Talk:Occupy movement hand signals

Notability

I'm on the verge of nominating this article for deletion. The information in this article is trivial, and fails Notability guidelines. Bowmerang (talk) 05:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't. This is a unique, stylized facit of all the demonstrations. It is a necessary function, a language that has grown through the necessity of trying to achieve consensus from a large group of divergent people. It certainly has received considerable coverage, beyond the sources cited. Unless you have an agenda to quash everything Occupy (which some people do) there is no legitimate excuse to try to delete notable sidebar subjects like this. And if your agenda is just to try to delete all wikipedia articles in sight, I suggest you find another hobby. Trackinfo (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Having a separate article on the hand signals of OWS makes about as much sense as having an article on Abraham Lincoln's hat. If this information is important, than it belongs in the Occupy Wall Street article. I suggest it be moved there. And no, I don't have an ulterior motive. Bowmerang (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

As I have said on several of these talk pages, the main articles have become unwieldy. There is so much editing activity on them that they are becoming non-sensical. They are a terrible read. As in regular journalism, sidebars on distinctive subjects related to the core subject are quite appropriate here. We need more of them to separate and expand off of the various condensed main articles. Wikipedia's knowledge base is not on an article limit. Trackinfo (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles shouldn't be made just because they can be made. This is a trivial topic that lacks significant media coverage, and fails to satisfy WP:NOTE. Bowmerang (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I just found Consensus_decision-making#Hand_signals which seems to already cover the topic nicely and shows where the hand signals came from. I've added a comment to that section that hand signals are used in OWS negotiations. If the comment sticks, then a merge/redirect to the already existing hand signals article might be appropriate.--Nowa (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion and/or merge seconded. If it's notable in any sense, it's only notable enough for a section on the main OWS page. -- Glynth (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree - If not merged, then at least rename it to something more obvious than "Occupy hand signals". The current title is not entirely clear. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 21:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Bowmerang, Glynth, is there any particular aspect of Wikipedia:Notability where you feel the article falls short?--Nowa (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Are any of these signals verifiable?--72.19.122.220 (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking if there is a reliable secondary source that says that these are, in fact, the hand signals used?--Nowa (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Colbert Report video covers all of them, I believe. Silverseren^C 17:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree I think there's useful information here but it belongs elsewhere. Perhaps, a new article about the Occupy Movement General Assemblies. Or merged into an existing article on the Occupy Movement itself, or Consensus-making decision processes, or all three. Incidentally, the hand signals and processes differ from city to city, so this is only documenting what happens in New York city with any degree of accuracy. NeilK (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Not notable

I think this content should be deleted / merged into consensus decision-making. This doesn't meet notability, and it's no more than a stub. The only difference between this and normal consensus hand signals is the names. --144.124.242.75 (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. Aside from the names (which are trivial and unlikely to be universal) all the information in this article is better addressed elsewhere. At the very least, the name of this article should be changed to something more encyclopedic, such as "Hand signals used by the Occupy Wall Street movement". -- LWG ^talk 05:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The content I added verifies the lack of universality. At he same time, it shows there is more content out there to explore and expand. We are well past WP:GNG for notability and the content is past being a stub. Plus there is a lot of potential for expansion as this new language becomes more, or less, defined. You can't just take an article in its infancy and say its a stub, not significant and not notable. You can't predict the future development, but with a WP:POV agenda, you can try to quash development by killing a subject early. Agendas are not what WP is about. Trackinfo (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Arguing that the hand signals might be notable in the future is pure speculation. A separate article on the hand signals of OWS does not meet notability standards because the topic at hand lacks significant coverage. However, the hand signals might merit inclusion into the Occupy Wall Street article. I suggest that this article be merged/deleted. Please assume good faith and do not accuse other editors of having an agenda. Bowmerang (talk) 06:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not speculating. This article has already proven its notability by the variety of sources covering the subject. I am suggesting, for future reference, it is irresponsible to try to kill an article in its infancy. Once deleted, it is significantly harder to re-start an article. You know most everything related to the Occupy story is still evolving. Maybe in the future, all this will get pared down to a single article about an insignificant and unsuccessful protest movement. Right now, its a hot news item with, in this case, many significant sidebars and more activity than anything else on wikipedia. You and I don't know the future. You can see a 10 line article. Call it a stub, call it what you want. We are documenting a current event. It will only grow. Wanting it to disappear is your wishful thinking. An agenda. POV. There will be more sidebar articles. Potentially there could be one about each city where something unique or significant happens, or about that unique occurrence. If the specific subject can start to show independent significance, you can't rush to judgement and say its going nowhere. Trackinfo (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I oppose merging. There appears to be more than enough coverage in the article currently to show that it has independent notability. Silverseren^C 07:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, there is no need to accuse people of having an agenda. I have no objection to having information about OWS here. My only agenda is in how Wikipedia can best serve its purpose of providing readers with the information that they are looking for. As currently written, the content of this article can be summarized thus:

• Some segments of the OWS movement use hand signals to guide discussion, a statement supported by numerous news sources.
• Duplication of content in Consensus_decision-making#Hand_signals
• Some idiosyncratic names used for some of these signals. As a source for this, we only have three youtube videos, each of which gives a different set of signals/names, and all of which are anonymous uploads from people involved with the movement, not reliable secondary sources.

The first point can be expressed in a single sentence, the second is redundant, and the third does not appear to be notable at this time, so I think it would be better to merge this into Consensus_decision-making#Hand_signals and Occupy Wall Street. -- LWG ^talk 21:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

← I have to agree with LWG. While the means of communication used by OWS have encyclopedic merit, there's not enough soure material to warrant a full article. There is definately value to be had by taking elements of this article and human microphone and building a section on how the groups communicate within themselves, but that's the extent for now. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 14:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

While there are already 22 lines of text on my screen, which to me takes this well beyond a stub, from the sources I was finding, there are plenty more communicative concepts already in play that can be added to improve this article. There is nothing to indicate that this article is a dead subject, quite the contrary it is a still evolving story that will need to be followed in the future to be kept up to date. I think any move to consolidate this into other articles will only serve to bury this subject by making it harder to find, as opposed to improving the information collected here. The hard part, as with anything involving this movement, is finding any authoritative reliable sources. At the moment, the movement has no spokespeople and nothing authoritative--their language follows suit. In the future, when we can look at this with clearer eyes, someone will write authoritative or analytical sources about these subjects. Until that time, while this is a current event, we get to do the best we can from what is available reliably. Trackinfo (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

What is available reliably is a one-line factoid which can easily be integrated into Occupy Wall Street and/or Consensus_decision-making#Hand_signals. If, in the future, reliable sources emerge which suggest that the OWS movement uses a distinct set of signals notably different than those in Consensus_decision-making#Hand_signals, then we will need an article for it. But right now, no such sources exist, and there is no telling whether they ever will exist. it doesn't make sense to have an article simply because there is a possibility that relevant information may exist in the future. -- LWG ^talk 17:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Origins

I'm trying to track down the origins of the hand signals. If anyone finds reliable secondary sources, feel free to drop links in here.--Nowa (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Check the references in Consensus_decision-making#Hand_signals. Looks like they date back to grassroots movements in the 1990s at least. -- LWG ^talk 17:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been looking at them. Fascinating.--Nowa (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It goes back way further. Quaker and civil rights groups have been using this since the 1960s at least. Quakers probably for longer. I added some cites to this article. NeilK (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

New title

I wrote this to user:TRTX: You moved Occupy hand signals to Hand signals used by Occupy Wall Street movement. I do not see any discussion proposing such a move. I've been active on the page and the talk page and it certainly seems like you have made a unilateral move to a convoluted title. Yes, we probably do need to improve the title. Other articles are using the phrase "Occupy movement" but "Occupy Wall Street movement" is a limiting phrase, specifying the New York City, while the article is more expansive. The article has the potential to explain other variations used around the hundreds of movement locations. I personally added a youtube video source that showed different variations in San Francisco, which would be completely inapplicable under "Wall Street." And the "Hand signals used by" portion is more wordy than most encyclopedic titles. "Occupy movement hand signals" is a much more open title. That's my opinion, which I would have expressed had you brought it up. Instead, improperly, you just made the move. You should step that back and discuss, as is proper wikipedia procedure. Trackinfo (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the page back to the original title, per WP:BRD. I also think Occupy movement hand signals sounds better. And is a lot more concise. Silverseren^C 04:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

up twinkles for "Occupy movement hand signals"--Nowa (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Up Twinkles I guess I'm the nominator, so I'll endorse my own idea. I don't run away from my own ideas after they get somebody else's Cooties on them. Did I just say that? Seriously, when originally titled, there was no established description for this movement. Now articles are being called "Occupy movement" and this article should follow suit. Trackinfo (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I support the new title. And apologize for the somewhat hastily considered move. I've worked on a few "listy" titles for other articles that have some considerable length to them, but agree that "Occupy movement hand signals" does sum it up rather well. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 14:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

As per the above section, I have doubts as to this article's notability, but if consensus is to keep it, I support the new title. -- LWG ^talk 17:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

← It appears we have a consensus...or at least don't have any major disagreements at this time. I'll make the move to Occupy movement hand signals. That should be a suitable title while we continue discussing the neccessity of the article itself. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 14:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments

An edit has been made to introduce a comment someone made about using hand signals. How do other editors feel about this in general? Should we have a list of comments? Is there another use for comments?--Nowa (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Does it provide the reader with any useful information about the hand signals? As far as I can see, it doesn't. -- LWG ^talk 22:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I added it more because of the issues raised on this talk page. Why is this language special? Why is it special attached to this movement? Because it is an efficient way of managing consensus across a large crowd. I took this quote, discovered in my searching press coverage of hand signs, because in a nutshell, it says that. When other, more official or studious kinds of sources make that kind of comment, then it might not be necessary. We are dealing with a relatively new phenomenon that has yet to be fully analyzed. Until then, I'm trying to show the immediate social impact through the experience of an actual user. The section on comments is not so important. How else to include? Trackinfo (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the hand signals aren't new or special. They've existed since the '90s at least, and we've had an article about them (even down to the name "Twinkles") since 2006. OWS's use of them has given them prominence, and the signals are a notable part of OWS, so both probably deserve mention in each other's articles, but the OWS signals themselves only need a separate article if they are somehow significantly different from those that came before, which, as far as I can see, they aren't. I don't have any particular axe to grind, and I don't really care if this article exists, but I think that the content here would be more useful to the wiki if it were merged into the relevant articles. -- LWG ^talk 17:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Originality is not the only factor. This is not like a patent. These hand signals could be a complete duplication of a previous usage. If so, that would be an appropriate inclusion to this article. But with the spread of the current subject, the identification to the "Occupy movement" is clear and thus deserves its own article. WP has duplicated information all over the place, a subject is not over and done once, we have a variety of perspectives to look at subjects from. Whereas the hand signals might have been used by groups before, with hundreds if not thousands of locations using them world wide as part of this movement, the hand signals are now getting significantly more exposure while being identified with the movement. Trackinfo (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

As far and as fast as this whole movement has spread, maybe there is a subject about the whole movement being spontaneous, or maybe about spontaneity in waiting. I think that might be a subject of research historians may later reveal. Trackinfo (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your second comment, but in response to the first, I agree, however I believe that this information would be better communicated in the articles I mentioned. I'm not a deletionist, so I don't personally care if this article stays or goes, but somebody raised the question above, and I think that this article could be merged and deleted without any loss of verifiable information from the wiki. Currently, I think the article has several problems:

• The title "Occupy Hand Signals" suggests a brand name, and implies that these signals were invented by the Occupy movement and/or are somehow officially sanctioned by them, a misconception that the article does little to correct.
• The article does not provide any context for the hand signals' previous use, making them appear to be a new and isolated phenomenon. The "Comments" section specifically contributes to this problem.
• The list of names presents itself as statement of fact (Raise the Roof "is" X), when (with the exception of "Twinkles") it is in fact merely describing terms used by one youtuber.

All three of these problems are fixable, but I think that fixing them may be an unnecessary effort if the same information can be addressed in other articles. -- LWG ^talk 18:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I am making a jerk off motion with my hands over this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.156.161 (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Avoid vulgarity comrade. KSRolph (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

About the page

This is off to a great start, and the actions and communication you're trying to present are creative and innovative social phenomena that have caught the attention of millions. As there is culture and symbolism in this, hang in there. This is good. I know what twinkles look like, but for those who may not, a way to illustrate or clarify would be practical. KSRolph (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for creating this page...I was looking for these signals Jjsjbs (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)jjs

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Occupy movement handsignals diagram bank of ideas nov 2011.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)