Jump to content

Talk:Occupy movement/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Start date?

The infobox says the movement started in September 17 (when Wall Street was Occupied), but the lead claims a July 30 date. So which is it?--~TPW 21:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The legality of setting up a 'camp' , and the circumstances under which Police/Local Authorities can remove them would be interesting and useful. 'Hooverville' types of squatters camps are bound to increase in the UK in the near future, as cuts in benefits make tens of thousands homeless in London alone: where can these be set up, what form can they take, how long can people stay, etc etc. Which laws are used agaisnt such protesters, and what are the possible defences? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.229.57 (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There have been hundreds of these events. Each location could have a different legal situation. Such an addition for each location would massively increase the size of this article. I'd suggest including such information in the articles on specific protests, where they have been deemed important enough to exist. HiLo48 (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Selective merges of some "Occupy X" pages

There's a proliferation of city specific pages at the moment (see List of North American "Occupy" protests), and while some of these will undoubtedly be notable standalone articles, some may need to be merged in the future. There needs to be some discussion about merging some of these city-specific articles together in some capacity, although certainly not all of them.

The problem with lots of small separate articles is that much of the information is common to all of them, and having them in one place is much more useful to readers, and much easier to monitor for vandalism/accuracy. Not to mention that virtually any city of size is having these and we'd be looking at hundreds if not thousands of potential articles. Centralizing all but the most notable of these seems prudent at some point.

I'm content to wait for a few weeks because then we can judge whether the coverage of a particular movement is notable enough. But we do not need an "occupy" article for every city where people protest, especially when much of the useful information about them is common to all. Also, it seems like some of these smaller occupy pages are serving as itineraries which isn't exactly great encyclopedia content.

Any thoughts? Shadowjams (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

My initial thought is that while some of the protests stand alone notable, some will not be by themselves. However, we could create several decent articles combining them by U.S. state, like Occupy Canada. Occupy Ashland may or may not expand to a full detailed article, but we could create Occupy protests in Oregon, and merge all Oregon Occupy protests into one article and make one decent one (with no prejudice to having Occupy Salem or related Oregon Occupy articles remain intact). — Moe ε 00:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Lets start with a "Occupy" movement in the United States or Occupy movement in the United States article as an overview and for a place to add individual "Occupy X" info that does not warrant its own article. I have already created Category:Occupy movement in the United States. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I think those're both great starts. I think even now, two weeks later, it's safe to wait before mass merging, but yes, this is good to start thinking about how to combine some of these now to make it more accessible for readers, and easier to add to / maintain for editors. Shadowjams (talk) 06:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-03/politics/30353835_1_tea-party-movement-unfavorable-view-positive-views. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Jacksoncw has repeatedly inserted poll numbers into the article using the same wording as an article in Business Insider:

  • "Just 30 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the protests, while 39 percent do not." (Business Insider)
  • "...just 30 percent of American voters have a favorable view of the protests, while 39 percent do not." (Jacksoncw)

I have warned Jacksoncw not to put this text into the article, but he returned it anyway, ditching the Business Insider cite for another. However, copying text from Business Insider does not stop being a problem if the article is not used as a cite. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Explain

Please explain your reverts [1] of well-sourced information, and your addition of highly disputable information. Be——Critical 20:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly I haven't added anything, I have reverted the undiscussed deletion of half of the lead, and its replacement with a bold statement which in my view is overly simplistic and not reflected in most sources, and which is in any case in the body of the article, where it works and can be balanced. Sources from opinion pieces should be treated with extreme caution when making broad brush comments about such a wide-ranging and complex topic as the Occupy movement. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
'The protesters want more and better jobs, more equal distribution of income, bank reform, and a reduction of the influence of corporations on politics' is very much an opinion, not a fact, and should not be presented boldly as a trite description of the movement in the lead, in my view.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
That's fine, but the other badly sourced stuff should come out. Do you have an objection to that? Be——Critical 22:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
It looks pretty well sourced to me, and pretty factual. What do you want to cut?Rangoon11 (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The relationship to the arab spring is in question. this is a primary source, and seems to be rhetoric at most, without any historical data offered to show a connection beyond the "in the name of" kind of allusion. This merely asks the question. This doesn't even count as a source for the statement. Be——Critical 00:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Try these for size: [2] and [3]. I didn't think this was a disputed point, more a self-evident fact.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Much better. Looks like you've got your sources. Consider coming over to Occupy Wall Street, and putting this information in. For whatever reasons I can't now find in the talk archives, I think it was deleted there. Be——Critical 03:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

File:The first OccupyDataran poster.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:The first OccupyDataran poster.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"Part of the impact of the Arab Spring"

Could somone explain to me why the infobox says "Part of the impact of the Arab Spring" ... why Arab Spring? because it's in the same year (2011)? Hello, correlation, not causation... I know that Tunisia was caused by an unemployed guy, but the protest was against the oppressive Tunisian government and not Wall Street/Greed. . Similarly, Egypt and Libya were antigovernment protests against military dictators. Are we saying that people in the US are rising up to overthrow the government? Where is the source for that? I suggest we take out unsourced, unattributed "causal" references to "Arab Spring" unless someone can provide a compelling reason to keep. Peace, MPS (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I am with you on this one. Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street are two different topics. XantheTerra (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Read some of the remarks of the original organizers of Occupy Wall Street. They were explicitly trying to emulate the occupation of Tahrir Square. It's absolutely been impacted by the Arab Spring. It doesn't have to be of the same scale or importance to still be influenced by it.
--Qwerty0 (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree the world saw the success of Tunisia, and Egypt, and with Libya and Syria in the news so much (and to a lesser extent Bahrain earlier on, as well as Yemen) it undeniably influenced the Occupy Movement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.255.226 (talk) 05:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that, but my opinion, and the opinion of everyone else here, is irrelevant. We need a reliable source to say it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
See the Blog http://thenextstageintheworldrevolutions.blogspot.com/ where Egyptian Activist Nawal El Saadawi, the 80 year old Egyptian Feminist who was constantly at Tahrir Square during the protests that toppled Mubarak has stated that this is the beginning of a non-violent world revolution.

first, this movement has no official heads who could be interviewed on this, there will never be a proof! secondly north africa is the neighbour of spain, the influence is comprehensible. and third: I share the opinion (:)) these protests which may appear on different scales are in a way interrelated as we are facing serious global problems. concluding I have to state social phenomena are always hard to catch by evidence (life forms are different from machines) but in this case I find it more valuable to keep the reference to the arabic spring as it all started there...historically it ought to be seen like that. believe me ;) [sry I am a lousy editor and I hate htmlcoding, I am unable to sign correctly. missingheel) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missingheel (talk • contribs) 08:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

To put your signature, just put 4 tildes (~) in a row. mcklucker (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source to confirm that the Occupy movement was inspired by Arab Spring. From http://occupywallst.org -- the sidebar says, "We are using the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to achieve our ends and encourage the use of nonviolence to maximize the safety of all participants." Also, from the About section of that site, "Occupy Wall Street is a horizontally organized resistance movement employing the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to restore democracy in America." I apologize if this is formatted wrong--I'm new to this, but I do have an interest and knowledge about this topic so I wanted to share this. Stacey B. 03:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StaceyLB1987 (talk • contribs)

I think this is in fact a very reliable source. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.61.7.33 (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

To use a quote that includes "...restore democracy in America" is incorrect. America has not lost it's government. People has lost it's government. In the sense, that this generation has the right to vote, but they don't. Arab Spring is/was about fighting democracy with their lives. This movement is more along the line of a protest. It's to show government that if things don't change, we will vote people into office that will change things. — DarkFrog (talk) — 17:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


Perhaps "frequently compared to the Arab Spring" would be more accurate and referencable. Or rather than "inspired by" say "modeled on the Arab Spring movements". 82.44.81.83 (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is well documented that AdBusters was inspired by the Arab Spring in its call to occupy Zucotti park on September 17th. One reference here: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/adbusters-occupy-wall-street-innovator-movement-wind-start-spring-article-1.977956 That's one stream. Another stream of inspiration for this particular action is certainly the G8 anti-internationalization protests. Folks from those protests went to Zucotti park with experience and systems which have been in evidence at Zucotti park. That group is likely not inspired by the Arab Spring since they were active before the protests in Tunisia (and also before the Iranian election protests in 2009). A third stream is that a more general public has gotten activated and supportive of this kind of protest. It is likely that this group was educated in the potential effect of overnight protests by watching the Arab spring. I therefore think that it is valid to cite the Arab Spring as one of several sources of inspiration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.109.196.34 (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

removal of speculative sentence in introduction?

The end of the introduction section states "Protestors and commentators such as former Financial Times editor Richard Lambert have suggested that the shift to confrontational tactics by authorities is more likely to spur on the movement rather than cause it to disband. [24] [25]"

This sentence is not a factual statement and purely speculative analysis. This could be deemed as inciting outcomes rather being informative of events. The sentence may be more appropriate later on in the page, along with some other analysis.--Halma10 (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A well made point. I moved the speculative sentence to the Chronology sentence, and added a non speculative source by the excellent journalist Beth Davies to the lede. It has a detailed city by city break down of the evictions and facts about the immediate aftermath, along with reaction by the protestors. I hope you read it if you like to see non speculative coverage from a global perspective.
It was good of you to ask on talk, but just as a fyi I never mind editors reverting or changing stuff Ive added which they dont like. Only in the rare cases that I object would we need to discuss on talk. Just my opinion, but I think it saves spending time on chat if we edit boldly on the main pages by default. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Deaths

The death count says that there are eight deaths, but of the three sources linked to it one's a dead link, one doesn't link to the article, and the third only lists two deaths. The titles of the other two imply that there were only 4 deaths total; one woman and three men. 68.42.20.87 (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Impact

This entire section was removed with the explanation that it's OR. This article needs a section that describes what, if any, impact, including social impact, this movement has had. Every proposition is amply supported by RS. I will restore this unless there are objections.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It is too soon to gauge the full global impact of this fledgling and multifaceted social movement. In the United States, the protests have helped shift the national dialogue from the deficit to economic problems ordinary Americans face, such as unemployment,[1] the large amount of student and other personal debt that burdens middle class and working class Americans,[2] and other major issues of social inequality, such as homelessness.[3] The movement does appear to have generated a national conversation about income inequality, as print and broadcast news has mentioned the term “income inequality” more than five times more often during the last week of October 2011 than during the week before the occupation began.[4]
Labor unions have become bolder in the tactics they employ and have been using digital social media more effectively because of the Occupy movement.[5] In New York City, the Occupy Wall Street protest has also provided hundreds of protesters to help in picket actions conducted by labor unions.[5] A survey by the media analysis company Global Language Monitor published in early November 2011 found that 'Occupy' had been the most commonly-used word in English-language media worldwide over the prior 12 months.[6]
Personally I thought that the deletion of the whole section was too swingeing. It needed some work, but not gutting.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Bias

there doesn't seem to be...any... mention of "the movement" experiencing any troubles. the whole article reads with heavy bias toward propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.180.123 (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Be specific. Where is the bias, and what trouble were you expecting? If you can cite it, you can add it. +mt 08:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Weezer1982 or the revision before. Thank you. 67.61.16.136 (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)bRiMaTiOn

potential resource A Sleeping Giant Awakens cover story

  • American Spring? by Robert Hirschfield in December 2011 issue of Sojourners magazine, "Finding connections between the past, present, and future at Occupy Wall Street."
  • From the Editors, "Even while Occupy Wall Street and the worldwide movement it has helped ignite captured the public’s attention this fall, some observers claimed not to understand what the protests were all about."

99.190.83.205 (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Dataran edits

I made some edits to de-emphasize Occupy Dataran. I feel this is appropriate because of the much smaller scope and coverage of that event; other than the similar theme and the "Occupy" name, it likely wouldn't be all that notable except for OWS/etc. I've left it in the lede to not completely nuke the event, but I'm not sure it even belongs there...simply because "Occupy" was barely covered until multiple weeks of OWS. Furthermore, the refs for Occupy Dataran in the body were Facebook photos; those are not appropriate references. The reference in the lede seems fine, being an English-language Malaysian publication, but again, I'm not sure whether it should be noted there. I lean towards including it earlier in the body and removing it from the lede, but I'm not going to remove it unless nobody chimes in against doing so. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree about moving it to the "earlier body". I have moved it to the 'background' section. Pass a Method talk 21:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Let's be careful about avoiding systemic bias towards events in English-speaking countries. The location of the first 'Occupy' protests does seem of lead-worthy significance to me. From small acorns big trees grow.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I disagree for three reasons. a) The event is isolated several weeks before the other protests. b) The Malaysian protest was a minor one not covered by western reliable sources. c) your suggestion borders WP:NPOV Pass a Method talk 03:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
This is the English language version. You will find the others in their own language. Naturally, if you know something we don't please please add it. Thanks. OccupyLink (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

Capitalism vs. the Climate; What the right gets - and the left doesn't - about the revolutionary power of climate change. by Naomi Klein November 9, 2011. This article appeared in the November 28, 2011 edition of The Nation (pages 11-21); excerpt ...

But these connections go beyond a shared critique of corporate power. As Occupiers ask themselves what kind of economy should be built to displace the one crashing all around us, many are finding inspiration in the network of green economic alternatives that has taken root over the past decade—in community-controlled renewable energy projects, in community-supported agriculture and farmers' markets, in economic localization initiatives that have brought main streets back to life, and in the co-op sector. Already a group at OWS is cooking up plans to launch the movement’s first green workers’ co-op (a printing press); local food activists have made the call to “Occupy the Food System!”; and November 20 is “Occupy Rooftops”—a coordinated effort to use crowd-sourcing to buy solar panels for community buildings.

99.190.86.244 (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

USA Today frontpage (in print) resource

'Occupiers' defy simple descriptions by Rick Hampson 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"Occupy Wall Street protesters arrive in D.C. after 231-mile walk from New York" resource Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/occupy-wall-street-protesters-arrive-in-dc-after-231-mile-walk-from-new-york/2011/11/22/gIQA1RqdmN_story.html by Tim Craig, Published: November 22, 2011

Also see NYC Occupy Wall Street and Occupy DC. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Bias (maybe)

The article seems to be mainly concentrating on the negative aspects of the Occupy Movement. The summary has all sorts of examples of people being removed from their site, run ins with police, etc. Many cities are holding firm, and have lots of support, and this is not being reported. Thanks and kind regards. OccupyLink (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

SOFIXIT. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to fix it. You keep deleting what I write. Who are you? OccupyLink (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Be careful, as you are using a name OccupyLink which connotates a connection to the movement, that you do not provide bias in the opposite direction. Verified expert sources are best, and opinion has little place except where noted as opinion. Unverified commentary can be removed as not pertinent. Awolnetdiva (talk) 11:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Official recognition

In the summary, various police clashes are being highlighted. Sites are being removed, attempted recovery of the site by the protesors etc. Equally, if not more important is government bodies, churches and other authorities recognizing the movement. In the case of Edinburgh, Edinburgh Occupy has been officially recognized by a formal vote taken by the Edinburgh Council. All political parties were there. This is very important and should be in the summary. OccupyLink (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Your edits are, frankly, junk. And having been reverted twice they should not have been readded without discussion here. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Let's everybody watch how we address each other! A little respect and guidance goes a long way.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Offical recognitions of Occupies seem important. Let's have some views and sources right here, please.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The content in question is still there. I'm still unconvinced that it is lead-worthy. My comment above was perhaps a bit too sharp but to be honest I found a new editor with a blatantly COI username trying to impose very poor quality and POV-pushing edits through edit warring, bulk reverting good faith tidy ups, and posting unconstructive criticisms of the article on this page, was itself pretty disrespectful to this project and regular editors of this article.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Meme resource, NYT

'Camps Are Cleared, but ‘99 Percent’ Still Occupies the Lexicon by Brian Stelter published November 30, 2011; excerpt ...

The slogan was chanted again early on Wednesday morning in Los Angeles and Philadelphia as police there cleared out the Occupy campsites in each city. As they lost physical ground for their local movements, protesters told each other online, “You can’t evict an idea.”

A version of this article appeared in print on December 1, 2011, on page A1 of the New York Times print edition. This article mentions the Vanity Fair Joseph Stiglitz article that is mentioned in Talk:Occupy Wall Street#The New York Review of Books resource 97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resource regarding Daniel Domscheit-Berg

In 2011, Daniel Domscheit-Berg was named by Foreign Policy magazine to its list of top global thinkers, with Sami Ben Gharbia and Alexey Navalny.[7] He stated Occupy Wall Street was the Best Idea. In print, on page 60, #24 for shaping the new world of government transparency.

99.181.139.218 (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

US Demands

Below is the US demands paragraph that was in the article. The reference actually disavows the fact that the demands are from OWS as a whole. A better reference is needed.--Nowa (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

In late November 2011, the aims of US protestors were incorporated into a fuller list which includes eleven "demands": 1) campaign finance reform, 2) media democratization: "that media companies be owned and managed by their staff," 3) the creation of "citizen boards" to influence corporate regulation and deter regulatory capture, 4) "expropriation of the health insurance industry," 5) "immediate review" of the constitutionality of the Patriot Act, 6) immediate student loan reform and "gradual implementation of a publicly funded...education system," 7) "restoration of the social safety net," 8) "an end to imperialistic wars" 9) "employee ownership plans" be required of private corporations, 10) investigation of crimes of the existing financial industry and replacement of that industry by "publicly owned, worked-managed" institutions, and 11) a truly democratic "economy and political system that works for the 99%." [8]

Occupy movement in Tunisia

According to Tunisialive.net, there is a movement to occupy Bardo in Western Tunis. We might want to make reference to it. Here's a link: http://www.tunisia-live.net/2011/12/04/occupy-bardo-live-updates --Yalens (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

foreclosure resource

99.181.136.158 (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

NYT resource William Yardley

The Branding of the Occupy Movement 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is the title of the article published November 27, 2011, and here is an excerpt ...

Kalle Lasn, the longtime editor of the anticonsumerist magazine Adbusters, did not invent the anger that has been feeding the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations across the United States. But he did brand it. ... begin remodeling the “mental environment,” to create a new “meme,” the term coined by the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins for a kind of transcendent cultural message. ... glossy fake ads with slogans like “Everything is fine, keep shopping,” ... He wants to see, among other things, “a Robin Hood tax” on all financial transactions, a restoration of the Glass-Steagall Act that erected barriers between banking and investing, a ban on certain types of high-frequency trading and the overturning of the Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case.

99.19.45.187 (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again for this, I did add this to this article a few days back as well as to our RHT article. PS, just in case you didnt know, youre very welcome to directly add high quality sources like this to the article yourself if you prefer. It can help if you register an account but even as an IP editor you are still welcome to edit the main articles direct if you'd like to. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternative Media and The Darknet

A flourishing and largely unknown "web" exists on hobby servers around the world. Many of the websites and other services available on the dark web are configured to easily be hosted over dial up connections in case the government controlled internet gets censored or shut off completely. As long as there is a phone line or cellphone working a DUN connection should be able to bring back up many Email chat, BBS and IRC and heavily text based services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.156.12.73 (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That's very interesting. Will ask the guys in the tech tent at St Pauls about this if I get the chance. Im not sure we should mention this in the main article unless it gets covered in a secondary source, as without context it may imply a more adversarial relationship between occupy and government than is the case. From what I can tell most occupiers seem to be in favour of a large state, which can combat inequality, with the resources for welfare, public services and job creation needed to reduce our current economic suffering. Here in GB at least even many of the anarchists seem to oppose the cut backs in public spending. I do concede some of them are against the state and subscribe to theories like anarchic syndicalism, and these are maybe over represented among the young people providing technical support to the moment.
Also, don't to be too sure your network is truly dark – governments can likely monitor and control it just as easily as they can the regular internet. In both US and GB, private sector telcos have dark sites (dark in the sense that less than 1% of their own employees are supposed to know about them) dedicated to providing intelligence to governments. Some of these facilities have server rooms the size of a football pitch! Regular police only have limited access via channels, but agents from secret service can have unlimited access. That said, just because governments have the technical ability to close down the nets, doesn't mean theyd want to. Regardless of the despicable actions of a few misguided (and possibly corrupt) officials , western governments are generally in favour of freedom for their citizens. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Info Box: Characteristics: Non-Violence

Why does the info box list non-violence as a characteristic? There are many people protesting using violent means:

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/11/06/11-protesters-arrested-after-assaulting-police-at-occupy-riverside-rally/

http://www.ksbw.com/politics/29740962/detail.html

http://www.ksbw.com/politics/29715318/detail.html

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10/occupy-dc-protest-thugs-pin-museum-guard-against-wall-try-to-storm-smithsoniun-video/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-11-13/occupy-movement-violent-fringe/51188258/1

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/28/flier-at-occupy-phoenix-asks-when-should-you-shoot-a-cop/

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/209671.php

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/132064518.html

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/occupy_er_slugs_cop_yCFvG1cOT7Mbq3XGgz2cHI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T1BWETV75hU#%21

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/crime&id=8429956

http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_19325025

http://www.kmtr.com/news/local/story/Gresham-police-bill-Occupy-Portland-for-vandalism/iYoFYCooQECw8P20siWWeQ.cspx

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0%2c2817%2c2395836%2c00.asp#fbid=xLk0md9IGYm?fbid%3dF94U_cqQb5A

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/man-cited-occupy-sf-arrested-again-threatening-par/nFZ9L/

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1275437870001/violence-and-the-occupy-movement/


--72.47.85.22 (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there have been thousands of arrests and hundreds of cases of violent acts being committed by the protesters; I am removing that description. --Jacksoncw (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you had better wait for discussion before you remove it. I do not agree with the removal. Gandydancer (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Neither do I, in a movement of this scale and decentralised/leaderless nature random acts by certain individuals operating on the fringes cannot be held as reflective of the movement as a whole. The broad movement is non-violent (although it is increasingly the victim of violence by police etc).Rangoon11 (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The great civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. advocated non-violence and his protesters were trained in non-violence, but the movement was met by extreme violence and police brutality that resulted in many deaths. That does not change the fact that it was organized as a non-violent protest. Gandydancer (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
While you're right about MLK and the civil rights movement, that doesn't transfer to the occupy movement. There is a difference between the civil rights movement "being met by violence" and occupy movement being a source of violence.--160.133.1.228 (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Occupy protestors are breaking windows at various banks on the west coast...

http://www.kptv.com/story/16033228/windows-smashed-at-portland-bank --72.47.85.22 (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There are several fundamental differences between non-violence as advocated by MLK and the OWS movement. For one thing, MLK was against civil disobedience, and said that if the police wishes to arrest you or to beat you, you would let yourselves be arrested and beaten (until the conscience of the attacker stops him). That is not what was happening in OWS. MLK also advocated non-violence not just as a means but as an ends to itself, whereas the current OWS movement focuses on non-violence as a means to achieve its goal. Example: One third of surveyed protesters in a WSJ poll said that they are willing to use violence to achieve their goals, which shows that the mostly peaceful nature of the protests are more about image than philosophy. I actually find OWS's conception of "non-violence" more sensible myself, but that is not the way MLK or Gandhi saw it, so the use of the term is misleading. I believe the term "civil disobedience" which is currently in the article is a good substitute. JimSukwutput 16:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of civil disobedience. Read the articles. Gandydancer (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
So you insist that the OWS was organized as a "non-violent" protest following the philosophy of MLK? Why? JimSukwutput 05:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


I have to agree that the inclusion of the phrase 'non-violence', should be removed as not pertinent to the available facts. While no-violence may be part of some of Occupy's original messages and is still in use in some factions, is not totally applicable in the overall Occupy movement or its practices. Evidence of violence is not limited to isolated fringe incidents, but Occupy's own livestream archives show repeated acts of Occupy members at large overturning dumpsters, breaking down barricades and trashing public areas. Other supportive rationale points:

  • The basing of the movement on Arab Spring (as officially confirmed by Occupy itself) which was not a non-violent movement.
  • Official Occupy imagery in its posters and literature contain violent graphics and images; tanks, dripping blood, raised fists, etc., and colors used are black and red.
  • The official slogans and phrasing are also not 'non-violent'. E.g., "Let the US Days of Rage Begin', 'Fight Back', and other official verbiage evoke violence. A current posted slogan on the official sites is at this writing: 'The Only Solution is World Revolution'.
  • Occupy's own Livestreams of evictions show widespread threatening gestures and active confrontation from Occupy members at large.
  • Official Occupy 'calls to protest' are not non-violent acts by definition. For example, the 12/12 call to blockade all California ports in order 'to shut them down'.
  • One of the stated major goals of the Occupy movement that appears in print in their official literature is 'to destroy capitalism'.

It is true that its founding organizers may have wished it to be non-violent, but evidently from its own official actions and publications it has moved away from non-violence. Polling the editors, is it just Gandydancer who thinks the phrase 'non-violent' is still applicable and should remain? Is non violence their actual paradigm based upon their own publications and activities? Awolnetdiva (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

'Is the protest more or less violent than other protests' is the question that has to be answered for wiki standards. Not whether or not any violence occurred. Please keep on the right track people. Penyulap talk 12:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There is every bit of evidence to show that the Occupy movements are violent and that calling them otherwise is incorrect and unverifiable. In fact, there is only one editor I see arguing for their non-violent status. I'm going to be bold and remove references to non-violence where I see them in the article. Lithorien (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

...or not. I'm not going to get in an edit war with Gandydancer over this. Perhaps a section should be added to the article itself talking about the violence done in the Occupy movement's name? Lithorien (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
We can certainly talk about violent incidents overall. There seems to be sourcing for that. But the movement is overall a nonviolent movement. Be——Critical 22:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

potential Newsweek resource

2011 WINS: Occupation, excerpt ...

The American left finally found its voice this fall, driven into the streets in a rage over high unemployment and the coddling of Wall Street. It may not be a perfectly coherent voice, but it has been an enormously influential one, forcing politicians to talk about the vast wealth disparities that exist in the country today. Occupy is bound to have an outsize effect on this election cycle.

99.190.85.17 (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Footnote source contradicts article text

Hi there, I prefer not to make this edit since I don't have time to engage in back-and-forth on this controversial topic. However, there is a statement made in this article that is directly contradicted by the footnote used to support it.

Specifically, the article contains this statement:

"In the early morning hours of October 25, police cleared and closed an Occupy Oakland encampment in Frank Ogawa Park in Oakland, California.[96][97] The raid on the encampment was described as "violent and chaotic at times," and resulted in over 102 arrests but there were no injuries.[98][99]"

Now if you look at footnote 99, you get this article:

http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_19188591

which says:

"A spokesman for the National Lawyers Guild said two people suffered broken hands and a third was hospitalized with a head injury following the morning raid."

That's three injuries documented in the source for the statement that says there were no injuries!

Surely someone can fix this?

76.102.69.21 (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC) stevelimages@your-mailbox.com

Thanks - I fixed it. Gandydancer (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resources

from The Christian Science Monitor

99.190.86.5 (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Seeking consensus

Do you support or oppose this edit Pass a Method talk 14:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - in my view the reference to New York is best dealt with in the text where more context can be provided, this is not a simple factual detail.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I oppose also. Gandydancer (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Everything

I've seen several references to the 2009 Occupy Everything being part of the basis of the Occupy movement. See Los Angeles Review of Books [4] by Joshua Clover. occupyca dates back to 2009. There were similar Occupy events in NYC.[5] While it is always going to be difficult to draw the line to say where this movement started, I think we need a 'history' section to broadly cover some of these obvious fore-runners. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, good idea.Rangoon11 (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I was at UC Berkeley in Fall 2009 and I'm tempted to say it started there. There was a walkout conducted by UC staff that semester to protest tuition hikes and budget cuts. Afterwards, students began organizing their own protests, the most notorious of which was called "Occupy Wheeler", where about 40 protesters locked themselves in Wheeler Hall. After that, students from a handful of other UCs held "Occupy [some building]" protests on their own campuses. For "dead week" (a week of no instruction before finals week) they had organized mass occupation of buildings across the UC-system for what they called "live week" under the names Occupy Everything and Occupy California. Tent cities began popping up in Santa Cruz around this time I'm told. Sometime earlier this year, I was in Sacramento and witnessed an Occupy protest in front of the capital. When I heard of Occupy Wall Street, it was nothing new to me. Just today, however, I read CBS article that claimed the movement started on Wall Street and this article seems to support that. I really think Wikipedia should get this right because this whole ecosystem of Wikipedia citing the media citing Wikipedia leads to a very crappy revision of history. 69.62.177.13 (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Here's an announcement from December 9, 2009, that somewhat supports your version of history: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/12/09/18632028.php. The problem is that it does not use the word Occupy in the same fashion. In fact it casually changes from occupy to occupation of Wheeler. Same with page 148 of the book, Springtime: The New Student Rebellions, which does not help us define a new use of the term occupy relative to Wheeler Hall. Same with The Daily Californian of November 23, 2009, which does not make the word occupy into the sort of "Occupy Everything" that we now have. It, too, changes casually from occupation to occupy. The demonstration, a half-day sit-in, was only over school fees, not the larger issue of income disparity. It was hardly the precursor to Occupy Wall Street. Binksternet (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Clearly Occupy Wall Street triggered other protests with Occupy in their name. I don't think there is any dispute about that. To claim earlier starting points you would need to demonstrate some sort of triggering effect, i.e. did anyone at Occupy Wall Street say that they were inspired by a particular earlier event, with or without Occupy in the name? (In the 1960s we pinko, lefty uni students in Australia occupied our admin buildings from time to time, but I don't claim a connection with the modern movement.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This link may be of interesting in establishing its history. It is the first known web mention from adbusters, who helped foment the movement in some regard. http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/occupywallstreet-update.html Awolnetdiva (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Split?

I've seen this article (or group of articles) evolve throughout the past 4 or so months. The "Reaction" section of the Occupy Wall Street article has grown and practically takes up the whole article. My suggestion is to split the article and have a standalone article like Reactions to the Occupy movement, or something along those lines. I would want to know what the community thinks about this proposed split and any objections they wish to voice. -- Luke (Talk) 00:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan - so many interesting and noteable dimensions to try and squeeze in, more subsiduary articles will aid presentation. I advise that if possible whoever creates the new article should be sure to include 2 or 3 good sources that are primarily about reactions right from the start. That should prevent deletionists attacking the article and starting another time wasting discussion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I created a userpage draft for the article, which is located here. Feel free to improve it in anyway possible. -- Luke (Talk) 03:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for startting that. I copied most of our reaction section over. I think youre allowed to do that as long as you credit the original authors in the edit summary. Obviously just revert my edit if you dont like it. It could probably be moved to mainspace now, though if it was me I would check the main contributors to this article such as Rangoon and GandyDancer are cool with it. Or wait a week or so to see if anyone objects. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll be searching around the web to find some more reactions and public opinion. I'll notify Rangoon and GandyDancer when it is almost complete. -- Luke (Talk) 20:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the note on my talk page about this proposal. I've nothing against the idea in principle but I'm not sure that it's needed yet as the reactions section is not particularly long. At least some reactions content should be left in this article after a split, and at present I'm not sure what the difference would be between the new article and the summary left in this article. There is of course a very large amount of cited content which could be added to the reactions section/article which would make a split more workable.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the reaction section looks good enough to move into mainspace. A little more length would be preferable, but it's certainly good so far. -Kai445 (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and I support a move into mainspace too. I don't favour the simultaneous large scale deletion of the existing reactions content from this article though, which - at present - I think is a reasonable length and provides useful content for readers here. The new article will provide an excellent place for a much more detailed and extensive treatment though.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't look long enough to me. I would keep it here till it gets longer, since this is the higher profile article and will attract more editing. Be——Critical 06:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I have started an article entitled "Criticism of the occupy movement" in my user space. This should also help the flow of this article as it then splits it into: (1) what the movement is (the what); (2) what others have to say negatively (the negative reaction); and (3) the general reactions to the movement (i.e., the support). Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if others will agree but sounds good. Some of the discussions related to occupy articles get quite heated - your additional split should help avoid arguments about giving undue weight to the criticism compared to the support (which seems to have got a lot more of the high profile coverage, but sadly quite a few regular people dont seem to like occupy.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

So we have consensus to move the draft into the mainspace? In my opinion, I think this draft is fine to be moved because, as Becritical said, it is a high-profile article and it will be edited over time. -- Luke (Talk) 03:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I certainly concede to this request, and will keep working on the userdraft of criticism in my user space. We can link all three through the main page, and it should work fine that way.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Frankfurt resource, NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/business/global/at-occupy-frankfurt-calm-anarchy-has-staying-power.html "At Occupy Frankfurt, Calm Anarchy Has Staying Power. Unlike at other Occupy sites, the Frankfurt protesters are being careful to make their points without inciting police interference.' by Jack Ewing 3:27 PM ET New York Times.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

A version of this article appeared in print on December 16, 2011, on page B4 of the New York edition with the headline: No Clashes Mar the Calm of Occupy Frankfurt. 99.19.45.160 (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
See List of Occupy movement protest locations#Europe for Frankfurt, de:Occupy Wall Street#Deutschland and Occupy Berlin for de:Occupy Germany. 99.181.148.11 (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Banished Words List: "Occupy" 2011

Add from Lake Superior State University#Traditions?

Time (magazine) example 99.109.125.85 (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image

I have reverted to the prior, longstanding, infobox image as I feel that it works better at the size used. I like the other image but, for me at least, all I see are lots of indistinct dots with no point of focus for the eye.

In my view an image montage (with say six images, like Arab Spring) would be the best way forward for the infobox image however, since the Occupy movement is so large, in so many places and so multi-faceted. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I see that a new montage has been added. Can I make a couple of requests/suggestions? Could we possibly include the two images below in the six, purely because I think they work well at a small size and would add some interest and variety to the montage:Rangoon11 (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello - what do you think of two below:


— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.103.74 (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No objections from me, although I still like the one with the 'Occupy Everything' placard as well, I think it works really well at a small resolution.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to see the two on the right included. Gandydancer (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
How about having all three in place of three of the existing six (which are all fairly similar)?Rangoon11 (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good! Gandydancer (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
That is two from NYC; doesn't make sense in this global article; should include one from NYC - the "Its about Freedom" one is better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.103.74 (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
True but the one with the 'Occupy Everything' banner is not obviously in New York unless blown up large, and the movement did afterall start there. We could still have something like (very roughly): two fom New York/US (although only one is obviously from there), one from the UK, one from Canada, one from continental Europe and one from the rest of the world. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Please do what you think makes sense; I am fine with various combinations. Thank you for your efforts on Wikipedia - you are doing a great job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.103.74 (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello everyone, sorry because i didn't see this discussion earlier. I am the creator of the current image [6], i made it originally as a simple combination for local use on Arabic Wikipedia, but as you want a combination to use here, i can make some changes on it if you like. Please tell me if there is any possible improvements may be done on the image, i can replace some images for example or make other adjustments --aad_Dira (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC).

Request for Comment: Mohamed Bouazizi and the Occupy movement additions in the 2011 article

Thought you all might be interested in taking part in the Request for Comment on this subject at Talk:2011#Request_for_Comment:_Mohamed_Bouazizi_and_the_Occupy_movement_additions. Seems to me the writers of this article would be especially qualified to make a judgment. Wrad (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Mother Jones resources

97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, MJ is a good source (: Be——Critical 03:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to use one of them. I always appreciate suggestions. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagree Mother Jones is not a legitimate source, please try to use a mainstream not an extrmist liberal idealougue one.Basil rock (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

potential resource

Who wasted $13 million on Occupy Protest? by Aaron Cynic & Natalie W. (page 8 & 9 of January 2012 Z Magazine in print) 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is the subtitle: The State ties up resources, then blames activists 99.181.134.101 (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

create or activate translations

Forgive me, I have never used the Discussion board, and do not know how to do so properly. However, it would be a significant contribution if an editor could activate or create translations of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement into more languages than the six listed. It is an "international protest movement"[7] therefore it should be available on Wikipedia in as many languages as possible. Thank you for your time and patience.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.219.123.132 (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2011‎ (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the Occupy movement originated from Tel Aviv

In Tahrir they called for leadership change of a tyrant, but in Israel it was focusing on economic issues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Israeli_social_justice_protests — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.98.155 (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You're going to have to work awfully hard to convince everyone that it didn't start with Occupy Wall Street in New York. HiLo48 (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe it started with Democracia_Real_Ya in Spain. But mainstream journalists ignored it until the movement came to NY Yoda1015 (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Goal

The goal paragraph is messy and incoherent. I think it should be more clear and informative, something like:

Economic. Concentration of wealth. Responsibility for the current crisis. Austerity cuts. The imperative of growth. A more stable financial system.

Democratic. Corruption. The power of money is undermining democracy. The mainstream mass media are controlled by money.

Environmental. Overexploitation of world resources. Pollution. Climate crisis. Food crisis. Sustainability. Short term economic profit goes before long term sustainability.

The discussion of whether the movement has a clear goal is secondary and less relevant now than when the movement began. Yoda1015 (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yoda, as a new editor I was all set to criticize you, however after reading the section and considering your suggestion more carefully, I believe you are correct. Most of my editing has been at the Occupy Wall Street article and I believe that the lack of a goal statement at that article was and remains of utmost importance. But to use that article's Goal section for this one just does not work very well, does it? Looking at it with your viewpoint, I'd have to agree that it's "messy and incoherent". Unless other editors can change my mind, I believe that it could use a complete re-write. Gandydancer (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
(Reading the OWS article, I see that the Goals section at that article could use some work as well...) Gandydancer (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Messy and incoherent... Hmm. I find it hard to believe that from the finest and most capable members of society no competent or clear leaders have emerged. Are you going to synthesize some goals for this "movement" based on the statments of... disorganized anarchists? Where can we find a citation for the official goals of the movement. I think we have citations for:
  1. trespass
  2. collect social services while not working in any way even in effectual organization of their case
  3. complain about living in countries with more food and wealth for the least of their citizens than most of the rest of the world enjoys
  4. get into fights with police
  5. propose ex post facto arrest of varieties of persons involved in providing 2) and 3)
  6. call mob rule democracy
  7. call some variety of forcible socialist revolution democracy
  8. call violent resistance of the authorities nonviolence
  9. (as someone pointed out above, variations on Rothschilds and other antisemitic crackpot conspiracy theory etc.)
As a social democrat myself, I find this POV-laden publicity article an embarrassment to every standard of wikipedia, and to people actually working for realistic and effective social equality. How are you going to concoct goal statements for somehing that does not have an organization? There is no balance to this article. And I wonder when my IQ or god knows what might place me in a despised minority of people who cause civilization to progress. Please clean this rubbish article up with NPOV - crticism and potentially unflattering material belongs mixed right in with the rest. All hail the lowest common denominator, his abiity to breed like a rabbit, and whatever gorilla among him manages to pick up a stick first and take charge! Obotlig (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
This talk page is not a forum or blog and your own POV is very clear from the above (and from your editing history). Please don't fill this page with anymore wholly unconstructive junk.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I can't believe you would question my neutrality when the entire article is an embarrassing collection of synthesized material, selectve reporting and POV pushing. I can come up with sources for the items I listed and reputable journalists who would make more or less the observations I listed. Other people have raised some of these issues on the talk page. And just which sources are we going to consider reliable (as in not outright promoting or applauding some agenda) for something which is not actually a clear or uniform "movement". The widespread criticism of this "movement" and general treatment of it as criminal in nature is not fairly reflected by the article. Nonviolence indeed. Go fight wth some police. Obotlig (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
This edit [8] makes your POV-pushing agenda in respect of this article crystal clear, and it very hard to take any of your comments seriously. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I may be guilty of adding 187 bytes of WP:POINT to a section of an article filled with violations of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH and WP:RS. Does one nullify the other? My mistake means yours (collctively) should go unquestioned? Again, without RS citations of the goals of something called the "occupy movement" this goals section will be a mess, probably created by would-be organizers of the movement. Are you so sure you can distinguish between between what you imagine to be my POV and a joke I will admit was a bad edit. Ten thousand bad edits don't a good article make. I am not the first to question the characterizations, claims and bias of this article. Especially attributing cohesive goals to something that is by no measure a unified effort. We could describe the behaviors thus far with reliable sources, but the goals? All you can do is quote some statements by people with no authority to speak for anyone else, and what journalists have described about the "occupy movement" with balance among which journalists you select from. Obotlig (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Just over half the writing and sources in the Goals section were added by me, and Ive no objection if anyone wants to improve it, even if they completely rewrite. But please be careful to avoid misleading OR, if possible by using quality sources for any major claims. Possibly the only easy to source common goal is to address inequality. We already spotlight this in the lede. Getting money out of politics is maybe a majority concern in the US, resisting austerity in Europe - not sure if either of these deserve to be called goals of the overall movement in the same way that inequality can. If you can find good sources that give a clear coherent picture, then great. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Good advise FeydHuxtable. I did some work on the 2011 United Kingdom anti-austerity protests and they are very aware that it was the financial sector that was at the bottom of the problem even though they directly targeted politicians and the cuts to the middle class. It was my impression that they very quickly grasped the OWS "occupy" philosophy - they got it right away because they had already been organizing for months. By "occupy philosophy" I mean the understanding that while greed for money/power is the root of the problem (and perhaps always has been), the results are so broad and devastating that people around the world see humankind as at a point in history that only a unified effort to wrestle power from the hands of the 1% will avert disaster. Of course, I realize that this is just my impression of what's going on - I'm not suggesting that it belongs in the article...unless it could be sourced... Gandydancer (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I would also vote for a complete rewrite of the goal section.

Sources for the goal section: Occupy NTC declaration Real democracy now manifest Occupy London statement Occupy London statement Liberty Square Blueprint Occupy Copenhagen manifest. The discussion of whether the movement has a well-defined goal is relevant since it has been claimed that it has no clear goal and different groups may have different goals. However, this discussion is secondary, and the list of the most common goals should go first. Yoda1015 (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

2700+ locations?

The source for that there has been protests in 2.700 places is meetup.com. But that only says that there are people in 2.700 different locations that are interested in meeting other people interested in OWS. That's not a list of protests in any way.

Counting through List of Occupy movement protest locations quickly and inaccurately indicates that it is rather around 600 locations. And that includes such locations as Krakow, which has as it's source a facebook group, whose only evidence of protests are pictures of three people and one banner from Krakow main square. Which I guess counts as a protest of *some* sort...

I really think some sort of reliable sources are needed for this instead. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The sentence in the lead doesn't state that there have been protests in 2,700 locations, but gives the number of occupy communities on Meetup. This is longstanding and of relevance.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
It's completely irrelevant, and it claimed to be the number of locations of protest, not the number of "communities" on Meetup (most of which have only one person). --OpenFuture (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph: Subject of Protests

I have made a bold edit to the first sentence to clarify what the protest movement is directed against, to include the effects of inequality rather than just the inequality itself:

"The Occupy Movement is an international protest movement which is primarily directed against the perceived effects of economic and social inequality on the democratic process."

I would not be surprised if this generates controversy, since I am a newbie and naively following the Wikipedia guidelines without much insight into the actual politics of Wikipedia. However I think a thoughtful dialogue would lead to an even better lead paragraph.

Here's a supporting quote from reference 7, already cited for the current lead sentence:

"It's not poor against rich. It's about big money dictating which politicians get elected and what programs get funded."

And quotes from reference 8, the other citation for that sentence:

"Writers by the dozen have lamented the influence that Wall Street exercised over Washington throughout the 1990s, leading up to the great collapse of 2008."

"A multi-billion dollar lobbying campaign, tied to hundreds of millions in campaign contributions, got Washington to erase its regulations and withdraw its regulators."

"What the protesters are saying is true: Wall Street's money has corrupted this democracy. What they are demanding is right: An end to that corruption."

Furthermore, quotes from two primary sources:

http://occupywallst.org/about/

"#ows is fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations."

http://www.nycga.net/resources/faq/

"Occupy Wall Street is an otherwise unaffiliated group of concerned citizens like you and me, come together around one organizing principle: We will not remain passive as formerly democratic institutions become the means of enforcing the will of only 1-2% of the population who control the magnitude of American wealth."

PubliusDigitus (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted to the long-standing text, which in my view is more accurate. With a movement of this scale and geographic spread there will inevitably be some participants with narrower motivations, and some with broader ones, but in my view the current wording is the best way to capture this. The proposed new wording was in my view far too narrow. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
My issue here is that the lead sentence is directly contradicted by at least one of its citations, for example the quote "It's not poor against rich. It's about big money dictating which politicians get elected and what programs get funded." In other words, it's not about the inequality itself. If there's a nuance of social inequality that I'm not catching, I'd love to be pointed to something that clears me up. Both citations for the lead sentence are about Occupy Wall Street specifically, rather than the global movement as a whole. Perhaps a citation regarding the global movement would be more appropriate. Also, I wonder if there is language that would be broad enough to cover both the existing statement and the cited references. Maybe something like this? "primarily directed against economic, social, and political inequality" Would love to hear some more specific feedback. Thanks! PubliusDigitus (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm with Rangoon11 on the wider scope, but I wouldn't object to mentioning political inequality. Selery (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the lead paragraph many think the OWS are a bunch of lazy people who want entitlements, we should not just accept the OWS propoganda.Basil rock (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that "perceived effects...on the democratic process" is an improvement. I prefer the existing lede. Gandydancer (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Cites can almost always be improved, and that's certainly the case here, however it should be remembered that the first sentence of the lead of an article is in effect a distillation (although not a summary) from the contents and cites in the whole article. In my view 'political inequality' is a non-standard wording which would raise more questions than answers if added. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that against economic and social inequality is contradicted by the references. I have changed it to concentration of wealth and abuse of economic power, which is the best distillation I can think of of the many issues of the movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoda1015 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
This addresses my suggestions, and is more clearly written than my attempts. PubliusDigitus (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Not agreed, per my comments above.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Rangoon11, it is unwise to just revert to the old version when everybody else agrees that the old text is contradicted by the references. You should come up with something better or leave it. Yoda1015 (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Would you agree on something like this: Occupy is a global movement that seeks to make the economic structure and power relations more fair. Different local groups have different foci, but most of the concerns are connected with the claim that the global financial system controls the world in an unstable way that benefits only few and is undermining democracy (+ relevant references). Yoda1015 (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing?

The page still denotes the Occupy Movement as Ongoing, yet no updates regarding its activity have been written in over 3 weeks. Its no secret that the winter and intensifying legal pressure have seriously slowed any momentum the movement previously had. Why is still listed as Ongoing? The movement's leaders will not declare it over until their goals are reached which, as we all know here, isn't likely at any point in this near or distant future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.126.210 (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The next section under chronology would probably be weeks 15-18, which goes through this coming Friday. Meanwhile not every recent development will be notable enough for inclusion, especially in this article with international scope. Even so, the update regarding Nigeria within the last 3 weeks seems significant to me. PubliusDigitus (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for this, Nigeria seems well worth including as the protests have been especially intense there, and there has been global support from the rest of occupy. Realistically, the movement is going to wax and wane, varying by region, but overall its not going to fizzle out any time soon. So I made the next sub section for whole of 2012, as the Chronology will soon get unwieldly if we stick to 4 week intervals. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
It's summer here. HiLo48 (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You can use this template to find ongoing information, if you have time you can add it to the article. Penyulap talk 04:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC) (text inserted into archive) the template rtnews has been commented out Penyulap ☏ 16:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Facebook

if Occupy has no "official" leadership, then oversees all of their FB pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.101.160.159 (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of "their FB pages"? HiLo48 (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
From the sources I've seen, the local general assembly delegates responsibility to a working group. For example, Occupy Boston's Facebook page is run by their working group for Media. See the "Structure" section, which links to the expanded description in the General assembly (Occupy movement) article. PubliusDigitus (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal Opinion of interest?

from Talk:Occupy Wall Street ...

See Astroturfing

99.35.12.74 (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Occupy movement non-violent?

The infobox describes the movement as "non-violent". There are more than enough verifiable sources stating the objective facts of numerous acts of violence and criminal activity which occurred at the Occupy sites. The article obscures this important objective fact. An NPOV tag should be added.184.100.94.240 (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Protest movements may be either violent or nonviolent:

  • Peaceful movements - various movements which use nonviolent means of protest as part of a campaign of nonviolent resistance, also often called civil resistance. The American Civil Rights movement, Polish Solidarity movement or the nonviolent, civil disobedience-orientated wing of the Indian independence movement would fall into this category.
  • Violent movements - various movements which resort to violence; they are usually armed and in extreme cases can take a form of a paramilitary or terrorist organization. Examples: the Rote Armee Fraktion, Al-Qaida.

The concept of this movement clearly states that it is to be a non-violent protest movement. That some individuals within the movement, some individuals merely "observing" the movement, and some individuals that are part of the legal opposition to the movement sometimes use violence is to be expected and does not change the nature of the movement. I will revert the change made by the anon editor. Gandydancer (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't want the truth. You want to control information. Welcome to WP. 184.100.94.240 (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
There's one major issue with your logic, aside from the 'anon editor' snipe (which was wrong). If your movement/group/organization lets anyone fall under their banner, then they have to accept responsibility for actions done under that name. Saying that the violent parts of OWS are invalid is just like Christians trying to argue that Hitler wasn't an actual Christian, even though he identified and practiced as one. Members of OWS have commited violence in its name, therfore, OWS is not non-violent. Lithorien (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Hitler was raised a Christian but he specifically rejected the faith, is well known to have planned its replacement in the event of victory, and is widely considered to be a pagan. Even the more reasonable militant atheists like editor Richard Dawkins accept this. Christians dont try to argue anything of the sort - very few moderately aware scholars would take your position. Getting back to the matter at hand, who says the movement has to be responsible for every single member? If you can find a reliable source that rejects the description of the overall movement as non violent that will sway the debate, otherwise IMO at least, picking out individual cases is just cherry picking. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
"anon editor" was not meant to be a snipe. If an editor has no name it seems appropriate to me. Gandydancer (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Gandydancer - you say "The concept of this movement clearly states that it is to be a non-violent protest movement." Can you expand on that please? Writing "clearly states" implies that there is a formal code behind these protests. What is it? Where is it? HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Here is from CNN Sept 16: Kalle Lasn, co-founder of the venerable counterculture magazine AdBusters, has taken to Twitter and other websites to help organize a campaign encouraging tens of thousands of Americans to hold a nonviolent sit-in on Saturday in lower Manhattan, the heart of the U.S. financial district -- a protest monikered, hashtag and all, as #occupywallstreet. You can also go to the OWS website for info. Gandydancer (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Great goal. But how many of the thousands of participants in the movement right around the world have read that? Obviously very few. Having a fine goal like that is unfortunately no guarantee that it will be followed by all participants. Maybe we could find a way of describing non-violence as a goal, but not necessarily a reality. Dunno how that will fit in an Infobox though. (Yet more reason for me to hate Infoboxes.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know where you got the idea that there is not violence in a movement which states that its methods are to be non-violent - in fact, its almost a certainty. If the term applied only to movements that never experienced any violence, the number of non-violent movements would go down to zero. That should be obvious. Furthermore, I believe that your suggestion that the other countries that have joined in the movement are not able to "read that" is...disturbing. The originators of the movement called for a non-violent movement and the other countries that have articles all state that their movements are "peaceful" movements. The main article states that the OWS movement is using non-violent tactics and unless you can furnish sources that state that the world-wide movement is different, I will replace the non-violent wording. Gandydancer (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
You do that, and I will be just as quick to remove it again, Gandydancer. The major issue is that OWS has never made a valid claim to be a non-violent movement, and the quote you gave only applies to a single sit-in. Applying it to the campaign as a whole, especially when actions are speaking louder than words, is insanity. A group's actions, not the stated word of one individual, are what defines the group. Lithorien (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The term nonviolent protest has been extensively discussed at the main article and the term has not been removed from that article. Furthermore, no editor has been able to furnish a source that states that the Occupy movements in other countries has changed the nature of their movement's tactics to include violent resistance. I will replace the phrase to this article since it was removed without adequate sourcing. Gandydancer (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, please provide references that show that the nature of the movement has changed from nonviolent protest to violent protest. Gandydancer (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
They have been provided. See the first section on this very page. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they're not valid. Lithorien (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Considering that your list includes such incidents as this one [9], you will need to submit a reasonable reference that states that the protest has turned to violent means of protest. Gandydancer (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I see an unsightly NPOV tag has been added to the article, most likely due to this issue. I searched for an authorative source to maybe settle this dispute but couldnt find one that talks about the whole movement and discusses whether it merits characterization as non violent. (there are sources that do and come down on the non violent side, but mainly they seem to be blog level). Can anyone find such a source? FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
This is pretty good. And as you say, there are high level blog entries [10]. The thing here is not that there is strong sourcing for "nonviolent movement," but that there is no sourcing except original research for saying the opposite- and these are incidents within a general nonviolent matrix. We should go with the the characterization we can directly source and with the overall theme. Also, they characterize themselves that way, which has some weight if there are no RS objections. Be——Critical 22:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I say it isn't so much Wikipedia's job analyzing how much violence was involved to produce a 1 or 0 statement of whether or not the movement fits the standard of "non-violent." It might be a better idea instead, to list the cases of violence by both the protesters and the police and give the reader free choice in deciding for him/herself whether or not the movement can be classified as "non-violent." It doesn't feel right how most who read this article will finish without ever getting a glimpse of the silenced instances of violence 72.47.85.22 has listed, as if those cases are erased from existence. Much of the violence by the police was also described to deep in this long article for most readers to see, as not many people read that far, although it wasn't ignored all together the way violence by the protesters were. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Its easy to pick out the exceptional violent incidents, far less easy to show the millions of peacful protest hours that have taken place in the thousands of world-wide occupy locations. Surely the reader would need to be aware of both to make an informned decision? That said, am starting to think we should remove the "non violent" designation unless a strong source can be found to support it that addresses the admited incidents of violence and puts them in perspective for us. At least then we can remove the unsightly neautrality tag! It would be undue weight to prominently display x.85.22's examples in this article, but if you want to add one or two of them to the appropiate parts of the Chronology sub sections folk would probably not object. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The "millions of peacful protest hours that have taken place in the thousands of world-wide occupy locations" can be easily addressed by adding that despite these events, the majority of the protests went through without such violent encounters. ...or something like that. Undue weight should be ultimately fixed by showing the whole story, by saying this happened but that or that but this happened instead of implying nothing happened. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll just leave this here... http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/01/us-protests-wallstreet-idUSTRE8000HA20120101 Lithorien (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Doubt that event will make it into this article directly, but I hope it could at least be put somewhere that this article links to. I also think there needs to be a note or some disclaimer at least after the "non-violent" label, otherwise the confused readers who just read the top fraction of the article before clicking on some link and not returning will see only the word "non-violent" to conclude how the protesters got along with the police. This lack of mentioning, especially at the top fraction of the article, is an insult to police and protesters who got injured by each other by strongly implying the injuries did not exist. The reason for such silence is, in my opinion, because both the protesters and the police are much more interested in hiding the demoralizing actions by individuals on their side than to expose the other side, and it is as difficult to expose as it is to hide because everything on Wikipedia is editable (which's a good thing against rumors). We should try to find a way to mention all the violence, but still note that it does not occur commonly, and protester violence is probably due to a small percentage of hostile grudge holders against police not supported by the majority, and the police violence is probably unplanned, committed in a provoking atmosphere by a small percentage of officers who would probably attack each other if they couldn't be identified by uniforms, not supported by the government. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
You folks make a solid argument, so, Ive created a sub section as suggested. It mentions the worst of the violence including rapes, at least one murder, and the scissor attack from Lithorien's source. Also the foxnews source is included as that seems to be the strongest one accusing the movement of being violent. If you think more critical sources need to be added you could always do so direct to the article. Balancing the critical sources are quotes even from your own sources such as the USA Today article where it says "the vast majority of Occupy members have been non-violent", the excellent source from editor BCritical, a source from one of the worlds leading Sociologist, and a source from good Naomi Klein. Weighing up these sources are you guys agreeable for us to take off the neutrality tag while still saying "Non violence" in the info box? FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
At least for me, the current statement is acceptable. I can see the consensus is that a movement is non-violent if they claim they are, however, not mentioning the violence done in OWS' name was just irresponsible as editors in my opinion. At this point, I'd be happy to remove the neutrality tag from the article. Lithorien (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Good addition. I think that some people forget that there is almost always a small degree of violence in any large gathering. I read that there were 41 arrests, mostly for public intoxication, a handful for assaults, of people attending the Rose Bowl Parade. The inner city camps were especially vulnerable due to the large number of homeless, many of whom are mentally unstable and drug/alcohol addicts, who moved into the camps. Gandydancer (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Lithorien, I think youre right it would be irresponsible not to mention the real risk of violence, especially as there are still large numbers of young people joining the movement, including a new trend for students being encouraged to do so by their teachers as part of their course work! Gandydancer, yes have seen this at the St Pauls camp, lots of homeless people attracted by the good energy and community spirit they used to have, less idealists there now. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
FeydHuxtable, it's a very good addition. I don't see any need for the POV tag. Be——Critical 07:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

We should eventually also add more of the specific events of violence committed by police members, even cases where it seems a single officer was responsible. Also, the violence committed by police members should not be written is such a way it appears to justify support for the movement, although this may turn out to be very difficult. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, wasn't that murder by a homeless man? As it's currently in the article, it's as if an occupier did it. Also that section is using Fox News, which we aren't doing at the Occupy Wall Street article as it's so biased. But then you are also using huffington post, which seems like the opposite corollary (and huff post has no end of highly relevant content which usually seems fairly reliable to me: same as Fox, a biased source which can be used if used correctly). Anyways if you use both it might balance out in the text fairly well. Be——Critical 20:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

We are definitely making progress in mentioning violence that did happen, as now readers will at least, know that protester violence existed, although not, by any means, the full story. Instances of police violence already exists on other articles, so interested readers who read a lot could find it without difficulty. Nevertheless, it would still be better for readers who do not read very far, if the section on nonviolence could also mention, at least a brief summary of, those police violence instances that already exists in other Wikipedia articles, such as what we have in the articles Occupy UC Davis, Occupy Oakland. 2011 Rome demonstration#Riots also needs to be mentioned there, as it is related to the Occupy movement, being part of the 15 October 2011 global protests. I also found more webpages on Google of instances of violence: 

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2011/12/13/live-blog-for-occupy-movement-police-violence-in-houston-seattle-san-diego-extends-port-shutdown-action/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/turnstyle/issue-of-violence-divides_b_1101715.html
site could not be added due to spam filter...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/violence-and-the-occupy-movement/2011/10/30/gIQAnKBeXM_blog.html
http://www.alternet.org/rights/153192/violent_police_crack-downs_on_the_occupy_movement_represent_a_real_threat
http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/violence-of-occupy-movement-overshadows-message
http://www.dailycal.org/2011/11/10/occupy-cal-protest-sees-large-crowds-violence/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/occupy-san-francisco-two-sfpd-officers-injured-during-march-.html

I doubt we could use all of those, but there're some instances of violence here that 72.47.85.22 didn't find. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this has already been brought up, but I couldn't find anything about it and I think it's really important. The primary info box cites 24 deaths, yet all of the citation links are invalid (citations 3-6). The links are not broken, but they only link to the general news sites, and nothing about the article mentioned. For example, citation 4 "Woman Dies at Occupy Vancouver Site" just links to the main news page at ABC News, and does not even attempt to link to the actual article. This is also the case for citation 5. Citation 3 links to a Washington Post page saying no such article can be found. Citation 6 actually links to a CNN article, but it makes absolutely no mention about anyone being killed. Also citation 2, which is the only citation offered for the 100+ injuries figure, links to an article that is in another language (Slovenian?) and is not from an internationally reputable news source (24ur.com). This is my first time posting on a talk page, so I'm sorry if I have posted this in the wrong spot or have violated procedure, but I thought this was important given the controversial nature of the stats, and their prominent location in the primary info box. Dsal1951 (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Good find and thanks. Yes, those two figures should be removed. The arrests number can be updated as well. Gandydancer (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The "Occupy movement" entry's woefully inadequate crime section makes no mention, at all, of the well-known and well-documented incidents of protesters defecating on police cars, assualting police officers etc. and some have even gone so far as to suggest that OWS's behavior has been provoked by the police. Multiple organizations have begun to catalog the reported criminal incidents that have occurred at the supposedly non-violent rallies, and by some counts the number is at least 500. At an Occupy protest in San Francisco, the protesters actually stole Bibles from the rooms of a hotel, ascended to the roof of the hotel and then proceeded to throw the Bibles at the police. In addition to the Bibles, the protesters also hurled bricks at police and broke windows of local businesses. http://blog.timesunion.com/joy/occupy-san-francisco-protestors-throw-bibles-bricks-at-cops/738/ This was not the action of one or two protesters, rather a large crowd of them participated. Not a single mention is made of this incident in the "Occupy Movement" entry. The list of crimes reported in national media outlets but not in the "Occupy movement" entry goes on and on and suffice it to say, the section detailing the crimes committed at these rallies is inadequate to the point of dereliction. And by the way, an above commenter's statement that "we are not using Fox News as a source on the Occupy Movement" is beyond pathetic and goes to show that this entire entry is biased to the core. Fox News's non-opinion journalism has always been considered a reliable source at Wikipedia, and those who don't like what Fox is reporting don't get to pick and choose what reliable sources others can include simply because they disagree with what is being reported. The comment I mention is completely indicative of the bullshit being engaged in by particular editors who think any negative reporting on OWS is, ipso facto, biased. Can you image what the reaction would be if I went to the Tea Party entry and stated "we aren't using the NY Times as a source for the Tea Party because they are too biased" and then proceeded to excise any piece of information that was included with a citation from the NY Times? Seriously, one sometimes gets the impression that Wikipedia is a subsidiary of The Onion, because some of the comments and entries are so biased, they rise to the level of self-parody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.223 (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Salon, 27 Oct. 2011, "The Victory OWS Has Already Won: The Protests Have Helped Shift the National Dialogue from the Deficit to the Real Problems Americans Face," http://www.salon.com/2011/10/27/the_victory_ows_has_already_won/
  2. ^ Tikkun, 9 November 2011, An Important Occupy Wall Street Victory: Shifting the Conversation from 'National Deficit' to 'Personal Debt,'" http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/2011/11/09/occupy-wall-streets-victory-shifting-the-conversation-from-national-defecit-to-personal-debt/
  3. ^ AlterNet, 8 Nov. 2011, "4 Occupations Embracing the Homeless (As Cities Increasingly Can't Take Care of Them: It is impossible to separate homelessness from Occupy Wall Street's struggle for economic justice," http://www.alternet.org/story/153020/occupy_movement_brings_attention_to_the_homeless_
  4. ^ Politico, 11 Nov. 2011, "Occupy Wall Street is Winning," http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1111/Occupy_Wall_Street_is_winning.html
  5. ^ a b New York Times, 8 Nov. 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/business/occupy-movement-inspires-unions-to-embrace-bold-tactics.html?pagewanted=all
  6. ^ "'Occupy' is most commonly used word in English language media, claims study". The Telegraph. 10 November 2011. Retrieved 15 November 2011.
  7. ^ http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/11/28/the_fp_top_100_global_thinkers?page=0,23#thinker24
  8. ^ Kristjanson-Gural, David. "I Am the Spokesperson for #OWS: These Are Our Demands". LA Progressive. Dick Price and Sharon Kyle. Retrieved 29 November 2011.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupy_movement/Archive_2&oldid=1151024498"