Talk:Occupy Homes

Untitled

I found this article quite by accident today. Would it be appropriate to give it a fairly substantial section discussing the history of the foreclosures? The media, 60 Minutes for one, has had several investigations into the bank fraud used to evict people from their homes. I wonder if some of this info is available at other articles? This is a good article and I'd like to help expand it. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is a transcript from 60 Minutes [1] and I found this [2] and here is a tie-in to OWS [3] Gandydancer (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The information might be good, but unless it is specifically addressing the group "Occupy Homes" it won't help this article survive. The information could be added to one of the larger "occupy" articles in a subsection though. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The main OWS article is already too long and needs to be split. Here is some more info [4] Gandydancer (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

perhaps a new article on a collection of "OWS offshoots" could be justified, but that would need to gather consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

For Christ sake, there are already too many articles on the "Occupy movement" as it is. For a movement that now attracts only a few dozen people at rallies and has had no impact, at all, at the ballot box, and likely never will, it seems ridiculous that so many seem to want to treat the so-called "Occupy Movement" as if it were the most ground-shaking thing to ever occur in this country. Wikipedia doesn't need more Occuyp entries or offshoots, it needs less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.223 (talk) 07:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Primary Sources

I see we are starting to cite some primary sources. Just a caution to do this judiciously. If they can be avoided, they should be avoided.--Nowa (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to work with any of my edits - I will continue to try to improve them as well... IMO it would be a good idea to change the name of the article to Occupy Our Homes as it seems that that is the name we will be finding for our edits. Also, I felt that the info that I added should be under a new section, but I couldn't think of a good heading. Gandydancer (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

what sources show

The RS sources which have been added certainly show that some occupy associated people are doing some home sitins etc. However, as far as I have been able to find, those articles do not validate the existence of notability of a group named "Occupy Homes". So if the intent is to add such sources in order to short-circuit the AFD, I think different/additional sources would need to be found. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

revert

I have just reverted these edits [5]. The blog entry does not mention "Occupy Homes" and the inserted statement contradicts the first paragraph. --Edcolins (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Were Atlanta and Cleveland first?

Hey - this is a thing now! A couple of weeks back, I added information about anti-foreclosure home occupations to Occupy_Atlanta#Occupy_Atlanta_and_foreclosure, which was the first I was hearing about it - presumably that article should at least contain a link to this now, but what sort of information from what I added should go here? Were the Atlanta and Cleveland cases the first such occupations? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is taking off! My best guess is that for now all actions previous to December 6 when the new group was "officially" named be put in the History section. I worked on that section this morning and I keep running into the frequent (and frustrating) problem of dealing with the article name, Occupy Homes, which it seems was just a pre-December 6 name for the occupy movement. I sure would like to see it changed to Occupy Our Homes ASAP! Also, I'd like some feedback on the Actions section - I believe it can now be deleted as more info continues to come in. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The collapse of the housing bubble

Since many homeowners find themselves in a position where they owe far more for their homes than they are worth and sometimes feel they have no choice but to walk away from their properties, do you think it would be good to have a small section on the United States housing bubble? Here is some info from Bloomberg [6] Perhaps we could also get into the fact that entire neighborhoods are being lost as many homes become vacant which results in circular effect. As we know, in some neighborhoods vacant homes are being destroyed as even the, for instance, copper plumbing pipes are being ripped out to sell as salvage. It seems that the thinking of some occupiers is that in one sense the banks that now own the homes, and the tax base of the area which is falling as area business is forced to leave as its consumers are forced to leave, actually benefit from occupation. I realize that some of this info is here and there, however AFAIK, we have no articles that explain the rationale of the advantage of moving the homeless into homes that have been vacated. Well, not yet very well thought-out on my part, but perhaps something to consider? Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This might be a good start Squatting--Nowa (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Holy Cow! Well as usual Nowa, you are way ahead of me. I'll do some reading... :-) Gandydancer (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's a Bloomberg article which discusses the current situation: [7] Gandydancer (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

For crying out loud, Wikipedia's purpose is not to provide a political soapbox to people. The entries are supposed to be encyclopedic in nature. They are not for you to riff on how horrible the housing crisis is and then tell us all how wonderful the occupy movement is for fighting the powers that be. I swear to you, if I see a single entry that even remotely resembles the one you claim you are going to write, I will delete it outright. QUIT USING WIKIPEDIA AS YOUR OWN PERSONAL LEFT WING BLOG.

Thinly-veiled editorializing

The history section contains entire paragraphs that are nothing more than thinly-veiled editorializing concerning various state foreclosure laws. The following is a perfect example: "Foreclosure laws vary from state to state. In Georgia, for instance, the foreclosure process can begin after only one missed payment. The lender sets a sale date for the home to be auctioned off, and then publishes the sale notice in the county paper. They are required only to give the homeowner 30 days’ notice, and there is no requirement that the homeowner receives the notice, only that it is sent. If the sale goes through, there is no way for a homeowner to reclaim their home." It is beyond obvious, given the way the author of the entry repeatedly uses the word "only" (among other things) and the fact the law of only ONE state is mentioned, that one is meant to view the law being discussed negatively. It is not the job of an online encyclopedia to make value judgments concerning laws that a particular editor clearly finds unjust. Perhaps the clear bias should be balanced out by mentioning that an individual must sign a contract that clearly states the conditions before any money is lent; however I have a feeling the author would complain about such an addition. Wikipedia is not meant to be used as a political soapbox. And I find it particularly funny that one of the individuals who edited this "entry" has written repeated comments for other entries concerning the use of Fox News as a reliable source, yet the reference section for this entry is full of citations from far-left opinion journals and left-wing blogs, including a blog entry written by Van Jones at www.michaelmoore.com. I can't think of a more biased, unreliable source, and I kind of doubt that it is acceptable as a reliable source according to the terms of this site. Van Jones? Michaelmoore.com? As reliable sources? I hope that is meant to be some sort of joke. As I have stated before, sometimes the bias at Wikipedia rises to the level of parody, and this is one of those times.

It is a pretty safe bet that when a large percentage of your "citations" come from "sources" such as Mother Jones, Rachel Maddow, Van Jones, www.MichaelMoore.com, 4ClosureFraud, a left-wing punk-rock group, an opinion piece appearing on The Talk Radio News Service etc., you are not writing an encyclopedia on a notable event or organization (something Occupy Homes clearly isn't), rather you are just engaged in political prosletyzing, something this "entry" clearly is. The sources used for this entry are beyond laughable, particularly when you consider, as I mention in my above comment, that one of the editors of the entry has written numerous comments attacking the use of sources that have long been considered reliable, such as Fox News (look at the talk section for Occupy Wall Street and The Occupy Movement if you don't believe me). Attempts have even been made to dress up the reference section with links to legitimate news sources, leaving the reader to discover that several of the "sources" being cited are nothing more than interviews with pro-occupy activists and musicians. This article is full of nothing but editorializing, attempts to inflate the importance of the so-called "movement" and undisguised attacks on banks and other lending institutions. We are repeatedly treated to nonsense about how important Occupy Homes is from people who are, wait for it, involved with or otherwise support the Occupy Movement. Occupy Homes is comparable to the direct action taken during the Great Depression? Give us a break. And who makes such an absurdly lofty comparison? Rachel Maddow, the foremost paragon of objective journalism in the Western world. The history section, as I mention in my above comment, is nothing but editorializing. In addition to the example I provide above, there is also this: "However very little money has actually been used to bailout home owners and the banks have done little to change their lending practices to help people to avoid losing their homes." The source for the assertion that banks have done "little" and that not enough has been spent or done? So-called "community activists". The statement that banks have done little to change their lending practices is not backed by any objective reference in this entry, and its bias should be obvious to anyone reading it. The portions of the history section that don't read like an editorial in a left wing newspaper read like a pamphlet that would be handed out at a protest rally. We are regaled with stories of the so-called "successes" achieved by these groups. This continues on into the section "National day of action" where we are told the "movement took on the housing crisis". So that is what they did? We are also treated to more editorializing: "A spokesperson for Neighborhoods Organizing for Change said, 'Foreclosure in his case made no sense. His mortgage balance was $275,000 but the auction of his home only fetched $80,000, less than one-third of the amount he owed. Everybody, including the bank, would have been better off reducing his balance to an affordable level.'" Sorry, but the fact that such a statement was attributed to a "spokesman" doesn't change the nature of the obvious bias. And needless to say, no attempt is made to provide a quote from the bank or lenders in question, as that would go against the clear purpose of the entry. The entire section reads like a press release as does the "Continuing actions" section which details how the "movement" helped a grand total of one person, with a vague reference thrown in about the Occupy movement supposedly defending "hundreds" of other "victims", with the author obviously assuming(and then communicating that bias to the rest of us) that individuals who knowingly don't pay back loans that were made in good faith are "victims". Give me a break. If ever there was a topic that didn't merit an entry on notability grounds, this is it. The Reaction section is pathetic as well. The author makes sure Andrew Breitbart is labelled a "conservative", yet no one else in the entire section is similarly labelled, including an "Occupier" whose political leanings are pretty obvious. Furthermore, after googling Sonya Katyal and Eduardo Penalver, two individuals mentioned by name in the Reaction section, it takes about three seconds to ascertain which end of the political spectrum they are on, yet neither are labelled in a fashion similar to Breitbart. Even more laughable is the fact that we are provided a reaction to the Occupy Homes movement from someone involved in that movement. Is it common practice to have a REaction section filled with comments from those who are being reacted to in the first place(and please, don't try and act as if there is some sort of notable distinction between the Occupy movement and the barely-existent Occupy Homes movement)? That doesn't sound like a reaction to me, rather it looks like a flimsy and hilariously transparent excuse to throw in a quote from yet another person waxing rhapsodic on how great and historic the "Occupy Homes" movement is.