Jump to content

Talk:Occupy movement

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tygerpencil (talk | contribs) at 12:42, 16 October 2011 (→‎Big confusion on what's going on). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (Article is on a highly notable topic and capable of radical improvement and expansion) --Rangoon11 (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSD templates are not supposed to be removed. But you can contest the speedy by clicking in the appropriate place in the template. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I reverted my edit. My mistake. Non-article creators can remove CSD templates. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

renaming???

Can we rename this as Occupy protests (2011)? Rationale is the ten year test... basically, in ten years, the title of this article should reflect "when it happened" ... see also 2011 protests in Tunisia and other such protest articles. MPS (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - unnecessary because there have been no prior protests by this name capable of confusion. This is also, at present, the common name.Rangoon11 (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, except that I'm uncertain about using quotes in an article title. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "frequency or number of people participating" bit needed?

The problem with events like these is that you have a ton of reliable sources telling you how many people attend but every source has a diffrent total. So overall is this bit really needed? If the protest becomes notable enough there are always articles for the protests that can state how many people attended the protests. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we just put, say, "500-1,000", with both the high and low numbers cited? I think that the information is important and of interest to readers. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with giving just a min/max range if there is contradictory information. Also, the frequency title is there because some protests get larger and smaller. For example if you have like 100-200 overnight and then 15,000 on the weekend days when the labor unions et al come out... so you could say "100[1]-200[2] nightly , 15,000[3] on weekends" MPS (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also the frequency thing is there in case they are meeting like every saturday at noon in perpetuity, like the Women in Black movement. MPS (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Part of the impact of the Arab Spring"

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

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

Moved table

I was bold and moved the table entries to List of Occupy Protests locations. This article should be prose. There is no need for 2 lists. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genuine thanks for your boldness (I am also glad you recognized and explicitly stated your boldness, that makes it easier to accept)... I agree that we don't need two lists in two different articles, but I disagree about whether it should be prose or a table. Can you give me a little time to rework the table into a sortable table? I think I can convince you that some table functionality is valuable. MPS (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about prose for this article, and a list or table for the list article. Tables are a pain to maintain, though, especially for the many new editors that will drop in to add their city and reference. It is not at all intuitive for new editors to add cities and references to tables. Non-English-speaking editors will have even more difficulty, and this is an international set of protests. I have worked on many wiki tables, but I will not be around enough to maintain a table for such an active situation.
Many cities and/or references will not be entered by new editors if we use a table format. I am going to be bold again (insert smiley), and move the table off the list article to a talk section or talk subpage at the list article. If you or someone else want to convert the whole list to a table a few weeks from now after the list is filled out, then it would make sense to do so. I am not volunteering though. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 10:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

– Per WP:TITLEFORMAT: 'Do not enclose titles in quotes ... [unless] the quotation marks are part of a name or title, as in the movie "Crocodile" Dundee or the album "Heroes".' I have yet to see a sufficient number of reliable sources, or even all the official protest web sites, that always put "Occupy" in quotes. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These protests could extend into 2012. So I suggest adding the year(s) later. There is no rush since there is no possibility of confusion for awhile. As for the quotes I see no other way to make the title clear. The fact that WP:TITLEFORMAT allows quotes in titles in some cases means that it is not a rule without exceptions. This may be a new exception. And of course there is always WP:Ignore all rules. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I am ready to consider arguments to the contrary; but to me this use of quote marks looks perfectly reasonable. Simple unrestricted Google searching shows that the quotes are indeed common in sources, and well-motivated as a means of clarifying the sense for readers. Some seem to prefer quotes around the whole phrase: " 'Occupy protests' ". That works too; but it is not suitable for titles on Wikipedia (see below). A word that normally functions as a verb, "occupy" calls for quotes when it is pressed into use in premodification of a noun. That is standard; it is supported in most publishing and by style guides – which I might search for this RM, if I can find the time. Let New Hart's Rules suffice: it allows "scare quotes" for unfamiliar usages or new coinages (see 4.14, on p. 86), and it does not exclude headings or titles from this. It's hard to see why it would. Beyond all that, Wikipedia's style guidelines in the MOS pages are the primary resource in settling matters of style for the Project. (Of course they are. Why have them at all, if that were not the case?) So "reliable sources" are only of secondary interest for the present question, which is purely a matter of Wikipedia style choices, not anything to do with the wording of the title. The policy provision invoked above (WP:TITLEFORMAT) does not affect this case. (Its illogical wording needs to be fixed; what it calls exceptions are not exceptions to the principle it states.) Here we are not talking about enclosing a title in quotes, but using quotes in a standard way within a title. I think that nothing in the MOS pages precludes that; and if it did, here is a case that would warrant an exception. NoeticaTea? 12:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. - I really can't put it any better than Noetica's excellent posting above, the quotation marks are in my view necessary both to reflect the present common name and on grounds of sense and general English language style.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move. The quotes are entirely unnecessary. Yes, we are allowed to use our WP:BRAINs on this, but the sytle guide helps to build consensus based on Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency. Naturalness -wise, I personally feel like people are going to link to Occupy protests or 2011 Occupy protests versus trying to remember where the quotes go. When you do a search in the search box for Occupy, the "-character pushes Occupy down to about the 5th or 6th entry, while Occupy Wall Street comes up first entry. Also, from a Consistency standpoint, there are lots of other protest articles that follow the format YYYY Protests in country X (e.g., 2011 Iranian protests ... and other protest articles here. In any case, if you don't like the title, you can always use WP:PIPING to link to whatever name you want. Peace, MPS (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per Noetica. Maybe use single quotes versus double quotes. I don't know which is preferred in this case. I have not had any problem finding the 'Occupy' protests in Google or Google News whether I use quotes or not. Wikipedia getting the sixth spot for such a small article ("Occupy" protests) is very good. %22 is the URL code for double quotes. %27 is the URL code for single quotes. See:
http://www.google.com/search?&tbm=nws&q=%22Occupy%22+protests - Google News.
http://www.google.com/search?&tbm=nws&q=%27Occupy%27+protests - Google News.
http://www.google.com/search?&tbm=nws&q=Occupy+protests - Google News.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Occupy%22+protests - Google.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%27Occupy%27+protests - Google.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Occupy+protests - Google. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The auto-pop-up box shows the page if I search for Occupy protests (with or without the double quotes). The Wikipedia search results shows the page no matter what I use in the way of single or double quotes. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
News media pulled up by Google News, and the Noetica sources. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the links I see the quotes added. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It may be against our naming guidelines, but this is one of those cases for which WP:IAR was written. The naming conventions can't account for every possible application, and in this case, using the quotation marks improves the clarity of the titles immeasurably. Powers T 19:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would recommend that people familiarize themselves with the MOS guideline that states that when a term is used it has no quotes, but when a term is mentioned it should be in italics. If it is possible to put "occupy" in italics as a title, then that is what should be done. Otherwise quotes are more appropriate than no quotes. Without some form of distinction, the meaning is unclear. I.e. does "Occupy protests" mean a general term for all protests in which protesters occupied something, or is the word "occupy" being used as a name? In this case, the term occupy is being used as a name, and therefore some distinction is required. Greg Bard (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No mt, however we analyse "occupy" in that role it is not used as a noun when it modifies "protests". "Tea Party protests"? An interesting comparison; but that case is different. It is far more normal to modify a noun with a phrase of that sort, and it does call for special signalling with scare quotes. NoeticaTea? 08:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Even though WP:TITLEFORMAT is being ignored, if the common naming scheme is "Occupy" Protests, then it would stand to reason that such a format would follow here as well. While I would entertain a change of format after the protests to include the dates, I do not feel as if there is any harm in it remaining as is. Ampersandestet (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could have discussed your reversion first before reverting and screwing up multiple pages and redirects. See User talk:Arthur Rubin. "If it aint broke, don't fix it." Next time read the discussion first. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should be obvious that making one move while another move is under discussion is disruptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Single quote marks are ruled out by the Manual of Style (see WP:PUNCT at WP:MOS). There is no benefit in resorting to them here. NoeticaTea? 08:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are contradicting your previous remarks. See discussion farther down. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is false. I have not contradicted myself. WP:MOS says this, at WP:PUNCT: "The term quotation in the material below also includes other uses of quotation marks such as those for titles of songs, chapters, episodes, unattributable aphorisms, literal strings, "scare-quoted" passages, and constructed examples." The "material below" includes this: "Wikipedia prefers double quotation marks because some search engines cannot find quotations within single quotation marks, like 'I ate the apple'. (Wikipedia's search facility will only find such an expression if the search string is also within single quotation marks.) In addition, double quotation marks are harder to confuse with apostrophes." The only use of single quotes that WP:MOS approves is as internal quotes (nested within double quotes). NoeticaTea? 21:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I replied farther down. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Single quotes versus double quotes

Reliable news sources usually use single quotes instead of double quotes for this.

Also, double quotes in URLs are problematic when the URL is placed in some email, Facebook comments, Wikipedia, etc.. Many places can not make double-quote URLs clickable at all.

For example; try pasting in such URLs here:

%22 is the URL code for double quotes. %27 is the URL code for single quotes.

Google News:

Note that reliable news sources use all of the above names, but lean towards single quotes when quotes are used. Wikipedia is all about sharing the articles. So single quotes are better, and it seems to be more grammatically correct. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Google is not good at matching punctuation of any sort. For example, if you explictly match quotes as in your examples, they fail to match “smart quotes”, which are often used in online copies of print news sources, for reasons I am apparently unable to comprehend. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Google ignores punctuation in search results. The results are the same for all the above Google News searches. In those results one sees that reliable news sources mostly use single quotes for 'Occupy' protests. Double quotes are used much less, i.e. "Occupy" protests.
Google only pays attention to double quotes when used as a phrase search. Compare to the search results for the non-phrase search. The results are different. Note especially the number of results for the Google whole-web search.

This is not a question to be settled by appeal to "reliable sources". The choice of styling for quotation marks is always up to the publisher. Wikipedia is, in a broad but relevant sense, the publisher of this article. Single quote marks are ruled out by the Manual of Style (see WP:PUNCT at WP:MOS). There is no benefit in resorting to them here, and we should not contemplate doing so. NoeticaTea? 08:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the WP:MOS and WP:PUNCT links. Those sections do not discuss scare quotes though as far as I can tell so far. I see no prohibition against using them, nor against single quotes. The scare quotes article shows many uses for them. Single quotes can also be used as scare quotes. It seems to be more common than double quotes in many cases (such as in titles). One of your comments in the previous talk section explains why scare quotes are needed in this article's title:
"I am ready to consider arguments to the contrary; but to me this use of quote marks looks perfectly reasonable. Simple unrestricted Google searching shows that the quotes are indeed common in sources, and well-motivated as a means of clarifying the sense for readers. Some seem to prefer quotes around the whole phrase: " 'Occupy protests' ". That works too; but it is not suitable for titles on Wikipedia (see below). A word that normally functions as a verb, "occupy" calls for quotes when it is pressed into use in premodification of a noun. That is standard; it is supported in most publishing and by style guides – which I might search for this RM, if I can find the time. Let New Hart's Rules suffice: it allows "scare quotes" for unfamiliar usages or new coinages (see 4.14, on p. 86), and it does not exclude headings or titles from this. It's hard to see why it would. Beyond all that, Wikipedia's style guidelines in the MOS pages are the primary resource in settling matters of style for the Project. (Of course they are. Why have them at all, if that were not the case?) So "reliable sources" are only of secondary interest for the present question, which is purely a matter of Wikipedia style choices, not anything to do with the wording of the title. The policy provision invoked above (WP:TITLEFORMAT) does not affect this case. (Its illogical wording needs to be fixed; what it calls exceptions are not exceptions to the principle it states.) Here we are not talking about enclosing a title in quotes, but using quotes in a standard way within a title. I think that nothing in the MOS pages precludes that; and if it did, here is a case that would warrant an exception."
I think you are very clear in that comment. And I now understand what you meant about the use of scare quotes not being what is discussed by WP:TITLEFORMAT.
I found this too:
Use Single Quotation Marks in Headlines.
The Associated Press uses single quotation marks for quotations in headlines.
Use Single Quotation Marks to Highlight Words Not Being Used for Their Meaning.
It's the convention in certain disciplines such as philosophy, theology, and linguistics to highlight words with special meaning by using single quotation marks instead of double quotation marks.
It is from Single Quotation Marks Versus Double Quotation Marks. August 18, 2011. By Mignon Fogarty aka Grammar Girl.
We should use what reliable news sources use most, and what makes the most sense for various reasons, as long as we are not going against Wikipedia guidelines. Scare quotes article has this: "If scare quotes are enclosing a word or phrase that does not represent a quotation from another source they may simply serve to alert the reader that the word or phrase is used in an unusual, special, or non-standard way or should be understood to include caveats to the conventional meaning."
There are many examples from major news sources:

Timeshifter, you write above (in answer to me):

Thanks for the WP:MOS and WP:PUNCT links. Those sections do not discuss scare quotes though as far as I can tell so far. I see no prohibition against using them, nor against single quotes.

But you are mistaken. Scare quotes are included in the scope of WP:PUNCT. Nothing is said against their use; but they are to be double quotes (unless nested within double quotes). See my quotations from those guidelines above (in the main section, answering your accusation that I contradict myself). References to the Wikipedia article on scare quotes, or to external sources, are not relevant here. If you want the Wikipedia style guidelines changed, I suggest you take the issue to WT:MOS. You can be sure of some discussion there. NoeticaTea? 21:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noetica. You wrote:
WP:MOS says this, at WP:PUNCT: "The term quotation in the material below also includes other uses of quotation marks such as those for titles of songs, chapters, episodes, unattributable aphorisms, literal strings, "scare-quoted" passages, and constructed examples." The "material below" includes this: "Wikipedia prefers double quotation marks because some search engines cannot find quotations within single quotation marks, like 'I ate the apple'. (Wikipedia's search facility will only find such an expression if the search string is also within single quotation marks.) In addition, double quotation marks are harder to confuse with apostrophes." The only use of single quotes that WP:MOS approves is as internal quotes (nested within double quotes).
I read the whole section earlier, and it does not say what you think it says. The section you quote concerns actual quotations, not scare quotes. Read it carefully. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Timeshifter, I have no more time for this. Let others here judge whether an explicit and specific stipulation to include " 'scare-quoted' passages" in ensuing provisions marks an intention to cover scare quotes in those provisions. Some ingenious hair-splitting may occasion a second or two of doubt; but the intent could hardly be clearer. I have said all I need to. If you want more concerning the interpretation of MOS provisions, or their modification, take it to WT:MOS. As I have already suggested. NoeticaTea? 22:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make claims or prohibitions you are not sure of. Single quotes are allowed in Wikipedia. They are used when there is a quote within a quote, for example. WP:PUNCT does not specify that scare quotes must use double quotes. And common sense trumps guidelines. WP:PUNCT is a guideline not a policy. And doing phrase searches in Google or Wikipedia's search engine has nothing to do with the punctuation in the phrase as it stands in the text. One adds double quotation marks in the search form. The search engine completely ignores the punctuation and quotes (double or single) in the text that is being searched. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We no longer need quotes now that Indignants and 'Occupy' protests are coordinated together.
Occupy and Indignant protests - possible title. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Canada???

Is this a legit movement or are just the cities involved here? Looking at the article I see it was just thrown in here as an add on and looks to be mirrorlike to Occupy Wall Street. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy/Indignants protests

Pristino changed the title of the article. He pointed out to me on my talk page that the October 15 protests were initiated by the Indignants. News media articles point out that it was then also taken up by the 'Occupy' protesters. See the BBC and CBS articles. I am OK with keeping the new title for now unless a better title is found. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Someone has already, I'm going to guess unilaterally, changed the name(s) to the name(s) we find it under now, derivatives of "Occupy/Indignants protests." In watching the press coverage, I have yet to hear any major media use the word "Indignant" in regard to the name of these events. I suggest this could a POV insertion to confuse the public from the commonly used term of "Occupy" or as a whole "Occupy protests." Worse yet, that particular word can easily be misread as "indigent" which could certainly fall into the POV of those who oppose the movement. WP is here to provide accurate, NPOV information. When our article titles are designed to mislead or confuse, that is counter to that goal. Trackinfo (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Occupy/Indignants protests" title for a while. According to the BBC and CBS, the 15 October protests were inspired by and called by Spanish protesters, yet you cannot ignore the amplifying power of the "Occupy" New York protests. That's why I've decided to credit both movements in the title, as both seem to have acted as catalysts for protests worldwide. Pristino (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert immediately. I oppose the move, as no one uses the new term, but the new move is also out of process. If I have time, I'll put it back. Again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have not been editing these pages. So relax from your annoying habit of reverting without thinking. Admins should show more common sense. Both terms are used, and in the same articles. Get a clue. Read what other people say. Read what the articles say. Or please resign from being an admin. Respectfully. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The media is are using BOTH names (see my comment above). Of course nobody is reporting it as "Occupy/Indignants". They either use one or the other. Wikipedia should not take sides and use only one of them. If you can find a better solution please propose one. Pristino (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the media are using both names, we need to find either a neutral name, or a descriptive name. Names like this are only used in Wikipedia after an arbcom ruling banning all the editors who continually change the article name, from the topic. Or, sometimes if the "Occupy" protests and the "Indignants" protests were separate, and are now merged. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pristino found a neutral descriptive name. Article names are usually changed without problems. When there are problems they are usually worked out on the talk page without admin intervention. Admins like you are the people who get banned. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Pristino had found a "neutral descriptive name", moving it while a move discussion is in progress is disruptive, as seen below. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find it disruptive. I found it to be an improvement. You do not seem to care either way. You do not edit the article or the list. You just want to find some hairsplitting activity. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Arthur Rubin meant that the move was disruptive as it caused several links and redirects to have issues as the name of the article they linked to was changed. I do not think that Arthur Rubin was trying "to find some hairsplitting activity" as you say they were. In any case, I think that there should not be a move while the move is being talked about as it could mess up parts of the wiki. 204.106.255.23 (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd also like to add that the Indignants are mainly Spanish protests, and this article is about the entire, world wide Occupy movement as a whole. yonnie (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "worldwide Occupy movement". There are worldwide protests inspired by both Madrid and New York protesters. Pristino (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning October 15 events worldwide that both 'Occupy' and 'Indignants' are participating in:
Spain's 'Indignants' lead international protest day. 14 October 2011. By Sarah Rainsford, BBC News.
'Indignant' protests across Asia. 15 October 2011. Bangkok Post. Article quote: "Protesters across the Asia-Pacific region Saturday joined worldwide demonstrations inspired by the 'Occupy Wall Street' and 'Indignants' movements."
We need some kind of accurate title for this. See WP:TITLE. How about Occupy and Indignant protests? No quotes needed. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out-of-process moves

I requested move-protection of these articles, and a helpful admin also deleted some of the redirects, although I didn't request that. I think I patched all the redlinked redirects to go to a current location, but I may have missed some. This is one of the natural consequences of multiple moves without discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My move and Pristino's move were improvements over the current title. You have been no help at all. Your reversions were not helpful. You do not engage in discussion first. You should seriously consider resigning as an admin. Respectfully. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alhough I believe neither of your moves were improvements, it's still the case that no move should be made while a move discussion is in progress, with the exception of BLP-violating names. Such a move confuses matters, causes RM bot to add incorrect pointers which prevent reverting the move by a non-admin, and generally makes it difficult to determine what is being discussed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion based on your hair-splitting analysis of rules over common sense. You are one of the worst admins I have ever seen as concerns bureaucracy uber alles. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2

"Occupy" protests → Indignants/Occupy Wall Street-inspired protests – According to the BBC, CBS and AFP, the 15 October protests were inspired by and called by Madrid "indignants" protesters, yet you cannot ignore the amplifying power of the "Occupy" New York protests. The media are calling the wordwide protests using both names. Wikipedia should not take sides and use only one of them. Pristino (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The October 15 events were initially organized by the Indignants according to the news media articles. The 'Occupy' people then joined in according to the news media articles, if I am remembering correctly. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, the October 15 protests were called by the May 15 movement in Spain back in May. Later, the Occupy movement appeared and they joined the October 15 protests, which were already being organized in Italy, Spain and many other countries. Pencil (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two requested moves

I do not know the technicalities of how 2 requested moves are handled. But I suggest that in the future people try normal talk page discussion first before all these bureaucratic procedures. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

The BBC sources refer to the "Occupy" and "Indignants" movements as separate movements both sponsoring 15 October events. Some note the "Occupy" movement was inspired by the "Indignants" movement, but some deny it. There should probably be two separate articles. (I see Pristino seems to agree, if I understand his comment of 22:23.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot really make separate articles about it. The worldwide protests cannot be credited to a single movement anymore. Pristino (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can make it clear in the article as to the timeline involved. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I look at the list of International locations, the international sourcing and international nature of the "Indignants" linked article, I think some are making an overzealous linkage to the "Occupy" events that have a strong American nature. I think a distinction can be drawn between the various protests if through no other point at the United States border. If the International events have the same name, it is obvious they identify with the American events. If they have a different name as well as locale, they could be . . . anything, at least until they declare such linkage. The American groups do not have any leadership with whom to join at this point in time. How exactly would that linkage be formally expressed? The only answer is from outside analysts who are trying to conjecture a linkage. Trackinfo (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia just describes these notable events according to reliable sources, such as the news media. Those sources say that these protests are spreading worldwide in a very decentralized way. I suggest Occupy and Indignant protests as a possible title. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we prove a linkage before we (potentially) artificially declare such. Otherwise we just have protests going on around the world . . . for loosely defined goals. If they also call themselves something different, as opposed to the Occupy (fill in a locality) naming, which makes for an obvious linkage. Trackinfo (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: if the title of the protest has the word "occupy" in it, then it should fall under the"occupy" protests article. If it is a protest in 2011, it should be under an article called List of 2011 protests or 2011 protests — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPS (talk • contribs) 05:41, 16 October 2011‎

Comment. Loosely coordinated groups is what these articles indicate:

The protests has to be credited to the Spanish indignant movement (see here in Spanish: http://politica.elpais.com/politica/2011/05/30/actualidad/1306761727_898845.html) as they had been promoting and announcing the global protest since October 15. Later, the Occupy movement appeared and they joined the October 15 date, but the rest of the protests were mainly organized by the indignant movement. I think this article should only talk about the October 15 protests. The article doesn't really make any sense, the Madrid, Rome, Santiago, Barcelona or Berlin protests were not influenced in any way by the Occupy movement, they have nothing to do with it. This article should be moved to "15 of october 2011 protests" as this was a day were two groups joined and you can't name just one, the Indignats (in Spain, Italy, Greece, Berlin or Paris) and Occupy (New York or London). - Pencil (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big confusion on what's going on

Hi. There is a total confusion in what yesterday's protests were about. Neither the protests in Spain, Rome, Germany, Greece or Chile were influenced in any way by the Occupy movement. They were all protests called by the May 15 movement in Spain (see in Spanish here: http://politica.elpais.com/politica/2011/05/30/actualidad/1306761727_898845.html) back in May 30. Later (and influenced by the Spanish movement), Occupy Wall Street movement emerged and a few weeks later they made a call to join the October 15 protests. In my opinion, this article should focus just on the October 15 protests and leave other articles for each movement, but you just cannot say that these protests started in September, when they actually did in May 15. I'm from Spain and we're seeing how the media has absolutely no idea on what's going on, the call was made by Spanish indignants, not Occupy Wall Street. It's not the Occupy protests the ones that have gone global, but the Indignants one. Thanks - Pencil (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, things are confusing. Here are some relevant media articles as to how protests spread in English-language sites.
From what I read people outside Europe latched onto the October 15 date, and started organizing events for that date. Many people in English-language nations such as the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. mostly organized under the 'Occupy' banner. Most English speakers don't even know the meaning of the Spanish word 'Indignants'. It is an English word, too, and is not used in the same way.
Another article: 'Indignant' protests spread across Europe. By Alessandra Rizzo, Meera Selva, Associated Press. Sunday, October 16, 2011. Note that the article has to explain the meaning of the word: "Elsewhere, hundreds of thousands nicknamed 'the indignant' marched without incident in cities across Europe, as the Occupy Wall Street protests linked up with long-running demonstrations against European governments' austerity measures."
Mother Jones article has a map and a timeline: "October 6: Demonstrations spread to hundreds of US cities and around the world, with a global day of action planned for October 15. President Obama comments on the Occupy Wall Street protests." --Timeshifter (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, the October 15 protests was organized by European people and the USA Occupy movement just joined it. See the following piece of news: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/english/Madrid/protestors/aim/to/go/global/elpepueng/20110530elpeng_9/Ten, it's from May 30 and it already talks about October 15, therefore it's impossible that the October 15 protest appeared AFTER Occupy Wall Street. The problem is that the the foreign media (I'm from Spain) are confused too, so I have no idea how I could prove to all of you that the protests were not influenced at all by Occupy movement neither organized by them, at least in most of European countries. This article should just talk about October 15, when two movements merged and leave each other article for the rest. - Pencil (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From this October 6, 2011 article. "Thanks in part to Occupy Together, a hub for the movements forming around the nation and in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street, it's easy for citizens to find ways to join a movement that is sharply critical of corporate wealth, among other things, at a grassroots level. On Thursday afternoon, Occupy Together 'meetups' could be found in 575 cities that stretched across the world to places as diverse as Athens, Greece, and Wellington, New Zealand."
They were organizing on their own, and had events on many dates, including October 15. It looks almost leaderless because it is. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is leaderless, I'm just stating a fact and that is that the October 15 protests were not influenced in any way by the Occupy protests and yet, this article which should be about the October 15 protests is called "Occupy" protests. For example, that part of the article that you're quoting is totally false, as the Athens meet up had nothing to do with Occupy but with the Indignant movement there, born in May 25, 2011 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010–2011_Greek_protests#The_.22Indignant_Citizens_Movement.22_.28May.E2.80.93August.29 and http://real-democracy.gr/). I'm gonna edit the article and make everything clear... yesterday wasn't about Occupy Wall Street. - Pencil (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ foo min ref
  2. ^ foo max ref
  3. ^ foo
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupy_movement&oldid=455837501"