Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 5

Condoms, free love, and all that good stuff
I thought the addition of Organizational processes and infrastructure > Free condoms subsection was unnecessary, however editor Mk2z0h feels it should be included, so I brought it up in here. My problem is the source, The Daily Mail Online, is kinds tabloidy in it's tone, and quite frankly, disappointing in delivery (the girl in the sleeping bag has her clothes on, what's the outrage here?). It's also kinda embarrassing (to Wikipedia) to have the fact that $1.9 million in overtime has been spent followed by young people might be shagging in the park (*yawn*). Thoughts? LoveUxoxo (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Remove. Comments on my remove : Garbage journalism, easy (unverifiable) claim and irrelevant claim which the author aim generalized to the entire movement. => remove.
 * The source as a whole is heavily biases, by example, a box full of various medical stuff (tooth brushes, etc) is claimed to be "full of condoms" while we can't clearly identify one there are simply also condoms in it. Yug (talk)  08:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the condoms can be identified. In both pictures of the box of supplies (it's the same box in both pictures), a bunch of white condoms be clearly be seen in the lower right of each picture. In addition, the other items with the letters "NYC" are also condoms. New York City gives them away for free, and Apple even has this app which tells you where the nearest free condom handout location is. I also consider the Daily Mail to be a reliable source. However, I won't get into an edit war. Mk2z0h (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "However, I won't get into an edit war." ...which is to your credit, and if other editors see it your way I'm sure they'll back you up here and put it back in. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On, I indeed see the NYC and white condoms. The article stay a collection of garbage journalism. I'm quite sure that if you send reporters, you may catch people having sex at the at the republican nomination's toilets, a lot of garbages, or people urinating upon walls. Does this means that republicans encourage this, no, of course. The guy defecating upon the police car is very simply a stupid guy. Yug (talk)  09:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reservations about this being added. It seems sensationalist, the source is iffy, and it doesn't seem to have a purpose in the article.204.65.34.156 (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with it being removed. It might be possible to merge the information with another section, but I do question the need to include the latter part about sex. It seems out of place, sensational, and does not warrant entry (especially with the only source being a disputed one). As per the Apple app, it is important to note that it extends outside of OWS, and as such the information does not support any claims presented. The only way that I see any information for this staying is if there is a merger between sanitation to become health and sanitation, as there is no real purpose to include this information on its own (due to lack of backing evidence). Ampersandestet (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Free condoms is irrelevant to the movement and should not be included. They have free condoms at Planned Parenthood and in college dorms, its not a big deal.AcuteAccusation (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Talks over developping this section
The background section is actually about the first organization of the OWS event and merely go back to June 2011. We need some short contents about the middle class evolution in the past 50 years, taxes evolution, financial sector evolution, and the influence of money upon politicians. Yug (talk)  08:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC) This may be a good source, she was heard by the congress:, and her short video say a lot:  Yug  (talk)  08:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Err, I would definitely hold off on that for now. The problems I see is that what is relevant is highly dependent on individual editor's perspectives. The only way to do it right is when you see in WP:RS commentary and analysis of the precursors to OWS. If you don't wait for those, and do it yourself, its just WP:OR. LoveUxoxo (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Core claims of OWS are know and sourced: income inequality / taxes inequality, financial influence on law makers, etc. There is already sources for these phenomena. We don't have to hold on 4 weeks. I luckily came across a source about he last 50 years US taxes trends, so I added content about that. But the financial sector trends, and lobbying sector trends are actually more welcome. (But I haven't source for that). Yug (talk)  08:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Jane D'Arista (2009), "The Evolution of U.S. Finance"
 * What I want are sources that analyze the sources you give. Source in article X says "as Jane D'Arista wrote in Y (NOT video Z on Youtube), causes for Occupy Walls Street are AA, BB, CC. LoveUxoxo (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yug, I'm going to revert I'd really prefer other editor's comment on this because I think it's just too much what you think is important, rather than what WP:RS have said so in some overall analysis. I'm looking for a sources that says "Reasons for OWS", not just what you determine are reasons. I'm copying you proposed background below. I'm not criticizing you putting it up, WP:BOLD is actually a great policy. I just feel it's too controversial and we need to collectively decide what is best. LoveUxoxo (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Adbusters, proposed a peaceful occupation of Wall Street to protest corporate influence on democracy [lobbying], address a growing disparity in wealth [inequality of incomes/taxes], and the absence of legal repercussions behind the recent global financial crisis [Financial sector + lobbying]. "
 * It is clear that OWS's background and complains are about inequality of income and taxes burden in the US, lobbying in the US, and the financial sector in the US. And we have sources on these issues. Period. Afterwhat, I also feel inconfortable to push the taxe issue first/forward, but I got this source on taxes in the US this last 60 years, no other (short) source on financial sector trends or lobbying trends. Help welcome. Yug (talk)  09:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, the section below is editable, we need a solid section background. Yug (talk)  09:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, and I'm fine if no one else cares we will just leave it your way. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The background should be about the begining of the movement. If you try to include historical information as reasons for the protest, such as teh shrinking of the middle class, money on politics, it would make the article more of a discussion page and not encyclopedic in nature. Especially since the movement claims to be 'leaderless,' therefore historical reasons for the movement may become convaluted. AcuteAccusation (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed editable Background section: Long term
This is all original research. Centrify (talk)  (contribs) 11:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The OWS movement made clear that their background and complains are about the financial sector in the US, lobbying in the US, and inequality of income and taxes burden in the US. And we have sources on these issues. Period. Yug (talk)  10:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Complains:

Comment from another editor
If you mention all those things, then here are some other things that I'd like to suggest as well:

1) Despite the huge rise in income inequality in the U.S., a "poor" person of today is far, far better off than a "middle class" person of the past.

2) The OECD states: "Taxation is most progressively distributed in the United States." 3) As the top income tax rate has fallen, rich people are less likely to put their money into tax shelters, and a result, their share of income taxes has gone up. According to Table 6 here, the richest 1% pays 38.02% of all federal income taxes.

Mk2z0h (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'm so uncomfortable speculating about this stuff, I'll just recuse myself and let you guys decide. Enjoy! LoveUxoxo (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's all OR and shouldn't be added under any circumstances. Centrify (talk)  (contribs) 11:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's not enough to source pieces of an argument, and then combine them on your own. You need to provide a reference that states the realtionship and implication of those facts are what you're drawing from them.204.65.34.156 (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no doubt that the protesters are concerned and motivated by certain key issues such as inequality, the influence of money in politics and the behaviour of "Wall Street"/investment banks. In my view these issues should therefore be addressed in more detail in the Background section, as proposed above. The crucial thing however is (1) that the article should not actually take a stance either way as to whether the concerns of the protesters are in fact valid, and (2) that information is presented in a balanced manner. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I should add that the draft text above doesn't for me satisfy the need for neutrality, I support the idea of the section and the headings, but not the draft text.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not god, I'm not perfect, nor neutral, that why I welcome others'/your contributions ; ) Yug (talk)  20:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete entire Public discussion, development and commentary section
The first two paragraphs are completely unencyclopedic in tone, sourced mainly to occupywallst.org,; deleting them both isn't a hard decision. Move the New York Magazine polls results down into the demographics section, and park the rest in Response and Reactions. Agreed? LoveUxoxo (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I think it just needs renaming... This section is, in my opinion, suppsed to be discussing the organization's goals/demands. The "Public discussion, development and commentary section" is just saying that at some point there was very public discussion of the fact that thy didn't have concrete goals. Perhaps a better name for this section is "Public discussion of goals, goal development and commentary on the organization's lack of goals" ... obvi that section name can be improved as well. MPS (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I defer to you. LoveUxoxo (talk) 05:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of discussion section
Factchecker / Muboshgu, could you, please, explain why you deleted this discussion section:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street&oldid=455108683#After_blockage_by_Paypal.2C_raising_funds_by_donations_in_bitcoin

It is true that it contains links. But that does not imply that it is linkspam. I do not suggest to include it in this form into the article. I suggest to discuss a inclusion of the topic. --84.135.77.148 (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Neither the article space nor the talk page is a place to promote a product or service, even one with a tangential relationship to the article subject, and even if the advertising can be dressed up as an utterly inappropriate and bad-OR-laden content suggestion.


 * A google news search for Occupy Wall Street and bitcoin yields one result, an NPR article. It says they have a bitcoin address to accept donations.  I'll include that in the article, but we can't use the article space to explain to everyone the virtues of bitcoin; instead, we bluelink it, showing readers the article on bitcoin. On second thought, not even ordinary methods of soliciting donations have been mentioned, and I'm inclined to think that is for the better.  Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 22:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The deleted section discusses also how control about money supply affects economical transactions and that because this medium has not central control, this looks attractive to some people. Maybe mentioning it in the article is not yet appropiate, but the support of Anonymous is mentioned. Also, the supportive impact the internet media on the Arab spring movements has been mentioned numerous times, and mentioning it does not means an advertising of facebook or the like.--84.135.58.242 (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Next time try adding information to the Talk Page that doesn't appear like such a blatant advertisement for something other that what we are discussing. If WP:COI makes you unable to be neutral when doing so, then let someone else do it. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that news coverage which is given as an argument above gives necessarily a sufficient picture for the level of support and the political importance. Google for the bitcoin address 1Q7DQVTubbUqr5by2YoZJRKCEzj9D3LQ9w, for example.--84.135.57.234 (talk) 04:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The deleted discussions section refers to the support of "Occupy Wall Street" by donating bitcoins. It may be not in itself neutral but I do not see why this suggestion refers to "something other that what we are discussing", as this is the discussion page for "Occupy Wall Street". Please explain. --84.135.57.234 (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All your questions are answered at WP:NOTAFORUM. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 04:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment There is currently no section devoted to the means in which any of the OWS groups are fund gathering. As such, it does appear to be tangential in nature. However, if there were enough sources to warrant a section where the fundraising efforts were discussed, then it might warrant placement within the context of such a section. If such an organisation makes demands for transparency, then it would stand to reason that there will be documentation in regard to how they are funded, if there is any external funding provided outside of participating members. Until then, this might be best put under the To Be Done section if deemed necessary-- that is the only way I can see any inclusion for the bitcoin donation information. Perhaps this is something you might be interested in researching and working on. Ampersandestet (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

WSJ resource on Left-right politics of the Democratic Party versus the Republican Party; and more
99.56.123.210 (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Democrats' Populist Puzzle; Obama Endorses New Tax on Wealthy Earners as Spreading Protests Divide Party by JONATHAN WEISMAN And LAURA MECKLER OCTOBER 7, 2011.
 * Boston Protesters Arrested; Manhattan Millionaires Targeted OCTOBER 11, 2011, 7:30 P.M. ET
 * SEIU and 'Occupy Wall Street' Folks Miss a Few Points OCTOBER 12, 2011.
 * Occupy Tokyo? Hmm, Maybe… October 12, 2011, 12:03 AM JST
 * Debate to Put GOP Policy Stances Front and Center OCTOBER 11, 2011, 7:47 P.M. ET by JONATHAN WEISMAN
 * (video) Wall St. Protesters March Against N.Y.'s Richest 10/11/2011 12:00:00 PM ... The Occupy Wall Street movement stages a "millionaires march," smartphones replace the checkout register at the grocery store, a conversation with Rolling Stones keyboardist Chuck Leavell and the stress of predicting the weather.
 * (video) Scene from Occupy Wall Street on 5th Ave 10/11/2011 6:21:15 PM ... Occupy Wall Street protestors march up Park Avenue in New York City to express their anger in front of the homes of bankers and billionaires including Jaime Dimon, John Paulson and David H. Koch.
 * Billionaire Tells Occupy Wall Street to Get Off His Lawn October 11, 2011, 2:43 PM ET.
 * Occupy Tokyo is a blog by Yoree Koh.  97.87.29.188 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC).

Flag of Greece? There is no occupy wall street movement there.
In location section, Reference for athens links to newspaper article for Athens, GEORGIA. Not Greece. Please take off Greek flag, its incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.83.46 (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I fixed that. Gandydancer (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Free Tea Party Movement comparison graph needed
Someone please do a free version of the File:Occupy-wall-st-vs-tea-party.png image http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#Protest_comparison_graph_SVG_and_nonfree_clearance or it will likely be deleted after Friday, 14 October 2011 because of the evil fair use death panels.

It was actually public domain and is now used in FiveThirtyEight as media coverage. Thanks to whomever remembered that removing original elements from a graph created from public data gives it less authorship originality than a phone book. Dualus (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

USA Today resources
97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Occupy Wall Street protests have a spiritual side by Cathy Lynn Grossman, Oct 10, 2011
 * Olympics' famous protester helps Occupy Wall Street ... Tommie Smith and John Carlos staged their famous protest at the 1968 Mexico City Summer Olympics, Oct 11, 2011 by Tom Weir
 * 'Occupy Wall Street' protests test left's determination by Rick Hampson
 * Tom Morello to sing at Occupy Wall Street protest by Ann Oldenburg Oct 12, 2011 regarding The Rage Against The Machine guitarist

Claim that "Tea Party has been co-opted by the Republicans
I deleted this phrase "with the key difference being that the Occupy protest has not been co-opted by a political party." with the rationale that "this phrase asserts unsourced assumption that tea party has been coopted" ... (my diff ) ... and then User:Ian.thomson reverted my edit, saying "All the Tea Party's speakers and funders are Republican, the majority of Tea Party protesters identify themselves as Republican, and they typically support and are supported by Republican candidates when possible" (Ian.thomson's diff) ... HE DID NOT CITE ANY SOURCES... which was my original reason for deleting... I would like to put this out there for the wikipedians to discuss and resolve so we do not get into an edit war over this... My claim is that there are plenty of fiscally conservative independents who are part of the Tea Party but who do not view view themselves as Republicans. a randomly googled source ... perhaps thie claim should be sources and bracketed? MPS (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Tea Party Supporters Overlap Republican Base: Eight out of 10 Tea Party supporters are Republicans" by Frank Newport, Gallup.com and "Tea Party = Republican party?" by Chris Cillizza, Washington Post's The Fix both show that Tea Partiers are pretty much Republican. A Teabagger Timeline: Koch, Coors, Newt, Dick Armey There From The Start by Jane Hamsher, Huffington Post shows they were started by and funded by Republicans.
 * I suppose that the idea they were coopted could be argued against on the grounds that they were a platform for the Republican party to begin with. Part of their advertising power comes from pretending they're a grassroots movement when they are astroturf. Also, the "randomly selected source" presented is only one group that admits that they're less than 500 members of this much larger movement.  That's like randomly selecting a Michigan Christian Scientist church website as representative of American Protestantism. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How is this relevant to the article? Shouldn't this argument take place on the Tea Party pageAcuteAccusation (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place to prove or disprove theories. If there is a controversial issue, Wikipedia NPOV policy suggests that we attribute opinions to their adherents. So if you want to say "according to Gallup, many Tea Party activists are also Republicans" you are fine. But your sources above don't say anything about co-opting. They literally say the opposite... "nearly 80 percent of tea party supporters describe themselves as Republicans, while 15 percent say they are Democrats and just six percent are, in their own minds, 'pure independents.'" as well as "As victories by Rand Paul in Kentucky and Sharron Angle in Nevada show, the tea party crowd doesn't take its marching orders from the national Republican leadership." Unquote. If you want to 'dis' the Tea Party on the OWS page, you are going to need to find a reliable source to attribute an opinion to, or else delete the unsourced assertions. MPS (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's matters of fact here that should be able to make it into the article: 1) the tea party and OWS are both grass roots movements, albeit from opposite ends of the political spectrum, and both actively resist establishment efforts to dominate or speak for their movements; 2) the tea party, as follows from their end of said spectrum, are given to be, their resistance to the GOP notwithstanding, Republicans who will ultimately and did in 2010 vote republican; this is well established. 3) OWS on the other hand, and again as follows from the nature of left, while it may have large numbers of those voting democrat, is not by any means associated with or likely to be co-opted by the democratic party, largish numbers of it probably being already outside the two party system, i.e. non-voting. This essential difference has already been made clear in the 2010 midterm election but it remains to be seen what will be the case for the OWS in relation to the 2012 cycle. It doesn't seem likely that Obama's party will be able to absorb them anywhere near as readily as Romney will absorb the TP. What can be said now is what follows from the basic facts (left vs. right, known composition of OWS, and the 2010 elections). 72.228.177.92 (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * User:72.228.177.92, you make some good points.... I have two responses...
 * (1) One could, if one wanted, make an argument that the fiscal conservatives / Tea Party peeps have a co-opted the Republicans rather than vice versa.
 * (2) one's arguments are pretty much irrelevant on wikipedia. If one does not have sources other than one's own opinions then one should not insinuate them into the OWS article, as I have complained about above.
 * I am not sure whether much should be said about the Tea Party in this article. What I do know, is that we should not be using weasel words like "co-opt" unless we attribute them. If y'all want to do a movement comparison as a separate section, I am ok with that, but you would still have to use reliable sources so as to avoid allegations of original reserach, which is looked down on within wikipedia. Peace, MPS (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You're mistaken in conflating co-optation with WP:Weasel, they're unrelated and the subject matter of this thread is substantive and germane to the article. I'm well aware of the site policy, just not using my named account. I'm not suggesting argumentation, just making clear what the basic, copiously sourceable, facts are. The tea party and OWS are both elements of a (probable final) crisis of the superannuated Fifth Party System. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just trying to avoid an edit war with Ian.thomson. If the cooptation of the Tea Party is copiously sourceable as you say, then Ian.thomson or someone else should be able to source and bracket that belief. IF being "co-opted" is not somewhat pejorative, then why are the OWS protestors trying so hard to avoid being co-opted  www.infowars.com/welcome-to-the-ows-99-movement-%E2%80%9Cwe-will-not-be-co-opted%E2%80%9D/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used ? Just stating that "references abound" regarding who is or is not already co-opted does not satisfy the reliable sourcing requirement. I am from missouri. Show me. MPS (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Using the phrase "with the key difference being that the Occupy protest has not been co-opted by a political party." is not proper, it is not WP:NPOV and of course is pejorative. It's using this article, about OWS, to get in a dig at the Tea Party. LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Some more Canadian cities joined in
Halifax, http://ottawa.openfile.ca/blog/curator-blog/curated-news/2011/what-will-occupy-ottawa-look Hamilton Saint John http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/occupy-wall-street-movement-headed-to-bay-street-other-canadian-centres-131549468.html New Brunswick, Newfoundland, PEI and Nova Scotia are having occupations as well, but as of date 10/12/2011 nearly 1400 cities are occupying, there are several in Ontario starting up if we do list them all I believe it should warrant its own article. Canadianwikiuser (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that's the problem the editors of this article are going to have to figure out a solution to. We can't have a list of 1,400 city names. LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A list of locations can be edited at List of "Occupy" protest locations. If you take the discussion over there, that would be more appropriate. Ampersandestet (talk) 06:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ben & Jerry's Support, add companies reaction?
I came acrosss an article over Ben & Jerry's Support of the occupy wall Street movement. chances are high that there are going to be more corporations that will to react to the cituation at new york, so should there be a company reaction? Some Protesters Find Ben & Jerry's Support Hard to Swallow Ben & Jerry's Backs Occupy Wall Street Protesters Ben & Jerry's declares a taste for Wall Street protest --Nrpf22pr (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If more corporations come out with responses to the OWS protest, then it could warrant such a section. Ampersandestet (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Alternatively if they come out with a new ice cream flavor "1001 opinions in a swirl" (with nuts), I'd be in favor of inclusion. LoveUxoxo (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with LoveUxoxo, especially if the new flavor is called "Occupy Wal Nut" and includes flavors such as bologna and pepper. But seriously, I think we need to rethink our approach to farming "support" and "opposition" links that don't add much encyclopedic value. MPS (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously, yes we need to stop/trim/convert to prose all these sub-sub-sections which, basically I submit are meaningless (like Ben & Jerry's giving their support). The funny thing is, in a year, I wouldn't be surprised if a new B & J flavor IS (appropriately) mentioned in the article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I only support it if they call the flavour Occupy Rocky Road. Ampersandestet (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What about Society Naturally All Fudged Up? :)  Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 12:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 10 October 2011
External link

http://occupy.evokerecords.com/ Live streaming videos.

Kevin (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Request declined, in accord with WP:EL  Chzz  ► 00:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Celebrity Commentary section should go away
There is no hard fast rule that because it is reliable sourced it has to stay forever no matter what. The rule says that if it is reliably sourced a reason has to be given before deletion. The reason the section should go away and some of the people or groups named deleted and others moved to different sections is undue weight. That Alec Baldwin or Radiohead said something in support and Jimmy Kimmel made a few jokes is pure trivia. There are several reasons a persons comment should be noted. They are a noted political figure or activist and preferably an activist tied to economic causes.Micheal Moore even though he is a "celebrity" the fits the bill he is notable activist and who made a noted film related to the subject of the protest. If a "pure" celebrity for lack of a better word did something palatable in support of the movement like giving a lot of money, speaking to them they should have a place in the article. There are several "media personalities" comments listed. If they are notable enough we have a media section for them. I am not going to go personality by personality to argue who belongs. It would be pointless unless we come to a consensus on general guidelines here. Edkollin (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree.
 * First of all, it's not that big a section.
 * Second, we're talking about notable people appearing at an event that depends a lot on public awareness. That makes them a part of it.
 * Third, some of these people will say something that they may regret in another time, or they may regret having attended at all. Much like those of similar ideology who joined the "anti-war" movement in the early days of WWII, only to change their minds because Hitler invaded the USSR, such things should never be forgotten.
 * Every notable person who supports this movement should be remembered.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL BALL. We don't go adding things from the future unless there is reliable sourced certainty that it is very very likely to happen like Presidential Elections or the Olympics. We certainly don't do it because editors think it might be important someday. Edkollin (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (r to op) I'm one of those guys who thinks that the timeline of commentary is important, as the events unfolded, and as the coverage of the events evolved from nothing, to prurience, to hey-wait-a-minute. That's why I added Bill Maher's commentary, as an example of commentary on the early media mis-coverage.  In the same episode, Van Jones expressed extreme pride in the young people making a stand. I was, however, overridden by a variety of agenda-driven whitewashers - an unlikely cabal of OWB fanbois, and gay and hetero prudes. Your analysis plays right into the sterile deletionist agenda of removal of all sense of place or context, from a plurality of viewpoints outside of a narrowly defined, arbitrarily restricted group of permitted sources. --Lexein (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC).
 * Bill Maher is a political/social commentator, Van Jones is a political figure so they are arguably notable to the topic or another words more then just a celebratory. Their comments could be put in another section. Alec Baldwin's opinions would be article worthy if he was talking about movies or the entertainment business but how is he notable for this topic? If that makes me a deletion happy maniac so be it. Edkollin (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad we agree about the arguable appropriateness of commentary by Maher and Van Jones - those were my only two ponies in this corral. Baldwins (any of them) are marginal, to be sure. --Lexein (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support removal. Stick to the topic, and that includes using relevant sources/commentators.  It may be sufficient to have a sentence or two, or maybe three or four about the celebrity presence, but that's it.  We certainly don't need a section on it, that's for sure.  There's this thing called Wikiquote; please use it. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support A stand alone sub-section of Celebrity responses was a bad idea inherently, and the presentation, an embedded list rather than 2 to 3 sentences of prose is another mistake. No surprise this sub-section becomes a battleground of editors trying to push POV by favoring certain voices for inclusion over than others. That's because we don't a lot's of deep analysis, scholarly, and other good secondary sources generated yet to tell us what is considered notable support. So it's just what individual editors think are insight comments by "Celebrities". Which, by in large, are trivial. As for being in list format, that is appropriate for the leading politicians reactions section above it, as their opinions are notable, and I think the division by party affiliation was smart. That sub-section was well done. But you do understand that just because this event is notable, and the celebrities themselves are notable, that doesn't make any public comments they say necessarily notable? That's basic common sense. Just because they were quoted in a reliable source doesn't mean it's notable, or should be given much weight. Merge all the most important entries in this list into the timeline section. For instance, when Michael Moore (filmmaker) visited and publicly gave his support. Then come up with a few succinct lines of prose, like the Union support section above, and source it to an article where they, not you, mention celebrities X,Y,Z. Every editor who feels justified in including a celebrity's comment becasue it "really hits it on the head", and "helps the reader understand what OWS is all about" is wrong, no matter if you are pushing a Rapper or Hank Williams, Jr. LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC) "Rapper Lupe Fiasco (...) also wrote a poem to help inspire the protesters.[168]" You are killing me peeps :( LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support removal - misleading, trivial and WP:UNDUE. I also support the removal of the vanity photo of Naomi Klein for the same reasons.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment IMO LoveUxoxo really makes a good argument for removal, but I'm not yet ready to say delete it.  However I don't like the list and would prefer a few sentences of prose.  I do agree that "movie stars" and such should not be included just because they are well known.  I would like to see kept West, Moore, Klein, the Slovenian philosopher, and perhaps Barr as the first one to speak.  But if support tends to go with removing it, I wouldn't object. Gandydancer (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I should tweak my support !vote to "do something!", not necessarily delete. If it could be made into something remotely resembling an encylopedic entry (the Union support sub-section did a nice job), that is fine by me too. LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh ffs, now Russell Simmons and Kanye were just added. Ladies! Stop, take a deep breath, step back, look at the whole forest and think: "should we give as much weight to the fact that a hip hop mogul stopped by in the afternoon as we give to Michael Bloomberg? LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * For one thing, I never did like the term "Celebrity" and even had to look it up to be sure that it meant more than "movie star" etc. Perhaps at the very least we could come up with something better that did not invite inclusion of people not well known for their political commentary/activism? Gandydancer (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Another option is to create a reaction sub article. That could be a lot more inclusive because the articles topic is the reaction to the event not the event itself. With a sub article the main article could be limited to a paragraph or two highlighting what is in the sub article. Edkollin (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I support this option, as it would then be grouping by support/oppose/neutral and not lend special credence to amount of notability/noteriety/celebrity.Ampersandestet (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Add to celebrity commentary: Zach Braff: On 10/10/11 Zach Braff posted the following on Facebook: "The media is being so dismissive of "Occupy Wall Street". Stop saying they don't have a clear message. Whether you side with them or against them, they do have a clear message and deserve to be treated with respect."


 * The prosecution rests, your honor. LoveUxoxo (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose The involvement of celebrities in the protests is notable. Alec Baldwin btw is well-known as a political activist.  It could be trimmed however by just noting which celebrities have become associated with the protests, rather than lengthy quotes.  Maybe re-name it "celebrity involvement".  TFD (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Add to celebrity commentary: Jeffrey Sachs: On October 7th, Columbia economist, Professor Jeffrey Sachs spoke to the protestors and expressed his support, saying "The American public has wanted a different policy for years and years, but the politicians are absolutely deaf to what the American people are saying. The American people have said by large majorities ‘tax the rich, end the wars, protect the social safety net.’ And the opposite is happening. So the breakdown is not with the public, the breakdown is between the public and Washington.”


 * In general celebrity quotes should not be included into this section unless they are also an authority on the issue (not sure about Alec Baldwin, cold be a credible source?). Otherwise you have a section with a bunch of stupid people stating opinions and not info.AcuteAccusation (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Jeffrey Sachs is not a "celebrity". He is an academic source with expertise in the subjects related to what people are protesting about. Alec Baldwin and Radiohead are celebrities. They are not credible sources for this topic they have no demonstrated expertise in politics or economics. Edkollin (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the as it is obviously not a simple uncontroversial request; please re-request if you can establish consensus, thanks.  Chzz  ►  01:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Change sub-section 4.2.1 title: September 24 – Street marches, mesh nets, and first pepper-spraying incident
To something where it is actually representative of the content, like "September 24 – Street marches, pepper-spraying incident, pepper-spray, pepper-spray, pepper-spray, pepper-spray, pepper-spray". We have one paragraph/three lines concerning the marches and mesh nets, and then six paragraphs about the pepper-spraying. What I'd like is the first paragraph to be expanded. A lot happened that day other than when that quarter-can of capsaicin spray was expended. The titles of the sub-section should actually be "September 24 – Street marches, arrests and the pepper-spraying incident" where we give better coverage below to the marches, arrests and street closures. Apparently no one here really gave a flying ferret to them the first pass around, because every was so hot for a piece of Bologna, however the 80 arrests that day were a big jump and important (however severely dwarfed they were by the next days events).

Then the hard part. The six paragraphs on the pepper-spraying there now are a mess. They have all the warning signs of a contentious topic that results in stilted prose and takes up a lot of space, but doesn't deliver much. Something like this is always a clue: "The police officer who used the pepper spray was identified[118] as Anthony V. Bologna, a Deputy Inspector of the New York Police Department,[119][120][121][122][123] who was appointed C.O. of New York's First Precinct in 2005.[124]" Five inline citations in the middle of a sentence to establish a guy's job? That isn't a sign of careful sourcing, it's indicative of dysfunctional editing.

What is needed I suggest is four(?), nice, tight, very impersonal paragraphs that get across the events of the day, as well as the effects in the days that followed. Quit quoting everybody. Bologna's union rep said the officer wasn't at fault? NOT surprising/interesting/notable. This addition without context does not help the reader at all: "The use of pepper spray is primarily limited to use against those resisting arrest or for protection, but is allowed to officers with special training for use in "disorder control".[126]" Between the claims he was aiming at the males allegedly putting other officers at risk, or the fact he might have had that "special training", allowing him to, I guess, use it like Silly String, it doesn't help me understand what justification, or lack thereof, there was for the use of pepper-spray that day by Bologna.

Here are our marching orders as I see it for Bologna, in this sub-section: four paragraphs, written in prose that will be recognized in 200 years as English. Tight, uncontroversial, sourced-well and getting across as much info as possible. Easy, right? LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * At most that sentence should have 2 citations: 1 after "Department," and one after "2005.". Anything more than that is excessive and confusing as to what exactly the citation is being used to source, and actually goes against policy. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Change
Stick this in, since it says everything, except the useless stuff, in about 15% as much space:

Videos, widely disseminated, showing several penned-in women demonstrators being pepper-sprayed by a police official sparked controversy. Videos which showed several penned-in female demonstrators being pepper-sprayed by a police official were widely disseminated, sparking controversy. That police official, later identified as Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna, was shown in other videos hitting a photographer with a burst of spray. In following days an allegation against Bologna of false arrest during the Republican National Convention in 2004 surfaced, and the activist group Anonymous posted details about his family online.

Initially Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly and and a representative for Bologna defended his actions, while decrying the disclosure of his personal information. However, after growing public furor, Kelly announced that Internal Affairs and the Civilian Complaint Review Board were opening investigations. Meanwhile, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. started his own inquiry.

Public attention to the pepper-sprayings resulted in a spike of news media coverage, a pattern that was to be repeated in the coming weeks. Clyde Haberman, writing in The New York Times, said that "If the Occupy Wall Street protesters ever choose to recognize a person who gave their cause its biggest boost, they may want to pay tribute to Anthony Bologna", calling the event "vital" for the still-growing movement.

All that space you saved? Use this 538 column and this CityRoom analysis to flesh out two paragraphs why we should give a flying ferret over, as one editor said, "a pepper-sprayed hippie". A story that goes something like this: this incident resulted in a spike in news coverage, attention to, and subsequently growth to, OWS. It's all in those two sources. Yes, I know that was Gray Lady-centric, screw it, they live there. Plus, the incident is controversial, pick the MOST boring source. I think editors before, who "felt" this incident was important (it is), were mistaken in thinking that just by giving it the biggest footprint, as in the article now, does the best to get a point across. LoveUxoxo (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I like what you've done, except for the first sentence. I had to read it several times to understand its meaning.  I propose instead:  "Videos which showed several penned-in female demonstrators being pepper-sprayed by a police official were widely disseminated, sparking controversy."  Otherwise I think your suggestions help complete the work of merging the pepper-spray incident article here.~TPW 10:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Pffft, that's like 5 times better. I put your version in.LoveUxoxo (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * When I said 4 paragraphs I still had beer. It's three short ones really (see above). It tells the whole story, no theatrics. LoveUxoxo (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone else? At some point I'll probably WP:BOLD and put it up there myself + expand the 1st paragraph about arrests. The way I feel right now is the only parts of the article that have any chance of being encyclopedic quality are the timeline/chronology sections since we can CALMLY reflect back on historic events a write them up cleanly. The rest is just what happens when you have 100 political opinions and throw them into a blender...that's the sludge you get. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I say you go ahead and make the change. I support it. Ampersandestet (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did it, I think its so much better. We don't get paid by the word, keep it succnct ladies. LoveUxoxo (talk)
 * ...FactChecker made a couple of edits that made it much better IMO. LoveUxoxo (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Now I'm going to feel obliged to compliment you on your edits, which sounds like a lot of work >.<   (haha, just kidding) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 20:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Remove responses section or create a subarticle
The responses section should either go or have its own subarticle. Not only is the who-said-what overwhelming the article; most of the "celebrity responses" and "foreign responses" and "political responses" do little to illuminate the topic outside of platitudes from wikified names. The growing bullet points of blather make us look like amateurs. -- David  Shankbone  04:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I second that idea with a resounding "yes", it's not illuminating and it is amateurish. LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it is poorly structured... what are we trying to convey here?  I would also say some of this is an artifact of when people were trying to prove that it was notable (see version from September 20 Roseanne! Lupe Fiasco! ) as well as a political and POV-balancing arms race. I would support a side article if someone can tell me why we need (for record) 100 different people telling us "I like it" or "it's dumb" MPS (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This article, about a current event, attracts a lot of new editors (and that's a good thing), and an easy addition to make to an article is just adding someone's or some place's) name to a list. So once the list starts, you can play whack-a-mole all day trying to keep the thing somewhat relevant and it will always grow out of control. LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. I do not feel that it is presently out of hand.  As for new editors adding less relevant personalities, a more experienced editor can keep that problem in check.  This is a People's Movement, let's keep People in our article! Gandydancer (talk) 09:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If a particular celebrity's response becomes relevant to the event, that will become evident in time. Reliable secondary sources aren't created overnight.  I suggest that any particular response that shapes the event will find a home in an appropriate section, but having a section or article simply to count them is pointless.  Did they do that for Pearl Harbor, 9/11, or the election of Barack Obama?--~TPW 15:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Nature and Size of Corruption
People are encouraged to fix this section. The intent of this section is to give a better description to the size of the underlying problem or problems to which Occupy Wall Street is trying to address. The reason why demands and goals are scattered is because the problem needs to be defined in detail. For example, if Adbusters were against corruption in Wall Street's influence in politics, then we need to explain that more to the average reader. How much money were politicians funded by Wall Street.

In other words, what is the problem, the mechanism of how the problem is producing the undesired effect or has, the severity and size of the problem.. and then we can propose goals and demands in order to fix it. A good doctor diagnoses the problem and would communicate it well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJJ509 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

With regards to bias, most of those statements are facts directly from the primary sources and although it focuses on Obama, truth is truth and you can add other politicians as well. The truth is that both parties have been bought by Wall Street and Coporations. MJJ509 (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is much better suited as a topic to be expounded on in a school paper, your blog, or some other place where it wouldn't be a problem in terms of WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS and all that other good stuff. You need good scholarly sources and meta-analyses, which don't exist yet, for it to be done in an encyclopedic manner. The sources that are currently being used are not WP:RS. LoveUxoxo (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In addition, the current section is at risk of being WP:SOAP, so rather than focusing on expansion and the solutions, the current section needs vast improvement on how what is being said is exactly said. I agree with LoveUxoxo on this matter. However valid the points you raise are, this is not a research proposal nor thesis. Truth might be truth, but truth is all that currently exists. Ampersandestet (talk) 05:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's just encouraging a giant fight among editors as to the "true" causes of OWS, a fight they shouldn't be having to begin with. LoveUxoxo (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that we shouldn't try to prove corruption using our own research/synthesis. OWS wasn't the first to discover the problems of Big Business. Besides, if different people in this movement have different reasons for protesting, it is going to be hard to say that "corruption" is their reason. Some people might even say periodic long recessions are a natural, if unfortuniate, part of the Business cycle... perhaps related to the Credit cycle... I really am not an economist... thus I rely on reliable sources from people who are already published economists to assert claims on wikipedia. MPS (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, as long as agreeing does not mean we are now fighting. That would really cut into my sitting around time. Ampersandestet (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As an extremely liberal-minded person, I feel that this information is very important, however it does not seem to me to be appropriate for this article. Since I am not very knowledgeable about Wikipedia rules and regs, I can only look to other articles I have worked on extensively for comparison.  Thinking back (for instance) to the Gulf oil spill, an accident that was just waiting to happen and will happen again given the fact that corporate power has worked hand in hand (and often hand-in pocketbook as well) with the very government agencies that are supposed to be working to protect the people, a similar addition could have been added to that article.  But it wasn't because it would not have been appropriate for Wikipedia to have included it.  Never the less, it is good information and I'd like to see it in a separate article. Gandydancer (talk) 09:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I see that the editor that thinks he's above all this discussion nonsense has deleted the section, as usual without even an edit summary. What a jerk. Gandydancer (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Reverting back. Who is this guy that keeps deleting stuff? Make edits so that it's more enclopedic, but though I referred to primary sources, these sites were cited from online news articles, Occupy Wall Street forums, and even on the ground people talking about this. This isn't a thesis, but when people refer to corruption... it usually does refer to money and so it is only right that readers understand the scope of the corruption.   Time to wake up and realize Obama's not fighting for us. Half of funds go to Republicans and half go to Democrats dating back to 1989.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJJ509 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Lobbying influences both parties. This article is not a hit piece on Obama. See wikipedia WP:NPOV. And no, a facebook page is not a reliable source. See WP:RS. And the federal reserve is not one of the main complaints of most participants. There are some people who have that view and that is already stated in the article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Defining what are the "underlying problem or problems to which Occupy Wall Street is trying to address" depends on your POV. It's opinion, which isn't suited to this article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There does not seem to be support to keep the section and I suggest it be removed by a person that has taken the time and effort to join in this discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I thank somedifferentstuff for now engaging into the discussion. So, my question is, as people are protesting that they know something's wrong on Wall street and Congress. If the nature of that corruption won't be described in the mainstream media, but only on small occupy forums here and facebook pages there, then where else can it? Why not make edits to make the piece more concise, suitable, less biased, in order to give some substance behind the issues- Corruption, lack of transparency.  When Adbusters say corruption, what is that? Occupy Protestors have been discussing these things both online and on the streets and a minority yes of protestors have been mobilized based on the findings of the partial audit of the Federal Reserve that highlighted connections the Federal Reserve and WallStreet bailouts. The protest can be seen as a process of learning just as well including wikipedia articles.

I say increase transparency to highlight some of these numbers, rather than just deleting sections. MJJ509 (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a group project. You do not have support for this section.  I'd suggest you remember that you are a new editor and that you accept advice by editors that have been around the block a few times.  Gandydancer (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * @Gandydancer, I respect your input and I agree whole heartedly. I will delete as advised by senior editors (you guys are part of the protests right)? However, all I want to do is to highlight some of these numbers that are being discussed when corruption and lobbying is the topic for protesters. I'm not saying this is THE CAUSE, but to just define corruption and lobbying when people use these words as how several forums, news articles and the protestors on the ground do talk about. The basis of corruption and influence from Wall Street on Congress seem to be about the loads of campaign funding from Wall Street and for some protestors it is about the findings of the partial audit that was not extensively covered by mainstream media, nor do they talk much about the lobbying efforts either.  Is there not reason to put at least a few numbers in order to just give substance behind the words corruption or Wall Street influence.   MJJ509 (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A quick look at this section has given me the impression that everything except the first two sentences is OR. Also, I changed "Corruption" in the section heading to "Potential Corruption" to avoid one seemingly obvious NPOV problem.

The section actually says almost nothing about what protestors think about the noted subjects, contrary to the section title, but rather just an editor's own analysis of issues he thinks are relevant to the protests. I think that a sound justification for not deleting all or most this section needs to be provided ASAP. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 12:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * MJJ, my problem is that you have added such a huge chunk of information that is going off in a direction of its own. I see that you provided numerous references so it is obvious that you took a good amount of time to put this all together.  But please try to imagine my effort to read it all, including the references, and try to come up with an opinion!  Furthermore, I note that you edit just this one article while most of us have several or many other articles on our watch list that take up our time as well.  I strongly feel that you should consider a sister article for this information.  Also, please read again my comments re the Gulf oil spill.  And lastly, whatever you do, don't get mad and just give up! Gandydancer (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * MJJ, please realize that as I understand it, all of this needs to be removed unless you can provide some plausible explanation of why it's not OR. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 14:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not OR because these sources have been cited from occupy wall street forums, news articles when referring to occupy wall street, and from the talks on the ground.

1. E.g. regarding the partial audit... many of those protesting for a full audit can be found on the ground. E.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0cp_DyfiRU or go to even the facebook page, "Occupy the Fed" where much discussion has been upon the findings of the partial audit among other things as the basis for their protest. 2. www.rootstrikers.org and their founders and members are a select group of Occupy protestors on the ground who refer to many of these same sources. E.g. look at some of their banners when you go onto their site. 3. Just go to the various Occupy the Fed online forums and these topics have been raised and discussed, some who cite these sources. 4. Even Adbusters points out in many of their sites about the "corrupting" influence of wall street on politics. For example, here's one news article that cites the Sunlight Foundation: http://www.christianpost.com/news/obama-bashes-but-accepts-big-bucks-from-wall-street-57726/ which quotes one protester, "“With the people [Obama] put in (the administration), Goldman Sachs basically occupies the White House,” one of the protesters, Bill Brunot, 60, a mechanical engineer from Winchester, Va. told The New York Times." ""Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan organization that aims to keep the government transparent, has revealed that President Obama has received more money from Wall Street than any other politician over the past 20 years. He received approximately $3, 700,000 more than the second largest Wall Street recipient, George W. Bush."" 5. And because this is a leaderless movement that I consider myself a part of..been on the ground and talk to those who attended the ones in NY, what's wrong with original research from my part that simply supports Adbusters' aims and goals and what they see as the problem? Eg. Wallstreet influences Congress says Adbuster. Why can't I add, here's an analysis by Sunlight Fondation that shows the amount of money Wallstreet has funded Congress in order to influence them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJJ509 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to restrict yourself to using only sources that draw a connection between OWS and the phenomena you want to discuss. It's not acceptable to start off with a sourced statement showing that "OWS protestors are motivated by problem X" and then follow that up with your own analysis of X, based on sources that only discuss X, and not the connection to OWS.


 * There's nothing "evil" or "wrong" about original research; it just can't be used on Wikipedia.


 * I am not going to revert you again, but that's not because I don't think you should be reverted again. Those edits need to be removed.  However, I have committed myself to only making one revert per day, so I will rely on another user to do it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 15:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * OWS protestors are motivated by problem x. E.g. Root striker protestors says that campaign funding from Wallstreet influences politicans.

OR Here's one article that does it: http://www.christianpost.com/news/obama-bashes-but-accepts-big-bucks-from-wall-street-57726/. So you're saying this is a bad article cuz she went to a primary source.
 * All I'm saying is: Protestors have said this. Forums, news articles, and discussions have cited sources to provide evidence. Here is the support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJJ509 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me what you're trying to say here. What I am saying is this: it must be reliable sources that discuss these issues in connection with OWS.  You can't simply use the fact that one source has drawn a connection as a reason for expanding the section with your own analysis based on sources that don't discuss OWS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 15:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

LET ME TRY AGAIN TO EXPLAIN WHY IT's NOT OR AND THE SOURCES YOU CAN GO CHECK: First topic is the FEDERAL RESERVE ISSUE: A) Problem with the federal reserve seen by protestors: Protesters shouting, “fuck the fed," as seen in this you tube clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fV0YjQQzYk B) One protestor does all the analysis during his speech. Go to 2:09 when he makes the wall street and Federal Reserve connection. If you listen at around 2:09, he’s citing what they found in the partial audit of this year. E.g bailing out banks overseas and JP Morgan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZmPWcLQ1Mk C) Same protester again stating how the federal reserve has given out trillions of dollars http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJwpWhvmJfE (Just realized how he also says that the problem is also with corporations lobbying millions of dollars to politicians at 0:33) D) More discussion reflective of his sentiments and argument can be found on their Occupy wall street facebook page or online Occupy Wall Street forums: http://www.facebook.com/OccupyTheFederalReserve E) My main point is that: some protestors based on the findings of the partial audit (which revealed the trillions spent, JP morgan, which the guy in the clip already said) this year are now protesting in the Occupy wall street. Here are now the primary sources what it contains as what the protestor said and you can go check it out yourself and others who break down this problem: http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3 http://sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO%20Fed%20Investigation.pdf http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/ron-paul-and-the-occupy-wall-street-protest

... give me now some time to put together the bit on lobbying and how it's not my analysis but from protestors on the ground.


 * You're mining YouTube videos for random chatter to support the inferences you're adding to the article, which you then flesh out with material that is utterly unrelated to OWS, and don't see why this is OR? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 16:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you listen to the guy in the clip? All the information we know about trillions going out is based on the recent and only audit we did. He's just one example of an OWS protester citing that one source. BASICALLY: Protesters know that the partial Audit revealed trillions were given out- that and thus some say to fully audit the fed. How is it OR when most of the Occupy Wall Street people who are focusing their attention on the federal reserve know this.

Ok, moving on about lobbying influences. Again even Adbusters subscribess to this basic problem that politicians are getting bought out. 2. Lobbying influence A)	Problem as seen by some protesters: Based on the website, rootstrikers.org who are actively taking part in the protest is saying that lots of Wall street $$ has been put into campaign funding of politicians. Look at the first banner of their website which states that “700 million on lobbying over the past decade.” Here’s another protester who says the same thing: “With the people [Obama] put in (the administration), Goldman Sachs basically occupies the White House,” one of the protesters, Bill Brunot, 60, a mechanical engineer from Winchester, Va. told TheNew York Times. “We got sold out; the banks got bailed out.” -- http://www.christianpost.com/news/obama-bashes-but-accepts-big-bucks-from-wall-street-57726/ Same guy from above says the same thing. -- Political activist Lawrence Lessig makes the same analysis as well of connecting wall street money influencing politicians. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/occupywallst-then-occupyk_b_995547.html ---you can find many more youtube clips of protesters saying the exact same thing.

B)	Now, where are they getting their numbers from? -	Source cited by OWS participants in online forums include: the Center for Responsible politics:“ForTheWinnebago 2 points 5 days ago Observe why this is not an issue of Dem v Rep http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/ Follow the money” -	A post from the occupy Wall street forum again also cites opensecrets: http://occupywallst.org/forum/march-on-the-white-house/ -	Youtube clip of protesters and the news channel does the analysis of wall street numbers to Obama as revealed by the sunlight foundation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAnrCJy4n3U -	These two article although the author may not be a protestor also cites opensecrtes and also Sunlight Foundation and specific figures http://politisite.com/2011/10/10/occupy-wall-street-fact-check-which-president-received-more-wall-street-money-bush-or-obama/ and http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/10/obama-attacks-banks-while-raking-in-wall-street-dough/#ixzz1abTNuYmm

So what part of my summary of these things are OR? Yes, I cite the primary resources where people can get the numbers themselves, but the source itself and these numbers have been what protestors have already been stating.

It's not that complicated. Just talk to any protester about these two in specific: 1. Audit or end the fed. All we know about it is from this partial audit which showed that trillions were spent. 2. Wall Street has influence over politicians via granting them campaign funds as roostrikers said, as that one protester aboves says, as many have said. The source of this information are all the same which is the Center for responsbile politcs, Opensecrets.org and Sunlight — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJJ509 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's also not origial research when in the background section Adbusters say the exact same thing: Adbusters stated that, "Beginning from one simple demand – a presidential commission to separate money from politics – we start setting the agenda for a new America. ---All I did was provide the primary sources where they got their numbers from. And also notice how I just stated things as descriptive statements, not analysis statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJJ509 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You're not even responding to my comments. Have you actually read WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:No original research?  I'm guessing not. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing any good reason to keep any of the information. You either gathered the information from youtube protest videos, from activists (who are not NPOV), from protestors (your information from Christian Post cites a protestor), or from individuals who are directly involved with the protests. The only real source that has any form of verifiability is from opensecrets, and even then that is iffy as they do not transparently release their financial documentation. This is WP:OR and a direct violation of WP:NPOV. This information does not belong on here as it is WP:SYN and does not follow the standards of WP:RELIABLE. Facebook is an WP:SPS, and none of the information appears to be peer reviewed. Even in your analysis, you utilise WP:WEASEL Words: "BASICALLY: Protesters know that the partial Audit revealed trillions were given out- that and thus some say to fully audit the fed." Your argument is not concise, and none of the information is fully verifiable. Until such a time that the information matches the resources, I will be reverting this edit-- you did contribute a significant amount of work, however almost none of it is reliable, and sources that are do not back up the points being made. Ampersandestet (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)