Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gandydancer (talk | contribs) at 12:09, 4 March 2012 (→TOC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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: 10 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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).

Template:Rtnews

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, 30

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 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.

Manual of style, in regards to headings

WP:HEADINGS

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

WP:SINGULAR

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

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

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

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

Responding to AKA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit problems

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

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

And it was cut to this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and the other is here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sourced text removed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued reverting of contribution

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

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

follows the note precisely and with origial text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are removing stuff like

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

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

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

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

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

Occupy the SEC

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

Anarchist root

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

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

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

No more opinion piece --SupernovaExplosion 09:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Occupy movement moves forward

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

"Anarchism" wording in lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hedges addition

While I don't find the recent addition of new material particularly problematic in itself, I do think that it is flawed in its current state and should be removed, and that there are some procedural issues that need addressing.

• The editor added material to challenge or balance the "anarchism" claim in the lead ("To omit this view would be POV by exlusion"), taking Hedge's statement that the movement is "conservative" as evidence that the movement is not (exclusively) identifiable as anarchism ("Hedges implicitly finds anrachy no the sole and only influence" ). However, Hedge's statement in context is clearly not indicating that OWS activists are what we would normally call conservatives, and thus not anarchists, but is rather a rhetorical gesture meant to challenge common perceptions of the movement. For Hedges, they are "conservative" not because they are on the political right, but because they seek to reinstate the rule of law (as opposed to the "criminals", i.e., the bankers et al.). One might make a case that that would necessarily rule out anarchists, but that would probably be strained, and certainly be WP:OR.
• Second, WP:BRD does not mean "no tag backs," but that when material has been added, then removed, the next step is to take the question to the talk page, NOT to reinstate it with a barely intelligible edit summary. That's called edit-warring.
• And even if Hedges were actually saying that OWS is a conservative movement in the sense that we normally think of the word, we should treat that as we treat the claims about the anarchist affiliations or anything else, namely, by following WP:LEAD, specifically the part that says that the lead should summarize the contents. If you want to make a case for the conservative nature of OWS in the body, and then include it in the lead, by all means, do it, but you'll certainly need a stronger source than the one we have now.
• And finally, I'm not necessarily alleging bad faith, but the edit summary provided clearly states that this material is being added to challenge the anarchist claim ("Hedges implicitly finds anrachy no the sole and only influence and this is a significance non anrachist facet of OWS" ), and continues rather aggressively by stating that "To omit this view would be POV by exlusion" . This is not the way to treat either the lead of an article nor the dispute about OWS/anarchism. POV doesn't mean that every claim needs a counterclaim (however contorted), but that we represent the best sources as best we can. If you think the anarchism thing is getting undue weight, please chime in in the ongoing talk page discussion. Don't add a sentence to the lead that misreads its own source and doesn't reflect any content in the body of the article; that helps neither the consensus process nor the article.

Sindinero (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - You are correct that the removal of content in this particular instance (and maybe ever) is certainly NOT "POV by exlusion" as one cannot state that removing POV is POV. Any content must be balanced with due weight to the academic sources. The reference itself is from "Raw Story" which is "a progressive news site that focuses on stories often ignored in the mainstream media." and by it's very deffinition is simply promoting fringe ideas. The actual claim being made is indeed very much a "fringe" theory and has no true basis in mainstream academia. It should not be included in this article until such time that a more reliable source can be provided. Let me clarify, it isn't that the source is biased to one direction of political winds either left or right...just that it is not reliable in that the main purpose is to push an "obscure point of view" to begin with regardless of bias.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed both the reference to conservatism and this:

The Occupy movement's defining characteristic is a philosophy of anarchism

I think that perhaps any mention of anarchism in the lead should be backed up by a huge preponderance of sources. I don't know that such exists. That's because it is a very telling claim, and it touches deeply on NPOV since it would essentially tar them from the outset. So I'm happy to have it in there if it's true and very well supported as the predominant philosophy which Occupiers actually espouse, but I would like to see a lot of sources that make that claim about the predominance of that philosophy. B——C_ritical 04:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that any mention of anarchism in the lead needs a huge preponderance of sources, or just the mention we already had? I think the sources we have are good for demonstrating some connection between OWS and anarchism - see my comment in the above section for a possible wording. (I'm not sure that a mention of anarchism would 'tar' OWS from the outset, either.) Sindinero (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Be's compromise is sensible. Otherwise we are obliged to accept what any notable's opinion of what is OWS's philisophical basis. If consensus accepts this, other arguments become moot. Sind should be reminded that the nationalist, patriarchal right uses anarchism as a pejorative description of OWS, so the word is too loaded for the lead, they've debased that much as they have debased in appropriation of the ID conservative. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's try to keep the condescension to a minimum, eh? I don't really need to be "reminded" of this at all, I'm pretty aware of the various uses and abuses of the word "anarch*". I just don't think that prior abuses of the word should be our guiding factor in writing this article (see my comment in the above section). It's not our job to protect or shelter OWS from an affiliation with anarchism or any other movement - if we have good sources upon which to base an accurate characterization, then we give this characterization regardless of what fascists, nationalists, or political illiterates may do with it. OWS is clearly a complex political movement, and has many influences and a complex genealogy; pointing to the anarchist influence isn't supposed to mean that that's the only one, but neither are we obliged to accept anyone's "opinion" of OWS. But we already have good sources that link concrete political practices (GAs, consensus, horizontal organizing, direct action, etc.) to anarchism: I think it's fair to indicate the connection without, however, suggesting that OWS is "exclusively" anarchist. Sindinero (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with including the word anarchy in copy that is connected to any notable person that uses it to describe the movement. But for us as to pronounce that it is an anarchist movement is certainly not appropriate. And again, I don't see how you can read the Misplaced Pages anarchy article without admitting that it is Graeber's interpretation of anarchy and not necessarily the common one. See the dictionary def for example:

a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government 2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature Gandydancer (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that we should avoid blanket pronouncements, as I've written above a couple times now. I'm familiar with the wp article on anarchism (and a few other texts on the subject), and I don't think that Graeber's view on anarchism strongly deviates from most others. It's also worth bearing in mind that there's a difference in definition and usage between "anarchism" and "anarchy," although the two terms are often muddled. But yes, in any case, you're right, we should avoid blanket pronouncements either way, and characterize the connection between OWS and anarchism according to the sources. Sindinero (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It was sourced to author and the subject of the history section, David Graeber, however it is also referenced to other RS. This should never be Misplaced Pages writng as the authority making these claims as these are not "undisputable" statements like the sun rises in the east and sets in the west sort of thing. It's also an issue not to be anytrhing more than encyclopedic with the amount of content and what claims we make, negative or positive about a living person without it being solidly sourced.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

definition of ANARCHIST

a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power

a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order Gandydancer (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Anarchism

Anarchism does not mean plunder and outrage upon society. Contrarily, it's mission is to outroot the sytematical plunder of a vast majority of the people by comparatively few-the working classes by the capitalists.Anarchism: its philosophy and scientific basis as defined by some of its Apostles (1887) By Albert Richard Parsons

We can't write this article assuming that the definition of "Anarchism" or "Anarchy" has a negative or positive connotation. That is not neutral. That takes a side by assuming it is one way or another and not wanting to "taint" the subject with the very issues it brings up in the very way and manner it is undertaken. No...Occupy Wall Street as a movement can be said to be an anarchist movement in it's design and intent...almost without dispute. It is easily sourced and is encyclopedic in value to this subject. We need to be precise when speaking to exactly who takes what view and how for BLP issues, but we cannot take a blind eye to the very essense of the subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Amadscientist.

Gandydancer, I'm not sure which of those definitions you feel is supposed to stand in opposition to Graeber's view, but those are also just the standard dictionary definitions. For political terms nobody would seriously turn to Random House, since their definitions are superficial and don't really contribute to a solid understanding (that's why there are encyclopedias of political science). We could toss around definitions all day: Ammon Hennacy said that an anarchist is just anyone who doesn't need a cop to tell them what to do. Ursula Le Guin defined anarchists as those who accept the responsibility for their own choices. And there are many more that don't play up the whole "violence and chaos" canard. Check out Kropotkin's Mutual Aid for a canonical work, Daniel Guerin's Anarchism: From Theory to Practice for a classic text, or Uri Gordon's Anarchy Alive! for a contemporary overview, if you're interested in more.

But my point is, again, that it's no more appropriate for us to oppose mention of anarchism because we want to protect OWS from a negative association than to include anarchism because we think anarchism's swell and we want it to get more publicity by associating it with OWS. We go by what the sources say. Can we at least agree on that? Sindinero (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the major mainstream sources clearly indicate that this protest and even the movement uses anarchism as its basic make up in both philosophical as well as structural make-up. The use of general assemblies is part of the structural anarchism and really echo back to ancient Greece and Rome when the first assemblies of civilized man began to make community decisions. This is an ancient concept and is brought up in the article and is referenced. It's all very interesting. I am very sure that what we can reference and source that the protests were organized in an anarchist manner, by an anarchist, with anarchism within it's structure. The main stream media have all made note of this fact from the beginning and recently and even a point of criticism by some. We can't look the other way to be overly cautious, but move cautiously forward. Perhaps this really needs expansion for clarity and full encyclopedic value and weight.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street anarchism references and due weight

Lets go ahead and revue it.

1. Began as a anarchist call/suggestion.

Micah White:

Though he describes himself as a “mystical anarchist,” White has three strict rules that govern his day: No naps. No snacks. Get dressed. “By dressed,” he told me, “I mean pants and a shirt. Enough so that if someone came to the door and knocked on it you wouldn’t be totally embarrassed.” After earning a B.A. at Swarthmore, he wrote a letter to Lasn, whom he had never met, saying that he would be arriving in Vancouver in a matter of weeks and wanted to be put to work.

reference number 7

1. Organised by an anarchist.

Design anarchy. Adbusters Kalle Lasn

1. Anarchism structure

A “general assembly” means something specific and special to an anarchist. In a way, it’s the central concept of contemporary anarchist activism, which is premised on the idea that revolutionary movements relying on coercion of any kind only result in repressive societies.

reference number 12

There is some interest in anarchist models, perhaps because they're the only thing that hasn't been tried and failed. But there's also just a lot of confusion."

reference number 6

1. Anarchist calls for protest and demonstrations

"Anonymous gave us that -- I don't know what you call it, that sort of anarchy cred. All of a sudden this organization that has this strange mystique to it, they're saying, 'Yeah, occupy Wall Street!' That first video of theirs was quite a delightful little piece of videomaking, and at that moment I could feel that we got a mighty boost forward.

Reference 11

1. Anarchism noted by academics.

Institutue for Anarchist studies

1. Reported as an anarchism protests by the mainstream media.

Older organizers were protest veterans, members of far-left parties, anarchists or unaffiliated supporters of the anti-globalization movement who have spent the decade since 9/11 marching against banks and both Democrats and Republicans.

Huffington Post.

These are a lot of referenced points not to have this recorded more accurately.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You may be right on this, but I have to tell you that while I was aware of the influence, I was not aware that anarchism is something we could say was that basic to the movement. So I want to see a lot of highly reliable sources which say the extent to which Anarchism influences the movement. It's such an important and inflammatory point I would want to source it better than other points. B——C_ritical 16:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree - but I would insist, again, that there are shades of grey here, and we don't necessarily need to say that anarchism is basic to the movement in order to say that it's an influence. Sindinero (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Right. B——C_ritical 19:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying anything at the moment about a specific degree of influence, but that it is at it's core at least basic to the subject. This is apples and apples and with relevent context. I do agree whole heartedly that these claims in the article would have to be sourced properly. They already are really, the article has simply excluded a great deal of information needlessly. This isn't to elevate claims of influence and there is academic counter point on this as well, just not as weighted as the understanding that OWS, is basically a protest with very blatant anarchistic overtones. Influence of any kind would be speculative and need to be attributed as opinion, but...if you start breaking down the academic quotes we have such as from Levinson with and his opinion that this hasn't been seen since ancient times than there is some mainstream direction on the subject. Along any line that regards something within a political light there are going to be opposition because some don't believe the same thing as the next guy, but that isn't a legitimate reasoning to overlook the obvious.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

MadSci is trading in falsehoods, and has turned weak assumptions into conclusions without helpful or informative citation. All apparently in ignorance of context. (Update: After this posting, MadSci reedited his above posting. So no, I was not high on shrooms when I saw no citations from MadSci, they were put in after I posted this.)

Began as a anarchist call/suggestion.

When and how did Adbusters, the instigator of OWS, become explicit anarchists? They prefer to call themselves "culture jammers". The Adbusters About page says nothing of anarchism.. To further complicate the ideology basis of the Adbusters, it has recently promoted "post anarchism", a phrase in and of itself signifying a departure from anarchism. Also WP article says nothing about the magazines anarchist foundations., And Adbuster founder and editor Kalle Lasen's First Things First 2000 manifesto" is neither described by WP as an anarchist statement. Lasen's book "Design Anarchy" seems to be a clever title, not an embrace of anarchy, per se: it is so politically unclear that a reviewer of the book asked "what is Lasn’s political stance?" The answer, to no surprise, is not anarchism.

Organised by an anarchist.

Usually MadSci makes an army of one, but here he is in reverse gear. Why is only one person -Graeber- credited as the organizer? Tellingly, Graeber, an avowed anarchist himself, has strenuously objected to labeling any OWS factions as anarchist. For example, of the "Blac Block Anarchist", whom he pointedly calls "Blac Block groups". Quote: "It follows one can no more speak of “Black Bloc Anarchists,” that "Black Blocs have tended in the past to be made up primarily of anarchists but most contain participants whose politics vary from Maoism to Social Democracy. They are not united by ideology, or lack of ideology, but merely a common feeling that creating a bloc of people with explicitly revolutionary politics and ready to confront the forces of the order through more militant tactics if required, is, on the particular occasion when they assemble, a useful thing to do." If he can't stand an OWS faction being termed anrachist, what would he have to say about tagging the whole movement as such?

Anarchist calls for protest and demonstrations

This argument is a repetition. See above critique of Began as a anarchist call/suggestion.

Anarchism noted by academics.

MadSci's alluded to habit of turning the singular into a multitude rears it head again. The Chronically of Higher Education lists only Graeber as making the anarchist connection while cautioning, "It is far from clear, of course, how attuned the protesters are to the scholarship of Mr. Graeber, other critical theorists, or academics who study anarchism." And, besides David Graeber, who are these other "academics" of note?

Reported as an anarchism protests by the mainstream media.

This is plainly false, as a Google search of OWS anarchism/anarchy will easily prove. It's has been reported by "mainstream media" as nihlist, and in the interest of thorough, we would have to mention this in the lead as well. And perhaps more commonly, it is called a progressive movement.

Let's take direction from Graeber and not label OWS as anarchist. It's not helpful to the reader: the term is too commonly misunderstood, and in Graeber's case, vociferously object to as a label for OWS. While the influence of anarchism is strong on OWS, it's often used to denigrate and diminish the protestors by right wing publications. The body of the article is where is anarchism influence on OWS can be fairly and duly accounted for.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

AKA, try to tone down the personal attacks, that's not helping anything. Do you disagree that we need to represent OWS according to the best available sources, regardless of our concerns about "protecting" the movement from a potentially untoward association with anarchism? If so, then we can ignore what right-wing denigrations may or may not say and move on with this article; if not, you need to refamiliarize yourself with wikipedia policy. It's really not our place to ward against possible misassociations with a term; we can provide ample wikilinks to the anarchism article where curious readers can inform themselves. This line of reasoning is really unconvincing; many have negative associations with words like "protestors" or "progressives" - should we avoid those too?

You keep quoting the line from the chronicle about the protesters' possible unfamiliarity with Graeber's works. As I've tried to explain, I think you're taking that quote out of context, and mistaking a simple transition for a more weighty topic sentence. I'm not going to repeat my reasoning here. But it is simply misreading the chronicle piece to think that it is qualifying or minimizing the influence of anarchism on OWS. The sentence you're fond of quoting is followed shortly afterwards by this:

"The defining aspect of Occupy Wall Street, its emphasis on direct action and leaderless, consensus-based decision-making, is most clearly embodied by its General Assembly, in which participants in the protest make group decisions both large and small, like adopting principles of solidarity and deciding how best to stay warm at night."

And this is how the piece ends:

"While some students in the movement might be passingly familiar with anarchist studies, Mr. Jun says, they have probably not read much of the scholarship. It is much more likely that anarchism itself has had the greater influence on Occupy Wall Street because, he says, many activists there "regard anarchy as an ideal to be realized.""

So the Chronicle article is a pretty poor choice if you're intent on showing that the influence of anarchism on OWS actually wasn't that great. It doesn't name any other figures but it also doesn't limit the influence to Graeber alone.

I certainly think we have enough good sources for some inclusion of the influence of anarchism in the lead, although not as strongly worded as it was before.

Sindinero (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks? I had no idea I was had done so. Please detail. How many were there? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, AKA, you're quoting from a text by Graeber on the black blocs, but in trying to show that this piece proves that Graeber "strenuously objects" to associating OWS with anarchism, you're either misrepresenting it really irresponsibly or you've completely misunderstood the point of his open letter. Read what he's actually saying in the text you're quoting from: "In fact, anarchists like myself were the real core of the group that came up with the idea of occupying Zuccotti Park, the “99%” slogan, the General Assembly process, and, in fact, who collectively decided that we would adopt a strategy of Gandhian non-violence and eschew acts of property damage." Sindinero (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeppers, I read that, but more closely than you it seems. To repeat a point of mine egregiously missed: why did Graeber go ballistic on Chris Hedges for accusing the Black Bloc groups of being anarchists and outraged that any faction of the Occupy movement be labeled as such? That would be the text from which I actually quoted. Resolve this for me please, and I will be grateful.

Sindinero you say to the Artist, "...if you're intent on showing that the influence of anarchism on OWS actually wasn't that great." I don't believe that he has said that at all, in fact he said:

While the influence of anarchism is strong on OWS, it's often used to denigrate and diminish the protestors by right wing publications. The body of the article is where is anarchism influence on OWS can be fairly and duly accounted for.

I'm in complete agreement with the Artist here. I believe that the attempts to show that we can label OWS an anarchist group are pretty far-fetched. There has also been attempt to suggest that since they have (supposedly) used anarchist tactics it's proper to label them anarchist. Hundreds of groups have used similar tactics such as GAs, consensus, and leaderless authority that would certainly be surprised to learn that they were anarchists. Gandydancer (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the General assembly makes use of anarchism in organisational structure. It is referenced above.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Adbusters is an anarchist publication, Kell Lasn, Mica White and David Greaber were central in the initial set up and organisation of stucture, direction and message and relied heavily on Annonymous' call to demonstrate. These are all self proclaimed anarchists and used anarchism in the originial philisophical core of the call and movement.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Graeber is a writer for Adbusters who has written 6 articles for the magazine, and White is a senior editor of the magazine, but where does Adbusters say it itself is anarchist? We can't call it anarchist in the article or here without clear proof.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If I may interject a question made elsewhere. How is Lasn an anarchist? And please, don't mention the book title "Design Anarchy" unless you can show it is not just a title of whimsy. I couldn't find any claims to anarchy by Lasn from the book. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The Adbusters Media Foundation is a Canadian-based not-for-profit, anti-consumerist, pro-environment organization founded in 1989 by Kalle Lasn and Bill Schmalz in Vancouver, British Columbia. Adbusters describes itself as "a global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new social activist movement of the information age." Gandydancer (talk) 00:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Incidently, it has frequently been argued that the general population does not necessarily view the term as negative....or that all they need to do is just click the word (since it has been suggested that a dictionary definition is not adequate) and Misplaced Pages will explain the term. Get real - who is going to read the whole damn thing...I sure haven't....though I did read enough to learn that there are many forms of anarchism. Furthermore, why then does this information in our article state: According to Nathan Schneider, an editor for the blogs Waging Nonviolence and Killing the Buddha, anarchy is not just a negative philosophy or excuse for vandalism. Anarchism attempts to build a society where people maintain and care for themselves and their community and this draws on direct democracy, believing that "basic need" is more important than greed.. Gandydancer (talk) 00:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's address distortions, misleading arguments and continued falsehoods. Instead of responding to direct criticisms, especially the fact the Graeber will not have OWS called anarchist, MadSci has curiously made elaborations. They are curios because they appear to be part of the original posting of his, when that is not the case.

1. MadSci is still clinging to the singular. We now know who in MadSci's mind is the organizer of OWS: Micah White, but the New Yorker makes clear that OWS was not organized by one man, but by a collective, and White's WP article calls him the "co-creator" of OWS. As for the other co-creator...
2. Is there anything showing Lasn claiming anarchy as his ideology, or claiming to an ideologue of any sort? I already pointed out why not much can read into the title "Design Anarchy", and how it has not received as such. MadSci has yet the account for that. This is skin deep sourcing on MadSci's part.
3. The "anarchist structure" lacks a source that clearly states this. The Chronical of Higher Education did not make this claim. Instead it said the "But Occupy Wall Street's most defining characteristics" are from anarchism, but there was no specification that the defining characteristics were "structural". In short, OR has been used. He might be correct, but a source is needed, not his conjecture. As for Lasn saying that Anonymous gave "I don't know what you call it, that sort of anarchy cred" is identifies an affinity and a sympathy, not Lasn's or OWS ideology, if there is in fact one held by OWS. This hardly a resounding and articulate embrace of anarchy by Lasn, but it is synth on MadSci's part.
4. MadSci needs to vet his sources, and be less liberal on granting academic bona-fides. The source for the only other academic he can mention is an apparent press release for a speaking tour by one Cindy Milstein. The body of the press release, however fails to mention OWS or the occupy movement. Moreover, the announcement is from the web site, the board of which she sits on. This is essentially self-publication. Finally, what makes her an academic? I can't find anything suggesting that she has published peer reviewed articles, or what her academic pedigree is. I can't find out if she she graduated from any institution of higher learning. Clarification on this is requested.
5. Is the HuffPo piece is another shabby source. Leave aside whether the HuffPo is "mainstream" or not, the article never calls OWS anarchist. It's time to put up or shut up in claiming that "mainstream media" likes to call OWS anrachy. Fact checkers of respected news outlets would seem to require more than MadSci does.

One additional note: MadSci's edits make it seem that I had reacted in my prior posting to points he has encased in quote blocks. This, while not suspected by me as a bad faith move, makes it difficult for other to follow the chronology of the discussion. It would be better to append future comments and defense, rather than literally insinuate them into an earlier post without noting the update, and that the update is responding to a later post of mine. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't have time to read the whole thread just now, but I must say that reading one of the sources , what I get out of it is that there is a lot more than anarchism going on... "we had democratic socialists, we had anarchists, we had Marxist-Leninsts, we had people who were just angry the banks had been bailed out." Are you sure anarchism is not simply one element which happened to have a large influence, especially in the organizing/deorganizing process? B——C_ritical 04:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Four points :

1. As I've said multiple times now, there are shades of grey. I think we have enough material to mention an anarchist influence (or the argument that there is such) in the lead. This is not the same as labelling OWS an anarchist movement. This should be obvious to anyone. I've said above that I disagreed with the suggested wording in the lead because it was stronger than what the sources could support.
2. I've never seen anywhere in wikipedia policy that says we should hesitate from following the sources because of what the ignorant might think. "People won't really read the whole thing anyway" is a horrible reason to not represent a subject accurately, let alone to censor it.
3. AKA, you seem to read as carelessly as you type. Nobody "egregiously missed" your point; it wasn't actually a point, and I responded to it in my last post. I have better things to do than to parse a complete text for you, but it is almost unfathomable that you managed to glean from this text the idea that Graeber went "ballistic on Chris Hedges for accusing the Black Bloc groups of being anarchists." He's responding to Chris Hedges not because Hedges accused the bb of being anarchist, but because Hedges called the bb groups "the cancer of occupy" and thus, in Graeber's view, tacitly endorsed violent action against them. It takes a little work to tease out the main argument of a text; picking random sentences out (and usually sentences with little semantic or conceptual weight, like transitional or rhetorical gestures) isn't the way to go about it. Elsewhere in the piece Graeber puts anarchists at the core of OWS, a statement you maybe glibbed over or chose not to register. He also says that bb is a "tactic, not a group." Please read your own sources more carefully. However, even if it were correct that what Graeber objects to is calling black blocs anarchist (and it's not), it would be a huge stretch to infer what seems to be AKA's main point here, that "Graeber will not have OWS called anarchist". Can this charge be backed up by a single source? It seems a super-strange, contorted argument to use against the sources we have that show Graeber arguing for the anarchist qualities of OWS. I agree that the problem here is that we don't have enough sources to "label" OWS an anarchist movement (see point 1); but it's absurd to argue that one of the few sources we have in support of this idea is actually saying the opposite.
4. Gandydancer and AKA have both questioned the "structural" connection between anarchism and certain practices of OWS (direct action, general assembly). True, other groups may use these without being anarchist, but anyone who knows anything about the radical political scene in the states over the last decade or two would know that these are generally considered hallmarks of anarchism as opposed to other groups on the left. But this isn't the point—to argue (as I've done) that these tactics are particularly anarchist or (as Gandydancer argues) that they're not, based on our own knowledge and experience, is getting close to WP:OR. What is important is that the Chronicle article makes this connection for us. Look at the article carefully: starting in the fifth paragraph, it links anarchism with the specific practices of direct action and horizontal decision making. In the tenth paragraph, these lessons come (via Graeber) from Madagascar to the globalism protests, "the clearest antecedent, in spirit, to Occupy Wall Street." The fourteenth through sixteenth paragraphs detail the impact of the practices earlier explicitly associated with anarchism (DA and GA) on OWS. The article is quite clear about the influence - it doesn't matter whether we think these practices are or aren't particularly anarchist.

Sindinero (talk) 07:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

To keep it simple, I'll just deal with one falsehood of Sind's: ...if it were correct that what Graeber objects to is calling black blocs anarchist (and it's not)t o repeat a quote I've already used from Graeber that shows that Sind has gone off the res: It follows one can no more speak of “Black Bloc Anarchists,” that "Black Blocs have tended in the past to be made up primarily of anarchists but most contain participants whose politics vary from Maoism to Social Democracy. They are not united by ideology, or lack of ideology. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You're reading my own comments as carelessly as you're reading Graeber's article. He is stating that black blocs are a tactic not limited to use by anarchists, but as I said above, that's not the point of his text, and it's hugely wrong-headed to try and understand his letter to Hedges as representative of his opposition to dubbing OWS 'anarchist'. I've explained that above; you are fond of quoting the same sentences over and over, off topic and out of context, but don't take the time to address the other quotes from that article. Please take the time to read, and understand, the articles you're citing in what you think is support of what you think is your position. Cheers, Sindinero (talk) 23:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sind, read this carefully: Black Bloc is a tactic, but we are talking about Black Blocs. Notice the plural,it is critical. Sind blew it big time saying black blocs are a tactic. You think the illogic of that would have been caught by a professed good reader, who would know that a plural can not be a singular, or is at least extremely likely to be one and it behooves you to take a second look. Graeber always discusses Black Blocks groups, e.g., most Black Blocs agree on a strict policy of not damaging owner-operated enterprises Sind couldn't have been more careless of sloppy. One hopes Sind admits the error so other points can be dealt with. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"Sind couldn't have been more careless of sloppy?? Well played, mate. You're not making any sense at all any more. I get the difference between singular and plural. It's actually quite common for a singular and a plural to be joined by a copula, as in "black blocs are a tactic," "Simians are a kind of primate," or "stubborn half-literate morons are a frequent source of disruption on Misplaced Pages talk pages," as a general truth, of course. I also get what Graeber was saying about black blocs in his letter, where he uses both the plural and the singular of black blocs more or less interchangeably. What's your point? Do you understand that his letter is not primarily about whether the bb is/are anarchist, as you originally alleged, and that it is about what Graeber saw as Hedges' implicit call towards violence towards the black blocs?

Let's spell it out for you: "I am appealing to you because I really do believe the kind of statement you made is profoundly dangerous. The reason I say this is because, whatever your intentions, it is very hard to read your statement as anything but an appeal to violence. After all, what are you basically saying about what you call “Black Bloc anarchists”? Surely you must recognize, when it’s laid out in this fashion, that this is precisely the sort of language and argument that, historically, has been invoked by those encouraging one group of people to physically attack, ethnically cleanse, or exterminate another—in fact, the sort of language and argument that is almost never invoked in any other circumstance."

I can't help but feel that you're shifting goalposts by talking about the singular/plural issue here. You introduced Graeber's open letter to Hedges as a way to show that Graeber opposes calling black blocs "anarchist," and would thus theoretically also oppose calling OWS "anarchist". It does no such thing, as I hope even you must by now recognize. ("In fact, anarchists like myself were the real core of the group that came up with the idea of occupying Zuccotti Park, the “99%” slogan, the General Assembly process, and, in fact, who collectively decided that we would adopt a strategy of Gandhian non-violence and eschew acts of property damage.") Why don't you give it a rest so that we can move on with this article? I don't think this one text is particularly useful for the OWS article either way, since it says nothing about Graeber's view of OWS' anarchist influence than the other sources we already have. Sindinero (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I narrowed the focus in order to nail down one falsehood of yours, but we can't even get beyond that. Your habit of not admitting error affects how others regard your agrguments. Especially since you will resort to semantics. the dubious mission of which, my brother, is to attach meanings to words, (Black blocs has to mean a tactic because I, Sind, and almost nobody else, say so.) rather than meanings to words (Without exaggeration the overwhelmingly dominate usage of "black blocs" is to signify groups.) I made no mistake in my reading, but have you stuck to yours several times. Kinda like a gear stuck in sloppy, as it were. My sincere hope (and I am not being sarcastic or ironic) is that you take more care lining up your arguments. So it goes like this:

1 "Black blocs are a tactic" is such an extremely exceptional usage, and not at all "quite common" Shoulda done your homework first. A Google of "black blocs are a tactic" got SEVEN results. None of them from any one of note.

2 Graeber early and often refers to groups as "black blocs", but...

3... he never confuses "black blocs" with the black block tactic. They are always a group of people to him. He scolds Hedges for calling the groups "black bloc", but since no one would mistake waht Hedges was talking about, it was stupid of Graeber to make a federal case of it when all it deserved was very minor clarification.

Anywhoo, time for me to declare victory and move on. P.S., do you think Cindy Milstein is an academic? Just askin'. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion on Cindy Milstein one way or another. I have even less idea than before what exactly you're referring to by my "falsehood" or "error," but I'm not sure you know what you're talking about either. In many years copy editing, translating, and teaching English prose, I've rarely seen verbal abortions as scrambled and bewildered as the agglomerations of letters you seem to wish to pass off as sense-bearing utterances. Could you spell out what difference it actually makes at all, with regard to your original point (That David Graeber supposedly objects to labeling OWS as 'anarchist'), whether we refer to black blocs as a tactic or a group? Lunch counter sit-ins are a tactic; they are also done by groups of people. General assemblies are a tactic; they also involve groups. Many tactics are also groups. What's your point here? With 1), reread what I wrote. The google search doesn't demonstrate anything; you seemed to find the connection of a singular and a plural to be illogical, when you write, "who would know that a plural can not be a singular" - I was showing that this is actually quite common in English. Wasn't talking about that one particular phrase. And with 3), you still haven't understood Graeber's text at all. He's not scolding Hedges for calling them "black blocs", nor for calling them anarchists. Please reread the text; it's not really my responsibility to explain to you the text that you yourself introduced. "Anywhoo, time for me to declare victory and move on"?? Are you twelve? Again, let's put this discussion to rest; I don't think that particular text gives us anything that other RSs don't, and your petulant inability or unwillingness to comprehend either that text or anything I've written is getting a little dizzying. Sindinero (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think there should be much more mention in the body before it would go in the lead. That's the way leads work. If it has enough weight for at least a large portion of the Participation and organization section, then it might have enough WEIGHT for the lead. But as it stands, leads should reflect the article. Please excuse, I'm having trouble having enough time to read the volumes of text. B——C_ritical 18:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent and sensible suggestion for us to have agreed upon text in the body before we shoehorn anything about anarchy in the lead. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I have made my point that the subject has anarchist connections and structure and that these are not even controversial statements and are referenced. I am not labling. These are self identyfied people through writings and references by others in published form, most already in the references used on the article and many other primary and secondary sources. This shouldn't be about the connotations others outside or even within the subject use for their own purpose, but only considered as part of making a community decision on the subject of anarchism connections to Occupy Wall Street. There are mainstream sources that see this connection, and main stream academic sources that discuss it.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Falsehoods are always controversial, and without responding criticisms of them and forging a consensus, they stay that way. You can't say there are a ton of references to support your point, especially one is used to manufacture the fiction the Cindy Milstein is an academic. That gross error of judgment and the refusal to acknowledge the mistake makes any of MadSci's assertions suspect and in need of verification. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should label OWS anarchist. I do think we have enough to mention the influence in the lead. Is there any good reason why a connection between OWS and anarchism needs more solid sourcing than any other claim? I don't think there's any WP policy anywhere that would support treating a particular political position like a taboo or a dirty word. We have sources placing anarchist people and practices at the core of the organization of the original Zucotti Park occupation; this seems significant enough to mention in the lead (again, since people seem fond of overlooking this, without labeling OWS as anarchist.) Sindinero (talk) 23:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time, but you seem to know the sources. I would like to suggest you write up a paragraph on the influence of Anarchism, and put it in the Participation and organization section. Once that is done, and well sourced, then there should be no objection to mentioning the organizational structure of OWS in the lead, by whatever name. B——C_ritical 00:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I'll see what I can come up with. Sindinero (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Although I have no idea whether there are satisfactory sources for doing so (or whether this has in fact been done.. I've been away awhile..)—it might be worthwhile to distinguish between the actual protesters (or perhaps a gung-ho core of them) and some of the broader ideas that resulted in other members of the public, i.e. non-protesters, identifying with the protests or reasons for protesting. I think one of the interesting phenomena surrounding OWS was the seemingly wide gulf between the two. My gut feeling was that there was fairly wide approval of the basic gist of the protest message (at first at least?) but that the majority of regular people who supported that "gist" didn't actually agree with the methods, or even agree with perhaps 90% of the statements that ended up coming out of the protesters on the street. So, while anarachists may have been at the core of the movement to begin with, and might even constitute a majority of the protesters out there in the streets, that's not the part of OWS that got the nation talking, and in fact that aspect was largely dismissed and ignored as people (again, a pretty wide spectrum of the country, I think) focused on the issues that, to them, mattered. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

OWS is about "high unemployment"?

From the lede: "Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is a protest movement that began September 17, 2011 in Zuccotti Park, located in New York City's Wall Street financial district. The protests are against social and economic inequality, high unemployment, greed, corruption and the undue influence of corporations on government—particularly from the financial services sector." There is no reference for any of this, I assume it's common knowledge. It's all accurate except, IMO, for the addition of "high unemployment". I suggest this claim be removed until a supporting reference can be found. High unemployment is but one of the many symptoms that may have given rise to OWS, but I have never heard of this as defining what OWS is against the way all the other points (wealth inequality, corporate takeover and corruption of DC, greed) together, do. I have watched since the beginning, the live feed, the marches, read the blogs, etc., and have never seen reference to "high unemployment" on any protest sign or as the subject of Occupy related articles. petrarchan47c 08:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If the body of the article does not develop the high unemployemt issue, then I would have to agree to its removal from the lead. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There are refs for most of it in the body. But the high unemployment part does not have a source that I can recall. B——C_ritical 20:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is the inherent "we're protesting over whatever somebody can come up with that sounds good" nature of the movement... as long as everyone's struggling to come up with some coherent goal to attribute to the protesters, don't lose sight of that fact, and especially don't give in to the tempation to reflect that fact only with sources that are eager to excuse it, or are otherwise overly sympathetic. That's not what WP is for. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

what is going on with the article, and can I help ?

I see by looking at the article it's in a woeful state, the lede doesn't summarize the article, the two sentence summary of the sub article 'reactions' is the worst I have ever seen on Misplaced Pages, and the talkpage is something of a mess, can anyone explain why, or would anyone like assistance ? (if I don't respond straight away feel free to notify me on my talkpage) Penyulap _talk 11:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be great to get some help! Perhaps you could start by improving the summary for the sub article. Gandydancer (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Tell me about it, in an earlier Talk discussion I vociferously pointed out how inane, unsourced and generic the Reactions section was. Your help would be much appreciated. As for the lead, I'm all ears and would welcome specific suggestions. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

What would you guys say are the LARGEST problems with the article specifically from your view. Penyulap _talk 18:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's a couple. A one paragraph lead that be expanded to two or three. Reliance on primary sources in Slogan section, such as taking directly from of CBO report without citing OWS awareness or acknowledgement of that report. Essentially OR. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

For the slogan suggestion, see the tp section below. Penyulap _talk 04:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to echo Artist AKA's sentiment regarding the CBO stuff; I made a somewhat similar point above in the "anarchism references" section. There's a certain "we're mad about something, and hey, this sounds good" aura about OWS that seems to have each person rushing to rationalize and justify the movement in the terms that make the most sense to him or her. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool, looking at the Reactions article, oh, my, God, that is one detailed article. A work of art really, and sure to put any reader to sleep if they are after a summary of the subject. Detailed, yes, deserving of it's own article, well, probably a few, but way too much information for this article.

In the meantime, something that needs fast addressing is the gaping hole in the article where reactions used to be. It needs a great deal of what is in the sub article copied back in to solve technical issues. Looking at the technical problems that were created by the split, I'd suggest a rollback should be considered. Is anyone for or against restoring the article to fix the underlying problems, and then quick as you like, re-edit all the little bits that you've done since, and chop down most of the reactions section to something that is more readable in this article ? It's not about removing all the small edits that have been done since, go for it restoring them, it's about fixing a lot of the underlying technical problems I can see.

proposal

This is just an easy formal way to request the help of an admin, just type underneath this section if you are ok with or object to this idea, I will format your text if needed don't worry, and then I'll request an admin to make the adjustment, and we can let rip with a lot more editing.

Propose rolling back the article to a suitable point to fix problems that were caused. Then chop away the reactions section down to something much more readable, could be 1/3 or 1/5th the size or so in this article, but lets make it readable and not something to fall asleep over. Penyulap _talk

• support I think it solves a lot of issues fast, plus we can chop out and balance up the article much easier now that everything IS mentioned in the sub article. Penyulap _talk 19:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I tried to return it, but by then too many editors had contributed. I doubt a roll back would work if the first attempt I made was reversed, but maybe rollback has different policy around it. I know little about Rollback.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

What dates or diffs are we talking about (as a guide for fixing things, and to see if it too far back to fix) Penyulap _talk 08:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Anarchism revisited

Although I added the anarchism stuff in the lead, after going through the previous discussions, I now agree any political characterization of the movement should not be included in the lead. May be there should be an "Ideology" section to analyze the political nature of the movement. --SupernovaExplosion 02:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, I suspect there are a few different ideas on what it is, as there are lots of people talking about it. Just pop a new section into the article. Steal the second paragraph of the slogans section away, it's not about slogans, it's more an ideology kind of paragraph, so stick it in your new section.

(from section above this) For the slogans, see if you can find a few, pop them all in there.Penyulap _talk 04:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

We have some editorial prerogative as to what goes into the lead. B——C_ritical 06:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but that's axiomatic of any WP article, except in extreme circumstance. We are almost saying to a helpful, well-intentioned proposal: "We don't gotta if we don't wanna". I suggest we be more welcoming to the editor by dealing directly with Pen's suggestion. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

TOC

(just edit this table)

   * 1 History and Chronology
         o 1.1 Origins
         o 1.2 September
         o 1.3 October
         o 1.4 November
   * 2 Movement structure and makeup 
         o Goals
         o Protester demographics
         o Participation and organization
   * 3 Zuccotti Park 
         o occupation
         o Funding 
         o Security concerns and crime
   * 4 Slogan
   * 5 Reactions
   * 6 See also
   * 7 References
   * 8 Further reading
   * 9 External links

Any suggestions on better grouping of topics ? I'd figure demographics and participation are rather well related. Penyulap _talk 14:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

There are some natural groupings. On this version, Movement structure and makeup relates properly to Protester demographics and Participation and organization and maybe even Slogan and Goals, but then you would have Zuccotti Park occupation, Funding and Security concerns and crime as separate headings. It's not useful to group things unless there is an easy and natural way to do so. It's not an imperative unless it actually improves the readability of the TOC or article somehow, and in this case I don't see how it would. What you'd have is something like:

* 1 History and Chronology
          o 1.1 Origins
          o 1.2 September
          o 1.3 October
          o 1.4 November
* 2 Movement structure and makeup 
          o Goals
          o Protester demographics
          o Participation and organization
* 3  Slogan
* 4  Funding
* 5  Zuccotti Park occupation
* 6  Security concerns and crime
* 7  Reactions
* 8  See also
* 9  References
* 10 Further reading
* 11 External links 

I don't thin the extra structure improves the article. B——C_ritical 17:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've combined your suggestion and added another, how does it look now, just delete the second table, go for it editing the first one so we keep the talkpage short. Penyulap _talk 19:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with BeCritical. Gandydancer (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The post by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous|The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous has been removed--perhaps it would be better to strike it so that the posts following don't seem out of place. Gandydancer (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I just plain don't like it. If I liked a change I'd go into why I liked it but I don't feel that I'm being unwelcoming to say I don't like a new proposal. Gandydancer (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Gee how nice of artist to be so welcoming to someone new when he can't extend the same to those who have been here since October...but Welcome Penyulap. However, we don't gotta if we don't wanna...but I am neutral on the proposal myself. Seems reasonable and yet I hesitate.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Entire "Chronology" section should be deleted

It is in no sense a summary of the chronology of OWS, nor even a summary of the Timeline of Occupy Wall Street article. Why it remains here is an utter mystery to me. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Me three.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk)

Me four.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but we do need a section where people can go to get the updated contemporary state, which I just added under this section as March. B——C_ritical 23:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's our job to be an up-to-date resource in an encyclopedia. It something is our note, it should apply to another section. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It sort of is, this is how WP differs from other encyclopedias, in that we cover current events. Thus, things which seemed of note will need to be deleted, and we'll keep updating it with what seems significant now. If we have to have a timeline section to do it, then we should, but a section on "Ongoing activities" should suffice. B——C_ritical 00:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

CBO report in article

Problems with this text and citation: The top 1 percent of income earners have more than doubled their income over the last thirty years according to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report.

The text accurately reflects the RS but...

1. The ref says nothing about OWS.
2. Three editors view it as OR which either explains or could justify OWS motivations.

Even so, I don't think we should be quick to delete the text. There is a chance of an RS tying the report to OWS appropriately. Or there may be a similar report that with modifications allows pretty much the same to be said. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You can use it to justify some statement that is not controversial, like "protesters are upset over the growing class separation (what do you call it? divide?)" put it in as a reference note to explain what is meant by what some protester is saying, plus you can link to a bunch of other articles as well, the CBO and all that kind of stuff. It's important, it's in the article, it's not getting in the way of more immediately relevant things, or you could have it in the see also section sort of thing. Would that be better ? Penyulap _talk 19:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The section needs going over, and I keep meaning to do it. See this video, it should source nearly all of what one would wish to say . B——C_ritical 23:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

1. "WhoIs". Retrieved October 18, 2011.
2. "Anarchism Now: Occupy Wall Street Revives an Ideology". The New republic. Retrieved 2012-23-2. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
3. http://www.adbusters.org/about/adbusters
4. http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/97
5. http://www.mattsoar.org/archives/146
6. http://chronicle.com/article/Intellectual-Roots-of-Wall/129428/
7. http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/article/occupy-wall-street-protest-social-media-marketing--pd20111012-mk5av
8. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/is-occupy-the-start-of-a-new-progressive-era-20111114
9. http://www.anarchist-studies.org/node/532g
10. Pear, Robert (October 25, 2011). "Top Earners Doubled Share of Nation's Income, Study Finds". The New York Times Company. Retrieved 11-17-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Former good article nominees
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Biography articles of living people
• 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