Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:58, 11 October 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Occupy Wall Street article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Occupy Wall Street article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Occupy Wall Street. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Occupy Wall Street at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

OWS (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject OWS, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.OWSWikipedia:WikiProject OWSTemplate:WikiProject OWSOWS Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Government / History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Low-importance).

To-do list for Occupy Wall Street: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2015-01-27 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Please add related link to Model Community Bill of Rights Template for Occupy communities http://envisionseattle.org/2011/12/model-community-bill-of-rights-template-for-occupy-communities.html Stubs : Finish and merge #Long term background (3⁄4 done). Or a separate article ? Update : SOURCES confirmed interesting to review. Mark the line {{done}} when inclusion is  Done.—Democracy Now! coverage index (to watch daily)—Twitter RSS flux with recent sources : on #Occupywallst (tweeter) (to watch daily)—Captain, Sean (Oct. 19). "The Demographics Of Occupy Wall Street". {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help) —The Class War Has Begun - an analysis connecting OWS with the Depression era Bonus Army —History frowns on violent response to protests follow up interview on Rachel Maddow show— Sharlet, Jeff (Nov. 10). "Inside Occupy Wall Street". Rollingstone.com. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help) — very detailled article on OWS early stages.—Dickinson, Tim (Nov. 9). "How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich". RollingStone.com. p. 8. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help) — very detailed article on recent US taxes/fiscal history and how the GOP led to fiscal unbalance, 8 pages.

A news item involving Occupy Wall Street was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 2 October 2011.

Occupy Wall Street was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 10, 2011). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Occupy Wall Street was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 24, 2012). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Pepper spraying of the demonstrators was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 3 October 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Occupy Wall Street. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Origins - OWS being the leader of the movements around the world - A big mistake

Why do people insist on saying "Adbusters initiated the protest, which has led to Occupy protests and movements around the world"? I don´t give credit! Adbusters only animated to introduce in USA a movement that was already ongoing in Europe for, at least, 6 moths (Spanish 3/15/2011). People in Europe saw this movement reaching Wall Street when they had been months occupying squares with that same slogan ('Toma la plaza', translated or maybe mistraslated from Europe as 'Take the Square'). And now USA is going down in History as the perpetrator and leader? So months taking squares didn´t worth anything? USA was almost the last country to join it, and Europe witnessed it after months of being in that movement. Just because it was not in USA media so nobody realized it there? OWS is an exact replica of the movement as it was created in Madrid (Puerta del Sol).

The Adbusters themselves stated so in their call saying people in USA had to rise up as Arab Spring and Spanish 'Acampadas' ('Encampments').

I provided proof enough with this:

The Canadian activist group Adbusters initiated the protest, inspired by the Arab Spring and Spanish 'Take the Square'<ref>{{cite web|title='Original Adbuster´s Call #OCCUPYWALLSTREET|url=http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/occupywallstreet.html|web=Adbusters.org}}</ref>, taking from the last, the encampment and assembly method.

The link is: http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/occupywallstreet.html

This is just a question of fidelity to the truth that millions of people lived in Europe. Now you can edit it again and again, but I hope History to be more truthfull than this wiki sheet.

I say this not in anger (I just express it as my English skills allow me to do). I won´t start an editing war, that´s preciselly the opposite that this movement means. But that´s the way it just was, and won´t change because some people didn´t witness it.

Marxcubes (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I now see this issue has been discussed several times, so I guess, this is going to stay like this no matter what. Thanks gosh this is not gospell.

Marxcubes (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

"Ongoing"

I notice the status of the occupation still reads as "ongoing", even though the occupation was evicted by force months ago and Zucotti Park is presently empty. I think the status should be changed to have ended when the Occupation itself was evicted by force. --Michaelwuzthere (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Occupy Wall Street remains quite active, despite the park eviction. See: Occupy Wall Street Events and Occupywallst.org for starters. Northamerica1000 00:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

===“Ongoing”… FOREVER?===

This movement is no longer "Ongoing". There are no longer camps set up in any US city. The movement, i.e. protesters, may still be ongoing using the moniker "occupy" but the encampment is long gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.249.116 (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to put wording in the lead that explains that OWS is the name of the movement so that we don't continue to need to explain that OWS is ongoing even though there is no longer a physical presence of a camp. I think it should be the second sentence of the lead to clear it up right off the bat. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

While I'm fairly indifferent as to what its status is, I'd tend to think that the movement that is ongoing is the Occupy movement as opposed to "Occupy Wall Street" itself. Wall Street doesn't currently have an established occupation or even continuous protest, and while there is a website that organizes marches, etc., they would likely better fall in the Occupy Movement, as a post-OWS reaction. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 22:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street is not ongoing. Whether the Occupy movement is ongoing is a debate for that article. People don't even congregate on Federal Hall anymore, and there is no police presence as there are no protesters. --David Shankbone 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is the OWS's most recent newsletter:

Our mass mobilization of the 99% on September 15 - 17 is coming up soon. And as it was when OWS first began, the most impactful way to help is to show up, do your thing and help all our voices be heard!

Below you will find a series of actions and events building up to S17 as well as planning meetings and conference calls where you could help organize the litany of S17 festivities throughout the weekend. You can also check out the Occupy Classifieds for immediate needs leading up to our one year anniversary. Have a great idea? Make it so!

Help Build the People's Wall on S17 Wednesday, August 29th, 5pm Liberty Square - Zuccotti Park The morning of September 17th will include a gathering at the intersections immediately surrounding the New York Stock Exchange. Each intersection will feature performers and open public speak outs, followed by a mass sit-in. Join us this Wednesday, when we will talk about and practice this planned action.

Free University Planning Meeting Thursday, August 30th, 6pm CUNY Graduate Center - 365 Fifth Ave - Room 5414. Bring ID and snacks. All are welcome. The Free University of NYC will host a week of free educational courses and events in Madison Square Park this September 18-22. Help us organize all this at our planning meeting.

S17 Affinity Spokes Friday, August 31st, 6pm Foley Square Come to the affinity group spokescouncil to plan actions on the birthday of Occupy Wall Street, September 17th. An affinity group is a group of friends or family. Its a group of people you trust. Its also a group that shares a political or tactical goal. 5pm: Trainings on affinity groups: learn more about how to form an affinity group. 6pm: Spokescouncil begins

Occupy Dance Every Saturday and Wednesday, 7pm The Wall Street Bull, 1 Bowling Green Help build momentum leading up to September 17 on join Occupy Dance in a peaceful protest at the Wall Street bull. Join us as we celebrate the iconic image of the ballerina on the bull and exercise our freedom of expression. All are welcome to join in a full ballet warm up and creative practice.

S17 Convergence Planning Saturday, September 1st, 2pm The Garibaldi Statue at Washington Square Park, 1 Washington Square Join us for our fourth meeting for planning convergence components for September 17th and the preceding weekend (September 15-16). Check out the schedule we’ve developed and look for the OWS Orientation Banner!

S17 Work Sprint Sunday, September 2nd, Noon - 4pm 33 Flatbush Avenue, Brooklyn Come join teams from across OWS as we work on all the exciting stuff that needs doing for S17: websites, volunteer coordination, calendar updates, prep for the Monday Spokes meeting and anything else. Please email services@s17nyc.org for location and further information.

S17 Coordination Meeting Monday, September 3rd, 6pm - 9pm Judson Memorial Church, Washington Square Park South Interested in planning or plugging in to S17 activities? Come and bring your creative juices so we can make an amazing cocktail of a weekend celebrating a new chapter of Occupy!

National Planning Call for September 17th Tuesday, September 4th, 7pm Location: Your phone Join occupiers nation-wide through InterOccupy as we organize for the big day. Pass on the plans from your city to date (estimate numbers interested in coming if there was free transport, solidarity actions, etc), and help us help you best plug into any available resources.

The Crushing Burden of Debt Tuesday, September 4th, 7pm McNally Jackson Books, 52 Prince Street 76% of Americans are in serious debt. At least 1 in 7 is already being pursued by debt collectors. Median household debt in America has risen to $75,600, and much of it can never be repaid in our lifetimes. Credit was supposed to help us realize our dreams. Instead, predatory lenders are rapidly closing off the opportunities that a democracy ought to nurture. Panel members will discuss the consequences, and the possibilities for debt resistance.

Call for Artists: Submit Media for S17 Anytime. From anywhere. This movement can't happen without your creativity. Please share pictures, videos, drawings, signs, posters, or anything else we can re-post online!

Administrative Announcement from our friends at NYCGA.net:

We will be starting over with new and improved events listings! If you have events on NYCGA.net they will need to be reposted after September 5th. For more details about how to make sure your awesome events are posted now and going forward, please contact tech@nycga.net with questions.

For Text Message alerts on your cellphone about daily events, actions, and important information, sign up for the ComHub SMS blasts by texting @owscom to 23559.

Gandydancer (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

As with most of the planned events, there is hardly a turnout. They have events nearly every day, but it can hardly be called alive or ongoing just because a group posts events on their own website. Were the events notable and if they caused a significant ongoing presence as an entity specific to OWS, then this specific OWS movement could be considered reborn, but until that happens, there's really no evidence it is truly ongoing. The most recent "big" event they had was May Day, and that hardly had notable turnout in itself beyond the standard yearly protests unassociated with OWS/Occupy.

A further note: Occupy’s New York General Assembly, which was largely the monetary arm of OWS, was dissolved and its assets frozen several months ago (See this for example) Coupled with the lack of real activity within the last few months, OWS can hardly be considered ongoing. Unless there's more opposition, I'd vote for removing the ongoing status until something else major happens to bring it back to life. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 22:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Your link actually does not support the claim just made above. All that article says is the GA Website stopped functioning because of infighting (some of which we saw splashed on this page) and that they froze there own accounts to stop further disbursement of funds to save it for bail. You can't just say something as been disbanded from that source at all. Get better sources that state implicitly that the NYCGA and OWS organisation has disbanded and we can use it, but these are extraordinary claims that require extraodinary sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No Longer Continuous - Araignee's informed points aside, OWS has morphed into an organization like Food Not Bombs, where there isn't a continuous presence, but more of a active roster of events. I don't think this meets any reasonable criteria for continuity. -- Veggy (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Uh...what criteria is that? I have never heard of this guideline before. Please give a link.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's the sign of a problem with the template. Is there anything in the article to support the claim that the organization is continuous in the way it obviously was during the protests at Zuccotti? So, what are the guidelines that define "continuity" (especially after such a momentous event as its eviction)? -- Veggy (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we would need some confirmation in the form of a reliable secondary source to make claims that anything has ended, however with David Shankbones comment, I wonder if the answer is simple remove the entire mention of Continuous. The simple fact is that Occupy Wall Street is not the protest at Zuccotti Park. Yes, the movement is still ongoing, but the point here is that the protest group known as "Occupy Wall Street", the original protest, is still intact and still very well funded. Just remove mention of ongoing or not ongoing. Any declaration of this not being ongoing is OR and syntesis without a reference and all the references that I find that are RS point to the groups in other cities using the name "Occupy " to illustrate that the groups simply are not encamped, but that is not the definition of a protest. To accuraty reference that Occupy Wall Street is no longer "Active' you must establish that the group itself has disbanded.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but your justification is backwards. Reliable sources are need to prove that OWS is continuous, not that it's not. The last mention in the "Main Organization" subhead is in March, and the "Court Cases" subhead mentions something in May. -- Veggy (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Uhm...no. Reliable, secondary sources are required for ANY claim Period that is likely to be challenged. But I think just removing the mention is best at this point.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but we were talking about continuance, not "ANY claim." Stay with the discussion. -- Veggy (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The lack of coverage and sources stating that it is active and ongoing would mean the burden of evidence lies on sources to support its continuing existence. Take for example the 15 October 2011 global protests, which is written in past tense. If a movement fizzles out, there won't be many sources saying so; instead, it'll just die quietly. That doesn't prevent a rebirth of the same idea in the same place (OWS part 2, part 3, etc.) or a transition from the physical presence to the movement, but the movement has its own article, so doesn't need to be repeated here, and the physical presence of OWS is non-existent.

Sidenote: As for the OWS website, it would be paradoxical to say that the site is the official site, as a tenet of the Occupy movement and OWS occupation is that there is no leadership. Instead, it is a group of Occupy sympathizers that are doing their best to further the overarching movement, but can't logically claim to be officially and intrinsically linked to the specific OWS presence in Zucotti. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 17:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to "ongoing" in a hopefully neutral way that will satisfy both sides: "OWS is the name given to..." is tense-ambiguous. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 17:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

All speculation aside, we don't decide what is or isn't official due to our own interpretations of the subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There are now a couple of news articles discussing whatever the current status of OWS is. One article by the WaPo, A year later, Occupy movement struggles for relevance, notes that a recent Reuters poll showed that 45% of respondents did not identify with the OWS movement at all, while only 9% said they "strongly identified" with the movement. (As an aside, another poll by NBC, not mentioned in the article, found that 2/3 of respondents did not support the OWS movement.)

Lots of things could be said about OWS at this point, but the one clear theme that seems to be emerging, as noted by WaPo, is that the movement is "struggling for relevance". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

I stand in solidarity with the Occupiers; I believe in what they fight for. But should we actually give this page protection? Like just in case someone critical of the movement or a Tea Party supporter might vandalize?--Evanaeus (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That isn't why pages are semi protested.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

And it is not protected now.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I thought that was the main reason.--Evanaeus (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Pages are protected to prevent vandalism, but we try to wait until it is vandalized regularly before protecting--we don't protect preemptively. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha.--Evanaeus (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal for Timeline of Occupy Wall Street

I've gone and removed big chunks of the Timeline of Occupy Wall Street article, as it was often irrelevant, not specific to OWS, POV, or unsourced. I'd vote for a merge to the main article, as there is hardly any content in this one that is notable, and it's all a repeat of what is in the main OWS article. I imagine someone will try to revert my changes, but to be honest, I was pretty lenient on axing stuff from here, and much more could go. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 02:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to remove that merge proposal and suggest it be proposed for the Occupy movement article as there is a consensus that removed that section from this article and placed all information on the timeline article. See archive. Sorry, however if you get support to re-add the section here we can follow that new consenus, but at this time it is not appropriate to tag the article as a formal proposal. But thank you so much for not adding it without discussion!--Amadscientist (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MadSci. Gandydancer (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The 1970s band Spring (American band)

Do we really need that hatnote? Does anyone seriously think that people will end up here, and lost, when looking for that band? --Nigelj (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed it. I agree. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 22:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No ideological association?

As per usual Misplaced Pages leftist bias, the opening paragraph (and virtually the entire article) makes no mention of OWS as a primarily socialistic/communistic movement. There is but one mention of the movement being left-wing, via a quote from an unknown pollster, and one mention of its socialist associations via a poll done of OWS participants conducted by a university regarding how they self-identify. Conversely, the opening paragraph of the Misplaced Pages entry of The Tea Party Movement immediately, and appropriately, describes it as widely-viewed to be libertarian and conservative. The reasons for the discrepancy between the ideological description of the OWS article and Tea Party Movement article are obvious - the message sent to the Misplaced Pages reader is that the Tea Party Movement is ideologically oriented while the OWS movement isn't. There is also no mention of the anti-Semitism that was well-documented via video evidece of various participants as various "Occupy-this" rallies. The article makes no mention of Marxism or communism, despite the abundance of video available online of widespread solidarity with these ideologies from OWS participants. Bobinisrael (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

As per the usual rightist bias, you have completely failed to provide any evidence for your assertions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

There could probably stand to be more sourced prose on this topic. There are probably additional reliable sources discussing identifiable anti-capitalist or socialist leanings, but I have no plans to go find them myself. This discussion can't really go any further without some mainstream sources. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Trimming the article

This article has become quite overloaded with tangential side notes, etc. I've tried to clean up the first few sections, but would appreciate the help of others to make this a lean and clean article that clearly outlines the topic. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 23:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Editor Marxcubes made a string of edits earlier today that left some parts of the article in ruins. These are strong words but not inappropriate when a new editor makes drastic changes, sometimes with no summary at all, on an article that experienced editors have debated with thousands of words and thus obviously a highly contended article, etc., etc. I left a note on his/her page. I'd be glad to work with anyone that wants to go through the article and look for improvements but I'm not sure what you mean by "lean and clean". Gandydancer (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What is your evaluation of the state of the article at this time? What's needed, and is it in a worse state now than before Marxcubes edits? B——C_ritical 17:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Anniversay

The anniversary marks the beginning of the occupation, not the arrests or any other aspect of the occupation. If in the article we want to then describe the occupation we must do so in a neutral manner , ie, what about the occupation was being celebrated. So this content should be layered. A) Celebration. B) aspects of the occupation that might be celebrated. For any of this you need sources or its OR. What do the sources say was being celebrated beyond the "beginning" ? (olive (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC))

Thanks for the clean up, Becritical. Not sure what happened there.(olive (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC))

The text under discuussion does not refer to the arrests, etc., during the occupation - it refers to what happened on the 1 year anniversary day. See below. Tvoz/talk 18:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent POV Tag

The following prose, IMO, takes a dispassionate tone and is well-sourced. Is there some problem with including it?

Police surrounded groups of protesters, at times pulling protesters from the crowds to be arrested for blocking pedestrian traffic. A police lieutenant instructed reporters not to take pictures. Police knocked city councilman Jumaane D. Williams off a bench with batons after he refused to move. There were 185 arrests across the city.

I see there seems to be some edit warring that could possibly be cleared up with a brief discussion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see my post above which open this discussion and pertains to OR/ sources and syntax. The content under discussion is about the anniversary that marks the beginning of something. I revert once so will be moving away from this, but I hope OR and an obvious syntax error will be considered in relation to this content(olive (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC))

Olive, re your note on my talk page, I sure don't know how that happened. I had replied to Factchecker's post and ran into an edit conflict. Rather than repost my reply I decided to wait for a bit before reposting. I sure didn't mean to delete your post and am sorry for the problem. Gandydancer (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. No worries.(olive (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC))

Thank you for the reply but I don't see the connection between the two disputes. What does the question of what's being celebrated have to do with what actually happened on that date when protesters hit the street? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm good with either taking the statistic about arrests out, or having significantly more than that one detail... the only thing I think is POV is to have only the arrests in there, as if that's the only important thing going on. The arrests could be in there with more details of nearly any sort. It's just having them as the only stat that I think is POV. B——C_ritical 17:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree and I don't see why the additional details are problematic. I do see why mentioning the number of arrests and nothing else could threaten the NPOV. Counterpoint? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

edit conflict

The content is about the anniversary of an event, not about the event itself. The entire article is about the event. Sure, you could add more content here about the "event" but why would we want to repeat what's already elaborately described in the article. If you do want to explain again about the event, Occuppy Wall Street, you should first begin a new sentence because you are sailing into a different topic than the anniversary. Second you must, to satisfy NPOV include more than a single-sided point about the event/protests.

Sources do not have to be measured. What has to be measured is how we use and include content supported by those sources. So again if you want to include content about the "event " you must include more than a sinlge point or you have created a lack of balance in the POV. I personally would not inlcude more than what is below. I don't think the article needs redundant content, but this is just my opinion.(olive (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC))

"On September 17, 2012, protesters returned to Zuccotti Park to mark the one year anniversary of the beginning of the occupation,...."

First, olive, the text that is being recommended to add is not about the 2011 event itself, it is about what went on on the 1 year anniversary, September 17, 2012. The 185 arrests we are talking about all took place on the anniversary, and the wording under discussion all refers to what happened on the anniversary date, not what happened any time before September 17, 2012. There were many more than 185 arrests over the course of the Occupy Wall Street event in 2011, plus more in March 2012, the six month anniversary, plus more on September 17, 2012 (the 185 we're talking about). So your point is moot - that's not what is being done here. Please read the sources regarding the September 17, 2012 anniversary commemoration, starting with this one.

Secondly, we've had various versions of this in and out of the article over the last week or so, and I want to clarify where I stand on it. I was trying to compromise on the wording as I thought the "POV" objection was to the details - not the arrest number - that had been added beyond the arrests, but it appears I misunderstood what Becritical was saying. So to be clear about my edits, and what I actually think should be in the article: I think that it is misleading and incomplete to state only that protesters gathered to commemorate the anniversary of the beginning of the occupation with nothing about what went on that day - that is not the whole story as reported in reliable sources. And I see Becritical's concern about stating only the arrest figure, so I think we should mention the 185 arrests, with the details as Centrify wrote them posted them above, which is clear and neutral. I support one paragraph at the end of the Zuccotti section reading:

On September 17, 2012, protesters returned to Zuccotti Park to mark the one year anniversary of the beginning of the occupation. Police surrounded groups of protesters, at times pulling protesters from the crowds to be arrested for blocking pedestrian traffic. A police lieutenant instructed reporters not to take pictures. Police knocked city councilman Jumaane D. Williams off a bench with batons after he refused to move. There were 185 arrests across the city.

sourced to the three sources we currently have, NYT-2012anniv, ST-2012anniv, Politiker-2012anniv. Apologies for my misunderstanding - hope this clarifies. Tvoz/talk 18:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's back up a second. I think we've got two separate issues on the table here. (1) whether details of this event belong in the OWS article rather than the timeline sub-article; (2) whether any of the proposed text has POV problems.

On the first issue, the Zucotti Park Encampment section currently looks like a summary of milestones from the Timeline article. Isn't that how it should be? As for whether there is too much detail being proposed, I'm not sure what to think. The date recently reported on was obviously quite significant to OWS and was given attention as such in the media. I currently lean towards the view that the above prose that I quoted does not give too much detail.

On the second issue, I don't see a POV problem. I think there are at least two different kinds of POV problem. Under the first kind, POV problems could arise in the case where individual details are handpicked from a single source in a way that presents a picture that is somehow skewed or materially different from the source. I believe that was BeCritical's concern with reporting the number of arrests and nothing else.

The more "classic" form of POV problem as I understand it is giving too much weight to one notable published POV and not enough to another. But by definition this problem can't even arise until we have more than one notable published POV on the table. We don't exclude a POV just because there is no opposing viewpoint to "balance" it. So in a nutshell, if there are other POVs not being given enough attention, let's talk about them here. But if there aren't other POVs with some kind of equivalent notability, there can't be an argument that this one POV is being given too much weight. Admittedly this is usually a question with no clear-cut answer, but it's commonplace to deal with this exact issue on WP. Consider also that we would accept self-published claims by OWS participants or organizers, and you could expect that to be even more one-sided than an NYT piece that takes a supportive tone. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Littleolive as to simplicity. While for BeCritical disagrees with the number of arrests (I'm fine either way on that part), it's the details that I find have POV (and undue weight...this isn't an article that needs to flush out the details of every event). It is only noteworthy because the media mentioned there was an event. The day-to-day interaction between protesters and police is summarized in detail throughout the article elsewhere, and as stated, it would be redundant and inappropriate to put here. In the details that were added, it was full of POV "police did this and that to protesters". A NPOV paragraph would include both sides, including the harassment and violence against the police. In any case, though, I don't think this detail belongs. A one-phrase sentence is all that is needed for this event. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 18:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

While I don't deny that OWS protesters have often been unruly, confrontation-seeking, and antagonistic towards the police, I didn't see anything in the sources about harassment or violence against the police on September 17th. So without that, I still don't think a real NPOV concern has been raised. As for only being noteworthy because the media discussed the event: coverage by major media tends to be *the* guidepost of notability for most article subjects on WP. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I really don't see any POV problems here. The one year anniversary is always notable for such an event. I'd like to see more copy rather than less. I'm in agreement with everything Centrify has had to say. Gandydancer (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

To Araignee: But it appears that Littleolive's comments were based on the incorrect premise that the arrests and details were referring back to the 2011 event - they are not, they are all referring to what happened on the anniversary. Please read the NYT source cited and others - the 185 arrests and the details described in the wording above all are referring to what happened on the anniversary. I think we should include this short summary because without it the sentence could suggest that some people got together and lit a candle in commemoration, but nothing more happened - which is not the case. As Centrify says, if there are RS'd details about other notable things that happened on the anniversary date that represent a different view than what we have, they could be appropriate to include too. Tvoz/talk 19:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't keep track of how much indentation there should be, so I'm pulling down a few levels, sorry ;) Yes, I read both Littleolive's comments and the sources. I'd go so far as to argue that where the general public is concerned, and the current media, all that happened was a "candle lit in commemoration". But the problems I have are as follows:

"Police surrounded groups of protesters, at times pulling protesters from the crowds to be arrested for blocking pedestrian traffic." This sounds like they're indiscriminately bullying and arresting people. Blocking pedestrian traffic is a valid violation (in fact, the NYT states this was part of the "People's Wall", actively blocking access and encouraging sit-ins), but this phrase put together looks like they were surrounding them with a cause/effect of blocking traffic. "A police lieutenant instructed reporters not to take pictures." Not sure why this is noteworthy...one person asks them not to take pictures? They weren't ordered or arrested for doing so. "Police knocked city councilman Jumaane D. Williams off a bench with batons after he refused to move." He was trying to get onto a closed sidewalk, not innocently walking around observing. Nor was this related to OWS, despite happening on the same day...police were trying to figure out who punched an officer during a parade in the general area (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/nyregion/city-councilman-jumaane-d-williams-is-handcuffed-at-west-indian-day-parade.html), but that's something for another article another day. One might even mention that Aaron Black, a prominent protester credited with organizing many of the events, announced he was sick of the protest, including both the protesters and the police (http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/19/occupy-wall-street-chief-organizer-unravels-ponders-calling-it-quits/).

I propose this instead, if details are necessary: "Protesters blocked access to the New York Stock Exchange as well as other intersections in the area. This, along with several violations of Zuccotti Park rules that evening, resulted in 185 arrests." ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 19:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected as far as Mr. Williams. The article I was reading was for last year. That being said, it's irresponsible to drop names into an article like this that don't further the article. He was standing on a bench and got into a scuffle with a female police officer. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 19:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I did misunderstand the text, my fault. However the text wasn't clear either, not my fault but I should have checked the sources. The text was not POV though, so efforts to correct that would be good. Apologies for my error. (olive (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC))

Araignee, I think your suggested wording is more POV than the original, as it downplays most of what the NYT source says and ignores any actions of the police that are a part of the story about the 185 arrests. I agree with Centrify's points about POV vs NPOV and our responsibilities there. As to your earlier point about stopping a reporter from taking pictures - the source says One officer repeatedly shoved news photographers with a baton, and a police lieutenant shouted at one point that no more photographs would be permitted, adding, “That’s over.” That is not "one person asks them not to take pictures", that is reported as a police lieutenant ordering them to stop - certainly a police order - and it is significant as it violates freedom of the press as well as the NYPD directive that the police should not interfere with journalists doing their jobs. So it is notable, and I believe should be here. Tvoz/talk 20:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the significance of the police officer ordering the press not to do its job is as Tvoz says, and that's why I included it. Also, just to confirm, you guys got it right about my opinions above. Certainly, they were arrested for blocking access and for whatever unruly behavior. Still, what I read of the sources seems to emphasize that police were rather overstepping the proper boundaries of a police force in a democracy. However, the text "Protesters blocked access to the New York Stock Exchange as well as other intersections in the area. This, along with several violations of Zuccotti Park rules..." is good, and we could combine it with the other text to make a more NPOV version which shows both that the rules were broken and also covers the reactions of the police as told in the sources. B——C_ritical 21:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can sign on to something like that - I can't take a crack at it now so I hope someone else will. Tvoz/talk 21:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. Gandydancer (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

On September 17, 2012, protesters returned to Zuccotti Park to mark the one year anniversary of the beginning of the occupation. Protesters blocked access to the New York Stock Exchange as well as other intersections in the area. This, along with several violations of Zuccotti Park rules, lead police to surround groups of protesters, at times pulling protesters from the crowds to be arrested for blocking pedestrian traffic. A police lieutenant instructed reporters not to take pictures. Police knocked city councilman Jumaane D. Williams off a bench with batons after he refused to move. There were 185 arrests across the city.

B——C_ritical 02:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with this minus the Williams sentence. This was not an assault, and no one got hurt. He was simply pushed off of a bench after disregarding police warnings. From his spokesman, "NYPD officers approached the Council Member and pushed him while he tried to explain his purpose at the park. He was neither arrested nor injured during the incident." He wasn't beaten off the bench with batons as it implies. He was simply pushed off using the side of the baton, and it does not add to the article. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 03:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Becritical's wording is fine - NPOV and complete, including the Williams sentence. The New York magazine article is titled "NYPD Arrests Almost 200 Occupy Protesters, Roughs Up City Councilman Again" and also has the NYCLU saying Williams was nightsticked - it is cherry picking to select only what his spokesman later said, which was perhaps for political reasons, and ignore the totality of the report, and of the other source (the NYT report). I don't want to get into whether a police officer pushing him off a bench with the side of his baton is ok or if the word "simply" ought to apply, because that's a matter of opinion - we could say that his spokesman later said he wasn't hurt, but I don't see the need to expand that sentence beyond what Becritical wrote, and a city councilman being "roughed up" or similar by the NYPD is certainly notable. Tvoz/talk 04:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to also mention the clarification from the spokesman. I don't see the harm of mentioning it and I do see the harm of omitting it.

However, I would caution against either reading too much into a source and actually saying something like "NYPD violated freedom of the press", since that's neither stated in the source nor obviously implied by the source. For example, if a reporter is standing as part of an unlawful assembly taking pictures, and the cops break that up, saying "no more pictures", that's not nearly the same as actually prohibiting journalists from taking pictures. Additionally, it's not out of the question that Williams's subsequent "clarification" was designed to avoid a defamation lawsuit, i.e. he may have stretched the truth when initially telling his story, and then walked it back after realizing he could be called to account for it. The point is, we don't know.

So, I would just say that we should be careful to say nothing more than what RS's explicitly say, and at all costs avoid our own armchair lawyering or amateur analysis -- that means both putting unsupported assertions into the article, or using those unsupported assertions as a guide for choosing which sourced material should go in and how it should be presented. Notice that the NYT piece didn't say anything about the NYPD violating freedom of the press, trampling over the first amendment, suppressing speech, etc? That's where we should take our cue. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Um, what text are you suggesting? I'm strapped for time as I have been all summer... B——C_ritical 20:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Right, Centrify - I was not suggesting we say anything about freedom of the press or the NYPD directive etc in the text - I was just explaining to Araignee the reason that police ordering news photographers to not take pictures was notable and should be included. As for Williams, it wasn't his report alone, there also is a photograph of the incident, but in any case, again, I wasn't suggesting we go into all of that. Try this wording:

On September 17, 2012, protesters returned to Zuccotti Park to mark the one year anniversary of the beginning of the occupation. Protesters blocked access to the New York Stock Exchange as well as other intersections in the area. This, along with several violations of Zuccotti Park rules, lead police to surround groups of protesters, at times pulling protesters from the crowds to be arrested for blocking pedestrian traffic. A police lieutenant instructed reporters not to take pictures. Police knocked pushed City Councilman Jumaane D. Williams off a bench with batons after he refused to move; his office said he was not injured. There were 185 arrests across the city.

1. ^ Moynihan, Colin (17 September 2012). "185 Arrested on Occupy Wall St. Anniversary". The New York Times. Retrieved 26 September 2012.
2. ^ Barr, Meghan (17 September 2012). "1 year after encampment began, Occupy in disarray". Seattle Times. Associated Press. Retrieved 26 September 2012. Cite error: The named reference "ST-2012anniv" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
3. ^ Walker, Hunter (18 September 2012). "Unoccupied: The Morning After in Zuccotti Park". Politicker Network. Observer.com. Retrieved 26 September 2012. Cite error: The named reference "Politiker-2012anniv" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
4. Coscarelli, Joe (September 18, 2012). "NYPD Arrests Almost 200 Occupy Protesters, Roughs Up City Councilman Again". New York. Retrieved 2 October 2012.

Tvoz/talk 01:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

In response to the "stop photographing" part, I don't think there's any indicator of suppression (though police can order people to stop photographing if they are interfering with their work (but I wasn't there, so I can't say what the situation was)), and I think including that statement is trying to imply they are squashing rights. If I'm alone on that, I'll survive with it in. As far as Mr. Williams, though, I don't think it's worth including. That being said, if it is included it needs to include the fact that he was repeatedly asked to get off the bench before being pushed off, then stepped back on in defiance. Watch the video (2:40 to about 3:40, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9EhHwr6Pik). Also, mentioning batons implies he was beaten off the bench, and he wasn't injured in the least. Only sensationalist media is mentioning batons, even though the officer simply was holding it, not swinging it (note that even HuffPost says "pushed" and makes no mention of a baton). All this is not to say we should include video analysis in the article, but instead that we should use reliable and non-sensational sources and phrases that help this article instead of giving undue weight to minor incidents. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 03:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times is hardly considered to be sensationalist media. Tvoz/talk 04:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, NYT also includes the fact that he was ordered down from the bench twice (but doesn't mention the fact that standing on the benches was prohibited). The real question to me is what does this incident add to the article? Police brutality is the only reason I can see it being in there, and there wasn't any in this instance, nor was there claimed to be. It was simply a two-sided confrontation between police and a councilman. As the proposed text stands, though, it implies brutality with batons (which once again just happened to be held by the (only one) cop that pushed him). The fact that his spokesman came out and refuted brutality makes it a net zero gain, at which point leaving it in simply misleads the reader. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 13:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Could we just say "pushed off" instead of "knocked?" B——C_ritical 15:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "pushed" is fine with me. Tvoz/talk 17:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

While I disagree completely with even mentioning the incident, I could live with something like this (knocked->pushed, removing incidental fact that the officer held a baton):

"During one incident, police pushed City Councilman Jumaane D. Williams off a bench after he refused to comply with park rules prohibiting standing on said benches and repeatedly ignored orders step down; his office said he was not injured."

1. This was both announced as police entered the park (prior to Williams' arrival), and has been a rule for at least 8 months: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/zuccotti-park-occupy-wall-street_n_1200422.html

~Araignee (talk • contribs) 23:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

To me the big question is: why include it? It doesn't add anything when taken in context, and out of full context/backstory/aftermath it is hardly related to OWS events in the least beyond being a routine case of civil disobedience at Zuccotti. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 23:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't agree at all to that wording, and the cite wording you have embedded in there is completely OR, again. The HuffPo article makes no mention of Williams, so your analysis that seems to be suggesting that he should have known something that you say was announced before he arrived, is not appropriate. This is considerably more POV than a simple statement that he was pushed off by officers with batons, and your conclusion that the batons were "incidental" is, again, just your opinion. It's not what the NY Mag or NYT articles say, and the spokesperson did not address it. Further, the NYMag article reports that the NYCLU said he was "nightsticked". We should include it because it's notable due to who he is, it's directly related to OWS contrary to your assertion, and sources found it significant enough to include. We're not saying anything about "police brutality" and similarly should not be saying this is routine - the wording we suggested is neutral, sourced, and appropriate. Tvoz/talk 03:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The HuffPo article makes mention of the "no standing on the bench" rule that dates back 8 months or more. I agree that it's as unlikely he knew the rule as you did, which gives context for WHY the police ordered him (at least twice per the NYT article), and then he refused. And yes, mentioning being pushed by a baton or nightsticked or any of those terms implies excessive police violence. Any common reader that reads "with a baton" will think that, hence why it's dangerous to include that. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 04:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read all the sources, but I can see where mentioning batons gives an incorrect impression. But then that was more or less the whole point of mentioning the incident at all. The source itself is POV in this way. We might just need to leave it out or at least give a summary which is more in line with multiple sources rather than just one. B——C_ritical 04:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This is in line with the only two sources that have been presented that discuss it - the New York Times piece (Moynihan) and the New York Magazine (Cosarelli) piece. Both talk about the officers with batons, plus the NYCLU mention of nightsticking. I don't know what else we should add here - nor do I see why it should be left out. It is not just one source - Araignee has not presented any source that contradicts the two sources we have, and two sources making the same point is more than we often have for including a detail. Since when do we need more than two sources to include something? Tvoz/talk 04:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Well that's true as well, it's not our job to judge the POV of sources, only to report what they say. Attribution might be a compromise here. B——C_ritical 05:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

That is what I was thinking. Sorry if I did not make it clear. A few points:

1. I agree that the NYT does seem a little POV. Watching the video, the first push is a single female police officer, a full foot shorter than Williams and obviously fairly small compared to him, pushing him with one hand. Only after he defiantly steps back up on the bench does she brace both her hands on the baton and use it to push with both hands. I didn't see a 2nd officer pushing, and the suggestion that anything approaching serious force was involved is quite misleading, IMO.

2. However, it's not our role to second-guess or "explain away" the accounts given by RS's -- especially not a piece presented as straight reporting in the editorial voice of a high-quality source like NYT -- and especially not using a YouTube video as a primary source for OR.

3. Thus the solution, IMO, is to present as much information as can be given a neutral tone and reliable sourcing, WITHOUT appearing to take sides.

I would suggest we take BeCritical's text posted above, with modest changes which I have put in bold:

On September 17, 2012, protesters returned to Zuccotti Park to mark the one year anniversary of the beginning of the occupation. Protesters blocked access to the New York Stock Exchange as well as other intersections in the area. This, along with several violations of Zuccotti Park rules, lead police to surround groups of protesters, at times pulling protesters from the crowds to be arrested for blocking pedestrian traffic. A police lieutenant instructed reporters not to take pictures. The New York Times reported that two officers shoved city councilman Jumaane D. Williams off a bench with batons after he refused two orders to move. A spokesman for Williams later stated that he had been pushed by police while trying to explain his reason for being in the park, but was not arrested or injured. There were 185 arrests across the city.

IMO, it's important that the two sentences beginning "The New York Times reported" and "A spokesman for Williams later stated" be kept completely separate -- not linked together with a semicolon, or worse, a conjunction like "although" or "however". Once we start cobbling out-of-sync sources together to yield statements like "X said this, but Y said that", it's only a quick trip down a slippery slope before we're subtly telling the reader which of those statements is somehow more valid than the other, which we're not supposed to do. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Centrify - I can go with that. Tvoz/talk 17:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I can live with that too. Thanks for everyone's patience with my objections! ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 22:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. B——C_ritical 23:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, done. Tvoz/talk 01:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone-- this is the first time I've closely examined this page. I've been heavily involved in OWS since last October, which means two things: 1) I know a bunch of stuff first-hand, including things the media has failed to document, and 2) sometimes an NPOV is going to be difficult for me to maintain. That said, I have many concerns with this article, mostly on the facts. For example, this quote above: the rules of Zuccotti Park aren't self-justifying; this quote and others in the article seem to indicate that they are actually material. They're not; they don't actually exist; there is a rule-making procedure that is required by city law which the police and Brookfield have totally ignored. So, using them to explain police action without quoting or citing a police source is not NPOV. Secondly, these rules have nothing to do with the police tactics used that day, which were employed all over the Financial District, well outside the region where the "rules" of Zuccotti Park apply. What happened was the police grab whoever they feel like at any given moment, apply laws like the disorderly conduct statute willy-nilly ("blocking pedestrian traffic" is frequently absurdly applied), and have a goal not of enforcing laws but of maintaining an extralegal standard of order. This is called "crowd control policing", and it explicitly involves unconstitutional conduct and arrests. Remember, sometimes a point of view is political despite being neutral, i.e. based in empirical observation and fact. Thanks for your work, and perhaps you can offer some guidance as to how first-person expertise can properly be used to make sure a wiki article is factual and not based on flawed or incomplete media interpretation.--Diceytroop (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It has been my experiance on this article that those with self proclaimed involvement (let alone heavy involvement) should probably not be editing here. The COI has become enough of an issue in the past that sanctions have been applied. My advice is to not even try to apply "first-person expertise" in any way.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Whether the rules are legal/fair/material or not would be a discussion for another article. If police enforce a set of rules that don't parallel the ones posted, that's still a set of rules that resulted in results. As far as making something factual, Misplaced Pages is less concerned with factuality and more with verifiability. In most cases, this results in well-rounded, non-POV, sourced information. In cases that are non-verifiable but true, Misplaced Pages has no place for that, so unfortunately, first-hand sources are the least useful of all. Being directly involved simply results in a direct conflict of interest in the article. That being said, if you get yourself quoted in a news article, by all means we can try to fit it in if it adds to the article. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 23:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I respect that. There's a question in here about citizen journalism- for example, I've been involved but in part as a documentarian. There are, for example, thousands of livetweets of statements made at OWS meetings that can be checked against multiple sources to verify (livestream, audio, official minutes as well). Are these considered verifiable? What if they were published in a printed book? Also, before I signed up for an account I added some text to the intro. I think it's NPOV, but a perspective that a citizen journalist would be better able to understand than a visiting reporter. Fortunately, I had a great source to reference. But it's also been true for the duration, and not well-reflected in the article until now having a recent source. Which has material effects on the article's usefulness, as well as influence. Anyway, I wanted to be sure to own that edit before now stepping back. --Diceytroop (talk) 05:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A couple things to address here.

First off, I think you may seriously misunderstand what is meant by "NPOV". This is not a rule that tells us to seek out perceived bias in mainstream thought and correct those biases here on Misplaced Pages. That's the opposite of what we do. At Misplaced Pages, our aim is to reflect the mainstream, not question it on our own initiative. Your comments about the Zucotti park rules are a prime example of what's called "Original Research".

Ditto for "verifiability". Generally speaking, "thousands of livetweets of statements made at OWS meetings that can be checked against multiple sources to verify (livestream, audio, official minutes as well)", and other things of that nature, are not going to be usable on Misplaced Pages. The possibility of sifting through a mass of primary source material of uncertain origin in order to figure out whether it corresponds with other primary source material, is not what is meant by "verifiability".

Verifiability refers to the quality and reputation of the source publishing the material. There aren't a lot of rules set in stone, but generally speaking The New York Times is usable, and your friend's Tumblr feed is not usable, pretty much no matter what. Likewise, material sourced to actual journalists generally goes in, while material sourced to "citizen journalists" does not (see WP:SPS for the broad outlines of policy on this topic). Even the single example you just offered is a bonanza of serious concerns about verifiability, original research, and potential for POV-pushing, to say nothing of the potential COI problems mentioned by others. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the dialogue. I can't help but feel like the rules you cited actually don't address the situation I'm describing, though. I'm an "expert" in the realm of this article, one who has been published in reputable places (as well as quoted and referred to in many others). So, my livetweets should be sourceable, right? At the same time, they're also commentary from OWS about itself. So, that's another whole set of criteria that needs to be discussed. Finally, "actual" journalists are not a thing. What the New York Times prints is no more likely to be complete and accurate than the Occupied Wall Street Journal, or a street journalist that has a reputation to uphold. If verifiability actually means "we skew towards sources that are businesses", then that is at least consistent, but not actually anywhere near the actual meaning of the word "verifiable", which means "you can ascertain that it is accurate." Using primary sources that verify each other is a pretty standard way of determining whether something is verifiable. And it's incredibly ironic, truly, that a platform that relies upon the positive intent of people dismisses the voices of people who are actual witnesses to things, in favor of professional reporters who suffer from a lack of expertise and an excess of interest in getting pageviews rather than getting the story exactly right. RE: my use of NPOV, I'd think that a neutral point of view would actually boil down basically to an empirical assessment of reality. You're going to get much closer to that by aggregating the experiences and expertise of many people than by relying on our comically broken media. You may scoff at that, but as someone who has had a year's worth of direct experiences to compare to the retellings of events in the press, including often in the New York Times (where my work has been cited and embedded, not to be a dick, but the complexities are real), it's a sad state. Using those sources to build Misplaced Pages, while rejecting documentary evidence from other journalists, is dangerous and misguided.

To elucidate a little more: if you were writing an article about a community in, say, Massachusetts, like Middlesex, or about events that take place therein, would you not use the Middlesex News as a source? Even though it's clearly coming from a within-context perspective? And isn't actually particularly held to a high standard of anything? I submit that you would, that it would be laughable to dismiss it as a source. The work I've done is no different; I'm a community journalist and I fail to see a difference between myself in the context of OWS and a reporter for the Middlesex News in the context of Middlesex, Massachusetts. Other than that I lack a printing press and a corporate charter. It's really not right to treat my contributions differently. --Diceytroop (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Break

Dicey said this: "I'm an "expert" in the realm of this article, one who has been published in reputable places (as well as quoted and referred to in many others). So, my livetweets should be sourceable, right?" According to WP:SELFCITE: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies, particularly WP:SELFPUB. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion. In any case, citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work, giving proper due to the work of others as in a review article."

No. Your live tweets are anonymous. Your published work is not in a reputable place if they are publishing in the form of said anonymous form. Occupied Wall Street Journal, or a street journal is not a Reliable Source. Should, a story in an RS mention you by your anonymous name, it is unlikely that there is any relevence to this article.

Dicey said this: "What the New York Times prints is no more likely to be complete and accurate than the Occupied Wall Street Journal, or a street journalist that has a reputation to uphold. If verifiability actually means "we skew towards sources that are businesses", then that is at least consistent, but not actually anywhere near the actual meaning of the word "verifiable", which means "you can ascertain that it is accurate."" Acording to Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources:

Definition of source

The word "source" as used on Misplaced Pages has three related meanings:

• the piece of work itself (the article, book),
• the creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
• and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

Context matters

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it.

The guideline in this page discusses the reliability of various types of sources. The policy on sourcing is Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to biographies of living persons, which states:

Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

So, lets look at you as the "author". You are not notable, educated in the area (that is known) or credentialed. Expert? It must be something that can be demonstrated. Impossible if using an anonymous username.

What articles have your written? What publication has published your work. The OWS Journal is a promotional/advocacy publication and does not pass RS as it is selfpublished on top of the other things. Context is something that is going to be nearly impossible to show if you are attempting to inject POV-promotional or advocacy information.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, first, for continuing the dialogue. I recognize that this is probably treading on well-worn ground for you all, and I do appreciate y'all's patience in mapping it out for me. Second: does it change anything that I'm actually not anonymous? Google me and you'll find out plenty about me. I threw some links into my user page as well. Also, given that I'm nonymous, does that make other people citing me, even if by my nom de guerre, a testament to my repute? And finally, no, I don't intend to add POV-promotional or advocacy information. I want the article to be as factually accurate as possible. I've put a lot of time into making facts about OWS available. Those facts have been referenced by RSes quite a few times, but there's much more that hasn't been. Give me a bit and I'll verify my argument about the Zuccotti rules using sourced components beyond my own experience, just to prove the point. Also, doesn't there need to be room for a street journo to gain RS status? This isn't a common scenario; occupy has generated a context for serious street or citizen journalism to develop beyond single tweets or YouTube videos. My expertise is derived from that consistency, as should my reliability.

And as to the question of credentials: that's the crux here, isn't it? In New York City, the NYPD alone credentials press, and they are extremely reticent to credential anyone. This bakes a pro-police bias into the "credentialed" coverage, and therefore right into the rubric you're using. This makes Misplaced Pages an ally of the state, instead of an ally of the truth or of the people. Not trying to be a dick, but that is how I see it. Many scoffed at WP as a whole for deigning to operate without "credentialed" editors or an associate hierarchy. In this policy, WP sides with a similar mentality.

Similarly, on the night of the raid (November 15th), I was the last source of visual or textual coverage of the police actions due to their removal of all other cameras and press within a 2-block radius of Zuccotti Park (until the recent leak of the cops' own footage). What is the policy in a situation like that, where the state muzzles or blinds all "credentialed" sources of something central to the topic?

Again, thanks. --Diceytroop (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Dicey. Believe it or not, the small group of editors that have worked on this article are well aware of its shortcomings. We have spent many long hours to try to keep bias out of the article. I'd suggest that it would be good for you to take the time to read the talk pages of the 99 Percent Declaration (which Michael Pollok repeatedly attempted to edit) if you want to see what could happen if Misplaced Pages were to allow the sort of editing you are suggesting. It is good to have you here and I hope you stick around. Gandydancer (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gandy! I appreciate all of your work. Seems clear that it's not a good look for me to edit the article directly, but I may very well be bringing sources and ideas here to Talk. See you soon, no doubt! --Diceytroop (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Dice, I will say, once again, that WP is not the place for you to wage battles against mainstream society. Complaining that Misplaced Pages's sourcing policies make it an "ally of the state" will not get you far, and if you feel that the journalistic credentialing process in NYC is rigged, that's a subject for you to write about on your own forum and on your own time. Based on what you have said and the links I see on your userpage, it appears you are not an expert and nothing you have written looks especially promising as a reliable source. And that's just your published pieces; your thousands of livetweets are, a fortiori, not appropriate for use as sources.

By all means, prove me wrong — but please do so within the guidelines that have been set for you on Misplaced Pages, and not as part of a larger process of attempting to reinvent Misplaced Pages because you don't like its existing policies. There are appropriate avenues for you to express your larger concerns about Misplaced Pages; expressing those concerns by eschewing firmly established WP policy in the context of a content dispute at one of the most controversial topics in existence is simply not appropriate. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just wrote you like 300 awesome words before my computer did something very unusually glitchy and I lost it. I will be back to recompose, though, thanks for your reply. Rest assured that I will defer to the sense here that it would be best for me not to make edits myself. I also think that the politics I mentioned derive from very real power dynamics that Wiki can either acknowledge (and thus potentially address) or ignore (and thus potentially exacerbate). I'll explain again later argh sorry. --Diceytroop (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

@Diceytroop: If there are RS that you have to offer, feel free to place them here and we'd be glad to look over them. You're also welcome to voice your opinions and even edit and contribute to the article itself, but as a self-proclaimed expert, organizer, and documenter, your edits may often be reverted, as it will be harder to stay NPOV through the definitions set by Misplaced Pages (granted, every editor has some bias somewhere, but the more directly involved, the easier it is to be blinded against mainstream reality). With regards to current events, it's not WP's goal to be an ally to either a "state" or a "people" (in themselves loaded terms), nor to provide "unadulterated truths" (which is nigh impossible to nail down), but instead to provide the current perception of the general populace toward said subject. Aiding or hurting a cause is not its purpose, and if it happens, it's not WP's fault. As time goes on, and public perception changes, so will a good article follow. Does it involve rewriting history over the years? Yes. Is that a problem? So long as it represents what RS say, then I'd say no. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 23:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Araignee; I appreciate the broad welcome but also will take the recommendations to not edit and instead interact here, as I mentioned yesterday. I understand that WP's goals are very narrowly defined, and I don't mean to question that recipe -- I love WP and recognize that such a view would have broad and probably not well-considered implications. But what WP emprically is is the world's largest collective, and there are political implications therein. It's been a disruptive force; that's also political. I think those things belong on the table here. I for one would like to see WP actually consider its power to aid and hurt a cause; as a very powerful public institution (like it or not), that power exists, and can have effects, and should be considered as part of WP's policies, even if that is difficult. It's a matter of accountability, and consistency (why does Wiki only respect 'credentialled' journalists when it argues that, contrary to long-held understanding, amateur editors are just as good as 'credentialled' ones?) And also, re: this topic, it's a matter of future-proofing; the reliability of all sources becomes less and less clear as time has gone on. Journalism is a wreck, and so are our freedoms of the press. WP needs to be aware of and have policies that address these things according to the values of its contributors. IMO. --Diceytroop (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the more civil discussions on the matter that we have had on the subject of conflict of interest and advicacy editing, but you should understand there is quite a bit more that none of us have relayed to you. One I feel needs to be mentioned is our Biographies of living persons policy. These policies cover all areas of Misplaced Pages, including the talk page. Should you begin to violate these policies and guidelines you may be blocked form using even you own talkpage. In fact, any link you add to your talkpage that violates said BLP policy or copyright could be just as probalmatic. I want to address your "Citizen Journalism" issue. There is no such body of journalist that have ever been considered RS. It is against policy to out you Dicey, or give any personal information that you yourself have not dosclosed. As such you could be seen as a problem to some editors if your begin to add your own information. In some ways you have outed yourself by claiming that you are somehow known by your real name, but in the quick search I did I did not see any such thing, although it may well be there and I missed it. What I did see is that you have a financial stake in OWS as you are soliciting cash donations from people as part of your OWS "work" to support your rent and other expendatures and that may put you in direct conflict of interest as much as a paid advocate from what I understand. I could be wrong here however.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, hmm, that's interesting. I hadn't considered that. It's been about 8 months since I put in any effort to raise funds, but the conflict of interest concern is interesting. I wouldn't begin to know how to make money easier to raise, though, by using a Wiki article. I guess that any growth in involvement could have that effect, potentially, but that being a goal is itself a conflict of interest.. I think the frame of "how does this stack up against my own record of events" is helpful, so that's the one I think makes sense for me to come here in and potentially drop RSes on y'all, although with the clear expectation that the page isn't supposed to match my own record of events at all- but having one does make fact-checking a little easier. Also, most "real" journalists get paid for their work. Within the community journalism context I mentioned above any COI would be pretty much on par, no?

No. This is becoming a tad tiresome for me. So I will make this my last reply to you and leave you to your own devices. As long as you don't violate any policy or guideline no one will object to your editing the talkpage but I am beginning to see a possible topic ban might be appropriate should you continue some of the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT sort of replies or, at the very least, setting yourself up for a competence issue for work on wikipedia from the replies I am seeing. Try to study the policy and guidelines more. Especially those for Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources and please, be aware that novel interpretations of policy are not be accepted and could be Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. Good luck and happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

RE: the two policies you've raised; definitely confused about the applicability of BLP here. I can describe myself however in my user space, right? So how could a link there violate that? Also how can a link violate copyright? And, re: citizen journalism- I understand that in very few contexts would a CJ even have the body of work requisite to establish a sense of reliability. But, we're gonna see more of it, as a society, and WP is going to have less and less to draw from if it remains impossible for a CJ to become an RS. To be clear, you're saying it would be a problem for me to start citing my own reportage, right? I get that and absolutely won't do it. I promise. As with all of the commitments I'm making to WP, I'll start any work here and leave it to someone else to potentially insert. --Diceytroop (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I only scanned the links you left. For the most part they appear to be fine, but that does not mean that they don't have issues. BLP may not be something that would be applicable in just a link unless you are seen as promoting the links here and then it might be. However, copyright violations (which do not appear to be the case from what I see) are very common with linking Youtube videos that contain copyright infringment. It happens all the time and had been quite a problem on this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and vis a vis my identity -- It's out there; I could make an effort to highlight it if it was needed, but since primary sources aren't part of this project I'm not sure under what circumstances my naming myself would matter anyway. As far as this work is concerned, I'm Dicey. But my birth name has been published, for example in both of the N+1 links in my userpage. Also really N+1 isn't an RS? --Diceytroop (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

We all certainly appreciate the willingness to work within parameters. The one last point I'll hassle you with is that this particular talk page is intended to be used for discussions related to improving this specific article, and for doing so within the existing boundaries that have been set. Thus there is much conversation, which, while interesting and thoughtful and undertaken in earnest, is best taken elsewhere. Discussion, both general and specific, about aspects of OWS and about potential sources are to be encouraged here, but will often lead back to the point that the policies are what they are right now and we respect them by following them. When the conversation reaches the point of mapping out improvements for Misplaced Pages, or searching for answers to society's problems, it no longer really belongs on the Talk page of any ordinary WP article, and it will be important to recognize that when it happens. However, there are a variety of ways for you to continue your efforts to address any frustrating disconnects you see, while still upholding WP's current mission. There are a million places to talk to people, from your own talk page and those of others, to various noticeboards, policy pages, and projects aimed at exploring all kinds of ideas about the world and about WP. Anyway, welcome and cheers. And, word to the wise: when you're working on a long post, bang it out in Notepad -- much harder to lose it to a misclick, edit conflict, or program crash that way! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I put it a little more bluntly. The talkpage is for discussions to improve the article not the subject in general. See WP:TALKNO and read "Behavior that is unacceptable" and "Editing comments - Others' comments"--Amadscientist (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Dice, the way you're inserting your comments is a little confusing. Please try to put newer comments below older ones rather than going back and inserting individual replies -- or if you need to make those replies on an individual basis, at least indent them differently than the surrounding comments so people can see you've added something new.

Regarding n+1, generally we talk about whether something is an RS not in a vacuum, but in the context of a particular statement an editor wants to put into an article. But, to boil it down, I'm going to say that it looks like generally n+1 would not be a reliable source. Besides not meeting the bar in terms of the typical indicia of reliability, the pieces you link on your userpage look like advocacy and protest literature, not journalism. That's not what WP articles are based on, especially not at the most high-profile topic evarr, where a fairly endless array of established high-quality sources have weighed in. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, sorry, been trying to preserve threading, but I see everyone else is consistently indenting.

RE: the writing -- I think we (or me and WP) have got a core difference about what journalism is. That's okay. Both articles I linked aren't designed to be advocacy at all; they're eyewitness observation and analysis. The topic is protest, but it's also politics. I'm "credentialed" as a political scientist (and it's weird too that here I suddenly feel obliged to announce that?) and consider all of OWS' experiments in direct democracy to be crucial research. The fact that folks have a narrowly-defined definition of politics doesn't make my writing about OWS advocacy or protest literature. It's still political science. One of my fears about the established concept of RSes is that the Venn circle for RSes pretty much entirely correlates with the Venn circle for "people who take entirely for granted that neo-liberal republicanism is the same as 'politics'." As a political scientist, I see the real political power of OWS being obscured by RSes who don't understand it, and I see a real political problem in how WP ends up compounding the issue. (And it's not that we don't talk about the real politics of OWS; we do. It's just rarely quoted by reporters. But that's why Occupy communities have our own media -- it's not (all) advocacy media; (much of) it is good-faith, 'objective' media that just has a wider understanding of what is political. All of this bias towards so-called 'RS' thus often appears to me, in this context, as a form of (unconscious) political repression. It obscures fundamental truths about something that many are interested in. And that's a real shame.) --Diceytroop (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what you think about our dealings with Machael Pollok, who certainly thought he was an expert on all things related to the movement. Gandydancer (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I read some stuff from the massive Talk archive just now -- not even any of the posts where Pollok named himself. It's obviously all Pollok. We've had plenty of dealings with him, although mostly online, because he was never a presence in NYC. Anyway, my main response is this: Pollok gets the movement not at all. Any serious wiki editor is far closer. Let's be real: his tactic of rolling into Zuccotti Park with a document he'd written all on his own, then going through the motions to create a 'working group' (by name only), and then having that 'working group' issue his personally-written document, isn't much different from what Dualus did here on WP (replace document with entry, replace working group with sockpuppet accounts + IPs). That Pollok would have contempt for a collectivist creative ethos makes perfect sense. He's never had anything to do with OWS, aside from his one time at GA announcing his 'working group', and his abuse of the good faith process of establishing working groups led to having to make reforms to that process (which themselves caused irksome problems).

Anyway, I don't think I'm trying to do what Pollok was -- not at all. When I say 'expert' I don't mean I have all the answers, and actually much of this page is quite good, I think. If you have to have all the answers on OWS to be an expert, then there ain't one in the entire world. Although there are hundreds at least with the experiential 'expertise' that I have, there aren't many with more. My goal isn't to make this page an advocate. I'd just like to make sure it doesn't mislead. I understand that that was Pollok's (stated) goal too, but since he was a madman who didn't give a crap how his point of view triumphed (only that it did), it was a whole other thing. Based on the "accuracy" of his edits, "accuracy" wasn't actually his thing at all.

Incidentally, today is the one-year anniversary of my involvement! I think it's sort of been established that my first-person experience, while maybe useful for discussion purposes (and good to know as collaboration continues here), doesn't license any kind of assertiveness as to the content of the article. I think it will help me know when to look for sources for something or when something can be included (and then to look for sources for that). And when things can't be verified, I look forward to putting it on the record here, and maybe linking some non-RS proof, and asking for help finding an RS source that does a better job. <3 --Diceytroop (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• High-importance sociology articles
• C-Class New York City articles
• Mid-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• C-Class United States Government articles
• Low-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• United States Government articles with to-do lists
• C-Class United States History articles
• Low-importance United States History articles
• WikiProject United States History articles
• United States History articles with to-do lists
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Former good article nominees