Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/16 March 2012/Occupy Wall Street

What is the dispute?
The criticism section of the article, "Reactions to Occupy Wall Street".

What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?

 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street/Archive_25#CNN_block_quotations_undue_weight
 * 2) Talk page discussions 1
 * 3) Talk page discussions 2
 * 4) Dispute resolution noticeboard

What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute

 * How to provide due weight within the article to show neutral point of view will providing an informative and well-sourced section
 * NPOV
 * RS

What can we do to help resolve this issue?
Help mediate this process to completion, rather than the "losing party" try again in 6 weeks or say on the talk page "well since the issue has died down, I'm now re-proposing xyz" because that endless process never ends. Let's finally address npov, rs, and the policies which are relevant here under the supervision of uninvolved professionals who want to help us.

Mediator notes
Please sign just your username below, as well as Agree or Disagree, with four tildes (~) to indicate your agreement or disagreement with the ground rules and your participation in the case. These shouldn't be taken lightly. If you agree to these it is expected you will abide by them.
 * Please keep all comments focused on the mediation. Proper editing decorum must be maintained and, as such, incivility and personal attacks must not occur. I reserve the ability to archive, refactor or remove comments of such nature.
 * Try to keep an open mind in the case, and realise that sometimes, you need to give a little to get a little. Mediation is not possible without compromise as well as keeping an open mind.
 * When there are multiple issues that need to be addressed in a dispute (such as this one) only one particular issue or dispute is to be discussed at a time. Discussion that veers off course of the current topic may be archived at my discretion.
 * MedCab is not a formal part of the dispute resolution process, and cannot provide binding sanctions. Nevertheless, I ask that all of you agree to abide by the outcome of this case.

Agreement by participants to abide by ground rules
Be— —Critical 01:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation agenda

 * [0%] Step one—participants agree to the ground rules. Estimated completion: 19 March 2012. ✅
 * [10%] Step two—participants discuss problems with the disputed section and what can be done to improve it to Wikipedia standards, citing policies and sources. Estimated completion: 23 March 2012. ✅
 * [50%] Step three—discuss with the participants ways a dispute can be resolved from community participation or when there is a failure in discussions on talk pages. Estimated completion: 26 March 2012. ✅
 * [80%] Step four—revisit any remaining issues and review the finished section to prepare it for article placement. Estimated completion: 30 March 2012 ✅
 * [100%]: All done! Estimated completion: 14 days†

†This can only be done if all parties add this page to their watchlist and keep an eye on this mediation and participate as best they can to discussions.  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  01:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Administrative notes
Closed by Whenaxis (contribs) at 01:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
While I appreciate the mention, I'm afraid I'll need to ask for some further clarification of what the dispute is about? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 11:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's basically BeCritical wanting a bunch of toxic quotes cherry picked from the other side of the aisle included in the article, where those who oppose him want paraphrasing only, rather than have the exact quote spelled out like this:


 * Since to achieve his ends, he has to use unreliable shock-jock blogs such as medialite and has to stretch every rule under the sun (such as WP:Quote & WP:Synth among others) and has to escalate the issue from the talk page to drn (where they spoon-fed him a compromise by uninvolved editors which he flatly rejected) and after failing 4 times to get consensus, this is hopefully the finish line. To me, it's about principle that we join amadscientist's fight (who has became exhausted and worn out by this issue) for the same reason we stood up against user:Dualus last November. I did not participate in the last DRN where he still failed, although now I'm the only viable contender for a wiki-defender's barnstar after this battle of waterloo is won or lost. 완젬스 (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC) (withdrew on day 2)


 * You're certainly doing a nice job of Glenn-Rushing me. I did not put that source in, originally, although I did fix the reference. I'm not sure what people will think of the Beck quote when coming from MSNBC, however .  I think whether to include it or not depends on the notability of Beck himself, and whether this is in fact a quote which someone -not me- cherry picked or whether it is his considered opinion.  He does look pretty notable to me and the quote is not out of line with his other statements.  I did not write or source all of that paragraph.  What I did is add what are probably the best sources.  And again, not fair to tell me to use quotes instead of a summary, and then complain about all the quotes.  Or the length.   Be— —Critical  18:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to confess I don't see the harm regardless of which way this dispute comes out. Generally, though, I lean towards inclusion of anything relevant that (a) can be given mainstream and sourcing, and (b) doesn't disrupt a well-maintained balance of viewpoint. I don't think (b) has ever applied to anything regarding OWS; it's too unwieldy to balance, and thus the result has been a kitchen-sink approach, with most of the thoughtful effort being devoted to organizing the mass of material that's included.

Thus, since Glenn Beck is a fixture in the mainstream (despite having views I generally consider as borderline-fringe), why not quote him? Or, to reiterate, what's the harm if he's quoted instead of paraphrased? And, not for nothing, but how would one go about paraphrasing a bombastic comment like that, anyway? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 23:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @Factchecker_atyourservice: I'm happy that you have expressed interest in this mediation. However, I'd like all parties to agree to the before engaging in discussions. After you have done so, feel free to continue your contributions to this page.
 * @All: So this is where we're at, Becritical wants to add this:


 * What are some problems with this and what would you like to see changed? Cite Wikipedia policies and sources to support your opinion. One problem that's already arisen is the line with Glenn Beck.
 * @Becritical: Can you explain the quote's importance in the context and why it should be from Glenn Beck (what is his importance and affliation with Occupy Wall Street?)  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  01:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * [inserted out of turn] Pardon me; what ground rules? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 14:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Beck is a notable right wing figure so I think his view belongs in the criticism section. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is my suggestion. Take special note of the politicians. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:54, 17 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. Any additional material should be added to those sections.


 * 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) 01:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I already addressed the "undue weight" objection: the source is WP:MAINSTREAM, that is, a more scholarly source than, say, a mainstream news outlet. Also, the gist of the sentence is supported by many sources. Thus I disagree with you that this source which gives us a generalization, is used in an UNDUE way, because all the other sources back it up and there is no source giving any counterclaim, and it is in accord with common sense/knowledge and the quotations. I think the other parts of what you're saying have a lot of merit, but what we would need to do is to eliminate the criticism section altogether. If the criticism section remains, all or most of the material belongs there. Otherwise it could be spread throughout the article. But let me ask you this: where else in the article would we discuss the general conservative reaction to OWS versus individual reactions? Be— —Critical 05:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "a more scholarly source than, say, a mainstream news outlet." According to whom???
 * Regarding the politicians, the article already has sections dedicated to them, as I linked to above, so additional material should be added to those sections. See: Reactions_to_Occupy_Wall_Street. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The source is a) a news source like any other with b) the added reliability of being academic. The rest of my post you didn't answer. Be— —Critical  18:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @Factchecker_atyourservice: The ground rules that are under the "Mediator notes" header located here: . Just read the section and add yourself to the section immediately below it called "Agreement by participants to abide by ground rules".
 * @Becritical and @Somedifferentstuff: Did you try asking the reliability sources noticeboard whether the source is reliable or "mainstream"?  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  23:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, you want me to do that? Be— —Critical  23:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it won't hurt to try! Let's see what comes out of that and if there are any remaining issues, we can discuss those at this time.  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  23:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to the discussion on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard - RSN. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks. Just awaiting the outcome of that.  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  19:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So this is a good time to discuss with you, appropriate forums to bring your disputes to. A good place to start, if you don't know where to bring your dispute after talk page discussions have died down, your dispute should either be brought to third opinion (for disputes between two editors) or bring it to the dispute resolution noticeboard (for disputes between any number of editors). Also, take a look at a list of noticeboards that you can solicit help from. Or, if you've got different ideas on what to add, a request for commments will get the community to look at your proposals and vote on which one they support. So in the future, instead of leaving disputes on the talk page to boil, bring it to the areas mentioned in the previous sentences, like you did with this dispute. Good job! Regards,  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  20:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL, thanks. People complain when I take it off the talk page, so I'll refer to your post in the future :D  Be— —Critical  20:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. Use it anytime. :P  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  20:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

RS/N result
Maybe others will have a different take, but if I were to summarize the discussion at RS/N I would say:


 * 1) Chronicle Review is an excellent source. "It has a solid reputation and it's more academic than the main Chronicle publication but it's still not "academic" in the sense of being peer-reviewed."  But the quotation should be attributed.
 * 2) Andrew Hartman is an historian and his specialization is education in the US.
 * 3) Andrew Hartman previously published the book "Education and the Cold War: The Battle for the American School" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), and is currently writing a book entitled "A War for the Soul Of America: A History of the Culture Wars, From the 1960s to the Present" to be published by the University of Chicago Press. This last seems to me to be very close to the topic of OWS.
 * 4) The Chronicle Review often has articles by experts, and my guess is that they thought Hartman an expert appropriate to the subject.

Be— —Critical 20:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Overall, the paragraph that wants to be added by Becritical is excellently sourced as determined from this RSN discussion. Based on the opinion that The Chronicle Review is a reliable source, would this dispute be resolved and the entire context can be added to the article, Reactions to Occupy Wall Street? If not, Becritical, just for safekeeping, can you work on toning down the opening sentence on the criticism from conservatives and the quote that has been taken out from the source.  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  20:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll try and present an alternate version tomorrow. Be— —Critical  02:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm realizing I already presented alternate versions. The summary version was criticized as not giving enough attribution and people wanted me to make a draft where every word was sourced. The quotation version was not criticized as heavily: it includes very specific attribution. The main criticism I think by Strad, was that it was too long. However, considering the prominence of the sources and subjects, I think it may deserve the space per WEIGHT. I also presented a medium version between the two, in response to the criticism that the quotations were too long. So here is a new version of the first two sentences which at least makes the first one more general and moderate:

Conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic, casting the demonstrators as a thoroughly marginal group [not OR, this comes from "outside the mainstream"]. 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. As a widely distributed statement by one Tea Party group put it, demonstrators 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.""

If we portray the sources accurately, there's no getting away from actually showing readers of what the vitriol consisted. Be— —Critical 20:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Somedifferentstuff, what are your thoughts? All good? Regards,  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  20:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I put in the sentence here. Be— —Critical  20:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You need to post the paragraph you want to include so we can look at it here. I'm fine with using Andrew Hartman as long as it is attributed to him. We have quite a bit more work to do. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All the different versions are possible. I will post the one which sticks most closely to the RS.  Be— —Critical  22:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Somedifferentstuff, it looks like everything is good and he did attribute him. If there are no other issues to be mediated, we can wrap this up. Regards,  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  22:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Whenaxis, that's nice what you did with the "notes" Be— —Critical  23:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a little trick I have. :)  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  01:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Breaking it down
Quotation version

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." 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.'" 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." 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." Linda Colley said in The Guardian "A prime reason for this diffidence 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"." 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." 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." 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." Rick Santorum also told the protesters to get jobs.

So this is what we have (WORK IN PROGRESS)

'''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." 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." One tea-party group, the Tea Party Patriots, issued a statement that said in part, "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.”  Writing in The Week, Ed Morrissey "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.'"

For the third sentence there is a problem.

As a widely distributed statement by one Tea Party group put it, demonstrators 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." This violates WP:Plagiarism as it's the exact sentence taken from the article.

I think this should read: A widely distributed statement by one Tea Party group was that demonstrators 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." If there is agreement on this we can move on to the next sentence. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You're not reading it properly because it's not formatted right. It's all one quote.  But it needs single quotation marks.  I'll change it.  Be— —Critical  00:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

So here that is.

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. As a widely distributed statement by one Tea Party group put it, demonstrators 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.'"

I think this needs paraphrasing or we can change it using my earlier suggestion. I need to head out shortly but I'll definitely check back in tomorrow. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to use the summary version if you prefer. Be— —Critical  01:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some invalid tags with that one. Can you check that out Becritical? Otherwise, Somedifferentstuff, it's an entire quote that's been pulled out of "The Chronicle Review", by Andrew Hartman, so I don't think it's possible to paraphrase it more than it is without summarizing it (like Becritical's summary version). Regards,  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  01:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Be— —Critical  01:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I prefer to use a full quote regarding "a bigger more powerful government." Here is the source:. The sentence would be:

One tea-party group, the Tea Party Patriots, issued a statement that said in part, "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.” Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Becritical, can you work that into the "Quotation version"?  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  21:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done . I also included the RS's characterization of the statement, which added a few words onto the quote. Be— —Critical  22:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added the sentence above (WORK IN PROGRESS) Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The draft we're working with is here. I don't agree to the quote without the context from the source. I added it above.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  22:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah... this is what we got: (Everything looks good to me) Somedifferentstuff, what do you think?  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  22:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer the previous so I've changed that back. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's just use the working version above and Becritical can keep the other version updated, instead of placing that text at the bottom of the talk page. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree to promoting the Tea Party . The RS gave context and the generality of how conservatives have portrayed OWS is the point of the paragraph.  Let's accurately portray what the source is saying, not what the Tea Party wants out there.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  23:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To portray accurately what the tea party is saying is to provide a direct quote of what the tea party is saying. The point of the criticism section is to provide information from critics of the movement, NOT to spin it in a way that makes critics look bad, which is POV pushing. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We aren't trying to accurately portray what the Tea Party says, we are trying to accurately portray what the reliable sources say. We aren't trying to provide information on what the critics of the movement say, we are trying to provide an accurate representation of  how the reliable sources say OWS has been portrayed.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  23:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then this is from the same source and needs to be incorporated as well. "Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey declared Monday, “If you told the Occupy Wall Street people and the Tea Party people that they are the same, they would hit you.” Not quite. But Tea Party activists are indeed fighting the comparisons. “They seem to be more in favor of anarchy than they are in favor of working out problems through the Constitution,” Jenny Beth Martin, a co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, said about the Occupy forces." Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't there one quote that overall summarizes this situation? (i.e. This one that is already being used in Becritical's version: "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.'" "). Somedifferentstuff, sometimes you need to compromise (give a little to get a little), Becritical has been obliging to everything that you have requested thus far, I think that this version Becritical has right now (the one up there) is absolutely fine the way it is. Regards,  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  23:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is from the L.A. Times: "Conservatives continue to assail the movement and dispute a building media narrative that has likened it to the rise of the tea party. The group Tea Party Patriots released a statement Tuesday contrasting the grass-roots effort it represents with the liberal protests. Tea party adherents, said the group’s co-founder Jenny Beth Martin and Mark Meckler, “don’t believe corporations are inherently evil, nor should bankers be beheaded. They do not believe this country should be divided by class, but united in a return to the principles that undergird our nation’s success.  In fact, they want more of what made America great: more Constitutional restraint on government so that the people have more freedom to achieve the good things the country offers. “By contrast, 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.”" Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't need an endless amount of quotes because that'll be too overpowering and no longer provide due weight. Are we all fine with including all the quotes Somedifferentstuff just used?  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  00:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's another section contrasting OWS with the Tea Party. The subject of this paragraph is "How do RS say conservatives have portrayed OWS."   We should keep it focused on the subject.  So no: we can include his previous suggestion as long as it is part of our theme, which means including the "portrayed Occupy protesters as freeloaders" part.  But the other suggestions seem off-topic, and if included would also present an NPOV problem, because including them would seem to be shilling for the Tea Party.  Again, our subject is not "what do conservatives think of OWS" but "How do RS say conservatives have portrayed OWS."  There are sufficient sources that we may answer that specific question.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  00:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then we need to be careful and be sure to look at a wide variety of sources, some which may and some which may not include inflammatory material regarding what conservatives think. I'll do some research tomorrow and report back. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You cannot just pummel the reader with 10 reliable sources that say the same thing nor can you have 10 reliable sources that say different things. You have to have the ability to decipher and select premium quality sources that have excellent quotes from well-known people, as well as, representative of the entire conservative population not just a few people. Regards,  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  01:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This is from the NY Times article and is something that can be included: "Conservatives are trying 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.”" Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good one. Not sure why you presented it, as it's about as inflammatory as the others.  However, the quotations from Rush "The Mouthpiece of the Right" Limbaugh and Hannity and Gingrich et al are pretty representative.  They are much more representative than blogger Ed Morrissey.  But I have no objection to putting it in, it's a good one.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  03:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It has more depth than saying "anti-American" or whatever. I'll add it to the work in progress but we can discuss later where its final placement should be. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best to not include quotes from unknowns as we have had a lot of flack about bias in the article and that may make it appear that we're digging deep to find negative quotes. Gandydancer (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. And the most relevant point is that the way Somedifferentstuff included in his preferred version, it is not giving further context.  He left out the full quote which is "Conservatives are trying 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.”"  Looking at it now, we might not want to include that because it's dated.  I didn't mind including the full quote, but definitely not if it fails to address the subject of the paragraph "How do RS say conservatives have portrayed OWS."    Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  15:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with using the full quote and the NY Times is a good source. Regarding "unknowns", we would then need to discuss Andrew Hartman, who doesn't have his own article, while Ed Morrissey does. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Added Limbaugh and Beck. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Section break
Yes. I'd like to say again that we should use quotes from notable people (well-known people), not who's-that-person type of quote. Use only quotes that are representative of the entire population of Conservatives, not just a few. And use only quotes that are from high quality sources (which you've been doing, so that's good) Remember that and we'll be well on our way. :) Whenaxis (contribs) 20:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, if we want to keep the volume down and only use representative quotes or quotes from very notable people, we should probably leave out the NYT quote Somedifferentstuff suggested above. But I leave it up to your judgment as I don't really care.  Gandydancer feels it shouldn't be there.  Somedifferentstuff says above "Regarding "unknowns", we would then need to discuss Andrew Hartman, who doesn't have his own article, while Ed Morrissey does."  The entirely misses the point: we judge the notability of quoted individuals such as Gingrich or Rush; those are our examples.  When we're not using examples, we're directly answering the question "How do RS say conservatives have portrayed OWS" in which case we judge the notability of the source, not the author.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  01:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you see Somedifferentstuff's new version, up there? If you are fine with that addition to your version, then we can merge both ideas together and put it into the article now. Whenaxis (contribs) 01:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Done, I added his quote to the text below . Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  06:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Final draft
Okay, I incorporated the quote and I'm posting the version below for final approval.

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." 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.'" 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." 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." "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." 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"." 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." 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." 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." Rick Santorum also told the protesters to get jobs.

Continuation
We're not close to being finished.

This is what we have so far.

'''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." 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." One tea-party group, the Tea Party Patriots, issued a statement that said in part, "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.”  Writing in The Week, Ed Morrissey "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.'"

What is the next sentence you'd like to add? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll let the mediator deal with it. That is not what we have so far, that's what you want so far.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  05:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and make changes to this material and if there is disagreement we'll discuss it. After that we can move on to the next sentence you'd like to add. Don't rush this process. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll see what the mediator has to say.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  05:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Somedifferentstuff, you can`t just rework and restart what Becritical has already worked really hard on. We`ve already got something up there and you can put your additions with Becritical`s if you wish and let`s see what it looks like. Is that okay with everyone, we don`t have to go sentence by sentence when we already have the majority of the context created already. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 19:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that what Somedifferentstuff is trying to do and what I am trying to do is fundamentally different. He is trying to give voice to the Conservative POV, saying "The point of the criticism section is to provide information from critics of the movement."  I am trying to give voice to the RS description of the Conservative portrayal (a wider focus than only giving the Conservative POV).  Most RS are not highly conservative because they are more academic, and thus the Conservative POV is a  WP:FRINGE view.  What you do with FRINGE views is to make sure you accurately represent them, but you put them in full context- whatever context the reliable sources give them.  To focus on the FRINGE quotations or POV rather than RS descriptions or to present FRINGE quotations without the context offered by the RS is fundamentally against Wikipedia policy.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  19:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Somedifferentstuff, do you understand and have you read WP:DUE thoroughly? In order to see each other eye-to-eye, the two of you have the understand what Wikipedia policies and guidelines are applicable to this situation and work from that. We have excellent reliable sources, we just need to take quotes that weigh adequately what the entire criticism for the Occupy Wall Street protests say and not just a specific group. Furthermore, Becritical has a lot of time formulating context to be placed into the article. Perhaps, we can add Somedifferentstuff's version into what Becritical has already? Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 20:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't this section that's already in the article sufficient enough? Why do we need extra quotes to provide undue weight to the article? Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 20:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I tried to do that, was it okay? I didn't give specific attribution for that quote because Kate Zernike is already specifically attributed above, but that could be changed. As far as I can see the rest of his suggested text is also already somewhere in the paragraph.  I think that the Right Wing reaction to OWS is very notable as shown by all the sources above.  It was huge, and certainly readers would expect that we would have a discussion of it.  If you look at the section that is currently in the article, you see that there is nothing which gives an overview of the Conservative reaction/portrayal of OWS.  That reaction is very notable in the National discussion.  The paragraph I'm trying to insert is only part of what should be there: we need an overview of how Conservatives tried to portray OWS, and also further discussion of Conservative ideas about OWS (and by contrast note all the space given to the barely-notable local reactions).  But it's hard to write such things because of opposition.  But I do believe that per WEIGHT we would need more than what I'm proposing, not less.  Per this.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  20:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

If were not going to go thru it sentence by sentence, then I'm done here. Becritical now needs to bring the paragraph over to the talk page and see if he can get some form of consensus to add it. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, we'll put two versions on the talk page for voting. Somedifferentstuff's version up there (in the bolded text) and Becritical's version here. I will open a request for comments to garner community consensus for which version they prefer and reasons why. I will close this mediation case after I open a RfC on the talk page. Don't worry—I will continue to monitor this dispute during the course of the RfC and hopefully, it will be resolved after the RfC. Are the both of you okay with this? Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 23:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're going to put in the bolded text above as a standalone introductory paragraph? It sounds fine to me, yes. People from the general community who haven't been through all the sources and the discussion will feel that neither one is NPOV, so hopefully you can give some sort of rundown of why the text is the way it is.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  23:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, for sure... I'll give a little intro on improving the "Criticism" section to include due weight towards conservatism and why we need the rest of the criticism that isn't already provided in the article. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 00:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Closing Statement
This case is now closed and a RfC has been opened on the talk page. In the future, do exactly as you did for this dispute: discuss on the talk page, bring it to the dispute reoslution noticeboard when there is no productivity on the talk page and if necessary, you can make a RfC yourselves like I did for this dispute to see which version the community prefers. I'll be keeping an eye on the RfC and monitoring its progress. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 01:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)