Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Crime section labled "Security concerns"

A NPOV/n disussion led to a suggestion by an admin to allow the material for now and call it simply "Security" concerns. The compromise meant that the article would include a segregated section on negatives and the article would be reassessed as C rated. The Compromise was due to a filibuster of one member while all others editors were in agreement to at least place it within the Zuccotti Park section. But it was not an agreement that locked that section in place or even with the exact name. A concern is a point of view. Police and security or security alone is neutral. Police inormation needs to be expanded here a bit.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, perhaps because I don't understand how ratings work. I thought that security was a good idea. I agree that security/violence should be included. I don't see that so much as negative/positive information. Why don't you try something that seems to make sense and we'll see how it reads? Gandydancer (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to bring this up again. Then bring it up again. It has been discussed several times.Racingstripes (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy for us to have a fresh start on this question also. Like it or not, there are bad apples in our movement which need to be briefly mentioned. Luckily, they will be relegated to the "cityxyz" articles, rather than on the Occupy Movement article, which keeps the message from being detracted by drama makers like the black bloc in Oakland. 완젬스 (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What the outcome was of the discussions is what is important. Consensus has agreed and, I am not just "willing to live with it" but agree the section should remain as long as it incorporates all relevent and notable police actions (by consensus). Otherwise it is merely segregating a large chunk of negative information. As far as the title, there is NO consensus for it and there never was. THAT was the compromise... and a reduction in rating based on similar articles all being a C class. "Conern" is POV. "Security" alone as the subsection title is more neutral, encyclopedic and follows MOS for titles. We are trying to work with you. But you, in turn need to work with others.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agreed to compromise, but it seems that whenever I do that there is a wait, then an attempt reduce the section more. I agree to a compromise again then more of the section is cropped and altered again. Now that a compromise was agreed on, yet again, there another attempt to reduce and alter the section. This has been discussed and disputed and compromised. If there is a need to discuss it again then it should bring it up at an appropriate noticeboard again.Racingstripes (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Compromise has not been altered drasticly and changes conform to guidelines. You seem strongly opposed to anyone editing this section just because we compromised on your dispute. The section is still intact, segregated as you wanted and the title still has the term "security", but there are going to be changes to stick to consensus such as the block quote that was undue weight. Simply put...we all have the right to edit that section. If you feel something is being done in a manner that is diruptive or goes against the spirit of Wikipedia or the DR process, by all means disuss it. But, to continue to simply revert an edit that is supported by guidelines in the edit summary and complain that people are editing the section again...is disruptive and edit warring and is not a part of anything I agreed to.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

One editor cannot claim that an entire section cannot be edited or does not need to stay within guidelines or the consensus of editors. The DR process is not for "freezing" the section from further work and are not binding. Take this further up the DR line sir if you do not agree or attempt to gain consensus, but i have stated guidelines and plicy and you just keep falling back on the compromise itself as if it is ther only thing to consider. The compromise was not broken until you changed the title back to the POV title that was in dispute. That isn't how it works. If it was we would be back to deleting the section. If you wish to keep on this track of reverting than it may well be a troll magnet not worthy of inclusion to this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, by separating the movement from its individual cities, we get to avoid having any mention of crime as part of the movement article. Have you not considered this strong benefit, Amad? 완젬스 (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Gandydancer's recent edits made the section much better, and the heading is also better. B^e——C_ritical 22:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't like that. It seems like a double negative now. Why it's also just giving a single editor both title they wanted and ignores the dispute. However...if this does stand (and frankly this is something i can live with as a C article) it does at least allow mention of the crimes commited by the protests themselves. Mass arrests would certainly be a part of a crime section such as the Brooklyn bridge protest.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

At first I was all for getting rid of "Crime" and using "Security concerns". Reading comments and further thinking, I have decided that to name the section "only" Security concerns would not fully cover the section and I used them both. I can't buy Scientist's idea that it's not a crime till it has had a conviction (if I understood him correctly). We've been discussing this for weeks now--or at least it seems that way--and I thought I'd put it out there and see what happened. Gandydancer (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Gandy, Wikipedia can't make any claim it wants. We as editors have to give and take while sticking to certain aspects for reasons of liablity. We cannot make claims not supported by a solid reference. While many people see "Crime" as the act itself, it still requires some since of fairness to understand that "allegation" is not a proper use here and that if we simply label something as a crime then it is being read as a crime. One cannot make the classification of a crime in an encyclopedic and neutral manner. It is labeling an act as such without. Simply put, for our use here, a crime falls under what someone has been proven to have commited and reporting a "crime" is not actual crime. Being arrested does not mean a crime has been commited.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality in header title

_{Do not change these RFCs. While these may seem redundant, these are three RFCs to three separate areas and another editor has no right to manipulate the other editors requests.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)}

Is it neutral to title a section in this article as Goal or Goals if there is no reference that shows a set goal or goals or most refernces and research cannot conclude such? Is this misleading the reader to believe the "goals" are not disputed? Even the very document put out by the official website shows that their page for goals is everchanging as it is "open source" and stipulates at the end that it is not all inclusive.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Argument 2: There are multiple highly reliable sources enumerating multiple goals [1][2]. It is misleading to state that there is only one goal. Also, to the extent that the movement is not unified, using the singular "Goal" is not NPOV because it indicates that the movement is entirely cohesive as to its goal. B^e——C_ritical 23:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it misleading the reader to suggest either Goal (singular) or Goals (plural) are set, when this is ever changing and the article is suggesting that they are not in dispute. Should this simply be title "Varying Goals" in the plural, making it clear in the title that the protest has no conclusive goals. To say as much with one reference and ignoring the rest seems dishonest and not neutral at all.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence reads The protesters want, in part, more and better jobs, more equal distribution of income, bank reform, and a reduction of the influence of corporations on politics.[24][25]. That sounds like "Goals" to me. I think that the section makes it clear that the goals vary. Even those that won't specify a particular goal have a goal of letting it be known that they are protesting present government policy, which consists of many wrong policies. Gandydancer (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

So...if the section makes it clear that the goals vary from one group to another, than the title should spell that out.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Gandy, I just found that quote from the Bloomberg article about that subject...and its not referring to a "Goal" but a "message" and...that is a copyright infringment as it lifts entire section s from the article. I am very concerned about the amount of copyright issues I am finding.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Christian Science Monitor which is indeed a highly reliable source does not enumerate multiple goals. It doesn't speak to goals at all. A target is not a goal and the closes thing the article comes to is in regards to Glass Steagal and says: "This is one of the areas where the aims of Occupy Wall Street overlap with some in the tea party movement – and GOP presidential candidate and Texas Congressman Ron Paul." But it isn't worded to state what the "aim" is. Synthesis.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does, that's why they are numbered. I'll give you the first goal mentioned: "the guilty parties should be prosecuted." B^e——C_ritical 01:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This article [3] refers to targets. "Top 5 targets of Occupy Wall Street".--Amadscientist (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Another editor has attempted to "prop" up synthesis and original research in a manner to promote this cause innappropriatly. They stated as fact that the Christian Science monitor has numbered goals when in fact only the title has numbers and it is for "Targets". This editor went so far as to use a partial quote suggesting it was the first numbered aim or goal. It is not the source states clearly "The protesters say that the unstable nature of the credit default swap market must have been known to those involved and that the guilty parties should be prosecuted." That is not a goal of the protest and is synthesizing the information to prop up the section.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Wolf criticism removed

BeCritical, what's wrong with aljazeera for a source? Gandydancer (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing, but this is Alternet. I doubt Wolf's comments are notable, but I didn't remove them, as they're sourced to Al Jazeera [4]. B^e——C_ritical 01:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed an Aljazeera source, but not because it wasn't relaible, but that it simply repeated almost verbatum a Gaurdian UK article that couldn't be used to source a claim as fact, but the claim had another reference that used the Gaurdian as a basis for a more neutral article. But that wasn't one you placed it popped up over a different issue.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I thought that Be removed aljezeera because it was pulled from Alternet. By memory I thought Wolf's piece was from the Guardian. Someone stepped in and removed the whole shebang and for a change I think we all agree to that without further discussion! Gandydancer (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(: B^e——C_ritical 19:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Middle Class v/s Working Class

Someone deleted additions/changes I made to this article and I'd like to know why. Let's discuss and figure out a compromise.

First Point: It is disputed that households earning under $100,000 annually are middle class; they should be considered working class. I'd like a little clarity on what is meant by middle class. From a Marxist standpoint, middle class has always signified some degree of affluence. Households earning under $100,000, unless a single adult, should not be considered middle class/affluent. Middle class means affluent (rich with a little "r", if you will).

Second Point: In any case, there should be mention made of the damaging effects of wealth concentration and inequality on the working class and the poor. Only the middle class has suffered according to the article. It is my position, that it is not possible to suffer economically if you are middle class . . . unless you have dropped down into the working class (which includes the poor).

Josephwaters (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I looked up Working class, but don't see any particular income range... However this source says "What they all share in common is a feeling that the youth and middle class are paying a high price for mismanagement and malfeasance by an out-of-touch corporate, financial and political elite." The source for this edit does not seem to be up to WP:RS standards. Same with this. However, here there doesn't seem to be a source which specifically says "middle class," and thus if you can find an WP:RS source which defines middle class we might change it. B^e——C_ritical 01:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Here ya go Joseph. At fist I didn't agree with this assessment until looking at the sources and one states: "White suburban protesters were free to indulge their indignation because they were largely unperturbed by financial issues. Most were affluent, or at least middle-class, and upward mobility was a birthright. People feared the cops, the draft, authority figures in general—we didn’t fear unemployment." And : "Economically, the U.S. is a different country than it was in 1970—and it will remain so regardless of how long the Occupy Wall Street protests endure. In the America of the early postwar decades, economic progress and a plenitude of jobs were axiomatic. Today they are not. Then, blue-collar jobs in steel, autos, machinery, and similar industries lifted families into the middle class; today, new workers at General Motors are hired at $29,000 a year, and even people with college degrees are hurting. Median household income, adjusted for inflation, is no higher today than it was in 1989. During the just-ended economic cycle (ending before the bust), median income actually fell. Capitalism may have triumphed in China—even in Vietnam—but in America it’s in a quagmire. This is what has brought the protesters to Wall Street.

" http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/occupy-wall-street-its-not-a-hippie-thing-10272011_page_2.html

Change away! --Amadscientist (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You may make any change you wish Joseph as long as it is done within the guidelines of Wikpedia. I don't suggest this page as an example of a Wiki article that stays within policy and guidelines. This article is a huge mess right now.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I may make a change or at least a small addition. I will try to familiarize myself with the Wikipedia guidelines more before I do. I just do have a beef, partly ideological I admit, with the flippant use of the term "middle class" in the U.S. I think it's very misleading. Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on Middle Class that illustrates what I mean:

"A persistent source of confusion surrounding the term "middle class" derives predominantly from there being no set criteria for such a definition. From an economic perspective, for example, members of the middle class do not necessarily fall in the middle of a society's income distribution. Instead, middle class salaries tend to be determined by middle class occupations, which in turn are attained by means of middle class values. Thus, individuals who might fall in the middle ground on a societal hierarchy as defined by sociologists do not necessarily fall into a middle ground on an economic hierarchy as defined by economists. As a result, intuitive colloquial and journalistic usage of the term casts a wide net and does not necessarily coincide with an academic sociological or economic definition."

Josephwaters (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Another Wikipedia article is not a good example but...you may change that as well! Wikipedia is an open source encyclopedia, and while it can be difficult to gain sufficiant knowledge to feel comfortable editing...please know that NO mistake you make will be held against you (not by editors who understand this guideline). Find a good solid source (understanding what is considered a relaible source for Wikipedia is of utmost importance...but not a difficult thing to grasp at all!) and be sure and format the reference correctly (no bare urls please). If you wish, you can look on my Userpage (just click my name) and go to the blue bar that says "my cheat sheet" and you will find a number of formatted inline citations to use next to the claim. fill in the information from the relaible source you are using and place it directly next to the claim you are editing in. Always use original wording and DO NOT paraphrase as that could be troublesome as well. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on my talk page. If you need a mentor to help there are several editors who can "adopt" you to guide you in learning the ropes! Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user[5]. I highly recommend this to new users as it can save you a great deal of aggrevassion and heartache!--Amadscientist (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Amadscientist! This is going to be fun! Josephwaters (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course we do use paraphrasing, we just don't use close paraphrasing see WP:PARAPHRASE. B^e——C_ritical 20:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, something that can save you some time is to be sure and look at the disclaimers on the tops of pages you are directed to or land on that may appear to be guidline pages. If it is a Wikipedia policy or guidline it will say so at the top of the page by staing something to the effect "This page documents a policy of the English Wikipedia" while other pages are simply editors who are giving advice and are called "essays". Anyone may write a full essay page. Some use large doses of humor and others take a straight forward aproach similar to a policy page, however "Essays" are not binding policy or guidleines, just one or more editor opinions or interpretations and they are not always correct. For example one editor here insists that Paraphrasing is acceptable, however this may simply be a misinterpretation of what "paraphasing" is to them. The best source is always the main policy or guideline page like this Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Jimbo Wales, one of the co-founders of Wikipedia has stated that as editors, we should NOT be paraphrasing, but summarizing the facts with original wording.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Josephwaters, I'm sorry to have to say this, but I will because you are a new user: Amadascientist has many incorrect interpretations of Wikipedia policy, and you would be best served by finding another editor as a mentor, if you feel you need mentoring. This is not to say that all his advice is bad, as much of it is correct. Sorry you got put in this position. I won't say any more on the matter. B^e——C_ritical 20:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Another peice of advise Joseph....try not to use the talk page to disparage other editors. That is against policy and is disruptive. See WP:TPNO. Many people have different interpretations of policy and guidelines and it can be confusing. Wikipedia has few set, and absolute rules. Policy and guidelines should be used along with common sense. When you encounter something referred to as a "Brightline rule" that means it is a set rule that cannot be broken and if is broken can lead to sanctions.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright

The article is in violation of copyright policy. There are several copy pasted chunks from the sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

So what do you want? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you want?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Howzabout splaining what the copyright issues are? Otherwise, don't expect jack for saying nothing. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I never expect jack from you.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If there aren't any actual copyright issues to discuss, then we're finished with this thread. B^e——C_ritical 22:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty to discuss and you don't get to close threads just because you decide to. I brought up one just above in the RFC. Discuss that.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I just removed large amounts of copyright violations in regards to the Graeber information.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

What was the point of this section: to say "I'm not gonna tell you what the violations are, before or after I remove them"? What a waste of everyone's time. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't need to even make this thread at all. It was an attempt to be open about the work I am doing. I am not required to discuss copyright issues. We are instructed to simply remove them. There are enough problems (not even knowing who placed them) that I requested some direction. I will not make this mistake in the future.

I think it would have been helpful if you had discussed it first. I just do not find it acceptable to force me to go through the article to prove that what I wrote was sourced when I do not have a reputation for being a poor editor. I started going through the source checking everything and it was so time consuming that I just gave up. Gandydancer (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you are not a poor editor. Not at all. The original post was about a number of other copyright issues, not the one I removed. I had no intention of forcing you to do anything. I found the issue AFTER I started this thread when I was going through the article again (it changes every 5 minutes now). Because it was added to information I placed, it stood out to me and I changed it. I left you a note and you seemed fine with it in your response so I am just confused at your reaction here. Yes, the information is sourced. It was just using too much of the original text.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I answered the note on my page before I came here and found half of my edit gone and a note saying that some of my edit was not even in the source. That is quite not what I had expected, to say the least. Gandydancer (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I see. I don't see a reason to apologize, as no one gives a rats rump about chopping my stuff up, but I will anyway. I am sorry I chopped up your work. Now...did you want to apologize to me for doing the same to the exact section I spent a great deal of time on and went through Wikipedia hell over?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't apologize till you show me exactly where I did the same thing to one of your edits. Please point it out to me. Gandydancer (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't take on the same aggressive nature of others here. I worked in good faith and believe you did as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

"Timeline of Occupy Wall Street"

Heads up: this article is propagandist garbage.

Speaking of: Law enforcement and the Occupy movement B^e——C_ritical 01:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

A source

I asked about this here. B^e——C_ritical 19:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hashtag

I thought this was vandalism when I saw it [6]. The original blog post is here. B^e——C_ritical 03:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If the reference doesn't mention it...it's original research. Even if a primary source contradicts it, we need a published source making the claim or it's original research.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be just a use of a primary source [7]. If you want to challenge it, I suggest instead you use the primary source. B^e——C_ritical 04:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Do you even read the stuff you link?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I do, and that's why I'm using a primary source for the claim that the original blog post was titled with the hashtag. B^e——C_ritical 04:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Explain how you are using a primary source to reference this without a secondary published source making the claim. it can't possibly be that hard to understand. Wait...I forgot how you interpret policy. Never mind. Find a secondary source to back up the claim.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I need one, but since it's a matter of common sense and I've never seen such a thing challenged before, I'll take it to the RS noticeboard [8]. B^e——C_ritical 04:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

As with most things on Wikipedia there are no "absolutes" here. It has been disputed and the general guideline is to use a secondary source to back up a primary one. I thought the Dualus situation showed how badly things go when referencing with only a primary source.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Wording in dispute

The disputed wording is below. It is better to discuss it here rather than on my talk page so I have moved it here.

And I am removing it. If I wanted to post this here I would have.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I took the measure to explain to you why I took action, but I did not mean for there to be a discussion by the community here or I would have placed it here.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You have to say what you're talking about, same deal as with the section above on copyright. B^e——C_ritical 04:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Show me the guideline or policy that requires me to discuss removal of copyright material. --Amadscientist (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

As a generality here, you're being asked to be a collaborative editor and to understand and abide by Wikipedia policy. B^e——C_ritical 04:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The same is asked of you and you refuse to follow actual policy and guidelines. What else ya got?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

OR

The foundations of the New York General Assembly (NYGA) were laid in June and July when ... source please.--Amadscientist ([[User talk:|talk]]) 04:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist, the source is provided above, and is in the article. Do not remove sourced text. Stop being disruptive. B^e——C_ritical 05:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Justify your edit sir, or stop using original research to promote your ideas.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

While it may be true that earth has fallen off a Permian cliff, I suggest lets pretend we are editing for the ages, yet keeping in mind what Walt Kelly had his character Porkypine in Pogo (comic strip) say: "Don't take life so serious, son. It ain't nohow permanent."

--Pawyilee (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what more he wants than the reference, which even has a quote in it. B^e——C_ritical 05:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he meant that for both of us. In other words.....look at this from a perspective of someone looking at this in the future. I think that's what he meant, but it also might have been a way to poke at us to lighten up.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Manual of style, in regards to headings

WP:HEADINGS

The provisions in Article titles generally apply to section headings as well....

WP:SINGULAR

• Use the singular form: Article titles are generally singular in form, e.g. Horse, not Horses. Exceptions include nouns that are always in a plural form in English (e.g. scissors or trousers) and the names of classes of objects (e.g. Arabic numerals or Bantu languages). For more guidance, see Naming conventions (plurals)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) Convention: In general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that term is always in a plural form in English (such as scissors) or is among the exceptions such as those listed below.

--Amadscientist (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Now you've provided the links I see where you are coming from on this. I can only say it is not meant to be applied so strictly. For instance, extending the logic, a long list of data points should be be under the heading "datum" instead of "data." In the same way, multiple goals should be "Goal" instead of "Goals." But we should not be applying guidelines in ways which do not make any sense. If you'd like to take this to a noticeboard somewhere to get further guidance, I think you should, as I could possibly be wrong here. B^e——C_ritical 20:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Responding to AKA

AKA asked if the section referes to a goal or to a set of goals. The answer is not straight forward...so why is the title? It presumes that the information is undisputable....and even the protesters are not sure what the particular goal is. I think the title may be the wrong direction as the section reads as if there is no clarity on the issue because there really isn't as it's written.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

How is it not straightforward to enumerate multiple goals and say that it should be "Goals?" And the RS do not present their goals as disputable, nor does common sense. B^e——C_ritical 20:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The section lists goals.' Nuf said. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If it were enough than there wouldn't be a problem. Do the references show set goals? Do they show that goals and demands are in dispute? The latter seems to be more accurate and perhaps that is why there is a problem Goal or Golas simply makes it look as if there are no disputes and editing seems to be in that direction, as if to nail it down when it really bis running all over the place. I wonder if simply titling it "Varying goals" in it plural would be more accurate and neutral. Labeling this as if there is a set goal seems wrong when one cannot find this information anywhere but on this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Occupy Wall Street protesters driven by varying goals - http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/29/nation/la-na-wall-street-protest-20110930
• There are almost as many grievances as there are protesters. "We're tired, we're mad, and we're standing up," protester Hero Vincent today told ABC News. He complains that the movement is "degraded" by the news media for not having a limited and well thought out set of goals. "Our constitution took a year to make," he says. " We've been here for three weeks, and we're supposed to have an agenda? That makes no sense." http://abcnews.go.com/Business/occupy-wall-street-declaration-york-protesters/story?id=14656653

I believe that Goals is the best choice. Gandydancer (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool, that's consensus then (: B^e——C_ritical 22:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"Varying goals"? Let's forgo redundancies. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There is not consensus here. An attempt has been made to state consensus is settled. It is not. Just like RacingStripes and Becritical have have been single hold outs to consensus I too have not agreed to, or settled on the title of the sections at all. I will continue to work on and change the headers as I see fit, but agree that many of them seems pretty good right now, but no...there is no consensus on "Goals".--Amadscientist (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Three people agree, you disagree. That is consensus. Please respect it, or go find other opinions. B^e——C_ritical 22:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote. There is no consensus of involved editors. Everyone must agree to live with a decision. There is no consensus yet.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You do not understand what "Consensus" means on Wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself with the policy. B^e——C_ritical 22:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms.

--Amadscientist (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerned.

--Amadscientist (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There is consensus, and it's Goals. Period. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus as yet.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Filibustering does not prevent consensus. It's over, chairs on the table, out the door baby. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Filibustering? LOL! Rushing this through the door won't work. There is no consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"Filibustering" is a good word. B^e——C_ritical 02:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but one person can indeed hold consensus if they don't agree and another asks them to call for more input. An RFC has been made. Instead of filibustering the article to such low quality...why not try to actually improve it by removing Copyright infringment, which is currently the biggest problem the article has.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That'll work, especially since they can do no more than suggest. Consensus is developed here, not enforced by an outside party. 04:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is not what a single group of three editors decides on if there are those that object. Look, it's a shame you think you can simply pull the rug out from under an editor and attempt to push your agenda here. You may think whatever you wish...it doesn't make it true.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? "...when there are those that who object"? Who are "those" editors (note the properly used plural form of "that" being used)? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You're rambling again.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I asked a simple question, while pointing out your unlettered - or misleading - use of the plural "those" So, who are those editors, since your argument hangs on it alone? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh....did I upset you?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh brother. Just tell us who else besides you is "those" or admit that there are no "those". If you don't, you lose the argument because you have been false. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a reason to answer, restoration of lost credibility. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not concerened with your personal perceptions of other editors. It has nothing to do with editing the article or discussion towards improving it.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Me either: it's empirical. You were false, and the fact is irrefutable. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Issue is settled, time to declare victory and move on. Unfortunately, we have to question and verify every assertion MadSci might make since he will not admit to error or correct himself. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit problems

With this edit note: Source does not indicate communication of any kind. Removing copyright violations. General copy edit. Removed some information not supported by source my addition the the Origin section was cut in half. It took me a long time to write this--the article is six "pages" long and it was not easy to boil it down to what seemed the most important information. I did not just make anything up such as "communication" or anything else "not supported by the source". I can accept that it may have needed some help with paraphrasing since that's what I thought we were supposed to do, but I have never just made things up in my edits. Here was my edit:

In June and July, after talking to Adbusters, a group called New Yorkers Against Budget Cuts—student activists and community leaders from some of the city’s poorer neighborhoods—began advertising a “People’s General Assembly” to “Oppose Cutbacks And Austerity Of Any Kind”. The assembly was held on August 2 in Bowling Green Park, the downtown Manhattan park with the famous statue of a charging bull. Anarchist activist and anthropologist David Graeber and several friends attended the meeting and were angered when they found that the event was not, in fact, a general assembly--a carefully facilitated group discussion through which decisions are made through consensus--but a short meeting to be followed with a march to Wall Street to deliver a set of predetermined demands such as "An end to oppression and war!". Angered, Graeber and his small group began to hold their own general assembly and gradually, despite the efforts of the event's planners to keep people in their group, all of the 50 or so people attending had joined the insurgent general assembly. The group continued to hold weekly meetings to discuss the choices that would follow, such as the decisions to form working groups and to not have leaders. The group also discussed what demands to make, or whether to have demands at all—a question that still remains unresolved.[13]

And it was cut to this:

In June and July, a group called New Yorkers Against Budget Cuts, began promoting a “People’s General Assembly” to “Oppose Cutbacks And Austerity Of Any Kind”. The assembly was held on August 2 in Bowling Green Park, the downtown Manhattan park with the famous statue of a charging bull. Anarchist activist and anthropologist David Graeber and several friends attended the meeting and were angered when they arrived to find the event was simply a rally and a meeting to evaluate demands such as "An end to oppression and war!". Graeber and his small group began their own general assembly. Gradually those still in attendence joined the insurgent general assembly. The group held weekly meetings to discuss the choices that would follow such as whether or not to have a set of demands.[13]

For example I said this: In June and July, after talking to Adbusters, a group called New Yorkers Against Budget Cuts—student activists and community leaders from some of the city’s poorer neighborhoods—began advertising a “People’s General Assembly” to “Oppose Cutbacks And Austerity Of Any Kind”.

Which was cut to this: In June and July, a group called New Yorkers Against Budget Cuts, began promoting a “People’s General Assembly” to “Oppose Cutbacks And Austerity Of Any Kind”.

From the article After talking to Adbusters, the group began advertising a “People’s General Assembly” to “Oppose Cutbacks And Austerity Of Any Kind” and plan the Sept. 17 occupation.

I'm sorry I just can not understand why my edit has been so chopped. Here is the source [9] Gandydancer (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I restored it till we reach consensus here. I wonder if you could somehow put in a topic sentence which says how this relates to the overall movement. It seems like it needs to say "this is the origin of the occupy leadership/organization" or something, so we know why this group is important. Here, I'll put one in and see what you think. B^e——C_ritical 02:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Good intro... Gandydancer (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you think the whole paragraph should be moved as the first paragraph in the Participation and organization section? B^e——C_ritical 02:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed the Copyright issue again. Sorry Gandy but it is a copyright violation to lift entire sections of text and paraphrase so closely. I don't know why my edits were chopped up, but at least i explained on the edit summary, left you a note and mentioned on the talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist, show exactly what the source text was, and how it was too closely paraphrased. And do not attempt to edit war your changes into articles. If we concur that it was too closely paraphrased, we will work with the text till it does not violate copyright. B^e——C_ritical 02:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

For starters, I want you to point out the information that was not sourced. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all when you make a revert of legitimate removal of copyright issues you are the one who is edit warring. I am not required to work in the manner you stated. It would be an ideal manner if we were working together but we are not. Since the situation on the talk page has become confrontational I will explain to the editor themselves, but consensus does not require my explanation to begin changing the information.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

To repeat, you say here: Source does not indicate communication of any kind. Removing copyright violations. General copy edit. Removed some information not supported by source I am asking that you point out exactly what information is not supported by the source and what information about "communication" you are speaking. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

AH! Yes, my mistake. Let me explain fully to you. The communcation part is not in the source for one. "after talking to Adbusters". That is not in the source. The other was "discuss the choices that would follow, such as the decisions to form working groups and to not have leaders". That's not in the source either. Sorry i didn't understand what you were asking.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the information certainly is taken from the source. Re "after talking to Adbusters", 'After talking to Adbusters, the group began advertising a “People’s General Assembly” to “Oppose Cutbacks And Austerity Of Any Kind” and plan the Sept. 17 occupation.

and the other is here:

While there were weeks of planning yet to go, the important battle had been won. The show would be run by horizontals, and the choices that would follow—the decision not to have leaders or even designated police liaisons, the daily GAs and myriad working-group meetings that still form the heart of the protests in Zuccotti Park—all flowed from that. Gandydancer (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I found that part. Sorry, don't know how I missed that. My apologies for the mistake, but the other is making a claim not supported by the reference. If worded to state "planning" and not "meetings" it would work as planning does not require a meeting.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know what the hell you are talking about. They had meetings during which they planned stuff. Gandydancer (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't say that in the part you referenced. It says planning not meetings and if you don't understand the difference I can only try and explain, not make you understand. You said: "The group continued to hold weekly meetings to discuss the choices that would follow, such as....... " But, the source says "While there were weeks of planning yet to go, the important battle had been won. The show would be run by horizontals, and the choices that would follow......." I am not playing a game Gandy. I have a point even if you don't see it. The source is actualy speaking of the "planning it took to get those "choices" not that those meetings resulted in those choices. The meetings were a part of the "choices" being refered to. It's a chicken before the egg thing. Sorry if you don't get it or agree, but it is there.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Please quit suggesting that I must be too stupid to understand no matter how much you try to help me. To quote from the news article:

The suggestion was simply that you are not following me...and frankly I don't think you want to. Please don't twist my words to sound incivil. You clearly do not understand what I am saying and I cannot make you or any editor understand something. I can only explain myself.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Since when is it OK to insert a reply right in the middle of my post? Please stop it as it is confusing and disrespectful of other editors. Gandydancer (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

For Graeber the next month and a half was a carousel of meetings. There were the weekly GAs, the first held near the Irish Hunger Memorial in Battery Park City, the rest in Tompkins Square Park in the East Village.

In other words, Graeber's group held weekly GAs throughout August and the first two weeks of September in which they planned such things as the GAs that were to be used after the September 17 opening of the occupation. I'm going to revert your changes. Gandydancer (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you like the changes I made? I tried to include all the important points, and my rephrase made the original source stop showing in a google search for the text. B^e——C_ritical 04:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It's good. I would like to change the part about the unresolved question re to or not to make demands. But not now - it's 12:30 here. Gandydancer (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Sleep well (: B^e——C_ritical 05:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

6% of ows protesters are "extremely conservative" wth?

Ideologically the Fordham survey found 80% self-identifying as slightly to extremely liberal, 15% as moderate, and 6% as slightly to extremely conservative

I think if you can read between the lines of this survey, 1 outta 20 protesters laughed and said "extremely conservative" as a joke or something. Should we include this sentence or trim it out of the article (I copied/pasted it from the current version of the article) because I think it allows readers to believe that some protesters are conservative, which goes against the image which the movement is trying to present. I will recuse myself because of my abject disbelief that one of my fellow editors would write that about a left-leaning movement. 완젬스 (talk)

Well, it's in the source (right?) and it makes OWS more like a bipartisan 99% movement, so I'd think you'd like it... B^e——C_ritical 19:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not sure why you're moving stuff in exactly the way you are, because it seemed like it was specifically related to history/origin, but isn't related to organization or participation. This [10] [11] B^e——C_ritical 20:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Since I'm the editor who added it I guess I should chime in (I was in Korea at the time). The Fordham survey did report that. While I have no doubt some may have said it as a joke I can't prove they did, regardless we shouldn't be selectively changing source material to match our assumptions. I added the relevant parts about the Fordham survey to better show the makeup of the group since the other survey was of a very limited scope (lumping all others in with Independents is highly misleading). Additionally (finally?) an ideological breakout is much more enlightening for saying left or right leaning than simple party affiliation. 23:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sourced text removed

I plan on restoring the sourced text removed by Amadascientist unless there are specific objections showing how the text in the source does not justify the text in the article. B^e——C_ritical 20:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If you make a claim, that is removed as unsourced by the reference, you need to justify the claim by stating how the source indicated this fact. I don't see it.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I think in writing that I intended the word "foundations" to indicate a timeline and series of events and I could see how you might think that wording was overly causal. Of course, you could have brought your concern to the talk page instead of reverting what two other editors said was good wording. But I've restored with wording that makes it clear that we are talking about a series of events which lead up to the formation of the NYGA. B^e——C_ritical 20:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The way it is now seems very reasonable and a good faith attempt at the prose.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Would you mind next time saying exactly what you see as the problem with the material, instead of just taking it out? Or at least, if more than one editor has approved a certain text, don't take it out more than once without stating exactly where the problem is and seeking consensus from multiple editors on whether there is a problem and what the solution might be? B^e——C_ritical 20:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I made an edit summary and began a discussion on the talkpage.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You put a fact tag [12], then when I inserted a source, you removed the material without saying why the source was insufficient. You don't have to be that aggressive around here, and you need to give people specifics (preferably in as few words as possible) on what the problem is. Preferably, also, try to fix text rather than just removing it. That's what to do if we are editing collaboratively. You saw what I did with Gandydancer's text that was a little too close to the source: I fixed it. B^e——C_ritical 20:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed tags are placed instead of removing the information. That is not aggresive. The citation then used was merely the same reference at the end of the full paragraph that didn't support the claim. You misunderstood the tag. It was'nt that it needed the citation...it needed a reference to support it. That was all.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It should have been obvious that I believed that that the source supported the claim. I think we would agree that the source was quite close to the claim, and you knew where in the source the claim was coming from. So to be collaborative, you should have stated why you felt that the source did not support the claim, or you should have fixed it in such a way that the text was fully supported. It leaves people no choice but to revert you or accede to you when you don't give us any specific indication of why you are doing things. You need to back off and go through the process, especially when other editors have agreed that text is fine, as was the case here. In this case you were treating what was at most a minor discrepancy between what was said and how the source could be strictly interpreted as if it were a BLP violation. B^e——C_ritical 21:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

There are always choices besides reverting with no reason and especialy just because you don't agree. Just having other editors agree that text is fine does not stop another editor from "disagreeing and just reverting. See...that's called an edit war...not collaboration. I am afraid your assessment is incorrect in that all I asked for was accuracy and not a unique interpretation of facts. This is an encyclopedia that requires references that clearly support claims. There are other Wikis from the foundation that do not require referencing such as Wikibooks. But here, as part of a collaboration we work with editors that do not agree on many levels, that's why we have guidelines and why we should attempt to justify our edits with policy and guidelines not aesthetic value.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Amadascientist, are you truly going to give other editors no option to work with you? I've tried everything. It's sad. B^e——C_ritical 21:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That was uncalled for sir. And makes no logical sense from what I wrote, but hey....those are your words not mine. Just remember that when there are only a handful of editors and one disagrees you cannot take a vote from three or four editors to simply ignore the dispute raised as "Well I like it" or "Well, I just don't like it".WP:TALKDONTREVERT A true Wikipedia collaboration is not always pretty and can be a messy endeavor. We will not all agree on everything. That should be obvious, but if you cannot use the policy and guidleines to support a chnage and simply want to work with only editors that get along...you're in the wrong place. This isn't a GA meeting where you can table a disussion to keep a view or opinion from being a part of the consensus. Perhaps that is what is going on here. A little "Occupy" style consensus building that shuts out dessenters? Doesn't work that way. You must take into consideration all valid points. The goal in a consensus-building discussion is to reach a compromise which angers as few as possible. It is not "How do we shut out that editors opinion from consensus". Fillibustering is being done on both sides and strictly speaking that alone is not against policy....indefinite fillustering is. Consesus is not what the majority agree on. It's what all involved parties agree on at Wikipedia. That can be hard to come by in many instances but frankly, when you have editors trying to use the talk page to put other editors down, make personal attacks and then...warn other new editors not to trust another. Wow....that's wrong on many levels.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is shaping up even if we as editors don't get along.

It is far from perfect and has many structural problems and even more I won't get into...but the simple fact is...the origins section (even if it still has some reference errors) is far more detailed about the actual origin. I never understood why the social networking information was removed and remember someone complaining that it didn't need all this information when in fact...it kinda does. It is accurate to how the NYC protest started.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it is shaping up (: B^e——C_ritical 20:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking back...its kinda hard to believe the amount of editors that were against adding the Tahir square information. Tons of refernces already existed to support that claim.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Continued reverting of contribution

Another editor continues to use personal opinion to edit war. The information as added:

There was still much work to be done but this first win insured that the group would be run by "horizontals". From that first assembly, selection of issues and direction of the movement: whether or not to have a set of demands, the formation of working groups and whether or not to have leaders, would follow.

follows the note precisely and with origial text:

"While there were weeks of planning yet to go, the important battle had been won. The show would be run by horizontals, and the choices that would follow—the decision not to have leaders or even designated police liaisons, the daily GAs and myriad working-group meetings that still form the heart of the protests in Zuccotti Park—all flowed from that"

--Amadscientist (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not improving the article to simply remove the contribution without having just cause to policy and guidelines. My addition was to improve the accuracy of the claim to source. As stated in the edit summary; "Copy edit to be closer to the facts from the source"--Amadscientist (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing bad writing is a just cause. Nothing wrong with the original text, and now you are edit warring to keep your change in the article, per usual. You did well to post on this page, but you should have done so without trying to edit war your change into the article. B^e——C_ritical 00:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You have no just cause to any Wikipedia policy or guideline. It's your personal preference and nothing more. You simply do not wish me to edit this article and have not used a single guideline yet to back up your revert. Simple as that.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I might not be able to find a policy which prohibits incomprehensibility, as that is taken for granted here. However, per WP:BURDEN it is 100% up to you to justify and find consensus for your change. As I've been trying to explain to you for many weeks, you need to adhere to WP:BRD B^e——C_ritical 00:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That is because you are using your personal likes and dislikes and not any other form of justification.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, that's fine: if it's just my preference, you still have to find consensus, and you must not edit war over it. Go get other editors to agree with you, and they it may be legitimately put in the article. B^e——C_ritical 00:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Where is your burden of proof sir and the consensus you claim there is for the inaccurate information? You are using your personal likes and dislikes and not any other form of justification.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You toss around the links but you never bother to explain how the policy justifies any thing. Here is what it states:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it (although an alternate procedure would be to add a citation needed tag). Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people; you should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.[2]

--Amadscientist (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please follow the policy. You restored the material -the edit- without a consensus that it is appropriate. Please follow WP:BRD from now on. You are being disruptive. B^e——C_ritical 00:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Please follow Wikipedia policy as well as WP:BRD. You are being disruptive in my opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I had no idea there was any such policy. Matter of fact, I know there is no such policy. As a caution to others, check and verify anything MadSci says. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

BRD- right it's not a policy but a best practice, and it's almost policy because if you don't follow it then you're edit warring. MadSci edit warred his changes in again (in case you don't want to read the above and I wouldn't blame you :P ) B^e——C_ritical 06:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I didn't. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

So since you're here, tell me if you think this was a good revert [13] B^e——C_ritical 06:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but good faith editing means knowing what I'm talking about, and I'm not up to speed on this. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No matter what I do here I know that someone won't like it. I feel that the problems re copyright laws has been taken care of and it turned out that there never was a problem with using information that the source did not provide. Once those issues were cleared up to then go ahead and start editing the paragraph some more, at a time when everyones nerves were on edge, was not a very good idea. I don't like the wording that Amadscientist changed from BeCritical's and my editing efforts and I'm going to change it back. There's plenty of work to do elsewhere on the article rather than spend any more time on this section that I added. Gandydancer (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I only dealt with a single instance of Copyright in this situation and not the rest of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, in a generous manner of speaking. Per MadSci: "There are several copy pasted chunks from the sources." The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"Remove a pile of bullshit a day" at the Timeline of Occupy Wall Street article

Approximately 30 seconds each day is all the effort you will need to identify and remove a single piece of utterly inappropriate (and probably completely unsourced) POV-pushing propaganda such as this over at the Timeline of Occupy Wall Street article.

Consider yourselves challenged. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

We, that is, the editors of OWS), have been given no challenge to answer, but our time is being wasted on the possible faults of another article. You got a beef with this article, then be bold; not whiny.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You are removing stuff like

June 9, 2011 – a Canadian anti-consumerist magazine called Adbusters registers the domain name occupywallstreet.org.

Which is relevant and which is already sourced in this article. Why are you removing it instead of just copying the source? I also removed some garbage on that article. B^e——C_ritical 22:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyone using a header such as "Remove a pile of bullshit a day" is bound to be up to no good. On most other current events articles, editors can not get away with this sort of crap. Gandydancer (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, well in my all upbringing in a machine shop, I never heard such language. But never mind our delicate sensibilities, why are we talking about another article here? Even so, I've found Factchecker to be a good faith editor who can understand and accept opposing views. So I'd let the scatological slide on by. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly why Wikipedia is awesome, because of WP:IAR being employed in a creative, constructive way. I have "spammed" the Occupy Movement talk page a week ago soliciting coordination between the two indivisible articles (because they should be consistent with one another, obviously) and I wholly endorse a free-flowing cross-coordination that this editor is trying to initiate. You can tell centrify is clearly passionate, and I'm fully aware of how much power to improve articles that can be tapped into if you strike the right chord. (Of course, if we come across newbies, we'll snap back into character) but since it's somewhat of a reunion among editors who all trust centrify, let's pile on his bandwagon and try his simple request: to spend 30 seconds removing a pile of bullshit per day and let his idea play out, shall we! 완젬스 (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Occupy the SEC

This article might be suitable for adding to the "goals" section. Sindinero (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Occupy movement moves forward

I have begun the procedure for beginning the project by making the proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. To add your name to support the proposal go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Occupy movement.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Anarchist root

This article makes it clear that OWS movement is based on anarchist principles. I added this to the article, but my edit was reverted by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk · contribs). Being a vital information, it should be mentioned in the article. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Correct. I have reverted it back. The information is in the body of the article and is important enough to be mentioned in the lede. I do not understand the edit summary left by AKA.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

However, as this is an opinion peice it must be properly attributed to the author, who is also mentioned within the body of the article with due weight. I will make the needed changes.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No more opinion piece [14][15] --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 09:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I will add the references to the claim along with a copy edit unless you would like to make the edit yourself. They appear to be solid RS. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Please go ahead, thanks. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 09:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

there is also some useful information that well defines "direct Action".--Amadscientist (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I've learned that certain editors, though acting in good faith, are not thorough. When the new sources is read in its entirety, it equivocates " "It is far from clear, of course, how attuned the protesters are to the scholarship of Mr. Graeber". The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Disagree, and I think it may be you who aren't reading the source clearly enough - the article isn't arguing for a direct influence of Graeber himself on OWS, but on anarchist ideas and practices he has both disseminated and described. The sentence deleted from the lead doesn't mention Graeber by name. The sentence you quote above ("It is far from clear...") is not an equivocation implying that maybe anarchism isn't that important for OWS, but rather that the protesters have absorbed ideas and practices of anarchism (which have increasingly been in the political air over the last decade or so) despite perhaps not being familiar with individual academics like Graeber. That's how I understand the chronicle article, anyway, and I would support reinclusion of the sentence. Sindinero (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply: General comment: closer reading would help Sindin alot.

1. Cherry picking doesn't work. You can't get only anarchism out of the following broader declaration: "Occupy Wall Street's most defining characteristics—its decentralized nature and its intensive process of participatory, consensus-based decision-making—are rooted in other precincts of academe and activism: in the scholarship of anarchism and, specifically, in an ethnography of central Madagascar." Otherwise the we would end up saying how influential anthropology has been on OWS.
2. "the article isn't arguing for a direct influence of 'Graeber himself' on OWS, but on anarchist ideas and practices he has both disseminated and described." So the articles argues is Graeber figures mightily in anarchist ideology. What's that got to do with OWS?
3. Regarding the straw man argument,The sentence you quote above ("It is far from clear...") is not an equivocation implying that maybe anarchism isn't that important for OWS It questions whether OWS participants, however sympathetic to anarchism, have relied on the "scholarship of anarchism". The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus appears to be for inclusion at this time.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

And a good copy edit as well. Very encyclopedic! Thanks to who ever edited it!--Amadscientist (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

@AKA - there's no need to get defensive, rude, or personal here. I'm not sure exactly what you understand under "close reading," but nobody's cherry-picking.

1. In a general sense, yes, one could get other things besides anarchism out of the "following broader declaration," if you read it totally out of context. But the passage you cite as a "broad declaration" is a simple transitional paragraph that moves from the topic of the first four paragraphs (academics' engagement with OWS) to the focus of the article (the influence of anarchism on OWS as represented in—not exhausted by—the figure of David Graeber).
2. As to your second point - mea culpa, it was a typo on my part. Instead of "on" it should be "of": "the article isn't arguing for a direct influence of 'Graeber himself' on OWS, but of anarchist ideas and practices he has both disseminated and described." I think that should be clear from the article itself.
3. I think you missed my point with your third point, and it's hard to understand how you can contort my statement into a "straw man argument." I never suggested (nor would an even remotely proximate reading of my comment suggest) that OWS participants have relied upon the "scholarship of anarchism." That the OWS participants have not necessarily relied upon the "scholarship of anarchism" is exactly what I claim above that the article is arguing. The article could perhaps be clearer and more consequential on this point, but it's showing that there was a strong influence of anarchism (as a movement that was in the air, so to speak) on OWS even though OWS participants might not be aware of the academic side of it. I see this clearly in sentences like, "[Graeber] transplanted the lessons he learned in Madagascar to the globalism protests in the late 1990s in which he participated, and which some scholars say are the clearest antecedent, in spirit, to Occupy Wall Street" or "The defining aspect of Occupy Wall Street, its emphasis on direct action and leaderless, consensus-based decision-making, is most clearly embodied by its General Assembly, in which participants in the protest make group decisions both large and small, like adopting principles of solidarity and deciding how best to stay warm at night."

This is the thrust of the entire article: that anarchist practices, ideas, and theories have diffused through and been adopted by OWS; these practices and ideas have been propagated and studied by academics like Graeber, but for this article he's more of an emblematic figure than a causal connection. Look at the closing paragraphs of the article; it's pretty explicit there. Does that make sense? Sindinero (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That said, I do think we need more on the anarchist dimension in the body of the article if we want to mention it in the lead. I think the Chronicle is a good source, as is the TNR piece, but there are probably more out there. Sindinero (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I have added information with due weight in the origin section.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I was going to correct the spelling errors in this section, but decided to leave them untouched as a red flag that this section needs work. (Clarity, NPOC, encyclopedic-ness) If this is left in, I would suggest taking another cut at the apparent attempt to reword this section of the Thank You, Anarchists article: "At its core, anarchism isn’t simply a negative political philosophy, or an excuse for window-breaking, as most people tend to assume it is. Even while calling for an end to the rule of coercive states backed by military bases, prison industries and subjugation, anarchists and other autonomists try to build a culture in which people can take care of themselves and each other through healthy, sustainable communities. Many are resolutely nonviolent. Drawing on modes of organizing as radical as they are ancient, they insist on using forms of participatory direct democracy that naturally resist corruption by money, status and privilege. Everyone’s basic needs should take precedence over anyone’s greed." I'd take a crack at it now, but I have other plans Away From Keyboard. Perhaps another time. PubliusDigitus (talk) 06:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there consensus for including the following in the History section?

Anarchy is not just a negative philosophy or excuse for vandalsim. Anarchist attempt to build a society where people maintain and care for themselves and their community. This draws on direct democracy, believing that "basic need" is more important than greed.[15] The Occupy movement's use of such direct democracy has led to an ongoing national conversation.[15]

I believe that this is going way to far with the one ref to back it up. I would accept that another line re Graeber's explaination of what he believes anarchy to mean, but to state Anarchy is... is way out of line. We have an Anarchy article to explain what it is. I strongly believe that it should be deleted. Gandydancer (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It is referenced with reliable sources and has context to the subject. Instead of deleting information we should attempt to fix it. If the objection is to the deffinition it isn't a quote but referenced facts from the article itself. The wikipedia article is not the reference or even the standard we use for inclusion but I get your point. What do you suggest?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem saying "Graeber said..." but we have no business stating in the article what anarchy is just because that's what he said it is. Gandydancer (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly I believe that this "anarchy" information is important - I'm the one that expanded the Graeber information in the first place. However, the following info that was tacked on at the end should be removed:

Anarchy is not just a negative philosophy or excuse for vandalsim. Anarchist attempt to build a society where people maintain and care for themselves and their community. This draws on direct democracy, believing that "basic need" is more important than greed.[14] The Occupy movement's use of such direct democracy has led to an ongoing national conversation.[14]

The source for this info is from a person who is neither noteworthy nor an expert on political movements in the U.S. If we add a little more information on anarchy it should come from Graeber's viewpoint (who is both noteworthy and an expert) on how and why anarchy has had so much to do with the success of the movement. A good and complete explanation of his views can be found here [16] BTW, I just have to wonder how many people are even reading the above when the glaring misspelling has been there for days (vandalism). Gandydancer (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"Anarchism" wording in lede

I very strongly object to the recent addition to the lede which reads: The Occupy movement's defining characteristic is a philosophy of anarchism[5] that uses "direct action" instead of appealing to instances of authority to bring about change.[6]

This information is just fine for inclusion in the body of the article if it is used properly, but it is very inappropriate to include in the lede when one considers that by now there have been hundreds of articles written on the philosophy of the movement that make no mention of "anarchism" as the defining characteristic of the movement. It's not, in my opinion, good enough to just say, "Oh well, actually that's what they were talking about anyway". Anarchism is a very broad term, and even looking at the article page one finds the words "generally defined as" and "There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive."

I also strongly object the link to the page Anarchism and the Occupy movement written by the person that added the new wording to this article and which is very weakly referenced with five of the seven refs related to the thinking of Graeber, one to an unknown historian, and the other even weaker than that. Gandydancer (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I can see your point with the link and lean towards exclusion, but believe the statement itself is both accurate and has due weight in the lede section.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Although...at looking at the article itself, it seems to be very accurate and encyclopedic in nature and isn't making any broad claims and see no issues with it. But I would see this as a reduntant content fork and still lean towards exclusion of the link itself.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Pardon, perhaps some explanation is in order. At the Anarchist Task Force Workstation, I have accumulated a collection of links to be used as resources for this article. The "Potential articles" subsection is intended to act as a reference point for editors to contribute references for future use. The article creator witnessed this project and has quickly taken the article live, but has used only a fraction of the assorted references. The article is intended to be a far larger reference then a mere content fork on the impact of anarchist theory on OWS, but on further activity at other locations within the broader campaign. Occupy Oakland, Portland, etc. The references not included should be expanded upon. I ask that time be given, and that help be possibly provided. The Anarchist Task Force is going through something of a lull right now in terms of member participation. Assistance would be appreciated. --Cast (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what help I can be or even what speific help you are asking for but agree that some time should be given as there seems to be a legitimate project and task force on this.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

What help? Well, we have loads of references. These should be scoured to provide enough bodywork for an appropriate article. If this cannot be achieved, whatever information is salvageable should be merged into an appropriate article. I had originally suggested the creation of such an article in October, but intended to first turn it into a user space sandbox, and move it to name space when appropriate. That cuts down on the need to merge or possibly delete if the article doesn't take shape. Now the series of topical articles on "Anarchism and ___" (Nationalism/Capitalism/Violence, etc) is intended to be a fork from the main anarchism article, where constant attempts to include social movement history, or theoretical exposition, cluttered the page. So the shape of the Anarchism and the Occupy movement article should include references to notable chronological events; theoretical contributions; and reception, commentary, and analysis of those events and contributions. Further discussion should be carried out on the article's talk page. I don't want to provide to great a digression here. --Cast (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I still have very strong objections to including this info in the lede for the reasons I have already stated. However, it seems that I am alone in my beliefs and will drop my request that it be removed. Gandydancer (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

We should keep your objection in mind however as this may of course need to eventually be revisited.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I second Gandydancer on this one - I do think the anarchist angle is relevant and important, but I also think we need a better foundation (more text, more sources) in the body of the article before including such a strong claim in the lead. Sindinero (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I cannot argue against that point as I have agreed above and if the information, at this point, is insuffeciant than it should be removed until consensus agrees on due weight. I would support it's removal on this basis with the caveat that it be returned at such time as due weight is agreed upon.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I second the objections and I took it out of the lead. But if the majority of sources which discuss Occupy philosophy say they are primarily anarchist, then it should be returned, along with more discussion in the body, as Amadscientist recently put. But Amadscientist's addition was nuanced and in context, and the lead does not allow of such context. B^e——C_ritical 04:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I should clarify; I think the sentence as worded was too strong a claim for the lead, considering the sources, but I'm not opposed to having any mention of anarchism in the lead. How about something less sweeping than "...defining characteristic...", like: "As some have argued, the political philosophy behind OWS has drawn on anarchism, an influence that has effected concrete practices of the movement such as the general assemblies and the preference for direct action..."? That's not overbold, IMO, and better summarizes the body. How do others feel about this? Sindinero (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that to use that wording in the lede it would have to read, "As many have argued - and we barely have a few that actually use the term. Keep in mind that the term anarchism is seen as a very negative term because it has so often been used in the news to describe violent protestors saying things like FUCK THE CORPORATE OVERLORDS!!! while they're smashing in bank windows and such. Gandydancer (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how negative "anarchism" is broadly perceived as being, although you're right that (since Seattle 99, or, for that matter, since the 19th century) it has been misrepresented in the press. But I'm also not sure that we want to 'protect' OWS from being tarnished by association w/ a movement that has influenced it in various ways - if we have the sources to show this influence, we should represent it clearly, and let readers make up their own minds. Sindinero (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)