Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Potential source regarding Demographics/survey section

I came across an interesting source describing a recent poll surveying public opinion about OWS. The results indicated that while over two thirds of respondents agreed that "the government should do more to reduce the gap between rich and poor", a majority of 56% said OWS "does not share their values". A nearly identical majority of 57% said the same about the Tea Party movement.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/17/survey-a-third-of-americans-identify-with-occupy-tea-party-movements/

Take a look. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting. Combine with the articles that say the two movements share some goals and causes. The statistic that "Over two-thirds or 67 percent of respondents said the government should do more to reduce the gap between rich and poor." needs to be fitted in somewhere. We really should have an expanded economic and political context section. B^e——C_ritical 01:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the deaths section?

S51438 (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

They weren't about OWS, if I recall. B^e——C_ritical 02:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Deaths occurring at OWS are not about OWS? S51438 (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing and the bias of editors and authors

All editors have bias, as do all authors of articles. But to determine what is an acceptable source takes more than claiming, "That's not RS". You must show how the community has determined this. Huffington Post is NOT a reliable source per the consensus of the general community yet it is used here against the consensus of editors many, many times. Now I see others saying that major news organizations such as Fox News are not acceptable at Wikipedia? Really? Back it up or it's just a fabricated claim. Sorry, but you can't use one source against consensus and then fabricate something against a major news organization just because you don't like them.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's an accurate summary of WP:RSN discussion on HuffPost's reliability. Opinions of WP editors vary widely, as they do with Fox News. So we judge news pieces by their own merit instead of your general thumb down or up. And I notice only a month ago you yourself said "The Huffington Post can be used as a reference with caution." [1] -A98 98.92.183.93 (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I never use Huffington Post as a source, unless it is a source for a person's own words. If Henry Kissinger wrote a piece for HuffPo about OWS, I might find it notable and might source it as an extraordinary historical figure's words about the movement. But beyond that, HuffPo is no more a reliable source for facts than NewsBusters or DailyKos. So much has been writen about OWS, that if the only source for a particular piece of information is HuffPo without corroboration from other sources, then that information is better left out. --David Shankbone 08:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Why anyone would not use good reporting from Huffpo? I think there is a silly bias of at play, and Arianna had a little fun with a NY Times interviewer who shared it. (emphasis added for the hell of it)

NYTI think that hiring a slew of traditional journalists seems counter to the model that made buying you appealing to AOL.

AH We already had 148 journalists on payroll at The Huffington Post. I don’t know how you can say that.

NYT I look at your writers much less than I find myself clicking on stuff that’s been aggregated or the more salacious, boob-related posts.

AH That’s really a shame. I think you’re missing out. Jason Linkins is doing some of the best media writing. Amanda Terkel’s coverage of Afghanistan has been ahead of the curve. Shahien Nasiripour has been breaking news constantly on Wall Street reform. Maybe you should be reading more of that and clicking less on the boobs.

Yes IP editor, I did say that as that is what the consensus is. Further more, that consensus stated that IF Huffington post is used, it is NOT used as fact but opinion and attribution to the author is required. I don't see that here. What I see is the liberal bias of Huffington Post being used for the biased opinion as fact.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The same can be said for using Fox News' biased opinion. -A98 98.92.183.44 (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(Oh, "IP editor" was me - my goof) Why do you say it? Reporting is reporting, and good reporting is undeniably on the Huffpo, as the ignored quote makes clear. If the alleged consensus is so, how can it be defended and why would anyone allow it to stand?The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked at that link the IP editor left to RS sourcing. It is not any of the discussions that took place about Huffington Post. And where are the discussions referring to Fox News as not being reliable?--Amadscientist (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Then you didn't really look. [2]. And you can search for Fox News discussions in WP:RSN archives yourself, there are plenty. -A98 98.92.183.44 (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The link I left as "IP editor" works, but just in case, it can be cut and pasted using this http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/magazine/mag-03talk-t.html. Por nada. It is definitely a discussion about the Huffpo, but if it didn't get used in a previous discussion here, so what? Is there a defense, besides one of tradition or authority, for not using the fine reporting of the Huffpo such as Arianna so clearly established as undeniable? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Fox news [3] is to be used with extreme caution, [4], and opinions on the Huff Post are similarly divided. They should be used, if at all, with extreme caution. B^e——C_ritical 19:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that both Fox News and Huffington Post fall into the same category as questionable sources that, if used at all, should only be used with more reliable sources that corroborate their information. The format for both sources is too polemical; they are best not used in my opinion. --David Shankbone 01:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What is not "polemical" about most, if not all, good reporting? Woodward and Bernstein, Sy Hersh and Izzy Stone were all polemical reporters. I've looked at a few Wiki policy pages and not one admonished against polemical reporting. If it did, we could not use Matt Taibbi's reporting on Goldman Sachs, though it has held up as incredibly reliable. I sense a straw man objection. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

We have good evidence that Fox, at least, spreads falsehood. HP is considered to have less editorial oversight than many. B^e——C_ritical 05:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The above notice board discussion did not actually reach a consensus. It comes close to one in regards to climate change but I call all of that "No consensus".--Amadscientist (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Now, Be, if you brought "good evidence" don't you think you might share it with your classmates? Just askin'. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Anon, how many times do I have to post something before it's posted? Please read the discussions before commenting as if you know what's been said. It's disruptive, because when you say something so blatantly out of sync with reality, people think you know what you're talking about. As Hitler put it "in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods." Please don't think I am accusing you of a lie, merely not reading my posts. B^e——C_ritical 03:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Once would be enough. now where is the "good evidence" that Huffpo reporters, not bloggers (we do have clear lines between opinion and reporting, after all) are not fact checked. Now, why are we barred from anywhere on WP from citing Huffpo reporters such as 'Jason Linkins, Amanda Terke and Shahien Nasiripour? Exemplars all of good reporting. Anything saying they can't be used is as, Arzel so correctly said, crazy talk. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes exactly, the discussion was "no consensus it's reliable," so I think we need to use it with caution if at all. Both of them, Fox And HP. B^e——C_ritical 07:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL! No, there is consensus that Huffington post is a biased partisan publication and therefore cannot be used to reference facts. This community consensus was made over a course of several notice board discussions that came to a consensus. The Fox discussion is one and was no consensus made on anything. No consensus means that no community decision was made.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Fox News is not reliable; in addition to the concerns and discussions that BeCritical cited, they have repeated too many known falsehoods, including two "Lies of the Year" from the Pulitzer Prize winning Politifact. We should not use them. I'll also add that its parent company, News Corporation, is not reputable and is under investigation by the U.S. government for foreign corrupt practices, as well as involved in a far-reaching corruption investigation by the British Parliament. --David Shankbone 23:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Fox news is used several times in the article. Perhaps it should be removed. B^e——C_ritical 23:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The only way I can see the use of Fox or HuffPo is 1) for opinion; or 2) that a second reliable source corroborates what Fox News reported. That invariably leads to the question of why use the Fox source, but I think removing sources can be disruptive. Moving forward we should refrain from using either of these. --David Shankbone 23:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. B^e——C_ritical 00:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I can agree to that.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This is crazy talk. There is simply no comparison between FNC and Huffpo, and frankly it is a little disturbing and insulting to even have this discussion here. BeCritical, David, if you want to go down the RS path I suggest you do it in the correct arena. BeCritical, you should find it highly ironic that the Opinion survey you cited earlier would based on current information show FNC viewers to be far more correctly informed than there counterpoints on the cost of the Obama Health Care legislation and the effect of the Recovery Act. Just because FNC does not toe the Liberal line does not make it unreliable. Arzel (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No, there's no comparison. They're individually unreliable sources. If you want to take it up again on the RS noticeboard, I suggest you do that... please post a link here. I'll post the evidence above, you post your evidence or arguments, and we'll see what other editors think. B^e——C_ritical 01:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Fox News is unreliable, even to many conservatives, not because it doesn't "toe the Liberal line" but because it practices irresponsible journalism. There are plenty of examples in the FNC article and a daughter artilcle, Fox News Channel controversies (and in archived discussions). Activist-minded editors like User:Arzel have managed to keep out much of the valid criticism there but that shouldn't be allowed to carry over here. -A98 98.92.189.168 (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Show me a single news organization that is perfect. I find it HILLARIOUS that the OWS activists here are calling me an activist because FNC reports on some of the dirt associated with OWS while the rest of the liberal media largly ignores the dirt while jumping on any transgression that was ever done by any single person that said they were a tea partier. Forgive me if I laugh away the extreme hypocrasy represented by editors here. Arzel (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you're frustrated with MSM coverage of the Tea Party, but this is no place to take it out. -A98 98.92.185.15 (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have read some of the stupid "FNC is not a reliable source" sections in the past. The one above is specific to AGW, for which the AGW crowd here on WP don't view anything as reliable unless published in an academic journal, (but that is a discussion for a another time). Fact is FNC is a reliable source, and you are simply wrong. QED. Arzel (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss it. Take it to the RS/N so we can have outside opinions. Till then, the consensus is that FNC is unreliable. B^e——C_ritical 01:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't MSNBC, you can't just keep repeating a lie until it becomes true. FNC is reliable, and your opinion here means nothing. Arzel (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

And how many times have you repeated the lie that Fox is reliable.. 98.92.185.15 (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

We do not need to have a Wikipedia-wide ban on a source to declare the source problematic for use on a particular article. In addition to the concerns listed above, Fox's sister News Corp property the New York Post has had some of the most biased reporting about OWS (infamously calling the protesters "animals"). It can be disruptive to use some sources for a particular subject, and I have always found HuffPo problematic. If we are using information that can be classified as "only reported by Fox News" or "Only reported by Huffington Post", we shouldn't use it here, so they are just not needed. --David Shankbone 02:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

How is Fox news problematic or questionable? You can't just say "I think fox news is questionable and therefor it must be added as opinion". What about Fox News is questionable,is it simply the fact that they tend to be conservative and don't agree with your viewpoint? In my experience, fox is very professional and factual. But HuffPost HAS been reviewed, and it actually HAS gotten consensus in that it should be used with caution and always be attributed as an opinion to the editor it was written by. I agree with AmadScientist. We need to take a long look at anything attributed to HuffPost and make sure it is following guidelines set by Wikipedia and set by consensus. And Becritical, last time I checked, it was "innocent until proven guilty". There has been no "consensus" on Fox News's reliability, and having controversy alone does not make it unreliable. Your opinion that it is not reliable is not fact and as you said, this is not the place to discuss it making this entire section a farce. --174.49.47.34 (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Fox news being unreliable is not fact, it's science, per the above. B^e——C_ritical 21:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

How many times did you fail science class in school? Just asking because you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Arzel (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's be generous to Be's unlettered argument,and presume he meant to say it's empirical. But, per usual, he vaguely refers to a argument made somewhere else. So who said what where above, Be? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment per tone: Gentleman, if that you be, do not in good faith allow this discussion to turn to arrogant speech such as is here. For indeed, such talk doth poison such discussion and might earn thee both a reprieve from this page.

C'mon guys, play nice. We don't want to start looking at what each considers other's faults. None of us is perfect and fault might found be with any of us at any time.(olive (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC))

Be's evasiveness needs to be called out; it has gotten tiresome. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Then I suggest you ask him about evasiveness, rather than what you both did above which is presume to attack someone else's education. Kind of arrogant don't you think. Something to consider.(olive (talk) 07:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC))

I'll consider it a smug suggestion. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No. You're misusing the word given what I've said. Consider it a gentle suggestion from an editor who is tired of coming onto talk pages where the environment deteriorates into a mud slinging fest. No argument about content on this kind of encyclopedia includes disparaging remarks about someone else's education even if any of us knew what that education consisted of. (olive (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC))

Hella smug, still. Practice what you preach; I have a talk page. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If there's one thing I've learned on Wikipedia, it's not to repeat myself more than a few times. That's how you lose your spirit around here. You get worn down by those who come back having not considered your posts, and just keep you going. Any editor who thoroughly reads the above will understand. B^e——C_ritical 07:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the argument was actually made in the first case. I have no idea of what case Be was referring to and I have indeed looked. Still evasive and not helpful. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Fox news [5] is to be used with extreme caution, [6], and opinions on the Huff Post are similarly divided. They should be used, if at all, with extreme caution. B^e——C_ritical 13:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Check out WP:NEWSBLOG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Becritical, the discussion you refer to saying that consensus was made that Fox is unreliable,came up with no consensus.There have been numerous discussions on whether or not Fox is reliable and every single one has come up with the same result, it is reliable. The fact is, we have a strong consensus that Foxnews should be deemed a reliable source. In the last month we have had no less than three threads on this topic at various policy pages... and all of them have resulted in the same consensus: Individual Fox News reports can be challenged, but Fox News itself is a reliable source. The continued POV pushing on this is becoming disruptive. --174.49.47.34 (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Give the links then. I have not seen that consensus. B^e——C_ritical 06:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal at the Criticism section

Note: this thread was archived then restored to active talk space for further discussion. -A98 98.92.186.126 (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff removed information sourced to (and directly supported by) CBS news, The Chronicle of Higher Education and the New York Times, with the edit summary "Misleading. Find a better source."

Let me paste a couple of quotes from the sources, which you can compare to the removed text:

many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility. As a widely distributed statement by one Tea Party group put it, demonstrators want "a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don't have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills." That framework shapes the "I am the 53 percent" backlash (53 representing the percentage of Americans who pay income tax, a figure that ignores other forms of taxes levied). One of the "53 percent" message-based images that went viral, in an appropriation of a clever Occupy Wall Street tactic, admonishes the protesters to "suck it up you whiners." In other words, earning your way is the American way![7] "The Chronicle, based in Washington, D.C., is the major news service in the United States academic world."[8]

"The conservative criticism of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that it is a "growing mob" (House majority leader Eric Cantor) of "shiftless protestors" (The Tea Party Express) engaged in "class warfare" (GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain) whose grievances - whatever they are - are far outside the political mainstream. The polls don't back that up. A new survey out from Time Magazine found that 54 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of the protests, while just 23 percent have a negative impression. An NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, meanwhile, found that 37 percent of respondents "tend to support" the movement, while only 18 percent "tend to oppose" it."[9]

But as they have, conservatives and Tea Party activists have rushed to discredit the comparison and the nascent movement. They have portrayed the Occupy protesters as messy, indolent, drug-addled and anti-Semitic, circulated a photo of one of them defecating on a police car, and generally intimated that Democrats who embrace them are on a headlong road to Chicago 1968. [10]

These seem to me to be just the kind of sources we should generally require for an article. Also, they are directly giving summaries of a particular position of a particular group, which is what we need for writing an encyclopedia, that is we need an overview. I recognize that people are not going to like what they say, but that's not a legitimate reason for removing the information. It might be a reason for finding similarly high-quality sources to expand the coverage or give more context. But not to remove it or engage in original research or synthesis (as with some of the other edits[11]). Having read the quotes from Rush Limbaugh and others, and noting the other quotations used in the sources, I do not have any impression that the removed text was inaccurate in any way relative to how conservatives have criticized and portrayed OWS. I would appreciate people's comments. B^e——C_ritical 21:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Posted at the NPOV noticeboard B^e——C_ritical 00:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

A criticism section should be sourced from the critics, not from someone who states that they "support the protesters". The misuse of the Chronicle piece is sufficient reason alone to exclude this, even ignoring it's utterly unencyclopaedic tone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies not on primary sources, such as you are suggesting, but on reliable secondary sources, such as I used. B^e——C_ritical 00:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should find some sources (primary or secondary) that actually offer criticism rather than insults? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps those offering the criticisms should have phrased those criticisms differently. But that is not up to us to decide. We merely report what our sources tell us. If they tell us that the criticisms are insults, that's what we report. We also report what those insults were. You're asking that Wikipedia not report the sources faithfully, or else that we only use sources which report something we think is correct. But that's not how it works. I'm trying not to use the word "censor" here, but isn't that what you're suggesting? B^e——C_ritical 01:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that a section entitled 'criticism' should contain criticism, not insults. If you think that articles should have an 'insults' section, then propose it properly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Insults are a form of criticism. If you want to paint conservatism in a more rational light, I suggest you find some good sources, rather than taking out the good sources I found. I've been searching again for some reliable sources that show conservative criticisms of OWS in a better light, and so far I haven't found any. B^e——C_ritical 01:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If your intention is to paint conservatism as irrational, as you seem to imply, I think you should maybe find another article to edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I never implied that, and I'd love to have reliable sources on criticism of OWS that had more substantive criticisms. But I didn't find such sources. I did find RS that said certain things, and I faithfully reported their information: just read the quotes above. It's up to you to find something better or different or additional, but it's not up to you to remove reliably sourced material from the article for no other reason than that you personally don't like it or disagree. B^e——C_ritical 02:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is the other way round. If you wan't to include material, you need to justify it. And the Chronicle article isn't RS for conservative criticisms of the 'Occupy' movement - because it isn't about such criticisms. I suggest you read it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you have to justify removing well-sourced material. The justification for including it is that it's what the reliable sources say. A source article need not be primarily focused on a sub-subject of our subject in order for us to use it. As long as the article is addressing our general subject, we can use sub-sections of our source. Now, the Chronicle article is about Occupy Wall Street and culture war. That's fine. And it specifically addresses your objection here: "By focusing on caricatures of pot-smoking, drumbeating hippies, instead of on the economic messages related to the "We are the 99 percent" meme, some in the media appear to be redirecting the national debate away from what unites us and toward what divides us" and here: "At first glance, that kind of thesis might seem convincing in light of conservative attempts to slander Occupy Wall Street as an anti-American counterculture." In other words, yes, the criticisms have been mostly insults. So that's what we report. B^e——C_ritical 03:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No. You are cherry-picking the source to provide the 'criticisms'. If these are actually the only reliable sources commenting on criticisms of the 'occupy' movement, they hardly merit inclusion, per WP:WEIGHT. Actually, I'm sure they aren't the only criticisms - find some better ones. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not cherry picking sources, which you can disprove by providing some others. The WEIGHT is fine for a small sub-section, especially because these sources are very good: The Chronicle of Higher Education which is the major news service in the United States academic world, CBS news, and The New York Times. B^e——C_ritical 04:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Gotta love the timeless Wikipedia debate as to whether the burden of proof rests on the person who adds or the person who removes. That aside, one of the key priciples here is to never state opinions in Wikipedia's voice. There are a couple of places such as the Erickson paragraph and the text that was just reverted by AndyTheGrump that stray from that requirement. It would be more encyclopedic to summarize the criticisms rather than use extremely inflammatory quotes, but in some cases it's not possible to agree on such a summary, and so a couple of quotes from prominent critics, that convey some ideological or practical objection rather than simply being derogatory, should be included. I think the charges of anti-semitism need more context because it implies that some people think anti-semitism is a major theme of OWS. I think the last paragraph about a majority of Americans supporting OWS is not a criticism and should go someplace else. Brmull (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh! That's what was taken out long before my summary was taken out [12]. The problem here is that our RS summarize the criticisms, but the original criticisms were so inflammatory that even the summary of our RS's summary is inflammatory. B^e——C_ritical 04:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that version is better than the one that currently exists, but maybe it would be best not to lead with the demagogues Limbaugh and Beck? Are they really the most prominent critical voices? Brmull (talk) 04:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Aren't they? Who would you suggest? I've heard Limbaugh is in fact the mouthpiece of the Right. B^e——C_ritical 05:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I found another source [13] It's not helpful except in that it confirms my suspicion that the text I put in is probably an accurate reflection of what's out there. B^e——C_ritical 06:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

In my experience with editing this article Becritical is correct. The criticism about the neutrality of the article started right off the bat from both editors that seem to be sympathic to the protests and those that seem to not be. Many politicians that have been willing to speak up at all are well-aware that the protest is popular with voters and are not willing to voice criticisms. Most "intellectuals" seem to be supportive. Early on Limbaugh, Hannity, etc., were added but their comments were so inflammatory that we got demands to delete them such as, "But it's not true!" and one editor even said that "we" were only including such comments to make fun of them. It is difficult since it seems that the notable "for" people sound well-thought-out while the "against" people sound (to some of us) just plain nuts. I have looked for criticisms myself, and they are hard to find - as Becritical has said. IMO Limbaugh, etc., should be included, using direct quotes. Gandydancer (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The quotes would be a step ahead at least. But keep the sources I found in the article to help prevent further challenges along the lines of our cherry picking our quotes. The meta-summary I put in is more encyclopedic and uses secondary instead of primary sources but people seem to feel as if it's putting the criticisms in the voice of Wikipedia. There is also the issue that what we have are conservative criticisms, people speaking at least in their own opinion for conservatism. That will be more difficult to convey with direct quotes, but if we don't convey it then we just have a few people mouthing off. So the best solution is to summarize the reliable secondary sources like we're supposed to here, but if we can't do that then let the primary sources speak for themselves. B^e——C_ritical 17:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

@Gandy, that user with the Chinese symbols as a username said he just added the Glenn Beck and Limbaugh quotes to make them look bad. @Critical Every source that you claim are the only sources you can find of criticism are left-leaning sources that are making their bias analysis of the criticisms. I think we should "summarize" the actual quotes themselves and not whatever the Huffington Post or CNN says about the quotes, because that is not NPOV. Also, not all polls find that most people support the movement. The latest poll, found here, http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1670 finds that most people don't agree with the movement.--Jacksoncw (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• As I've said in the previous section above, I too think inflammatory terms like "ingrates" should not be in wikipedia's voice. Regardless of whether these criticisms are couched in qualifying terms like "critics have said..." because that's just a weaselly way of getting them in there. As someone said above, these petty insults are not worthy of encyclopedic criticism. "Messy"? Really? Protests aren't meant to be neat and orderly. It might be interesting to compare regular editors here with their comments on the Tea Party articles. I would also like to note that BeCritical has responded to every single post in this thread and the one i link above, a pattern which appears to crowd out natural discussion. I would suggest that he let others weigh in more before replying. -A98 98.92.189.139 (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Three times I have changed the word "ingrates" to "people" because there isn't actually any quote of a conservative using the word ingrates, it was just a word that the liberal sources used to describe the conservative viewpoint, and each time it was reverted. All the criticisms in the criticisms section are presented from an OWS supportive kind of view, trying to make the critics look wrong. It certainly isn't encyclopedic or NPOV.--Jacksoncw (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

"NPOV" is by definition whatever the reliable sources say it is. So if they are what you consider "left" or whatever but are RS, then WP just summarizes what they say. That's how it works.

Terms like "ingrates" were never in Wikipedia's voice, but were attributed to others. And if that's what the RS say, that's what we say.

It's all about the sources, and the only way you can legitimately argue about whether we should summarize them (without whitewashing) is to either say they are not RS for Wikipedia, in which case we can go over to WP:RS/N, or else find other reliable sources which cover these things differently. But what the arguments above boil down to is that some of the editors here don't want to cover the criticisms because they don't like their tone, or else whitewash them, or else use primary sources. So I would call on you to find good sources or accept the ones I found, and to not whitewash what those sources say. B^e——C_ritical 20:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV in a nutshell: "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." No where in the npov page does it say a neutral point of view is what RS says it is. I don't think what you had met those requirements at all. It wasn't fair and without bias nor was it said with an impartial tone. --Jacksoncw (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I reported what the sources said in an entirely impartial tone. People just don't like what the sources said. And they can't find any better/other sources. If I were to whitewash what the sources say (whether they be the primary sources such as Limbaugh or secondary such as the ones above), for instance by refusing to describe the issues in the same or similar words to those which the sources use, I would be guilty of placing my own POV ahead of the facts, and that is what you are asking me to do.

Words used by the primary sources: "parade of human debris," "They will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you," "stupid," "Abject tools," "idiots," "great threat," "Doink rank amateaurs," "they think they're so tough," [14], "“jealous’ Americans who "play the victim card” and want to “take somebody else’s” Cadillac," "mobs," [15]

Words used by the secondary sources to characterize the view of the primary sources: "ingrates," "growing mob," "shiftless," "class warfare,"messy," "indolent," "drug-addled," "anti-Semitic."

Words used in my summary: "ingrates,""shiftless," "indolent," "messy," "anti-Semitic" and "drug-addled" "mob" "class warfare."

Now, you would have us not relate that bad words such as the above were used. They aren't "encyclopedic." But what's unencyclopedic is to whitewash. To whitewash would be to take sides. B^e——C_ritical 02:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The encyclopedia is all about impartial tone. Words like "ingrates" and terms such as "drug-addled" should be recast without the inflammatory tone. You can say the people were ungrateful. You can say they were thinking unclearly because of drug abuse. The whitewash you are afraid of is exactly the guideline we are all given. If the article wording angers the reader, you have failed in writing an encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I can only say again that our impartiality is in reporting our sources, not in changing what our sources say to fit a particular mold. B^e——C_ritical 05:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Have you looked at WP:NPOV lately? No one has suggested changing what sources say, just how we report it. Editors control the tone here through word choice. Encyclopedically, "ungrateful person" is much better than "ingrate" even though they have the same effective meaning. The former is critical of the person's behavior, the latter comes off more as a personal insult. I thought you understood this distinction but your persistence here leads me to believe otherwise. -A98 98.92.185.156 (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You define the difference well, and you show exactly how your approach would perpetrate inaccurate information on the reader. Insults were hurled, not intellectual evaluations. The primary and secondary sources on this say that conservatives portrayed OWS in a particular way, and we report that without sugar-coating it. We report the insults, because that's what they were. B^e——C_ritical 06:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

See section below

Summary question re criticism section

For anyone coming in here fresh, here's the issue in a nutshell: I found some very high quality sources which say that conservatives have portrayed OWS in an insulting way. They use certain harsh words to describe how the conservatives portrayed OWS. The primary sources of conservatives throwing insults reads much the same as the RS descriptions. The question in contention is whether we are allowed to say, based on the summaries of the situation given in our reliable sources, that conservatism has portrayed OWS as *blank*, *blank*, and *blank*, instead of trying to leave out the offending insulting words.

• Quotes and sources are given at the beginning of the section above.

Here is the text in contention:

Many [This non-specific characterization is directly from the sources] conservatives see the OWS protesters as ingrates who fear responsibility and are envious of the rich, saying that OWS protesters want big government to make it unnecessary for them to work. Conservatives and Tea Party activists say OWS is a shiftless, indolent, messy, anti-Semitic and drug-addled mob engaged in class warfare, and that the protester's grievances are far removed from the political mainstream. However, polls do not back up such a characterization, since 54% of Americans have a favorable impression of the protests, and 23% percent have a negative impression.

B^e——C_ritical 06:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm really surprised at some of the comments, such as, "If the article wording angers the reader, you have failed in writing an encyclopedia." I agree with Becritical. It is not our job as editors to change the tone of the comments. Certainly if the news report used the word "ungrateful person" I'd hardly think it would be correct to change it to "ingrate". Gandydancer (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

All in all, I would not agree to this edit. It is too broad, has combined too much information into one small bit of info and then says it's not accurate by using one (of many) poll to prove it. I see no way to rescue this edit to make it acceptable. Gandydancer (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC) PS: (wish I had time to say more but it late here...I just wanted to get a short note in so that it did not seem that I supported the edit by my above post) zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Gandydancer (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not attached to any particular way of summarizing the sources, I just don't want notable criticisms or RS rejected or whitewashed. There are different ways one could summarize. But in some way we're going to have to give the reader the broad-spectrum info on conservative/Right-wing criticisms of OWS. B^e——C_ritical 06:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The first source you provide, which is also where the word "ingrates" comes from, is The Chronicle of Higher Education, which I've never heard of. Can you explain why you are using this source? and why it is appropriate to cite them for this article? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, The Chronicle of Higher Education is a news service in academia. Unless there are objections, it looks to me like an especially good source per WP:MAINSTREAM, probably better than the CBS News one. I looked it up on the WP:RS/N, and it's been mentioned several times. I didn't see any objections to using it as a source, although using its forums was questionable. B^e——C_ritical 18:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there actually quote of a conservative actually using the word "ingrates" or is it just a left-leaning source trying to make conservatives look bad by putting words into their mouths? I would like to know what quote your source is "summarizing" and if that "conservative" actually used the word "ingrates" which I doubt. And if they did, does that person have notable authority or was it just some guy off the street? None of your sources are primary but rather are a bias analysis of quotes taken out of context and I am not sure whether this is POV pushing UNDUE weight or both.--Jacksoncw (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

We could use direct quotes from primary sources, although that's not the kind of sourcing we're supposed to use in Wikipedia. But if you read above a little more closely, you'll see that the words that we would use from the primary sources would be no more intellectually stimulating. I'm sure you've seen the quotes. But here's a bit of Rush if you want it [16], and here is Cain. You seem to be contending that using the RS secondary sources is causing us to be less kind to the critics, but the quotes will tell you that the source's characterization is an accurate reflection of the reality. B^e——C_ritical 18:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Cherrypicking will do more harm than good because it will make this article appear less neutral. All Wikipedia articles are to adhere to an apparent Neutral Point of View unless you want to undo the hard work may of us on the pro-OWS side have conceded on the grounds to better our credibility as editors. If we make this article blatantly biased, it will be ineffective, compared to the more cogent use of subtle bias. Think about it from a perspective of how to peddle influence. If we make the article seemingly biased, then we have none.완젬스 (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to make it biased. What you're saying is that the way the Right has responded to OWS is so horrible that if we openly portray it as it is then we will be accused of being anti-Right. Maybe, but that's not our concern. We might find common ground however by using quotes from Conservative leaders. B^e——C_ritical 21:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

How does WP:MAINSTREAM apply to the first source? The Chronicle of Higher Education specifically targets academia. I would suggest using sources like The Wall Street Journal for the conservative view. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

MAINSTREAM applies because Wikipedia is a scholarly encyclopedia, and takes academic sources more seriously. The Wall Street Journal would be fine, but it looks like we're not going to get away from the name calling: You know how they have been pigeonholed...the Occupy Wall Street movement attracts only young, scruffy, unemployed left-wing zealots. It's not a good idea to feed wild animals, ragtag protest movement. Whatever, the more research I do, the more appropriate the "bad word summary" I wrote looks. Here you have your preferred source summarizing that the Right has pigeonholed OWS as "scruffy, unemployed left-wing zealots." B^e——C_ritical 21:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You didn't understand the context of the first article you cited. Look at it again and read the beginning of the next paragraph. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I did, what's important is that WSJ says that that is how they have been pigeonholed. Whether WSJ agrees or not is irrelevant, my point is that WSJ says that that's how they've been criticized. Confirming the other sources above. B^e——C_ritical 03:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

So how does "ingrates" accurately describe that? Again you find sources that are left-wing, can you not find any primary sources? you are intentionally finding bias sites that portray the conservatives' criticism, first of all as wrong, which is not NPOV and second of all as more hostile than they intend. Your bias is clearly shown in your versions of the paragraph, and it doesn't accurately describe the criticism, I am not trying to whitewash it, you are trying to blackdry it.--Jacksoncw (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. If you don't like the word, you need to find other equally RS sources that contradict it. Not that it's necessary to include that word, just that it's fully allowable. It's also accurate in fact, but that's my own opinion. B^e——C_ritical 03:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've taken another look at the Chronicle source [17] and I notice that the line about 'ingrates' and 'fear of responsibility' is actually framed within a comparison to the Tea Party. But this context is lost in Becritical's summary criticism: Many conservatives see the OWS protesters as ingrates who fear responsibility and are envioust of the rich, saying that OWS protesters want big government to make it unnecessary for them to work . Worse, the second half of that summary refers to a Tea Party leaflet. And the next sentence is more criticism from the TP -- "shiftless, messy, drug-addled, anti-Semitic" -- Is this RS? I'm not convinced that petty insults from the TP belong in this article. And one more thing: as it stands now, the criticism section starts with conservative bloggers -- is this appropriate? At minimum it should be moved to the 2nd or 3rd paragraph. -A98 98.92.184.135 (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You have a point about the conservative bloggers. I see no relevance re the Tea Party context. The quote is "Replicating this decades-old culture-war paradigm, many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility." The Tea Party quote is picked out as representative of the whole "As a widely distributed statement by one Tea Party group put it..." But you and Jacksoncw are getting down to what you think now, and that's not how we work at WP. What I wrote is a summary, accurate I hope, of how RS say OWS has been characterized by conservatives. Whatever we may think of it, whether we think it's accurate or morally acceptable or whatever, if I correctly summarized reliable sources then there should be no problem. B^e——C_ritical 04:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, it's not about whether my summary was perfect. It's about whether we are allowed to simply summarize how our sources characterize conservative criticisms. If yes, then let's rewrite it so everyone agrees it's an accurate representation of the sources. B^e——C_ritical 04:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the Chronicle source, I was referring to the WSJ source you provided recently[18]. After the "pigeonholed" remark read the beginning of the next paragraph. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. "Instead, a deeper look at those who sympathize with those two movements—one largely of the right and the other largely of the left—suggests they are more accurately seen as expressions of economic anxiety and anger that have spread well beyond ..." But that's not a description of criticisms which have been made, so not part of our criticism section? Is this what you mean? B^e——C_ritical 15:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Critical,you keep telling me what I am saying and what I mean but you're wrong. I'm not "getting down to my opinion" you have inaccurately misrepresented an already bias representation from sources that are questionable, that's my point, not what I think, what it is.--Jacksoncw (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The sources are not questionable. Your suggested sources -primary sources- are. If you think the summary was a misrepresentation, then help me write it better. But don't try to keep the info out of the article. The question we need to ask ourselves is, "How do reliable sources summarize the criticism of Occupy Wall Street, and how do we accurately summarize what the reliable sources say?" We are to summarize, we must not modify what the sources say. B^e——C_ritical 20:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

And here is yet another quote from an RS, which I found by accident:

The conservative reaction has been similar. A great many conservatives stress the conditions among the tents. They crow that Americans will never fall in line behind a bunch of scraggly hippies. They dismiss the movement as a fringe collection of left tendencies, along with assorted homeless, mental cases, and petty criminals. They argue that the Democrats made a huge mistake embracing Occupy Wall Street as an expression of economic and social frustration.

[19] a piece by Matthew Continetti, "a conservative journalist and associate editor at The Weekly Standard."

I'm posting the above because it is exactly the same kind of summary given by the other RS, and objected to by editors on this page. Please, allow these sources to be summarized. [20] [21]B^e——C_ritical 20:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

New version of text summarizing how RS have characterized criticism of OWS

Old text:

Many [This non-specific characterization is directly from the sources] conservatives see the OWS protesters as ingrates who fear responsibility and are envious of the rich, saying that OWS protesters want big government to make it unnecessary for them to work. Conservatives and Tea Party activists say OWS is a shiftless, indolent, messy, anti-Semitic and drug-addled mob engaged in class warfare, and that the protester's grievances are far removed from the political mainstream. However, polls do not back up such a characterization, since 54% of Americans have a favorable impression of the protests, and 23% percent have a negative impression.

New text:

Many conservatives see the OWS protesters as ingrates who fear responsibility and are envious of the rich, saying that OWS protesters want big government to make it unnecessary for them to work. Conservatives and Tea Party activists say OWS is a shiftless, indolent, messy, anti-Semitic and drug-addled mob of unemployed left-wing zealots engaged in class warfare, and that the protester's grievances are far removed from the political mainstream.On October 5, 2011, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh told his listening audience: "When I was 10 years old I was more self-sufficient than this parade of human debris calling itself Occupy Wall Street." Glenn Beck said on his internet television network GBTV, "Capitalists, if you think that you can play footsies with these people, you are wrong. They will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you. They will do it. They’re not messing around." Newt Gingrich, front-runner in the Republican presidential primary race said "All the Occupy movements starts with the premise that we all owe them everything. Now, that is a pretty good symptom of how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country and why you need to reassert something as simple as saying to them, go get a job right after you take a bath." insert other quotes?

Text for sourcing individual words

Many conservatives see the OWS protesters as ingrates who fear responsibility and are envious of the rich, saying that OWS protesters want big government to make it unnecessary for them to work. Conservatives and Tea Party activists say OWS is a shiftless, indolent, messy, anti-Semitic and drug-addled mob of unemployed left-wing zealots engaged in class warfare, and that the protester's grievances are far removed from the political mainstream.On October 5, 2011, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh told his listening audience: "When I was 10 years old I was more self-sufficient than this parade of human debris calling itself Occupy Wall Street." Glenn Beck said on his internet television network GBTV, "Capitalists, if you think that you can play footsies with these people, you are wrong. They will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you. They will do it. They’re not messing around." Newt Gingrich, front-runner in the Republican presidential primary race said "All the Occupy movements starts with the premise that we all owe them everything. Now, that is a pretty good symptom of how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country and why you need to reassert something as simple as saying to them, go get a job right after you take a bath." insert other quotes?

SEE THE SECTION HERE [22] REGARDING THE USE OF THE TERM CONSERVATIVES AND INGRATES.

Other refs

new ref, useful

References

• [23]
• And many conservatives and Republicans have mocked the Occupy demonstrators, characterizing them as unemployed slobs or shills for unions, seeking to turn the nation into a giant people’s collective.

Comments

What a highly contrived piece of work. Lump together the complaints and then strike them down with a classic NPOV of "however" from a singular poll in time. We do not exist within a vacumn, and you should not try to frame a retort on a singular poll favorable to your point of view. The result is a rather nice example of WP:OR I must say. You should go get it published somewhere if you think it belongs. Arzel (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There is certainly no OR, but the text can be improved. That is the process here. I also found a few more RS, all saying the same things. The poll sentence is dispensable. B^e——C_ritical 01:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

So the section after However can be removed from your wording? It is that linkage which is the OR, specifically synthesis of material. Arzel (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no synthesis of material. The source says "...are far outside the political mainstream. The polls don't back that up. A new survey out from Time Magazine found that 54 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of the protests, while just 23 percent have a negative impression. An NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, meanwhile, found that 37 percent of respondents "tend to support" the movement, while only 18 percent "tend to oppose" it." We could be more specific and say "However, polls do not back up the characterization of OWS as outside the mainstream, since 54% of Americans have a favorable impression of the protests, and 23% percent have a negative impression." This is why I like the constructive criticism, it forms better text in the end. B^e——C_ritical 01:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What does having a favorable or unfavorable opinion with OWS have to do with anything in the sentences preceeding it? Your logic suggests that the sentences prior to "However..." are negated because 54% of poll respondents on Oct 13 (well before the most recent stuff) have a favorable opinion. To top it off you don't even see the synthesis? Arzel (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like User:Arzel didn't even see or read the additional sources above. He's still harping one "one poll" and regurgitating tired complaints. The above is not synthesis. It is perfectly valid to balance criticism. He just doesn't like balance. -A98 98.92.186.126 (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this was a job well done. I see no significant problems and I think all the major criticisms were represented and articulated succinctly --David Shankbone 05:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, the word ingrates and the tone of the sentence is not in the Reliable sources. And OWS is far outside the political mainstream according to many other polls, contrary to bias, liberal Time Magazine's survey done relatively early on in the movement. Your summary is simply not accurate or NPOV and needs a lot of work before it gets put in. And I'm not surprised Shankbone over here likes it, he has been adding every bubbly picture he takes with his smiley little captions describing how majestic the OWS movement is. And if you want to add the Time poll, you should also add the many other polls that support the theory that the movement is outside mainstream politico, including the one done by Quinipiac that is in the Public Opinion section.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the word "ingrates" is in the sources, and the tone is a bit less strident in my summary than in the sources, I think anyway. Here is the source (one of the best) and also quoted above. The poll will have to be taken out of the final version as you say. If you are Arzel, stop making statements about the sources without reading them. Otherwise, please no offense. B^e——C_ritical 21:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There are several notable personages such as Rush and Gingrich who have made notable statements critisizing OWS, and the quotes should be included. B^e——C_ritical 23:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Gingrich, but I'd prefer someone of a higher caliber than Limbaugh, who is on the same level as Ann Coulter. The less polemicists we use (I realize Gingrich skates a fine line) and the more 'serious' critics (say George Will or Charles Krauthammer) the better. --David Shankbone 23:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that... okay, you tell me what we do about that, because these people are notable. They speak for a huge segment of the population. To speak from the other side, why would we ignore their criticisms? What kind of censorship is that? I'm not really opposed to leaving out quotes (not that Gingrich said anything much nicer), I just don't know how we should handle it. B^e——C_ritical 01:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I read an article by George Will and didn't find anything usable. Any suggestions? B^e——C_ritical 06:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

@becritical, We shouldn't ignore their criticism; we should add their quotes but not what some bias liberal website thinks about their quotes which is what you keep trying to do. Also, you can't put words in conservatives' mouths either. You keep trying to put the word ingrates in there, but no conservative actually said ingrates and it is defamatory to imply that they are so unprofessional. Add the quotes, that's fine, and if you can find sources that oppose the quotes, add those too. But we can't "summarize" a conservatives' viewpoint accurately when the information is coming from a liberal website. Add the quote, and just the quote, and don't add words like "ingrates" that aren't actually quoted from conservatives.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

As Factchecker_atyourservice said above, "You don't seem to grasp WP policy very well... WP does not require that sources be neutral." To which I responded "Hey, right on, we don't have to have neutral sources, we have to have reliable sources which we report neutrally." You need to do further research. Read the quotes, and you will see there is no question of professionalism. B^e——C_ritical 20:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be cherry-picking WP Policies. Sources don't have to be neutral, but the article does, you might have forgotten about NPOV. The source might say it, but it isn't encyclopedic or neutral, find another way to do it.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not strive for neutrality, at all. It strives ONLY to neutrally represent the reliable sources, that is to not biased in its representation of what those sources say. Neutrality itself is NOT an issue. We do not write neutral articles at Wikipedia. We neutrally represent sources. As I did above. B^e——C_ritical 19:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in this particular dispute, but I have to give kudos to BeCritical for displaying a sophisticated (and correct) understanding of WP policy. Wikipedia is a mouthpiece for mainstream thought, and nothing else, and no matter who thinks mainstream thought happens to be wrong on this or that subject, Wikipedia still merely presents the world as it exists according to mainstream thought—with limited, if any, attention to what is outside the mainstream. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey thanks (: B^e——C_ritical 22:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I dont' think taking the most extreme and most stupid critics of OWS and merging them into a criticism section can in any way be seen as NPOV. I think the suggested text is unrecoverable. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediation?

Per this undiscussed deletion, perhaps we need to go to mediation? There is no justification for deletion of such well-sourced content which sticks so closely to the sources. B^e——C_ritical 19:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I brought the matter up on the NPOV noticeboard again [24] B^e——C_ritical 20:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Per this removal, Somedifferentstuff seems to think we need more than one source to say "many." The source is sufficient to the statement, and the other sources back it up. I could say "all," or leave out "many" and just say "conservatives say," since the sources merely state how conservatives have characterized OWS, but "many" is, well, a conservative statement. B^e——C_ritical 00:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• So let's look at your sources regarding conservatives and "ingrates". You have 5 listed. The Washington Post specifically states that Newt Gingrich referred to them as ingrates, not "conservatives". Then you have one from CNN where Rushkoff specifically states that he is referring to "mainstream television news reporters" - again, not "conservatives". Then you have one from The Patriot Post which states, "by their detractors", again, not "conservatives". Another one from The Harvard Crimson which is specifically talking about Harvard students, again, not "conservatives", and one from The Chronicle of Higher Education which is the only one that states, "many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates." Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You know what? I don't need more than one reliable source to have that word. There is no "undue weight" there, there is just an obvious statement which is well sourced. But as I said before, the word is not necessary, so why not stop basing your objections on it? You removed much more than that word. Let's hear your objections to the rest. The other sources are mere support, to let you know that the first RS did a good job. Tearing them down as not being specific enough misses the point. Again, what other objections do you have? We can take out the word. We could use quotes from the RSs instead. We could do a lot of things, but I do not think that would satisfy you, because you don't want that information in the article. I think that, not just because of your reverts, but because you are not trying to help me fix the text, you are in "attack the text" mode only. When I object to something, I usually offer alternative ways to do things. B^e——C_ritical 03:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I demonstrated that using the blanket term "many conservatives" to describe the protesters as "ingrates" violates NPOV. You need to be careful when using blanket terms like that. I just added a beginning to the section. I used the word "Republicans" which is taken directly from the source. Let's build upon this. What next sentence do you think would be appropriate to add. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This is better. Okay, we have to somehow convey the general content of the RS above, and that might be more acceptable to you with attribution. We can use the sentence you put in the article, and going on from that say "The demonstrators have been portrayed as..." or "commentators such as X and Y, say that the commentators have been portrayed as..." and then give a summary of the terms used by the sources. It's not going to sound nice if we accurately portray what the sources say, but hopefully the attribution will be enough. We could also use some quotes from the sources. If we can't agree on a paraphrase like I did above, then we could use a couple of quotes. B^e——C_ritical 19:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're not going to participate, I assume you don't disagree with the current version minus the word "ingrates." Consensus is among reasonably active editors. B^e——C_ritical 18:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)