Misplaced Pages

Talk:Reactions to Occupy Wall Street: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:07, 20 April 2012 editPenyulap (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,262 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 12:26, 20 April 2012 edit undoFactchecker atyourservice (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,476 edits →Possible removal of antisemitism paragraphNext edit →
Line 78: Line 78:
::::::I should not have to tell you that without sourcing, yes, it absolutely ''would'' be OR — even if, in ''your personal opinion'', it is an accurate "description of what happened". The first three sentences of ], which is probably the most important of all WP policies, make that clear. (To help illustrate the problem inherent in the approach you suggest, which is actually forbidden by basic policy, I'll point out that in ''my'' own opinion, the prose you suggest is a highly POV-pushing and editorializing "description of what happened".) ] ] ] 13:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC) ::::::I should not have to tell you that without sourcing, yes, it absolutely ''would'' be OR — even if, in ''your personal opinion'', it is an accurate "description of what happened". The first three sentences of ], which is probably the most important of all WP policies, make that clear. (To help illustrate the problem inherent in the approach you suggest, which is actually forbidden by basic policy, I'll point out that in ''my'' own opinion, the prose you suggest is a highly POV-pushing and editorializing "description of what happened".) ] ] ] 13:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Right, perhaps I wasn't clear enough in how I phrased that. But we can summarize what sources say in our own words, and that involves ''understanding'' the sources and portraying that understanding on WP. ] 23:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC) :::::::Right, perhaps I wasn't clear enough in how I phrased that. But we can summarize what sources say in our own words, and that involves ''understanding'' the sources and portraying that understanding on WP. ] 23:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Does one of the sources say that the complaints by ADL were a "slander attempt" or a failed "attempt to associate anti-Semitism" with OWS? ] ] ] 12:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


== becrit suggestion working draft == == becrit suggestion working draft ==

Revision as of 12:26, 20 April 2012

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reactions to Occupy Wall Street article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 15 days 
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 page is not a forum for general discussion about Reactions to 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 Reactions to Occupy Wall Street at the Reference desk.

To-do list for Reactions to Occupy Wall Street: edit · history · watch · refresh

To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis 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
WikiProject iconOWS (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
WikiProject iconPolitics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis 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.
WikiProject iconSociology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis 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.
WikiProject iconNew York City Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis 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.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Government / History Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Low-importance).


Archives

1


This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.


Dates are in MDY format, with the year being 2011 if unspecified. This article is a split off From Occupy Wall Street. The full index of archives for that page is found at Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive index.

Possible removal of antisemitism paragraph

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

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

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

The paragraph is POV because of the wording. It needs to be rephrased, and at this point we might not need to include it at all, it was a minor incident quickly put aside. B——Critical 20:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I would be in favor of removing it. (Actually I thought we removed it long ago...) Gandydancer (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Fair enough, I can see my past post was a little too exuberant. I'm sorry for that. No need for threats, just a WP:Trout will suffice for next time. 완젬스 (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, you need to cool it. Each time you do that it makes people take you less seriously. And this is from a person who is currently militating against WP:COI. But you're a poster child for COI being necessary. B——Critical 20:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Fair criticism--I have invested so much time and part of myself into helping this movement that I can't help but express my enjoyment of success. This movement has been teetering & dithering which has caused a lot of supporters to give up hope, or turn jaded & dispirited. The work I've done on facebook mirrors much the same thing I do here. I stay positive, share my enthusiasm, and try to build others up. To me, that's a great position I fill if at times it can occasionally backfire, which it does. I apologize to you both, but I hope you realize I don't represent the movement. You guys do, and without EVERYONE working together to work together, then the fate I saw unfold at Facebook in December & January (infighting, divisiveness, entitlement) will start to happen here as well. I think we should all agree to some sort of pact to simply work through this temporary rough spot because in the end, there's way more to be gained than there is to be lost. Nothing good comes from what I see happening here in the last 24 hours. I'll put my best foot forward until we're all back up on our hopes & dreams & ideals. Salamat, 완젬스 (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

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

The thing here is that there are many things which achieve passing notability, but don't have staying notability. This was a flash in the pan, and is of no lasting significance. A normal encyclopedia would never include it. "Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." B——Critical 19:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
"This was a flash in the pan, and is of no lasting significance" The subject of that sentence is confusing. If you mean the coverage of supposed antisemitism, the sources therein show that that is not the case. One of the major Jewish organizations in the country and major newspapers have covered it. Your argument would be valid if I tried to start an Allegations of Anti-Semitism in Occupy Wall Street article, but limiting the breadth of encyclopedic coverage to one paragraph in a peripheral article is well within the bounds seeing as I've carefully cited all the sources to avoid conflicts. Notability is not temporary and Misplaced Pages is not a regular encyclopedia. -- Veggy (talk) 06:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
And as noted above, it's POV. Trying to edit war a POV paragraph into the article over the objections of three editors can't end well. You have the WP:BURDEN to convince people that the material should be included. However, if you want to remove it to the talk page, we could discuss rephrasing it for eventual inclusion. B——Critical 06:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Seeing as how I've patiently and lucidly articulated the reasons without any rebuttal except the number of editors supposedly in agreement, I think I've met the burden, thanks. You're also running curiously close to a conflict of interest. And, yes, I already know you don't like it. -- Veggy (talk) 06:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Conflict of interest? Why do you say that? B——Critical 07:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Based on a visual survey of your editing history, you seem to be exclusively focused on Occupy-related articles. That, plus your evident affinity visible on your user page can lead someone to think you might not be here to build an all-around encyclopedia. -- Veggy (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Look deeper. And my userpage is about copyright, an issue I seldom edit. It just borrows some of OWS fame. I'm not affiliated with OWS in any way. B——Critical 07:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Including this info at this point is certainly not appropriate (for reasons already discussed). Gandydancer (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I've made it fairly clear why the information should be included. None of the arguments stated stand up to scrutiny based on Misplaced Pages's own policies. -- Veggy (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Per my edit summary, if you want to pursue this you need to use some form of the WP:DR process. Best B——Critical 20:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Misleading/incorrect edit summary B——Critical 07:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph doesn't give the subject much weight. But most of it seems to be centered on pointing out that antisemitism is actually not a significant issue in the protests, which begs the question of whether it's worth including at all. Either way there seems to be only one person warring it in, when there's a consensus of three others who don't think it belongs. Veggy's edit summary, "Since no other editors are arguing this matter, there is no current consensus", is dubious since once consensus is established it's not reliant on who is currently discussing the matter, or else no consensus could ever hold for very long. Veggy is also certainly using Twinkle inappropriately for an ordinary content dispute. So, for all those reasons, I've reverted him. If Veggy still wants the paragraph included, he should try and convince others of its merit here first. Equazcion 10:00, 12 Apr 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. We're giving page space to every last pop musician and blogger who has issued some blurb about OWS, but we won't countenance a comment by the Anti-Defamation League? That seems questionable. I opposed inclusion of a very different anti-Semitism paragraph added to the original OWS article, for different reasons, but so long as we're going all-out with a "reactions" article, it doesn't seem fit to forbid a neutrally worded reflection of this discourse. It's my impression that the suggested wording is very careful to make clear that OWS protesters in general do not share the anti-Semitic views; yet the association was clear and these very notable complaints from very notable organizations are on record. NPOV would seem to require inclusion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
    • This is a cause that people have attempted to tie with the movement (there have been a few), and whichever organizations became concerned acknowledged later what was really going on. That seems different than mentioning the reactions of notable people. This was more of an initial reaction to a false flag. Maybe that's worth including too, I don't know. I'm on the fence myself. Just trying to put it in perspective. Equazcion 17:09, 13 Apr 2012 (UTC)
It might very well be worth a small paragraph on the slander attempt, but the organizations retracted it... in other words, it's ass backwards, it should start out "there was an failed attempt by X and Y to associate Occupy with antisemitism, however the attempt failed after..." I once looked up the sources on this, maybe I can find it in the archives. B——Critical 17:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, FWIW, the generic text you suggest, BeCritical, would be editorializing OR. Ditto if you mean to suggest the article could say something about a "slander attempt" by the ADL, without a source... also not sure what to make of Equaczion's suggestion that this wasn't a "reaction of notable people". Again, these groups are far more notable than a sizeable chunk of the random people whose "reactions" are reflected in the current "reactions" article.
BeCritical, what was that about a possible retraction? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Would not be OR if the sources say that, or if it is a description of what happened: I think you are sometimes too strict about how much latitude we have to summarize the course of events. I can't remember well enough, in a few days I may have some more time to sit down and look it up about what actually happened. B——Critical 21:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I should not have to tell you that without sourcing, yes, it absolutely would be OR — even if, in your personal opinion, it is an accurate "description of what happened". The first three sentences of WP:V, which is probably the most important of all WP policies, make that clear. (To help illustrate the problem inherent in the approach you suggest, which is actually forbidden by basic policy, I'll point out that in my own opinion, the prose you suggest is a highly POV-pushing and editorializing "description of what happened".) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Right, perhaps I wasn't clear enough in how I phrased that. But we can summarize what sources say in our own words, and that involves understanding the sources and portraying that understanding on WP. B——Critical 23:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Does one of the sources say that the complaints by ADL were a "slander attempt" or a failed "attempt to associate anti-Semitism" with OWS? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

becrit suggestion working draft

Conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic, casting the demonstrators as "envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility." A Tea Party group said the protesters want "a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don't have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills." Brian Montopoli, writing for CBS News said that "The conservative criticism of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that it is a "growing mob" (House majority leader Eric Cantor) of "shiftless protestors" (The Tea Party Express) engaged in "class warfare" (GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain)." Matthew Continetti, also writing for CBS, said that conservatives "dismiss the movement as a fringe collection of left tendencies, along with assorted homeless, mental cases, and petty criminals." Mitt Romney claimed the protesters are "waging "class warfare," and Herman Cain said they were "anti-American"." Newt Gingrich, said "All the Occupy movements starts with the premise that we all owe them everything. Now, that is a pretty good symptom of how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country and why you need to reassert something as simple as saying to them, go get a job right after you take a bath." Rick Santorum also told the protesters to get jobs.

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


Conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic, casting the demonstrators as "envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility."
The quote here violates WP:Weight. It comes from one, not so mainstream source. I support it's removal entirely. I would just use: "Conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic.."
Next I would put this:
On October 5, 2011, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh told his listening audience: "When I was 10 years old I was more self-sufficient than this parade of human debris calling itself Occupy Wall Street." Glenn Beck said on his internet television network GBTV, "Capitalists, if you think that you can play footsies with these people, you are wrong. They will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you. They will do it. They’re not messing around."
Everything about Hermain Cain, Mitt Romney, Eric Cantor, etc. should be removed because they are already discussed in the article. See the sections Congress and 2012 Presidential candidates here Reactions_to_Occupy_Wall_Street#Congress. Rick Santorum is not mentioned there so the material about him should be added to that section.
Next I would put:
A Tea Party group said the protesters want "a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don't have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills."
Lastly:
Matthew Continetti, writing for CBS, said that conservatives "dismiss the movement as a fringe collection of left tendencies, along with assorted homeless, mental cases, and petty criminals." Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Occupy Wall Street: a New Culture War? The Chronicle Review November 12, 2011 By Andrew Hartman
  2. Occupy Wall Street: More popular than you think By Brian Montopoli October 13, 2011
  3. ^ The roots of American disorder By Matthew Continetti, CBS news November 22, 2011
  4. Why Britain needs a written constitution By Linda Colley in The Guardian, Friday 4 November 2011
  5. Gingrich Takes GOP Lead, Takes On 'Occupy' National Public Radio transcript November 21, 2011
  6. Religion on display in Republican debate by Anna Fifield in the Financial Times, November 20, 2011
  7. Gingrich to Occupy: ‘Take a Bath’ The Daily Beast November 21, 2011
  8. Populist Movements Rooted in Same Soil The Wall Street Journal By GERALD F. SEIB, NOVEMBER 15, 2011 "You know how they have been pigeonholed: The tea-party movement is nothing but a collection of right-wing, under-educated rubes and radicals, while the Occupy Wall Street movement attracts only young, scruffy, unemployed left-wing zealots."
  9. Occupy Wall St. disrupts Okla. Santorum rally By Rebecca Kaplan CBS News March 4, 2012
  10. Rush Limbaugh Flips Out, ‘The Next President Could Come From (Occupy Wall St)’PoliticsUSA retrieved Monday, March 12, 2012
  11. Glenn Beck: Protestors ‘Will Come For You, Drag You Into The Streets, And Kill You’ By by Jon Bershad

RfC

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The Criticism section of this article inadequately presents the criticism shown in mainstream media and the opinions formed by well-known politicians and well-respected people. After travelling to the dispute resolution noticeboard and then to the Mediation Cabal, we have come up with two variants that can be included into the article. Participants are asked to vote for Option 1 or Option 2 and their reasons why. Whenaxis (contribs) 01:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Option 1

Conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic. Andrew Hartman wrote in The Chronicle Review that "many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility." On October 5, 2011, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh told his listening audience: "When I was 10 years old I was more self-sufficient than this parade of human debris calling itself Occupy Wall Street." Glenn Beck said on his internet television network GBTV, "Capitalists, if you think that you can play footsies with these people, you are wrong. They will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you. They will do it. They’re not messing around." One tea-party group, the Tea Party Patriots, issued a statement that said in part, "Those occupying Wall Street and other cities, when they are intelligible, want less of what made America great and more of what is damaging to America: a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don’t have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills.”

  1. Occupy Wall Street: a New Culture War? The Chronicle Review November 12, 2011 By Andrew Hartman
  2. Rush Limbaugh Flips Out, ‘The Next President Could Come From (Occupy Wall St)’PoliticsUSA retrieved Monday, March 12, 2012
  3. Glenn Beck: Protestors ‘Will Come For You, Drag You Into The Streets, And Kill You’ By Jon Bershad
  4. Wall St. Protest Isn’t Like Ours, Tea Party Says by Kate Zernike in The New York Times October 21, 2011

Support

  • Support. This feels like a decent amount of material to be included. The process of paragraph placement was not discussed during the mediation cabal. I think this paragraph should be the second paragraph in the criticism section. Whether you support Option 1 or Option 2, please also state where you think the paragraph should be placed. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Frankly, I think it's too bad we can't spread the criticism throughout the article. But if these are the only two options that have been offered I choose the lesser of evils.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Option 2

Conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic, casting the demonstrators as a thoroughly marginal group. Andrew Hartman wrote in The Chronicle Review that "many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility." Kate Zernike said in The New York Times that the Tea Party Patriots "portrayed Occupy protesters as freeloaders, or would-be freeloaders: 'Those occupying Wall Street and other cities, when they are intelligible, want less of what made America great and more of what is damaging to America: a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don’t have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills.'" Brian Montopoli, writing for CBS News said that "The conservative criticism of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that it is a "growing mob" (House majority leader Eric Cantor) of "shiftless protestors" (The Tea Party Express) engaged in "class warfare" (GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain) whose grievances - whatever they are - are far outside the political mainstream." Matthew Continetti, also writing for CBS, said that conservatives "dismiss the movement as a fringe collection of left tendencies, along with assorted homeless, mental cases, and petty criminals." "Conservatives define the Occupy protesters before the protesters define themselves. Ed Morrissey, writing in The Week, insisted that the Occupy movement wants “seizures and redistributions, which necessarily means more bureaucracies, higher spending, and many more opportunities for collusion between authorities and moneyed interests in one way or another." Linda Colley said in The Guardian "A prime reason for is suggested by some of the Republican attacks on Occupy. The demonstrators were "mobs", said Eric Cantor, the House minority leader. Occupy was waging "class warfare", claimed Mitt Romney, an accusation some Republicans also level at Obama. But it was a rival of Romney for the Republican nomination, Herman Cain, who voiced the criticism Democrats and demonstrators here fear most. Occupy, and those backing it, according to Cain, are "anti-American"." Douglas Rushkoff, in a special to CNN said that "Like the spokesmen for Arab dictators feigning bewilderment over protesters' demands, mainstream television news reporters finally training their attention on the growing Occupy Wall Street protest movement seem determined to cast it as the random, silly blather of an ungrateful and lazy generation of weirdos. They couldn't be more wrong and, as time will tell, may eventually be forced to accept the inevitability of their own obsolescence." On October 5, 2011, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh told his listening audience: "When I was 10 years old I was more self-sufficient than this parade of human debris calling itself Occupy Wall Street." Glenn Beck said on his internet television network GBTV, "Capitalists, if you think that you can play footsies with these people, you are wrong. They will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you. They will do it. They’re not messing around." Newt Gingrich, said "All the Occupy movements starts with the premise that we all owe them everything. Now, that is a pretty good symptom of how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country and why you need to reassert something as simple as saying to them, go get a job right after you take a bath." Rick Santorum also told the protesters to get jobs.

  1. Occupy Wall Street: a New Culture War? The Chronicle Review November 12, 2011 By Andrew Hartman
  2. Wall St. Protest Isn’t Like Ours, Tea Party Says by Kate Zernike in The New York Times October 21, 2011
  3. Occupy Wall Street: More popular than you think By Brian Montopoli October 13, 2011
  4. The roots of American disorder By Matthew Continetti, CBS news November 22, 2011
  5. Wall St. Protest Isn’t Like Ours, Tea Party Says The New York Times. Accessed: 21 March 2012.
  6. Why Britain needs a written constitution By Linda Colley in The Guardian, Friday 4 November 2011
  7. Rush Limbaugh Flips Out, ‘The Next President Could Come From (Occupy Wall St)’PoliticsUSA retrieved Monday, March 12, 2012
  8. 'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Monday, October 10th, 2011 Retrieved Tuesday, March 20, 2012
  9. Glenn Beck: Protestors ‘Will Come For You, Drag You Into The Streets, And Kill You’ By by Jon Bershad
  10. Gingrich Takes GOP Lead, Takes On 'Occupy' National Public Radio transcript November 21, 2011
  11. Religion on display in Republican debate by Anna Fifield in the Financial Times, November 20, 2011
  12. Gingrich to Occupy: ‘Take a Bath’ The Daily Beast November 21, 2011
  13. Populist Movements Rooted in Same Soil The Wall Street Journal By GERALD F. SEIB, NOVEMBER 15, 2011 "You know how they have been pigeonholed: The tea-party movement is nothing but a collection of right-wing, under-educated rubes and radicals, while the Occupy Wall Street movement attracts only young, scruffy, unemployed left-wing zealots."
  14. Occupy Wall St. disrupts Okla. Santorum rally By Rebecca Kaplan CBS News March 4, 2012

Support

  • I wrote option 2, with help from various other editors along the way including Somedifferentstuff. The question being asked by the paragraph is "How do RS say conservatives have portrayed OWS?" I originally tried to paraphrase the RS, but the result, though shorter, was criticized. Ultimately, I think the quotations offer a more neutral version. The RS carefully choose the words they use to characterize the Conservative rhetoric, and summarizing them in Misplaced Pages's voice was difficult. Yet, the sources are very reliable, and it is incumbent on us to include them, and to accurately convey what they say. I think that option 2 has a natural flow: it goes from quotations of the RS to direct quotes from the pundits and politicians, which show what the RS were talking about. Option one leaves out the majority of the sources, jumping right into the inflammatory quotes. I should note that there is also room in the article for text answering other questions such as "what is the Conservative analysis of OWS." This paragraph is about the portrayal. B——Critical 02:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I went through this suggestion very carefully because my first impression was quite negative. I split it into paragraphs (which I will post below) and read it again several times and linked any names of journalists important enough for a WP entry, and that seemed to help some. It is long, but I believe that it is important to include a wide variety of sources and views because the present article contains a large number of positive sources/views and we have been trying to present an unbiased article. It can be hard to read in some places, but given the fact that every word must be exact and well-sourced, there may be no way of getting around that problem. (I'm not sure if this is the place to put a criticism, but the Rushkoff "criticism" sounds more like a defense to me.) Gandydancer (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
    The sentence "They couldn't be more wrong and, as time will tell, may eventually be forced to accept the inevitability of their own obsolescence." Could be struck. Would that be an improvement? I like your paragraphing. Even random paragraphs make it easier to read. B——Critical 00:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support option #2, which provides a more comprehensive overview of conservative criticism of Occupy Wall Street compared to option #1. Splitting it into separate short paragraphs as suggested below seems to be reasonable. I support the notion of integrating this information in the article as a subsection of the Criticism section, which would further organize the article by having a section about criticisms from "avowed" conservatives. Northamerica1000 18:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Although I perhaps would normally have thought the section was too long it does give a good understanding of the conservative position, so perhaps all the quotes are needed. I do think that the phrase "thoroughly marginal" is not quite right. It might sound OK in American English but not in UK English. Would the words aberrant or deviant be more suitable. Interesting, in the UK the accusation has been that those involved in occupy are comfortable and middle class. Responding to RFC. Isthisuseful (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This is better than Option 1, which is rather incomplete, although I'd rather see Option 2 trimmed down a little as it is a bit over-long. Thom2002 (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Support It definitely needs to be trimmed down. Last sentence about Rick Santorum adds little value to article and should be removed. Covers the criticisms more accurately than Option 1 but still needs major work.--MOLEY (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support As is. Meclee (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - More complete than 1. But do something about that wall of text. Mercy! It's so dense the authors has trouble tracking the quote marks. I'm sure there are at least three paragraphs in there, I would hope even more than that. Jojalozzo 03:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it will be broken up example below (: B——Critical 06:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose


Any remaining issues

First is this sentence: "The demonstrators were "mobs", said Eric Cantor, the House minority leader." Why is this being included when in another section of the article here it states, "House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va), in a speech to a Values Voter Summit, characterized the movement as "growing mobs" and said that Obama's "failed policies" and rhetoric "condon the pitting of Americans against Americans" were to blame." Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, because the mention of Cantor is merely part of a longer quote. Secondly, because no one wants to try and spread the criticism section throughout the article, we agree that this would be extremely difficult to do. Someone called it a nightmare. But we seem to agree that that quote as a whole belongs in the paragraph. Also to a lesser extent because Misplaced Pages articles do not necessarily stand as single articles: we try to concentrate information into sections so people looking for specific information don't have to glean it from the entire article but can go directly to the section. Having information in more than one spot isn't necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps sometime it will be doable to rewrite in such a way that we don't have this redundancy, but no one appears up to the task just now. B——Critical 19:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
So with Becritical's addition the article would state: (1) "House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va), in a speech to a Values Voter Summit, characterized the movement as "growing mobs" --- (2) Brian Montopoli, writing for CBS News said that "The conservative criticism of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that it is a "growing mob" (House majority leader Eric Cantor) -- (3) The demonstrators were "mobs", said Eric Cantor, the House minority leader. --- Having the term "mob" mentioned THREE TIMES is unacceptable. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


Also, it would be nice if people read 완젬스's ideas on my talk page and see if there are any creative solutions to his concerns. B——Critical 19:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we let the RfC run it's course for the full 31 days before jumping to conclusions that Option 2 is the most favorable? Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 20:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

BeCritical suggestion divided into paragraphs for easier reading

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

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

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

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

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

As a former opponent to your changes, I will finally endorse certain parts of your proposal. For starters, I still disagree with the overall impact this will have on our encyclopedic article; but, I will give credit where credit is due, even if I have to take it in stride and while taking the conciliatory gesture of swallowing my bitterness associated with defeat. Here it goes:
I think you played the words fair in the opening statement by choosing "has sometimes been" which lacks authoritative attribution. You wisely left the door open that some exceptions are certain to exist. I also like "casting the demonstrators as a thoroughly marginal group". Who knew that anyone other than Amadscientist had the "artsy-fartsy" gift of eloquently putting conglomerate ideas into well-written sentences? It's very "clean" and well-written. You highly separate the voice of Misplaced Pages from the voice of its quoted statements. I also like how you ref-link The Chronicle while prefacing the conclusions which ANDREW HARTMAN (a non-specialty, out-of-expertise venturer) who is a historian of all things isocratically casts the "ingrates" term from an unassuming position that is not the formal position of a larger, more significant group. I approve of the way it is crafted because it eliminate the WP:Synth that somehow the tactile use of the word "ingrates" is no longer elevated as being official, mainstream, or widespread. I reluctantly agree with the prefaced use of the word "ingrates" to describe occupiers (including myself who has "occupied" a time or two). I feel no offense nor do I feel like I'm personally called an ingrate. Job well done...
Secondly, I especially like how you clarified the deepening of criticism in the third paragraph. You presented an increasing gradient of negativity among higher, middle, and lower Republicans (gauged by their negativity toward OWS) and illustrated to the reader that there are varying degrees of anti-OWS sentiment among republicans, culminating in Herman Cain's most dastardly abjection of scorn: that OWS protesters are un-American (which nothing could be further from the truth, see my "heartfelt essay" which I will save you the trouble of linking to it) which has proved to me that we see eye to eye on some things. I'm so glad you deem Herman Cain's assessment of OWS as "the worst" because objectively, subjectively it is so. I'm glad we agree on that, after you and I argued so much in the past.
Thirdly, you were able to somehow reconcile "the sting" I felt from Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Maybe it was how you put it in the 4th & final paragraph, rather than blind-siding the reader from out of nowhere. Either you received specialized assistance and/or training; or, you welcomingly mastered the stylistic prowess needed to achieve objectionable goals. Either way, I finally feel your contribution to compromising and writing a mutually tolerable insertion into the encyclopedic article which I very much do care about. I think that through all the steps you climbed, you were finally able to reach an amicable restructure which satisfied your objectives and satisfied your critics. That's the only way to "thwart" consensus is to earn consensus as you have now done. I have a couple minor quibbles which I will inconspicuously address on your talk page, but most importantly, I finally agree to the cumbersome changes you have made to your initial poison pill which has came a long way since March 13th and is now deservingly accredited as a job well done.
Thanks for crafting a mutually satisfactory piece of work. I just hope you understood my concerns about the article when I was so staunchly adversarial against your proposition, and that you saw this debacle from my point of view. It was never a battle over the content per se but, instead, it was a battle about the perceived "damage" that this reckless influx of toxic negativity would do to an otherwise, seemingly-halfway encyclopedic article. In the end, however, you abridged the chasm between us (which to others, may have been seen as an edit war) and proffered a relatively great piece of work which must have taken you hours & hours. For that, I'm grateful; and, for that, I'm willfully agreeable. Thanks, 완젬스 (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! You know I was never intent on destructiveness, to the article or movement. I did understand your former concerns. And I await your input on my talk page. B——Critical 06:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Re your remark above, actually the paragraphs are fairly reasonable, and incidentally I first questioned the first source since I'd never heard of it, but then decided it was a good choice that added to the variety of sources. Anyway, the second paragraph is CBS, the third is global/UK, the fourth CNN, and then the fifth with Limbaugh, etc. I bracketed this define the Occupy protesters before the protesters define themselves]] because I was not sure how it fit in. Perhaps since this "version", posted by me, is not part of our "official" vote proposal, you could edit it as you see fit? Gandydancer (talk) 07:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
We went to great lengths with this. We even checked that first source out at RS/N . Also, the quote you mentioned ("Conservatives define...") is part of what we put in because Somedifferentstuff wanted it, and personally I think it should be removed. B——Critical 08:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Categories: