Talk:Reactions to Occupy Wall Street/Archive 1

Article split
Includes all participating projects from Occupy Wall Street.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Reference clean up is underway
I am re-adding all references that are broken to the article from the split. Anyone may help, but need not feel obligated as I did the split and I can do the clean up. It's an excellent exercise and I am actually enjoying the simple work for a change. Also gives me a chance to go through all of these references to weed out the unreliable sources, copyright infringement (Youtube videos cannot be used unless they are from the source. Copies of videos from random Youtube users are not acceptable for references on Wikipedia), and other problem references such as formatting as inline citation.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As part of the clean up, I am temporarily reformatting all bare url references as "Notes" until I can re-format tehm into proper inline citations. This just keeps all bare url information intact, organized, and without any move which allows anyone to begin reformatting should they so desire.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * References 54 through 65 are red "error" linked temporarily until reformatting . Thanks! I will list any further broken links that are created from adding bare urls to notes as they crop up.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears that moving bare urls to notes IS the best idea and does not actually create red error links! Woohoo!--Amadscientist (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus from Occupy Wall Street stands here.
We should respect the consensus from the original article until such time that any new consensus is formed. Please remember when making major bold changes that there may be consensus formed from the original article archived here!--Amadscientist (talk) 04:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ravi Batra - take two
(transferred from Talk:Occupy Wall Street)

In late October, Gandydancer and AKA Artist fought tooth and nail to exclude Ravi Batra from the OWS article based on their twofold claim that he a) lacked relevance to the Occupy Wall Street protests and b) was not notable enough. I spent much effort trying to satisfy their demands to no avail. At the time I wasn't able to locate the many articles about Ravi Batra in the national media from the 1980s and 1990s. I've now come across the following articles which establish him factually as a figure of national prominence no matter how his predictions played out or if you agree with him or not: The above RS, in addition to this recent news analysis, establishes Batra as an intellectual precursor of the Occupy movement. In particular, he was the first economist to numerically link a concept of wealth concentration, "the share of wealth held by the richest 1 percent" to economic cycles and depression in a #1 New York Times Best Selling book in 1987. In view of these facts, I suggest his mention in relation to this article be drawn out more clearly. Plankto (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Great Depression of 1990 by Ravi Batra; foreword by Lester ... Aug 16, 1987 ... In 1985, Venus Books of Dallas, Tex., brought out this book written by a professor of economics at Southern Methodist University, Dr. Ravi Batra ...[articles.latimes.com/1987-08-16/.../bk-1573_1_great-depression]
 * Articles about Ravi Batra - Los Angeles Times Ravi Batra News. Find breaking news, commentary, and archival information about Ravi BatraFrom The Los Angeles Times.[articles.latimes.com/keyword/ravi-batra]
 * Depression Theory Sets Economist Apart - Chicago Tribune Oct 16, 1988 ... Many economists glory in the emoluments of the good life, attending sumptuous dinners, making speeches and entertaining bankers. But Ravi ...[articles.chicagotribune.com/.../8802070798_1_forecasts-theories-ravi-batra]
 * Featured Articles about Urban Land Institute - Page 4 - Chicago ... "We`ve had a seven-year-long expansion and with myopic eyes we cannot see anything in the 1990s different from today," said Ravi Batra, an economics ...[articles.chicagotribune.com/keyword/urban-land-institute/.../4]
 * Scenario Of `Great Depression Of 1990` Is All Too Convincing ... Aug 24, 1987 ... Let`s take Ravi Batra over the top! His book, ``The Great Depression of 1990,`` ranked fifth on the New York Times best-seller nonfiction list Aug ...[articles.chicagotribune.com/.../8703040329_1_depressions-mild-recession- wealth]
 * Is This Just A Preview? - Chicago Tribune Oct 26, 1987... the cataclysmic financial gales blowing through Wall Street, don`t start congratulating yourself yet, warns doomsday economist Ravi Batra. [articles.chicagotribune.com/.../8703200772_1_wall-street-crash-panic]
 * The News Has Helped Land Books On The Best-seller Lists For ... Jan 14, 1988 ... The stock market plunge set off jitters that helped the sales of ``The Great Depression of 1990`` by Ravi Batra, and the national debate about ...[articles.chicagotribune.com/.../8803220192_1_fiction-list-nonfiction-authors]
 * Clients May Walk Along With Harris - Chicago Tribune Jan 18, 1988 ... Or so predicts Indian economist Ravi Batra, author of the bestseller, ``The Great Depression of 1990.`` Batra was guest at a reception last week ...[articles.chicagotribune.com/.../8803230412_1_salomon-brothers-harris- lazard-freres]
 * Market bears' gloomy growl being echoed by big players - Chicago ... Dec 2, 2007 ... Ravi Batra, among the most bearish of bears, expects nothing less than a popular uprising against "moneyed interests preventing reform" and, ...[articles.chicagotribune.com/.../0712010036_1_soft-landing-sudden- downturns-van-der-eb]
 * Dr. Doom' Stands by His Predictions of Gloom : Economy: An Indian ... Feb 26, 1991 ... DALLAS — Unlike most economists, Ravi Batra says he's always hoped his forecasts would prove wrong. But then again, Batra isn't your ...[articles.latimes.com/1991-02-26/business/fi-1989_1_end-result]
 * Breaking into the '90s. A New World in Time. Walls fall, debts rise... Dec 31, 1989... over the edge of the abyss--the gasping plunge into "The Great Depression of 1990," heralded by Ravi Batra and other purveyors of doom. ...[articles.latimes.com/1989-12-31/.../op-453_1_entering-recession-year]
 * Viewpoints : Who Are the Most Overpaid People in America? : Some ... May 22, 1988 ... Ravi Batra, economist and author of the best seller, "The Great Depression of 1990". "Most business executives are overpaid. Workers' ...[articles.latimes.com/1988-05-22/.../fi-4801_1_top-executives]
 * It Won't Make Their Day - Los Angeles Times Mar 29, 1993 ... He's back: Apocalyptic author Ravi Batra, who predicted the "Great Depression of 1990," has a new book due out in April called "The Myth of ...[articles.latimes.com/1993-03-29/.../fi-16443_1_days-make-won]
 * Greedy 80's | Dubious '90s Trump Greedy '80s - Los Angeles Times Dec 26, 1999 ... In the 1987 bestseller "The Great Depression of 1990," economist Ravi Batrapredicted that 1990 would bring a stock market crash and the ...[articles.latimes.com/1999/dec/26/business/fi-47645]
 * Articles about Great Depression - Los Angeles Times In 1985, Venus Books of Dallas, Tex., brought out this book written by a professor of economics at Southern Methodist University, Dr. Ravi Batra. I heard about it ...[articles.latimes.com/keyword/great-depression]
 * Featured Articles about Panic - Page 3 - Los Angeles Times Oct 20, 1987 ... The time to panic is two years from now," Southern Methodist University professorRavi Batra said from Pittsburgh. Advertisement. BUSINESS ...[articles.latimes.com/keyword/panic/featured/3]
 * Featured Articles about J Gordon Melton - Page 5 - Los Angeles Times Aug 1, 1997 ... Author Ravi Batra, a professor at Southern Methodist University, basks in overnight celebrity. A wave of publicity in newspapers and magazines ...[articles.latimes.com/keyword/j-gordon-melton/featured/5]
 * How Hollywood Dealt with Great Depression - Los Angeles Times Feb 24, 1991 ... The Great Depression of 1990 by Ravi Batra; foreword by... August 16, 1987. Los Angeles Times Articles. Copyright 2012 Los Angeles Times ...[articles.latimes.com/1991-02-24/news/tv-2335_1_great-depression]
 * Reliving the nightmare of the Depression - Los Angeles Times Sep 29, 2008 ...The Great Depression of 1990 by Ravi Batra; foreword by...August 16, 1987. Los Angeles Times Articles. Copyright 2011 Los Angeles Times ...[articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/29/local/me-martinez29]
 * Popular Articles & Stories for August 16, 1987 - Los Angeles Times Aug 16, 1987 ... The Great Depression of 1990 by Ravi Batra; foreword by Lester Thurow (Simon & Schuster: $17.95; 197 pp.) Paul Erdman, Erdman is an ...[articles.latimes.com/1987/aug/16]
 * In particular, I propose the following entry could be placed in the Authors and academics sub-section:

"On October 11, economics professor and best selling author Ravi Batra wrote an article stating that the OWS movement heralds the end of 'crony capitalism“.[1] He argues that government policies since the Reagan Administration have greatly contributed to increase inequalities and economic problems in the U.S. and that the OWS movement should push for their repeal.[2]"
 * If there are objections to this edit, despite the new information, please make it known.Plankto (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Take two? I'd call in Round two and I refuse to waste any more time going over and over the same topic again and again.  You have had zero support for including Batra in the article.Gandydancer (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm part of that zero support. I can't take seriously someone who's press kit's two most recent items are from 2008 and 2007, and then back to 1991. A not notable and very obscure figure easily eclipsed others, many of whom are not mentioned. This article isn't a wading pool that any minor academic can be let it to. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that others are needed to support inclusion based on the above overwhelming new support for Ravi Batra's notability and direct relation to this article, especially as these two editors steadfastly refuse to recognise any evidence while repeating their cemented oppinion that Ravi Batra -- who has had six international best sellers, thereof one #1 on the New York Times Best Seller list, is an Economic Professor at a leading US University, and whose name garners close to 200,000 hits on Google -- is an "obscure figure" and a "minor academic". Let's see if others venture an oppinion.Plankto (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody has yet found Batra to be that luminous a light. BTW, skip right wing nutjob pages funded by big oil and other horrible sources, they don't help the case at all. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

We know what your view is AKA Artist (and Gandydancer). Let's see what others have to say.Plankto (talk) 07:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The silence has been deafening. Nothing but crickets. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Further information to establish the notability of Ravi Batra is the following non-exhaustive list of books by him as well as other information.
 * Studies in the Pure Theory of International Trade, 1973
 * Theory of International Trade Under Uncertainty, 1979
 * The Downfall of Capitalism and Communism: A New Study of History'', London: MacMillan, 1978, ISBN 0-333-21645-8
 * Regular Economic Cycles: Money, Inflation, Regulation and Depressions, St. Martin's Press, 1985, ISBN 0-0312-03260-9
 * The Great Depression of 1990, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987
 * Surviving the Great Depression of 1990, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988
 * The Downfall of Capitalism and Communism: Can Capitalism be Saved?, Dallas: Venus Books, Second Edition, 1990, ISBN 0-939352-09-5
 * The Myth of Free Trade: A Plan for America's Economic Revival. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1993, ISBN 0-684-19592-5
 * The Great American Deception: What Politicians Won't Tell You about Our Economy and Your Future. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1996, ISBN 0-471-16556-5
 * The Crash of the Millennium: Surviving the Coming Inflationary Depression, New York: Harmony Books, 1999, ISBN 0-609-60512-7
 * Greenspan's Fraud: How Two Decades of His Policies Have Undermined the Global Economy, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, ISBN 1-4039-6859-4
 * The New Golden Age: The Coming Revolution against Political Corruption and Economic Chaos. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007, ISBN 1-4039-7579-5
 * Note the two academic text books, which are highly technical and have been used in teaching international trade theory at the graduate level around the world. Here are also a few quotes and more information about Ravi Batra:
 * "Ravi Batra has made an outstanding reputation in the United States as an international economic theorists in the best Western tradition." Leonard Silk, New York Times
 * "Batra [is] a scholar who has earned a considerable reputation as an expert on trade." Albert Crenshaw, Washington Post
 * "His predictions in the early 1980s of low inflation, falling oil prices and a wave of mergers–mocked for years–have proved close to the mark." Thomas C. Hayes, New York Times
 * In 2009, Batra received the Pratina and Navin Doshi Award for his contributions to economic analysis.
 * He has also published numerous articles in leading refereed journals like the American Economic Review. Hopefully, other editors will venture an oppinion on the edit suggestion put back on the table in light of more information. Amadscientist has also made the earlier discussions more accessible (see below).Plankto (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Content from dispute is re-added here.
The basis for it's removal on this page was undue weight that it had been added back to Occupy Wall Street. But After my last removal it on that page it has not been placed back so it should go here in some form. The information is part of an ongoing dispute which I am involved in (disclaimer).--Amadscientist (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hidden text intro
I tossed in a hidden text intro. I have seen this done before, but not in a very long time (not the hidden text, but as an intro). As a controversial subject it gets a lot of edits and this encourages using references and inline citations. If it's too much to some we can just remove it. I thought it would be nice at least while working on clean up.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Out of spite (sarcasm)
I'm leaving the opening paragraph alone. Its utter horribleness will stop anyone from reading the article and keep this page in the ghetto it was so wisely moved to. Knock yourselves out. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * LOL! Well don't be so nervouse to ccorrect the horribleness!--Amadscientist (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nah, it is as bad as it fittingly deserves to be. No one will read beyond the intro after rightly judging it to be as bad as a WP article can get. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Without the views and reactions of the participants and intellectual precursors like Ravi Batra the article is shallow in content as well.Plankto (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever goes into to this article disappears in to the black hole of bad writing. Have at it Jimbo. Anything added is just more piss on the floor. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Check this gem: "Reactions to Occupy Wall Street have varied." What a surprise: reactions to a political movement lack uniformity. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Gee, your input seems to make it difficult to assume good faith, but I'll assume it anyway! Your opinion is that the sentence has a problem...but you make no real comment about why. How does this help improve the article to simply ridicule the contribution?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think that is a good opening sentence - despite my easy-to-grasp (I thought) demonstration of its stupidity - then there's not much more I can say. Oh yeah, love that second sentence which repeats the first sentence.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You really need not use your comments here as a whip.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed; what good is it to whip a cast iron horse? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * theres no harm in stating what is obvious to some people in an encyclopedia. its better to be clear. Bouket (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And then repeat it, cuz, man, some people are really stupid. They even think reactions to political movements can be expected to uncontroversial as often as they are not, and it is reasonable to expect them to to encounter no opposition (oh brother). That is, if we unforgivably forget that large scale movements are by definition born of and long attended by conflict (civil rights, anyone?). I, on the other hand, have a higher regard for the reader's intelligence than to pander to them as if they had just fallen off a turnip cart. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * im confused about what your point is. how do you think it should be improved? Bouket (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If horrible writing of the first paragraph doesn't jump out at you, then I would just let it go. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * can you offer improvements or are you just going to complain and expect others to fix it for you? Bouket (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at the top of this section for your answer. I can't have been clear, there and elsewhere in this section, of what is wrong with the paragraph. It has other issues, but bad logic and bad writing need to be fixed first. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk)

As the editor who split this article I am for returning it back now
It seems this is not going to work. I am requesting deletion of the page.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Denied, so everything is returned on the other page. Solid reasoning for this page to exist as a separate article means that the "crime"s section here cannot exist as doubled on the main article.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Reactions to Occupy Wall Street
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Reactions to Occupy Wall Street's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ArabSpring": From 2011 Azerbaijani protests:  From Occupy Wall Street: Tahrir Square protesters send message of solidarity to Occupy Wall Street by Jack Shenker and Adam Gabbatt The Guardian, Tuesday 25 October 2011 "Much of the tactics, rhetoric and imagery deployed by protesters has clearly been inspired by this year's political upheavals in the Middle East..." 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal discussion
A merge proposal discussion is underway here.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The merge didn't get consensus. See OWS article talk page. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No and it really wasn't expected to, however the discussion was fruitful.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of valid criticism
Somedifferentstuff's removal is now at the DR noticeboard here. Be— —Critical 22:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

becrit suggestion working draft
As a last ditch attempt to prevent mediation, I give you this! 완젬스 (talk) 05:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is my suggestion again. Take special note of the presidential candidates. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic, casting the demonstrators as "envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility."
 * The quote here violates WP:Weight. It comes from one, not so mainstream source. I support it's removal entirely. I would just use: "Conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic.."


 * Next I would put this:
 * On October 5, 2011, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh told his listening audience: "When I was 10 years old I was more self-sufficient than this parade of human debris calling itself Occupy Wall Street." Glenn Beck said on his internet television network GBTV, "Capitalists, if you think that you can play footsies with these people, you are wrong. They will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you. They will do it. They’re not messing around."


 * Everything about Hermain Cain, Mitt Romney, Eric Cantor, etc. should be removed because they are already discussed in the article. See the sections Congress and 2012 Presidential candidates here Reactions_to_Occupy_Wall_Street. Rick Santorum is not mentioned there so the material about him should be added to that section.


 * Next I would put:
 * A Tea Party group said the protesters want "a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don't have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills."


 * Lastly:
 * Matthew Continetti, writing for CBS, said that conservatives "dismiss the movement as a fringe collection of left tendencies, along with assorted homeless, mental cases, and petty criminals." Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

BeCritical suggestion divided into paragraphs for easier reading
Conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic, casting the demonstrators as a thoroughly marginal group. Andrew Hartman wrote in The Chronicle Review that "many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility."[1] Kate Zernike said in The New York Times that the Tea Party Patriots "portrayed Occupy protesters as freeloaders, or would-be freeloaders: 'Those occupying Wall Street and other cities, when they are intelligible, want less of what made America great and more of what is damaging to America: a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don’t have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills.'"[2]

Brian Montopoli, writing for CBS News said that "The conservative criticism of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that it is a "growing mob" (House majority leader Eric Cantor) of "shiftless protestors" (The Tea Party Express) engaged in "class warfare" (GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain) whose grievances - whatever they are - are far outside the political mainstream."[3] Matthew Continetti, also writing for CBS, said that conservatives "dismiss the movement as a fringe collection of left tendencies, along with assorted homeless, mental cases, and petty criminals."[4] "Conservatives [have tried to] define the Occupy protesters before the protesters define themselves.

Ed Morrissey, writing in The Week, insisted that the Occupy movement wants “seizures and redistributions, which necessarily means more bureaucracies, higher spending, and many more opportunities for collusion between authorities and moneyed interests in one way or another."[5] Linda Colley said in The Guardian "A prime reason for [the diffidence between Democratic and Republican responses to OWS] is suggested by some of the Republican attacks on Occupy. The demonstrators were "mobs", said Eric Cantor, the House minority leader. Occupy was waging "class warfare", claimed Mitt Romney, an accusation some Republicans also level at Obama. But it was a rival of Romney for the Republican nomination, Herman Cain, who voiced the criticism Democrats and demonstrators here fear most. Occupy, and those backing it, according to Cain, are "anti-American"."[6]

Douglas Rushkoff, in a special to CNN said that "Like the spokesmen for Arab dictators feigning bewilderment over protesters' demands, mainstream television news reporters finally training their attention on the growing Occupy Wall Street protest movement seem determined to cast it as the random, silly blather of an ungrateful and lazy generation of weirdos. They couldn't be more wrong and, as time will tell, may eventually be forced to accept the inevitability of their own obsolescence."

On October 5, 2011, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh told his listening audience: "When I was 10 years old I was more self-sufficient than this parade of human debris calling itself Occupy Wall Street."[7] Glenn Beck said on his internet television network GBTV, "Capitalists, if you think that you can play footsies with these people, you are wrong. They will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you. They will do it. They’re not messing around."[8][9] Newt Gingrich, said "All the Occupy movements starts with the premise that we all owe them everything. Now, that is a pretty good symptom of how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country and why you need to reassert something as simple as saying to them, go get a job right after you take a bath."[10][11][12][13] Rick Santorum also told the protesters to get jobs.[14]


 * As a former opponent to your changes, I will finally endorse certain parts of your proposal. For starters, I still disagree with the overall impact this will have on our encyclopedic article; but, I will give credit where credit is due, even if I have to take it in stride and while taking the conciliatory gesture of swallowing my bitterness associated with defeat. Here it goes:


 * I think you played the words fair in the opening statement by choosing "has sometimes been" which lacks authoritative attribution. You wisely left the door open that some exceptions are certain to exist. I also like "casting the demonstrators as a thoroughly marginal group". Who knew that anyone other than Amadscientist had the "artsy-fartsy" gift of eloquently putting conglomerate ideas into well-written sentences? It's very "clean" and well-written. You highly separate the voice of Wikipedia from the voice of its quoted statements. I also like how you ref-link The Chronicle while prefacing the conclusions which ANDREW HARTMAN (a non-specialty, out-of-expertise venturer) who is a historian of all things [which after second review, it is revealed Andrew Hartman is a historian and his specialization is education in the US. He is not a political scientist, so quoting a historian of education (whose opinion is published in an education magazine, not political magazine) for a topic on political science may be challenged] isocratically casts the "ingrates" term from an unassuming position that is not the formal position of a larger, more significant group. I approve of the way it is crafted because it eliminate the WP:Synth that somehow the tactile use of the word "ingrates" is no longer elevated as being official, mainstream, or widespread. I reluctantly agree with the prefaced use of the word "ingrates" to describe occupiers (including myself who has "occupied" a time or two). I feel no offense nor do I feel like I'm personally called an ingrate. Job well done...


 * Secondly, I especially like how you clarified the deepening of criticism in the third paragraph. You presented an increasing gradient of negativity among higher, middle, and lower Republicans (gauged by their negativity toward OWS) and illustrated to the reader that there are varying degrees of anti-OWS sentiment among republicans, culminating in Herman Cain's most dastardly abjection of scorn: that OWS protesters are un-American (which nothing could be further from the truth, see my "heartfelt essay" which I will save you the trouble of linking to it) which has proved to me that we see eye to eye on some things. I'm so glad you deem Herman Cain's assessment of OWS as "the worst" because objectively, subjectively it is so. I'm glad we agree on that, after you and I argued so much in the past.


 * Thirdly, you were able to somehow reconcile "the sting" I felt from Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Maybe it was how you put it in the 4th & final paragraph, rather than blind-siding the reader from out of nowhere. Either you received specialized assistance and/or training; or, you welcomingly mastered the stylistic prowess needed to achieve objectionable goals. Either way, I finally feel your contribution to compromising and writing a mutually tolerable insertion into the encyclopedic article which I very much do care about. I think that through all the steps you climbed, you were finally able to reach an amicable restructure which satisfied your objectives and satisfied your critics. That's the only way to "thwart" consensus is to earn consensus as you have now done. I have a couple minor quibbles which I will inconspicuously address on your talk page, but most importantly, I finally agree to the cumbersome changes you have made to your initial poison pill which has came a long way since March 13th and is now deservingly accredited as a job well done.


 * Thanks for crafting a mutually satisfactory piece of work. I just hope you understood my concerns about the article when I was so staunchly adversarial against your proposition, and that you saw this debacle from my point of view. It was never a battle over the content per se but, instead, it was a battle about the perceived "damage" that this reckless influx of toxic negativity would do to an otherwise, seemingly-halfway encyclopedic article. In the end, however, you abridged the chasm between us (which to others, may have been seen as an edit war) and proffered a relatively great piece of work which must have taken you hours & hours. For that, I'm grateful; and, for that, I'm willfully agreeable. Thanks, 완젬스 (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! You know I was never intent on destructiveness, to the article or movement.  I did understand your former concerns.  And I await your input on my talk page.   Be— —Critical  06:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Re your remark above, actually the paragraphs are fairly reasonable, and incidentally I first questioned the first source since I'd never heard of it, but then decided it was a good choice that added to the variety of sources. Anyway, the second paragraph is CBS, the third is global/UK, the fourth CNN, and then the fifth with Limbaugh, etc. I bracketed this "Conservatives [have tried to] define the Occupy protesters before the protesters define themselves because I was not sure how it fit in. Perhaps since this "version", posted by me, is not part of our "official" vote proposal, you could edit it as you see fit?  Gandydancer (talk) 07:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We went to great lengths with this. We even checked that first source out at RS/N . Also, the quote you mentioned ("Conservatives [have tried to] define...") is part of what we put in because Somedifferentstuff wanted it, and personally I think it should be removed.   Be— —Critical  08:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible removal of antisemitism paragraph
I would like to ask others if the stigma of antisemitism negatively affects the movement regarding Undue Weight because not all protesters are antisemitic, and the section is poorly written:


 * The protest has been criticized for tolerating anti-Semitic activists.[168] The Emergency Committee for Israel, a pro-Israel group, ran an ad condemning anti-Semitic remarks and calling on Obama and other political officials to do likewise.[169] The Anti-Defamation League called on the Occupy movement to condemn anti-Semitic remarks[170] and later acknowledged that "anti-Semitism has not gained traction more broadly with the protestors, nor is it representative of the larger movement at this time."[171] The ADL expressed concerns that anti-Israeli groups were attempting to "unite their cause with the Occupy Wall Street protests."[172] Other journalists have disputed allegations of anti-Semitism as not reflecting the movement as a whole.

Remember, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not WP:Truth or WP:Fringe factions. Oakland protesters wrecked city hall, but that doesn't mean the whole movement is violent, right? I think it's about time we had a sensible discussion about how much it hurts the movement to allow weasel wording to dance around the vague issue of antisemitism claims. 완젬스 (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The paragraph is POV because of the wording. It needs to be rephrased, and at this point we might not need to include it at all, it was a minor incident quickly put aside.  Be— —Critical  20:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I would be in favor of removing it. (Actually I thought we removed it long ago...) Gandydancer (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The higher-ups of my organization say "Thank you!" :-D 완젬스 (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Guys & gals, this is amazing. You have no idea how much facebook chatter there was about it being "impossible" to nonchalantly delete all the antisemitism stuff. If my edits stick, I could very well move up to a position of profound influence (i.e. media team) if my consensus-building has lead to elimination of this thorn in occupy's side. It seems like everyone is so protective about defending that "crime" be included to hurt the movement, that antisemitism has been "below the radar" even though that's what worries our donors the most. Here is the link for you guys: http://movementresourcegroup.org/ Anyways, I've got the funding donors' names listed for recognition purposes, plus that important paragraph mostly intact under 'funding' so I'll slip back under the radar until the next major NYtimes piece gets released. I wish I could share the congratulatory message I received from a member of the nycga but hopefully my excitement speaks for itself. I don't know what to say guys, I'm ecstatic not only about the movement, but also its message & its transformative impact upon society & our government. At the end of the day, I'm glad Wikipedians continuously believe in the movement and agree it's far from over. That's the only way a movement can last--if people believe it's ongoing, then it is. Now that we've got a fresh $300,000 (as opposed to $42,000 at the beginning of March) and a few simple conditions being met (e.g. new leaders, cooperation of the press to remove stigmas, favorable ows policies toward left-leaning goals, etc.) then we're about to rolling in another $1,500,000 easy cash. This month is definitely a turning point, and I hope my fellow editors are proud to be doing their part by cooperating with the positive message of the movement. All the movement needed to get off the ground (i.e. not be attached to a physical presence on the ground) was a million dollars worth of funding, which has happened this month. Thank you, Wikipedia. 완젬스 (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This talk page is not the place for you to be discussing your connections to OWS or what Facebook pages have to say about it. You have been asked more than once to stop it and I am again asking you to quit dragging editors into what OWS wants or does not want. If you do it again I'm going to ask an admin to give an opinion on what has IMO been going on for far too long. Gandydancer (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I can see my past post was a little too exuberant. I'm sorry for that. No need for threats, just a WP:Trout will suffice for next time. 완젬스 (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you need to cool it. Each time you do that it makes people take you less seriously.  And this is from a person who is currently militating against WP:COI.  But you're a poster child for COI being necessary.   Be— —Critical  20:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair criticism--I have invested so much time and part of myself into helping this movement that I can't help but express my enjoyment of success. This movement has been teetering & dithering which has caused a lot of supporters to give up hope, or turn jaded & dispirited. The work I've done on facebook mirrors much the same thing I do here. I stay positive, share my enthusiasm, and try to build others up. To me, that's a great position I fill if at times it can occasionally backfire, which it does. I apologize to you both, but I hope you realize I don't represent the movement. You guys do, and without EVERYONE working together to work together, then the fate I saw unfold at Facebook in December & January (infighting, divisiveness, entitlement) will start to happen here as well. I think we should all agree to some sort of pact to simply work through this temporary rough spot because in the end, there's way more to be gained than there is to be lost. Nothing good comes from what I see happening here in the last 24 hours. I'll put my best foot forward until we're all back up on our hopes & dreams & ideals. Salamat, 완젬스 (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I reintroduced it to the article, since, as was accurately pointed out, WP is about verifiability and there are verifiable, notable sources that have brought this issue up. Being in the Criticism section, it does not add undue weight to OWS, but presents a point that has been brought up and debated. --  Veggy  ( talk ) 17:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The thing here is that there are many things which achieve passing notability, but don't have staying notability. This was a flash in the pan, and is of no lasting significance.  A normal encyclopedia would never include it.  "Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion."  Be— —Critical  19:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "This was a flash in the pan, and is of no lasting significance" The subject of that sentence is confusing. If you mean the coverage of supposed antisemitism, the sources therein show that that is not the case. One of the major Jewish organizations in the country and major newspapers have covered it. Your argument would be valid if I tried to start an Allegations of Anti-Semitism in Occupy Wall Street article, but limiting the breadth of encyclopedic coverage to one paragraph in a peripheral article is well within the bounds seeing as I've carefully cited all the sources to avoid conflicts. Notability is not temporary and Wikipedia is not a regular encyclopedia. --  Veggy  ( talk ) 06:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And as noted above, it's POV. Trying to edit war a POV paragraph into the article over the objections of three editors can't end well.  You have the WP:BURDEN to convince people that the material should be included.  However, if you want to remove it to the talk page, we could discuss rephrasing it for eventual inclusion.  Be— —Critical  06:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how I've patiently and lucidly articulated the reasons without any rebuttal except the number of editors supposedly in agreement, I think I've met the burden, thanks. You're also running curiously close to a conflict of interest. And, yes, I already know you don't like it. --  Veggy  ( talk ) 06:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Conflict of interest? Why do you say that?  Be— —Critical  07:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on a visual survey of your editing history, you seem to be exclusively focused on Occupy-related articles. That, plus your evident affinity visible on your user page can lead someone to think you might not be here to build an all-around encyclopedia. --  Veggy  ( talk ) 07:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Look deeper. And my userpage is about copyright, an issue I seldom edit.  It just borrows some of OWS fame.  I'm not affiliated with OWS in any way.  Be— —Critical  07:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Including this info at this point is certainly not appropriate (for reasons already discussed). Gandydancer (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made it fairly clear why the information should be included. None of the arguments stated stand up to scrutiny based on Wikipedia's own policies. --  Veggy  ( talk ) 16:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Per my edit summary, if you want to pursue this you need to use some form of the WP:DR process. Best  Be— —Critical  20:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Misleading/incorrect edit summary Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  07:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The paragraph doesn't give the subject much weight. But most of it seems to be centered on pointing out that antisemitism is actually not a significant issue in the protests, which begs the question of whether it's worth including at all. Either way there seems to be only one person warring it in, when there's a consensus of three others who don't think it belongs. Veggy's edit summary, "Since no other editors are arguing this matter, there is no current consensus", is dubious since once consensus is established it's not reliant on who is currently discussing the matter, or else no consensus could ever hold for very long. Veggy is also certainly using Twinkle inappropriately for an ordinary content dispute. So, for all those reasons, I've reverted him. If Veggy still wants the paragraph included, he should try and convince others of its merit here first.  Equazcion  ( talk )  10:00, 12 Apr 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. We're giving page space to every last pop musician and blogger who has issued some blurb about OWS, but we won't countenance a comment by the Anti-Defamation League?  That seems questionable.  I opposed inclusion of a very different anti-Semitism paragraph added to the original OWS article, for different reasons, but so long as we're going all-out with a "reactions" article, it doesn't seem fit to forbid a neutrally worded reflection of this discourse.  It's my impression that the suggested wording is very careful to make clear that OWS protesters in general do not share the anti-Semitic views; yet the association was clear and these very notable complaints from very notable organizations are on record.  NPOV would seem to require inclusion.  Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 13:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a cause that people have attempted to tie with the movement (there have been a few), and whichever organizations became concerned acknowledged later what was really going on. That seems different than mentioning the reactions of notable people. This was more of an initial reaction to a false flag. Maybe that's worth including too, I don't know. I'm on the fence myself. Just trying to put it in perspective.  Equazcion  ( talk )  17:09, 13 Apr 2012 (UTC)
 * It might very well be worth a small paragraph on the slander attempt, but the organizations retracted it... in other words, it's ass backwards, it should start out "there was an failed attempt by X and Y to associate Occupy with antisemitism, however the attempt failed after..." I once looked up the sources on this, maybe I can find it in the archives.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  17:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, FWIW, the generic text you suggest, BeCritical, would be editorializing OR. Ditto if you mean to suggest the article could say something about a "slander attempt" by the ADL, without a source...  also not sure what to make of Equaczion's suggestion that this wasn't a "reaction[] of notable people".  Again, these groups are far more notable than a sizeable chunk of the random people whose "reactions" are reflected in the current "reactions" article.


 * BeCritical, what was that about a possible retraction? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 14:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Would not be OR if the sources say that, or if it is a description of what happened: I think you are sometimes too strict about how much latitude we have to summarize the course of events. I can't remember well enough, in a few days I may have some more time to sit down and look it up about what actually happened.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  21:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I should not have to tell you that without sourcing, yes, it absolutely would be OR — even if, in your personal opinion, it is an accurate "description of what happened". The first three sentences of WP:V, which is probably the most important of all WP policies, make that clear. (To help illustrate the problem inherent in the approach you suggest, which is actually forbidden by basic policy, I'll point out that in my own opinion, the prose you suggest is a highly POV-pushing and editorializing "description of what happened".)   Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 13:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, perhaps I wasn't clear enough in how I phrased that. But we can summarize what sources say in our own words, and that involves understanding the sources and portraying that understanding on WP.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  23:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Does one of the sources say that the complaints by ADL were a "slander attempt" or a failed "attempt to associate anti-Semitism" with OWS? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 12:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I am the one who removed the antisemitism section. Frankly, the reason it was removed is obvious enough that I don't have to spell it out to everyone. But, the "official reason" we wish to keep it out is due to fringe, undue weight, original research, verifiability, BLP, and various facebook reasons. There is no sense mentioning it on Wikipedia as it is already mentioned heavily on the web, on facebook, and in cited news sources. It would be too repetitive. If people want to read the antisemitism stuff on their own, they can google it. The policies here on Wikipedia are flexible enough for us to cite them, if we ever need to keep antisemitism off our article. I am a moderator on some of the OWS facebook pages, and I constantly flag/delete antisemitic comments. Everyone thinks Jews run wall street, and that Alan Greenspan & Ben Bernanke were both Jewish. People also try to copy/paste long lists of wealthy bankers on facebook (such as most CEO's of who received bailout money or TARP money and over 50% of them are jewish also). They also believe the current CEO of goldman sachs (Lloyd Blankfein) is also a Jew and average "occutards" (which we call the occupiers who have never graduated from college) simply point out the fact that all these people are truly jewish, but then the discussion turns into antisemitism & flame wars on facebook, which is what I do NOT want to ever happen here on Wikipedia. Fortunately, I want to thank the users like BeCritical and Equazcion who are defending its exclusion, and are using the arguments which I would recommend to scuttle this trojan horse offered to us by right wingers like Veggy, who I trust has only the best intentions. I hope this post clarifies our problem which we are trying to resolve in the occupy encampments, and the various message boards of NYCGA, facebook, and occupy-themed websites. I know this must be frustrating for people who are trying to include mention of antisemitism, but I'm confidently assured that most editors will minimize the connection between antisemitism and the occupy movement (if they allow anything at all). My apologies to Veggy, and I hope the truth I speak of is clear to you, so that you are able to be perceptive from now on about the politics & political correctness at play here, on this hotly protected article. There is a slew of policies such as fringe/undue weight/original research/verifiability/BLP/etc. which create a buffer zone of sorts to bog down the impetus of passionate editors such as yourself. It's just this way because of an election year, and after Nov 6th 2012 I will actually be the first person to reinsert the antisemitism stuff because it's inevitably the right thing to do. Thanks for your continued patience, tacit cooperation, and implicit understanding. 완젬스 (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "official reason"? It doesn't inspire much faith to imply that your real reason was because you feel it makes the movement look bad. I'm not a huge proponent of the paragraph either -- kind of undecided at the moment -- but only because it might be tangential/inconsequential. "using the arguments which I would recommend to scuttle this trojan horse offered to us by right wingers..." -- While I'm sure it does happen that people use policy-based arguments to defeat content they have a different interest in quashing, please don't imply that I'm doing anything so repugnant (and that you've incidentally implied is your own intention). I have no political interest in keeping this content out of the public's eye. I just want this to be a quality article. Furthermore your statements and behavior are so blatantly unhelpful to your image here that your explicit claims of ties to OWS strike me as a strawman sockpuppet situation (though not in the technical sense of a Wikipedia sockpuppet). If you're trying to make OWS look bad through your own actions, you're certainly making a good effort, even though I, for one, do not take you as a realistic example of OWS-ers in general.  Equazcion  ( talk )  19:06, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I assure you that what you think you know about me can be more readily explained by a more simple theory--that I've been having a really, really bad day. (as an aside, check out Occam's Razor which, in short, says that the hypothesis which makes the fewest assumptions and therefore offers the simplest explanation, is the best). If you check my talk page, I've earned barnstars for being a good Wikipedian. I have one for civility, one for humor (to help pro-OWS editors overcome their differences), and one for doing tedious ref-link error repairs. Can I ask you if you have any Asian friends? You may be having a culture mix-up of how honest, direct, and unabashed my wiki-etiquette presents itself. I've done major additions to the funding section. I've cleaned up the chronology/timeline lengthiness, and I've gone through diligent efforts to match the relevance of each section to the size/length of that section. In fact, we used to have trivia about how occutards recycle the water they brush their teeth with and grey_water-green_energy apparatus to convert wastewater into greywater. I've staunchly fought user:Dualus to not spam the page with Lawrence Lessig, the 99% declaration, and the Philadelphia convention. I've worked alongside Gandydancer to reach content compromises on issues like one-line quotes of disespoused commentators, the sentimental people's library, and helped in the resolution of many mother jones reliability discussions. I've poured my blood, sweat, and tears into this article and I have tremendous pride in my work. For this reason, I can be myself on the talk page; and, at the same time, it liberates me and frees me since I don't have to gain the acceptance of new-school editors such as yourself. If this is a popularity contest, then I concede my tone, style, and personality negatively affects me. However, several intelligent people can "read between the lines" and know my true colors. If you think I'm a strawman sockpuppet, then it shows how little I go out of my way to be popular/trendy. If, in fact, my inspiring leadership protects the OWS articles from antisemitism, then I accomplished my goal right underneath your nose. See Sleight of hand and have a great day! 완젬스 (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Massive textwall and not a relevant comment or policy rationale in sight. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 22:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okey all this personality poliitics aside aobou other editors is NPA...acussation as such should not be here becasue CONTENT should be discussed.
 * That said, the paragraph is POV. It mentions nothing of WHY the accusation was made yet vaguely suggests it has been "criticised for nanti-senmitism" that firt sentence certainly needs to go. The statement of allegeation needs to come in the front NOT buried at the bottom(Lihaas (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)).


 * 완젬스|완젬스, please be more careful about expressing motives, etc., as your own and not those of others that have worked on this article. Gandydancer (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)