Jump to content

Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

US constitutional convention

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Reliable sources need presenting for this content to be included. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Lawrence Lessig is trying to call a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution. And here's his informer site. Should this be added to the article? Dualus (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.callaconvention.org/ has more information. Dualus (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Informer.com and callaconvention.org are not reliable third party sources. Wait until reputable journalists report on it before including. MPS (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
How about this author and law professor? Dualus (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I found a Marketplace Morning Report and Dan Froomkin piece which were much less verbose.[1] Dualus (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Dylan Ratigan apparently has this at http://www.getmoneyout.com/

"No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."

Does anyone know whether we're likely to get instant runoff voting if the electoral college is abolished? Dualus (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Karl Auerbach has one at http://cavebear.com/amendment/

"Corporate and other aggregate forms of organization are neither Persons nor Citizens under this Constitution and shall have neither protections, rights, nor legal standing under this Constitution. This Amendment shall not be construed to deny or disparage the power of Congress or the Several States to enact legislation that defines rights, powers, limitations, liabilities, and standing of such corporate and other aggregate forms of organization."

Are there any more out there? Dualus (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that the OWS movement supports Lessig's ideas any more than a lot of other reform ideas that have been floated, and I don't understand why Lessig is important enough to OWS to go in the introduction.
In my understanding, the OWS movement has not decided to back *any* policy, much less a constitutional amendment. Lessig was working with the Tea Party, not OWS, and to suggest that OWS has policies in common with the Tea Party, or that it supports campaign finance reform or public campaign financing, is WP:OR and unsupported by WP:RS.
What's the evidence? --Nbauman (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
You don't see the connection between protests in the context of a constitutional convention and otherwise? Did you read the "Occupy the Constitution" reference at the end of the paragraph? I intend to revert. Dualus (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I have deleted it since there does not seem to be support to include it as written. Gandydancer (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
You are saying that you removed it because you don't think others support it? What are your objections to the passage with the additional sources? Please respond on #Eleven additional news sources below. Dualus (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
FWIU, he is or should be saying that it was deleted because it's not relevant to the article. OWS and Lessig apparently both support fundamental structural change in society, the former as an unfocused demand for fundamental change, the latter within the established structures for same. These are certainly related and if this article's subject was something about fundamental structural change in society then ... . However I don't see what specific relation merits inclusion at this point, supply that to advance your desire for the inclusion. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of polling in intro

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
While the lead could be longer there is a consensus against adding polling information to the lead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I was planning to try to summarize all the sections for the intro, but I'm very discouraged that people keep deleting a legitimate summary of the polls. Maybe I'll try to summarize more for the intro tomorrow. WP:LEAD is clear that the intro should be a summary of the article, and polls capture the many "reactions" in a way that summaries of non-aggregate facts can not. Moreover WP:LEAD#Length is clear that only two paragraphs is way too short for an article of this size. Dualus (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The polling data is transitory. (How many article leads include recent poll data?) The lead is not where you place an update section. TheArtistAKA 06:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The point of summarizing the article is to make a quick, concise overview of the overall article. By trying to summarize polls you are giving undue weight (possibly how it is perceived) to a specific portion of the article in a way that may not have the consensus of editors, or as mentioned above, objection may be to that portion which changes too rapidly.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

ALso WP:LEAD#Length is not truly clear about that...it's a suggestion that may be used. The article is very long...and the lede could be much longer....but it also shouldn't have references. If the lede is a summary of the article then the references will be in the body of the article. But even that is a consensus matter. While it won't make Feature status as is, GA is far more forgiving if that is your goal.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, WP:LEAD#Length gives a precise mathematical guideline which clearly indicates that the intro should be at least three paragraphs. How exactly is summarizing the most recent polls giving undue weight to anything? My summary of conditions at the protest was also removed, so your argument is disingenuous at best. Dualus (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Saying an editor has been "disingenuous at best" is unfortunate. (And, yeah, saying the argument is so is same the same as saying the editor not on the up and and has not been genuine.) The accusatory editor has assumed bad faith and should consider a retraction. Then the editor should proceed to discuss the issues only.TheArtistAKA 16:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The section being directed to is not a bright line rule. It clearly states that this is a suggestion...and uses that phrasing right next to the mathematical guideline. Undue weight may be the perception of some editors in that it attempts to give weight to ever changing facts. Not something generally done in a lede section. However if consensus moves in that direction in the future it can be added back.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the entire third paragraph of the lead is unnecessary. The opinions of a single law professor does not reflect the diverse opinions of the whole OWS movement. Poll numbers in the lead does not represent an impartial tone, and is a violation of WP:NPOV. Bowmerang (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you think are the most important points to summarize? WP:MOSINTRO has some suggestions. Dualus (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Be so kind to do more than link to a policy, let us know what aspects of that policy apply. TheArtistAKA 00:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I filed a 3RR on Dualus after the editor reverted despite on on this ongoing discussion. TheArtistAKA 03:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I attempted to self-revert, but the 4th URL given was a null edit. Dualus (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
You could make at least one more attempt to make your correction. TheArtistAKA 03:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
These are the comments from the 3RR report:

Editor has reverted without adressing many issues brought by three other editors, mainly, are the latest polls on sentiment towards Occupy Wall Street suitable for the lead, especially in regards to weight - a point the Dualus has not responded to once. I have stopped reverts on my part ( I think two are mine) to keep from escalating the matter. Dualus is also accused one editor, Amadscientist of being "disengenous at best" when, to all appearances, the editor has acted in good faith. Here's a diff that shows Dualus being told of the unwanted incivility by Amadscientist.

I tried to revert the "4th revert" link[2] so I could be on the safe side before looking in to this, but it's a null edit. If in fact I have violated 3RR I agree to revert myself. Dualus (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
This is directly contradicted by Dualus' prompt restoration the text in dispute immediately after the link Dualus just provided and has not taken any steps to correct and has not joined in further discussion.TheArtistAKA 03:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I have. I have commented on the article's talk page and stopped making reverts. Dualus (talk) 03:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The last revert listed above (Wrong diff used, see below for correction) was made by Dualus, who has engaged in no substantive discussion to the discussion at that time or since. TheArtistAKA 03:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The 4th edit was, as Dualus has pointed out, a null edit. However, the immediate next edit was an acutal revert. I have made correction to the 3RR report of this error.
Taking Dualus at face value, I offered to fix the null edit, but this has been objected to TheArtistAKA 03:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
That's not fair. If you think I really violated 3RR and have a revert you want me to make, then tell me what it is. What I told you is that you could do it, not that I wouldn't object if you do. Dualus (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried but someone took out the references conflicting so I'll just let other people take care of it. Dualus (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Three editors have spoken against the polling data in the lead, Dualus has apparently agreed to its removal. I'd like to remove it, but I think it best to wait another day to allow for more comments in case consensus is not at as it stands 3 to 1 to leave polling data out of the lead. TheArtistAKA 17:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you think should be the third paragraph in the lead? The article is over 100,000 bytes. Dualus (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
What do I think? This is not an either or discussion is what I think. I'm sticking to the single issue I brought up. TheArtistAKA 18:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Intro now even shorter than required by WP:LEAD#Length

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Lead length is fine. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Those who claim to not be tag-teaming, but are constantly removing things from the intro contrary to WP:LEAD#Length, have still provided no reason why the intro should be less than three paragraphs. They have still provided no reasons that the summaries placed there should not be there. They have still provided no idea of what they think should be summarized in the lead, in addition to the two very short paragraphs comprising the intro now. They have still provided no specific objections to statements they think may be insufficiently sourced. They have still provided no reasons, that have not been addressed, that the material they have removed from the body should not be there. For shame! Dualus (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The editor is ignoring two well and often made arguments against including the material: Weight and consensus against the edit. Until the editor can show contrary consensus and deal with the weight issues, there is not obligation to engage further accept ins filing an ANI dispute. Repeated and unceasing claims of meat puppetry will be sure to factor large. But you have to hope it never gets that far. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Which particular portions do you think have been given inappropriate weight and where is the evidence that anyone has agreed with you on that? Dualus (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
At this point that is the least of this articles problems. There is no requirement for article lede length. Guidelines are not hard rules and strict adherence to that particular guideline may simply not be a priority for many right now.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The actual statement itself that the lede is too short...is reasonable. We should begin a discussion of information to include that all contributors can live with.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but until the edit warring against consensus ends, subsequent additions to the lead could be discussed here first. I suggest a better formation and summary of reception issues not limited to ephemeral polls. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree you should say what you think should be summarized in the lead if it were three paragraphs. Dualus (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Paragraph numbers are not as important as the information to include itself. No need for a minimal requirement however, we may not want to see it explode out and become over weighted either.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The reason that you think WP:LEAD#Length should not be followed is that you don't want the intro to explode and become over weighted? What danger is there of that? Dualus (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
You do not appear to work well with others and if you cannot find a way to convince consensus to change, berating editors will not help. There is simply no minimum requirement that is absolute while, on the other hand, article's lede should also not be too large. It's a pretty simple statement and nothing to get worked up over.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Why are you wasting your time trying to disparage the behavior of editors supported by reliable sources and rational arguments instead of looking for some of your own? Dualus (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

My time is mine to do as I please. You have done little here but complain, point fingers and make accusations.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV tag

I am replacing the {{POV}} tag because of the dispute about summarizing the polls in the intro and including information about calls for a constitutional amendment in the body of the article. As the tag says, please do not remove it until the dispute is resolved. Also, on the advice of an administrator, I am reporting this article on WP:NPOVN. Dualus (talk) 08:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This edit immediately deleted the tag, and among other things, re-introduced an error regarding NM Incite which completely contradicts the source cited for it. Dualus (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Reverted. Tag removed per warning by admin on this page to you and the consensus of editors. Also you took out legit deletions. As for the noticeboard thing....what you do is your business you don't need to advertise them here in this manner as it amounts to an attempt to intimidate others. If that was you idea of notifying editors here of the ANI, your could have done it in a more neutral manner.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
If there is a POV dispute, the POV tag should be on the article until the dispute is resolved. That is the policy. Dualus (talk) 09:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
No. Consensus forms what content is added to this page per Administrative warning to you. Also, that advise seems more geared to telling you, you are at the wrong place with the ANI report you made. Here is the comment left there:
"I think you need to take this to dispute resolution, as there's nothing for anyone to do here. You may also want to consider the NPOV noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)"--Amadscientist (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you believe a dispute doesn't exist? Why are you opposed to the POV tag? Dualus (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What was the error in the information. If you have a legitimate reason for the removal of that material as being in error I am all ears.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"According to NM Incite, the majority of social media users indicate they feel the government is responsible for social inequity." is not supported by [3] Because while the quote may be accurate, the actual numbers shown to support it are nowhere near comprising a "majority." The version with the numerical breakdown is more accurate. Why delete the Rushkoff quote? Dualus (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense and works for me. I have changed back the legitimate constructive edit removed to return ref fixes etc.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I explained the removal of the other information as ill conceived prose from Sky Dancing blogs that is not a reliable source but personal blogs. Is there evidence that this blog site is a major news media site for use, and the author a journalist? I see no evidence that the blogs have proper editorial over site.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If there is a POV dispute - stop removing the template and work it out - the desperate desire to remove a template says to me that there clearly is an issue. the article looks and reads like a promotion of the event to me so I fail to see how its not POV. Off2riorob (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That is not the editors dispute Off2riorob. What the article looks and reads like is not in question but content he wishes to add that has not gained the consensus of editors. An accusation of Meat Puppetry has been leveled at all contributing editors here as tag teaming and while I do strongly believe he may be guilty of pushing POV, Wikipedia Harassment and other violations I, myself have made no ANI notification, or created any dispute resolution. I have attempted to work with the editor, speak to him here on this talk page but have asked him to refrain from further comments on my personal talk page for unfounded accusations, threats of administrative action and name calling.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I will agree to do so once actual dispute resolution is created. Until then, it is simply a threat of administrative action and goes against the consensus of the contributing editors as well as the spirit and policy of Wikipedia. Thank you for weighing in.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
As long as Dualus is discussing in good faith and believes there is a POV issue the tag should be included in the article - at least for now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
If an editor believes there is a POV issue then he has the right to tag the article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I have not seen him discuss in good faith. He looses his cool easily, doesn't appear interested in working together and makes accusations at the drop of a hat. I agree, when he attempts to discuss in good faith, or when he begins his dispute resolution I will not remove the tag. However if the consensus of contributing editors is against inclusion of the material I see no reason not to continue to remove it.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
It hardly seems reasonable that one editor can start 6 or 7 new sections here and take hours of time from other editors who have attempted meaningful discussion to then just slap a POV tag on the article because he didn't get his way. I'd like to see the policy that makes this sort of behavior possible. Gandydancer (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Per Template:POV the template shouldn't be removed while discussions about the articles POV are ongoing and a consensus hasn't been reached - if the consensus is not clear to everyone involved request an uninvolved administrator to close the relevant discussions at WP:AN. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I need to be specific here....since the first edit I have made here on this page to nearly the last, Dualus has berated me, accusing me of vandalism for legitimate edits and accusing me of collaborating with others to keep out his contributions. This is nearly nonstop when he is here. I cannot control whatever behavior he wishes to display but I can control my own and I know my actions will speak for me, as his will speak for him.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If Dualus has behaved poorly on multiple occasions then raise the matter on his talk page or call him out individually. Uncivil behaviour is unacceptable in a group project. This doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a POV tag if discussion is ongoing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
If I have overlooked any specific objections which have not yet been raised, please bring them to my attention. I understand that WP:RSN would prefer less Huffington Post sources. I intend to work on that. The article is biased because mention of a constitutional amendment has been completely removed when there is support for including a summary of it in the lead (Salon.) Are there any other outstanding objections that anyone has been able to discern? The article is also biased because recent favorable polling data has been removed. Also some people don't want to say that the movement is associated with the Arab Spring, so it's biased that way, too. Good luck fixing it! Dualus (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
It sounds like you simply would prefer less of the site used here. Perhaps if you raised it as a undue weight issue and discussed that, you could form a consensus on it. I would not object to the removal of Huffington Post references that are used improperly, may be too much undue weight to a single site etc, but, let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. This article may indeed have many problems but the exclusion of information by consensus is not one of them. Because, that consensus can change regardless of who raises the issue. I specifically object to the Arab Spring as undue weight to the lead. My question is...is it even in the article at all? That seems like a good start, but realize it's notability to the article may not gain consensus either. The article has some bais. That is not in question. Nearly all Wikipedia articles contain some bias and it is commendable that you desire to fix it. It's your approach and specific reasoning as to WHY it is biased that appears not to have consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich quote

In the section of 2012 Presidential candidates I included this quote. Let me draw a distinction. Virtually every American has a reason to be angry. I think virtually very American has a reason to be worried. I think the people who are protesting in Wall Street break into two groups: one is left-wing agitators who would be happy to show up next week on any other topic, and the other is sincere middle-class people who frankly are very close to the Tea Party people who care. And actually...you can tell which are which. The people who are decent, responsible citizens pick up after themselves. The people who are just out there as activists trash the place and walk off and are proud of having trashed it, so let’s draw that distinction. Another user keeps editing it so it appears like this. Let me draw a distinction. Virtually every American has a reason to be angry. I think virtually very American has a reason to be worried. I think the people who are protesting in Wall Street break into two groups: one is left-wing agitators who would be happy to show up next week on any other topic, and the other is sincere middle-class people who frankly are very close to the Tea Party people who care.

To remove the end of the quote takes out the "distinction" he is drawing at the beginning. I don't understand why the other user is editing out the end. It is troubling.

--Andy0093 (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This seems perfectly reasonable for inclusion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I was fixing to say similar. Glad to see the end of the quote re-included, since I think Newt Gingrich represents the emerging "converts" who can see past the propaganda dished out by Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. I'm a republican and support OWS as well as all the Koreans who I know are Republican. The end of the quote brings coverage of the "blackout" of republicans like me who are fully in agreement with Newt Gengrich. Keep up the good work out there, OWS! 완젬스 (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy_Wall_Street#Further_reading

the one book listed in there seems inapropos to me. possibly it was placed in there as a source for the reasons the protestors have for their protests? if that's the case, its inclusion seems to me to violate npov and/or to constitute synthesis of some kind. given the date it can't actually contain material about the protests. thus i propose that it be removed. opinions?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Dualus (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it should be removed. Gandydancer (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

done!— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

How about restoring this and adding the Ravi Batra book paragraph? Dualus (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

i have no opinion on the ravi batra book, because i don't want to join that discussion; too much to catch up on. you all do what you want with that. but i am still absolutely opposed to the book that was in there previously being replaced. since it's not actually about OWS, but seems to tacitly purport to explain why there is an OWS, it seems to me to constitute synth. my impression of the batra book is that it would have the same problem *if* it were placed in a reconstituted further reading section. this remark is *not*, please, to be construed as an opinion on anything to do with ravi batra outside of the issue of putting his books in a new further reading section.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

George Will quote

At least two editors objected to the inclusion of this because it doesn't do justice to Will's sarcasm.

George Will said the movement would lead to Republican gains if it advances, so conservatives should rejoice and wish it a long life, abundant publicity and sufficient organization to endorse congressional candidates.ref>Will, G.F. "George Will: ‘Occupy' is good news for conservatives" Orange County Register</ref>

Who can think of a better way to phrase it? Or, are there better conservative voices to include? Dualus (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps one that isn't written in an abstract, sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek style such that its words can't be taken at face value and require a bit of analysis to reveal their intended meaning. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
just for the record, since we're moving this to a new section, i didn't object to the material because it "doesn't do justice to will's sarcasm" but because i believe it is not possible to do justice to will's sarcasm and remain within wikipedia guidelines. i will continue to oppose any possible rephrasing of will's essay unless that rephrasing itself is based on a separate reliable source which explicitly and directly explains will's sarcasm.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I am convinced that sarcasm can be conveyed. But why should we not take Will at face value? Is there any reliable source agreeing with the assumption that he didn't mean what he wrote? Dualus (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Sarcasm inherently can't be taken at face value, because its true meaning is left for the reader to infer. That's a problem on WP, because WP editors can't draw their own inferences; hence why Ali was saying we'd need an additional source analyzing the Will piece. And I highly doubt we're going to find someone in a RS who bothers to dissect a column by a pundit and translate it from sarcastic-style to straightforward-English style. Hence the suggestion not to include. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
What is the evidence that Will is being sarcastic? Dualus (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
it's on the editor who wants to include material to supply evidence that it's verifiable. see WP:BURDEN.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
And just for the sake of replying to your question, for instance, when he says the bit about "conservatives should wish OWS a long life..." what he really means to say is "let these idiots take over the Democratic Party; the public will reject it and we will destroy it". But, he doesn't actually say that. But also, we can't say that on WP without a source because it would be OR. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Neither of those theories suggest that we shouldn't faithfully represent his Orange County Register statements in the critical commentary section. Dualus (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Both these "theories" clearly suggest that we cannot faithfully represent Will's statements without committing some OR. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
No, you have no reliable source stating that Will is being sarcastic, so you have no reason to refrain from summarizing his statements. Dualus (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't need a reliable source saying the column was in a sarcastic tone in order for this objection to be valid. There's just no good way of writing this, as seems to be supported by the versions you've attempted. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You most certainly do. If you are trying to argue any position, you still need to support it. You have been unable to articulate one whit of evidence that Will was being anything but forthright. Dualus (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Centrify. I should think that when an editor finds that s/he is getting no support and several editors oppose an edit it is not very considerate to stretch the argument out to eternity and beyond. Gandydancer (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Centrify would need a source if he wanted to include a statement in the article that said that will was being sarcastic. sources aren't necessary if additions are not being made. whoever wants to put stuff in should have a source that supports the stuff that gets put in. since a bunch of editors seem to agree that you don't have sufficient sources to allow the insertion of anything to do with the will quote, it shouldn't go in. if anyone wanted to put a statement in the article claiming that will was being sarcastic, they'd need a source for it, but there's no reason why anyone needs a source to allow something to be left out of the article. anyway, your argument, which i admit is quite clever, cuts against you as well. do you have a source stating that will was not being sarcastic? no? ok, so then none of us can prove with sources that he was being sarcastic, and none of us can prove with sources that he was not being sarcastic, and so we just have to discuss the matter, which we're doing. if we cannot agree, which it seems that we cannot, then the stuff should stay out, there being no consensus.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying that while you agree you need sources to include things, removal can be supported by people's unsupported opinions? Dualus (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone agree that sarcasm can not be conveyed? Dualus (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. And a better question to ask is, Does anyone else agree with me that this should be included? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless consensus is changed by others besides we three, it's time to recognize the issue as a dead parrot that has gone to meet its maker.'ELLO POLLY!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:CCC. New sources are coming in all the time. I'm sure we haven't heard the last from Will on this. Dualus (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What reasons are there to not include this material?

These are all from this diff:

  1. (in intro) "Initiated by the Canadian activist group Adbusters,[1][2] the protests were inspired by the Arab Spring movement, especially Cairo's Tahrir Square protests, and the Spanish Indignants.[3][4]"
  1. (in intro) "An October 11 poll showed that 54% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the protests, compared to 27% for the Tea Party movement,[5] and up from 38% in a poll conducted October 6–10.[6] An October 12–16 poll found that 67% of New York City voters agreed with the protesters and 87% agreed with their right to protest.[7]"
  2. "The protesters have joined[8][9] Harvard law professor and Creative Commons board member Lawrence Lessig's call for a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution[10][11] made at a September 24–25, 2011 conference co-chaired by the Tea Party Patriots' national coordinator,[12] in Lessig's October 5 book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It,[13] and at the Occupy protest in Washington, DC.[14][15] Reporter Dan Froomkin said the book could serve as a manifesto for the protesters, focusing on the core problem of corruption in both political parties and their elections.[16] Lessig's initial constitutional amendment would allow legislatures to limit political contributions from non-citizens, including corporations, anonymous organizations, and foreign nationals (see Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.[17]) Lessig, who adds credibility to the movement,[18] also supports public campaign financing and electoral college reform to establish the one person, one vote principle.[19] Lessig's web site convention.idea.informer.com allows anyone to propose and vote on constitutional amendments.[20] Similar amendments have been proposed by Dylan Ratigan,[21] Karl Auerbach,[22] Cenk Uygur,[23] and others.[24]"
  3. File:Occupy Wall Street Together.jpg|thumb|left|Solidarity poster referencing the We are the 99% slogan]]

That last one could use a source, but unless there are objective reasons brought forth, I will insist on a formal tag-teaming report. I can not find any objections to the first three that have not fully been addressed. I refuse to accept reasons such as "because consensus is against it" without reference to actual objections which have not already been addressed, because WP:CCC. Dualus (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. What did the edit summaries say? What objections were made in Talk? The answers are there, and they have been there all along. Which is why Dualus has no genuine entitlement to have them repeated here.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't ask why not. Explain why.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Refusal to accept consensus is not editing in good faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Threats of administrative action are inappropriate.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I and others have already explained why in detail. If you don't want it in the article it's because you think there's a problem, or because you can't articulate a problem but you're depending on those who are opposed to including it for similarly vague reasons to support you. Dualus (talk) 03:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I see. So, it's just about your perceptions of others and nothing in regards to actual policy, guidelines or consensus. You just can't work with others?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I want to know why people think those things shouldn't go in too. The polls are already in there, and who cares if it was the Arab Spring or the Chinese Fall? The Constitution amendment stuff is important and I'd like to know why anyone thinks it isn't. 71.33.169.3 (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not a discussion board but the talk page for improving the article. It is unconstructive and combative to contributing editors and consensus to demand continued explanations why something has been excluded when edit summaries and talk pages can be utilized to find the information as originally made. Please give your reasoning to why you feel they are important and change the consensus. Don't just question it.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is a discussion board, about what should and should not go in this article. The Constitutional amendment should. It's more important than any other part of this story. 71.33.169.3 (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the "Talk Page" for improving the article and not a discussion board of the general subject. What is or is not more important to one is not so to another. To make the claim "it is the most important part" is not helping to improve the article but is simple point of view and may constitute original research. Best to simply explain how it is important to the article, how it should be added and present any relevent reliable sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have addressed every issue that I've seen raised about this material. If there are outstanding or new issues, or if I haven't sufficiently addressed the issues that have already been raised, I need to know about them so I can work on those items. If I don't see anything, why shouldn't I simply re-insert the item. I looked over the edit summaries, which didn't have anything concrete in them (and per WP:REVTALK we aren't supposed to be using the summaries to debate; we're supposed to be using this talk page.) Dualus (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
And consensus has not been moved. It's time to drop the stick and slowly walk away from the dead horse. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
"Addressing" objections would mean actually changing your proposed text in response to those objections. Simply responding at Talk by repeating arguments that have already been rejected by everyone else here does not count as "addressing" the objections. And you won't get far by simply claiming that you didn't hear any objections.
Even without actually making a tally of the objections you've ignored, or all the times you've simply disengaged from this debate and started a "new" one when it was clear your proposals weren't gaining traction, it should be clear that you haven't even responded to my most recent objection to your current proposed revision. To refresh your memory, this was the point at which you decided to simply insert the paragraph again without waiting for, or making a meaningful attempt towards, consensus.
I'll say this one last time: you're generally expected to show that your position is correct, with as much explanation as is necessary to make your point clearly; you can't just declare victory and insert whatever disputed text you like. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I resent the false insinuation that there are objections which I have not sufficiently addressed. In the single objection Centrify says I ignored, Centrify wrote, "it's very heavy on information that may be of interest to OWS, but is not about OWS. Also, I urge you once again to avoid simply listing a large number of sources without quoting specific language and connecting it with a specific proposition that you think each source supports." How exactly does one draw the distinction between being of interest to and being about? We are supposed to insert what is of interest to our readers and about the subject. But that obscures the fact that the information is genuinely about the movement. And I'm not going to pepper everything with pull quotes because you refuse to read the sources. That seems to me like you're trying to buy time to think of something substantive, if you ever get around to actually reading the sources. Dualus (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
If you admit you ignored this objection, how can you say with a straight face that I've made a "false insinuation" that you haven't addressed objections raised? And do you really not see the difference between material that's of interest to OWS and material that's about OWS? If so, that would seem to explain a lot.
No one can force you to reference source text, but don't expect other editors to agree with you if you don't show how the sources substantiate material you wish to add. And I really wish you would stop claiming that I "refuse to read the sources". I've read numerous sources you've posted in their entirety, in search of (unspecified!) material which might support your contentions—and in each case discovered you were exaggerating or otherwise misrepresenting the sources. That takes a lot of time. So pardon me if I don't jump at the chance to read 10 or 20 more sources in their entirety, when you haven't bothered to discuss the objections previously raised, and can't be bothered to identify anything specific that is supported by anything specific. I mean, I could just list a Google search and say "These sources show that I'm right. If you disagree, prove me wrong".. which is essentially what you're doing. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't admit I ignored the objection, I said it was wrong and therefore has been addressed. You have failed to present any evidence that the call for a constitutional amendment, the polls, or the Arab Spring connection are in any way not "about" the protests or are in any way not of interest to our readers. I have in fact referenced source text? How long do you intend to refuse to evaluate those references without reading them? Do you know how to use your browser's search function? Dualus (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
There's a misplace sense of entitlement at work here. Editor's do not have to endlessly defend themselves or the consensus. The only reason I would rejoin the discussion would be if it seemed that a new consensus was developing. As of now I accept the consensus and urge the same of others. 21:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, editors who refuse to support their arguments with reliable sources and logical arguments have to endlessly defend the consensus they say exists because WP:CCC. You ask that people follow your example blindly, without any valid reasons or sources supporting your relatively unarticulated position. Dualus (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
"... have to endlessly defend the consensus" The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there; this is all BS. Nobody needs a source to tell you that sources you present don't support material you've added. And to flatly say that everyone here but you is making arguments devoid of logic is just pointless and insulting (not to mention absurd).
It's also worth noting that both consensus and changed consensus would require that at least one other editor agree with your edits. Consensus doesn't change by sheer force of your personal opinion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
It's true that nobody needs a source to say that a statement is insufficiently sourced. They merely need to say which specific statements they believe are unsupported. People who refuse to do that highlight their own ignorance, laziness, and bad faith editing. Where have there been any complaints about any of the specific statements in the passages under discussion here? You can see plenty of editors in agreement in the edit history. Dualus (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Character assassination and nonsense; feel free to redact. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
It would be much easier for you to state specific objections. Do you have any? Why haven't you already stated them? Dualus (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I intend to replace this information on a time frame recommended by the administrator who has warned me for allegedly edit warring unless there are specific objections which can not be addressed. Dualus (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The admin plainly said you were edit warring and ignoring how we do consensus around here.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
And I intend to remove it if it goes against consensus, is undue weight, fringe theory or any other reason that it may have to be excluded.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Edit summaries are not a debate...they are the summary of reasons for the edit. You are simply incorrect with that assessment and seem to only want to stamp your feet in anger at your contribution being excluded by consensus and a VERY detailed, long list of contributing editors explanations against it. You have used the talk page to accuse editors here of everything from vandalism to tag teaming and have made several threats to intimidate others to get your way. You have become a clear disruption.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Where is the "VERY detailed, long list of contributing editors explanations against" this material? If there was such a list I would have something to work on, but in fact there is no such list. Prove me wrong, summarize it, or point to it, or copy and paste. Prove that you aren't trying to create the illusion of a rational consensus which doesn't exist. Dualus (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
There is no obligation of any editor to regard or defend a consensus as "rational" unless there is a contrary consensus developing. So far only an army of one is arguing. However, there is every obligation to respect consensus. Attacking the motives of other editors is guaranteed to prevent any changes in sentiment around here . The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous. (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, the silent majority will evaluate facts, logic, sources, and the behavior of editors. It won't take a lot of them to change this weak consensus you perpetuate without valid reasons or specific objections. Dualus (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
You might be right, and we shall see. If this "silent majority" does indeed exists, and it finds a voice, it could affect consensus. Until then the current consensus stands. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how this material is invalid. It relates to the movement, is covered by reliable sources, and is NPOV. What's the problem with it? If there is a 'silent majority' for inclusion of this content, I am indeed in it. Toa Nidhiki05 00:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Response to Toa Nidhiki05

It's understandable on the surface why sources may seem to be the only issue, and unless you go to each source, look at the edit summaries and comb the above discussions, it not easy to quickly grasp what is going on. To sum up in answer to the fair question, not all the sources are good, and consensus has rejected many due to source reliablity. Weight is the other major objection. Moreover, in o# 3 case listed below, consensus supported its conclusion, but that is still being discussed. Thought it's impossible to be thorough, here's the point by point summary of consensus on these :

  1. Not enough weight for lead
  2. Polls are covered in the body, less empemeral reception issues are being discussed for the lead
  3. Not an RS, but this is in currently in the lead and probably on the way out: the source is a self published blogger who is not edited. Other much better RSs for reception issues need to be used.
  4. The whole Lessig is not over sources but relevance and influence (weight). You'll have to look at the above discussions to see why Dualus with was told by an admin that he would be blocked by if he included it.
  5. No one can show that the image is prominent or seems to know its orgin. It could be the same as something I could do in MS Paint and prop up here and insist it stay due to its inherent nobility.

None of this has been secret, and Dualus has simply ignored consensus while edit warring, as an admin told him on his talk page.

You're to reopen discussions to change settled consensus, and you can join the active discussion of whether an unpaid Huffpo blogger with not journalism background is nonetheless a valid source. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I most certainly was not told by an admin that I would be blocked if I included it. I was told I would be blocked if I edit-warred over it. You have shown that you have a very distant relationship with the truth and basic spelling, which are two reasons I tend to discount your opinion. Dualus (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The inequality graph is misleading

Why is the graph based on 1900 instead of World War II? The war (and air freight) changed most of the economy. It should start in 1940. 208.54.38.139 (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The graph has been put together by a Wikimedia Commons member from information that is linked on the image description page. Your question is better directed to the author at commons. If you feel it's inclusion on this article is POV in it's current form and should be excluded from use on Wikipedia, could you please explain your reasoning?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I think excluding 40 years worth of data on the grounds of economic changes would be original research. The raw data is what it is, we're in no position to question its relevance for reason XYZ.--Львівське (говорити) 06:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Raw data is certainly questionable without a reliable source to back it up. Again...is there a reason that the image is specific Point of View and should be excluded?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
In previous talks above about it, the point was brought up that pointing out things like 'great depression' is POV, and there were votes for its removal....and it was just reinserted by another editor without obtaining consensus.--Львівське (говорити) 06:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Consensus is not a straight vote. I, in fact, also removed the image for copyright violations and Original Research, but the author of the image has taken reasonable steps to show his work is available from reliable sources and original research is not supported at this time. It may possibly be Point of View editing, but no such argument has been made that has gained consensus of the contributing editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I should also mention that an attempt at OTRS is being sought to avoid copyright issues and is as well a good faith attempt to take steps to comply with that.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I concur with the OTRS comment; I believe the graph is taken from the paper, as the details of how the data in the graph is obtained from public data is "creative", but, if an author releases copyright, and files the release with OTRS, then I have no objection to the graph. I do question its relevance, but that's a separate issue, and I believe consensus as already against me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source for groups joining the call for a constitutional amendment

Is McCabe, J. (October 21, 2011) "Dear Occupy Wall Street: 'Move to Amend' (the Constitution)" News Times op-ed by Green Party US's international committee co-chair a reliable source for the following excerpt?

"But hope is alive and coming to Connecticut in an edifying feast on the subject by a Move to Amend founder and spokesperson, attorney David Cobb. He will be speaking in the state at several venues beginning Tuesday evening, Oct. 25, at the Dodd Center of the University of Connecticut, Storrs, and culminating in a talk on Oct. 29 at Kent Town Hall, Kent. Several groups are sponsoring this tour, including UConn Student Government, the Shoreline League of Democratic Women, MoveOn.org and the Green Party of CT. As Americans including OWS, look for ways to address our huge socioeconomic disparities and the corruption of our democratic process, "Move to Amend" the Constitution offers a concrete path towards change."

Why or why not? Dualus (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are you proposing to include? It appears that this source shows that some people think (or rather, at least one op-ed writer thinks) that it would be a good idea for OWS to embrace the idea of pushing for amendments to the US Constitution. Is that what you're driving at? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I propose to summarize the quoted passage to prove that the material on the constitutional amendment which you and others have objected to is both about the subject of the article and of interest to our readers. Dualus (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Do that so we can see it. Also, why is this opinion notable and due weight. Sources for that would help. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, that's simple: you can't do that. Read the policy on WP:Original Research, with specific attention to the section on Synthesis. You might also wish to read about logical fallacies, if you expect that showing OWS protesters are interested in a constitutional amendment will somehow demonstrate that Lessig's conference and book are about OWS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
That is false because about-ness is transitive: the protesters have (at least in part) joined Lessig's call for amendments and a convention, so OWS is now at least partially about amending the constitution. Other reliable sources say Lessig gives credibility to the movement, so the relationship is bidirectional. Therefore, OWS is at least partially about the "Move to Amend" campaign and vice versa. Dualus (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Even if that made the slightest bit of sense, it would be WP:SYNTH. So no, you can't do that. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not worried. I'm sure there will be plenty of sources saying so directly soon. Dualus (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Fabulous; does this mean you finally realize that you need sources which directly advance the claims you want to make?. That would be grand. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Centrify on this and believe it also amounts to pushing POV.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You are worried about the point of view of someone who wants to organize the news about the calls for amending the constitution? WP:NPOV means we have to summarize all major points of view with reliable sources. What sources does your position that amending the constitution is unrelated to OWS have? None. So who's trying to bias the encyclopedia? Dualus (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Pushing "POV-pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe views." Considering your aggressive and disruptive behavior here I feel satisfied that the claim has been "done carefully".--Amadscientist (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Since we have an ongoing dispute about this, I am tagging the article with {{POV}}. I believe you are trying to bias the article by excluding information about calls to amend the Constitution. Dualus (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is not a "Dispute". The addition of the POV tag under your reasoning is inappropriate and could constitute further edit warring. It is certainly assuming bad faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This is most certainly a dispute, and the tag is there to warn people of just the sort of thing that you and I are both complaining about. I believe that those of you claiming a consensus against inclusion without any specific objections which have not been addressed are trying to bias the encyclopedia, and you believe I am trying to bias the encyclopedia because I think we should include the well sourced information on calls to amend the Constitution. The tag specifically says to leave it until the dispute is resolved. Dualus (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
You have no idea what I believe or think and should refrain from speaking for anyone but yourself. This is further disruption and these continued accusations are Wikipedia:Harassment.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
A tag needs consensus to remain in the article just like any other piece of article content. EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Clearly many have tried without any success at all to reason with this editor. I guess we'll just have to keep reverting his edits. Gandydancer (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I've been participating in discussions on dozens of passages in the article and have worked to include at least as many insertion suggestions. Just because we can't agree on two doesn't mean I don't reason. Where are the specific objections to the remaining passages? Dualus (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a pointless exercise. People raise objections. You say "I already addressed all your objections. Do you have any more objections?" People note that you didn't address the previous objections. Rinse. Repeat. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
That's not a correct characterization unless you are referring to non-specific objections. I can't do a lot against arguments of undue weight except find more reliable sources. If you don't have a list of your current objections, and I can't find them, that's your problem. Dualus (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The last time you proposed any specific text, I told you exactly what was wrong with it. You responded by ignoring me, walking away from the discussion, and simply re-inserting the text by force—after having been told to seek consensus and refrain from edit-warring. That's just not how it works. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

POV tags remain by consensus

An admin already laid that one down. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Admins aren't infalliable. It is perfectly legitimate to tag the article until a consensus is reached on the various points that are disputed.
I have never seen such desperation to keep a tag out of an article - to me it makes it much more likely that there is a POV issue. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I trust the admin, and until I see someone quote a policy that says that not all article content is determined by consensus, I'm calling bs on your point. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Go and read the documentation for the tag - while the dispute is ongoing it is perfectly normal to tag the article. This is standard practice. Unless the admin is an uninvolved admin closing the discussion they have no more say than anyone else by being an administrator. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Nah, I trust the esteemed admin and unless you can counter it, the point has been credibly made and only gainsayed. And by the way, that interloper meme thing is hella funny. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The other option, if the tag continues to be removed, is full protection for the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Get busy now. And you got any way of backing up your argument? I haven't seen it yet. If the answer is no, then someone needs to back off. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
See the template documentation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x4 Ed is just an editor, the fact he is also an admin does not matter. If an editor feels an article is POV he can justifiably tag said article until the discussion is solved or runs out of steam, that is policy and local consensus does not override policy. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it does matter, cuz he knows his stuff and you two have not done your homework. So, I decided to help you out and get you both up to speed. Per the POV templates for the tags (pay attention to number 3). The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

When to remove

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

  1. No discussion about neutrality issues was started on this article's talk page.
  2. Discussion about neutrality issues is dormant.
  3. There is consensus in the discussion that the problems have been resolved

Tag is needed. This is an article on a controversial subject and a current event. POV can change rapidly in this article so I think it should be added. Lots of people editing could be pro or anti OWS. The tag helps the reader to at least know that could be going on.

--Andy0093 (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If the editor who added the tag was discussing neutrality issues then yes the tag is justified. Is there a section were he was discussing it? I found it, in the section directly above. So policy ws followed. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Please. please, please, read number three, Consensus is that no disputes are unresolved. Unless that is addressed, you've just improvised what you think policy should be. A better respect for consensus would repair that. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
If you feel a consensus has been reached get an uninvolved administrator to close the relevant discussion(s) here by asking Dualus if needed and wait for the NPOV noticeboard discussion to be closed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Unless you can point to a dispute that the actual editor's of article have not resolved, you have no grounds to insist on the tag. Furthermore, you have neither edited the article or been involved in any way in shaping that consensus. In short, you have no standing here, and are presumptuously acting as an admin. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
[QUOTE] Tag is needed. This is an article on a controversial subject and a current event. POV can change rapidly in this article so I think it should be added. Lots of people editing could be pro or anti OWS. The tag helps the reader to at least know that could be going on.[/QUOTE] I shall wait for the decision on the tag, however, most certainly this will not be the reason for keeping it. If the "Abortion" article which I work on has had a heated argument going on for months with 5 or more pages of discussion does not have one, I doubt that this article should have one just because we need to help readers know that there is controversy. Many articles are being argued about, but that does not mean that they all have tags. Gandydancer (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Stick one on Abortion then. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. I'm not a fool. Most of the people working on that article have much more experience in matters of policy than I do. Many of them are administrators. I trust their judgement. Gandydancer (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
If we are measuring the size of our edit histories I have 20000 edits and no blocks - I have plenty of experience of policy. Lets not forget WP:NOBIGDEAL. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That was foul, would you remove it? We like a vigorous discussion, but you just went out on that one. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC) The consensus of actual editors of the article do not wish the POV tag to added. Outside editors need to respect that. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk)

Local consensus doesn't override policy. You are behaving in a highly inappropriate manner. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Now this scolding is very interesting. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Since my view is policy based, and the policy is quoted, not merely alluded to, Angry's argument is both ironic and perplexing. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
What Eraserhead said. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Of note full protection has been requested at WP:RfPP. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
That went down in glorious flames. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Because I didn't continue to revert you. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Good call, no consensus exits between actual editors of the article to maintain it, and I'm sure that is why you were so circumspect. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
No, because edit warring isn't an acceptable justification to remove it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Not a bad reason. Now, one of these days I would like for the first time to see what aspect of POV policy you have relied on beyond the vague allusions that have presented so far. I really have no way of understanding what policy agrees with you on POV tags and can not guess what it might be if only being pointed towards the POV page is all I get to satisfy my curiosity. BTW, I don't feel entitled as long as the consensus is respected on the POV tag, but I am truly interested. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Consensus is not a straight vote of one against another. It is what all editors eventually live with from a formed discussion. There is no consensus on the POV tag as of yet. That doesn't mean it can't be formed and followed. You can't force an editor into a dispute. You can't beat someone up and then claim they were violent. No dispute exists between myself and Dualus. Constant reverts that are unjustified are edit warring. That is not a dispute. Claims and accusations against others is not a dispute. Consensus of contributing editors is not a dispute, it is the heart and soul of Wikipedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Consensus requires the support of reliable sources for it to remain in place. Can you think of better sources than Huffington Post to describe the calls for constitutional amendments? Is the Salon source sufficient for showing that Lessig is part of the movement? Dualus (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
What is "Better"? Better, as in you believe Huffington Post is biased, or better in that there are more reliable sources. Huffington Post is a reliable source for information when properly cited following Wikipedia guide lines. Limits to undue weight are reasonable if it is truly so. As far as I am concerned you have raised an issue and stated your intentions. As I have said, if your edit is not approved of by another editor and is reverted they need to justify the revert to form consensus. There is no reason you can't work on this page. No one is stopping you or anyone else. Just have more patience, be civil and please don't make accusations.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry you don't need consensus to tag an article - that has never been followed anywhere else on the project. Oh and you can "force" someone into a dispute by disagreeing with them - just as you can in real life - trying to stop this is absurd. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but you aren't even arguing the facts of the discussion now. Adding it...anyone can do, just as removing it can be done by anyone. Consensus is formed by all parties. And if you personally can be forced into a dispute by someone disagreeing with you....I suggest you review dispute resolution and Wikipedia:No angry mastodons sir. Nobody ever got trampled to death because they were editing an encyclopedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Dualus took this to ANI to request ADMINISTRATIVE intervention! He wasn't counting on it being him that was intervened on. Now Eraserhead1 (edit: and others) says that admin intervention AGAINST Dualus doesn't count. Interesting logic but absurd.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit filter requested

Because of the IP hopper who is way too obsessed with tugging little boy's penises, I've asked that an edit filter be put in place so that good faith IP editors and new editors can continue to post here. I'll let y'all know if it's approved and implemented so we can let good faith unconfirmed users help. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's really helpful. If it's approved, then we can remove the protection on this page. It would also prevent the problem from spreading to other pages. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
As an aside, if reliable sources comment on this "Occupy Wikipedia" movement these <redacted plural noun> claim to be representing, should there be an article on that subject? (Oh, and thanks for working on the edit filter. At least once a <redacted adjective> anon was reversed by another anon. It's not all anons, even on this article.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I've received confirmation that it's being worked on right now. As for Occupy Wikipedia, I'm just as ready to assume that what we've seen so far is really just one guy in his mom's basement (or some other basement hopefully more than 500 feet away from any schools, daycares, or playgrounds). For what it's worth (I'm not an RS), most of the Occupy folks and sympathizers I've heard from or about see Wikipedia as indirectly on their side (or at least not on the side of the %1), so I don't think we're going to be occupied. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done. One can never be too confident how these things will work out, but it should give us some peace for a while. If anyone wants to know, it's in filter 58. And feel free to ask an admin to reprotect this page it if it returns. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Bravo! Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wikipedia, see Talk:"Occupy" protests # I would like to propose Wikipedia:Project Occupy. 99.35.13.28 (talk) 06:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a point?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You do know what a Wikipedia project is...right?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Difference between polls of demographics and public opinion

There should be a new section for public opinion of the movement separate from demographics.

the part in question:

An October 13 survey by Time Magazine found that 54 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of the protests, while 23 percent have a negative impression. An NBC/Wall Street Journal survey found that 37 percent of respondents "tend to support" the movement, while 18 percent "tend to oppose" it.

needs it's own section since it's about opinion outside the movement and there's numerous other polls to look at.

UPDATE: I just created the section. CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Latest POV tag

The dispute concerning the inclusion of Nazis has also resulted in an editor including the {{POV}} tag, which I have been trying to include based on the removal of polling data and calls for a constitutional amendment. However, the tag was immediately reverted. Something is happening here. Dualus (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Well perhaps it was the wrong tag :o) I used a different one which should suffice The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you enlighten us as to which 'significant viewpoints' you think have been excluded? Is it the viewpoint of the American Nazi Party, or the blogs you found on Google? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I removed the POV tag in regards to not using the ANP stuff. If there's a more legitimate reason, feel free to add it back. Hot Stop talk-contribs 18:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Whether the tag is valid for the Nazis or not, the #Sources saying the protesters want a constitutional amendment are not represented in the article, and I do not believe the claims of consensus. Those who say they are in support have been too quiet. Dualus (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Re-add it then. But it link it to that discussion, and not the Nazi one like it previously was. Hot Stop talk-contribs 18:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I would prefer that you simply add a {{POV}} tag. There were no links in the tag you most recently deleted. This article should also have a POV tag because the document by the Demands Working Group has been completely scrubbed. Dualus (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I still disagree with your placement of the tag for the reasons you state, it may never be neutral enough to satisfy all and you are simply using it to get your way.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of articles in Wikipedia that may never be neutral to satisfy all, and we indicate them with the POV tag. I do not think of editing as trying to get my way, I try to improve the encyclopedia for our readers. Dualus (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I like that reasoning far more than anything else you have stated so far. I can live with it for now as no one has reverted with any argument against it. Consensus for the tag appears to be holding at this point.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources saying the Demands Working Group published demands

Those who wish to keep information about recent polling data, calls for a constitutional convention, that there were 100,000 protestors in the US on October 15, and the connection to the Arab Spring out of the article intro at #Improving the lede above (including User:Gandydancer -- please see that userpage about minstrels and blackface) have also removed all mention of the Demands Working Group document so here are some sources about it:

  1. Haack, D. (October 24, 2011) "How the Occupy movement won me over" The Guardian
  2. Duda, C. (October 19, 2011) "Occupy Wall Street Protesters Call for National General Assembly, Put Forward Possible Demands" Juvenile Justice Information Exchange
  3. Lopez, L. (October 19, 2011) "Finally! The Protesters Have Drafted A Set Of Demands For The Jobs Crisis" Business Insider
  4. Gerson, M. (October 20, 2011) "Obama’s risky embrace of Occupy Wall Street" Washington Post
  5. Isquith, E. (October 20, 2011) "Occupy Wall Street’s growing pains" League of Ordinary Gentlemen

In light of these new sources, does anyone object to including the fact that the Demands Working Group published some proposed demands? In the mean time I am going to remove the opinion that they were rejected from the intro. Dualus (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Where to start? First off, I did not remove "information about recent polling data, calls for a constitutional convention, that there were 100,000 protestors in the US on October 15, and the connection to the Arab Spring out of the article intro at # above". I wrote, with significant talk page discussion, the second paragraph. I also wrote most of the information re the document in the body of the article and there is a link to the document there. Actually there is a link to it in the reference I used in the lede as well. As for my gandydancer page, I had no idea that it looked like that! I thought that I had created a work page to work on the yodel article that I have (almost totally) written. Why you believe that it is somehow shocking is beyond me - though I'm glad to know that I need to delete it! So if anyone wants to read about the first yodeling in the U.S. read "my" article Yodeling. And finally, it seems that you have a grudge against me because I don't agree with some of your ideas and are attempting to cause me grief, and you're doing a good job of that - and I'm sick of spending so my of my time in this manner. Gandydancer (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I corrected the #Improving the lede link. I was unable to see any link to the "99 Percent Declaration" document which looked like it had entirely been scrubbed. It still looks to me like you are trying to completely scrub all substantial mention of the DWG declaration. I have a very hard time believing you are not familiar with the state of your user page. Dualus (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, I don't get angry very often but I've had about enough of this. You're suggesting I'm trying to "completely scrub all substantial mention of the DWG declaration". I have no idea where you get this notion, but since you are accusing me of intentional bias, I expect you to show exactly how and why I've attempted to sway the article. As for my use page, how would I know? I never go there. It was the first time I had used a work page and thought I had created one. Why are you making such a big deal of the fact that minstrels and black face are mentioned? Do you think that it must mean that I am a bigot? I am about ready to leave this article. I've worked on quite a few controversial articles, but I've never seen anything like this. Gandydancer (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say you were a bigot, I questioned the terms you chose to use on your user page. How do you feel about this compromise? Dualus (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Since you reverted without discussing your changes her on talk first, how do you feel about this compromise? Dualus (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
If you want to comment on the lede please go to the appropriate section and comment there rather than start a new section where you chose to suggest I'm deleting large sections of copy. You have made accusations and I now expect you to back them up by pointing out where I made the deletions. I find that all of my editing is now related to your wild accusations. If a new editor joins the group and sees what you are writing it may give them the idea that there must be some truth to what you are claiming. Thus, I want to see you point out exactly where I deleted the copy that you say that I have. Gandydancer (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The only way you've ever linked to the 99 Percent Declaration from the intro has been indirectly via a Huffington Post source. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Dualus (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes you are wrong. When I did my first edit to that section I added to what you had already posted WHICH INCLUDED THE LINK TO THE DOCUMENT. Gandydancer (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't freak out...but I sorta agree with that. Huffington still seems to be a major objection with little rationale but "indirectly" was something I was looking at last night. Don't know if Dualus has changed that or not but we can disuss it and figure it out.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I never said that I linked to it! The demand group was NOT mentioned in the lede, it WAS mentioned in the body where it WAS linked to the demands list. I don't know how many different times or ways I need to repeat this! And, I'm still waiting for information on all the other deletions that I supposedly made. Gandydancer (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about accusations. Water off a ducks back. Lets focus on the article and improving it and find a way to move on. I don't want you to walk away from the article. Take a break, have some dinner, take a walk and comeback.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  1. 1 Haack, cannot be verified to have any editorial over site for the blog and no evidence can be found to show the author has journalistic credentials. Unreliable source for facts. Threat it like the Huffington Post.
  1. 2 is probably the strongest reference with what appears to be akin to a University website with student journalist but may be paid staff.
  1. 3 looks like another blog but seems to have editorial over site. So treat it as an opinion piece unless you can show it is an actual article and can back trace it or show she is writing this as a story and not opinion/blog.
  1. 4 is a reliable source as an opinion piece because it is an opinion piece and labeled as such.
  1. 5 is a straight on personal blog on a hosted site and has no value here as a reference.

--Amadscientist (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Fleming was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference adbusters was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference cnn was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference adbusters1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Brohinsky, S. (October 11, 2011) "As Economic Frustrations Grow, Protesters Gain Support – Majority of Americans Have a Favorable Opinion of the Occupy Movement" SRBI.com
  6. ^ Ipsos/Reuters (October 12, 2011) "Poll: October 2011" Ipsos-NA.com
  7. ^ Reuters (October 17, 2011) "New Yorkers support anti-Wall Street protests: poll" Reuters.com
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference kingkade was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference 99percentdeclaration was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Lessig, L. (October 12, 2011) "A Letter to the #Occup(iers): The principle of Non-contradiction" Huffington Post
  11. ^ "CallAConvention.org". CallAConvention.org. Retrieved October 19, 2011.
  12. ^ Conference on the Constitutional Convention, Harvard University, September 24-5, 2011
  13. ^ Lessig, L. (2011) Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It (New York City: Hachette/Twelve) excerpt
  14. ^ Tackett, C. (October 19, 2011) "Could #OccupyWallStreet Become a Constitutional Convention?" Discovery / TreeHugger.com
  15. ^ Leventhal, D. and Palmer, A. (October 19, 2011) "Politico Influence - Intelligence and analysis on lobbying" Politico.com
  16. ^ Froomkin, D. (October 5, 2011) "Lawrence Lessig's New Book On Political Corruption Offers Protesters A Possible Manifesto" Huffington Post
  17. ^ Wiessman, R. (October 19, 2011) "'Occupy' Movement Purposely Has No Single, Set Demand" US News
  18. ^ Oremus, W. (October 5, 2011) "Academics Help Wall Street Protests Gain Credibility" Slate.com
  19. ^ Hill, A. (October 4, 2011) "Campaign finance, lobbying major roadblocks to effective government" Marketplace Morning Report (American Public Media)
  20. ^ Lessig, L. (2011) "Propose Amendments to the Constitution" convention.idea.informer.com
  21. ^ Ratigan, D. (2011) "It's Time to GET MONEY OUT of politics" GetMoneyOut.com
  22. ^ Auerbach, K. (2011) "Proposed Amendment to the United States Constitution To Redress the Increasing Distortion of Elections and Political Speech by Corporations and Other Aggregate Forms" cavebear.com/amendment
  23. ^ Blumenthal, P. (October 20, 2011) "Cenk Uygur Launches New Effort To Separate Money And Politics" Huffington Post
  24. ^ Shane, P.M. (October 11, 2011) "Occupy the Constitution" Huffington Post
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street/Archive_10&oldid=1142331871"