Talk:Occupy Wall Street

Bare-breast photo

I'd like a little feedback on the woman with her breasts bared. I am not a prude and have no problems with naked or half-naked photos in Wikipedia, however since this photo represents "protesters", and I assume that this example was extremely rare and perhaps even one of a kind, I question that it should be used on this page. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I would normally agree that it is not representative, but the NYT and a number of other sources pointed her out specifically. It seems relevant if she were included in the article text more. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I sort of agree, even though I placed it. As Scapler said, she's been in a number of sources and having spent six days photographing the encampment, I can vouch that Ms. Tikka definitely embodies the spirit you find there. And at least I didn't choose a topless photo without sources. That said, I do want to change the photos a bit. I think the crowd shot works because it's the first day and shows a grouping of people. I think the Anonymous shot can be replaced. Anonymous played a hand in supporting OWS, but aside from the first day there is not much evidence that they are a force within it. I am going to put up one of barricaded Wall Street, which shows the effects of the protest, and one from the camp, which shows life in it. If you guys don't like my choices feel free to change them - there's 163 images at commons:Category:Occupy Wall Street that you can use, more tomorrow after I go back. --David Shankbone 02:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. --John (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully and adamantly disagree with the inclusion of the bare-breasted photograph. My brother has been one of the protesters of this movement from its inception, and two other participants are friends of mine. I discussed the issue of this photograph with my brother and friends, and they are of a mind that this woman's attention-seeking stunt is not representative of the majority of the group of protestors, and this illegal and inappropriate display is not how most people want the protest to be viewed and remembered.

I understand your point, but Wikipedia is here to cover the entire event, as perceived by all sides, not just what you want it to be. We can make it a lot clearer that this is an isolated event, but given the availability of the photo and specific media commentary about it, it belongs in the article. Among other things, it provides significant context in terms of how freedom of speech (such as it is) is being practiced and regulated in New York during this event. Wnt (talk) 06:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia never covers the entire event. As any wikipedia editor knows, generally one uses only one or two sentences from a reference, and if an incident is "isolated" it does not deserve even a mention. Gandydancer (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, baring breasts is not illegal in New York State. Courts rules it acceptable in 1992.--~TPW 19:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

On a personal note, it is my belief that such cheap attempts to be noticed through shock-value are not helpful to a group striving for higher ethical values through peaceful demonstration. --talk (talk) 1:20, 28 September 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.122.232 (talk)

o_O bare breasts are "shock value"? (i think i must have been shocked quite a few times when i was a baby ;) oh, and btw, i think it was an isloated incident and is not woth to be mentioned. 62.138.56.171 (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"o_O" the anon was certainly correct! Bared breasts have nothing to do with this protest. I just happen to have a couple of them myself, and would have (perhaps) been willing to expose them if the protest was about a women's right to nurse in public (for instance), but in this case it was a (rather silly) attempt to gain attention. Gandydancer (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You fucked it up mang. If this was Easy Rider or Woodstock, a kid would come up and throw a turd at yous.See WP:CENSOR. And it wasn't even fully topless, there's dresses that show as much as were in that picture. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'd agree with the general sentiment against the photo, for now. I also feel a good case can be made for WP:UNDUE. Jusdafax 02:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This woman has become a symbol in NYT of the #occupywallstreet. she is not posing in an erotic way - she is an important person in this movement, and her picture has been included in numerous New York based and mainstream pubs.

The photo is not culturally comprehensible all over the world, and has the potential to offend both males and females in broad and great numbers. Any global viewer and listener knows there is homegrown individualism and real-time group collaboration at work within Occupy, but the topless shot (or other relatively unclothed shots) has the potential to discredit Occupy and the groups' struggle to be understood beyond our self-serving selves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSRolph (talk • contribs) 08:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Reopened discussion below. --Lexein (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What is our one demand?

The poster shown is given a caption that "What is our one demand?" indicates the absence of a single demand. Is that based on a source or is it original research? I have no inside knowledge, but to me the image of a woman standing on one leg with outstretched arms on top of a raging bull would seem to give the answer, "Balance!" - so I am reluctant to accept the interpretation provided here. Wnt (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the demand, actually? Is this just an event where people who are angry at Wall St protest? No demand at all but just crowd influence to scare Wall St?--72.19.122.62 (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This page does not represent the people whose political ideologies are diverse, so please open up this protest as common people uniting against wall street and their control of the white house. It is not purely an anti-capitalism movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJJ509 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No, not completely, but it still is mostly an anti-capitalism movement. The rest is from other groups, also mostly extremists of various forms. It was started by Adbusters, and has not moved into the mainstream. You shouldn't try to make this look like it's a bunch of normal people. They're not. It's like putting lipstick on a pig. That only makes the article look foolish.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Being anti-capitalism makes you an extremist? And not a normal person? 83.83.118.29 (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW: The opinion from an activist that's posted on HuffPo is not a good enough reference to say it's a "diverse group of demonstrators from various social and political backgrounds."

At best, you could use a reference that so-and-so says it's diverse, and let the reader decide based on the merits of that person. But a one-shot opinion piece on HuffPo isn't enough to make this worth doing.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

They will need to fix trade, protect innovation like we used to, roll back red tape and tort on small businesses, decertify public employee unions, and implement E-Verify while ending chain migration to fix this country. And it's just not going to happen unfortunately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.5.98 (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The one demand that keeps coming up in discussion is to give William K. Black all the necessary authority required to duplicate his success with the S&L crisis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.132.84 (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Casualties

Arrests are casualties? If someone breaks the law and they are arrested, we consider them casualties?Racingstripes (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

98.244.72.132 (talk)Please note that it is Arrests SLASH Casualties, as in one or the other. It then lists the number of arrests and the number of injuries —Preceding undated comment added 04:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC).

There is now 'arrests' and 'casualties' in the Infobox. Someone should mention: "4 maced" and perhaps: "dozens dragged", "several lightly injured"... --Fayerman (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

it should also be mention how it was the protesters faults for resisting a lawful arrest!!!141.165.191.73 (talk) 05:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ive seen the videos and they didnt look like they were resisting--132.198.76.149 (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Media spin?

I just visited two most popular new sites for Polish speakers.

One lacked any information about the 700+ arrests on B'klyn Bridge (despite having a plethora of "curiosity" "world news" articles) (the site is onet.pl).

The other claims that one of the main issues the Wall Street protesters want addressed is mistreatment of minorities, particularly muslim (http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kat,1356,title,Dramatyczne-sceny-w-Nowym-Jorku---700-osob-zatrzymano,wid,13853254,wiadomosc.html).

"Ich uczestnicy buntują się przeciw nieuczciwemu - jak twierdzą - traktowaniu mniejszości, w tym muzułmanów, a także m.in. nadmiernemu użyciu siły przez policję, dużemu bezrobociu i przejmowaniu domów należących do ludzi, których nie stać na spłatę pożyczek."

"The participants [of the protests] are rebelling against unfair - they claim - treatment of minorities, including muslims, as well as disproportionate use of force by the police, high unemployment, and repossessions of houses belonging to those unable to afford mortgage payments"

Seriously? That's the core issues?

The second site does usually cater to somewhat more right-wing leaning readers, but the discrepancy between the (admittedly, vague) demands of the protesters and those outlined in the article are hardly something that could've resulted from confusion or lack of knowledge...

I wonder if anybody else noticed this in non-english news? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.47.205 (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This polish news don't make sense. The movement goals are knew: oppose the corruption of democracy by and for the benefit of the 1% richests. Yug (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point - the events are portrayed (if they are) as something different. My question was whether or not other non-english news sites put similar spin when (if) they report them.

Why did you feel that pointing out such manipulation deserves "non sense" tag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.47.205 (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Just: the journalist made a non sense very poor job not needing our consideration. I'm like you, I wonder if this is on good will or a conscientious corruption/hidding of the truth, but can't say. Conclusion: better to focus on other (sourcable) issues. Yug (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Which makes you slap a non-sense tag, hiding the body of the text, on a request to clarify if similar tactics are used by news aggregates in other languages, because obviously such tactics, even if reported (I cited one source from a major Polish site), are beyond the scope of what Wikipedia should cover? Right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.47.205 (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No response, removing the non-sense tag as unwarranted. This is a discussion of possibilities. If it was a set fact, I'd modify the article itself. 66.234.47.205 (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Stop putting in non-cited information in

There is a lot of information being put in the article that isn't being cited and sourced. This why I got the article protected, so that I could stop people just dumping whatever they want in it. If you want to change something, it needs to be talked about on this page before! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk • contribs) 00:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Oki doki. See comment above. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

American Engineer should follow his own suggestion and quit adding information without a source. Gandydancer (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't put any information in that was uncited.AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Political views of demonstrators

I find the article to have an inconsistent treatment of the politics of the demonstrators. It says "The protests have brought together people of many political positions including Democrats, libertarians, anarchists,[4] and socialists". This is fine, however, the source used for this information also gives equal weight to one of the supporters being "Conservative". My suggestion is to either list Conservative as one of the groups represented or not to list any specific political factions at all. The reality of the protests seems to be a lack of political specificity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Neap24 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

To use a common programming trope, consider the possibility that the participants might view the movement's "lack of political specificity" as a feature, not a bug. In other words, some would see it as a point in the movement's favor. - Elmarco 00:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have big concerns about the neutrality of that statement in it's current form. Almost all of the mainstream media sources that i can find on the protests present them as left-aligned (left of the democrats even, often "the left's answer to the Tea Party" or something to that effect) and with the exception of maybe Ron Paul i can find no notable figure or organization right of center that supports the protests. I feel that a lack of political color is more a desire on the part of the organizers than a fact on the ground and by giving equal weight to say "liberals" and "conservatives" that paragraph paints a distorted picture. Helixdq (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. Occupy Wall Street is incompatible with conservatism, because Occupy Wall Street seeks major change, not minimal change. 83.83.118.29 (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

OWS, Tea Party, capitalism relationship

From my understanding :

• OWS demands to strongly regulate, taxe, sue the financial sector (Wall street) to restore economic justice, so hard work = good income again ;
• the Tea Party request taxes reductions and reduction of the government for a fairer economy, so hard work = good not taxed income.

Upon what some news reports suggest that OWS and the Tea Party principles are compatible, while others say they are opposed. OWS supporter Mickael Moore said the movement is pro-capitalism, but against the Casino capitalism of Wall street (source). Other OWS supporter Van Jones said it is not against the Tea Party, he want to do like the tea party, to restore the american, pro-midde class way of capitalism (source). While the association of the two political views is not perfect, and not openly claimed or visible, we should also be careful with sources about a claimed 'opposition' between TP and OWS. From the direct sources I read, OWS political position and the TP actually have a lot in common. Wanted: a calm and serious source about the two movements will and compatibiity/opposition. Yug (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that there is little difference in Tea Party and Progressive/Liberal viewpoints, you are pretty much alone in your belief. Van Johnson said he wanted to "rival" the Tea Party's influence, not copy it. Gandydancer (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is there is actually few differences. But OWS is still a large group of various people and political views, so journalists wording I read *sound like* OWS is progressive or anti-capitalist idealists so they are oppose to conservatives views, without explaining seriously why, and in which points they oppose. My point is : Wikipedia should not reports such simplistic claims I myself neutralized several times. In a nutshell: when journalist do a poor work over a fictional opposition, no need citation here. Yug (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Do I understand you correctly in that you add ((source?)) because the source did not, in your opinion, explain the situation well enough? If you are doing that, you would not be correct. If you don't understand the difference you need to look it up rather than expect the media to explain the difference in a liberal and a Tea Party-er. For one thing almost all Tea Party-ers are Republicans, and I doubt you would find very many of them at a OWS protest. Gandydancer (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

(oups, misunderstood your previous post !)

I'm digging in. I didn't found clear opposition of the Tea party against the core request to reduce wall street power upon politics. Yug (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the Tea Party is opposed to the "core request to reduce Wall Street power"; but I think most self-identified Tea Partiers would profoundly disagree with the means proposed to achieve that goal. Simplistically put, Tea Party = conservative American populism; OWS = liberal American populism. They agree on the 'populist' part, but not much else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.117.193.162 (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my suspicions. Soon you will see OBAMA 2012 shirts galore at the protests. S51438 (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

MARK RUFFALO views on OCCUPY Wall Street Protesters stand for

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbSye1jTwL8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.188.104 (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Cities holding similar protest

This section could use a bit of an update, many major media outlets have reported similar protest across many other cities. Thank you. Mattisacat (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What should be the threshold for such inclusions? I could even give you a story from the local Tallahassee Democrat about an Occupy Tallahassee group springing up here. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You can submit original stories to wikinews:Main Page. There are three drafts about Occupy Wall Street: wikinews:Occupy Wall St Protest Continues, wikinews:Occupy Wall Street Protesters Still Fighting and wikinews:Hundreds of Occupy Wall Street protesters arrested. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand; I meant I could provide reliable sourcing from the local newspaper here in Tallahassee, which happens to be called the Tallahassee Democrat. No original reporting here. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think an exceptional amount of detail is warranted, but several major cities have seen copycat actions of varying degrees. This is notable, but we may want to wait until things settle down to write it up in any detail. Maybe just an addition indicating other cities have seen similar protests stemming from this set of demonstrations, etc. 204.65.34.206 (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 5 October 2011

U.S Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

WilbergWBWW (talk) 05:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done - Request is not sufficiently clearly stated. Feel free to re-open (answered=no) after further clarifying language is added to the request. Thanks! --Lexein (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 5 October 2011

add Template:World protests in 21st century

Asdgdsgdgad (talk) 05:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not namely anti government, but anti financial influence upon the government. Yug (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree; these protests are not explicitly anti-government. The primary "focus" of this generally unfocused demonstration seems to be more explicitly about finance and the private sector and wealthy than government. 204.65.34.206 (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done I concur with the above positions that "anti-government" is not appropriate for this article. It may be so later, if reliable sources support such a claim (templates and categories are claims, too). --Lexein (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Media coverage section : restore, confirm deletion, review, pruning ?

• better source: Rushkoff, Douglas (10/05). "Think Occupy Wall St. is a phase? You don't get it". CNN.com. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)

Have been deleted. While both side expressed in the section are biases, I agree, this media coverage debate may nevertheless need ... coverage. So, do we restore or keep deleted ? Yug (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Wall Street itself has remained barricaded off from all pedestrians, including tourists

Keith Olbermann accused the mainstream media of failing to give the Occupy Wall Street protests the same amount of coverage as the Tea Party movement. Ginia Bellafante of The New York Times and L. Gordon Crovitz of The Wall Street Journal both noted the low attendance of protesters. Bellafante addressed Olbermann's concerns about media coverage, wondering how the media would give the protesters more attention when peripheral demands include signs that read "Even if the World Were to End Tomorrow I'd Still Plant a Tree Today". Joanna Weiss of The Boston Globe found it difficult to take the protests seriously, criticizing Occupy Wall Street for its "circus" atmosphere. On the other hand, this skepticism have been attacked, stating that when everyone clearly understand the fact that occupying Wall Street denounce its biasing power over US politics, some journalists request "clear demands" to artificially create a feeling of confusion to weaken a movement they don't support. Commentators repeatedly noticed the lack of coverage up on Occupy Wall Street movement compare to similar past events, "corporate media skipping anti-corporate protests". Activists explain this lack of coverage by the very strong influence of the financial actors on medias, thus biasing their coverage and reports to the public. Twitter trends have been temporally censored for the expansion of #OccupyWallStreet in north America, this being linked to JP Morgan Chase having hundreds millions invested in Twitter.

restore. And whoever keeps deleting it either needs to bring the issue here for consensus, or knock it off. It needs pruning, but the media reception is notable in and of itself.204.65.34.206 (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This issue came up yesterday (see above). It brought up a core question re whether or not media reaction was a legit topic for the article or not. I left the question open after most of the Media section was deleted at that time and only one editor had anything to say about it, including you, Yug. Gandydancer (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that media attention **is** relevant since the protestors themselves claimed that they were getting "silenced" or that the mainstream media were either mocking them or deliberately ignoring them. Here is one such opinion. I have read claims (that may or may not be revisionist history) that the mainstream media heaped praise on the tea party movement when they came out but are now scorning leftists protests. I would support a NPOV examination of this common claim as part of the article. MPS (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried to get some information regarding another issue, as outlined in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street#Media_spin.3F . Alas, Yug deemed it "non-sense" and slapped a tag hiding the content based on his (subjective) estimate of importance of this. I received information from two friends about a major Russian site running something similar (the article disappeared after four or so hours), and a Czech friend also recalled seeing misreports (similar to the Polish site described below), but could not recall where.

To summarize - at that time, out of two largest Polish news sites, one was not reporting on the protests, while another manipulated the information to make it appear as having completely different goals. 66.234.47.205 (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion media views should be included. I felt that the media section which included Fox views, etc., was appropriate. It was deleted and there was no support to include it. Since I am not "the boss" of the article I dropped it. Editing articles is not easy, and as often as not the most difficult part is what goes on here on the talk page, or at least it should be. I've edited several hotly contested and fast-moving articles, and this is the worst one yet. To delete (or to a lesser extent open) entire sections, especially if they are of long-standing, in a contested article without opening a discussion is not appropriate IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've looked through this whole talk page and there was never any consensus to remove the whole thing. FYI, it seems to have been removed by AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER on Oct 5 on the basis of it being "biased as hell," in the edit summary.

Reading the version he deleted, I can sympathize. It was unbalanced, and even implied Twitter was censoring it as a trending topic because JPMorgan is a Twitter investor. It looks like it'd been watered down from its state a few days ago, when I thought it was quite good and fair. So, solution: we should talk more about the bad press it's been given. Throw in some statements from Fox, maybe bring back that "spoiled brats" comment. Not because we agree with them necessarily, but for better or worse that's been part of the coverage.

IMO the coverage is a major facet of this whole event and one of the most significant and interesting things about it. This is definitely important

--Qwerty0 (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was deleted before American deleted it. But I agree that it is relevant and part of the entire picture of what is going on. Having worked extensively from start to finish on the Gulf oil spill and the flu pandemic, it is newsworthy and interesting to read the history of the events and how they evolved. Should I be bold and restore the previous section that was deleted, and we can work from there? Gandydancer (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Another two thoughts (entirely separate in my mind)... First, I thought of the idea that we might create a separate article, perhaps Media coverage of Occupy Wall Street that would allow a little more depth on compiling various media reactions over time, to be summarized in the main article. ... Second (again a completely different thought) I am wondering if it is even possible to determine the point at which this protest actually became newsworthy. Was it June 9 when adbusters bought the domain name? Was it August somethingorother when the "leaders" planned a strategy session? Was it September 17, when a bunch of people actually showed up? Clearly now, after getting national attention (perhaps form the police actions, perhaps from political and celebrity endoresements, perhaps from twitter trending) there is plenty of news media attention over it and there is no question of its notability... but at some point, it crossed that line from just another flash mob into legitimate media notability... and in the grand scheme of things, there are a lot of other idealistic protests out there that want the world press to descend on their protest march and bless them with "coverage" ... and they are going to complain unless they get it... but to some degree the media did not "owe" this movement coverage from its inception... there WAS a point when this protest **did not** merit coverage... so in my opinion that understanding ought to flavor our documentation of any "media bias" against the event. In summary (1) should we start a separate media coverage of OWS article, and, (2) what possible authoritative source is there that could definitively say whether this movement deserved coverage all along? Peace, MPS (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

MPS, arguing the current notability of articles is tough enough. I don't think we want to try to decide when it became notable. Also, we aren't the ones to decide when "media bias" happened. Our role is to report others' allegations of media bias, if there are prominent allegations.

And Gandydancer, I think you can go ahead and restore it, especially if you can find some opposing views first (and take out that Twitter JPMorgan thing!). I think we've agreed it was taken out against procedure.

--Qwerty0 (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Qwerty0, agreed... we (wikipedia editors) don't need to decide when ... and my point is that since there is no single authoritative source for yea or nay, the best we can do is document the controversy... there will be differences of opinion, and so we document protestor POVs (allegations of non-coverage, allegations of imbalanced coverage compared to teaparty) and document MSM coverage (high profile media opinions and allegations that the protest is or is not notable, that the protesters do or do not deserve attention, that events are or are not adequately covered) and then let these opinions balance each other out. We state all sides as fairly as we can and let the reader be informed by the various arguments put out there. I think that's the best we can do unless God himself (or Jimmy Wales) writes an authoritative history of OWS. MPS (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds great! Yeah, I'm in favor of covering the controversy by quoting sources who themselves cover the event.

--Qwerty0 (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the media section is back and on its way. FYI, here's a past version of the article with some good material from both sides (criticism in the "Criticism" section and support in the, er, "Reactions" section).
--Qwerty0 (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, nevermind that. Looks like even the "Criticism" section in that version was devoted to erecting straw men. Here's a revision that's a bit more nuanced.

--Qwerty0 (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Time to split --Polmas (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

More elected official support

 Done

Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has also voiced his support for OWS and the possibility of him joining the movement when it reaches DC. http://www.nationofchange.org/bernie-sanders-and-keith-olbermann-celebrate-wall-street-protests-1317392475 I think this should probably be noted.--132.198.76.149 (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete Article: "Occupy Wall Street Manifesto"

 Done Can somebody delete the article: "Occupy Wall Street Manifesto" It was made a few days ago, but nobody has done any thing with it and I am concerned that the objective of what the user who created it for may in some way violate Wikipedia policy.141.165.41.189 (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I nominated it for speedy deletion. Helixdq (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the 2010 Inside Job (film) related to this event(s)?

Is the 2010 Inside Job (film) related to this event(s)? 99.119.128.87 (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it is, as the documentary takes a hard look at a number of economic and corporate aspects that the protesters are concerned about. A good case can be made for including a mention of the Oscar-winning film in the article. Jusdafax 03:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

potential image?

From http://mediagallery.usatoday.com/G373 Editorial Cartoons of USA Today by Nate Beeler, The Washington Examiner, Cagle Cartoons October 5, 2011 (2 of 4) ... Year 1967 "Occupy Dean's Office: Draft Card burning", Year 2011 "Occupy Wall Street" (burning documents) with apparent Golden Baby boomer protesting "Son, please! Hasn't your old man's 401(k) suffered enough?!?"" (a Generation gap reference). 99.119.128.87 (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Lots of police brutality occurring tonight

We'll need some users to add stuff about it later when the news picks up on it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpOMlDVaXzc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.72.132 (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

IF the media picks it up, then it can be included. But calling it "police brutality" at this point is just absurd. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Here we go, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/05/occupy-wall-street-nypd-police-brutality-video_n_997414.html?ref=mostpopular

http://gothamist.com/2011/10/05/video_nypd_breaks_out_pepper_spray.php

More sites should report it tomorrow, this did just happen a few hours ago — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.72.132 (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC) http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/occupy-wall-street-protest-broadens-scope-20111005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.72.132 (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is The Post's coverage, which slants it as "Protests turn violent". The clip from the TV newsguy is funny - him and his cameraman get clubbed and maced and he seems so nonchalant about it. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/it_brawl_street_WGonUcuHz7WBlnQZeK7gWK LoveUxoxo (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is some Daily News coverage which directly references a video of a cop "bragging" about using his nightstick: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/10/06/2011-10-06_occupy_wall_street_protesters_post_video_of_cop_bragging_my_nightsticks_gonna_ge.html LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Image request - "Liberty Park" layout

I've seen two images which provide a layout of the area of Zuccotti Park and would like to put forward that these can be used as the basis for an image created by an editor with .SVG skills and donated to WikiCommons. NYC General Assembly has provided this .pdf graphic on their website on September 29, 2011. More recently the blog provided this city planning image on October 4, 2011. A newer layout has been created by the Wall Street Journal How Occupy Wall Street Turned Zuccotti Park Into a Protest Camp. This was published on October 5, 2011.

If anyone is skilled, or knows someone who would be able to put their skills to our needs, providing an updated image based on the Wall Street Journal's reference would greatly benefit this article, as well as the article on Zuccotti Park. --Cast (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:GL/MAP — make a request to the Graphic lab map workshop. Yug (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comments: rewritten Media section

Per the above discussion, the Media section has been restored. But it's a severely neutered one at the moment. So I've rewritten most of it, adding back some information that was lost in the process. But I tried to stick to sources Viriditas advocated, per another discussion above.

Before I include such a large edit to a contentious section, I thought I'd post it here for commentary and work first. (::ahem:: a practice I would advocate, please.) If you have issues with it, look at it as a first draft and tell me what to change.

--Qwerty0 (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be agreement so I went ahead and restored the old section. IMO it shows the sequence of events well and contains several comments that have become somewhat "famous" in that they have been repeated so often in other articles. I didn't try to include what is below into the old section yet... Gandydancer (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a spelling error in the heading "media responce" --60.242.29.171 (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "responce" is spelled RESPONSE. Also, the section should only contain the most pertinent responses. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

An editor has already removed large sections (without even an edit summary) and I put them back. It is not appropriate to make drastic changes in a section that is being discussed. Please give other editors a chance to review before removing this info. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Your decision on what may be pertinent may differ from other editor's opinion. This section is under discussion at this time, please do not be disruptive. Gandydancer (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Before adding further information to the section, post it here and see if others think it is pertinent. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, coming from an editor that has not only never taken part in any discussion on this talk page but has never even made an edit summary for his frequent edits, that's an interesting comment. Gandydancer (talk) 10:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have again restored the previous section which has been under discussion. Wikipedia is a group effort and people that are too lazy or too bossy to take part in discussion should not get the idea that their editing rules. The section may need trimming but it is up to the editors who have been discussing it to decide what should go. Please give them a chance to decide rather than decide that you know best. Gandydancer (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The media section restart to be a collection of unfounded POV by angry journalists. There is tons of such criticism online, it's useless to collect so many samples, collect unfounded attacks word by word is to repport garbage. Need pruning, and more neutrality. Yug (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how we can be neutral without reporting on what O'Reilly and Hannity have to say about the protest. Since they have their own TV show, clearly millions of people agree with their viewpoint. Gandydancer (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who agrees or disagrees with them. Sorry, but that's not a reason to include any source. We include sources that are relevant and current to the subject. What O'Reilly and Hannity have to say, according to the source material you have cited, is little to nothing about the protests but pure, opinionated attacks. The material you added back says that liberals are garbage (O'Reilly reporter) and that Obama is to blame for the protests (Hannity). If you can find good secondary reliable sources that highlight those criticisms, and report them to be notable, then you have an argument for inclusion. If not, then you are cherry picking non-notable sound bites that are entirely irrelevant and less than encyclopedic. How many people agree or disagree with their viewpoint never comes into play. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Media coverage

---

Initially many accused the U.S. media of neglecting to give the movement the coverage it deserved. Five days into the protest political commentator and writer Keith Olbermann criticized mainstream media for failing to cover Occupy Wall Street, saying, "Why isn't any major news outlet covering this? ... If that's a Tea Party protest in front of Wall Street ... it's the lead story on every network newscast." However, weeks later, a blogger at The New York Times reported that media coverage eventually increased after the arrests on September 24 and October 1, with the story appearing on all network morning news broadcasts on October 3.

Many commentators were repelled by the appearance of the protests. Joanna Weiss wrote in the Boston Globe her feeling that the movement is hard to take seriously due to the "circus" and "Burning Man" atmosphere. Still more criticized the protesters' lack of a coherent message. A columnist at The New York Times, after also criticizing the "carnival" atmosphere, called their cause "virtually impossible to decipher". But Derek Thompson of The Atlantic argued that the protesters' goals would inherently be diverse because of the breadth of problems facing the middle class.

---

Garbage journalism

What should we do with "garbage journalism", false associations without evidences, naive simplifications and generalisations, and general attacks of journalists against the movement or some political actors, such :

In a segment on The Sean Hannity Show, Sean Hannity alleged that, "All the talk the protesters were giving about class warfare came directly from President Obama."<ref name="mediaite" />

I agree that these statements may be sourced (<ref name="mediaite" />), but the journalist statement is a pure stupidity, POV, based on nothing. So despite the source, I removed the statement above, and encourage similar clean up ! Yug (talk) 10:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

As editors it is not up to us to decide what is stupid and what is not. I don't agree with a lot of stuff in Wikipedia, but that does not mean I should remove it. Many people agree with everything reported on Fox News. A large number of the Tea Party-ers still believe that Obama is a Muslim born in Africa. Strange but true... Gandydancer (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, we may report that they do. We don't have to report that this is true, or reasonable. Just something to remember. --Cast (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yug shows a tendency to downplay elements that very well might be very important. Just because somebody is spewing non-sense (heh), does not make this a non-issue, especially if it occurs in a major media outlet. In fact, since it can have an effect on shaping the perception of a large audience, it is notable and I believe should be included in the article. 66.234.47.205 (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I confirm, my position is that wikipedia should not copy primitive attacks made by low level journalists. Or we should make it clear that it's a easy and unsourced/unfounded attack. Yug (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I would think that an article in the most frequented (based on Alexa rating) news site for a particular foreign language goes beyond "low level journalism." Since it is the news site for a large part of the population, which also may not be able to verify this information in English, it is not exactly the same as posting a blog entry. Incidentally, the other major Polish news site did not report anything about the issue at the time at all, meaning this was the only high-profile article. I fail to understand how this can be considered unworthy of attention or "low level." 66.234.47.205 (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

As a general approach, this MEDIA section should not cite ponctual attacks (which belong to the Criticism/Opposition sections), but should cite articles with journalists talking about the media coverage.

Articles directly commenting OWS media coverage

• "Will Bunch, author of 'The Backlash,' on mainstream media's failure to cover Wall Street protests". current.com. September 21, 2011. Retrieved September 22, 2011.
• Tripp, Ben (10/03). "What Are Your Demands?". Huffingtonpost.com. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• Rushkoff, Douglas (10/05). "Think Occupy Wall St. is a phase? You don't get it". CNN.com. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• McGlynn, Katla (Oct. 6). "Jon Stewart: How Is Occupy Wall Street Not Like The Tea Party?". TheHuffingtonPost.com. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)

Yug (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, the section is balanced now. Yug (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I edited your edit. If we can use FAIR as a source, perhaps we can add that her remarks have been criticized. Gandydancer (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Gandy : ) I indeed used Fair, I eventually though that an organization which is publicly know and there since 1986 is as reliable as online news website. So let's use it. Yug (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

About Burnett, I eventually saw the video : she seems to be more joking around that attacking OWS. Yug (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yug, here is your edit:

After interviewing several protesters CNN reporter Erin Burnett criticized them saying, "They did know what they don't want...it seems like people want a messiah leader, just like they did when they anointed Barack Obama", her report being later itself criticized as biased, condescending, and reductionist.[END OF MY EDIT AND YOURS STARTS HERE]

Erin Burnett has thus been denounced for her biased report, short view, and conflicting personal interest with the financial sector since she was a Goldman Sachs and Citigroup employee, and is engaged to a Citigroup executive.

Huffington Post journalist answered the frequently seen request of a "clear message" from the crow occupying Wall Street as a false interrogation purposely aimed to suggest confusion in the opponent side.

.

CNN journalist Douglas Rushkoff on his side denounced the condescending, reductionist, and superficial view of previous mainstream media reports, and views OWS as the first American political movement fundamentally from the internet, bottom to top, as the Facebook revolutions proceeded. Thus, he claims the movement is gathering numerous complaints, which are believed to be several symptoms of a same governance dysfunction, the collusion between the financial sector and the legislative and executive branches of the country. Over the lack of clear demands, he added:

[Anyone and any media] who says he has no idea what these folks are protesting is not being truthful. Whether we agree with them or not, we all know what they are upset about, and we all know that there are investment bankers working on Wall Street getting richer while things for most of the rest of us are getting tougher.

On October 5, TV host Jon Stewart made a humoristic overview of the recent media coverage, enlightening the simplistic and partisan view broadcast in previous days.

You are a very nice person and I don't want to hurt your feelings, but your English is not very good. Would you mind deleting it and letting us help you with it before you put it back? The people that read Wikipedia do not know that your native language is French - it just looks like you are poorly educated to them, which reflects poorly on the article and the editors. I would go ahead and do it but it will take some time and I'm not even sure what you are trying to get across in some instances. Gandydancer (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

After having time to read the source I found that this statement: "conflicting personal interest with the financial sector since she was a Goldman Sachs and Citigroup employee, and is engaged to a Citigroup executive" was not even sourced in the ref provided. I have removed all of the above edit and please do not return it until it has been discussed. Gandydancer (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree for my section's English to copyedit (not to delete), native speaker's help welcome.

For the statement, let me check the sources! Was in one of the sources. Yug (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Found:

"Burnett used to work for the same financial companies that profited from the bailouts--Goldman Sachs, Citigroup--and she is engaged to be married to a Citigroup executive. Burnett's journalistic career includes plenty of attempts to promote Wall Street interests". Source: >Fairness.org (Oct. 4). "CNN's Factcheck Failure on Occupy Wall Street". {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help). In an article which is all about Burnett biases over OWS, it's basically talking about a conflict of interest. However, in the video that I later saw, Burnett seems more to make some cool and populist acide jokes over OWS protesters than really transform the reality. In anyway, my wording is excessive = remove. Thanks for your checking. Yug (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yug, when you say anything about living people on Wikipedia your references must be extremely good. And BTW, no she is not fooling around - she is dead serious. Thanks for being so understanding about why I removed your edit. Gandydancer (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking copy edit of my 7lines in a new section. Yug (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 October 2011

Add Austin and Dallas to the list of cities also protesting

65.36.77.138 (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Abhishek  ^Talk 17:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Austin done, below. Please re-open when Dallas is sourced! --Lexein (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Proletarian Revolution?

Is America undergoing a Proletarian Revolution? The Occupy Wall Street protests certainly fulfill all the hallmarks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valheol (talk • contribs) 16:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• lol no, just a bunch of communist throwing a little fit because nobody cares about them.AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

hahaha, no proletarian revolution, nor communist revolution. I'm capitalist and support their core view : enough with the financial sector collusion with the legislative and executive and the casino capitalism, go back with the real economy, and the american entrepreneurship which made the strengh of America. The first on place have been the leftists, but capitalists are clearly part of it too. Yug (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Even assuming there was a revolution the middle class are not part of the proletariat by definition so no. Helixdq (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• I think American Engineer's openly-stated POV should be taken into account in regards to any further article edits or tags he places on the article. Jusdafax 03:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. http://nycga.cc/2011/09/30/declaration-of-the-occupation-of-new-york-city/ Look through the General Assembly website. 152.131.9.132 (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You would need sources that say the NYCGA speaks for that mob. The article currently says they're "leaderless."

It's kind of funny, though, because it would throw out the absurd "democraphics" claim that characterizes the protest as having "brought together people of many political positions". That part of the article definitely needs a revision.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request: Violance on 5 October

The protest turned violent when 20-30 protestors rushed a police barricade:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/06/dozens-arrested-in-wall-street-protests-as-rallies-spread-across-hudson/?intcmp=trending http://www.kgoam810.com/rssItem.asp?feedid=118&itemid=29735473

Can someone please add that in to the timeline? 152.131.9.132 (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrote about the second pepper-spraying incident that took place on October 5 to Occupy Wall Street#October 5, which is under the the Pepper-Spraying section. Sourced the facts from a NY Daily News article. Anyone else welcome to expand other parts of the article using the sources provided above. Thanks. --Fayerman (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

there should not be a generalized pepper spraying section in the "chronology" unless it the events happened during the same week... the events in the chronology should be in order of time... which is like the definition of chronology. Peace, MPS (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Please note the Timeline of Occupy Wall Street article that contains chronology. --Fayerman (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That needs to be fixed...it is not a pepper spraying incident. Some of the protesters were attacked police. This article needs to be fixed so NPOV is used. It makes police look heavy handed and the protesters like followers of Ghandi and that is not the case. 173.174.212.164 (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Resource from Portal:Current events/2011 October 5

US labor unions set to join Wall Street protests by Ellen Wulfhorst in New York for Reuters October 5, 2011 4:05pm EDT; including Amalgamated Transit Union. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy L.A.

Don't know if this should be included here. [1]. Lots of peeps in downtown right now at 7th and Figueroa. They want the banks to stop foreclosures and federal govt to extend unemployment benefits. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, people are really getting uppity - what do they want, a bailout? (wink, wink) So what if the banks had to hire people to forge thousands of signatures for days on end on bogus documents... Gandydancer (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

They are saying that the banks got bailouts but the peeps still got foreclosed on. And IMHO all the lenders who bundled the subprime mortgages and all the hedge fund managers who bet that those bundled mortgages would fail, and raked in billions when they did, should be in hiding right now (or orange jumpsuits.) Malke 2010 (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Added the latimes ref [2] to the para. Feel free to propose extra text, and find free photos from the event. --Lexein (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 October 2011

In the third paragraph of the Occupy Wall Street basic description, there is a sentence listing many cities that have also started "occupying." Austin, TX has also started occupying in front of City Hall starting October 6, 2011. Please add Austin to the the list. http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/occupy-austin-takes-over-city-hall

72.179.50.207 (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for providing the source. --Lexein (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Organization section

I just now added a section under "Participants" that deals with the organization of the movement. While it is clearly "leaderless" in many aspects, I have also read many articles about how there are various stations (medical, media, food) and other self-organized processes. Just wanted to add a discussion section in case anyone wants to discuss what should be added. I think it is notable because just saying "it is whatever and stuff" is not really true to how OWS functions. Clearly there are leader-like spokespeople and division of labor occurring. I have cited reputable sources that I was able to find so far... Peace, MPS (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 October 2011

Sacramento, CA's protests began October 6th as well. Please list in the 6th city names.

99.91.185.43 (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Please provide reliable source(s) first. Set answered=no when ready. --Lexein (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source for Sacramento based protests: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/10/07/3966909/occupy-sacramento-plans-park-curfew.html

 Done - Thanks for providing the link. I added Sacramento to the list. Oh, I put it in order as the last of the U.S. cities, but before the Canadian ones, that OK? LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Bare-breast photo (again)

I don't know if the prior image was in the context of a news report or broadcast, or showed the signage, or showed more than one woman. I added commentary by Bill Maher, and a two-shot, as broadcast, which shows two women with the full text of their protest signs fully legible, specifically as an example of non-mainstream coverage. Earlier in the same broadcast, the protests were lauded by several guests as correct and brave, including Salmon Rushdie - perhaps that should be added.
Comments above indicated "not culturally comprehensible" around the world, and "possibly offensive". We're not responsible for the whole world, just the English-reading world. Articles in other Wikipedias can censor them there all they want. More on my point, anyone who has read history knows of women baring themselves in public in direct challenge to orthodoxy, in grief, and in appeal to mercy. This contemporaneous example, in the larger context of Western civilization, is no different. But it turns out not to matter here. Our job and quest is to neutrally report what sources say. If a RS has commented on the female protestors, and the use of their images in the media, by all means, let's report that, (addendum: and RS-sourced opposition) too. --Lexein (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting post and thanks. I am the person that first brought up the question of the inclusion of the photo and I was really happy to find agreement on the talk page. My argument was, and is, that our articles can only take a small slice of history to record, and as such our slice must represent the event rather than an unusual event within the event. For example, in the lead-up to the Iraq war many women did bare their breasts in opposition - do you remember the peace sign of naked women? So for a war opposition article I would have welcomed a bared-breast inclusion. But this protest does not seem to be similar to the war protests...in fact it does not seem to be similar to any protest in history - note that even liberal Mother Jones was critical of the (non)agenda!

If you go back and look at the last big protests in the US, the Iraq War protests, you will find that most of the protesters were middle age and older. This protest is quite different - how many "grey-hairs" do you see out there? The traditional "bared breasts" sign of protest is meaningless to them. Of course, if it suddenly becomes meaningful and many women do bare their breasts as a sign of protest, then a photo would be appropriate. I am old enough to have been around the block a few times, but unlike Mother Jones I don't have a clue as to where and how far this protest will go... Gandydancer (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Wartime vs. peacetime protest: the protestors and commentators have mentioned class war, and the perceived war on the middle class has been in the news for months (years?); I mean, passions run high in any protest, as does rhetoric. It's arguable that military warfare and economic "war" (perhaps focused here on wealth-stripping) have overlapping devastating effects, and that the differences are unimportant to the protesters - only the end results of the war/"war" matter. Can we as Wikipedia editors dismiss either the old-school bared protests, or these, as unimportant? No, because we can conduct no original research. We can make no presumption of "meaningless"-ness: we don't know the education, politics, or intentions of the women (yet). We don't need to: we know that the fact of their act was widely reported in RS, and propagated (whether by design or not) news of the protests.

Getting back to policy and guideline, since we're here on Talk to improve the article, given the number of other images in the article, the breadth of other coverage, and the in-text an in-image context of this image, I now don't think WP:UNDUE is triggered. Per this, I have corrected in italics a possibly misunderstood point, above. --Lexein (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm the one that mentioned WP:UNDUE in the discussion above, and I think it applies. If one or two protesting women take their tops off in front of a photographer, that sure seems like undue emphasis to me. If you have 50 or 100 women in a photo, now you have a case. Jusdafax 03:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• That seems to ignore the in-photo context: it's a two-shot with the commentator, in the context of commenting on it: by comparison, the size of the women in the overall photo is small. In terms of visual weight, it's as follows: the photo, the frame, the commentator, the women's signs, and the women, in that order. WP:UNDUE doesn't really hold up here, especially since few, if any other signage is even shown in the article as it stands. WP:UNDUE would be to censor content which has RS. I don't see the merit in the argument that the numbers are too low, or that 50 or more would be better: that just keeps the door open for prudish censorship. The foundation of our reporting is simply RS. Nothing more or less.

And as for the non-discussing (yet image deleting) editor's invocation of WP:Principle of least surprise (an essay purporting to be supporting some unspecified part of MOS, which has nothing to say about content): applying style guides to basic reliably sourced content discussions is inappropriate. As for that editor's edit summary that the picture is not needed to understand the commentary: seeing the poster text is indeed necessary for understanding the comment as intended by the speaker. --Lexein (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jusdafax. It's not just undue weight on the tiny handful of nude/semi-nude protesters, but undue weight on Maher's commentary. He's just one comedian among several with TV shows who commented, and for no reason I can tell his comment is included as a direct quote. Also, no one really expects to see breasts in an article about a political protest. Including a fair use photo (esp. when there are hundreds of free ones available) of tits violates the principle of least astonishment, distorts the perspectives about the protest, and I think violates NPOV by implying that the protestors are the kind of fringe political element that runs around in public nude. To conclude: wrong for a whole host of reasons. Steven Walling • talk 03:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Steven. I find you have expressed what I intended much better than I did myself. I was unfamiliar with the Wikipedia essay you mention, and agree that the thinking at WP:ASTONISH applies directly. And yes, Maher's short commentary and photo use also fit my view of WP:UNDUE. Jusdafax 06:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• We generally don't lambast with words like "violates". That's POV, and false: there's no "violation" when there are no firm rules, which is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. I politely request discussion which is more polite.
• I'll refer readers to the relative size (and area) importance of items in the image, above.
• Direct quoting of a source is unremarkable, unimpeachably normal, and best when exact meaning is important, in context. That other editors have not elected to include other direct quotes of other commentary is no burden on the Maher entry. That a diversity of commentary has so far not been represented in the article is no mandate for continuation for such exclusion. It is the exclusion of a diversity of commentary which is non-neutral, not the inclusion of one item of commentary.
• The assertion of violates the principle of least astonishment is empty: there is no such "violation"(no firm rules) nor such a "Wikipedia principle". WP:ASTONISH is neither policy nor guideline, cannot trump policy or guideline, and cannot be a brickbat for the exclusion an eraser of RS content.
• RS, V, and NPOV take precedence, WP is not censored. If an individual has an issue with a microscopically scaled image which, if zoomed up, shows tits, that is not Wikipedia's problem. IMHO. "Nobody expects" is not an excuse a good reason to reject RS.
• WP:UNDUE is not a brickbat to be used to pound out of existence an eraser of reliably sourced content. It may be an editor's opinion that wide media coverage of something, by itself, seems undue emphasis, but that does not necessarily meet WP:UNDUE, unless it affects the article as a whole, and it just does not seem that the Maher entry could imbalance the article as a whole. We report what RS say, and even show. There can be no apology, or attack for that. If there are RS which report that nudity was a vanishingly small element of the protest, then we'll include that too. That's how reaching NPOV is done. Not by censorship or whitewashing.
• We don't emphasize opinion over pillar/policy/guideline. WP:UNDUE applies to article bias among a collection of opinions. Disliking or disagreeing with Maher is not a reason to further delay the introduction of other commentary.
• No undue emphasis on Maher in particular should be inferred or accused. It was included as an example non-mainstream, widely broadcast commentary, outside major corporate news channels. It is merely a datapoint in a highly variate constellation of commentary, as yet underrepresented in the article.
• Editors may wish to use a variety of means to exclude content directly related to the article's topic, but this runs the risk of being unconstructive or disruptive. Going forward, I sincerely suggest adding content, rather than spending time deprecating other content. --Lexein (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, use your WP:BRAIN people... your editorial opinion matters... personally, I don't think titties belong on this article. If a wwoman bears her breasts on David Letterman, we are not obligated to put a screen capture of it on the Late Show article. Peace, MPS (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 October 2011

change "Washington $0.25" to "Washington raises $0.25" Nick.yarosz (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Lexein (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Major?

It is possible to say that the current (2011 -) Occupy Wall Street civil movement marks the beginnings of a major global proletarian revolution. If so, we may be witnessing the largest proletarian revolution in the history of humankind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_revolution#Communist_revolutions_throughout_history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponderexistence (talk • contribs) 01:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It is only possible to say if and only if reliable sources write about this a) as a movement and b) as marking the beginning of something. We can't say it unless RS do. Just for a general contextual reality check, please read WP:FLAT and WP:V. --Lexein (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Portland

Just so you know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Fresno

It should be noted in the first paragraph that there is another protest in Fresno, CA. There is a list in the first paragraph that i cannot edit. Fresno should be on the list. Its called Occupy Fresno. It has a facebook page and is organized by Peace Fresno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.14.85.95 (talk) 04:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy XXX

I worked on the Portland one. It's looking pretty good. There are probably a number of other ones. Should we create a category or something? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 7 October 2011

there is an improperly formatted link to a right-wing, out-of-context YouTube video stuck next to Obama's name. Please remove this link. The video is completely misleading and irrelevant to the article. thx

ps looks like it is already fixed -- thx

68.183.238.154 (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit requested — help please

 Done—— issue closed, the Media section have been reduced, the detailed content below don't need to be included anymore. Yug (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not a native speaker, so my English is poor. May someone spellcheck / copyedit my 9 lines, then reintegrate them to the Media reaction section.

After interviewing several protesters CNN reporter Erin Burnett criticized them saying, "They did know what they don't want...it seems like people want a messiah leader, just like they did when they anointed Barack Obama", her report being later itself criticized as biased, condescending, and reductionist, while also reporting she've been an ex-Goldman Sachs and Citigroup employee.

Huffington Post journalist answered the frequently seen request of a "clear message" from journalists to the crow occupying Wall Street as a false interrogation purposely aimed to suggest confusion in the opponent side.

.

CNN journalist Douglas Rushkoff on his side denounced the condescending, reductionist, and superficial view of previous mainstream media reports, and views OWS as the first American political movement fundamentally from the internet, bottom to top, as the Facebook revolutions proceeded. Thus, he claims the movement is gathering numerous complaints, which are believed to be several symptoms of a same governance dysfunction, the collusion between the financial sector and the legislative and executive branches of the country. Over the lack of clear demands, he added:

[Anyone and any media] who says he has no idea what these folks are protesting is not being truthful. Whether we agree with them or not, we all know what they are upset about, and we all know that there are investment bankers working on Wall Street getting richer while things for most of the rest of us are getting tougher.

"Will Bunch, author of 'The Backlash,' on mainstream media's failure to cover Wall Street protests". current.com. September 21, 2011. Retrieved September 22, 2011.

"Media Non-Coverage of Occupy Wall Street Gets Lots of Media Coverage". The Atlantic Wire.

Weiss, Joanna (September 27, 2011). "The right way to get heard". The Boston Globe. Retrieved October 4, 2011.

Tripp, Ben (10/03). "What Are Your Demands?". Huffingtonpost.com. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/276-74/7571-what-if-the-tea-party-occupied-wall-street

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/09/29/trendsmap-proves-scary-twitter-censorship-occupywallstreet-trending-topics-72701/

"Will Bunch, author of 'The Backlash,' on mainstream media's failure to cover Wall Street protests". current.com. September 21, 2011. Retrieved September 22, 2011.

Stelter, Brian (October 5, 2011). "Coverage Grows for Wall Street Protest". The New York Times. Retrieved October 6, 2011.

Weiss, Joanna (27 September 2011). "The right way to get heard". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 6 October 2011.

Bellafante, Ginia (23 September 2011). "Gunning for Wall Street, With Faulty Aim". The New York Times. Retrieved 6 October 2011.

Thompson, Derek (4 October 2011). "'Occupy Wall Street': What Should a Populist Movement Ask of Washington?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 6 October 2011.

Fairness.org (Oct. 4). "CNN's Factcheck Failure on Occupy Wall Street". {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)

Rushkoff, Douglas (10/05). "Think Occupy Wall St. is a phase? You don't get it". CNN.com. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)

Tripp, Ben (10/03). "What Are Your Demands?". Huffingtonpost.com. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)

McGlynn, Katla (Oct. 6). "Jon Stewart: How Is Occupy Wall Street Not Like The Tea Party?". TheHuffingtonPost.com. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)

Tripp, Ben (10/03). "What Are Your Demands?". Huffingtonpost.com. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)

Please correct directly, it's a wiki. Yug (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yug, could you make the references available? Gandydancer (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What about this ?

However, media theorist Douglas Rushkoff criticized Erin Burnett and other Fox News reporters for seemingly being determined to cast the protesters demands as the "silly blather of an ungrateful and lazy generation of weirdos" unsure even of what they are protesting. Rushkoff recognizes the confusion over the protest's goals, however he suggests that, "it is difficult to comprehend a 21st century movement from the perspective of the 20th century politics, media, and economics in which we are still steeped". He says that as the first true Internet-era movement, it does not necessarily have a charismatic leader or particular endpoint, and he argues that unlike a traditional protest which identifies the enemy and fights for a particular solution, the protest is less about victory than sustainability, inclusion and consensus.[END OF MY CORRECTION]

A Huffington Post journalist answered the frequently seen request of a "clear message" from journalists to the crow occupying Wall Street as a false interrogation purposely aimed to suggest confusion on the protesters side, while Rushkoff added:

[Anyone and any media] who says he has no idea what these folks are protesting is not being truthful. Whether we agree with them or not, we all know what they are upset about, and we all know that there are investment bankers working on Wall Street getting richer while things for most of the rest of us are getting tougher.

On October 5, TV host Jon Stewart made a humorous overview of the recent anti-OWS media coverage, enlightening the simplistic and partisan view broadcast in previous days. but the victimisation of the protesters have also been denounced.

Gandydancer (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's roll ! Yug (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yug, by posting my suggested edit from your talk page and adding some of your ideas to it and then signing my name you have made it look like all of the above post is my work. I am now sorry that I became involved in this and will not do it again. Gandydancer (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

We are working on a section of article. You copyedited the first half (abstract from Rushkoff) and posted on my talkpage. I moved your post back here. I didn't added any ideas/opinion in your name, I restored the second part of the text we both said needed correction and are working on and added one more fact/source. That's wiki. We move on fast. Yug (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done— issue closed, the Media section have been pruned, simplistic garbage journalism (Erin Burnett, Fox news) have been remove, so Jon Stewart's & others humorous counter attack is not need anymore as well. Good move for everyone. Yug (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Jacksonville

Since I no longer use my main Wikipedia account and this is semi-protected, I guess this is the only place I can put this. There is now a Occupy Jacksonville event that will be occurring. See a local news article, of which this is probably only one of the many there are. Jacksonville, Florida should be added to the beginning intro with the other cities that have other events. 67.142.161.32 (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If the introduction is about protests that have already occurred or started, then the word is October 8 is when the Jacksonville Occupation will begin, so you can wait until tomorrow or the next to have some reliable sources on the event going to start at Hemming Plaza. 67.142.161.32 (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added the information. My roommate was in charge of the UStreak for Jacksonville, and a link will be added when it is made available. Ampersandestet (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Protests in other cities

Considering there are protests all over the country now, I would like to suggest that this article no longer presents a global view of the subject. While it is still a protest in New York City, it has morphed into a national protest movement, with branches forming or present in every major U.S. city I could think to Google after the word "occupy". I really think we need to cover the national aspects of this better, and I'm sure there are notable events occurring in other cities that could be mentioned. Daughter article, perhaps? --Pstanton (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start an article called 2011 Occupy protests ? Peace, MPS (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

or List of 2011 Occupy protests if people decide to start their own articles on possibly non-notable occupy (insert city) protests. MPS (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In my view 2011 Occupy protests is a more elegant solution, and provides the opportunity for a bit more contextual text than a list. I have now created an Occupy Wall Street category, although I expect that a 2011 Occupy protests category will need to be created above it in the near future. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with 2011 Occupy protests. Then we can add in the cities, like Los Angeles. Also, agree we need a 2011 Occupy protests category. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

FWIW Buffalo NY also has an Occupy protest going on now too .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.221.166 (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We are the 99%

Other wp articles claim the slogan was a reference to the famous "Wir sind das Volk"("We are the people") East-Berlin protests in 1989 which lead to the collapse of the Berlin Wall. --Rebestein (talk) 09:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is. The US constitution begins with "we the people" ... Populism and Solidarity movements like to use the word "we". ... "We are Virginia Tech" [3] ... yes we can... etc. Not relevant here. MPS (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

good job on wiki page on occuy wall street, but can I make suggestions?

I am reading Occupy Wall Street Wikipedia page, good job! Can I make a couple suggestions? Searches for 'Occupy Movement' or (for example) 'Occupy Ventura' (my home) do not bring you directly to Occupy Wall Street page. It would be good to keep up to date on all the local movements, and have them listed on that page. Also, a page for the 1% should be made, and include as much specific information as possible, about who, specifically 'they' are (they will hate that), and what kind of excesses they live with, and most importantly - (specific again when possible) how they use their money to manipulate politics and the economy. Koch brothers are the obvious example, but there have to be more, less know ones that people don't know about (I don't know who they are). Trump should be in there too, but to me, he is more of a clown than anything else. Dug — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dugjohann (talk • contribs) 15:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We cannot take sides in this protest or do things to "expose" others per the non-point-of-view guideline. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Scapler ... also, though we have not, to date, included a "responses from Wall Street" section ... If we can find reliable sources from the chair of the Fed... or prominent Wall Street CEOs... or representatives of the NYSE / NASDAQ... I would certainly be in support of including these in the response section. It is also important to note that We are the 99% is just a slogan, and any given percentage number (e.g., wealthiest 1%, top 50%, the other 99%) actually represents an arbitrary mathematical cut line. Wealth is generally understood to be spread [[across a distribution. Peace,MPS (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

International Occupations

I'm by no means an expert on the use of Facebook for protest movements, but it seems that there are protests being planned for many more locations than the ones listed here... It seems that there are a number of Facebook pages ("communities", "events", "cause", etc., all starting with "Occupy" and then the location), most of them linked to a greater "Occupy Together" page (http://www.facebook.com/#!/OccupyTogether; apparently it has more than twice as many likes as OWS' page). Many of these don't have many followers (though, for comparison, while the Syrian Revolution has nearly .3 million likes, the Egyptian Revolution page with the highest viewership has only 5600 likes, though I acknowledge they aren't necessarily good for comparison). I read on OWS' page that Occupy Baltimore would be initiating there occupation today, and I believe the others mostly represent protests in the planning. As was apparently explained on one, first they found the page, and once it starts to get support, they start to set dates.

Many of these have thousands of likes, and are set for their first events this weekend (mostly large US cities not yet mentioned on the page). Perhaps the global movement of Occupy Together (there are notable pages for not only Canada and Puerto Rico, but also Tokyo, Europe and Berlin, for example) should at least get a mention on the page.

Also, we might note this page (http://www.facebook.com/#!/Op.Revolution.France?sk=info) about a similar movement in France, apparently making reference/linking to both the Occupations and the Spanish protests. It has a considerable viewership apparently. --Yalens (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We are likely to need an article for London soon too: [4]. There is no doubt this is growing fast.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Two points:

(1) Before we start an article like is suggested above, we probably need to dicuss notability criteria. Is a protest notable just because it has a website? I say no, because anyone can make an Occupy Peoria website or facebook event. According to wikipedia notability criteria, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." So when your local mainstream news affiliate (not the Peoria Independent Revolution Media Network) covers the occupy Peoria event, then, I would definitely personally agree that it meets notability guidelines.

(2) If we do decide to make it, to what degree should an Occupy Together article list all the "related" sites. I mean all these protests are "rising up" in solidarity, but they are supposedly leaderless and unconnected etcetera... I say this because at some point, some organization like ANSWER Coalition or Westboro Baptist Church or SOMETHING is going to come along and we will have to sort out whether they are really "in or "out" ... my provisional suggestion is to start the "2011 Occupy protests article and then have a section on Occupy Together... and sort it out at that point. Also, you know that there will be people unhappy with this name, and we will have to haggle over it some more. Unless I hear substantial suggestion I am going to start this article ASAP.

Peace, MPS (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What I found interesting (about the fb pages) is that they (in addition to being in national languages often), tended to cater to the demands of the left-wing of the given nation. For example, there was much more mention of nuclear energy on Occupy Berlin's page (and on Occupy Tokyo, I suspect too). Isn't it true, anyhow, that "Occupy-" protests outside the US have already begun, in Canada and the UK (the latter being mentioned in a section on this page?)? In that case, I think should at least open the possibility of presenting them as a global phenomenon (or, perhaps, a Western and Westernized-country phenomenon) that simply started in the West, rather than the current US-centric coverage.--Yalens (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Other cities

It's getting too big for the lead. I live in a town of 1500 people, and we had an Occupy rally yesterday. I imagine Oregon will probably end up with 10-50 cities having rallies. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the suggestion above for a '2011 Occupy Protests' type of article is a good way forward now, as there are LOTS of occupations now taking place, many of which don't necessarily warrant individual articles - some will of course, if not straight away - and this article now faces becoming overburdened and unwieldy.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I would support the above suggestion, with notable individual protests (for example, Occupy Wall Street) being selected for individual articles. Perhaps it would also make sense to handle different countries and regions differently.--Yalens (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a sample to start filling in... we can move to new article soon... Peace MPS (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not have the sources in the footnotes instead of having a "reliable sources" column? AGreenEarth (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

City	Country	wiki article	date of first protest	reliable sources	number of people participating	number of people arrested	number of people killed number of dollars spent	insert other sample headers here
Peoria	United States	Occupy Peoria	October 4	Peoria newspaper
San Jose	United States	Occupy San Jose	July 4, 1492	NBC news
Seattle	United States	Occupy Seattle	etc	etc
Portland	United States	Occupy Portland	etc	etc

Hey, student at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee and there have been significant protests here across West End Ave. at Centennial Park. The music industry, which is Nashville's biggest economical factor, has taken a huge hit and people are getting uneasy about it. Please add Nashville to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.115.1 (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

table of protest and arrests

how about creating a with all the protest happening all across the u by the starting ate an all the proteters an all of the arrests?--Nrpf22pr (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 7 October 2011

I want to add one more country where the pacific protest is taking form. The following will be: Puerto Rico

There is a group of people who will start to occupy the capital of Puerto Rico in Oct. 15.

Thank you.

Aerisvirella (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia's policy on future events we would need a reliable source to do a story on the protest. Since it occurs in the future, my opinion is that we should wait until it happens to add mention of it to Wikipedia. MPS (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Higher-res Bull/Dancer Poster

Holdithigh (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, everybody. I am extremely new to editing wikipedia, but I am just writing to say that I have a higher resolution version of the poster image. Requesting permission to upload it, or at least email to someone who will put it up for me. Whatever it takes to bolster the cause. Thank you!

Thanks for the offer! However, we can only use a low-resolution version under fair use laws because the poster has not been released under an appropriate license by its creator.--~TPW 20:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

"To bolster the cause..." Well I guess we know your pov about this subject!141.165.191.208 (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

resource

Wall Street protest functions like a small city by Karen Matthews of the Associated Press 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What specifically is new and appropriate for potential content addition? 99.109.127.58 (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Two topics that could be included are sanitation problems ("sanitary conditions have reached unacceptable levels", although that quote that is from the landlord) and friction with neighbors ("general incivility" and the noise from the drums is what Mayor Bloomberg mentions). Currently the article just says "Many protestors have taken to utilizing the bathrooms of nearby business establishments", which actually is NOT what the link provided says, and should be fixed to point to the above article, even if no changes to content are made. LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed the URLs for those couple of refs (about bathrooms and sleeping) to point to the above article (thanks for providing it anon editor) which is the long version which actually contains the quotes that are provided. LoveUxoxo (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted 3.3.3.6 Security

I assumed this was a wry joke ("The New York Police Department provides security for the protesters")? If not, well, I don't see the point, it's just stating the obvious that the area is under NYPD jurisdiction. When anything can be sourced about anyone acting on behalf of OWS participants in a role of docent, steward, marshall, etc. we should put that in. LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC) Alternatively we could title the section "Policing", but again I don't see the need for it. The article can only be better with less trivial stuff like this, especially when it involves so many sub-sub-sub sections. LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street at fort worth

currently there is a planned protest at Fort worth, Texas Here i the Facebook Link:http://www.facebook.com/pages/Occupy-Fort-Worth Set for Oct 10.--Nrpf22pr (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Facebook is problematic as a source. News sources, radio or TV reports or even their associated blogs would be better. --Lexein (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is one link:Occupy Fort Worth: Protests are Coming to Cowtown schedueled to begin tomorrow at 10:30CT--Nrpf22pr (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sanitation section

An editor removed the sanitation section from the article and commented, "this whole section should be moved to the article about Zucotti Park."

I disagree, because the sanitation issue is related specifically to this protest, not to the general, everyday nature of the park.

Mk2z0h (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but would prefer a different quote/source (that one is from the landlord). LoveUxoxo (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of the landlord, Bloomberg's girlfriend, Diana Taylor, is on the board of directors of the company owning the park. Feel free to google-verify, plenty of sources. 66.234.47.205 (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

LoveUxoxo, the quote from the landlord is what was reported in the CBS article. If you can find additional quotes from other parties in reliable sources, please add them to the article. But please don't think there can only be one quote, and please don't remove the landlord quote. Mk2z0h (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I never considered removing it, just would prefer a better source when/if available. As OWS progresses, that shouldn't be too hard, because Burger King and sympathetic neighbor's showers isn't going to cut it. LoveUxoxo (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request for the political support section

Please edit the reference to Ron Paul.

"U.S. Congressman and 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) expressed his support for the core demands of protests"

The citation DOES NOT support this claim. The quotes in the article do not support this statement. They speak about his feelings in regard to the pepper-spray incident and his general feeling of support for the act of protest. The specific quote I imagine the author to be referencing as support for the article's claim ("If they were demonstrating peacefully, and making a point, and arguing our case, and drawing attention to the Fed — I would say, good!" Paul said following a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire.") does not say that Ron Paul supports the "core beliefs" of the OWS movement. This misrepresents Dr. Paul's political views and should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djhurt77 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul is now quoted directly. Good catch. --Lexein (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Comparisons to Tea Party

File:Occupy-wall-st-vs-tea-party.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dualus (talk • contribs) 02:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Unlinked image. Can't show non-free images on talk pages. Dragons flight (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Should we upload an adaptation of this image from this 538 blog post? It shows how the Tea Party was funded up front (with astroturf?) in contrast to the natural growth curve of OWS. And it shows that OWS is quickly overtaking the Tea Party. My understanding of copyright laws for graphs is that the data and axis lines can be copied by points and lines including color, but the captions, axis labels, titles and legends have to be re-done. Are there any graphic artists who can do that? Dualus (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Your various statements of what the graph shows are not the same as Nate Silver who created it. If the graph is included in the article it should be captioned appropriately. LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have seen in reliable sources that the Koch brothers funded the Tea Party Movement. It's unreasonable to extrapolate first order variations, but the cumulative statistics are shown. Dualus (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you just meant, but I am admittedly a bit slow, so I'll assume it's a failure of my intellect. Fortunately Nate Silver is always deliberate and concise when dealing with this geeky stuff, and makes it crystal clear, even to me. The graph with its labels is self-explanatory. In the article he explains his methodology. And his analysis is not that it is "quickly overtaking the Tea Party". His actual quote is "Coverage of the Wall Street protests continues to increase, however, and could surpass that given to the Tea Party rallies in April and May 2009 if it remains at its current levels for several more days." (he wrote it on Oct 7). "Could" and "if" are two big qualifiers, Nate is a professional, quote him accurately as to any prognostication he makes.

You've used the word "funded" twice. The graph has nothing to do with that. And its completely missing the point of the article, which is the correlation between OWS news coverage and police use of force (see article title). Whatever "natural growth curve" you see, I don't, and Nate didn't either. The whole point of the article is showing the correlation between police use of force and spikes in coverage: "Still, the volume of news coverage has tended to grow in a punctuated way rather than a smooth and linear fashion, having increased after each confrontation with the police. The other graph shows that clearly. The article itself is a tremendous resource for this article. I just didn't see anything you wrote as being related to what I had just read. LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

See Political activities of the Koch family. 99.190.87.183 (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Why? For the purposes of improving this article by using that graph, the other graph, or the article content from which they came, the Koch Brothers do not exist. Any attempt to make a connection is WP:OR. LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Just clarification as to why the previous Koch brothers comments' relevance. Just attempting to be helpful. 99.190.87.183 (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for making the effort to help out, and don't ever feel the need to apologize for trying no matter how cranky people like me are (nor expect any thanks either!). Cheers! 05:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your polite tone. Sadly it can be in short supply in wp Talk. WP:TEA. 99.190.87.183 (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If you were familiar with the history of the jumping IP's edits, you would come to the conclusion that its goal is not to improve Wikipedia, but to create links to its favorite articles, one of which is Koch brothers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Changed the caption of the image to read "Comparison of news coverage of Occupy Wall Street protests and the Tea Party Movement." Before, as I feared, the caption said that it was measuring the "growth" of each movement, which is just so wrong. LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong date on the page

In one section, refers to 17 Oct 2011, which isn't even here yet. Can't update, which defeats the purpose of wikipedia, because someone chose to protect the page and restrict edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyle.jack (talk • contribs) 00:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Typo fixed. Semiprotection was done to reduce vandalism, and I, for one, am glad of it. Autoconfirmed editors, which you will be after doing a few edits on non-protected articles, are quite welcome to edit semiprotected articles. --Lexein (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

While this protest is obviously important, it seems to me like this whole article is written from the point of view of the protesters and their views and is most certainly not NPOV. I don't have any vested interest in the article, but I just figured I'd point it out. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 00:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for rewriting history or correcting injustices. Articles shouldn't be written with an agenda beyond objectively. That's all very fine and good, but then what perspective should an article take? Indeed, a neutral perspective is not the same as an equal one. For example, it is not neutral to present a movie that is objectively Nazi propaganda as rather being a discourse on atheism, just because a vocal resource insists that all Nazism is truthfully founded in atheism. That is a fringe perspective. An article has to present an accurate perspective on reality. Attempts to mold a biased reality to a prejudiced opinion, will only disfigure the fact that sometimes -- to paraphrase Stephen Colbert -- reality has a liberal bias... or a conservative bias, or an anarchist bias, or a fascist bias, etc. If a majority of resources on the subject of this event are prejudiced and do not reflect reality, it would be irresponsible of us to use them as resources. Anti-Occupation resources can be used, if they were accurate in their commentary. Recent accusations that the protest is becoming unsanitary and filthy at Zuccotti Park are damning because they seem objectively backed by photographic evidence. Those accusations are included in this article now, free of pro-occupation bias. It isn't our fault that, since the initial arrest and pepper-spray incidents took place, media sources have been taking a closer look at the protesters, giving us more accurate sources to use, even as large swaths of the media remains biased in its reporting of events. Frankly, it's not our fault that reality on-the-ground gives us an article "written from the point of view of the protesters and their views". As soon as the media turns its spotlight on the police and Wall Street traders, we can get an article that considers their perspective as well. --Cast (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's very specifically not how Wikipedia works. We don't present "an accurate perspective on reality" that would be original research on our part. We present what was said or written by other notable people and organizations on the subject of the article, in this particular case those sources would be mainstream media, political analysts, politicians, academicians studying political science, etc... We don't get to exclude sources based on "prejudice" or "lack of accuracy" if the sources are generally held to be reliable and important by the majority.

If you think "a majority of resources on the subject of this event are prejudiced and do not reflect reality" that is not a valid reason not to use them, nor is the fact that "large swaths of the media remains biased in its reporting of events". If the article doesn't reflect the way the majority of sources report the events that's an obvious NPOV issue.

Please also keep in mind that people involved directly in the movement editing the article to insert TRUTH(tm) is a conflict of interest and the bulk of the editing should be left to supporters, opponents and random people who aren't directly involved. Especially having the OWS media teams editing here in an organized way would be highly inappropriate. Helixdq (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, but lets take what you've advised to it's logical conclusion and see how it pans out. So, we don't present accurate details based in reality? Consider then the history of Henry Ford, who was accused of being an anarchist.^{HENRY FORD FILES $1,000,000 LIBEL SUIT; Resents Chicago Tribune's Charge of Anarchy in Connection with Enlistment of His Employes.} So perhaps if I'm not to utilize my own discretion, which you characterize as original research, I should promptly use this as justification to alter the article in question and categorize Ford under Category:American anarchists, and further alter the infobox of that article to note the important contributions Ford made to the anarchist movement? Of course, that is an extremist view, but my point was that we must reject extremist views when they are presented as a minority opinion. But what if they are presented as a majority opinion? Well that would be notable, but only for the controversy of a majority opinion being wrong, and we could report on that controversy. Or perhaps we should dispense with that, and just merge the articles on Barack Obama with the separate articles we have on the largely reported rumors of his Kenyan origin and Muslim faith?^{[crackpotreference][nutcaseblog][outofcontextquote]} No, we isolate and expand our coverage on the controversy, but we do not present the perspective as being based in fact. This is my perspective, grounded in Wikipedia:Coatrack, that "articles about one thing shouldn't mostly focus on another thing." This is an article on Occupy Wall Street. As the article expands, we can expand the reaction to it and eventually form an article on Reactions to Occupy Wall Street. By the time such an article is necessary due to size constraints on this article, it will surely include more perspectives from non-OWS participants. Then we can focus large swaths of that article on all views and opinions from a wide range of perspectives -- and that will require a great deal of discretionary balance on our part. Until then, this article should remain focused on Occupy Wall Street in general, its background, development, participants, and social impact -- all easily fact based, rather than opinion oriented. NPOV is easily attained here. We just filter for facts. I hope that minor act of filtration isn't too much like original research for your tastes. --Cast (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Good discussion guys, thanks. I would agree with a lot of Cast's comments above, especially in a situation like this, where sourcing is dominated (exclusively?) by news articles, generating in the immediacy of the news cycle. A certain amount of editor discretion based on common-sense reasoning is required. LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Gordon is correct, this article is written from the POV of protesters. It is heavily biased. It glosses over the leadership role of the General Assembly (it does have leaders and is quite organized) and the "Second Pepperspray Incident" is 1) titled in a way that is sympathetic to the protestors and 2) glosses over the violence that cause the police to respond. This is a very important event and it is a shame that wikipedia is letting people sympathetic to the protests control both the tone and the release of information. This article needs a neutrality tag. 173.174.212.164 (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the article has a serious neutrality problem at this point. Is there any pertinent information that is being ommitted? Are there any specific changes that need to be made that either haven't been done or are being thwarted somehow? I agree that the article, taken as a whole, is sympathetic to the protests but what's needed are specific suggestions to address that. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Negative news coverage of the event was deleted from the page. The leadership of this movement has been ignored on this page. The violence of the protesters has been ignored. This article needs a neutrality tag. 173.174.212.164 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you site diffs of the problematic edits? If there is a problem, it can and should be hashed out here, or it can go to dispute resolution. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: go to the bottom of this page, where it will get more attention and be in better chronological order, and enumerate with diffs the text that needs to be added to make this more neutral. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd guess that until these protests have been over for at least a month, there will continue to be NPOV problems here—and in general, suggestions that there are in fact NPOV problems will be energetically rejected on Talk. There are just too many sympathetic editors descending on WP to edit this article for the normal editorial processes to play out as they're supposed to. Centrify (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Much the same as if edits of the bio of a government official were coming from their office, if several editors to this article are doing so from the I.P.s of a wireless router in Zuccotti Park, I feel it's a WP:COI that is almost impossible to overcome. should be disclosed, as such a disclosure is a benefit to both Wikipedia's credibility, as well as the editors who are active participants in OWS. I said if, because I have no idea, however the concern is legitimate. LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting observation, though I have no idea how anyone but an admin could make the investigation that would be necessary to reveal such a COI. Centrify (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

STOP DELETING REFS

Named refs are used in several places in the article. When the main named ref is deleted, it damages the verifiability of the rest of the article. Please pay close attention to changes made, and use Preview and temporary {{reflist}}s to verify changes before saving. -Lexein (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Media coverage section's pruning

Thanks, someone have pruned the Media section, so score of reductionist and simplistic garbage journalism (Erin Burnett, Fox news) have been remove, as well as others humorous counter attacks (Jon Stewart, etc) since they are not need anymore. A good part of my work have been deleted, but thanks. Good move for everyone. Yug (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm is not needed, though it is understandable. If deletions have been wrongly made, please be clear about which ones, and make a concise, civil case for the inclusion of the material. Coverage is coverage: there's no need for deletion of commentary, especially if that has been reported on elsewhere. Feel free to revert deletions of sourced material, without exceeding 3RR, then discuss civilly, per WP:BRD.

Wikipedia is not the place for strong views, though we can do our best to report in a balanced way about the views of involved parties. See WP:TIGERS. This is a caution both to supporters and opposers of the protests. --Lexein (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Ugh... That was not sarcasm. I even thanked Viriditas. This move is a good move I support, and which will save a lot of time to all of us (not having to reports all the peripheral attacks). Yug (talk) 11:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Another reason this article needs a neutrality tag. Deleting news reports that you disagree with. That is the exact opposite of NPOV. 173.174.212.164 (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Both content I added and the opposite side contents based on humorous sources have been deleted to let the place to the few serious and calm sources, that's fair and neutral. Yug (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Negative - It is not neutral. You have made your feelings on this protest known and are manipulating the article to make it sympathetic to the protesters. This article needs a neutrality tag. 173.174.212.164 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear, are you still talking about the Media coverage section ? Yug (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

No, this article does not need a neutrality tag. You need to know what is encyclopedic. Commentary from Jon Stewart or Bill Maher making jokes about the coverage (or lack there of) FOX news had about the protests and the Tea Party similarities isn't. This article also doesn't need, and I quote, "American radicals are planning hundreds of simultaneous violent uprisings to topple our system of capitalism... I'm talking about anti-capitalist terrorists in our own country" in the article, or "if you put every single left-wing cause into a blender, this is the sludge you’d get." This section was about the coverage the media had on the protests, which was initially very little coverage, and now that it is spreading it is getting a lot of attention. Now the section reads two sides of the situation, how initially it was hard to take seriously, and now that it's getting attention, a more widespread message is trying to be reached. Funny jokes from comedians and right-wing commentary about how the Occupy Wall Street protests are dirty hippies and terrorists is not neutral or add any value. Just because you don't have every person's opinion on the article, doesn't mean it isn't neutral. Neutrality takes the form of having encyclopedic information from a couple of different majority view points making coherent sense of what the topic is about, not a clusterfuck of comments and opinions of random people unrelated to the topic. 67.142.161.32 (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the comedian edits and have deleted a few myself, but I don't agree with the deletion of every right wing Fox News personality, in other words Hannity, Coulter, and O'Riely (and who needs comedians when you've got these guys?). If we have an acceptable reference for their comments, they should be in the article, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of this paragraph, and think it should be put back in:

"In an editorial in the Jewish Commentary magazine, Senior editor Abe Greenwald referred to celebrities who supported the protests as "self-demonizing millionaires." Conservative opinion columnist Ann Coulter, in comparing them with the tea party protestors wrote, "Tea partiers didn't block traffic, sleep on sidewalks, wear ski masks, fight with the police or urinate in public... Then they picked up their own trash and quietly went home. Apparently, a lot of them had to be at work in the morning.""

My reasons are that:

1) Since the protest is about the 99% protesting against the 1%, it is indeed notable that some of the protestors are in that very 1% whom they claim to be protesting against.

2) Since the protest has been compared to the tea party, it is notable to compare the different behaviors of the two groups.

Mk2z0h (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I support keeping those two sources removed. We want to discuss the media coverage in an encyclopedic manner, using the best sources we can find. What you present has got nothing to do with media coverage, nor do we want to be in the habit of citing opinion pieces. Furthermore, criticizing celebrities is off-topic. The question you need to ask is, why should we be citing Greenwald or Coulter's opinion? Please try to pay close attention to the underlying narrative of the media coverage section. It isn't perfect, and needs work, but it is about how the media covers the subject and how they represent the story. Greenwald's attack on celebrities doesn't address this topic at all, and Coulter's comment is just another one of her numerous attacks on liberals, implying that all protesters are unemployed or on the dole. It's about as far from encyclopedic or important as you can get. Your reasons for inclusion don't really hold up. First of all, look at the sources that are used in the section. Most, if not all of them, are considered notable by secondary sources, not by Wikipedia editors. That means that this commentary was already established as significant in some way. Second, the narrative shows a general view of the position of the media and how they see the protesters. It certainly needs work, and will change as the days go by, but we have no need to focus on offtopic or extremist rhetoric. We should strive to represent mainstream sources at the center, with relevancy and authoritativeness in mind. There's a big difference between talking about the difference between news coverage of two different movements and comparing their "behaviors". If we are really going to do that, then we aren't going to talk about it in a media coverage section, and we certainly are not going to use Coulter as a source for sociological analysis. Authoritativeness is important here. Coulter is an authority on attacking liberals, and that's not the subject of this article. Viriditas (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

First, my argument for inclusion had nothing to do with the way editor Mk2z0h views the inclusion. However, reading Viriditas' post and coming to see this section as a section about the way the protest is being covered by the media rather than the comments of notable media figures, Coulter for example, I would agree that she and other Fox News anchors are not appropriate in this section since they are commenting on the protesters, not the media that is covering the protests. Gandydancer (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Add San Diego

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/10/occupy-san-diego-city-hall.html demonstrates that the movement is viable in San Diego too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.32.97.254 (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There is an Occupy Wall Street protest in San Diego. Someone please add it. --Trickymaster (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/131412063.html

Demographics section a tad disingenuous

The lead of the "demographics" section currently reads as follows: "The protests have brought together people of many political positions including liberals,[72] political independents,[73] socialists,[72] conservatives,[73] anarchists,[73] and libertarians.[72]"

Reference 73, which is used to justify "conservatives", reports a single conservative being at the rally. Not only does this not justify the use of "conservatives" in the plural, but this also goes to the larger point. Much as the organizers of this event would like to claim this to be a politically diverse event (as did the tea party on the other side), it's quite clear that this event by and large has a liberal slant and has been supported by mostly liberal groups and commentators. This position is represented by many sources (NYT NPR CBS etc.). Simply put, it is an NPOV violation to not mention the overall political leanings of this movement, or to suggest that liberals and conservatives are of equal footing based on the presence of a single conservative being mentioned in one reference. Oren0 (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

While I seriously don't buy the "there was only one conservative at the rally", a simple rephrase of the sentence would suffice.

"The protests have brought together people of many political positions including liberal,[72] politically independent,[73] socialist,[72] conservative,[73] anarchist,[73] and libertarian.[72]"

The sentence was talking about the positions of the people anyways, not the number of people who had the positions. 67.142.161.32 (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the demographics section is poorly worded, not to mention puffy, and fails to mention what the Times and other sources have pointed out, which is that most demonstrators are young. I've reworded. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I know a little about that section because I added the info from Huff post way back when any sort of news was scanty. I never really did like it and had to make many edits to it - for instance someone kept adding "communist", refs were asked for even though the source was provided, and I don't remember what all. But I never really liked it and actually found it hard to believe, and to have one reporter claim this or that is hardly reliable for the article. At one point I actually deleted it, but someone else brought it back and gave it its own heading. Anyway, I agree we can do better. The NPR article is excellent and perhaps someone could work with that and other articles and come up with something better? Gandydancer (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

To add, about the ref, the Huff Post article mentioned all the different political positions but someone added other refs to some words, which left some appear to have no ref... I really wasted a lot of time on it! Gandydancer (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The fact that there may be some individuals of various political pursuasions isn't the point. There is a clear political leaning to the protests as a whole, as established by reliable sources. It's misleading and a WP:WEIGHT violation to mention the inclusion of all of these groups based on a single article that, again, mentions one conservative. I'm not arguing that there was in fact only one conservative, but to draw from this the conclusion that the group is politically diverse is a stretch. Oren0 (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I agree with Oren here. There's not doubt this is a leftist movement, and it is proudly so. There was one sentence I took out that said it is mostly anarchists at the park, which is patently false. And in the same light, trying to make it seem that this movement resonates with conservatives is...misleading absent multiple sources. --David Shankbone 00:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Concur, this seems to be a relatively serious NPOV violation. Pretending that these protests somehow straddle the political spectrum disserves everyone who reads the article. Centrify (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess I was misunderstood. I agree with the editors that feel the present information should be changed. Gandydancer (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It's so awful. Please someone put it out of its misery. LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The effort to show a wide range of demographics is contrary to the sourcing and is POV, as is the photo, which I've removed. This area is definitely one that has been slanted, and I will tag this article for POV if it is reverted. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You wrote that the people are anarchists in their twenties, and not one source in that section backs that up; they say the opposite. I added two more, the Christian Post and Associated Press that also say it is diverse. Photos of the people at the protest are not POV. --David Shankbone 15:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with the text but not the photo. I think it's overkill. I'm beginning to see validity in the POV concerns. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

My perspective is that it adds to the article and to our readers' understanding of the topic to have a montage of participants at a protest, any protest, under the Participants section. It also supports the text that is reliably sourced. --David Shankbone 16:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I also don't feel strongly about the montage, so if someone removes it again I won't raise an issue. --David Shankbone 16:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel that strongly either, but I think that the montage, combined with the general tone of the article, is not terribly neutral. However, I've yet to see any evidence that balancing text has been omitted. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

External Links Update

Please make the following changes to the External Links section:

1. This link is incorrect (it automatically forwards to the official Adbusters page, which is already linked in this section):

• Unofficial website backed by Adbusters
  

It should be updated to this:

• Unofficial website backed by Adbusters
  

2. Please remove this external link (it does not meet external link standards):

• Occupy Wall Street Protest A different view on the 1% and 99%
  

3. Please add this external link:

• Occupy Wall Street social site To give a voice to those who can not attend protests and provide a place for discussion
  

Lampshade00 (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• DoneAMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Can you please update the first link also? It should be changed from "occupywallstreet.org" to "occupywallst.org".

The occupywallstreet.org URL automatically redirects to http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/occupywallstreet (which is already listed). The occupywallst.org URL is registered to Adbusters (and is therefore "backed by Adbusters").

--Lampshade00 (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, got that fixed, anything else??? AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Thanks! --Lampshade00 (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong date in "Number" section of infobox

Please change the date in this bullet point to October 5, 2011. The referenced article is dated October 6, but it is referring to the marches that took place the day before.
*15,000+ marchers
(Lower Manhattan solidarity march, October 6, 2011)
Lampshade00 (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out. It was completely retarded of that Guardian article to timestamp that entry as "10am". LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Resources

I appreciate all anonymous editors contributing sources which they feel might be useful, thank you for helping! However considering the number of sections on this talk page, I combined the last 3 submissions into one section. LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Citigroup Analyst describes US and UK as Plutonomy

Can a Movement Save the American Dream? thenation.com

Plutonomy:Bringing Luxury, Eplaining Global Imbalances citigroup.

87.164.124.151 (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• USA Today resource

Protesting 'occupiers' spread message beyond Wall Street by Donna Leinwand Leger, USA TODAY

97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Resource New York (magazine)

Steve Jobs, Occupy Wall Street, and the Capitalist Ideal 10/6/11 at 11:15 AM

Why Union Support for Occupy Wall Street Matters 10/5/11 at 08:35 AM

97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm struggling to imagine how the alleged Citigroup doc, even if we had some way of authenticating it, would be an appropriate source for this article. I'm guessing that it would be useful only for original research. Centrify (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Cities in alphabetical order

Hi,

I think it is easier to read the cities in alphabetical order rather than chronological. Although we could show the chronological order in the "History" section. But, for now it should be alphabetical. What do you guys think? --Trickymaster (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I like listing them in the infobox alphabetically (though perhaps grouped U.S./non-U.S.), while in chronological order in the article body. The list in the infobox show be presented in a way that facilities locating a specific city. LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Greywater image from article

The image of the water-recycling bucket doesn't relate to any content in the article I see. Also, I find the image very distracting. LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that including elements of the occupiers' day-to-day life is important because their message is partially delivered by the systems they've set up at the park; they are living within the kind of democratic system that they'd like to see adopted on a larger scale. Collectively caring for the space (forming sanitation crews, recycling, and setting up a greywater system) is part of that process. --Lampshade00 (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, but with the limited number of images than can be in any article, they really should be limited to illustrate content that is actually in the article. Say a picture of the OWS media center would be way better. I'm not touching it myself, and I do think it gets that point across you were making (if not, for me personally, compellingly). LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. After looking through it again, it does seem a little out of place. It might fit in the future, but I agree that it doesn't quite work with the current content. --Lampshade00 (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to make a point: The sanitation section isn't just about bathroom issues, but in general how the protesters are taking care of the park and its environs, and how they are disposing of their waste (including wastewater). This image illustrates how they are recycling waste. That's why I think it fits. --David Shankbone 00:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be OR, would it not? Meanwhile, reliable sources publish stories talking about how the park is being trashed, with photos showing garbage piling up in the streets and one protestor even defecating on a police cruiser. Centrify (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess my problem is, without accompanying sourced text in the article, it's letting the photo "testify" as a source. The graywater recycling could have been a bucket, a tray, and 2 pieces of PVC pipe that got junked after a couple of days. Or could be working quite effectively for weeks. Anyone have her number btw? LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The photograph relates to sanitation and in at least one way depicts one method of addressing it at the park. This method has been covered in Wired, Business Insider, et al. I'll just expand to save a discussion. --David Shankbone 01:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic, but David thank you very much for contributing some of those pics...a pic like this is very informative and gives such a great sense of being "there" in Zuccotti Park. Maybe we should consider grouping a bunch in a horizontal gallery(?) Please don't force yourself to add content right now just because of what I said. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It was a good point - the photo stuck out, and it was just as easy to write a few sentences. Thanks about the photos - this article is large enough that I don't think we need a gallery (those are stylistically controversial anyway); I think illustrating the sections looks pretty good. --David Shankbone 01:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You both may find this from my permaculture garden group in Portland, Maine interesting: [5] Gandydancer (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, now I know the whole story! LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street, a racist movement

There are many reports of anti-semitism (on video) and I cant confirm nor deny but it is said that white people may not speak unless someone else lets them speak. This needs to be covered. I noticed that the Tea Party page has a million words of negatives so for neutrality this needs to match. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.227 (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any examples of what would be considered reliable sources that discuss this? LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Provide sources or we're only going to assume you're making stuff up. The Tea Party article has sources for its statements. Neutrality does not mean giving equal weight but giving due weight to the sources. If most of the sources about the Tea Party portray things that you find "negative," most of the article will summarize sources which portray events that could be seen as negative. Calling editors bigots is not an acceptable or mature way to handle it. If your accusation of anti-semitism and racial restrictions has no sources, we should not cover it because we don't even consider a single person's made up claim on a talk page to be a source. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There was one lone loon who goes around New York being videotaped getting into confrontations with people by egging them on over race, sexuality, gender, religion, etc. He was at OWS one day, egged on a Jewish man, and then it went viral in the conservative blogosphere. It's my understanding he was kicked out of the park since he was only there for self-promotion. Here's one earlier video of him if you want to get the flavor of this, uh, "performance artist"[6]. NPOV requires us to keep fringe attention seekers who look for media out of the article --David Shankbone 00:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There's also a video of a different anti-jewish protester. As well as mentions of pro-palestinian anti-israeli signs being carried by some protestors that jewish organizations might view as antisemitism. So there might be something worth mentioning here, at least as much as racism is in the tea party article. But we can't draw our own conclusions it has to be an outside source making the allegations before they're included (preferably not some blog). Helixdq (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Agent provocateurs are present in most protests, and their goal is to disrupt and discredit the movement from within. The fact is, the protesters are demonstrating against social and ecomomic racism, so his concerns are ridiculous. The Tea Party, OTOH, has a verifiable racist element that is woven into the fabric of their arguments, so there is no comparison. Viriditas (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like the OP is not being given any credence (and rightfully so), but should we actually consider something about antisemitism, let's be precise in our terms. Being "pro-palestinian" or "anti-Israel", are not the same thing as antisemitism. One can oppose the actions of a state without bearing ill will to a broader ethnic group. If I decry the lack of Somali government intervention in piracy, it doesn't mean I'm racist. It means I have an issue with actions or inactions of the state. If a protester is specifically calling out jews in general, then it's antisemitism. That's not necessarily so for calling out Israel, the state.204.65.34.156 (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't believe the hype. The agent provocateurs have been unmasked: [7] Viriditas (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 10 October 2011

Iowa City should be added to the list of places where solidarity protests have arisen:

http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20111008/NEWS01/110080321/More-than-200-gather-Occupy-Iowa-City Poliwop (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

its done!!--Nrpf22pr (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Is The Corporation (film) an inspiration for this movement?

Is The Corporation (film) an inspiration for this movement? 99.35.15.199 (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If you could find any (and more helpfully more than just one) reliable source(s) that state so, it could be considered for inclusion in the article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 08:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

from Portal:Current events/2011 October 9, reference?

• Having spread across the United States, anti-corruption Occupy Wall Street protests reach Canada, London, and The Hague. (Radio Netherlands) 99.190.81.110 (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Condoms, free love, and all that good stuff

I thought the addition of Organizational processes and infrastructure > Free condoms subsection was unnecessary, however editor Mk2z0h feels it should be included, so I brought it up in here. My problem is the source, The Daily Mail Online, is kinds tabloidy in it's tone, and quite frankly, disappointing in delivery (the girl in the sleeping bag has her clothes on, what's the outrage here?). It's also kinda embarrassing (to Wikipedia) to have the fact that $1.9 million in overtime has been spent followed by young people might be shagging in the park (*yawn*). Thoughts? LoveUxoxo (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Remove. Comments on my remove : Garbage journalism, easy (unverifiable) claim and irrelevant claim which the author aim generalized to the entire movement. => remove.

The source as a whole is heavily biases, by example, a box full of various medical stuff (tooth brushes, etc) is claimed to be "full of condoms" while we can't clearly identify one there are simply also condoms in it. Yug (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the condoms can be identified. In both pictures of the box of supplies (it's the same box in both pictures) , a bunch of white condoms be clearly be seen in the lower right of each picture. In addition, the other items with the letters "NYC" are also condoms. New York City gives them away for free, and Apple even has this app which tells you where the nearest free condom handout location is. I also consider the Daily Mail to be a reliable source. However, I won't get into an edit war. Mk2z0h (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

"However, I won't get into an edit war." ...which is to your credit, and if other editors see it your way I'm sure they'll back you up here and put it back in. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

On, I indeed see the NYC and white condoms. The article stay a collection of garbage journalism. I'm quite sure that if you send reporters, you may catch people having sex at the at the republican nomination's toilets, a lot of garbages, or people urinating upon walls. Does this means that republicans encourage this, no, of course. The guy defecating upon the police car is very simply a stupid guy. Yug (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have reservations about this being added. It seems sensationalist, the source is iffy, and it doesn't seem to have a purpose in the article.204.65.34.156 (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with it being removed. It might be possible to merge the information with another section, but I do question the need to include the latter part about sex. It seems out of place, sensational, and does not warrant entry (especially with the only source being a disputed one). As per the Apple app, it is important to note that it extends outside of OWS, and as such the information does not support any claims presented. The only way that I see any information for this staying is if there is a merger between sanitation to become health and sanitation, as there is no real purpose to include this information on its own (due to lack of backing evidence). Ampersandestet (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Background section is not a background section (yet)

Talks over developping this section

The background section is actually about the first organization of the OWS event and merely go back to June 2011. We need some short contents about the middle class evolution in the past 50 years, taxes evolution, financial sector evolution, and the influence of money upon politicians. Yug (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Err, I would definitely hold off on that for now. The problems I see is that what is relevant is highly dependent on individual editor's perspectives. The only way to do it right is when you see in WP:RS commentary and analysis of the precursors to OWS. If you don't wait for those, and do it yourself, its just WP:OR. LoveUxoxo (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Core claims of OWS are know and sourced: income inequality / taxes inequality, financial influence on law makers, etc. There is already sources for these phenomena. We don't have to hold on 4 weeks. I luckily came across a source about he last 50 years US taxes trends, so I added content about that. But the financial sector trends, and lobbying sector trends are actually more welcome. (But I haven't source for that). Yug (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Jane D'Arista (2009), "The Evolution of U.S. Finance"
  This may be a good source, she was heard by the congress: D'Arista, Jane (October 29). "Systemic Regulation, Prudential Matters, Resolution Authority and Securitization". Hearing at the US Congress. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help), and her short video say a lot: D'Arista, Jane. "Anatomy of casino capitalism". TheRealNews.com. Yug (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What I want are sources that analyze the sources you give. Source in article X says "as Jane D'Arista wrote in Y (NOT video Z on Youtube), causes for Occupy Walls Street are AA, BB, CC. LoveUxoxo (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yug, I'm going to revert I'd really prefer other editor's comment on this because I think it's just too much what you think is important, rather than what WP:RS have said so in some overall analysis. I'm looking for a sources that says "Reasons for OWS", not just what you determine are reasons. I'm copying you proposed background below. I'm not criticizing you putting it up, WP:BOLD is actually a great policy. I just feel it's too controversial and we need to collectively decide what is best. LoveUxoxo (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

"Adbusters, proposed a peaceful occupation of Wall Street to protest corporate influence on democracy [lobbying], address a growing disparity in wealth [inequality of incomes/taxes], and the absence of legal repercussions behind the recent global financial crisis [Financial sector + lobbying].<ref name="Fleming"/>"

It is clear that OWS's background and complains are about inequality of income and taxes burden in the US, lobbying in the US, and the financial sector in the US. And we have sources on these issues. Period. Afterwhat, I also feel inconfortable to push the taxe issue first/forward, but I got this source on taxes in the US this last 60 years, no other (short) source on financial sector trends or lobbying trends. Help welcome. Yug (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Cheers, the section below is editable, we need a solid section background. Yug (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, and I'm fine if no one else cares we will just leave it your way. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed editable Background section: Long term

Background section to developp

Long term background The movement have complained about various issues, with core issues being the regulation of Wall Street speculation, the limitation of the lobbies influence on law makers and law making, to reduce inequalities and implement or restore a fairer taxe system. US Financial sector and corporates In 1933, following the Great recession, Sen. Carter Glass (D—Va.) and Rep. Henry B. Steagall (D—Ala.-3) co-sponsored the Glass–Steagall Act. This law was signed in by Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt and introduced banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation. It make compulsory the separation between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. In 1999, the Republican sponsored Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act and signed into law by the US President effectively removed these limitations. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks. Some economists believe this repeal directly contributed to the severity of the Financial crisis of 2007–2011 by allowing Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in commercial banks owned or created by the investment firms. However, regulating or reforming the financial sector have proven difficult or impossible. Only 38 out of 400 Dodd-Frank regulations have been written by the Congress in a year. Lobbying and perceived corruption in the US Corporate greed and the United States’ corrupt political system were Adbuster's initial reasons to call for the Occupy Wall Street protests. Adbusters' Kalle Lasn describes it as "there is something about the financial speculators on Wall Street that brought us this mess, that not a single one has said, ‘I’m sorry for what I’ve done,’ and that they all got away with it while we the people are suffering." Political activist Lawrence Lessig argues that the problems on Wall Street have been caused by corruption in Washington that has been perpetuated by a deep conflict of interests. He further states that because both parties depend on Wall Street's money to fund their campaigns, they will not dare to cross the interests of Wall Street.. As the protest grew, conversations on the specific size and nature of corruption grew and various reports were often cited. The Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan watchdog group that tracks lobbyist spending and influence, found that from 1989 to 2010, campaign funding from Wall Street totalled $1,188,664,055 and $823,559,224 was spent on lobbying efforts. Reports also indicate that President Obama has received more money from Bank of America than any other candidate dating back to 1989. In addition, The Center for Responsive Politics reported that among Obama’s biggest contributors in 2008 included Goldman Sachs ($1,013,091); JP Morgan Chase & Co. ($808,799); and Citigroup Inc. ($736,771). For Obama's re-election efforts, 244 elites are directing at least $34,950,000 -- money that has gone into the coffers of his campaign as well as the Democratic National Committee. Bundlers include Jon Corzine, former Goldman Sachs CEO and former New Jersey governor; Azita Raji, a former investment banker for JP Morgan; and Charles Myers, an executive with the investment bank Evercore Partners. Thus, [Importance and questions over US lobbies and democracy. $500 millions for 2010, multiple bailouts from Obama and Bush] [Conflict of interest found in the partial audit in 2008 during the times of the crash and bailouts] The Federal Reserve has been another point of discussion and protest among many Occupy Wall Street activists. After years of advocacy on the part of Congressman Ron Paul, the first ever partial audit of the Federal Reserve was released in July 2011. The report uncovered that in just one year, $16 trillion in total financial assistance were provided to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world, including banks that were owned by members of the Federal Board Reserve such as the CEO of JP Morgan Chase. The Federal Reserve also paid $659.4 million to the very financial institutions which caused the financial crisis to help the Fed manage all of emergency loans. Some of the other findings include $3 trillion bailouts to foreign banks, a $500 million interest free loan to a large hamburger company, and millions to a company that owns one of the television networks. Senator Sanders said in a statement, “this is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else.” The Fed’s general counsel, Scott Alvarez, said in a letter responding to the audit that officials will “strongly consider” the recommendations. Based on these findings, many Occupy Wall Street protestors have been attempting to raise awareness and advocating for a full audit or the end of the federal reserve. Wealth and taxes inequalities Gini-coefficient of national income distribution around the world (using 2009 info). The USA were already the western country with the highest inequality for national income distribution, coming close to China and Argentina. The top 1 percent control 34% of the nation's wealth, the top 10 percent control about 65% of the nation's wealth. An unprecedented grab by the most powerful on the national wealth's pie since 1928. In late 40's, for every dollar raised in taxes on individuals, Washington raised $1.50 in taxes on business profits. Today, for every dollar from taxes on individuals, Washington raises $0.25 in taxes on business. In the late 2000's, the federal taxation burden have massively moved from both corporate and individuals onto American individuals and families. The federal income tax rate on the richest individuals fell from 91% to the current 35%. Following the late-2000s recession that left many countries on the edge of bankruptcy, with weakened economies and unemployment at very high levels, the government looked for both reducing costs, and increases incomes. However, it is proven very difficult to move back and raise up corporate taxes by 5%. The Occupy Wall Street movement started with the believed that the much needed financial reforms and taxes reforms were staled mainly due to corporate lobbying. [Recent unemployment] Sources

Fall of Capitalism and Rise of Islam by Dr. Mohammad Malkawi

http://www2.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.aspx?bookid=75395 This is all original research. Centrify (talk) (contribs) 11:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment from another editor

If you mention all those things, then here are some other things that I'd like to suggest as well:

1) Despite the huge rise in income inequality in the U.S., a "poor" person of today is far, far better off than a "middle class" person of the past.

2) The OECD states: "Taxation is most progressively distributed in the United States."

3) As the top income tax rate has fallen, rich people are less likely to put their money into tax shelters, and a result, their share of income taxes has gone up. According to Table 6 here, the richest 1% pays 38.02% of all federal income taxes.

Mk2z0h (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm so uncomfortable speculating about this stuff, I'll just recuse myself and let you guys decide. Enjoy! LoveUxoxo (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It's all OR and shouldn't be added under any circumstances. Centrify (talk) (contribs) 11:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's not enough to source pieces of an argument, and then combine them on your own. You need to provide a reference that states the realtionship and implication of those facts are what you're drawing from them.204.65.34.156 (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the protesters are concerned and motivated by certain key issues such as inequality, the influence of money in politics and the behaviour of "Wall Street"/investment banks. In my view these issues should therefore be addressed in more detail in the Background section, as proposed above. The crucial thing however is (1) that the article should not actually take a stance either way as to whether the concerns of the protesters are in fact valid, and (2) that information is presented in a balanced manner. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I should add that the draft text above doesn't for me satisfy the need for neutrality, I support the idea of the section and the headings, but not the draft text.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not god, I'm not perfect, nor neutral, that why I welcome others'/your contributions ; ) Yug (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Update of Union Support for Occupy Wall Street

On September 28, 2011, th International Workers of the World union published an article on their website supporting the Occupy Wall Street protestors following the arrests and use of less-than-lethal weapons by the NYPD.

General Defense Committee of the Industrial Workers of the World stand in solidarity with our brave brothers and sisters at Occupy Wall Street. We denounce and detest the intimidation, harassment, and brutality exhibited by the New York Police. The actions of the police lay bare the true nature of Wall Street and Capitalism.

We call on all those that still retain a sense of humanity to show their support of the working class by refusing to engage in the brutal silencing of dissent. The only individuals who remain unaffected by the volatility of capitalism, globalization, and the stock market are those who are getting richer from furthering the disparity of all workers through calculated economic calamity. We support all of our brave fellow workers on the front lines of this occupation throughout the United States, and those like it across the world.

We recognize that the true occupying forces are the wealthy ruling classes, their institutions, and the States that legitimize their power. The police and military forces that protect their masters' wealth and power are just as guilty as their masters. Only by uniting as workers and standing together as a class, can we take back our streets and our workplaces.

Solidarity Forever!

The General Defense Committee of the IWW [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanDaly0302 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Always helpful is to also provide a link to the original, as we can't consider adding anything to the article without a WP:RS. LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 10 October 2011

External link

http://occupy.evokerecords.com/ Live streaming videos.

Kevin (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

foreign section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street#Foreign_responses

Seems approriate to ahve and expand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herp Derp (talk • contribs) 17:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I love this section, foreign comments are so biased and funny to read. Yug (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

99% -- doesn't appear in the article

The 99% movement, or 99ers is a commonly used thing heavily cited over the past week in the media. It should be referenced in the lede. Can someone skilled do so? Herp Derp (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The claim that "we are the 99%" is namely a political agenda for more wealth sharing, economic fairness, democracy, etc. Should be more visible. Yug (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Also agree. Not sure why it's presently not found in the article.--JayJasper (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Celebrity Commentary section should go away

There is no hard fast rule that because it is reliable sourced it has to stay forever no matter what. The rule says that if it is reliably sourced a reason has to be given before deletion. The reason the section should go away and some of the people or groups named deleted and others moved to different sections is undue weight. That Alec Baldwin or Radiohead said something in support and Jimmy Kimmel made a few jokes is pure trivia. There are several reasons a persons comment should be noted. They are a noted political figure or activist and preferably an activist tied to economic causes.Micheal Moore even though he is a "celebrity" the fits the bill he is notable activist and who made a noted film related to the subject of the protest. If a "pure" celebrity for lack of a better word did something palatable in support of the movement like giving a lot of money, speaking to them they should have a place in the article. There are several "media personalities" comments listed. If they are notable enough we have a media section for them. I am not going to go personality by personality to argue who belongs. It would be pointless unless we come to a consensus on general guidelines here. Edkollin (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree.

First of all, it's not that big a section.

Second, we're talking about notable people appearing at an event that depends a lot on public awareness. That makes them a part of it.

Third, some of these people will say something that they may regret in another time, or they may regret having attended at all. Much like those of similar ideology who joined the "anti-war" movement in the early days of WWII, only to change their minds because Hitler invaded the USSR, such things should never be forgotten.

Every notable person who supports this movement should be remembered.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL BALL. We don't go adding things from the future unless there is reliable sourced certainty that it is very very likely to happen like Presidential Elections or the Olympics. We certainly don't do it because editors think it might be important someday. Edkollin (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

(r to op) I'm one of those guys who thinks that the timeline of commentary is important, as the events unfolded, and as the coverage of the events evolved from nothing, to prurience, to hey-wait-a-minute. That's why I added Bill Maher's commentary, as an example of commentary on the early media mis-coverage. In the same episode, Van Jones expressed extreme pride in the young people making a stand. I was, however, overridden by a variety of agenda-driven whitewashers - an unlikely cabal of OWB fanbois, and gay and hetero prudes. Your analysis plays right into the sterile deletionist agenda of removal of all sense of place or context, from a plurality of viewpoints outside of a narrowly defined, arbitrarily restricted group of permitted sources. --Lexein (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC).

Bill Maher is a political/social commentator, Van Jones is a political figure so they are arguably notable to the topic or another words more then just a celebratory. Their comments could be put in another section. Alec Baldwin's opinions would be article worthy if he was talking about movies or the entertainment business but how is he notable for this topic? If that makes me a deletion happy maniac so be it. Edkollin (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we agree about the arguable appropriateness of commentary by Maher and Van Jones - those were my only two ponies in this corral. Baldwins (any of them) are marginal, to be sure. --Lexein (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support removal. Stick to the topic, and that includes using relevant sources/commentators. It may be sufficient to have a sentence or two, or maybe three or four about the celebrity presence, but that's it. We certainly don't need a section on it, that's for sure. There's this thing called Wikiquote; please use it. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support A stand alone sub-section of Celebrity responses was a bad idea inherently, and the presentation, an embedded list rather than 2 to 3 sentences of prose is another mistake. No surprise this sub-section becomes a battleground of editors trying to push POV by favoring certain voices for inclusion over than others. That's because we don't a lot's of deep analysis, scholarly, and other good secondary sources generated yet to tell us what is considered notable support. So it's just what individual editors think are insight comments by "Celebrities". Which, by in large, are trivial. As for being in list format, that is appropriate for the leading politicians reactions section above it, as their opinions are notable, and I think the division by party affiliation was smart. That sub-section was well done. But you do understand that just because this event is notable, and the celebrities themselves are notable, that doesn't make any public comments they say necessarily notable? That's basic common sense. Just because they were quoted in a reliable source doesn't mean it's notable, or should be given much weight. Merge all the most important entries in this list into the timeline section. For instance, when Michael Moore (filmmaker) visited and publicly gave his support. Then come up with a few succinct lines of prose, like the Union support section above, and source it to an article where they, not you, mention celebrities X,Y,Z. Every editor who feels justified in including a celebrity's comment becasue it "really hits it on the head", and "helps the reader understand what OWS is all about" is wrong, no matter if you are pushing a Rapper or Hank Williams, Jr. LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC) "Rapper Lupe Fiasco (...) also wrote a poem to help inspire the protesters.[168]" You are killing me peeps :( LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support removal - misleading, trivial and WP:UNDUE. I also support the removal of the vanity photo of Naomi Klein for the same reasons.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment IMO LoveUxoxo really makes a good argument for removal, but I'm not yet ready to say delete it. However I don't like the list and would prefer a few sentences of prose. I do agree that "movie stars" and such should not be included just because they are well known. I would like to see kept West, Moore, Klein, the Slovenian philosopher, and perhaps Barr as the first one to speak. But if support tends to go with removing it, I wouldn't object. Gandydancer (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I should tweak my support !vote to "do something!", not necessarily delete. If it could be made into something remotely resembling an encylopedic entry (the Union support sub-section did a nice job), that is fine by me too. LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh ffs, now Russell Simmons and Kanye were just added. Ladies! Stop, take a deep breath, step back, look at the whole forest and think: "should we give as much weight to the fact that a hip hop mogul stopped by in the afternoon as we give to Michael Bloomberg? LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

For one thing, I never did like the term "Celebrity" and even had to look it up to be sure that it meant more than "movie star" etc. Perhaps at the very least we could come up with something better that did not invite inclusion of people not well known for their political commentary/activism? Gandydancer (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Another option is to create a reaction sub article. That could be a lot more inclusive because the articles topic is the reaction to the event not the event itself. With a sub article the main article could be limited to a paragraph or two highlighting what is in the sub article. Edkollin (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment I support this option, as it would then be grouping by support/oppose/neutral and not lend special credence to amount of notability/noteriety/celebrity.Ampersandestet (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Add to celebrity commentary: Zach Braff: On 10/10/11 Zach Braff posted the following on Facebook: "The media is being so dismissive of "Occupy Wall Street". Stop saying they don't have a clear message. Whether you side with them or against them, they do have a clear message and deserve to be treated with respect."

The prosecution rests, your honor. LoveUxoxo (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

We are the 99% article

I noticed that the bit was taken out of this article here, should this article just be deleted as well? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The 99% article is well-sourced and the phrase has certainly become notable, so it should remain, IMO. I also think the phrase should be visible in the article, as I do not currently see it there.--JayJasper (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

John B. Larson resource: "Larson Applauds Occupy Wall Street Movement"

http://www.larson.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1391:larson-applauds-occupy-wall-street-movement&catid=61:2011-press-releases 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Change sub-section 4.2.1 title: September 24 – Street marches, mesh nets, and first pepper-spraying incident

To something where it is actually representative of the content, like "September 24 – Street marches, pepper-spraying incident, pepper-spray, pepper-spray, pepper-spray, pepper-spray, pepper-spray". We have one paragraph/three lines concerning the marches and mesh nets, and then six paragraphs about the pepper-spraying. What I'd like is the first paragraph to be expanded. A lot happened that day other than when that quarter-can of capsaicin spray was expended. The titles of the sub-section should actually be "September 24 – Street marches, arrests and the pepper-spraying incident" where we give better coverage below to the marches, arrests and street closures. Apparently no one here really gave a flying ferret to them the first pass around, because every was so hot for a piece of Bologna, however the 80 arrests that day were a big jump and important (however severely dwarfed they were by the next days events).

Then the hard part. The six paragraphs on the pepper-spraying there now are a mess. They have all the warning signs of a contentious topic that results in stilted prose and takes up a lot of space, but doesn't deliver much. Something like this is always a clue: "The police officer who used the pepper spray was identified[118] as Anthony V. Bologna, a Deputy Inspector of the New York Police Department,[119][120][121][122][123] who was appointed C.O. of New York's First Precinct in 2005.[124]" Five inline citations in the middle of a sentence to establish a guy's job? That isn't a sign of careful sourcing, it's indicative of dysfunctional editing.

What is needed I suggest is four(?), nice, tight, very impersonal paragraphs that get across the events of the day, as well as the effects in the days that followed. Quit quoting everybody. Bologna's union rep said the officer wasn't at fault? NOT surprising/interesting/notable. This addition without context does not help the reader at all: "The use of pepper spray is primarily limited to use against those resisting arrest or for protection, but is allowed to officers with special training for use in "disorder control".[126]" Between the claims he was aiming at the males allegedly putting other officers at risk, or the fact he might have had that "special training", allowing him to, I guess, use it like Silly String, it doesn't help me understand what justification, or lack thereof, there was for the use of pepper-spray that day by Bologna.

Here are our marching orders as I see it for Bologna, in this sub-section: four paragraphs, written in prose that will be recognized in 200 years as English. Tight, uncontroversial, sourced-well and getting across as much info as possible. Easy, right? LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

At most that sentence should have 2 citations: 1 after "Department," and one after "2005.". Anything more than that is excessive and confusing as to what exactly the citation is being used to source, and actually goes against policy. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Change

Stick this in, since it says everything, except the useless stuff, in about 15% as much space:

Videos, widely disseminated, showing several penned-in women demonstrators being pepper-sprayed by a police official sparked controversy.Videos which showed several penned-in female demonstrators being pepper-sprayed by a police official were widely disseminated, sparking controversy. That police official, later identified as Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna, was shown in other videos hitting a photographer with a burst of his spray. An accusation of false arrest during the Republican National Convention in 2004 surfaced, and the activist group Anonymous posted details about his family online.

Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly and and a representative for Bologna defended his actions, while decrying the disclosure of his personal information. However, after growing public furor, Commissioner Kelly announced that Internal Affairs and the Civilian Complaint Review Board would investigate. Meanwhile, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. opened his own investigation.

All that space you saved? Use this 538 column and this CityRoom analysis to flesh out two paragraphs why we should give a flying ferret over, as one editor said, "a pepper-sprayed hippie". A story that goes something like this: this incident resulted in a spike in news coverage, attention to, and subsequently growth to, OWS. It's all in those two sources. Yes, I know that was Gray Lady-centric, screw it, they live there. Plus, the incident is controversial, pick the MOST boring source. I think editors before, who "felt" this incident was important (it is), were mistaken in thinking that just by giving it the biggest footprint, as in the article now, does the best to get a point across. LoveUxoxo (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I like what you've done, except for the first sentence. I had to read it several times to understand its meaning. I propose instead: "Videos which showed several penned-in female demonstrators being pepper-sprayed by a police official were widely disseminated, sparking controversy." Otherwise I think your suggestions help complete the work of merging the pepper-spray incident article here.~TPW 10:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Pffft, that's like 5 times better. LoveUxoxo (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 10 October 2011

Manifest

As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.

They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.

They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.

They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.

They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless nonhuman animals, and actively hide these practices.

They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.

They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.

They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.

They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.

They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.

They have sold our privacy as a commodity.

They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.

They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.

They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.

They have donated large sums of money to politicians supposed to be regulating them.

They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.

They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantive profit.

They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.

They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.

They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.

They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.

They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.

They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.*

To the people of the world,

We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.

Join us and make your voices heard!

Fhumet (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

:*You need to provide a link from where you got this, before its even consider to be added!

Occupy San Antonio

We have a group here that's been going on for about a week now. http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Cries-of-Occupy-San-Antonio-ring-throughout-2205816.php http://www.facebook.com/occupysanantonio Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.247.2 (talk) 10:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)