Jump to content

Talk:Occupy movement in the United States/Archive 1

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

Future Merger with Occupy [US city] article

When and if this article reaches acceptable quality, would it not render most of the seperate city articles obsolete (the ones that aren't substantial events of themsleves)? Perhaps the information from those articles can be used and then the said article be deleted. ProfNax (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

why no occupy los angeles article?

The protests in LA are just as significant as those in Seattle or Las Vegas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.45.166.113 (talk) 07:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

On Second thoughts

Why does this article exist? There is already a large Occupy Wall St Page, a huge collection of different occupy city articles and an Occupy Movement article. Information from here need only be repeated in the last one I mentioned. I move that this should be deleted for its irrelevance. ProfNax (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that this article is a good addition to the other movement articles. The OWS article is for NYC and too large to add even more info. The Occupy movement article covers the protests being held worldwide. AFAIK this is the only article that lists all the locations in the U.S. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
My own opinion, as you might have seen at the deletion discussion is that there is too much material for a national article and we should do it by city and merely have a list at the national level. So first a national list List of Occupy movement protest locations, and then a List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States. So you have Occupy movement, then the list of nations, then the list of cities in each nation, then the city articles. I'm not sure there is anything special for a national article to cover. Be——Critical 20:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Smaller individual "occupy" articles should be merged into one bigger one

There are a lot of "occupy" articles that are just a few sentences long, with a picture or two, and some links to local coverage. I don't see why the "occupy" movements in every city require a separate article. They're not necessarily notable in the same way as the movement as a whole; it gives the appearance of undue weight. I propose that the smaller ones be merged into one article, while the offshoots that have got national/international coverage (such as Occupy Oakland) are still separate articles. ... discospinster talk 01:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea if the articles remain few in number and size. I think it would be a good idea to wait and see for now. Gandydancer (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Each Occupy protest is unique per location and unique events have occurred at each one. Some remain incomplete. To preserve this historical information, keeping the articles separate would benefit Wikipedia more than merging them into one article, which would become one very long article. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Far too much to say on each of them. Be——Critical 20:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure there's lots to say (depending on the significance one attaches to it), but the point I was making is that not all of them are notable enough to merit a separate article. Lots of things happen everywhere that are covered only by the local media, and they are not considered "notable". As I said, they would not be deleted but rather merged into a list-type article, and the ones with major coverage would have separate articles. ... discospinster talk 01:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Right, true if there is very little text in them. Be——Critical 03:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas is currently going on a mass redirect binge, redirecting individual articles on Occupy protests in the U.S. to here. Has this been discussed anywhere? It is something which I am personally strongly opposed to.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC) They are also doing a very crude job of it! Methinks this needs to be stopped ASAP and discussed.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I've undone the Ashland and Marines one. I haven't been working on any of the others, so I don't know about the notability of them. But if you have one you think is notable as a separate article, undo the redirect. If he keeps trying to redirect after that, then it's a violation of BRD and is considered edit warring. SilverserenC 23:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah still playing the edit warring game. Viriditas is doing a good job, there was a whole shedload of Occupy articles, few of which meet WP:GNG. Take Occupy Marines for example, they were mentioned in passing in a few articles, we've heard nothing for 6 months. Their Facebook page is just links to other articles, they've done nothing themselves and their wikipedia article was shameless self-promotion. Merge is a good idea, otherwise most of those articles that fail the basic WP:GNG will simply end up deleted. This isn't worth the animosity and venom directed at an editor working in good faith to clean up this mess. I for one applaud anyone trying. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Then merge discussion should be had for them. Initial redirection is fine, but if reverted, then per WP:BRD, there has to be a merge discussion to obtain consensus. If you want Marines redirected, then obtain consensus for that action. As for Ashland, there was a plurality in the AfD to keep it and the Marge discussion is very clearly a keep. Therefore, a redirection at this point for it is opposing consensus. SilverserenC 00:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Completely agree. Undoing this mess - and this article is now an unwieldly and unreadable disaster too - is going to take some time. This is very disappointing behaviour from Viriditas who should know better.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Merging daughter articles into parent articles isn't "disappointing behavior"—it's best practice and part of what we do here. Larger articles on the same topic are favored over smaller, related stub articles, many of which will never expand beyond their current size. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
No many of these articles - in fact most - have been through AfD and been kept. Bulk merges like this should be properly discussed in advance, particularly when the subject is controversial. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Mmm, not quite, some went through AfD and it was "don't delete for now and see what happens". And nothing has. Do nothing and these are the articles that will disappear. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
No, it was don't delete for know and then discuss. Personally I would support the merging of some of these, oppose the merging of others. However the way in which this has been done today en masse - with no prior discussion at all - I find highly disappointing, and time wasting. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean nothing has happened? There are still a ton of things that are currently going on in various Occupy protests. SilverserenC 00:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Rangoon, a) most of the AfDs closed in NC rather than a hard-and-fast keep, and b) even if an AFD was closed as keep, a merger discussion can still take place. I fear that there is a recency component here. And does them doing some small-scale events make the event inherently notable? Nah. A dozen people protest at my hometown's Planned Parenthood every weekend; that sure as hell ain't notable Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Nothing against discussing mergers, and as I said I would actually support at least two or three. The discussion element has been rather lacking today though. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Now this article is just HUGE. The photos are all gone as well. This is not at all acceptable and I think the merges should be reverted. Gandydancer (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Huge, and a huge mess. And the article still doesn't even mention OWS and many of the other aspects of the Occupy movement in the U.S. On size grounds alone if this had started as a single article rather than the other way round, spin out articles for individual locations would have been inevitable. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not "huge", the photos haven't been added yet, and it is completely acceptable to merge and redirect small stubs into larger parent articles. When this is stable, the size should come down to around 120KB which is expected. How is having multiple stubs on this subject helpful to the reader? It isn't. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
If you were only redirecting stubs, fine, but not all of them are stubs. For example, Occupy Ashland is definitely not a stub at all. SilverserenC 01:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Neither is Occupy Seattle, nor Occupy St. Louis, nor Occupy San Francisco, nor Occupy Las Vegas. SilverserenC 01:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
e/c The point is, a huge restructuring through merges of circa 40 articles on a highly controversial topic requires proper discussion. People will their own view on how many of these should be merged here but it needs to be looked at in some detail and a global view must be taken as well as each being looked at individually. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Let's discuss, then. Why did you blanket revert and restore Occupy Salem?[1] This is a stub which consists of approximately 1,214 bytes[2] and has never grown past that since it was created on 17 October 2011‎. Here is the full text:

Occupy Salem is an ongoing peaceful protest and demonstration in Salem, Oregon. Beginning on October 10th, protesters began camping out at Willson Park in Salem, and also set up tents in a parking lot adjacent to the capitol building. The encampment included a kitchen area and a first aid station. On the same day, hundreds of protesters rallied at the state Capitol. Former Salem Mayor Mike Swaim was one of the participants in this rally. On October 12, 2011 protesters were warned not to camp at a Salem park, the violation of which would result in arrests. Protesters moved their belongings and themselves out of the park, and returned the next morning. It was reported that local law enforcement considered the protest peaceful in nature. Oregon state officials on November 14th ordered the Salem protesters to leave the encampment, where they had been stationed since October 10th. The officials also said that the protesters were required to "remove all tents, waste, portable toilets and other structures from Willson Park by the end of the month". In response, the protesters decided to have "daily demonstrations" at a bridge nearby the park and to also have group meetings in Marion State Park instead.

It is currently March 15, 2012 where I am. What is your rationale for restoring this 1,214 byte stub? Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Because, as I said, I believe that this needs a proper global discussion. That might be one that personally I will argue for merging, but it doesn't change that fact that I feel strongly that an over-arching discussion is needed for how to structure this set of around 40 articles. I say that as someone who generally is a big fan of the 'be bold' approach.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
IMO this discussion really needs some sort of a table listing all the articles relating to Occupy in the United States, which we can use to provide structure to this discussion. I would volunteer but tables are very far from my forte.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but when you blanket revert me with "it needs discussion" and then I attempt to discuss it with you, only to be met with "it still needs discussion", then I'm afraid you've all but admitted that you don't have a single rationale for reverting my edits and restoring this stub. That is not an acceptable use of the revert function. When you revert another editor, you need to have a reason at that moment. You can't point to a reason that you might have at some point in the future. You also did the same thing on Occupy Rochester NY,[3] a stub that has a size of 369 bytes[4] and has not significantly expanded since 29 November 2011‎. If you can't defend your reverts, then you will need to self-revert and restore the redirects. We don't allow you or anyone else to revert another editor and then to say "hold on, there will be a reason for my revert at some time in the future". That is not acceptable. If you're going to do the work, great, but you can't sit on the sidelines and revert my edits while you refuse to give a reason. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you read? I have just said, twice, that in my view this set of articles requires a proper, over arching discussion about how it should be dealt with. They need to be looked at individually, and as a whole.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Your "view" is not appropriate reason to revert another editor. Is this making sense? Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
But your "view" is an appropriate reason to bulk merge a massive number of articles on a highly controversial topic, when a discussion was already underway as how this should be approached? How about we actually continue that discussion (the discussion on the core issue that is, not on the activities of the past couple of hours)? Rangoon11 (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see anything "controversial" about the two small stubs I merged into this article. And I don't see anything "controversial" about merging smaller articles into larger ones. Could you tell me what is "controversial" about those two stubs? Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
This behavior is completely unacceptable. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work and if it was I'd quit editing today. I think we'll need to restore all of his edits and start anew. I have no problem with merging some of the smaller articles but this is not the way to go about it. Gandydancer (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Viriditas's behavior is fine here. He's acting in good faith and no doubt you'll step on a few toes if you merge their article which they WP:OWN but that's not how Wikipedia works, and if it was I'd quit editing today also. ;-) But seriously though (pardon my friendly jesting) how about we agree to merge all stubs and then handle veriditas's other suggestions on a case-by-case basis? 완젬스 (talk) 07:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be better to reach an agreement on which to merge first before doing any of it. Saves back and forth effort, especially since we might have disagreements on what constitutes a stub. I assume there's already disagreements, since not all of those that were attempted to be merged were stubs or even close to being a stub. SilverserenC 07:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think Silver seren's plan is a good idea. Gandydancer (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
User:Viriditas's approach is fine, we have a load of stubs that haven't been expanded for months, of their own few meet WP:GNG and merging them into an article is the best way to deal with it. You keep them as stubs and they'll get deleted. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually even if the smallest of the articles in question went to AfD (again) then merge would be a far more likely result than delete. That is somewhat beside the point though. What we need is an overarching discussion on how to deal with this series of 40 or so highly connected articles.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I think 5 are easy, no-brainer merge, and about ~20 should head to the chopping block where we discuss whether to keep them or merge them. 완젬스 (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I also agree that Viriditas's approach is fine. He's just being bold but yet he has been unfairly treated like a vandal. All his edits were undone, just because we are being nit-picky about how he does it, even though we all pretty much agree this inevitable discussion is long overdue. 완젬스 (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Like Occupy San Jose, which you just attempted to redirect inspite of this discussion being ongoing, and which has 14 citations and was a clear keep when taken to AfD?Rangoon11 (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
No, that was not. I went to go give him barnstar and sympathized with him, so I cast a symbolic restoration of his edits just to help reach out to him. The number of citations is a separate can of worms which I don't want discuss neither here nor now؟ 완젬스 (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is our quicklist!

Here are the quick reference sheet of all 49 locations:

Extended content

I'll start labeling them now, and if there are 5 "no-brainers" then I will present them but not take action unless it's like 5-0 or 10-1 or better. 완젬스 (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Good work. In my view we should exclude the non-U.S. articles from this discussion though, as it wouldn't be appropriate to merge them here.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Done, non-US locations are removed. 완젬스 (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Marines merge proposal

Based on the desires of another editor, I opened a discussion at Talk:Occupy_Marines#Merge as to whether to merge that article into this article. Participation is welcome. Cheers.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the discussion there has yet to start, should we not just roll it into the discussion on this page? We risk having multiple discussions running in parallel and no easy way of establishing consensus.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I think we can just start with the easy ones. The ones which will take effort can be finished later. I think occupy marines is an easy merge, because they are just a facebook group. The sources only mention them tangentially while covering Scott Olsen or Occupy Oakland or other major news story. 완젬스 (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
So my proposal, is can we just AFD the occupy marines page and let that play its course concurrently? (their facebook page will light up with SPA rushing to their defense here if we discuss it here--let's not unleash a flood of ip editors onto this talk page here--we can keep it contained & sequestered at AFD) Even if there is a plurality of keeps over there, I think an admin will probably close the discussion as a merge anyway.완젬스 (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
No strong feelings on this but it has already been to AFD twice. For me its a real shame that the article isn't just about 'Marines and the Occupy movement', which for me is both a highly notable, interesting and important topic.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, these marines are not a good sample of all marines. They self-select to be in the facebook group and they're more or less disgruntled rather than humble. They also have interesting viewpoints which is a shame. 완젬스 (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer to focus on the article as to how it is related to Wikipedia guidelines rather than the motives of the marines involved in the group, their Facebook page, etc. I vote to merge this one. Gandydancer (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
No brainer on the merge front, its a group that would never meet WP:GNG of its own right, got mentioned in a few news reports back in October/November, load of self-promotional gumpf and nothing since. Its been through AfD twice, the first time was "Keep" on the basis of "Watch this space", the second contentious and bad tempered AfD concluded "No Consensus" but was contentious and bad tempered due to the off-wiki canvassing to vote keep at AfD. What emerged there was the group was writing its own article to use wikipedia for self-promotion. Its been torture to remove the self-promotional crap and keep the article down to encyclopedic content. The whole parcel of Occupy articles needs cleaning up. Fantastic someone is trying to take it on, they have my best wishes given the ton of crap I've been subjected to over this self-promotional puff piece. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
No strong opinion here, but perhaps even remove the article? (My understanding of keep/delete articles per Wikipedia policy is about zero.)Gandydancer (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
There was an emerging discussion about deleting the article, we were promised "watch this space" as "something was about to happen" and then nothing since. I don't think the article is worth the constant personal attacks coming from its defenders, its finally reached the limit of my patience. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I think a merge here is a reasonable approach rather than a time consuming and distracting AfD which is likely to lead to the same outcome anyhow. The content can be used for an expanded treatment on the wider issue of Marines in the Occupy movement, which if developed might then be able to be split out again as a standalone article.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Berkeley merge proposal into Occupy Cal

To me, this is a no-brainer if you read the berkeley article then read the first paragraph of occupy cal. 완젬스 (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

For me these are separate though geographically close. In my view Occupy Berkeley should be merged into this article, and Occupy Cal should remain as a standalone article.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I forgot to consider that option. I agree with your suggestion. 완젬스 (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Either way is fine with me. Gandydancer (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge Occupy Berkeley to Occupy movement in the United States

What is the criteria for rangoon & gandy

Can you two each tell me what to look for, as I go through the list and recommend merges? I really thought the first 5 suggestions would be simple & straightforward. There's no point in trying the semi-objectionable occupy cities. If you two will change your vote on occupy Eugene, I'll go through the next 10 proposals with in-depth details and reasoning (essay style, including my plans for how to coordinate all the occupy articles on a consistent basis, i.e. the problem of defunct occupy cities who still claim "ongoing" because they have meetings where only 4 people attend, etc...) 완젬스 (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The main point to consider with each Occupy protest article is whether the protest has had a significant, individual effect on the surrounding area, whether that be via laws being passed, members running for office, or something similar. It's the effect of the protest that gives it individual notability and the argument for it to be a standalone page. If a specific protest does not have any effect like that, then it should be merged in full to here. SilverserenC 23:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Except, Wikipedia editors can't determine that significance, only the sources can. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but how would we even know about the significance if the sources weren't reporting on it? SilverserenC 23:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Sources are very clear about asserting significance. It's not something we interpret. They usually say "this was the first time that x did y" or "this set a legal precedent" or some other explicit assertion. The notability guidelines cover this. For something like an Occupy group, you can use WP:ORG and/or WP:EVENT for guidance. Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
And, as EVENT says, lasting significance would be proven by the protests leading to laws bring passed, members obtaining political office due to the group, or something similar to that. SilverserenC 23:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
We've established the hypothetical framework, but you have to prove the significance is explicit. No interpretation. Viriditas (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest that if merge is in anyway contentious that you nominate the article for deletion at WP:AFD that'll establish pretty quickly whether merge or deletion is appropriate. Many occupy articles in their own right would fail WP:GNG and prior AfD have resulted in keep through off-wiki agitation. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I rather wish you would. It would be hilarious to see all of the AfDs fail. But I give up at this point. I have other things I need to focus on. I'm just going to come back over the summer and expand the info on all of them to the point that there's no choice but to spin them out. SilverserenC 17:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Well if its anything like Occupy Marines, given the complete lack of material to emerge over the last 6 months I wish you good luck. I am only suggesting AfD for the merge to establish a community consensus - especially with the reams of personal abuse that result from any attempt to discuss how to deal with occupy articles. If there is such a consensus will you respect it? Wee Curry Monster talk 18:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it would be like that at all, considering the ones I opposed have current coverage from news sources, going on right now. And using AfD for a merge is probably just going to make people angry, since that's not what it's for. SilverserenC 18:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you think WP:AFD is inappropriate to dicuss a merge?

It most certainly is. Why should it make people angry? I note you did not answer my question as whether you would respect the consensus that emerged from such a process? These article stubs are not worth the heat and light they have generated. Much of the content is not encyclopedic but promotional and political in nature. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Look at all the personal abuse you and your friends at Occupy Marines have heaped in my direction, when from the outset[5],[6] I have had no intention to destroy the content as you frequently accuse me of doing but felt that merging what little encyclopedic content there was into the appropriate article. Ironically by fighting to keep them as stubs on non-notable groups you actually make the job of anyone seeking to delete them easier. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The result of an AfD can be a merge or redirect, but as it says there, AfDs are meant to discuss deletion, not merge in itself. So if you nominate it with the nomination reasoning of wanting a merge, people will get angry, because that's not what it's supposed to be for. I've seen it happen before. Merge discussions are supposed to be on article talk pages.
And i'm not going to bother arguing with you on that last part. We all disagree, that's that. SilverserenC 22:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
So shall we assume from your failure to respond to a direct question twice, you have no intention of respecting any consensus? Wee Curry Monster talk 00:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, I would respect the consensus, just like I am respecting the consensus that was already made for Occupy Marines before and for Occupy Ashland, among others. SilverserenC 00:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Purpose and goals.

Any article on a protest movement should have a section on the movement's purpose and goals. If the issues and goals have not been community organized to the participants yet, that lack of coherence should be mentioned too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.157.113 (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Cleveland

The Cleveland section, Occupy movement in the United States#Cleveland is a WP:COATRACK which I shall remove. It is entirely about an alleged bombing plot by "members of a splinter group of the Occupy Cleveland movement" (according to a source used). TFD (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

keep, if this was the tea party the bomb plot would be included. The use of the term "monkey god" managed to be included there, yet a man pleads guilty to conspiracy to use a wmd, attempts to blow up a bridge, and somehow not notable, really? Darkstar1st (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

comment

This part of the Occupy Marines section is inaccurate. Scott Olsen did not evaporate and his service was verified many times publicly. "Oakland is the city where veteran Scott Olsen (a person that quickly evaporated when his name, service connection, and length of service could not be verified, and his website http://web.archive.org/web/20100507023132/http://www.ihatethemarinecorps.com/ became well known)" 24.34.192.52 (talk) 05:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Charlotte is easy merge

Strictly, I don't think there's anything you could call consensus to merge. That said, the arguments for keeping this article separate are very weak. This "movement" was minuscule compared to most of the others we have articles on. I would urge a reconsideration of this merge discussion, and failing that, the article could be taken to AfD. Gigs (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

self-explanatory 완젬스 (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Two more links to the irrelevant *essay* Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussionsRangoon11 (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
You still don't understand. That essay has nothing to do with it. It's just a guide describing common fallacies used in all discussions. Deletion has nothing to do with it. Whether the group is active or has not updated the article has no bearing on this merge discussion. Feel free to visit arguments to avoid in discussions, and arguments to avoid on discussion pages if you think that might help you. To understand the rationale for merging, see WP:MERGE. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Considering recent sources like this, this, this, this, and this, along with the fact that laws were passed (negative laws, admittedly) in response to the Occupy Charlotte protests and that the group currently has a member running in the Democratic primary, this article should be kept separate. It can and should be significantly expanded. SilverserenC 23:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Per WP:MERGE, "The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles" and "The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short". SilverserenC 23:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not a separate topic, there's no evidence it can be significantly expanded, and there is no evidence it requires a separate article. The two paragraph stub of approximately 1,848 bytes in size tells us that Occupy Charlotte is "protesting against economic inequity, corporate greed, and the influence of corporations and lobbyists on government." and is a "movement composed of smaller groups fighting against similar "injustices"." That's no different than any other "Occupy" group. In fact, there is virtually nothing important, significant, or notable about Occupy Charlotte at all, and the 1,848 byte stub says virtually nothing encyclopedic. Checking against the rationale for merging, we have 1) duplication 2) significant overlap 3) minimal content. What reason do we have not to merge? Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I just gave you sources above. The article can be significantly expanded with information about the multiple laws passed against the group and the federal injunction against their campsites, along with information about the member they have running in the Democratic primary. All that together, along with past stuff they've done, would net you at least five, if not ten, paragraphs, pushing the article up to C-class. SilverserenC 23:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • And, the sources you gave me include unreliable sources like People's World, as well as multiple sources that are not about the subject. Those sources are about the denial of a request for a temporary restraining order and an attorney who is running for office. Nothing to see here at all. Notability is not inherited from a failed request for a restraining order nor from an attorney who is running for office. I've seen some grasping for straws in my time, but this is just silly. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Do you even know how WP:INHERITED works? You keep using it in erroneous contexts. And all of the sources, except for the last one, have Occupy Charlotte as their very title, so I don't know what you mean when you say they aren't about the subject. They are wholly about the subject. Occupy Charlotte is independently notable because of their effects of having laws passed against them, along with the expansion of police powers. The notability from the member running for office will be more of an effect if he actually wins, so that's rather pending for now, but the rest more than establishes independent notability. SilverserenC 23:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • You keep arguing that notability is inherited when you keep saying that because an attorney "with connections to the Occupy Charlotte movement" is running for office, that somehow makes Occupy Charlotte notable.[9] Don't deny it, because that is exactly what you've been saying. As for filing a failed restraining order and fighting a no-camping ordinance, what the hell is significant about that? What significant outcome occurred? What legal precedent was set? What legal challenge was won? Anything? No, nothing. Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. OK they had laws passed against them, that would be a footnote in any merged material. It doesn't of itself justify keeping as a separate article. Very little about this meets WP:GNG. Merge is really preferrable to AfD, which is where I suspect this is headed. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The Occupy Charlotte article is incomplete, and can be easily expanded with the listed references in the article. Per WP:GNG, it appears that the topic has received enough significant coverage in reliable sources to merit its own article. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Occupy Chicago is easy, nothing out of the ordinary

No consensus for merge. That said, the article is very out of date and needs a good going over. It implies there are still people in the street in Chicago or that this is some kind of active thing, which is not really the case. What's left of their general assembly is being held weekly in a run-down self-storage building in Chinatown. Gigs (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think this is no-brainer and merge into this article. 완젬스 (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose merge - one of the largest cities in the U.S., considerable amount of media covergage including in national media, over 350 arrests. The article already has 14 cites but is capable of expansion. Thing are also still ongoing there: [10]Rangoon11 (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
How large Chicago is as a city has nothing to do with whether we should merge this 3,451 bytes stub article here. The "Committees" section is not appropriate encyclopedia content. You should also see WP:INTHENEWS to see how we handle "media coverage". Viriditas (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
That is a link to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, an irrelevant *essay*Rangoon11 (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're wrong. The arguments to avoid in deletion discussions are the same fallacious arguments to avoid in discussions, and arguments to avoid on discussion pages. WP:PERNOM votes aren't helpful in any discussion. Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose A huge amount of media coverage, an equally huge amount of people arrested, and significant effects achieved, including the relocation of the White House G-8 summit away from Chicago because of the Occupy Chicago protests, see here and here. SilverserenC 23:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Three things. One, you are using those two essay links incorrectly, very incorrectly. INTHENEWS clearly states that there are a number of events that are not just routine coverage and that it shouldn't be overused to argue for removal. Also, LOTSOFSOURCES is talking about trivial mentions in news sources. I have not given you trivial mentions in any of my comments, but full articles going into significant detail about the subject. Two, the G8 article does not even discuss Occupy Chicago's involvement in the moving of the summit. Furthermore, the Occupy article can and should also include what protests and other actions were done that led to the moving of the summit, what factors were considered when it was decided to be moved, and what were the aftereffects for the protest because of the success. Three, inherited notability has nothing to do with this. Occupy Chicago were the direct cause of the moving of the G8 summit. SilverserenC 23:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, you are mistaken. The G8 article clearly mentions the event: "The summit was originally planned for Chicago, along with the NATO summit, but it was announced officially on March 5, 2012, that the G8 summit will be held at the more private location of Camp David and at one day earlier than previously scheduled" and the source used in the article (CBS News) clearly discusses Occupy Chicago and is identical to the source you used.[12] Notability is not inherited, and the notable subject is the G8, where this topic is covered. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I said that it doesn't mention Occupy Chicago. Just because the group is discussed in the reference doesn't mean anything if it's not discussed in the article text. Regardless, as I said above, there is a significant more that can be said about the subject that wouldn't be appropriate for the G8 article and the cause of the moving of the summit precludes any "inherited notability" claims. If anything, the ordering of events would be that the G8 summit doesn't inherit any notability from Occupy Chicago. An unnecessary statement, because they are both inherently notable, but that's how the order of events would go. SilverserenC 23:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • There's no requirement that it has to mention Occupy Chicago, and the fact that the article doesn't mention it by name leads one to believe that an editor interpreted it as an insignificant detail. You've argued that Occupy Chicago is significant because the G8 summit had to move, but in fact, it is the G8 summit that is significant, not Occupy Chicago, hence the news coverage about the G8. In any case, who do we have asserting significance here? It's not the journalists. It's "anti-war and Occupy Chicago protesters".[13][14] We don't judge significance from the claimants themselves, but from third parties. Surely, you must know that. Viriditas (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Occupy Cincinnati

Consensus was to merge the content of Occupy Cincinnati to Occupy movement in the United States. The article was redirected on 17 March 2012 (UTC). Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Same as charlotte, nothing worth standalone article. All info can be easily merged here. 완젬스 (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

These are not deletion discussions so I'm puzzled as to why you have added these links.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
"Arguments to avoid" applies to all discussions, not just discussions about deletion. Some arguments, however, may apply more to deletion and others to merge. However, WP:JUSTAVOTE applies to all discussions on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The *essay* to which you have added multiple links is titled 'Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions'.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Rangoon11, I don't think you understand. These are arguments to avoid in all discussions on Wikipedia. Before that essay even existed, they were fallacious. Do you understand? Of course, if you prefer, you may visit arguments to avoid in discussions, and arguments to avoid on discussion pages, and about a dozen other related pages. But it doesn't matter, Rangoon11, because this is common sense. WP:JUSTAVOTE applies to all discussions on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I got a couple trouts about to be headed toward Viriditas's & Rangoon's talk page soon... 완젬스 (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I hope it's cooked this time.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Occupy Dallas

Consensus was to merge the content of Occupy Dallas to Occupy movement in the United States. The article was redirected on 17 March 2012 (UTC). Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article is easy merge into here for the same reasons as above. 완젬스 (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Support, though we should keep an eye and document the effect they have on the Dallas School District (DISD). Independent notability could potentially come soon, depending on what actions the group takes. SilverserenC 23:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Occupy Eugene

No consensus to merge. Armbrust The Homonculus 10:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think this too shall be a straightforward merge into this article. 완젬스 (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. I will now summarize the main points from all the sources in the article that you claim amounts to "considerable expansion":

In October, the Occupy movement began camping out in Eugene[17] and held a protest march[18] against corporate greed.[19] A calendar of events are planned by the group.[20] The police were initially lenient and made no arrests.[21][22] To avoid interfering with market vendors, the protest group moved to Alton Baker Park.[23] They also briefly occupied the University of Oregon.[24] Later, they moved to Washington Jefferson Park,[25] and remained there until the end of 2011.[26]

There seems to be little there for an encyclopedia article on Wikipedia, let alone for a merge. Viriditas (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks VQuakr for your input. To me, these were the most easy instances of merge criteria. I never thought any objections would be raised. This is how we have 40 cities, and half aren't even notable. It's because of this very stalemate which requires so much effort to get so little done. 완젬스 (talk)

Please reconsider

I think this needs to be re-discussed. The number of arrests is small and the number of deaths (1) isn't that rare given there have been a number of deaths, rapes, and marches--these elements make good for headlines, but they are not notable (but confusion may happen from the fact there are a lot of news stories about the arrests, rapes, deaths, or marches). I won't try to force a discussion again, but please try and reconsider. It's a lot of work to try and clean up a huge mess, when it only takes a small minority to obstruct the process. I.e. think of the republicans in senate who make dems need a super-majority, which is what consensus is. If it's not the end of the world to you guys, can we please delete the occupy eugene article and just retain the most important elements when we merge it? 완젬스 (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't put a lot of effort into this because I never had any interest in a merge in the first place. As summer approaches I believe that activities at various sites will pick up again. I have my own "To Do" list and am far behind as it is. Some of us have only so much Wikipedia time and I feel that I've been spending too much time here as it is. Gandydancer (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Same, but i'm definitely putting the Occupy protests on my to-do list for the summer, since it seems like it would be quite easy to expand most of them significantly to, at least, a C-class article. SilverserenC 23:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
More of the watch this space, big things are going to happen speculation? Wee Curry Monster talk 18:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Occupy Rochester NY and Occupy Providence per collaborative recommendation

There is a clear consensus to Occupy Rochester NY in the article, but no consensus for Occupy Providence. Armbrust The Homonculus 10:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Long story short, I suck at picking out suggestions for "easy merge" so I asked a swing vote to help me pick out two relatively unobjectionable candidates: Rochester & Providence

The main, abridged arguments for "easy merge" are that the articles are either "forever stubbed" or "unexcitingly bland" one way or another. So without going to deep into their respective arguments, for or against, I'm hopefully seeking an airtight consensus on these two relatively straightforward "easy merge" candidates. Thank you, 완젬스 (talk) 06:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Support I was the swing vote that was asked for an opinion on which were okay to merge. I picked these two because they haven't really accomplished anything of note. There is certainly potential that they might, based on what each is involved in, but as of yet, they haven't. SilverserenC 17:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose merging Occupy Providence. The topic has received significant national and regional coverage outside of its geographic area from the Associated Press and in The Boston Globe and Bangor Daily News. The topic passes WP:GNG and qualifies for its own article. Undecided at this time about the Occupy Rochester NY article. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect (and my goal is a small one--to reduce the number of articles by ~5) doesn't that same argument hold for all the generic occupy cityXYZ articles? You could say that about all 54 occupy articles, and there currently are more articles devoted to the occupy movement than for Barack Obama so could you take a look at what we're trying to accomplish before you impede our small goal? (if not, what article do you suggest might be an "easy merge") Thanks, 완젬스 (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Domestic Security Alliance Council

Wolf, N. (December 29, 2012) "Revealed: how the FBI coordinated the crackdown on Occupy" The Guardian: "New documents show that the violent crackdown on Occupy last fall ... was not just coordinated at the level of the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and local police. The crackdown, which involved ... violent arrests, group disruption, canister missiles to the skulls of protesters, people held in handcuffs so tight they were injured ... was coordinated with the big banks themselves.... a terrifying network of coordinated DHS, FBI, police, regional fusion center, and private-sector activity ... the Domestic Security Alliance Council.... the cops and DHS working for and with banks to target, arrest, and politically disable peaceful American citizens.... The fusion of the tracking of money and the suppression of dissent means ... banks ... are now in the business of tracking your dissent."

I trust that these FOIA-sourced documents are appropriate for summary inclusion? 70.59.14.20 (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://bcove.me/3cezpd6t
    Triggered by \bbcove\.me\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 08:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Occupy Marines

Removed reference to Occupy Marines. This started off as a self-promotion of a non-notable group two years ago. Its still nothing more than a Facebook page and not notable. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Occupy movement in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupy_movement_in_the_United_States/Archive_1&oldid=1258019464"