Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Global financial system wikilink?

The global financial system is mentioned often in association with OWS, shouldn't there be a wikilink to the wp article? 99.35.13.16 (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me. Does anyone disagree? Gandydancer (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The words are there, but not the hypertext yet. 99.56.122.147 (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Resources from Portal:Current events/2011 October 15

Activists affiliated with the anti-corruption Occupy Wall Street movement take to the streets in numerous cities worldwide, including Times Square, Sydney, Rome, Taipei, Tokyo, Toronto, Berlin, and Madrid, in a day of coordinated mass protests. (BBC) (XinHua net)(Seattle Times) (BusinessWeek) (Macleans) (Wall Street Journal) Riot police clash with protesters in Rome, with at least 70 people reportedly injured after masked rioters infiltrate the peaceful protests and attack property in the city. (BBC) 99.19.46.238 (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Anti-corruption? Source? Most sources say "anti-capitalism". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Most? List your source here please. 99.56.123.111 (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Should I say, all, rather than most? I haven't yet found a source which didn't note that it was called anti-capitalist, if not actually calling it anti-capitalist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say "anti-capitalist" is a fairly accurate assessment of a very significant strain of the protests. However, it's true that we do need reliable sources to substantiate such a claim. I've seen such sources, but I certainly can't say I have found that all sources on the subject describe the movement as anti-capitalist, by any stretch. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Updated ... Activists affiliated with the anti-corruption Occupy Wall Street movement take to the streets in numerous cities worldwide, including Sydney, Rome, Bucharest, Taipei, Tokyo, Toronto, Berlin, and Madrid, in a day of coordinated mass protests. (BBC) (XinHua net) (Seattle Times) (BusinessWeek) (Maclean's) (Wall Street Journal) (Toronto Sun)(Times of India)(BusinessWeek)(San Diego Union-Tribune)

97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Still unjustified and unsourced. I'll revert your incorrect unsourced description, again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears sources have been added for anti-corruption. Did you read those Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin? Your comments seem extreme and unjustified. 99.119.131.17 (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added a crowd figure for the Saturday, October 15, 2011 march in Times Square, recruitment center, New York City, from "Crain's Business New York".Dogru144 (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Crain's New York Business added where? 99.56.122.147 (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Nazi and Communist Endorsements

It is worth noting that both the communist and NAZI parties are in support of OWS. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10/figures-nazi-party-throws-support-behind-occupy-wall-street-movement/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.195.49.73 (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a publicity stunt for the "american nazi party", which is incredibly fringe with only 400 followers on twitter. If you find reputable news articles that go further in depth, feel free to add stuff about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.72.132 (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP cautions us to "[b]eware of claims that rely on guilt by association", and although OWS is not technically a living person, I'd say that admonition is very relevant here. I'm sure Jonathan Lee Riches would love for the world to know he supports OWS too, but that doesn't mean we should (or do) say so on Wikipedia. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

NYT resource, by Nelson D. Schwartz and Eric Dash 15.Oct.2011 (page B1 in print) "In Private, Wall St. Bankers Dismiss Protesters as Unsophisticated"

• http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/business/in-private-conversation-wall-street-is-more-critical-of-protesters.html
• related article http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/us/romney-perry-and-cain-open-wide-financial-lead-over-field.html

97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are the titles

• In Private, Wall St. Bankers Dismiss Protesters as Unsophisticated by Nelson D. Schwartz and Eric Dash October 14, 2011
• Romney Beating Obama in a Fight for Wall St. Cash by Nicholas Confessore and Griff Palmer October 15, 2011 (this one seems indirect) 99.119.131.17 (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not immediately clear to me how or whether sources such as these should be reflected in the article. At the very least, such sources—discussing criticism of the protests by people associated with the targets of the protests—should be treated with care and not given too much weight. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Class action: NYPD being sued

As per various articles, such as here: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-10-05/local/30261631_1_peaceful-protest-biggest-protest-brooklyn-bridge Currently there's no sub-heading for legal issues (either for or against). This should probably be added. --Lskil09 (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this page requires a sub-heading for legal issues just yet. I would say this information belongs in the Brooklyn bridge section. Bowmerang (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't know enough about the suit to add it there. Dualus (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I added this to the Bridge section with the following text:

On October 4th, a group of protesters who were arrested on the bridge filed a lawsuit against the city, alleging that officers had violated their constitutional rights by luring them into a trap and then arresting them; Mayor Bloomberg, commenting previously on the incident, had said that "[t]he police did exactly what they were supposed to do".

Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! Bowmerang (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Drive by deletions

I'm worried about User:Amadscientist deleting well-discussed graphs and references. I've informed them about WP:3RR but I can't fix reference 55, which currently says, "Hill, A. (October 4, 2011)" or replace the graph because of it. Please see this diff for the problem. And please fix it. Dualus (talk) 08:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that user could have taken a less confrontational approach, but please note the burden is upon editors wishing to add material to provide sourcing and policy justifications for including the material, and to generate consensus for its inclusion. Consensus is generally generated at the talk page, and forcibly inserting the material while it is under discussion is generally frowned upon, and tends to lead to edit-warring which in turn generates animosity and finger-pointing. It's much better that the disputes be hashed out on the talk page before edits are made. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not take a confrontational approach, I edited and was "Confronted" by Dualus in an uncivil manner who does not understand Wiki policy. It was this member who began edited warring and reverting WITHOUT reason. We have a deletion discussion on an image WITH direct context to this article and an image WITH NO context that keeps getting placed back in.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel much the same as Amad. here; I've put our interactions in chronological order at User talk:Dualus#Images must have context. Dualus (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

My comment was not meant as an accusation. I was just trying to defuse possible hard feelings by taking a conciliatory tone and suggesting that perhaps there are valid points to be made on both sides of this dispute. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point Centrify, but I also see Dualus making accusations of vandalism, threatening administrative action and general unacceptable behavior for a Wiki editor working in good faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, it is uncivil to refer to another editor in any other manner than their real and full user name.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention this section accusing another established editor as making "Drive by deletions" Rude is not what this is...it's becoming harassive.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think maybe it would be best if everyone calmed down. By the way, people refer to other editors using abbreviations all the time. I have never heard anyone suggest it is uncivil. This just looks like a relatively ordinary content dispute, with some heated comments being thrown about. Let's just de-escalate and move on. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, just because you never heard it suggested before does not mean it is not uncivil. Why do you think it was mentioned...because obviously the other editor didn't realize it either. If you wish to de-escalate it...maybe you should not reply this thread. It didn't help.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to offend. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You didn't offend me.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You offended me when you deleted most of my Marketplace Morning Report reference, and pretended you knew about Wikipedia policy when you didn't. I'm sorry you don't like being called a vandal or by an abbreviated name, but can you point to one place anywere that says it's impolite to abbreviate a pseudonym? Dualus (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

POV forking concerns regarding move of Rome riot section to different article

Recent removal of material reflecting the Rome protests/riots seems unobjectionable in a narrow sense (although I question the wisdom of having a separate article for shunting off related protests), but seems to raise obvious POV-forking concerns. For example, the OWS article generally sees fit to discuss the offshoot movements in other countries, such as OccupyLSX, at least insofar as they present a positive face; why, then, should the uglier side be tucked away in an obscure side-article? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This article now deals primarily with the protests in New York, with the "Occupy" protests article the main article for the overall "Occupy" protests/movement. Leaving aside the fact that many sources state that the Rome protests were as much or more influenced by Spanish protests as the "Occupy" movement, having a very detailed paragraph about the events in Rome in this article is completely incongruous. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request to add link, 17 October 2011

Add the following link to the External Links, Related websites section. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JWPJM3N with the text, Occupy Wall Street Survey Michael.Moosman (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Denied. Whatever that's for, it is not in the spirit of an encyclopedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Add additional source to statement about voting for specific agenda items, 17 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Add an additional new source to the following statement "Participatory online discussion forums have been emerging for citizens to submit and vote for specific agenda items."

Link https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JWPJM3N Text "Occupy Wall Street Survey". surveymonkey.com. October 15, 2011. Retrieved 2011-10-17.

This source is a place that Occupy Wall Street members go to vote for specific agenda items. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.Moosman (talk • contribs) 03:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Michael.Moosman (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources.--JayJasper (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Not a reliable source.  Chzz  ►  04:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)  Not done

Edit request from , 18 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Occupy Philadelphia

RGPatterson (talk) 03:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

See List of "Occupy" protest locations--JayJasper (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No reliable source.  Chzz  ►  04:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)  Not done

The link to Occupy Philadelphia was added to the "See also" section, if that was the intended request.--JayJasper (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request: Sanitation subsection

No mention is made of the thousands of people who showed up at the park at 6am to prevent the eviction, many prepared to be arrested, and that this was a cited reason the cleaning was postponed. Could this be added?

68.196.114.161 (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Source? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict - request for opinion

I would like opinions regarding this wording from the Celebrity section:

NYT best-selling author and SMU economics professor, Ravi Batra, wrote an article in Truthout in support of the OWS movement.[137][138] Batra argues that legislative changes since the Reagan Presidency, with regard e.g. to taxes, benefits, mergers & acquisitions, have contributed greatly to increase the inequalities and economic problems in the USA. Ravi Batra has special relevance to the OWS movement as the intellectual who popularised the concept "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions, in his best selling books in the 1980s. In 2007, he wrote a book titled "The Golden New Age: the coming revolution against political corruption and economic chaos".[139]

I had edited this editors previous (similar) entry to read:

Author and economics professor, Ravi Batra, wrote an article in Truthout in support of the OWS movement. Batra argues that the tax and benefit legislation in the USA since the Reagan Presidency has contributed greatly to the inequalities and economic problems. He suggests the OWS movement push for their repeal.[137]

His section is currently about twice as long as the other personalities - the average is about four or less lines. It does not need to include the SMU or the "best-selling" wording. His books and further opinions, etc., may be found at his article. Gandydancer (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yoo hoo...still looking for feedback. Look at this guy's article and I'm not even sure he should be in the article - we certainly can't list every Tom, Dick, and Harry with their views on the protest. How many people have ever heard of this guy? Furthermore, I am not happy that the editor that wants this info included believes that s/he is above commenting on the talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

First, you made extensive changes to the article without discussing with anybody. Second, it seems you need to keep up with the edits. For instance, I reverted before you posted here.

13:03, 15 October 2011‎ Plankto (talk | contribs)‎ (97,002 bytes) (→Celebrity commentary: Agree with Gandydancer and revert own changes, fix) (undo)

Length is a function of relevance and secondary sources. Batra has plenty of notability concerning OWS as is now brought out more clearly in the text - thanks to your prompting.Plankto (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

First, if we are going to split hairs, you made an extensive change when you decided that a (presently) little-known author deserved twice the length of article space as any other "celebrity" in the list. Second, you made your edit while I was making my talk page edit, and to say that I was not keeping up with edits is absurd. As for your statement, "Length is a function of relevance", can't disagree with you there! And that is exactly why I trimmed your edit. Gandydancer (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding notability, Batra's books were #1. on New York Times Best Seller list for months on end in late 1987. He has been featured in Time and Newsweek magazines, been on all the major networks, etc.. He was awarded a medal by the Italian Senate in 1991 for accurately predicting the downfall of Soviet Communism in 1978. At the same time, he predicted the downfall of Capitalism within 25 and 50 years. For what its worth, it's all playing out as predicted.Plankto (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gandydancer here, when I saw the long-version I thought it was giving far to much weight to one person's opinion over others.LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please suggest what text you think is irrelevant and warrants being omitted.Plankto (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Using the word "best-selling" twice in the first paragraph is appalling. With that and putting in a plug for one of his books those edits are using this article as a coatrack to talk about Batra. I don't want to ask why you think Batra's opinion carries so much wore weight than others, I'm sure you have your reasons. Other people have their reasons why someone else deserves mention in this section, which is rapidly becoming WP:TRIVIA. But it is somewhat arrogant of you to think that your opinion as to notability decrees that it should be given twice as much content as others. LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

LU, it seems you didn't bother to check what was in the article since the changes were made in my 13:03, 15 October 2011 edit. It was different from what Gandydancer put up on the talk page. I assumed people checked what was on the page itself. He also failed to check it in his 15:44 edit on that day. So your conclusions are based on old information. I've trimmed the entry to a bare minimum in view of the feedback.Plankto (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Having a a NYT bestseller in 1987 does not satisfy WP:NOTE. If there is significant coverage of Batra's opinion from verifiable third party sources, then perhaps it might merit inclusion. The length and tone of the section borders on violation of both WP:SOAP and WP:UNDUE. My vote is for immediate deletion. Bowmerang (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this a fishing expedition to establish non-notability? As for "significant oppinion" on this article of October 11, it is already developing. Of course, there is an endless stream of hits on Google regarding his earlier work and his notability is established from all directions - also what I wrote above. For instance, the nationally syndicated radio personality and author, Thom Hartmann, has Batra on his show regularly. At the same time, Batra is not popular with the establishment - just like the OWS movement.Plankto (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are the one who has been on a fishing expedition. Take a look at our copy and note that Barr, Moore, and Klein were the first to speak at the event and are very well-known. West is well-known as well, spoke within the first few days and drew a crowd of 2000. Fiasco was involved even before the initial event and Ruffalo was also involved from the start. Like Sarandon, who was also involved in the first few days, they are well known for their activism and attended the protest. Žižek is the first (other than Klein) foreign personality to speak at the event. Note, also, that one did not have to go to Truthout to find information on any of these people's connection to the protest - it was reported in every major news service. As Bowmerang has pointed out, a bestseller 20 years ago does not satisfy notability, and appearing on a talk show from time to time does not either. Furthermore, we have to keep in mind that even personalities such as Paul Krugman, who is certainly well-known and had an article in the NYT (rather than Truthout) does not have any copy. I agree with Bowmerang in that the Batra section should be removed. LoveUxoxo, do you have an opinion on removal? Gandydancer (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gandydancer. The original text was too wordy and otherwise poorly written. Gandydancer wrote the same essential information in fewer, simpler words. I would make it even shorter:

Author and economics professor Ravi Batra, wrote in support of the OWS movement. Batra argues that the tax and benefit legislation in the USA since the Reagan Presidency has contributed greatly to the inequalities and economic problems. He suggests the OWS movement push for their repeal.

The fact that it's "an article" is trivial. The source (Truthout) is already in the footnote, where it belongs according to WP style.

I do think Batra is notable, however. He's published a lot in popular sources. I don't know much economics and I recognize his name. --Nbauman (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nbauman, I'm glad to note that there are editors here how know something of this national debate which has taken place largely outside the mainstream media. Indeed, Batra has long been speaking of a coming financial crash which would lead to a civil revolt against the injustices. Finally when it occurs, and protesters actually take to the streets, using the language and reasoning of Batra, some here think it non notable because their awareness extends only to the mainstream coverage of any such debate, which is almost negligeble.Plankto (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Good input Nbauman, however do you feel that perhaps by including Batra we may be on a slippery slope to including every published and recognized personality in our article? For instance, as I type these words Paul Krugman is speaking on CNN as a panelist of four speaking on the protests. His opinion is for the "positive" position while Steve Forbes has a somewhat different point of view. Or take Chris Hedges, very popular best-selling author who also has a weekly column on Truthout - to be "fair" should not his opinion be included as well? In other words, where will we draw the line? Obviously the line must be drawn somewhere or the section will get so bloated that it may need to be deleted as a whole. IMO, it is better to keep it pared down to the few that are both widely familiar and actually spoke at the Occupy Wall Street protest (with perhaps a rare exception). Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Add: I do feel that opponents to the protest such as Hannity, etc., should be included because it is obvious that they would not be speaking at the event. Gandydancer (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the text as it now stands after Somedifferentstuff edited it further at 09:39, 16 October 2011. It was Somedifferentstuff's decision to retain the longer version after I trimmed it down. Further the para has been moved to last before the roster of other notables by name only:

Author and economics professor, Ravi Batra, wrote an article in Truthout in support of the OWS movement. Batra argues that legislative changes since the Reagan Presidency, with regard e.g. to taxes, benefits, mergers & acquisitions, have contributed greatly to increase the inequalities and economic problems in the U.S. He suggests the OWS movement push for their repeal.[157] Batra has special relevance to the OWS movement as the intellectual who popularised the concept, "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions.[158][159] In 2007, he wrote a book titled, "The Golden New Age: The coming revolution against political corruption and economic chaos".[160]

The para draws out Batra's link to OWS movement, as something of its intellecutal godfather, and as such contains highly relevant information. Paul Krugman, by comparison, has not discussed the need for a revolution against the political influence of the wealthiest 1%. His Nobel prize in Economics reflects his participation in establishment economic policy discourse for many decades. He is a recent arrival, a neophyte, when it comes to the concerns of the OWS movement. Batra has, however, been active in writing and trying to raise the awareness of the dangers and injustices of crony capitalism for over three decades. I support retaining the para as is.Plankto (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide a source to back up this statement: Batra has special relevance to the OWS movement as the intellectual who popularised the concept, "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions.[157][158] Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that it's very important that such a source substantiate the claim that he has special relevance to OWS because he popularized that concept — it's not enough to merely provide references for the fact that he popularized the concept, while leaving unreferenced the claim that he has special relevance to the movement. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The relevance is clear as stated. However, you are both formally right that adding 2 and 2 together is not enough to include something in Wikipedia(OR). I have not found a source for the statement on the net, as OWS is such a young movement. That said, let me recall that Batra's article on Truthout on 10/11/11 is titled "The Occupy Wall Street Movement and the Coming Demise of Crony Capitalism" already represents a link between the author and the OWS movement. Moreover, there is already plenty of discussion of his recent article, including at the OccupyWallStreet web site [1]! That is a significant link indicating major relevance of this author to the movement. On October 13, author and radio show host, Thom Hartmann, had Ravi Batra on his show to discuss the OWS movement [2]. Thom mentions in the intro to the interview the relevance of Batra to the ongoing developments - as having predicted it all and written books about it. [3]. There is also growing discussion on this article on many other sites, including the DemocraticUnderground [4] and others [5], [6],[7],[8],[9]. So, you get some sense of the relevance based on my percursory web search. In view of the above, I suggest the actual phrasing of the "relevance" be adjusted to suit the already established published facts by acceptable sources. Moreover, I would only caution that the facts themselves are emerging at a rather fast clip as these are still early days in this popular movement and likely the relevance of Ravi Batra to this movement will be better brought out on the net as more time passes. So, if there is a desire to go strictly by the rules for this entry, it should be in the same way the WP criteria is applied to any other entry on this page. Other phrasing can then be identified to get this central idea across in line with what is in the available sources. Plankto (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again, listing references to blogs, opinion pieces, and self-promoting articles does not in any way satisfy WP:NOTE. "I suggest the actual phrasing of the "relevance" be adjusted to suit the already established published facts by acceptable sources". Which we would be happy to do if you can provide verifiable third-party sources. As it stands, this section has four references. Three of which simply mention or discuss Batra's books (no mention of OWS anywhere), and the other leads to Batra's article on Truthout (his opinion, without coverage from third-party sources, is not notable). Bowmerang (talk) 05:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

In my view, the para fulfulfills WP:NOTE. I've presented numerous verifiable third-party sources in my comment above. We can add some of those in the article. The OWS movement is a manifestation of Batra's language, his prediction and concerns. Nothing more is needed to prove the point of his relevance or the specific ideas - they are so prominent in both places and now recognised by third party verifiable sources, even if not spelled out word for word in the sources mentioned. You do not correctly reflect the sources given. Indeed, on Hartman's web page, the article is cited as it is on the OWS site. As for the comments on relevance, check out the Hartman interview with Batra on October 13.[10]Plankto (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Now Plankto has added this edit, including the block quote, to the timeline article resulting in the entry for Batra's Truthout article the most wordy of any day's entry. I deleted it but it won't surprise me if he puts it back... Gandydancer (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Since Plankto has not yet provided verifiable sources to back up his claims, I decided to take it upon myself to find some for him. I used Google news, Bing news, and Yahoo news in the hopes of finding at least ONE article that is reliable. I have yet to find a single one that mentions Batra's significance to the OWS movement. At this point, any mention of Ravi Batra in the celebrity commentary section fails to satisfy WP:NOTE. Bowmerang (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see a clear policy rationale for including material on Batra, but I question whether WP:NOTE is the relevant policy recommending against such inclusion. Rather, what seems to be lacking is a documented connection between OWS and Batra (or Reich, for that matter). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean WP:NOTE. I think my thoughts were along the line of failing WP:V and WP:UNDUE. Bowmerang (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A few comments.

First, as this is early days, the link between anybody and OWS is hard to establish. For instance, should attendance at a rally and some spoken words rate higher than a published article directed at the movement? Not all national figures could be in NYC! Second, there are plenty of references to Batra in the blogosphere, newspaper and magazine articles, interviews, etc. The problem with a scholar like Ravi Batra is that he is non-establishment and largely overlooked by the academic economist and media establishment. While he was loved as a theoretical economist, as soon as he started talking about exploitation and depression, they've only wished for him to shut up and go away. In 1988, when Batra's book had topped the New York Times Best Seller list (non-fiction), Milton Friedman said he "wouldn't touch Ravi Batra's writings with a twelve foot pole." That pretty much set the tone for his ex-communication from the establishment academia. That, however, is mentioned only to make the point that there is still precious little by way of discussion of his ideas by other economists. There are exceptions, one symphathetic economist wrote a textbook fleshing out his inequality thesis in terms of a mathematical model, but his contribution was also ignored. Does it matter that the economist establishment missed the biggest crash in US history in 80 years but Batra didn't? Of course, it does. That said, Ravi Batra is frequently interviewed and covered in the alternative community, like on the Thom Harmann show. He is also a frequent guest on grass roots level shows in the new age/neo humanist community[11], [12] and[13] Do we adjust the standard for inclusion based on a subject matter with such sociological characteristics? I think we should. Third, in 1988, political commentators worried if the Democratic Party would begin to adopt his terminology, like "Share of wealth held by the richest 1%" or "wealth concentration". The concern was that it would ruin civilized discourse and embolden class conflict? How things change, as President Obama has now used the term "99%" and is aligning with the OWS movement as Batra has suggested. Batra is the intellectual percursor of the OWS movement, if there is one. It is easy enough to see and show, if the multifarious online sources are used. If he is not notable as per some hoity toity definition, then neither is the OWS movement. Should we wait until academic journals write learned studies about OWS to describe the phenomenon on WP? Of course not. Fourth, Batra is now being discussed on several places on www.occupywallst.org.

"Educational Forums as a FORCE FOR CHANGE (User Submitted) Posted Oct. 14, 2011, 8:59 p.m. EST (2 days ago) by Diogenes01. An Educational Forum should be arranged with the following authors: Naomi Klein SHOCK DOCTRINE, Dr. Ravi Batra -GREENSPAN'S FRAUD, THE MYTH OF FREE TRADE, THE COMING GOLDEN AGE, Thom Hartmann ATTACK ON THE MIDDLE CLASS, Johnson and Kwak -THIRTEEN BANKERS, Joseph Stiglitz FREEFALL, Jeremy Scahill, BLACKWATER, Michael Taibbi, various articles in Rolling Stone magazine, Paul Krugman THE UNRAVELING OF AMERICA, Michael Perino, THE HELLHOUND OF WALL STREET, Senator Byron Dorgan+ Repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 - see youtube.com, And the best documentary—“INSIDE JOB” Directed by Charles Ferguson".[14]

and

"This will be revised and rewritten several times, hopefully with more of your ideas, until it can be sent to a law firm for editing in legal term, that is, if consensus wants to use this idea. I put this together after reading an articulate and informative article (above) by an economist, Ravi Batra, who explains in layman's term how we got into this plummeting economic situation. He suggested presenting his list of repeals to Obama as an agenda,"[15]

Surely, if people in the OWS movement are seriously considering his ideas, there is a crystal clear link.

Again, I think the current entry is quite modest in its scope and should stay. Plankto (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I definitely feel that Batra's section, though considerably improved, still contains a lot of fluff. I'd be fine with keeping the first two sentences, though I'd like to find some verifiable sources to give them credence. Mentioning Batra's book on this article looks to me like WP:SOAP. Also, we'd need a verifiable third-party source to back up this claim:

"Batra has special relevance to the OWS movement as the intellectual who popularised the concept, "share of wealth held by richest 1%", as an indicator of inequality and an important determinant of depressions."

Until one is found, I suggest the offending sentence is removed... But that's just my two cents. I'd like to hear the thoughts from other editors and develop some sort of consensus. Bowmerang (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me explain the connection a bit more. The book Regular Cycles of Money, Inflation, Regulation and Depressions was published in 1985 and republished in 1987 as The Great Depression of 1990. It became no. 1 on the NYT best seller list in late 1987, remaining there for many weeks. As such, there is tons of material on it in all national newspapers, tapes of news hours, etc. Importantly, on the topic of wealth disparity, or concentration of wealth, there is extensive discussion on pages 7, 32, 113, 121-131, 139-140, 158 and 160. In Table 1 on page 127, there is data for the "Share of wealth Held by the Richest 1 percent" for the years 1810-1969. On page 126 there is the quote "...as the concentration of wealth rises, the number of banks with relatively shaky loans also rises. And the higher the concentration, the greater is the number of potential bank failures." The book then describes that wealth concentration rose prior to 1929, followed by a major collapse. Batra predicts the same will happen if the 1% share rises. It did and a major collapse took place, again! He says a major problem was the decision to cut taxes on the wealthy. This also happened again from the Reagan era. Batra was wrong on the timing of the major bust up, but correct in his analysis. The fact that he wrote this in a best seller and put the ideas out there in the 1980s, was not lost on Robert Reich, who republished these ideas in his 2010 book, after the big bust. But Batra's thesis is much more than this. He writes about social change following the breakdown of the capitalist system, when "the influence of wealth is swept aside" by the many harmed by the unjust system of greed and selfishness of the few. The OWS movement is such an uprising and it has now adopted this terminology. That is a fairly straight forward link. However, the recently appearing OWS movment has not been closely studied yet or its antecedents in scholarly journals. But that will come.Plankto (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not a hoity toity definition of notability that we are speaking of - it is Wikipedia policy that was intended to avoid the very situation that we are dealing with here. The section is titled "Celebrity commentary" and to this time Plankto has been unable to establish that Batra would be considered a celebrity. Plankto asks if we need to wait till Batra's economic philosophy becomes more well-known, and the answer is yes we do need to wait. By definition celebrity means a person who has a prominent profile in the media and is easily recognized. Appearances on the Thom Hartman show, and article in Truthout, current buzz in the blogs, and certainly an entry at the occupywallstreet.org are not enough to establish Batra as a celebrity commentator for our article. If there is not argument other than Plankto to keep the segment, I suggest it be deleted. Gandydancer (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. There is plenty of evidence for notability - which you dismiss all too lightly. Also, it doesn't help your case to distort what I have said. Plankto (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There has not been an acceptable argument to show that Batra meets the criteria for the celebrity section (a person who has a prominent profile in the media and is easily recognized) and I have removed his name from that section. Gandydancer (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Gandydancer, if Ravi Batra is deleted as per your narrow criteria, that would require the elimination of the likes of Slavoj Žižek, Remy Munasifi, John Carlos, David Graeber, Chris Hedges, Stéphane Hessel, Jeff Madrick and Richard D. Wolff from the section. Is that where you are headed with this? There is a lot more material on Batra on the net, like [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. I have reinserted the section. Plankto (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

What you forgot to mention is the fact that other than Žižek, none of those people have any copy. Žižek is not well-known in the U.S., but he is known world-side. Furthermore, he attended the protest and was the first foreign person to speak. If you want, you could add Batra's name to the list of others. Gandydancer (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Only one of the sources you provide above mention anything about Batra's connection to Occupy wall street, and it's a blog on DailyKos! You have not provided a single verifiable third-party source that connects Batra with Occupy Wall Street during this three day discussion. You're right in saying that we would have to delete some celebrities from the list as per our "narrow criteria" (WP:V is one of the three core content policies). But that's just it, we DO need to clean up the celebrity section. I'll get on that right after we reach consensus on Batra. I can already tell you that Slavoj Zizek [21], Remy Munasifi [22], John Carlos [23], Stephane Hessel [24], and Jeff Madrick [25] are mentioned in verifiable sources. You seem fixated to the idea that because Batra holds certain significance to you, he holds significance to the OWS protests. It sounds like consensus is building toward deletion of his section. Thoughts from other editors? Bowmerang (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I did delete it this morning, but he put it back. Gandydancer (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You guys speak from different directions. Gandydancer puts up a celebrity criterion and fails to see it excludes a bunch of others in the section. You put up a connects to OWS criterion and find that marginal figures qualify because they happened to be photographed with a guitar at the protest. I've given you guys loads of references linking Batra to OWS and him being a celebrity - but none of it is good enough because it isn't the NYT or WSJ - even if he's been in the NYT and WSJ on numerous occasions. It seems you guys have it out for Dr. Batra. What gives? Plankto (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

MY CRITERIA is WP:VERIFY. I suggest you read it. Bowmerang (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The focus is on verifiability of facts. To verify, a source must be deemed reliable. Self-published material by individuals is for instance not acceptable, for obvious reasons. However, "Several newspapers host columns they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control". I've given plenty of sources that match this description. "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." In the case of verifying a link between Dr. Batra and the OWS movement, the facts that a) the OWS website has discussion of Batra's ideas and b) he has written an article with OWS in the title and the content is aimed at the movement are in themselves proofs enough. No other fact is being checked - only the existence of a link between Dr. Batra and the OCW movement, i.e. information about "themselves". However, for good measure, other sources of this link have been given. Now my question to you: HAVE YOU READ ALL THE WP FLAGS YOU ARE WAVING? Plankto (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You say, ""Several newspapers host columns they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control". I've given plenty of sources that match this description." I don't think I've been asleep at the wheel, but I missed all those "plenty of sources". Could you please present them again? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

None of the sources you have provided match that description. Bowmerang (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This is becoming a bit tendentious. Tempers can flare up. As I am sure you are decent people, acting in good faith, as I am, I suggest we take a rest on this debate and ask neutral edtiors to get freshly involved and resolve the matter. All they have to do is read through the above summary and make a decision. How does that sound? Plankto (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually it became a bit "tendentious" for me a long time ago. Also, in all my years of editing I've yet to see a suggestion to just leave a dispute till more "fresh" editors become involved to solve the matter. But if that's what you want, it's OK with me. Since you have had no support to keep your addition I will delete it till "more neutral" editors have a chance to voice their opinions. Gandydancer (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This Inside Job (film)? 99.190.82.204 (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, enough is enough. Extensive discussion with no support for this addition to the celeb section and Plankto now says he will keep it in the article till new "fresh" editors come along to agree with him and reverts my deletion saying "rv Gandydancer. No agreement for him to delete. Waiting for neutral editor. See talk". Since it now seems that all this time spent in discussion has been a complete waste of time and my time is better spent to improve articles rather than endless unproductive discussion, I won't waste my time with further attempts to reach an agreement with this editor. Gandydancer (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

1% Wealth Graph is Original Research

I removed twice now some original research. The graph that was in the Background Section is original research. It was compiled by a WP editor. The basic information for the line of the graph is not OR, but tying the graph to points in hisotry implies that wealth disparity was a trigger for the Great Depression and the 2008 Depression. This is the very definition of original research. Taking information from two sources and presenting a new interpretation. A RS is needed to make this connection, and I have not seen anyone make the connection between the two. Arzel (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed (though I found the graph interesting, it lacked direct referencing to the statistics - it just went to a home page)--Львівське (говорити) 21:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:OI. Dualus (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This chart was inserted with the caption "A chart demonstrating increases in the annual income of the top 1% of wealthy persons in the U.S. before economic crises", thus implying a causal connection that is not advanced by any of the cited sources. That's basic OR. Note that even WP:OI prohibits images that "illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". Furthermore, in terms of overall article structure, any image or graph that is used on this point really ought to be anchored to sourced WP-article text rather than just left off to the side, constituting a sort of orphan subsection. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Here is the new version of the graph, with references to verify the information:

A chart demonstrating growing disparities of wealth distribution— increases in the share of annual total income going to the top 1% of wealthy persons in the U.S. before economic crises

Obviously, the disparity of wealth distribution is increasing in contemporary times, and there seems to also be an historic precedent.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment - See also We are the 99% article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please respond to my above comment. The caption advances a claim not made by any of the cited sources. If I'm wrong, please point out where the sources advance this claim. If they don't, it's OR that can't be in the article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems to clearly be relevant economic background, so I don't understand how it can be OR. It's background, as the LA Times says in their article "Occupy Wall Street shifts from protest to policy phase": "Meanwhile, the income disparity between the top earners and everyone else has soared. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in 1980 the share of all pre-tax income collected by the top 1% of earners was 9.1%; in 2006 it was 18.8% (federal taxation cut that share to 16.3%). In 1980, the average income of the top 1% was about 30 times that of the lowest 20% of households; in 2006 it was more than 100 times that of the lowest quintile." Jesanj (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, cause and effect. Robert Reich makes the argument in his most recent book for causation. He says the mechanism is excess cash that is not being spent fuels speculative bubbles.[26] Jesanj (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Graph references:

• “Tax Data Show Richest 1 Percent Took a Hit in 2008, But Income Remained Highly Concentrated at the Top.” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
  
• “By the Numbers.” Demos.org.
  
• “Income Gap Is Widening, Data Shows.” The New York Times
  
• Hiltzik, Michael (October 12, 2011.) “Occupy Wall Street shifts from protest to policy phase.” Los Angeles Times.”

Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I already looked at the sources, as already discussed. Could you please quote any text from any source that directly advances the implication contained in the caption? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• The NYT article I guess is sufficient (ie. the protests revolve around this subject, this subject has received previous media coverage). The other reference has the same table from a journal article, however this current graph seems to be building on the work (which may be OR? or simply just extending the work. The CBPP source does the same, which all in all is sufficient for my vote for its inclusion. Just make sure this topic is directly related and sourced to be on what the protests are concerned about. I think one sticking point may be the "Great Depression" note on there, which seems to imply there is a correlation between that and the current issue, which is OR.--Львівське (говорити) 23:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind removing the OR? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I added a source that argues causation to the article and removed the OR tag, in case someone didn't notice. Jesanj (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment- I added this reliable source to the graph's caption:
  

Hiltzik, Michael (October 12, 2011.) “Occupy Wall Street shifts from protest to policy phase.” Los Angeles Times.” Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Additions to graph - Definitely not original research

Others have been adding to the graph. Here's the current version:

The chart demonstrates growing disparities of wealth distribution— increases in the share of annual total income going to the top 1% of income earners— in the U.S. before economic crises. Former labor secretary Robert Reich argues the concentration of wealth leads to economic crises by fueling speculative bubbles.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That's both original research and a probable copyright violation, as the graph data is copied from http://inequality.org/inequality-data-statistics/ . Unless they released the data, or the graph author reconstructed the graph from US Government data (probably copyright-free), the graph needs to go. The graph labels are original research (allowed, if not polemic), but the graph, itself, is a copyright violation. The caption text doesn't seem to be supported by the references, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Data was released and freely available on the website when I created the original chart in Nov 2008, looking now its still available here. In the end it is government data and is copyright free. - RoyBoy 03:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Revised version of graph caption (as of 07:05, 17 October 2011), improved by other Wikipedia users:

The chart demonstrates growing disparities of wealth distribution— increases in the share of annual total income going to the top 1% of income earners— in the U.S. before economic crises. Since 1985, best-selling author and economics professor Ravi Batra has argued that the concentration of wealth leads to economic crises by fueling speculative bubbles. In 2010, former labor secretary Robert Reich also made the claim.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There are still significant problems here. The wording of the caption appearing immediately above still incorrectly implies that the first four sources advance the claim that the wealth inequality directly causes economic crises; the sources do not say this. The published claims by Batra and Reich appear to be well-sourced and notable, but there is still the problem of connecting them to OWS without conducting OR. Is there anything published anywhere saying that OWS protestors were influenced by these economists? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a gotcha matter. The data and the presentation is common knowledge for people that have been following the news and are honest. If we take the chart directly from the newspaper then there is a fair use issue. Give us a break; the chart here is the equivalent of paraphrasing. It is NOT original research. Spend a few minutes googling and you will see.Dogru144 (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "gotcha matter". I've been following the news and I'm honest, but it's not even clear what you are saying is "common knowledge", and even if it were, WP articles on contentious topics are built on reliable sources, not purported "common knowledge". A good rule of thumb is that if I have to fire up Google to verify material you've added to a WP article, that material fails WP:Verifiability and should either be sourced or should not be included. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You have two left wing sources, (with Ravi Batra being a socialist), and they just both happen to say that we in the middle of a repeat of 1928? This is completely violates NPOV and destroys all credibility.

If you want to add something, how about we add a hypocrisy section that illustrates how since FDR, 80 years of bloated government spending, oppressive taxes, nanny state laws, all mostly by democrats and blue republicans, has cause the current economic crisis, and point out the irony that these OWS guys are protesting the wrong street? Logical fact (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that income inequality and whole 99% vs. 1% thing are motivating factors for this protest, a version of this graph is appropriate given that reliable sources are mentioning what the graph illustrates in the context of OWS, especially in a background section.[27] No? Jesanj (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say a version of the graph is appropriate for the article. Just not this version. Illustrating wealth inequality is relevant; but arguing that wealth inequality causes economic crises is beyond the scope of this article. Bowmerang (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

So you'd be OK if we removed mention of the Great Depression from the image above? It's not like mentioning that gigantic bit of economic history makes the image argue for causation. I completely understand that it can be seen as implying causation, but that's still a subjective interpretation. Jesanj (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm still on the fence about whether or not we should mention the Great Depression. What I have real problem with is the additional commentary by Reich and Batra below the graph. Any such argument that connects wealth inequality with dips in the economy more appropriately belongs in the articles Wealth inequality or Wealth inequality in the United States. Even then, they must have verifiable sources. Bowmerang (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with mentioning here, given the relevance of this concept to the OWS movement, that Ravi Batra popularised it as the "Share of wealth held by the richest 1%" and developed a theory around it and then made a prediction based on it in 1985, which was realised in slow motion through the 1990s and 2000s - with the big whallop taking place in September 2008. His work and these events are all public knowledge and well cited. Reich then republished the same information in a 2010 work.Plankto (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to think that this graph is almost propaganda, in that it's proving a point, or supporting their point, rather than demonstrating something. It's not a picture of a cat in the cat article. I think that the graph should go away not because it's OR, but because it's POV. I support the movement, but I also strongly believe that this article should be neutral, and this graph isn't neutral. Hires an editor (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you think of another graph that would be better? Dualus (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Current graph

Here is the current version of the text under the graph. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A chart showing the disparity in income distribution in the United States. Wealth inequality and income inequality have been central concerns among OWS protesters. CBO data shows that in 1980, the top 1% earned 9.1% of all income, while in 2006 they earned 18.8% of all income.