Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | Occupy Wall Street |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 01:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! |
Parties involved | Active
Inactive |
Mediator(s) | Whenaxis |
Comment | RfC on talk page which I will be monitoring. |
Reactions to Occupy Wall Street ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The criticism section of the article, "Reactions to Occupy Wall Street".
Help mediate this process to completion, rather than the "losing party" try again in 6 weeks or say on the talk page "well since the issue has died down, I'm now re-proposing xyz" because that endless process never ends. Let's finally address npov, rs, and the policies which are relevant here under the supervision of uninvolved professionals who want to help us.
Do you realise that mediation requires an open mind, collaborating together in an environment of camaraderie and mutual respect, with the understanding that to reach a solution, compromise is required?
Please sign just your username below, as well as Agree or Disagree, with four tildes (~~~~) to indicate your agreement or disagreement with the ground rules and your participation in the case. These shouldn't be taken lightly. If you agree to these it is expected you will abide by them.
Be——Critical 01:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 01:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
†This can only be done if all parties add this page to their watchlist and keep an eye on this mediation and participate as best they can to discussions. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 01:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Closed by Whenaxis ( contribs) at 01:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
While I appreciate the mention, I'm afraid I'll need to ask for some further clarification of what the dispute is about? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
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."
![]() | The embedded section of the page, " Mediaite", was moved to this mediation's talk page to save space. Don't take it personally, it's just for better structure and flow Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 01:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC) |
I have to confess I don't see the harm regardless of which way this dispute comes out. Generally, though, I lean towards inclusion of anything relevant that (a) can be given mainstream and sourcing, and (b) doesn't disrupt a well-maintained balance of viewpoint. I don't think (b) has ever applied to anything regarding OWS; it's too unwieldy to balance, and thus the result has been a kitchen-sink approach, with most of the thoughtful effort being devoted to organizing the mass of material that's included.
Thus, since Glenn Beck is a fixture in the mainstream (despite having views I generally consider as borderline-fringe), why not quote him? Or, to reiterate, what's the harm if he's quoted instead of paraphrased? And, not for nothing, but how would one go about paraphrasing a bombastic comment like that, anyway? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic, casting the demonstrators as "envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility." A Tea Party group said the protesters want "a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don't have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills."
[1] Brian Montopoli, writing for
CBS News said that "The conservative criticism of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that it is a "growing mob" (House majority leader Eric Cantor) of "shiftless protestors" (The Tea Party Express) engaged in "class warfare" (GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain)."
[2] Matthew Continetti, also writing for CBS, said that conservatives "dismiss the movement as a fringe collection of left tendencies, along with assorted homeless, mental cases, and petty criminals."
[3] Mitt Romney claimed the protesters are "waging "class warfare," and
Herman Cain said they were "anti-American"."
[4] 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."
[5]
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."
[6]
Newt Gingrich, said "All the Occupy movements starts with the premise that we all owe them everything. Now, that is a pretty good symptom of how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country and why you need to reassert something as simple as saying to them, go get a job right after you take a bath."
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
Rick Santorum also told the protesters to get jobs.
[11]
References
|
I already addressed the "undue weight" objection: the source is WP:MAINSTREAM, that is, a more scholarly source than, say, a mainstream news outlet. Also, the gist of the sentence is supported by many sources. Thus I disagree with you that this source which gives us a generalization, is used in an UNDUE way, because all the other sources back it up and there is no source giving any counterclaim, and it is in accord with common sense/knowledge and the quotations. I think the other parts of what you're saying have a lot of merit, but what we would need to do is to eliminate the criticism section altogether. If the criticism section remains, all or most of the material belongs there. Otherwise it could be spread throughout the article. But let me ask you this: where else in the article would we discuss the general conservative reaction to OWS versus individual reactions? Be——Critical 05:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is a link to the discussion on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard - Wikipedia:RSN#The_Chronicle_of_Higher_Education. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 12:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe others will have a different take, but if I were to summarize the discussion at RS/N I would say:
Be——Critical 20:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm realizing I already presented alternate versions. The summary version was criticized as not giving enough attribution and people wanted me to make a draft where every word was sourced. The quotation version was not criticized as heavily: it includes very specific attribution. The main criticism I think by Strad, was that it was too long. However, considering the prominence of the sources and subjects, I think it may deserve the space per WEIGHT. I also presented a medium version between the two, in response to the criticism that the quotations were too long. So here is a new version of the first two sentences which at least makes the first one more general and moderate:
Conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic, casting the demonstrators as a thoroughly marginal group [not OR, this comes from "outside the mainstream"]. Andrew Hartman wrote in
The Chronicle Review that "many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility. 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.""
[3]
If we portray the sources accurately, there's no getting away from actually showing readers of what the vitriol consisted. Be——Critical 20:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
You need to post the paragraph you want to include so we can look at it here. I'm fine with using Andrew Hartman as long as it is attributed to him. We have quite a bit more work to do. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 22:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
This is the new version |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Quotation versionConservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic, casting the demonstrators as a thoroughly marginal group. Andrew Hartman wrote in The Chronicle Review that "many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility." [3] Kate Zernike said in The New York Times that the Tea Party Patriots "portrayed Occupy protesters as freeloaders, or would-be freeloaders: 'Those occupying Wall Street and other cities, when they are intelligible, want less of what made America great and more of what is damaging to America: a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don’t have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills.'" [5] Brian Montopoli, writing for CBS News said that "The conservative criticism of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that it is a "growing mob" (House majority leader Eric Cantor) of "shiftless protestors" (The Tea Party Express) engaged in "class warfare" (GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain) whose grievances - whatever they are - are far outside the political mainstream." [6] Matthew Continetti, also writing for CBS, said that conservatives "dismiss the movement as a fringe collection of left tendencies, along with assorted homeless, mental cases, and petty criminals." [4] Linda Colley said in The Guardian "A prime reason for this diffidence is suggested by some of the Republican attacks on Occupy. The demonstrators were "mobs", said Eric Cantor, the House minority leader. Occupy was waging "class warfare", claimed Mitt Romney, an accusation some Republicans also level at Obama. But it was a rival of Romney for the Republican nomination, Herman Cain, who voiced the criticism Democrats and demonstrators here fear most. Occupy, and those backing it, according to Cain, are "anti-American"." [7] Douglas Rushkoff, in a special to CNN said that "Like the spokesmen for Arab dictators feigning bewilderment over protesters' demands, mainstream television news reporters finally training their attention on the growing Occupy Wall Street protest movement seem determined to cast it as the random, silly blather of an ungrateful and lazy generation of weirdos. They couldn't be more wrong and, as time will tell, may eventually be forced to accept the inevitability of their own obsolescence." On October 5, 2011, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh told his listening audience: "When I was 10 years old I was more self-sufficient than this parade of human debris calling itself Occupy Wall Street." [1] 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." [2] Newt Gingrich, said "All the Occupy movements starts with the premise that we all owe them everything. Now, that is a pretty good symptom of how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country and why you need to reassert something as simple as saying to them, go get a job right after you take a bath." [8] [9] [10] [11] Rick Santorum also told the protesters to get jobs. [12] References
|
So this is what we have (WORK IN PROGRESS)
Conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic, casting the demonstrators as a thoroughly marginal group. Andrew Hartman wrote in The Chronicle Review that "many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility." [1] 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." [2] 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." [3] One tea-party group, the Tea Party Patriots, issued a statement that said in part, "Those occupying Wall Street and other cities, when they are intelligible, want less of what made America great and more of what is damaging to America: a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don’t have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills.” [4] Writing in The Week, Ed Morrissey "insisted that the Occupy movement wants 'seizures and redistributions, which necessarily means more bureaucracies, higher spending, and many more opportunities for collusion between authorities and moneyed interests in one way or another.'" [5]
For the third sentence there is a problem.
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." This violates WP:Plagiarism as it's the exact sentence taken from the article.
I think this should read: A widely distributed statement by one Tea Party group was that 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." If there is agreement on this we can move on to the next sentence. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 00:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
So here that is.
Andrew Hartman wrote in The Chronicle Review that "many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility. 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.'"
I think this needs paraphrasing or we can change it using my earlier suggestion. I need to head out shortly but I'll definitely check back in tomorrow. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 00:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I prefer to use a full quote regarding "a bigger more powerful government." Here is the source: [2]. The sentence would be:
One tea-party group, the Tea Party Patriots, issued a statement that said in part, "Those occupying Wall Street and other cities, when they are intelligible, want less of what made America great and more of what is damaging to America: a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don’t have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills.” Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 21:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
We don't need an endless amount of quotes because that'll be too overpowering and no longer provide due weight. Are we all fine with including all the quotes Somedifferentstuff just used? Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 00:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
This is from the NY Times article and is something that can be included: "Conservatives are trying to define the Occupy protesters before the protesters define themselves. Ed Morrissey, writing in The Week, insisted that the Occupy movement wants “seizures and redistributions, which necessarily means more bureaucracies, higher spending, and many more opportunities for collusion between authorities and moneyed interests in one way or another.”" Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 01:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Added Limbaugh and Beck. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 12:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I'd like to say again that we should use quotes from notable people (well-known people), not who's-that-person type of quote. Use only quotes that are representative of the entire population of Conservatives, not just a few. And use only quotes that are from high quality sources (which you've been doing, so that's good) Remember that and we'll be well on our way. :) Whenaxis ( contribs) 20:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I incorporated the quote and I'm posting the version below for final approval.
Conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic, casting the demonstrators as a thoroughly marginal group. Andrew Hartman wrote in The Chronicle Review that "many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility." [1] Kate Zernike said in The New York Times that the Tea Party Patriots "portrayed Occupy protesters as freeloaders, or would-be freeloaders: 'Those occupying Wall Street and other cities, when they are intelligible, want less of what made America great and more of what is damaging to America: a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don’t have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills.'" [7] Brian Montopoli, writing for CBS News said that "The conservative criticism of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that it is a "growing mob" (House majority leader Eric Cantor) of "shiftless protestors" (The Tea Party Express) engaged in "class warfare" (GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain) whose grievances - whatever they are - are far outside the political mainstream." [8] Matthew Continetti, also writing for CBS, said that conservatives "dismiss the movement as a fringe collection of left tendencies, along with assorted homeless, mental cases, and petty criminals." [9] "Conservatives [have tried to] define the Occupy protesters before the protesters define themselves. Ed Morrissey, writing in The Week, insisted that the Occupy movement wants “seizures and redistributions, which necessarily means more bureaucracies, higher spending, and many more opportunities for collusion between authorities and moneyed interests in one way or another." [10] Linda Colley said in The Guardian "A prime reason for [the diffidence between Democratic and Republican responses to OWS] is suggested by some of the Republican attacks on Occupy. The demonstrators were "mobs", said Eric Cantor, the House minority leader. Occupy was waging "class warfare", claimed Mitt Romney, an accusation some Republicans also level at Obama. But it was a rival of Romney for the Republican nomination, Herman Cain, who voiced the criticism Democrats and demonstrators here fear most. Occupy, and those backing it, according to Cain, are "anti-American"." [11] Douglas Rushkoff, in a special to CNN said that "Like the spokesmen for Arab dictators feigning bewilderment over protesters' demands, mainstream television news reporters finally training their attention on the growing Occupy Wall Street protest movement seem determined to cast it as the random, silly blather of an ungrateful and lazy generation of weirdos. They couldn't be more wrong and, as time will tell, may eventually be forced to accept the inevitability of their own obsolescence." On October 5, 2011, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh told his listening audience: "When I was 10 years old I was more self-sufficient than this parade of human debris calling itself Occupy Wall Street." [2] 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." [12] [3] Newt Gingrich, said "All the Occupy movements starts with the premise that we all owe them everything. Now, that is a pretty good symptom of how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country and why you need to reassert something as simple as saying to them, go get a job right after you take a bath." [13] [14] [15] [16] Rick Santorum also told the protesters to get jobs. [17]
We're not close to being finished.
This is what we have so far.
Conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic, casting the demonstrators as a thoroughly marginal group. Andrew Hartman wrote in The Chronicle Review that "many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility." [1] 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." [2] 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." [3] One tea-party group, the Tea Party Patriots, issued a statement that said in part, "Those occupying Wall Street and other cities, when they are intelligible, want less of what made America great and more of what is damaging to America: a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don’t have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills.” [4] Writing in The Week, Ed Morrissey "insisted that the Occupy movement wants 'seizures and redistributions, which necessarily means more bureaucracies, higher spending, and many more opportunities for collusion between authorities and moneyed interests in one way or another.'" [5]
What is the next sentence you'd like to add?
Somedifferentstuff (
talk) 05:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
If were not going to go thru it sentence by sentence, then I'm done here. Becritical now needs to bring the paragraph over to the talk page and see if he can get some form of consensus to add it. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 22:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
This case is now closed and a RfC has been opened on the talk page. In the future, do exactly as you did for this dispute: discuss on the talk page, bring it to the dispute reoslution noticeboard when there is no productivity on the talk page and if necessary, you can make a RfC yourselves like I did for this dispute to see which version the community prefers. I'll be keeping an eye on the RfC and monitoring its progress. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Regards, Whenaxis ( contribs) 01:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
mediaite
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | Occupy Wall Street |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 01:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! |
Parties involved | Active
Inactive |
Mediator(s) | Whenaxis |
Comment | RfC on talk page which I will be monitoring. |
Reactions to Occupy Wall Street ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The criticism section of the article, "Reactions to Occupy Wall Street".
Help mediate this process to completion, rather than the "losing party" try again in 6 weeks or say on the talk page "well since the issue has died down, I'm now re-proposing xyz" because that endless process never ends. Let's finally address npov, rs, and the policies which are relevant here under the supervision of uninvolved professionals who want to help us.
Do you realise that mediation requires an open mind, collaborating together in an environment of camaraderie and mutual respect, with the understanding that to reach a solution, compromise is required?
Please sign just your username below, as well as Agree or Disagree, with four tildes (~~~~) to indicate your agreement or disagreement with the ground rules and your participation in the case. These shouldn't be taken lightly. If you agree to these it is expected you will abide by them.
Be——Critical 01:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 01:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
†This can only be done if all parties add this page to their watchlist and keep an eye on this mediation and participate as best they can to discussions. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 01:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Closed by Whenaxis ( contribs) at 01:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
While I appreciate the mention, I'm afraid I'll need to ask for some further clarification of what the dispute is about? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
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."
![]() | The embedded section of the page, " Mediaite", was moved to this mediation's talk page to save space. Don't take it personally, it's just for better structure and flow Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 01:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC) |
I have to confess I don't see the harm regardless of which way this dispute comes out. Generally, though, I lean towards inclusion of anything relevant that (a) can be given mainstream and sourcing, and (b) doesn't disrupt a well-maintained balance of viewpoint. I don't think (b) has ever applied to anything regarding OWS; it's too unwieldy to balance, and thus the result has been a kitchen-sink approach, with most of the thoughtful effort being devoted to organizing the mass of material that's included.
Thus, since Glenn Beck is a fixture in the mainstream (despite having views I generally consider as borderline-fringe), why not quote him? Or, to reiterate, what's the harm if he's quoted instead of paraphrased? And, not for nothing, but how would one go about paraphrasing a bombastic comment like that, anyway? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic, casting the demonstrators as "envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility." A Tea Party group said the protesters want "a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don't have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills."
[1] Brian Montopoli, writing for
CBS News said that "The conservative criticism of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that it is a "growing mob" (House majority leader Eric Cantor) of "shiftless protestors" (The Tea Party Express) engaged in "class warfare" (GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain)."
[2] Matthew Continetti, also writing for CBS, said that conservatives "dismiss the movement as a fringe collection of left tendencies, along with assorted homeless, mental cases, and petty criminals."
[3] Mitt Romney claimed the protesters are "waging "class warfare," and
Herman Cain said they were "anti-American"."
[4] 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."
[5]
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."
[6]
Newt Gingrich, said "All the Occupy movements starts with the premise that we all owe them everything. Now, that is a pretty good symptom of how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country and why you need to reassert something as simple as saying to them, go get a job right after you take a bath."
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
Rick Santorum also told the protesters to get jobs.
[11]
References
|
I already addressed the "undue weight" objection: the source is WP:MAINSTREAM, that is, a more scholarly source than, say, a mainstream news outlet. Also, the gist of the sentence is supported by many sources. Thus I disagree with you that this source which gives us a generalization, is used in an UNDUE way, because all the other sources back it up and there is no source giving any counterclaim, and it is in accord with common sense/knowledge and the quotations. I think the other parts of what you're saying have a lot of merit, but what we would need to do is to eliminate the criticism section altogether. If the criticism section remains, all or most of the material belongs there. Otherwise it could be spread throughout the article. But let me ask you this: where else in the article would we discuss the general conservative reaction to OWS versus individual reactions? Be——Critical 05:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is a link to the discussion on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard - Wikipedia:RSN#The_Chronicle_of_Higher_Education. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 12:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe others will have a different take, but if I were to summarize the discussion at RS/N I would say:
Be——Critical 20:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm realizing I already presented alternate versions. The summary version was criticized as not giving enough attribution and people wanted me to make a draft where every word was sourced. The quotation version was not criticized as heavily: it includes very specific attribution. The main criticism I think by Strad, was that it was too long. However, considering the prominence of the sources and subjects, I think it may deserve the space per WEIGHT. I also presented a medium version between the two, in response to the criticism that the quotations were too long. So here is a new version of the first two sentences which at least makes the first one more general and moderate:
Conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic, casting the demonstrators as a thoroughly marginal group [not OR, this comes from "outside the mainstream"]. Andrew Hartman wrote in
The Chronicle Review that "many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility. 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.""
[3]
If we portray the sources accurately, there's no getting away from actually showing readers of what the vitriol consisted. Be——Critical 20:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
You need to post the paragraph you want to include so we can look at it here. I'm fine with using Andrew Hartman as long as it is attributed to him. We have quite a bit more work to do. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 22:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
This is the new version |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Quotation versionConservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic, casting the demonstrators as a thoroughly marginal group. Andrew Hartman wrote in The Chronicle Review that "many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility." [3] Kate Zernike said in The New York Times that the Tea Party Patriots "portrayed Occupy protesters as freeloaders, or would-be freeloaders: 'Those occupying Wall Street and other cities, when they are intelligible, want less of what made America great and more of what is damaging to America: a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don’t have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills.'" [5] Brian Montopoli, writing for CBS News said that "The conservative criticism of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that it is a "growing mob" (House majority leader Eric Cantor) of "shiftless protestors" (The Tea Party Express) engaged in "class warfare" (GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain) whose grievances - whatever they are - are far outside the political mainstream." [6] Matthew Continetti, also writing for CBS, said that conservatives "dismiss the movement as a fringe collection of left tendencies, along with assorted homeless, mental cases, and petty criminals." [4] Linda Colley said in The Guardian "A prime reason for this diffidence is suggested by some of the Republican attacks on Occupy. The demonstrators were "mobs", said Eric Cantor, the House minority leader. Occupy was waging "class warfare", claimed Mitt Romney, an accusation some Republicans also level at Obama. But it was a rival of Romney for the Republican nomination, Herman Cain, who voiced the criticism Democrats and demonstrators here fear most. Occupy, and those backing it, according to Cain, are "anti-American"." [7] Douglas Rushkoff, in a special to CNN said that "Like the spokesmen for Arab dictators feigning bewilderment over protesters' demands, mainstream television news reporters finally training their attention on the growing Occupy Wall Street protest movement seem determined to cast it as the random, silly blather of an ungrateful and lazy generation of weirdos. They couldn't be more wrong and, as time will tell, may eventually be forced to accept the inevitability of their own obsolescence." On October 5, 2011, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh told his listening audience: "When I was 10 years old I was more self-sufficient than this parade of human debris calling itself Occupy Wall Street." [1] 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." [2] Newt Gingrich, said "All the Occupy movements starts with the premise that we all owe them everything. Now, that is a pretty good symptom of how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country and why you need to reassert something as simple as saying to them, go get a job right after you take a bath." [8] [9] [10] [11] Rick Santorum also told the protesters to get jobs. [12] References
|
So this is what we have (WORK IN PROGRESS)
Conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic, casting the demonstrators as a thoroughly marginal group. Andrew Hartman wrote in The Chronicle Review that "many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility." [1] 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." [2] 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." [3] One tea-party group, the Tea Party Patriots, issued a statement that said in part, "Those occupying Wall Street and other cities, when they are intelligible, want less of what made America great and more of what is damaging to America: a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don’t have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills.” [4] Writing in The Week, Ed Morrissey "insisted that the Occupy movement wants 'seizures and redistributions, which necessarily means more bureaucracies, higher spending, and many more opportunities for collusion between authorities and moneyed interests in one way or another.'" [5]
For the third sentence there is a problem.
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." This violates WP:Plagiarism as it's the exact sentence taken from the article.
I think this should read: A widely distributed statement by one Tea Party group was that 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." If there is agreement on this we can move on to the next sentence. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 00:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
So here that is.
Andrew Hartman wrote in The Chronicle Review that "many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility. 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.'"
I think this needs paraphrasing or we can change it using my earlier suggestion. I need to head out shortly but I'll definitely check back in tomorrow. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 00:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I prefer to use a full quote regarding "a bigger more powerful government." Here is the source: [2]. The sentence would be:
One tea-party group, the Tea Party Patriots, issued a statement that said in part, "Those occupying Wall Street and other cities, when they are intelligible, want less of what made America great and more of what is damaging to America: a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don’t have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills.” Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 21:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
We don't need an endless amount of quotes because that'll be too overpowering and no longer provide due weight. Are we all fine with including all the quotes Somedifferentstuff just used? Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 00:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
This is from the NY Times article and is something that can be included: "Conservatives are trying to define the Occupy protesters before the protesters define themselves. Ed Morrissey, writing in The Week, insisted that the Occupy movement wants “seizures and redistributions, which necessarily means more bureaucracies, higher spending, and many more opportunities for collusion between authorities and moneyed interests in one way or another.”" Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 01:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Added Limbaugh and Beck. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 12:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I'd like to say again that we should use quotes from notable people (well-known people), not who's-that-person type of quote. Use only quotes that are representative of the entire population of Conservatives, not just a few. And use only quotes that are from high quality sources (which you've been doing, so that's good) Remember that and we'll be well on our way. :) Whenaxis ( contribs) 20:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I incorporated the quote and I'm posting the version below for final approval.
Conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic, casting the demonstrators as a thoroughly marginal group. Andrew Hartman wrote in The Chronicle Review that "many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility." [1] Kate Zernike said in The New York Times that the Tea Party Patriots "portrayed Occupy protesters as freeloaders, or would-be freeloaders: 'Those occupying Wall Street and other cities, when they are intelligible, want less of what made America great and more of what is damaging to America: a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don’t have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills.'" [7] Brian Montopoli, writing for CBS News said that "The conservative criticism of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that it is a "growing mob" (House majority leader Eric Cantor) of "shiftless protestors" (The Tea Party Express) engaged in "class warfare" (GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain) whose grievances - whatever they are - are far outside the political mainstream." [8] Matthew Continetti, also writing for CBS, said that conservatives "dismiss the movement as a fringe collection of left tendencies, along with assorted homeless, mental cases, and petty criminals." [9] "Conservatives [have tried to] define the Occupy protesters before the protesters define themselves. Ed Morrissey, writing in The Week, insisted that the Occupy movement wants “seizures and redistributions, which necessarily means more bureaucracies, higher spending, and many more opportunities for collusion between authorities and moneyed interests in one way or another." [10] Linda Colley said in The Guardian "A prime reason for [the diffidence between Democratic and Republican responses to OWS] is suggested by some of the Republican attacks on Occupy. The demonstrators were "mobs", said Eric Cantor, the House minority leader. Occupy was waging "class warfare", claimed Mitt Romney, an accusation some Republicans also level at Obama. But it was a rival of Romney for the Republican nomination, Herman Cain, who voiced the criticism Democrats and demonstrators here fear most. Occupy, and those backing it, according to Cain, are "anti-American"." [11] Douglas Rushkoff, in a special to CNN said that "Like the spokesmen for Arab dictators feigning bewilderment over protesters' demands, mainstream television news reporters finally training their attention on the growing Occupy Wall Street protest movement seem determined to cast it as the random, silly blather of an ungrateful and lazy generation of weirdos. They couldn't be more wrong and, as time will tell, may eventually be forced to accept the inevitability of their own obsolescence." On October 5, 2011, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh told his listening audience: "When I was 10 years old I was more self-sufficient than this parade of human debris calling itself Occupy Wall Street." [2] 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." [12] [3] Newt Gingrich, said "All the Occupy movements starts with the premise that we all owe them everything. Now, that is a pretty good symptom of how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country and why you need to reassert something as simple as saying to them, go get a job right after you take a bath." [13] [14] [15] [16] Rick Santorum also told the protesters to get jobs. [17]
We're not close to being finished.
This is what we have so far.
Conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic, casting the demonstrators as a thoroughly marginal group. Andrew Hartman wrote in The Chronicle Review that "many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility." [1] 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." [2] 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." [3] One tea-party group, the Tea Party Patriots, issued a statement that said in part, "Those occupying Wall Street and other cities, when they are intelligible, want less of what made America great and more of what is damaging to America: a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don’t have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills.” [4] Writing in The Week, Ed Morrissey "insisted that the Occupy movement wants 'seizures and redistributions, which necessarily means more bureaucracies, higher spending, and many more opportunities for collusion between authorities and moneyed interests in one way or another.'" [5]
What is the next sentence you'd like to add?
Somedifferentstuff (
talk) 05:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
If were not going to go thru it sentence by sentence, then I'm done here. Becritical now needs to bring the paragraph over to the talk page and see if he can get some form of consensus to add it. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 22:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
This case is now closed and a RfC has been opened on the talk page. In the future, do exactly as you did for this dispute: discuss on the talk page, bring it to the dispute reoslution noticeboard when there is no productivity on the talk page and if necessary, you can make a RfC yourselves like I did for this dispute to see which version the community prefers. I'll be keeping an eye on the RfC and monitoring its progress. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Regards, Whenaxis ( contribs) 01:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
mediaite
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).