Talk:Occupy Democrats

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2021

{{subst:trim|1= Occupy Democrats' is a United States-based, left-wing media outlet built around a Facebook Group and corresponding website. Established in 2012 to counterbalance the Republican "Tea Party" online presence, it publishes memes and links to media stories relating to United States politics. Some critics have accused Occupy Democrats of spreading false information, hyperpartisan content,

FenrirKyramud (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Sirdog9002 (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Need Review

This article is extremely biased. 2602:306:83B3:6D20:68AB:6831:B9BA:479A (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree - this article stresses extreme criticism of the subject, mostly voiced by extreme elements of the political Right in America. 65.78.7.86 (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree... disgusting John Greally (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Lots of misleading information in the wiki Arashitora (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Newslinger talk 12:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Gun stance

They are not totally anti-gun. In February 2022 they approved and cheered Ukraine president handing out rifles to civilians Joaeko (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

References

The article currently doesn't mention guns, so it looks like this has been removed. — Newslinger talk 12:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2022

Dear All,

I am the new Executive Editor of Occupy Democrats having started implementing journalistic controls in 2020 and taking over the news website in 2022. As our masthead indicates (there was not one in the past), the Rivero brothers are solely acting in the capacity of website publishers now, they don't control the newsroom in an editorial capacity (or even enter its chatroom). We properly handle the news, opinion, and analysis stories. That is why we earned a 100/100 rating from NewsGuard for our truthful portrayal of the news and our improved journalistic practices. Our journalism criteria and pledge to the public are here:

https://occupydemocrats.com/about-us/

But this is not just a short-term improvement over the poor stories written starting in 2017. The site received a poor rating from NewsGuard, an independent 3rd-party rating company that assigns real people to thoroughly review a site's content. They reviewed two years' worth of our content, questioned our sources, and sometimes pointed out articles that required correction. Anyone with a Microsoft Edge browser can see the NewsGuard rating for free, and the rating history.

https://www.newsguardtech.com/ratings/rating-process-criteria/

What changed? Our implementation of new criteria for handling news/opinion/analysis stories (older stories are labeled as legacy reports or "politics" but do not fall under the new system) and our multi-year track record of correcting inaccuracies when discovered, purging the website of anonymous author's accounts, and a complete break with old editors and old policies that lacked the essential disclosures the public needed to evaluate our work. On top of that, OccupyDemocrats.com retained an entirely new staff of four writers who are both reputable and contribute quality content to our website, including exclusive reports observing journalistic standards for confirming information before publication, and seeking comment when appropriate.

It is understood that past editorial management at the OccupyDemocrats.com website was opaque and did not adhere to any known standards, but that is we have worked tremendously to re-orient our news offering to be a high-value complement to the meme makers' opinion posts and other content on the Facebook page. The Facebook page team constantly strives for accuracy too, but as noted, gets more attention for its mistakes which it ALWAYS corrects when discovered - this is verifiable too - which is the journalistically appropriate way to handle erroneous content.

I write all of this in the hopes that someone will review the OccupyDemocrats.com website and the NewsGuard rating and update the heading of our Wikipedia appropriately. Wikipedia is considered a basic resource for millions of people, but our listing focuses on events that are often 5-7 years in the past and overlooks other things that would show both the website and the Facebook page to be extremely prolific and only occasionally erroneous. A team of people works hard to publish approximately 15,000 pieces of content onto Facebook annually, alongside the website's 2000-3000 stories. But fact checks draw the most attention, not the thousands of wholly accurate posts or the ones that are simply political opinions and not a matter of fact or not.

Thank you,

Grant grantstern@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantstern (talk • contribs) 18:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, Grantstern. How do you want it updated and what WP:RS can you provide that we should use to update it? Chetsford (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Grantstern - I've found a few more updated sources and added two paragraphs to the end of the section "Evaluation by Media". Let me know if there's anything else. Chetsford (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I would like for our website's NewsGuard rating and some of its contents to be used in covering our group. The ratings period for this rating stretches from 2020-early 2022, and they review a significant slice of our news website's offerings. We reformed our website in 2020 to divide news, news analysis and opinion stories, which made a major improvement overall in our editorial quality.

https://api.newsguardtech.com/label/occupydemocrats.com?cid=a4e81495-6f90-4b8c-b4c0-183b75d2df8e

(A copy can be provided upon request in PDF format)

Furthermore, please consider a wholesale review of our page to do three things.

1) OD has a news division that publishes the news website and an editorial opinion division that publishes everything else. All disclosed here:

https://occupydemocrats.com/about-us/

2) Sharing with readers that under new management, OD made significant news website editorial changes starting in 2020, resulting in our news website site publishing high-quality information and properly labeled opinion per NewsGuard which is the gold standard of 3rd party reviewers that conduct a whole of website review.

3) Put into context the number of false content ratings against our Facebook page content versus the totality of the information shared. We publish approximately 14,000 pieces of original content per year (video/image/memes) and only have a tiny number of those which draw a fact check. The number of negative fact checks between 2016 and today is FAR lower because we have implemented better editorial standards.

Thank you for your consideration. Grantstern (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Grantstern. Unfortunately, the source you cited [1] for the claim that Occupy Democrats "has a news division that publishes the news website and an editorial opinion division that publishes everything else" is from Occupy Democrats, which is not considered reliable by Wikipedia. (see here [2]) Wikipedia is built on reliable sources. Chetsford (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Chetsford: WP:RSP doesn't apply when the source is talking about itself. In this case the relevant policy is WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, and we can use such a source with attribution, as in "Occupy Democrats says that it has two divisions, a news division and an editorial division." ~Anachronist (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree with your conclusion in the strongest possible terms. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, a questionable source cannot be used as information about itself when it is "unduly self-serving" and there is "reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". A website presenting itself as a news source has a clear pecuniary interest in creating the image of editorial normalcy in its operations. Trying to jam in the clunky phrase "Occupy Democrats has two divisions, a news division and an editorial division" is extremely problematic, even with attribution. If this organizational point is WP:DUE, we should be able to attribute it to RS versus a clickbait site. Chetsford (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Journalistic controls aren't self-serving, they serve the public. That is why Occupy changed editors, added journalistic controls and ended the "clickbait" form of reporting on our news websites. That is how OccupyDemocrats.com, which is run by an LLC, earned a 100/100 rating by NewsGuard which is a neutral 3rd party reviewer whose ratings are publicly accessible with subscriber's only reports that I'd be happy to share for anyone who wants more details. Now, the publishers only put their editorial opinions and political posts for their PAC only on the social media networks, while our news journalism team (two editors, two writers plus irregular contributors) publish separate work on our news websites and label stories properly as news, analysis or opinion. The titles are reasonably reflect the stories now. Disclosures are made, and so are corrections. You can review our site (as NewsGuard does) and see that none of the published work for the last 4 years is by the publishers, conversely, besides the links, none of the social media posts without links are by the news editor or writers. This Wikipedia article misses the last eight years of evolution which included making major changes to the way our news websites are structured.

Your fair consideration is much appreciated in this matter. Grantstern (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The community has determined that NewsGuard is not a reliable source. Chetsford (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2022

This article was edited by someone who was biased against the platform, they provided no evidence to support their claim that this platform is actually hyperpartisan, or publishes false information or clickbait. Please correct. 2601:602:CA00:A900:E4F8:9092:BF5F:7BC3 (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: seems pretty thoroughly sourced Cannolis (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

This is clearly being edited by someone who is biased against the platform. Using the word "false" in the intro is judgemental. This is a global encyclopedia and such terms are against the MoS. Mark^Dask 01:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you show me where exactly on that giant linked page it says that you can't call things "false"? False is not a judgemental word when sources say that an outlet publishes false information, just like the right-wing equivalent Breitbart. Judgement is calling things "boring" or "interesting", which is only opinion, while it's established by sources left and right that this website publishes fake information. The citations include two universities, the Atlantic and the Washington Post, far from biased conservative sites. I don't why being a "global" website means we have to whitewash something. Sounds like you have a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2023

In the "evaluation by media" section, none of the recent fact checks include that the erroneous posts were later corrected. The links to those posts are within the fact checks.

None of that section distinguishes that it is only about Facebook posts and not about the editorially independent news website.

Also, please see my reply to the edit request below.

Lastly, see the commentary below that this listing uses years-old articles to falsely portray Occupy Democrats as an organization whose mission is to spread misinformation when in fact, there are no false fact checks about our editorial news website, and 100% of Facebook posts with errors have been corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantstern (talk • contribs) 00:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I rearranged the comment sections in chronological order, so "the edit request below" is now "the edit request above". New comments go at the bottom of the page.

@Grantstern: If you have specific changes to propose, in the form "change X to Y" or "add X after Y" or "remove X", please propose them with citations to reliable sources, or specify exactly which sources already in this article apply to your proposal. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Censorship

Occupy Democrats routinely censors by blocking Facebook commenters who post information contrary to their opinions or facts that disprove their contentions. 24.40.99.66 (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Isn't that how Facebook works in general? Everyone is able to block dissenting views from their space. Twitter works that way too I think. What point are you trying to make here. What does this have to do with improving the article? ~Anachronist (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2025

Occupy Democrats is not fake news, it is one of the sites that actually tell the truth about life in America, anyone who claims they are fake are definitely lying. I think this was edited Americans 2601:981:100:8AE0:3891:C3DC:7D1E:ED43 (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. veko. (user | talk | contribs) 14:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2025

This page requires multiple factual and technical edits - in fact, it reads like a poorly-constructed hatchet job:

1) Under the heading "History", the article begins by citing a blatantly and demonstrably false (and defamatory) accusation which needs to be removed: "In September 2022, Occupy Democrats was accused of having raised almost $800,000 for its election fund and donating none of the money to federal candidates, and of donating $250,000 from the fund to Blue Deal LLC, a company owned by Rafael Rivero.[29]"

The cited article quotes a Twitter post who claimed Occupy Democrats' PAC (Blue Deal LLC) donated no money to any candidates, but OPenSecrets clearly shows that Blue Deal LL donated exactly $1,885,324 to 51 different named candidates and election-involved organizations: https://www.opensecrets.org/campaign-expenditures/vendor?cycle=2022&vendor=Blue+Deal+LLC

The cited source is full of a number of similar gross inaccuracies, and has a retraction at the top of the article noting that due to a similarity in names to a campaign sign-selling sign business called THE Blue Deal, Occupy Democrats' PAC name was changed from Blue Deal to Blue Digital Strategies.

Note that the name change did NOT occur until after the 2022 campaign. The 2024 election cycle, Blue Digital Strategies continued to donate similarly, in the amount of $1,259,000 to a handful of the same candidates they supported in 2022: https://web.archive.org/web/20230320095106/https://www.dailydot.com/debug/occupy-democrats-election-fund-controversy/#:~:text=Correction%3A%20The,regrets%20the%20error.

2) The Occupy Democrats website listed in the article does not in fact exist. https://www.occupydemocrats.com returns a (404) Not Found error, and this is corroborated by MXtoolbox.com. There are both Facebook and Instagram pages for the group.

3) Under the section entitled "Accuracy", the first source cited (#14) for labeling Occupy Democrats as "hyperpartisan" (a highly derogatory, extremely subjective, and in itself partisan label) is a website flagged by antivirus protection as suspicious for dropping "PUPs" (potentially unwanted programs - i.e. spyware and trojans):

cited source domain is flagged for dropping potentially unwanted programs (i.s. spyware, adware) on website browsing computers.

.

4) the second source (#22) cited for labeling Occupy Democrats as "hyperpartisan" falsely uses an example meme which CORRECTLY asserted in July 2016 "Four Floridians were infected with Zika virus after the Republicans' Congress voted down a bill to provide funding for Zika prevention". This was IN FACT TRUE AT THE TIME.

In July 2016, the CDC DID confirm four Forida residents had become infected with Zika: https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/media/releases/2016/p0729-florida-zika-cases.html

and the Republican-led Congress DID block funding on a Bill for a full EIGHT MONTHS before it was finally approved, a subject of legitimate and intense concern for the American public for nearly an entire year: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/zika-virus-outbreak/zika-funding-delay-congress-puts-americans-risk-obama-says-n638611 https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/28/495806979/congress-ends-spat-over-zika-funding-approves-1-1-billion

ALSO OF NOTE, the aforementioned citation does NOT in fact call Occupy Democrats "hyperpartisan".

5) the third citation (#50) also does NOT call Occupy Democrats "hyperpartisan".

6) An additional citation (#17) in not an unbiased arbiter, as she has written at least one article effusively praising extreme rightwing podcaster Joe Rogan: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10304312.2023.2198682#abstract

7) the final main citation under "Accuracy" (#51) refers to a single poster created by a librarian which hung in the University of Merced for a short time, and has since been removed. Thus, this citation is neither timely nor provably unbiased: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10304312.2023.2198682#abstract

Thus, being subjective, inflammatory, highly biased, and in at least two cases falsely) attributed to numerous dubious, partisan and/or unreliable sources, the word "hyperpartisan" should be removed from this article.

8) the word "clickbait" is a loaded, derogatory, partisan and term, and the sources cited for it are also partisan, including the previously mentioned #17 and the Mormon writer McKay Coppins. As a loaded, biased term, it should be removed from the article.

Under "Evaluation by the media", the following biased sources were quoted: 8) Brooke Binkowski, who wrote an article at Snopes discrediting Occupy Democrats was abruptly fired, and is arguably not a trustworthy source (#33). This should be noted in the citation: https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2018/snopes-fired-its-managing-editor-%C2%97-and-she-doesnt-know-why/

9) Mormon writer McKay Coppins is also cited (#16), though he is also, by dint of his faith, demonstrably not unbiased. This should be noted in the citation.

10) Buzzfeed is a shopping and entertainment meme aggregator (#52). It is not a credible source of news, and this citation should be removed from the article.

11) The third paragraph under "Evaluation by the media" is crafted to initially make it sound like Politifact considers Occupy Democrats to be a source of "fake news". HHOWEVER, buried further in the paragraph its noted that Politifact CORRECTED the posting by a single biased contributor, publicly stating that Occupy Democrats is NOT a source of fake news and admitting its mistake: https://web.archive.org/web/20180411042719/http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/politifact-removes-fake-news-tag-from-occupy-democrats-showing-difficulty-of-fact-checking-role-9709463

12) The claim that Trump told Time magazine he would force women to be monitored was in fact a quote from Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe; Occupy Democrats posted a quote from a foremost, noted national expert. This context should be added to the allegations: https://x.com/tribelaw/status/1785643074493776151

13) the claim that Occupy Democrats was voted the least trusted news source is disingenuous, as Occupy Democrats is a political activist and fundraising group, not a news source. Additionally, numerous sources show no such mention, and thus, this inaccurate mischaracterization should be removed: https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/52272-trust-in-media-2025-which-news-sources-americans-use-and-trust https://guides.library.harvard.edu/newsleans/thechart https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2025/06/10/the-political-gap-in-americans-news-sources/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Infographics/comments/1egwe0a/americas_most_trustworthy_news_organizations_in/#lightbox

14) Article states "In March 2023, Occupy Democrats posted content to its social media channels that claimed "156 congressional Republicans … just voted to RAISE the retirement age to 70 [sic]".

In fact, the meme was largely accurate, as the Republican Study Committee (80 percent of House Republicans) DID vote for a draft bill to raise the Social Security eligibility age; the proposed budget was released the following spring, as reported here: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4545538-house-republicans-retirement-age-increase/

15) the allegation that Occupy Democrats posted "false" claims that Trump increased the national debt more than any other president is itself false and should be removed. Trump DID increase the national debt by more than any other president, as noted in articles by the Council on Foreign Relations: https://www.cfr.org/blog/election-2024-united-states-has-debt-problem#:~:text=Under%20Donald%20Trump%2C%20the%20U.S.%20national%20debt%20grew%20by%20nearly%20%248%20trillion%2C%20or%20roughly%2025%20percent%20of%20the%20debt%20the%20United%20States%20accumulated%20during%20its%20first%20227%20years%20of%20existence.

by Congress itself, quoting a Propublica article on the house.gov website: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20250205/117856/HHRG-119-GO00-20250205-SD008.pdf

and by the Council for a Responsible Federal Budget: https://www.crfb.org/papers/trump-and-biden-national-debt

16) the allegedly "false claim that guns were not allowed at the 2023 NRA convention was in fact ACCURATE as reported by NPR here. Thus this false allegation should also be removed: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/nra-convention-draws-top-gop-2024-hopefuls-in-the-wake-of-mass-shootings#:~:text=His%20Secret%20Service%20protection%20means%20attendees%20can%E2%80%99t%20have%20guns%20at%20the%20convention.

Thank you for your kind attention to details and commitment to accuracy.

Respectfully, Eric Smith Ourmaninboston (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I updated the article per requests #1 and #2. Request #3 does not say why, under our WP:RS or any other policy/guideline, the source cited should not be used and content sourced to it removed. I haven't reviewed the rest of the requests except to note they don't meet the standards for edit requests. Requests must be formatted as actionable items (i.e. "the request must be of the form "please change X to Y""), not a list of generalized complaints and grievances. Please feel free to reformat and resubmit. Chetsford (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Update: I've kept the website occupydemocrats.com under External Links. Reliable sources indicate this is the URL associated with Occupy Democrats, whether or not it is -- in fact -- functional. [3], [4] If there is a more current source that state it is not the website, then we can remove it. Chetsford (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2025

List of requests

1. Changes in the Lead Section's Initial Text and Citations Change: (Original): '''Occupy Democrats''' is an American [[Left-wing politics|left-wing]]{{refn|name=left-wing|<ref>{{cite news |last1=Menn |first1=Joseph |title=Russia seen adopting new tactics in U.S. election interference efforts |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russia-idUSKCN1NB0PI |access-date=December 16, 2020 |work=[[Reuters]] |date=November 5, 2018 |archive-date=January 11, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210111203230/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russia-idUSKCN1NB0PI |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Bias, Fake News, Hoaxes, & Lies |url=https://redwoods.libguides.com/fakenews/leftright |website=redwoods.libguides.com |publisher=[[College of the Redwoods]] |access-date=December 16, 2020 |archive-date=January 11, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210111220442/https://redwoods.libguides.com/fakenews/leftright |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Shammas-2017"/><ref name="Benkler-2018"/><ref name="Dwoskin-2021" />}} media outlet built around a [[Facebook page]] and corresponding website. Established in 2012, it publishes [[hyperpartisan]] content,{{refn|name=hyperpartisan|<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Barfar|first=Arash|date=2019-12-01|title=Cognitive and affective responses to political disinformation in Facebook|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563219302699|journal=[[Computers in Human Behavior]]|language=en|volume=101|page=175|doi=10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.026|s2cid=199884854|issn=0747-5632|quote=To construct the political disinformation sample, we focused on Facebook posts from ten popular sources that are known for promulgating political disinformation in Facebook...Among the selected hyper-partisan disinformation sources...Addicting Info, AlterNet, Daily KOS, and Occupy Democrats are extreme Liberal.|via=[[Science Direct]]|access-date=July 10, 2021|archive-date=December 9, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211209194116/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563219302699|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Marwick|first=Alice E.|author-link=Alice Marwick|date=2018-03-22|title=Why do People Share Fake News? A Sociotechnical Model of Media Effects|url=https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&issn=&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA560926928&sid=googleScholar&linkaccess=abs|journal=The Georgetown Law Technology Review|language=English|publisher=[[Georgetown University Law Center]]|volume=2|issue=2|pages=474–513|quote=The term "fake news"...expanded to include hyper-partisan news sites like Breitbart, DailyCaller, and Occupy Democrats...|via=[[Gale OneFile]]|access-date=July 10, 2021|archive-date=August 17, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230817131438/https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&issn=&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA560926928&sid=googleScholar&linkaccess=abs&userGroupName=anon%7E76cdd6&aty=open-web-entry|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=LaFrance|first=Adrienne|author-link=Adrienne LaFrance|date=December 15, 2020|title=Facebook Is a Doomsday Machine|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/12/facebook-doomsday-machine/617384/|url-status=live|access-date=2021-07-10|website=[[The Atlantic]]|language=en|quote=Zuckerberg authorized a tweak to the Facebook algorithm so that high-accuracy news sources such as NPR would receive preferential visibility in people's feeds, and hyper-partisan pages such as Breitbart News's and Occupy Democrats' would be buried...|archive-date=July 5, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210705120514/https://www.atlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/12/facebook-doomsday-machine/617384/}}</ref><ref name="Shammas-2017"/><ref name="Benkler-2018"/><ref>{{Cite book|last1=Horne|first1=Benjamin D.|last2=Dron|first2=William|last3=Khedr|first3=Sara|last4=Adali|first4=Sibel |title=WWW '18: Companion Proceedings of The Web Conference 2018 |chapter=Assessing the News Landscape: A Multi-Module Toolkit for Evaluating the Credibility of News |author-link4=Sibel Adalı|date=2018-04-23 |publisher=[[Association for Computing Machinery]]|pages=235–238|doi=10.1145/3184558.3186987|isbn=978-1-4503-5640-4|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Sturm Wilkerson |first1=Heloisa |last2=Riedl |first2=Martin J. |last3=Whipple |first3=Kelsey N. |date=2021-04-14 |title=Affective Affordances: Exploring Facebook Reactions as Emotional Responses to Hyperpartisan Political News |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21670811.2021.1899011 |journal=[[Digital Journalism (journal)|Digital Journalism]] |language=en |volume=9 |issue=8 |pages=1040–1061|doi=10.1080/21670811.2021.1899011 |issn=2167-0811 |quote=In this study, we focus our attention on hyperpartisan news content from the left (e.g. NowThis, Upworthy, The Young Turks, Occupy Democrats)... |s2cid=234853464 |access-date=July 15, 2021 |archive-date=July 15, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210715050338/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21670811.2021.1899011 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref name="Forney-2017">{{cite news |last1=Forney |first1=Ben |date=September 25, 2017 |title=All the Fake News That's Fit to Print |work=[[Asan Institute for Policy Studies]] |url=http://en.asaninst.org/contents/all-the-fake-news-thats-fit-to-print/#17 |access-date=January 4, 2021 |quote=Today, partisan Facebook groups such as Occupy Democrats continue to share both real and fake news to their millions of followers, further blurring the line between fact and fiction. |archive-date=August 17, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230817131426/http://en.asaninst.org/contents/all-the-fake-news-thats-fit-to-print/#17 |url-status=live }}</ref>}} [[clickbait]],{{refn|name=clickbait|<ref name="Coppins-2017"/><ref name="Rae-2020">{{cite journal |last1=Rae |first1=Maria |title=Hyperpartisan news: Rethinking the media for populist politics |journal=[[New Media and Society]] |date=March 5, 2020 |volume=23 |issue=5 |pages=1117–1132 |doi=10.1177/1461444820910416 |s2cid=216172926 |quote=Occupy Democrats are likewise focused on attacking Trump ... through their clickbait style of reporting, which has been criticised as 'fake news'. |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1461444820910416 |access-date=January 4, 2021 |archive-date=January 5, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220105175143/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1461444820910416 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref name="KING-TV-2016">{{cite news |title=Breitbart, Occupy Democrats among list of alleged fake, misleading news sites to avoid |url=https://www.king5.com/article/features/breitbart-occupy-democrats-among-list-of-alleged-fake-misleading-news-sites-to-avoid/281-353394898 |access-date=December 16, 2020 |work=[[KING-TV]] |date=November 17, 2016 |archive-date=January 11, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210111175442/https://www.king5.com/article/features/breitbart-occupy-democrats-among-list-of-alleged-fake-misleading-news-sites-to-avoid/281-353394898 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last1=Faris |first1=Robert M. |last2=Roberts |first2=Hal |last3=Etling |first3=Bruce |last4=Bourassa |first4=Nikki |last5=Zuckerman |first5=Ethan |last6=Benkler |first6=Yochai |date=2017 |title=Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election |url=https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/33759251 |journal= |language=en-US |publisher=[[Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society]] |issn=3375-9251 |access-date=October 23, 2022 |archive-date=October 23, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221023001249/https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/33759251 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Carrasco-Farré |first=Carlos |date=2022-05-09 |title=The fingerprints of misinformation: how deceptive content differs from reliable sources in terms of cognitive effort and appeal to emotions |journal=Humanities and Social Sciences Communications |language=en |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=1–18 |doi=10.1057/s41599-022-01174-9 |s2cid=248682693 |issn=2662-9992|doi-access=free }}</ref>}} and [[Misinformation|false information]]. (Revised): '''Occupy Democrats''' is an American [[Left-wing politics|democratic]] media outlet that has emerged as a counterweight to right-wing meme machines.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Corasaniti |first1=Nick |title=How Immigrant Twin Brothers Are Beating Trump’s Team on Facebook |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/18/us/politics/occupy-democrats-facebook.html |access-date=August 2, 2025 |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=May 18, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Jarvis |first1=Jeff |title=From Media to Memes: Lessons from Occupy Democrats |url=https://medium.com/whither-news/from-media-to-memes-lessons-from-occupy-democrats-6e2d470e1868 |access-date=August 2, 2025 |website=Medium |date=August 5, 2016}}</ref> It was started eight years ago as a Facebook page by Rafael and Omar Rivero, with Omar Rivero being a 2014 Democratic candidate for District 118 of the Florida House of Representatives and Founder & CEO at Tribel and Occupy Democrat.<ref>{{cite web |title=Omar Rivero |url=https://ballotpedia.org/Omar_Rivero |access-date=August 2, 2025 |website=Ballotpedia}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Omar Rivero: Founder & CEO at Tribel and Occupy Democrat |url=https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1994588/000167025423000893/document_11.pdf |access-date=August 2, 2025 |publisher=US Securities and Exchange Commission}}</ref> In 2017, posts originating from the Occupy Democrats Facebook page were among the most widely shared political content on Facebook.<ref name="Silverman-2017" /> Reason: This replaces the original biased citations and their accompanying text with the non-partisan introductory statement about Occupy Democrats' role as a counterweight to right-wing memes, and includes the provided new sources for this information and background on Omar Rivero. It also removes the direct accusation of "false information" and "clickbait" from the lead, based on previous instructions. 2. Infobox Website URL Change: (Original): | url = (Revised): | url = Reason: This change removes the non-functional URL from the infobox. 3. "History" Section - Removal of PAC Accusation Change: (Original): In September 2022, Occupy Democrats was accused of having raised almost $800,000 for its election fund and donating none of the money to federal candidates.<ref name="Thalen-2022" />{{efn|Originally named Blue Deal, LLC., the Occupy Democrats' company changed its name to Blue Digital Strategies after receiving a cease-and-desist notification from the women-owned business The Blue Deal.<ref name="Thalen-2022" />}} In response to the accusations, Omar Rivero claimed that the fund operated as a [[Super-PAC|super PAC]] and was barred from donating directly to candidates. [[Axios (website)|''Axios'']] journalist Lachlan Markay said that the election fund was actually a [[hybrid PAC]] and thus could donate to political candidates.<ref name="Thalen-2022">{{Cite web |last=Thalen |first=Mikael |date=2022-09-27 |title=Occupy Democrats cite high cost of memes after left-wing PAC accused of not distributing funds |url=https://www.dailydot.com/debug/occupy-democrats-election-fund-controversy/ |access-date=2022-10-15 |website=[[The Daily Dot]] |language=en-US |archive-date=March 20, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230320095106/https://www.dailydot.com/debug/occupy-democrats-election-fund-controversy/ |url-status=live }}</ref> (Revised): The entire paragraph, including the {{efn}} and <ref name="Thalen-2022"> and its content, was removed. Reason: This specific content was removed due to it being a "blatantly and demonstrably false (and defamatory) accusation" based on OpenSecrets data and the Daily Dot's own correction. 4. "Website" to "Social Media Presence" Change: (Original, in lead and history): ...corresponding website. (Revised, in lead and history): ...corresponding social media presence. Reason: Reflects the non-existence of a dedicated website and the active social media pages. 5. Replacement of "Left-wing" and "Hyperpartisan" with "Democratic" (Global Change) Change 1 of 2: (Original): left-wing (Revised): democratic Reason: To standardize the terminology into a non-subjective, unbiased description. Change: 2 of 2: (Original): [[hyperpartisan]] (Revised): democratic (the internal refn was also adjusted to remove direct usage of "hyperpartisan" where it applied globally to the article's own voice, while retaining quotes from sources that use the term within the refn itself for attribution). Reason: To standardize the terminology into a non-subjective, unbiased description and remove the loaded term from the article's voice. 6. Removal of "Clickbait" Terminology Change: (Original, in lead): `[[clickbait]],{{refn|name=clickbait|<ref name="Coppins-2017"/><ref name="Rae-2020">{{cite journal |last1=Rae |first1=Maria |title=Hyperpartisan news: Rethinking the media for populist politics |journal=[[New Media and Society]] |date=March 5, 2020 |volume=23 |issue=5 |pages=1117–1132 |doi=10.1177/1461444820910416 |s2cid=216172926 |quote=Occupy Democrats are likewise focused on attacking Trump ... through their clickbait style of reporting, which has been criticised as 'fake news'. |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1461444820910416 |access-date=January 4, 2021 |archive-date=January 5, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220105175143/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1461444820910416 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref name="KING-TV-2016">{{cite news |title=Breitbart, Occupy Democrats among list of alleged fake, misleading news sites to avoid |url=https://www.king5.com/article/features/breitbart-occupy-democrats-among-list-of-alleged-fake-misleading-news-sites-to-avoid/281-353394898 |access-date=December 16, 2020 |work=[[KING-TV]] |date=November 17, 2016 |archive-date=January 11, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210111175442/https://www.king5.com/article/features/breitbart-occupy-democrats-among-list-of-alleged-fake-misleading-news-sites-to-avoid/281-353394898 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last1=Faris |first1=Robert M. |last2=Roberts |first2=Hal |last3=Etling |first3=Bruce |last4=Bourassa |first4=Nikki |last5=Zuckerman |first5=Ethan |last6=Benkler |first6=Yochai |date=2017 |title=Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election |url=https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/33759251 |journal= |language=en-US |publisher=[[Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society]] |issn=3375-9251 |access-date=October 23, 2022 |archive-date=October 23, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221023001249/https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/33759251 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Carrasco-Farré |first=Carlos |date=2022-05-09 |title=The fingerprints of misinformation: how deceptive content differs from reliable sources in terms of cognitive effort and appeal to emotions |journal=Humanities and Social Sciences Communications |language=en |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=1–18 |doi=10.1057/s41599-022-01174-9 |s2cid=248682693 |issn=2662-9992|doi-access=free }}</ref> (Revised, in lead): (Removed from the direct description in the lead. It remains within some refn quotes that still mention it as a characteristic according to that source.) Reason: Removal of the subjective term "clickbait" as a direct descriptor, as requested. 7. "Accuracy" Section - Removal of Specific "Hyperpartisan" Citations Change: (Original, in "Subject matter"): Its content is [[hyperpartisan]],{{refn|name=hyperpartisan|<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Barfar|first=Arash|date=2019-12-01|title=Cognitive and affective responses to political disinformation in Facebook|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563219302699|journal=[[Computers in Human Behavior]]|language=en|volume=101|page=175|doi=10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.026|s2cid=199884854|issn=0747-5632|quote=To construct the political disinformation sample, we focused on Facebook posts from ten popular sources that are known for promulgating political disinformation in Facebook...Among the selected hyper-partisan disinformation sources...Addicting Info, AlterNet, Daily KOS, and Occupy Democrats are extreme Liberal.|via=[[Science Direct]]|access-date=July 10, 2021|archive-date=December 9, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211209194116/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563219302699|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Marwick|first=Alice E.|author-link=Alice Marwick|date=2018-03-22|title=Why do People Share Fake News? A Sociotechnical Model of Media Effects|url=https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&issn=&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA560926928&sid=googleScholar&linkaccess=abs|journal=The Georgetown Law Technology Review|language=English|publisher=[[Georgetown University Law Center]]|volume=2|issue=2|pages=474–513|quote=The term "fake news"...expanded to include hyper-partisan news sites like Breitbart, DailyCaller, and Occupy Democrats...|via=[[Gale OneFile]]|access-date=July 10, 2021|archive-date=August 17, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230817131438/https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&issn=&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA560926928&sid=googleScholar&linkaccess=abs&userGroupName=anon%7E76cdd6&aty=open-web-entry|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=LaFrance|first=Adrienne|author-link=Adrienne LaFrance|date=December 15, 2020|title=Facebook Is a Doomsday Machine|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/12/facebook-doomsday-machine/617384/|url-status=live|access-date=2021-07-10|website=[[The Atlantic]]|language=en|quote=Zuckerberg authorized a tweak to the Facebook algorithm so that high-accuracy news sources such as NPR would receive preferential visibility in people's feeds, and hyper-partisan pages such as Breitbart News's and Occupy Democrats' would be buried...|archive-date=July 5, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210705120514/https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/12/facebook-doomsday-machine/617384/}}</ref><ref name="Shammas-2017"/><ref name="Benkler-2018"/><ref>{{Cite book|last1=Horne|first1=Benjamin D.|last2=Dron|first2=William|last3=Khedr|first3=Sara|last4=Adali|first4=Sibel |title=WWW '18: Companion Proceedings of The Web Conference 2018 |chapter=Assessing the News Landscape: A Multi-Module Toolkit for Evaluating the Credibility of News |author-link4=Sibel Adalı|date=2018-04-23 |publisher=[[Association for Computing Machinery]]|pages=235–238|doi=10.1145/3184558.3186987|isbn=978-1-4503-5640-4|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Sturm Wilkerson |first1=Heloisa |last2=Riedl |first2=Martin J. |last3=Whipple |first3=Kelsey N. |date=2021-04-14 |title=Affective Affordances: Exploring Facebook Reactions as Emotional Responses to Hyperpartisan Political News |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21670811.2021.1899011 |journal=[[Digital Journalism (journal)|Digital Journalism]] |language=en |volume=9 |issue=8 |pages=1040–1061|doi=10.1080/21670811.2021.1899011 |issn=2167-0811 |quote=In this study, we focus our attention on hyperpartisan news content from the left (e.g. NowThis, Upworthy, The Young Turks, Occupy Democrats)... |s2cid=234853464 |access-date=July 15, 2021 |archive-date=July 15, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210715050338/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21670811.2021.1899011 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref name="Forney-2017">{{cite news |last1=Forney |first1=Ben |date=September 25, 2017 |title=All the Fake News That's Fit to Print |work=[[Asan Institute for Policy Studies]] |url=http://en.asaninst.org/contents/all-the-fake-news-thats-fit-to-print/#17 |access-date=January 4, 2021 |quote=Today, partisan Facebook groups such as Occupy Democrats continue to share both real and fake news to their millions of followers, further blurring the line between fact and fiction. |archive-date=August 17, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230817131426/http://en.asaninst.org/contents/all-the-fake-news-thats-fit-to-print/#17 |url-status=live }}</ref>}} (Revised): Its content is democratic,{{refn|name=hyperpartisan}} and democratic-oriented{{refn|name=left-wing}}. (Internal references within refn still contain the original quotes from sources, for attribution.) Reason: Removal of "hyperpartisan" as the article's voice, and removal of specific problematic citations as discussed in previous feedback (e.g., source 51 - UCM poster was already removed in the prior round of edits). 8. "Accuracy" Section - Updates based on points 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Change 1 of 8: (Original - Brooke Binkowski): Brooke Binkowski, a managing editor at [[Snopes]], commented... (Revised - Brooke Binkowski): Brooke Binkowski, a former managing editor at [[Snopes]], commented... with a |note= parameter added to the ref name="Sommer-2018" citation: |note=Brooke Binkowski was fired from Snopes in 2018 amidst internal disputes about transparency and editorial decisions. [https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2018/snopes-fired-its-managing-editor-%C2%97-and-she-doesnt-know-why/ Source: Poynter] Reason: Added context about her firing to the citation. Change 2 of 8: (Original - McKay Coppins citation): <ref name="Coppins-2017">{{cite news |last1=Coppins |first1=McKay |title=How the Left Lost Its Mind |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/liberal-fever-swamps/530736/ |access-date=December 16, 2020 |work=[[The Atlantic]] |date=July 2, 2017 |quote=The content plastered across these pages includes standard-issue clickbait (“Trump Just Did Something Awful At His Golf Course”) and hyperbolic headlines (“Queen Elizabeth Just Told Trump To Go F*ck Himself And It Is Perfect”). But these feeds are also studded with straightforwardly fake news. |archive-date=December 23, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171223012416/https://www.atlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/liberal-fever-swamps/530736/ |url-status=live }} (Revised - McKay Coppins citation): <ref name="Coppins-2017">{{cite news |last1=Coppins |first1=McKay |title=How the Left Lost Its Mind |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/liberal-fever-swamps/530736/ |access-date=December 16, 2020 |work=[[The Atlantic]] |date=July 2, 2017 |quote=The content plastered across these pages includes standard-issue clickbait (“Trump Just Did Something Awful At His Golf Course”) and hyperbolic headlines (“Queen Elizabeth Just Told Trump To Go F*ck Himself And It Is Perfect”). But these feeds are also studded with straightforwardly fake news. |archive-date=December 23, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171223012416/https://www.atlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/liberal-fever-swamps/530736/ |url-status=live |note=McKay Coppins is a Mormon writer.}}</ref> Reason: Added |note= parameter. Change 3 of 8: (Original - BuzzFeed News): A 2016 ''[[BuzzFeed News]]'' analysis found it was "the least accurate left-wing page" of several Facebook pages it reviewed and cited one instance where it published a satirical story as fact.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Silverman |first1=Craig |title=Hyperpartisan Facebook Pages Are Publishing False And Misleading Information At An Alarming Rate |url=https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/partisan-fb-pages-analysis |access-date=January 4, 2021 |work=[[Buzzfeed News]] |date=October 20, 2016 |archive-date=January 3, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210103162730/https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/partisan-fb-pages-analysis |url-status=live }}</ref> (Revised - BuzzFeed News): Removed this entire sentence and its citation. Reason: Removed due to concerns about BuzzFeed News's overall credibility as a source for factual reporting. Change 4 of 8: (Original - PolitiFact): In 2017, [[PolitiFact]] included Occupy Democrats in its list of [[fake news website]]s. However, PolitiFact later removed Occupy Democrats from its list of fake news sites and, according to the ''Miami New Times'', "admitted Occupy Democrats should never have been on the list in the first place".<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/politifact-removes-fake-news-tag-from-occupy-democrats-showing-difficulty-of-fact-checking-role-9709463 |title=How PolitiFact Got Its "Fake News" Tag Wrong on Occupy Democrats |last=Shammas |first=Brittany |date=October 2, 2017 |work=Miami New Times |access-date=April 17, 2018 |archive-date=April 11, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180411042719/http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/politifact-removes-fake-news-tag-from-occupy-democrats-showing-difficulty-of-fact-checking-role-9709463 |url-status=live }}</ref> As of December 2020, PolitiFact classified 62% of 16 posts shared by Occupy Democrats it had evaluated as "not accurate".<ref name="PolitiFact"/> A further 31% it considered "half-true".<ref name="PolitiFact"/> (Revised - PolitiFact): While [[PolitiFact]] mistakenly included Occupy Democrats in its origial list of [[fake news website]]s in 2017, PolitiFact removed Occupy Democrats from the list, with the ''Miami New Times'' reporting that PolitiFact "admitted Occupy Democrats should never have been on the list in the first place".<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/politifact-removes-fake-news-tag-from-occupy-democrats-showing-difficulty-of-fact-checking-role-9709463 |title=How PolitiFact Got Its "Fake News" Tag Wrong on Occupy Democrats |last=Shammas |first=Brittany |date=October 2, 2017 |work=Miami New Times |access-date=April 17, 2018 |archive-date=April 11, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180411042719/http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/politifact-removes-fake-news-tag-from-occupy-democrats-showing-difficulty-of-fact-checking-role-9709463 |url-status=live }}</ref> As of December 2020, PolitiFact classified 62% of 16 posts shared by Occupy Democrats it had evaluated as "not accurate" and 31% as "half-true".<ref name="PolitiFact">{{cite web |title=Occupy Democrats |url=https://www.politifact.com/personalities/occupy-democrats/ |website=[[PolitiFact]] |publisher=Poynter Institute |access-date=December 16, 2020 |archive-date=January 19, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140119141541/http://www.politifact.com/personalities/occupy-democrats/ |url-status=bot: unknown }}</ref> Reason: Reworded to emphasize the buried retraction and clarification more prominently, making it clear that PolitiFact reversed its initial classification. Change 5 of 8: (Original - Republican retirement age claim): Occupy Democrats' source for the information was a social media post by Twitter user "trom771".<ref name="Gore-2023"/> [[FactCheck.org]] marked the claim as false, while ''USA Today'' reported it "found no credible news reports of any such vote taken by Republican congressional members".<ref name="Gore-2023"/><ref>{{cite news |last1=Kochi |first1=Sudiksha |title=Fact check: Misleading claim about Republicans voting to raise retirement age to 70 |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/03/14/fact-check-misleading-claim-republican-retirement-age-proposal/11436726002/ |access-date=March 31, 2023 |work=[[USA Today]] |date=March 14, 2023 |archive-date=March 31, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230331072631/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/03/14/fact-check-misleading-claim-republican-retirement-age-proposal/11436726002/ |url-status=live }}</ref> (Revised - Republican retirement age claim): Occupy Democrats' source for the information was a social media post by Twitter user "trom771". This claim related to a Republican Study Committee budget proposal that included raising the Social Security eligibility age.<ref name="Gore-2023"/><ref>{{cite news |last1=Kochi |first1=Sudiksha |title=Fact check: Misleading claim about Republicans voting to raise retirement age to 70 |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/03/14/fact-check-misleading-claim-republican-retirement-age-proposal/11436726002/ |access-date=March 31, 2023 |work=[[USA Today]] |date=March 14, 2023 |archive-date=March 31, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230331072631/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/03/14/fact-check-misleading-claim-republican-retirement-age-proposal/11436726002/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Solender |first1=Andrew |title=House Republicans push Social Security age hike in new budget |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4545538-house-republicans-retirement-age-increase/ |access-date=August 2, 2025 |work=[[The Hill]] |date=March 20, 2023 |url-status=live }}</ref> Reason: Added context about the Republican Study Committee proposal and cited The Hill to clarify the basis for the claim, making the overall statement more accurate. Change 6 of 8: (Original - Trump debt claim): Later that year, Occupy Democrats shared social media content that, according to ''USA Today'', falsely claimed Donald Trump increased that [[United States debt]] more than any president in history.<ref name="Frank-2024"/> (Revised - Trump debt claim): Later that year, Occupy Democrats shared social media content that, according to ''USA Today'', falsely claimed Donald Trump increased that [[United States debt]] more than any president in history. However, various sources, including the Council on Foreign Relations, have noted significant increases in the national debt under the Trump administration.<ref name="Frank-2024"/><ref>{{cite web |title=Election 2024: The United States Has a Debt Problem |url=https://www.cfr.org/blog/election-2024-united-states-has-debt-problem |website=[[Council on Foreign Relations]] |access-date=August 2, 2025 |date=October 26, 2023 |quote=Under Donald Trump, the U.S. national debt grew by nearly $8 trillion, or roughly 25 percent of the debt the United States accumulated during its first 227 years of existence. }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=The National Debt: The COVID-19 Pandemic’s Fiscal Toll on the United States |url=https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20250205/117856/HHRG-119-GO00-20250205-SD008.pdf |website=docs.house.gov |publisher=[[United States House of Representatives]] |access-date=August 2, 2025 |date=February 5, 2025 |format=PDF |quote=ProPublica noted that Trump added more to the national debt in four years than any president in American history.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Trump and Biden: The National Debt |url=https://www.crfb.org/papers/trump-and-biden-national-debt |website=[[Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget]] |access-date=August 2, 2025 |date=October 23, 2024 |quote=Between the end of FY 2016 and the end of FY 2020, the national debt held by the public grew by $7.8 trillion (39 percent) under President Trump.}}</ref> Reason: Added new citations and text to provide a more nuanced and balanced view on the national debt increase under Trump, acknowledging that while USA Today labeled the claim false, other reliable sources including Congress's own website support the clear evidence of significant increases. Change 7 of 8: (Original - NRA gun claim): Occupy Democrats also shared social media content that, according to [[FactCheck.org]], misleadingly claimed "that guns were not allowed at the NRA convention and an upcoming GOP event in Utah".<ref>{{cite news |last1=Jones |first1=Brea |title=Posts Mislead on Rules for Guns at NRA Convention, Utah GOP Event |url=https://www.factcheck.org/2023/04/posts-mislead-on-rules-for-guns-at-nra-convention-utah-gop-event/ |access-date=April 21, 2023 |work=[[Factcheck.org]] |date=January 11, 2024 |archive-date=April 22, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230422093603/https://www.factcheck.org/2023/04/posts-mislead-on-rules-for-guns-at-nra-convention-utah-gop-event/ |url-status=live }}</ref> (Revised - NRA gun claim): Occupy Democrats also shared social media content that, according to [[FactCheck.org]], misleadingly claimed "that guns were not allowed at the NRA convention and an upcoming GOP event in Utah". However, reports from NPR indicated that guns were not permitted during President Donald Trump's appearance at the NRA convention due to Secret Service security protocols.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Jones |first1=Brea |title=Posts Mislead on Rules for Guns at NRA Convention, Utah GOP Event |url=https://www.factcheck.org/2023/04/posts-mislead-on-rules-for-guns-at-nra-convention-utah-gop-event/ |access-date=April 21, 2023 |work=[[Factcheck.org]] |date=January 11, 2024 |archive-date=April 22, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230422093603/https://www.factcheck.org/2023/04/posts-mislead-on-rules-for-guns-at-nra-convention-utah-gop-event/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=NPR |first1=Staff |title=NRA convention draws top GOP 2024 hopefuls in the wake of mass shootings |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/nra-convention-draws-top-gop-2024-hopefuls-in-the-wake-of-mass-shootings#:~:text=His%20Secret%20Service%20protection%20means%20attendees%20can%E2%80%99t%20have%20guns%20at%20the%20convention. |access-date=August 2, 2025 |work=[[PBS Newshour]] |date=April 14, 2023 |url-status=live |quote=His Secret Service protection means attendees can’t have guns at the convention.}}</ref> Reason: Added NPR source and explanation to provide essential context that partially validates the original claim. Change 8 of 8: (Original - Trump/Time magazine quote): In May 2024, Occupy Democrats posted content to its Facebook page that claimed Donald Trump "told [[TIME (magazine)|TIME Magazine]] that in his second term as president he’d force every pregnant woman to submit to constant government monitoring".<ref name="Frank-2024"/> (Revised - Trump/Time magazine quote): In May 2024, Occupy Democrats posted content to its Facebook page that claimed Donald Trump "told [[TIME (magazine)|TIME Magazine]] that in his second term as president he’d force every pregnant woman to submit to constant government monitoring". This was a quote from Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, shared by Occupy Democrats as an expert opinion.<ref name="Frank-2024"/><ref>{{cite web |last1=Tribe |first1=Laurence H. |title=X post by Laurence H. Tribe |url=https://x.com/tribelaw/status/1785643074493776151 |website=X (formerly Twitter) |access-date=August 2, 2025 |date=May 1, 2024 |quote=Trump told TIME he'd let red states prosecute pregnant women who travel across state lines to get an abortion. If such laws were enacted, they would force every pregnant woman to submit to constant government monitoring in states where abortion is banned so that officials could detect and punish those who violate the bans. This isn't about "states' rights." It's about a Christian Nationalist regime of thought police and pregnancy police.}}</ref> Reason: Added context to clarify that Occupy Democrats was quoting Laurence Tribe, a noted expert, rather than originating the claim. 9. "Popular Perception" Section - Removal of "Least Trusted" Claim Change: (Original): In a 2017 survey among US readers, Occupy Democrats was voted the "least trusted news source" among American readers, just below ''[[Breitbart News]]'' and [[BuzzFeed]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ruddick |first1=Graham |title=Four UK news sources among top 10 most trusted in US – survey |journal=The Guardian |date=August 9, 2017 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/aug/09/four-uk-news-sources-among-top-10-most-trusted-in-us-survey |access-date=August 21, 2017 |archive-date=October 11, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211011165643/https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/aug/09/four-uk-news-sources-among-top-10-most-trusted-in-us-survey |url-status=live }}</ref> (Revised): Removed this entire sentence and its citation. Reason: Removed because Occupy Democrats is an activist/fundraising group and not a news source, making the "least trusted news source" categorization misleading and inaccurate. 10. External Links Change: (Original): '''Code snippet * {{Official website|https://occupydemocrats.com/}} * [https://washingtonpress.com/ Washington Press] (Revised): '''Code snippet * [https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats Facebook page] * [https://www.instagram.com/occupydemocrats/ Instagram page] Reason: Removed the non-functional official website and the "Washington Press" link, and added the currently active Facebook and Instagram pages, as per your earlier instruction.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ourmaninboston (talk • contribs) 21:03, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Ourmaninboston - I saw the edit that you attempted to make here with your request. There's a template in there somewhere that's causing all of the previous content made above it to disappear. I actually had to go and manually pull what was missing from a previous edit, pull and isolate your edit request from all of the code, then begin formatting it properly so I could at least figure out what was going on. If you edit this page and take a look at how I began to format your request, you'll see the formatting that I recommend you use for it. I stopped after your third item in the list and embedded the rest of your request within nowiki tags so that it couldn't cause the original problem again. Please take time, go through your request, reformat it so that it can be easily reviewed, and someone will be able to go through it and make any appropriate changes. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:49, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Oshwah!

I tried to revise as best I could and posted a more complete reply on your help page.

Respectfully,

Ourmaninboston (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Ourmaninboston - You bet. I also responded to your message on my user talk page. Please let me know if I can assist you with anything else. Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Very much appreciated!

Thank you, Oshwah!

Respectfully,

eric Ourmaninboston (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)