OK, it's time to deal with this per Wikipedia policy and not just because editors feel it is a part of the subject. We need more than references with titles that mention OWS to include this income inequality information in this manner. There is no context to the subject. If the reference makes no claim of connection or context to OWS then why are we using it. It's synthesis to pull facts from sources, but if there are no facts to pull then what is the source being used for but illustrative purposes. We need secondary sources to verify but they must also make direct claims to facts in relationship to the subject. All this stuff is puffery in it's own section and is undue weight. I have expressed concern above and i was allowing editors to deal with my concerns without urgency but it is clear now that at least one editor is claiming disruption by changing deleteing disputed material, but have as yet not deat at all with concerns and disputes to inclusion I brought up. I feel it is best to remove this section again as the last revert failed to discuss in detail what their reasoning was for returning the information. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Original research: Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
First, if the article is to mention Income Inequality it must have direct context to OWS and it must have a secondary RS to support ALL claims of fact and or opinion in one manner or another. This is not the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. It is disputed, has been disputed and needs referencing within policy. So here is what I propose:
We stick to what the secondary primary sources are saying with DIRECT context to OWS AS THE SECONDARY SOURCE claims...not us as editors. For example.
..the question of who’s to blame for the unprecedented levels of income inequality we’re currently seeing in America is an important one for Occupy Wall Street.
There. Direct context from PBS So use it to say that "Record high levels of income inequality and who is to blame for it, is of great importance to OWS protesters.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Say what you want about it, but the Occupy Wall Street movement does have one thing right: It's made headlines pointing out the income inequality of the last three decades. According to a Congressional Budget Office study that came out in October, income grew for the top 1 percent of households by 275 percent over the last 30 years, while the middle 60 percent of households saw their income grow by just under 40 percent. "We Are the 99 Percent" resonates with a lot of voters in the middle.
from . It can be used to source the next line such as:
"The movement's has gained the attention of newspaper and televsion news for drawing attention to 30 years of inequality."."--Amadscientist (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I will go through these refernces and see where direct context is used.
37.^ a b c Occupy Wall Street And The Rhetoric of Equality Forbes November 1, 2011 by Deborah L. Jacobs
38.^ a b c d Occupy protestors say it is 99% v 1%. Are they right? The Guardian Data Blog, by Simon Rogers, Wednesday 16 November
39.^ Cozy relationships and ‘peer benchmarking’ send CEOs’ pay soaring The Washington Post with Bloomberg, special report on Breakaway Wealth, By Peter Whoriskey, October 3, 2011
40.^ Ratcheting up pay with peer comparison The Washington Post with Bloomberg, October 3, 2011.
41.^ Income Inequality The New York Times March 22, 2012
42.^ Occupy Wall Street: More popular than you think By Brian Montopoli October 13, 2011 "the vast majority [of Americans] seem to share the protesters' sense that the economic deck is stacked"
43.^ United in Our Delusion By David Cay Johnston October 11, 2010, as cited by The Guardian Data Blog
44.^ "Financial wealth" is defined by economists as "total net worth minus the value of one's home," including investments and other liquid assets.
45.^ Recent Trends in Household Wealth in the United States: Rising Debt and the Middle-Class Squeeze—an Update to 2007 by Edward N. Wolff, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, March 2010
46.^ Wealth, Income, and Power by G. William Domhoff of the UC-Santa Barbara Sociology Department--Amadscientist (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Your references to policy are of course correct, but you imply that they are being broken. I do not think that they are. I'd like for you to say specifically which source(s) is not adequate. Did you do that above and I missed it in all the hassle? If so just tell me and I'll go try and find it, or maybe you can paste it here. I'm not aware that there are needed sources being used which merely reference OWS in the title. For example, this source is highly related to OWS, not just the title. Be——Critical 02:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Is anything really ever "broken" on Wikipedia? Perhaps, but that is not my implication. Simply that there was no direct context in the prose to the information as it relates to OWS. How the sources were used in direct context to OWS was non existent. It was just statistical data and did not have any real relationship to OWS. The prose didn't even bother to try and set up the concept of income inequality in context to the protest. It just starts despensing facts from a different subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps nothing is ever truly "broken", but you started this with "it's time to deal with this per Wikipedia policy and not just because editors feel it is a part of the subject" so I think you should show how policy is being violated, because otherwise this is just another discussion about what we "feel" is right. Equazcion (talk) 04:29, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- He started it by blanking the section! And MadSci per your response above, if it's not sufficient to have the economic data be given context by the rest of the article, then a sentence or two of introduction would be sufficient, and no need to blank the section. Be——Critical 04:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I love it. "He started it". Did "he"? As I recall this is the subject that we discussed above and we were supposed to be finding context to the subject. No work was ever been accomplished and someone removes it and another editor (Equazcion) returns it but fails his burden of proof so I remove it as OR and state exactly why I see it as such in detail to policy and discuss examples of what I mean and...of course Equazcion just ignores it and demands I show how policy was violated when i already did.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, I didn't say "he started it". That was BeCritical. I'm the guy above him, who said you started "this" section of discussion, with a quote. I'm not demanding anything you didn't claime to be providing yet now say you don't think is necessary: You wanted to hold everything and go back to policy rather than "feel"ings. You now say it "is not your implication" that anything is "broken" -- So, if the content doesn't violate policy, what exactly is your argument? Back to the "feel"ings? Equazcion (talk) 05:51, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- Who said I was talking to you Equaz? OH...that's right you have to keep distracting the discussion so you don't ever have to justify your revert of returning information and yet NOT meeting your burden to explain why it was returned.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps no one, not that that was the point. So back to it: What exactly is your argument against the content, since we seem to have abandoned the "deal with this per Wikipedia policy" sentiment? If it doesn't violate policy, as you say, why exactly is it being removed? Equazcion (talk) 06:00, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- Burden met below. Equazcion (talk) 06:14, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)
The income inequality information is not "off limits", there are just "limits" to how the information pertains to the subject in an encyclopedic manner. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. While income inequaltiy relates to OWS it does not do so on it's own. Statistical data does not have relevence unless a secondary, published source makes it directly.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- You're referring to weight, it seems, and income inequality is what OWS is all about. So it seems to pertain to the subject rather drastically. And, again, this rule that a source must mention a connection to the topic is made up. Articles contain sources that back up surrounding facts without making such connections all the time. If you're getting this requirement from some policy, which one is it? Equazcion (talk) 05:56, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- You can say "income inequality is what OWS is all about" but that is original research. You would need a secondary, published source making the claim to use it in the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Are you actually disagreeing that income inequality is fundamental to OWS? Or just requesting a source regardless? Equazcion (talk) 06:01, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how this point could possibly be challenged, but here's a source: . Page 2 describes the economic gap. So, shall we restore the section? More: . Equazcion (talk) 06:28, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- Now, being that we are most definitely allowed to use sources that don't connect to the topic in order to back up its surrounding facts (unless a policy can be provided that says otherwise, but none has been forthcoming), and we have reliable secondary sources that back up the claim that economic inequality is at the forefront of Occupy Wall Street, I think we can now restore the section. Equazcion (talk) 06:40, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)
No, you have proven nothing. You are just throwing out sources for no apparent reason. Where is the policy to support the use of this information in this manner? Income inequality is indeed an important issue to OWS but that does not mean we detail statistic from the reports. They were not made as part of the protest. They exist seperate from the protests and the detail needs to be in direct context to reliable secondary sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the reason was that you asked for them. If you're going back to the weight argument now, economic inequality is fundamental to the movement, so it deserves a lot of weight in the article. Equazcion (talk) 06:46, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- Again you're referring to this quite original rule that the statistics need to be in the sources connecting to OWS. They don't. The movement's basis is largely economic inequality. Just because protesters don't carry signs detailing the stats of income inequality doesn't mean that stuff gets left out of the article. It's like my earlier example of a movement protesting genocide in Africa. Such an article would contain information showing the death toll and circumstances surrounding the killings, using sources that don't necessarily connect to the movement itself. There just is no such requirement. Equazcion (talk) 06:52, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Original research: Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- ...only this isn't a novel position. SYN is about original claims. These claims are backed up by secondary reliable sources (listed above), while the details of them are also sourced -- although independently of the claim of a connection to the movement, which is fine. Equazcion (talk) 07:07, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- Equaz, you are defining and assuming far too much. It isn't about what you think is the 'Truth". You can't just assume what are the absolutes of the movement or the article. The sources can be used to make the claim, they cannot be used to prove the truth. You believe that a particular part of the issues of the protests are so important and valued that any reference can be used to state almost anything as long as it has the title OWS and is the subject you are looking for. You think all information from the source can then be used in the article. It cannot. Direct context. Everything else is OR.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- And where in policy does it say that direct context is required? A rough search for political movements yielded an article on the Jewish ones, so: Jewish Autonomism, Territorialism, Jewish emancipation. Check through the refs that back up the issues those movements fought against. Many if not most don't connect back to the movements themselves. I could find more if you want. This section agrees with practice and policy. There is no basis for its removal, and every reason to include it. Equazcion (talk) 07:13, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- Another: Affirmative action in the United States. Just take a look through some refs from the intro. Equazcion (talk) 07:16, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Those examples do not support your position.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
If you support your position with lesser quality articles, the last of which has a neutrality dispute tag directly above it, then you are NOT attempting to improve the article but just trying to get your way.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- They contain refs, used to support the existence and details of issues the respective movements fought for/against, that do not make a connection to the movements themselves. Many articles on contentious topics have permatags (these are from 07-09). These are just the very first articles that came up in a search; they're a product of my doing this quickly rather than of me "just trying to get my way", and this is about the sixth time during a content discussion that you've resorted to quipping about my motivations. And, they do indeed support my position. I should say "our" position, because there is already a third opinion here. I'm actually going to revert your removal now (I haven't even done so once yet). Equazcion (talk) 07:33, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- The blanking of sections instead of discussion, and the misinterpretation of policy or creation of policy out of wholecloth is getting to be a habit at this article. We DO need more eyes on this, and I'm not sure how to get them. We need to solicit some more editors who would be willing to regularly drop by and cut the impasses. I believe that both of the economics sections I wrote are well sourced, and the last one particularly so. There is no reason not to go to various sources for some details, such as the CBO report, because the secondary sources refer to it as detailing the basis for OWS's complaints. But that is actually not even necessary: we have very good secondary sources, such as Forbes and the Guardian, which give us all the details we need, and connect them to OWS. But everything is attacked and the goal posts moved further away every time. Be——Critical 07:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- We definitely need more eyes here. Apparently RFC doesn't work for that. We could try to find uninvolved people and request their attention individually, or just hit dispute resolution. Equazcion (talk) 08:06, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)
BeCritical: you reverted my removal of the Guardian data blog, and changing of a couple of stats relating to people's reported "ideal" income distribution, saying it needed discussing first. I am removing them again because the reason I did so in the first place are they are straightforwardly wrong: the Guardian article's source is the Johnston article, which states that the bottom 40 per cent should own around a quarter, not 10% - the Guardian misreported. Check the figure yourself - it's unambiguous. Changing the 40% figure for the top fifth was because it's drifted - the overall figure is about a third, reported (based on preferences from different groups) in the Johnston article as 30-40%, then by the Guardian as "up to 40%", then by Wiki as "as much as 40%" - increasingly pushing the implied figure higher. No information is lost by only linking the Johnston article. Mlleangelique (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, your edits got caught up in the revert. But you were wrong to delete a source. For one thing, that is the "named" version, which caused all other uses of that source to be broken. For another, the Johnston article does not mention OWS directly, if I recall, which means that we can't use it on its own. Be——Critical 18:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
There is no consensus to include this information. Equazion is edit warring by continueing to simply add it all back in and not even be bothered to discuss his reasoning for returning the information with SOLID policy to back up his assessment and stop readding it with the excuse of majority rule. I have real concerns and expressed in detail my reasoning with policy to why it does not belong. The burden is on those that return it to expalian in detail why they have returned it and saying the article mentions the link between the two subjects is not enough to begin making ANY claims without direct correlation. Two editors dispute the use of the information and two editors support it's exclusion on the basis that it is what the movement is about. Yet, that claim alone is what can be referenced and not the CBO statistic in the article. Again, the author of the primary source (the CBO report) makes no mention to OWS. The author of the reference does. But he does not make any direct context to the individual statistical information within it. To pull up bits and peices of this information in this manner is synthesis and original research. You cannot make claims, statement or add information not directly mentioned in the source. It is a manipulation of the facts. If income inequality is indeed the center of OWS (or at least one of the main issues...and niether is in dispute) then secondary, published sources will make that claim, not us (Wkipedia editors) as the voice of authority. This is not reporting. This is recording. It'a an encyclopedic article. It's a Wikipedia, encyclopedic article. We have wikilinks to direct the reader to these details for this very reason. We can explain what it is and use a reference with no direct context but every thing else is a claim with context to OWS and that requires sourcing in that context for all material in dispute or likely to be in dispute. I think Becritical may simply not see it and I may not have been able to explain to him enough. But we tried to work this out and I was in no hurry to see what could be done to change the section to meet the standards I was explaining. Look...Wikipedia uses a ratings system for articles in order to guage the improvement of content. Equazion gives only poorer quality examples, so my assumption is that he cares little for that aspect. It's the content he wants not improvement of the article. But Becritical wants the article to improve and I have tried to work with him but he does not seem to understand this portion of policy. I may be mistaken. He is a reasonable editor, doesn't seem to be on a manhunt and tries to actually discuss, not just the content, but the process and policy. To be clear, we have had a struggle, not just with content, but with editors not understanding or acknowledging that much of what they want is not acceptable to advance the article towards even a B rating, let alone ever making GA or Feature status. These are my goals with any article I contribute to. Is this article merely a pamphlet to promote the issues of OWS or is it an encyclopedic article with editors trying to improve it. And when I say "Improve it", I mean using the policies and guidelines as written.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have to claim tl;dr, but a skim tells me this is basically a "my reasons are good and yours are bad, so mine count as discussion and yours don't" claim. Someone making an argument isn't in any position to say it's more valid than their opponent's. You're far from an objective judge there. I disagree with you but wouldn't say such a thing to you. When we have a situation where two people disagree, we would usually get a third opinion; but we have one already.
- As I stated in my edit summary, there isn't enough participation here to say a consensus exists, but there is at least a majority opinion. While consensus would be better, it still doesn't seem like the minority opinion is the one to enact til we get there...
- As for edit warring, when you make an edit and someone reverts it, that is not edit warring. It's interesting that you call this edit warring but not several other actions which reverted reverts, and did so with no discussion. You should really think about how you tend to define edit warring, and possibly read over the policies again. Equazcion (talk) 22:40, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have any reasons other than your made-up sourcing policy and incorrect assertions for keeping it out? Consensus is not a vote count: you have to have reasons. Can you for instance tell us what is actually wrong with the Forbes source, under the actual sourcing policy? Your objections above are simply incorrect. The link between OWS and the stats in the article is sufficiently direct. In addition, there are plenty of other sources making the link, you don't have to disrupt by blanking sections. Also, have some common sense: if you know it's right, don't question it. Be——Critical 22:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
break 1
Sorry, but I strongly disagree with the attempt to use original research by adding up vaious facts to fit the outcome in the article you want. Niether of you are working within consensus and both are edit warring at this point. You just don't care about the article you care about the subject. You are both disruptive and use policy ONLY to get your way and dispute the behavior of others. You ignore the discussions and I can no oonger assume good faith with either of you.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Another post... but please give us your reasons for your assertion of original research. So far, I have not seen any support for that assertion. Okay, let me tell you exactly how to do it: paste a sentence, say why it is original research. Then allow us to respond. Then, if the consensus is that there's a problem, allow us time to properly source it. If that is impossible, then you will have consensus to remove the material. Be——Critical 23:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) You're referring to WP:SYN, which means adding up refs to make original claim, but as I pointed out, this isn't an original claim. The claim is verified with reliable secondary sources. If we're not working within consensus, you're doing even worse -- demanding that your singular opinion be enacted despite a majority feeling otherwise. If a clear consensus isn't present, we should default to your singular view? How does that make sense? And you keep saying we're edit warring, but you haven't backed that up at all. I reverted you. Not edit warring. Reverting a previous revert -- that's edit warring. And you shouldn't speculate about other editors' motivations during a content dispute. You may think you know, but you don't. I want this article to convey the topic with completeness and quality. There is no political interest motivating me. Please don't tell other editors what they're thinking. Equazcion (talk) 23:11, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)
I point back to the beginning of this thread where I spell it out in detail. It's OR and should be removed.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Repeating that doesn't make it any more true. I refer you back to the comment I just posted above. It's not OR at all. It's very well sourced. You've got your own OR definition that doesn't jive with Wikipedia's. Equazcion (talk) 17:18, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- ...and despite being in the minority, Amadscientist has reverted the section again. I'll be restoring it tomorrow, assuming no one else comes forward in defense of this removal. We pretty much have a consensus here, even though it's not a terribly strong consensus due to lack of participation here. Equazcion (talk) 17:23, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Show through Wikipedia policy and guidelines, how your claim is true or even remotely interpreted.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have already, and so has another editor. I'm bewildered, though, as to how you can possibly defend implementing your preferred article version when you're in the minority. I understand and agree that the consensus in this discussion is not strong since we only have three participating editors, but why would you declare your own stance to be the consensus option when the other two people here are against it? I'm just not getting that. Equazcion (talk) 17:28, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Consensus is not majority rule. Am I in the minority? I don't think so.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)