Thank you PubliusDigitus. I have this vision of you standing on the Rostra giving us this brilliant oration. Sorry...LOL! Your username took me back to my acient Rome obsession! =). While this is certainly OR and synthesis as we are discussing this....all one needs are sources that show this view. It is actually pretty spot on...or I should say, it is to me. Perhaps there are authors and published works that show this view. A good lengthy news series or an indepth journal would be great to use as an over arching source and would probably go into much of this.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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


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

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


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


 * Understood, but do you agree (everything else considered equal) that if a Feb article contradicts a December article, that the idea about how coverage & journalism regarding the occupy movement and occupy cityxyz will generally tend to improve over time? Journalists themselves who were "new" to covering the movement were a lot less familiar during the early months, just as when they covered the tea party. (see this striking nbc analysis on racism claims) Therefore, we as editors should place greater emphasis on 2012 facts when they contradict 2011 facts. Maybe we can wait until the next major ows article hits the nytimes early next month. I'll be able to give you examples when the information becomes available. 완젬스 (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree no. Facts being disputed in later articles does not mean the facts in the earlier article were wrong. It isn't as easy as you propose and shouldn't be.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


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


 * Well, esteemed or not they don't deserve to be taken as the overarching source with a single article. Also "Any book or journal study is usually agenda-pushing" is a pretty broad statement with nothing to back it up. Also, books and journals are prefered as references over news sources. News sources tend to be "momentary" and are reports of events that change over a short period of time.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's agree to handle it on a case by case basis when the transition comes. 완젬스 (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * I don't remember any broad use of civil disobedience used. Do you? Gandydancer (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Trespassing on private property? Camping without a permit? —WWoods (talk) 07:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There was lots of 'direct action' which I think is more correct than the phrase 'civil disobedience' like when they blocked the streets of wall street, to disallow bankers & stock traders to go to work inside their buildings. 완젬스 (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is actually very little direct action, but civil disobediance itself. "Direct action" may not be descriptive enough.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The affinity groups and "security culture" from day 1 has stressed absolute secrecy about direct action. Don't you remember November 17th and this poster they used? If you've been to these camps, they don't just sit around all day and play drums. A lot of crowds gather just hoping to see violence on announced days of direct action, especially when we advertise it openly. There is also plenty of coverage on it: http://goo.gl/xXQyn (just from 2011 in nyc) 완젬스 (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of the black block...but New York has not seen notable violence that I am aware of by any group. Direct action speaks to something being done directly. Generally violence like throwing rocks or taking a building, destruction or vandalsim.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Direct action has less to do with throwing rocks or bottles at police officers--it has to do with obstructing "business as usual" for the intended targets. I think you're assuming we mean "violence at cops" or greek-style riots. For example, I personally had to defuse on facebook some affinity groups who planned to call in false bomb threats. Read this pamphlet because what you're describing should fall under a different label than direct action. I'm also thinking of internet examples like ddos attacks, because direct action is widely performed in whatever means the person is comfortable with (covered in pamphlet). 완젬스 (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Direct action is a POV term. It is not descriptive enough and has political connotations I do not believe are encyclopedic with the use here.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

WP is not subject to sensitivity for other people's perceived political correctness. Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Content disclaimer). Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms. 완젬스 (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah....you're not following me on this I guess. It isn't objectionable to my morality or "Political correctness". Frankly that's pretty insulting to suggest here. I have stated that the use of "Direct action" is not an encyclopedic phrase and that the connotations are broader than the use you suggest.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * I take responsibility for adding the words "peacefully" because I have issue with "storming the barricades" as it seems too violent (just like amad changes the word "crime" to "security concerns") which I'm now guilty of. In fact, now that I see this picture it does look unpeaceful and looks like they are trying to overpower the police who are holding the barricades up. Thanks for your civility and constructive feedback. 완젬스 (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Thanks for your civility and constructive feedback." Huh? Next time, do something! The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Title of "Security" section
The section title itself "Security concerns" was a compromise that was never intended to be locked in. It was meant to change one title that was disputed "Crime" to something more neutral and was suggested by an administrator when no other editor would ingage in discussion but the two editors in dispute. Per guidelines listed on edit summery, titles should be nuetral and singular.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * See here:

I guess we have to start all over as a crime section. Racingstripes (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * discussed
 * dispute resolution
 * discussed again
 * NPOV noticeboard


 * Edit warring and disruption returning the title back to "Crime". As I have stated, you have no ownership of the section. Compromise does not mean the section does not stick to guidelines and consensus or that no further editing should take place. This was a compromise I stated I could live with for the moment making it clear it was not a long term solution.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the 'crime' title. It doesn't bother me, even though I'm the most pro-ows editor on this article. I was not part of the discussions cited above, but I cited the lack of communication/listening taking place. Maybe if we all behave a bit more gently this time around, we'll take the battleground mentality out of this discussion. To me, it doesn't hurt the movement at all. I don't see why amadscientist is recalcitrant but he deserves a chance to fairly explain, and for us to respect his work he has done. 완젬스 (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem with crime as a header title is that it is misleading, not that it paints the subject in a bad light. The title is also not broad enough, where securrity is broad and can encompass more than just percieved illegal activity by individuals but the overall security of the protest itself, with police, protesters, media etc.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Crime is not misleading--there have been rapes, theft, police-car defecation, drugs, and vandalism. Nobody is proud of the crime, but don't forget we covered up the antisemitism section, which painted the movement in a worse light. Crime was a very demoralizing issue which created a large rift in the early momentum, and lead to coverup (pamphlets to discourage reporting) and eventually women-only tent areas. Unless you don't see this, then maybe you choose to ignore it. Please explain your reasoning why "crime" title is misleading? 완젬스 (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A crime is not a crime until a conviction for our use here (Biography of Living persons issue). Lableing a section as crime means you can only have the information that pertains to actual crime (defined under a legal standard that does not creat liability)and not the security issues you bring up. I am not speaking of how this effects the moral of the subject, but how we present facts on Wikipedia. Security is a broad enough title that it is not a Point of View that an actual crime has been commited simply because it was reported as such. For a crime to be mentioned on a Wikipedia article the information would have to be very solidly sourced and i don't believe there has been any further clarification in references that what occured was "crime' or just a security issue for our use on the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, it should be "security" or some such. Be— —Critical  22:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) @amad -- Earlier you just said "the problem is that it is misleading" and now you're saying "the problem is that it is a BLP issue" which leads me to believe you will keep circling this issue. I stand behind user RacingStripe's reasoning, and do not want to comment on this topic anymore auntil I've had time to cool off. I have no patience for wikilaywering today. 완젬스 (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly I am losing my patience with your bad faith accusations. You attempt to make this a cirle and it isn't....the title "Crime" has multiple issues. That's all.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * One last note here, 완젬스|완젬스. I object to your manipulation of my wording. I did not say "the problem is that it is a BLP issue". I said:


 * Please remember that accuracy in any accusation is of utmost importance or you just come across as dishonest (doubtful that is your goal).--Amadscientist (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to Security concerns and crime. I hope that will be agreeable. I also deleted some individual incidents but wording remains that makes it clear that assults, etc., were a serious problem. Gandydancer (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Improved
What is the consensus here... has the article been improved in the last two weeks or so, I mean since just after Amadscientist split off the reactions? I thought splitting that off was good... but I would like to hear reactions on what's happened since. Be— —Critical 05:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to think for anyone else, and advise doing your own research on consensus. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it looks like it needs more of a rewrite now than it did then. I wouldn't mind doing some copy editing, but not sure but what we need to combine whatever is better about this version with an older version first.   Be— —Critical  08:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going to contribute significantly into changing the single sentence into a couple paragraphs. Hold off on judgment for about 3-4 more days, until I get around to summarizing the stuff which was split off. 완젬스 (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been away for weeks, I don't know what sentence you mean. I'm just saying that the article as a whole seems to have a lot of unclear writing.   Be— —Critical  18:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Me too, I've been away from Wikipedia for two months and just returned this weekend. 완젬스 (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright issue in Origins section
✅ Verify Partially done. Still contains some copyright material. Checking to see if it can remain as is.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Here is the text as written by Andrew Fleming for the Vancouver Courier:

here is the prose as used in the section:

Source --Amadscientist (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * How about we change it to the absence of criminal proceedings for the perpetrators of the global financial crisis 완젬스 (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * See if you like my fix. Be— —Critical  21:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it looks good to me. 완젬스 (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Better, but still has "growing disparity in wealth", which is still a copyright issue.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, that's standard phrasing that the source happens to use. Be— —Critical  21:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Best not to assume anything. There is no such thing as a standard paraphasing that I am aware of at Wikipedia. I am unclear what you objected to to begin with. But if you wish to keep the information I will check with Copyright notification board. If they feel there is no issue than we should be fine. For now i feel the tag should remain untill the dispute is sorted out.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Be— —Critical  21:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hopefully I can at least get some direction if not a full reply, so the issue can be resolved quickly. That's an ugly tag. But the issue is likely to come up again.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't make this a big issue. I fixed it (changed the word "growing" to "increasing") which should let us move on. This type of engagement to a noticeboard over something so small is questionable. There are many similar words we can use instead: augmenting, widening, exacerbating, worsening, diverging, etc. 완젬스 (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Copyright is a serious issue and questioning one over raising the issue could be seen as assuming bad faith. I did not make the change myself because Becritical could well be correct. The issue has been raised at the notice board, not to get anyone in trouble, but to be sure we conform to this particular standard. Changing the text is fine as long as Becritical agrees as he made the edit and has defended it. If the issue is nothing to worry about then we will hopefully find out that it is or isn't. But copyright is one of those issues we should not gloss over.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm saying. If BeCritical wants to keep the original version after I changed it (here) then yes, he can pursue copyright noticeboard if he wants to draw a line in the sand. Otherwise, just revert it to a version which you believe does not violate copyright and we'll all be fine. 완젬스 (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Any editor may bring a copyright issue to the notice board. I made the original edit that removed the information as a close paraphrasing and felt that after his other changes, it should be cleared up as another editor made a point he might be correct with.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like 완젬스 fixed it.  Be— —Critical  22:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

완젬스 (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly. Not totaly sure, but consensus has weight. It works for me if it works for you and if it works for the copyright standard.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sectioning and titles
The sectioning of the artcile is a little choppy again. Separating everything into a sparate section is not appropriate. Many of these sections go within other sections as they pertain to the other. Titles of sections must be nuetral and singular to conform to MOS for titles. There was a loose consensus for the work that was done but now an editor has begun making this a pamphlet of support for the movement and protest again. Is there consensus for the alterations as they seem to have dropped the quality down to almost "start".--Amadscientist (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The previous sectioning of the article made no sense at all, there was one section which had nothing to do with the content, and other problems. It was a total mess .  Be— —Critical  23:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you be more specific? I have no intention of making any changes at the moment, but it would be nice to know why all my work was flushed. If there was something specific about one section, why couldn't that section alone be corrected if a problem existed? Why break up the entire article into separate sections that had consensus before my changes?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The headings were not related to the sub-headings, and the "Involvement" heading wasn't related to the content, the "Demographic analysis" section wasn't necessarily an analysis, and they don't have only one goal. Let's see if other object shall we?   Be— —Critical  23:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The headings were indeed related "subheadings". There are many sections that have multiple bits of information. We don't use the plural just for that reason. I object to the separation of all sections against established consensus. The bold edit has many problems. What would happen if no one else weighs in on this? Yet another DR showing that we can't work together? I refuse to take you to DR over a dispute of this nature. You are not a difficult editor, you just feel you are right and I am wrong and we still can't seem to work together. I don't know why this is as I don't see you as a brick wall on this page, but you have to give to take sir. The article in my estimation is of little encyclopedic value right now. It is simply a pamphlet to support the "Cause" (and oddly enough I don't get the impression you are "pro" or "Con" on the subject). Anyway, happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right that we need other people's input to settle things unless there is a ready compromise, that's how the system works. Be— —Critical  00:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The "system" works in a veriaty of ways. Consensus does not require the input of everyone, but those envolved. If no one else decides they wish to participate....then it is between the two of us to make a compromise, not look for a ready made solution. It requires two editors to "Collaborate". But I am not saying this for your benifit, as I am sure you are aware of this, but for those that may be staying on the sidelines thinking we need to work this out ourselves. What happens if we cannot? The article itself seems to have suffered the most from the latest round of editing, but that is only my opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If they don't like my edits they'll revert. It does not have to be your burden.  Be— —Critical  00:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, it wasn't your burden to change to begin with, was it? You have gone against the consensus of several discussions that even you participated in. Frankly....I found the timing of your "edits" right after I was blocked to be questionable in itself as well as starting a thread to discuss my edits by name. That was a violation of discussing editors and not the article. Do you actually think I have no right to change the entire article back to the way it was before your questionable edits? You refuse to "qualify" your edits, so there is little to see as legitimate. I do intend to edit this page and I do intend to justify my edits with actual policy and guidelines. Is there someway you can defend your edits in that manner or are we to assume these are just your personal preferences?--Amadscientist (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:STRUCTURE:

  --Amadscientist (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't know you were blocked when I edited. I started again because Racingstripes made me notice the article by posting on my talk page. Can you point me to the discussion on the particular arrangement and other changes made to the headers, which resulted in the consensus you cite to have them the way they were?  Be— —Critical  02:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) BeCritical, it does not seem fair to me that you suddenly reappear and call the article a total mess. Scientist split the article and has been going through it, spending many hours working on it.  He has been careful to keep the talk page up to date on what he's doing.  This stage of editing is, IMO, not fun at all.  I know I'm not very good at it and I'm not good at a final copy edit either.  I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but why didn't you offer criticism as Scientist was doing the edits?  In the past I have praised you for being so patient with the rest of us.  I've seen it as one of your assets to editing this article. Gandydancer (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I was involved elsewhere. Anyway, it's not as bad as I thought at first.  I changed a few of the headings to make them logical and I get the reaction "The article in my estimation is of little encyclopedic value right now. It is simply a pamphlet to support the "Cause""  If you also believe that changing the headings is such a bad idea, and want to have for example  information on the GA under the seemingly irrelevant (and unnecessary) heading of "Involvement," then revert.  But frankly, I've spent a good number of hours trying to explain things to Amadscientist.  He does not accept my explanations.  Other editors have also had to go to the DR noticeboard, and he's been blocked twice over his involvement in this article.  It's up to other editors to form a consensus about whether my edits were good or not.  So tell me: what do you think is the proper way to arrange the headings?  Do you think it's right to have "Demographic analysis" and "Involvement" as part of the main heading "Goal" (that's singular).  Is purely economic information properly under the heading "Background" as a subheading of "Overview?"  Please don't chastise me unless you want to come help.   Be— —Critical  02:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * BeCritical I'm pretty tough-skinned but now you are making me angry too. Just because I haven't been making very many edits does not mean that I have not been "helping" with the article.  Just after you left Scientist and I agreed that the article was a mess and he's been doing most of the work to make it more encyclopedic.  Imagine how you'd feel if you had been doing the recent work and he'd return and say the articles is now a "total mess". You are both such good editors and I hope that you stick around and I hope that Scientist does as well.  Just when you returned the article was in flux but it could have (and can be) worked out as we have done as a group in the past.  In my experience you are both more than willing to negotiate problems as they come up. Gandydancer (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Gandy, you notice what I did first was to ask people what they thought... and Artist then asked me what I thought. I asked first to be nice.  But then I figured I just had to say what I thought.  You feel that MadSci is willing to nogotiate, but I don't, and if you read this an other "debates," you'd see how there is actually little or no connection between what I say and what he says.  I've tried every time to engage him, but it has not worked.  For example, I would have expected a response similar to what you or Artist gave on the "Goal" versus "Goals" question (that is, "Do they have multiple goals per the RS?  Prove it Becritical!  Oh, you can?  Well then, I guess it's "Goals" then).  But I did not in any way get an answer which engaged the problem.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  20:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll accept your explanation that you did not know about the block, but you have NEVER explained anything to me in any detail OTHER than your personal opinion. I would rather you not discuss me as you can't be trusted to be accurate. I was NOT blocked twice over this article sir. I have been blocked three times in the 5 years I have been editing on Wikipedia and two were unblocked at my request and only one was over an edit on this article (one of the unblocks). If all you have are personal attacks against me that are not true....than you are not standing on solid ground here. You have a problem with attacking the editor and not the information. I can't abide by that at all. Please "reign it in".--Amadscientist (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And as far as "having to take me to DR" that is not accurate at all. One is not required to do such. They can attempt to work together and your bringing up "Dispute resolution" should probably be noted with the fact that you jumped the process as did another editor and that very little was accomplished by any of them. In fact the last DR was disrupted by another DR participant from another discussion that made a sham out of the whole process.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I thought you were blocked last time, but now I remember I only reported you for edit warring/3RR.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  03:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Justification for header title changes
I have changed a number of headers for the following reasons:

"Goal" has been changed to the singular form as it is to MOS. By making the title plural, suggests that there are multiple goals, when, in fact, the section clearly shows that Goals and demands have been in conflict with the protest since before it began and i can reference that statement and claim from current RS sources.

"Financial Background" has been changed to as this entire section is actually about this very subject and since the report came out in October, after the protests began, it is disputed as to whether this is actually "background" to this financial data. If the report had come out ealier this change would make sense to me (I can't speak for others) as part of the overview, but now seems to be pushing credibility.

"Demographics" is both plural and in dispute as analysis, so the section has been changed to "Statistical data" which is both neutral and accurate.

"Leadership" is POV for a protest that claims to be leaderless and is the opinion of editors as to who leads. '"Participation" is again both neutral and accurate.

I am not saying these are perfect or "right", just that they are accurate and neutral.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I restored the section on their 99% slogan, which is definitely notable enough for this article. Demographics is exactly what the data are, and the term has nothing to do with whether it is true or not.  I agree that perhaps the "Leadership" section should have a different heading.  Did you post a link to where MOS says that headings have to be singular even when that would be less accurate in terms of what it conveys to the reader?  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  04:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

These are the changes I made before the "edit war" Becritical decided to take.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked for a link to where MOS says section titles must be singular. Our reliable sources in the former "Goals" section clearly states that the protesters have multiple goals, and they are explicit about what those goals are.  Per RS, the proper heading is "Goals."  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  04:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Read this page sir. Its in the discussions you are not paying attention to.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I scanned it. I did see where you say you think it should be singular, but I didn't see anyone agree with you.  Did anyone agree with you?  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  04:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a suggestion sir. It's per MOS. Agreeing with me is not needed to prove the poinnt that it is to MOS. I think at this juncture it is best for me to make an "Administrative" decision and separate us. You don't play well with others and are very argumentative and lack knowledge of the policy and guidelines. You make it difficult to trust you as an editor as you have been making too many persanal attacks and have engaged in behavior you complain about. I am taking a break from this article and will return at a later time to see where it goes. I believe you are just being disruptive and confrontational and i believe, like a shark smelling blood, you pounced on my edits as if i was weak and could not defend it. i am not impressed with your tatics sir. Happy editing and do not post on my talk page. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But you won't give me a link to where MOS says we can't use plurals?  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  05:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather than get all pissy, does the section describe "goals" or a "goal"? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The RS describe multiple goals "more and better jobs, more equal distribution of income, bank reform, and a reduction of the influence of corporations on politics."Among other things. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  05:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My preferences: I prefer "Goals" to "Goal".  It was recently changed to "Aims", which I do not care for at all and I changed it back.


 * I do not care for "Congressional Budget Office report" even though it may more technically accurate.


 * Not sure re: '''
 * "Demographics" is both plural and in dispute as analysis, so the section has been changed to "Statistical data" which is both neutral and accurate.'''


 * I believe that "Participation" is much better than "Leadership". Gandydancer (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The headings look good to me right now. I would suggest we change "Participation" to "Participation and organization."  What do you think?  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  20:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * YEs, I like thatGandydancer (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Re Demographics, that is naturally plural: "Demographics are the most recent statistical characteristics of a population."  It's "Demographic data," and the data are referred to as demographics.  So I think it would properly be plural as there is more than one data point.  As to its being in dispute, the data are demographics whether or not they are correct.  I think this is right, but I don't want to make a big issue of it.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  20:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)