Talk:Occupy Oakland

Portal:Current events/2011 October 25 resource

• Police arrest 75 people outside Oakland City Hall in the U.S. state of California while clearing the campsite of the Occupy Oakland protest. (CBS News) 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The events you may be referring to are unfolding as I type, so it is best to hold off for just a bit to let the sources get the information correct. There are a number of issues to consider but in the overall scheme of things these protests in Oakland have a historical significance that will not fade with time and are proving at least to justify notability.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

TOC formatting

Can we dispense with the numbered formatting somebody added to the TOC recently? It needlessly clutters the sections and doesn't help navigation one bit. (I don't know enough about Wiki-TOC formatting to mess with it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.53.120.30 (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The TOC appears after there are more than about 2 sections. It's automatic/how MediaWiki works.--67.54.235.190 (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the editor is referring to the dates. Not the table of contents itself. I was the editor who added the dated format. As I briefly explained in the edit message, as the article is now rapidly expanding with updates from the recent escalation of events, we're going to need to create a chronology section to separate the sequence of events from the reaction to Occupy Oakland, information on the participants, reactions to OccOak, and potentially, the impact of OccOak. And if this chronology becomes too large, we can split it off into a spin-off article, a Timeline of Occupy Oakland, as was done in the Occupy Wall Street article. This may not seem like it helps navigation right now, but as we expand it, this will be a big help. It usually is. --Cast (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I am referring to the "techdoc" formatting style of the TOC (n.m.x, etc.). So are you saying that this happens automagically and there's no way to override it? I think it's ugly and unhelpful.

I just checked the article and saw that there's no TOC template in it. I believe (but could be wrong) that if one puts in an explicit TOC template, one has control over its formatting. Perhaps someone more interested than me in delving that deeply into Wiki-formatting could do this ...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.53.120.30 (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well I see then. No, there are ways to override the appearance of a table of contents, or change the default to a different type of TOC, but for this style of article, this is the default and best style. Alphabet and numerical styles are available for glossaries and lists, but this is an article so... yeah. You can learn more here: WP:TOC --Cast (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't keep linking Frank H. Ogawa

Please, folks - There's no need to link every appearance of Frank H. Ogawa. A couple of times is enough. Cgingold (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Actually, anything more than once is overlinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.53.120.30 (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Mother Jones report on violent elements in the Occupy Oakland group

Mother Jones is reporting that elements among the Occupy Oakland group are inciting violence against police. Kelly ^hi! 01:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Mother Jones's reporters were filing reports on this division early in the OccOak's first week, and their reporting was taking a certain slant in favor of the peaceful protesters. Peaceful protesters were quoted more, and often placed in a sympathetic light. Supposed agitators were quoted less often, and their motivations were largely unexplored or unexplained. Several mainstream media news sources should also be noted for their increased anti-OccOak opinion pieces, while conversely, several alternative media sources, such as radio station KPFA [1] took a pro-OccOak perspective. Mother Jones can be used as a source for this article, but as with all sources, editors should observe WP:NPOV with due diligence. --Cast (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Is Mother Jones regarded as having a pro-Occupy or anti-Occupy POV? Or has there been splitting into smaller factions? Kelly ^hi! 03:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Mother Jones is regarded as being a Liberal leaning paper, and its coverage of OWS has leaned favorably, following an initial period of non-coverage. That mirrors the rest of the world. There has also been some reporting of differing opinions among members of Occupy Oakland, and different Occupy communities, but I haven't seen this develop into "splitting" yet. There were quotes by some protesters reported by journalists for conservative leaning papers that suggested factionalism. The Mercury ran an article that arbitrarily lumped "thugs", "drug dealers", and "anarchist" activists as creating unsafe conditions in OccOak. No current participants within OccOak have been quoted suggesting that anarchist participants were a problem, but one former participant was quoted saying — which I paraphrase here — "if I had known there would be such a large anarchist contingent, I wouldn't have joined." --Cast (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

LA Times resource

Occupy Oakland: Mayor lays out 'ground rules' for protesters October 27, 2011 9:57 pm — Robert J. Lopez 99.35.15.107 (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Scott Olsen's condition

The Marine's condition here is said to be critical, although I've tried putting it into past tense, since his condition has been upgraded to fair, but he still needs surgery to relieve swelling in his brain. Is there any more detail required on his condition or not? -Mardus (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As conditions change, all details should be updated with citation. This can be done in chronological order, based on how notable the details are. It would be useful to mention that he was able to walk into Highland hospital on his own power, but was put into a medically induced coma by doctors for his benefit. It may not be useful to mention what his nurse's name was — but then, I don't think that's been mentioned. Just update things as you find them. Thank you for your effort. --Cast (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Police wounded

I'm concerned with the current injury count for the Oakland police department, which lists two officers were "wounded from the paint and chemicals" thrown by protesters. I have seen the photographic evidence of paint landing on officers, but none of unspecified "chemicals", which could be anything from very hazerdous acids, to benign "stink bombs". My concern is that while this comes from a verifiable media source, I haven't seen any other mentions of these injuries. While this may be a case of a major media narrative (excessive police force and injuries to protesters) drowning out another (two officers "wounded by paint"), I question if this isn't just a case of a journalist dramatizing a minor event (two officers had paint on them, and this becomes "wounded"). Compare this to when Geraldo Rivera visted OWS and was "assaulted". That may sound like he was seriously attacked, but to be "assaulted" from a legal stand point merely means that he felt threatened, and in that case, he merely had powder dumped/sprinkled on his head. From another angle, that looks like a mere prank. The words used to describe the action can change our out look on them tremendously. Should we list these two officers as injured on the strength of this single sentence in a single article, or is this undue weight, and should we hold off until this gets more attention? --Cast (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It was reported by the police commissioner(or some other high up police guy), and not a reporter, that they had two casualties from paint and hazardous chemicals, which if I hazarded a guess could include household cleaners. Powder "sprinkled" on your head is an underestimation of having crowds of people throwing and dousing random chemicals at you. Agreed that we should look more more descriptive sources though.AerobicFox (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The example of sprinkled powder on the head of Rivera was not made as a comparison to the thrown paint and chemicals -- though we still don't know what those chemicals were, and in fact could have been as benign as a nondescript "powder". Rather, I was drawing attention to how words like "assault" and "wounded" can convey meaning beyond what actual details were. What does it mean to be "assaulted" by powder? What does it mean to be "wounded" by paint. Lets just find a better source for the descriptions of these injuries. --Cast (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If (other) news outlets are not picking it up, then it's probably insignificant and the two officers can be placed in the infobox.
Significance rises when someone's life or limb is seriously threatened or worse. — A good example would be French gendarme Daniel Nivel,^[:de][:fr] who was life-threateningly mugged by German hooligans in Lens, Pas-de-Calais during the 1998 FIFA World Cup (dubbed France 98), was consequently six weeks in a coma, can't remember anything after recovering, sustained lifelong impairment to his speech, and is blind from one eye. About the same story of Nivel at first para of Football hooliganism#Germany, with consequences to hooligans. -Mardus (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I have similar concerns, and an updated reference. According to Oakland's police chief Jordan, no officers had any serious injuries, but 7 were "banged or bruised". I'm very skeptical about the idea that we're going to list a bruise as a "casualty" or "injury".

"Jordan said seven Oakland officers did not suffer any serious injuries during the clash Tuesday, just bangs and bruises from bottles and other objects that were thrown at them." [WP article]

Since there was only bruises and no real injuries, can we now remove them as "injured"?-- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we tried to include "bangs and bruises" as injuries significant enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox, the number of protesters injured would swell, given the photographic evidence of many people injured with pepper spray to the face and "bean bags" to abdomens and limbs— and further, it would be impossible to know how high the list will eventually get. I agree that we should remove these two painted officers as injuries, and that we hold off any further inclusions unless significant news events warrant reporting. --Cast (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have the same concerns as Cast. I too have not seen any mention of police injuries in other articles. I think it should be removed. If the injuries were that significant, they would have been mentioned many times and headlined. Rachel librarian (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

While we're at it, we should also remove listed injuries of protesters that are not significant. The citation used right now states that activists claim two protesters besides Olson were injured. I've seen no significant coverage of that. Olson has monopolized coverage—understandably. Unless there are other references to these injuries, the infobox drops to 1 injured protester. --Cast (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Addendum I just remembered that there has been coverage of injuries to other protesters, with coverage focusing on a few people with very large bruises, following accusations that police used rubber bullets, and police countering that they only used 'bean bag' rounds. While there was no official count of how many protesters were hit in this way, this at least warrants greater explanation than the infobox can provide. There should be a section on injuries. Indeed, there is more than enough coverage of that protest event to give it a dedicated article, with section on background, the event, and the fallout for Jean Quan, the Oakland Police Department, and Scott Olson. This was the event that led to contemporary news reports stating the momentum of the Occupy movement has shifted to Oakland, and the images of Scott Olson is leading to increased participation by military vets. If nothing else, the citation on the infobox injuries should be replaced with a note link for a footnote going into how the infobox injury count was made. --Cast (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Cast, what is your reasoning to lower the injured protest count? Doing that would contradict the referenced source. Do you have any reason to believe that RS is wrong? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Pardon, I thought I made my reasoning clear with my multiple comments above. The referenced source includes a single sentence comment stating that anonymous protesters claim two people besides Scott Olson were injured. The reference is there for all to see. It's quite scant: "­Protesters say that at least three were injured and more than 105 arrested in the skirmishes." Who were these injured people? What was the extent of their injures? We're they reported in the media or not? This is not a good source for these statistics, and that's understandable given how early this report was. More comprehensive reporting took place after this story was written, but editors haven't included those in this paper. The problem is that not all "reliable" sources are made equal. Some are better than others, and for our needs, most would be better than this one. --Cast (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sequence of events

Does anyone know the sequences of events for the injured US marine whether protesters threw the rocks and bottles first or whether the tear gas and flash-bang grenades were fire first. I have heard conflicting accounts in the media Manofmyth (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, I was watching events live from a live stream that would tune in intermittently with the crowed as it gathered at 4pm and roamed through downtown Oakland. Since the stream was mobile, it cut in-and-out as interference cut in. When it did, I would follow events on twitter and media news reports.

Early in the events the Police began setting road blocks at intersections, and so rather than taking a direct route, the march split off into side streets, and occasionally split into different groups. The march should only have taken a few minutes, as the gathering point was on the same street as Frank Ogawa Plaza. Along the zig-zag path, police would block intersections leading directly to the Plaza, and when an officer felt threatened by someone taking a picture, or when a protester attempted to cross the intersection blockades, snatch teams would catch the person and make arrests.

One such arrest took place in the middle of a street, and not an intersection. A crowd of marchers could be seen surrounding the officers, and when zoomed in on, two officers could be seen with a light splat of green and white paint across their helmets and exposed necks. In this article, I have already provided an External Media template. These events can be seen in the first video posted there. During one arrest, the camera operator for the livestream was to close to the events, and his camera was broken or other wise disabled. As the protesters began to doubt they could make it to the Plaza, they began a march towards the Police Headquarters, also in the downtown, but in the opposite direction of Ogawa Plaza. They reached to within a block of the Headquarters, but by that time they were so disorganized that they lacked sufficient numbers to perform any meaningful action, while those they had left behind still intended to get to the Plaza.

As I recall, at about this time a new stream connection was enabled. Throughout this march, some people had already gathered outside of the plaza, separate from the march themselves. The march than turned 180 degrees and began back towards the Plaza. Along the way, the livestream cut in and out. The cat-and-mouse game played by protesters and police took over two hours before they finally got to Ogawa Plaza. When they got there, they were rebuffed by an intimidating line of motor cycle striding police officers.

The marchers turned around and regrouped at Snow Park, where a brief speech detailing their plan was directed to the crowed via people's mic. At this point it was approx. 6:30, and mainstream media was carrying the event live, but did not convey what the people were planning. That was only audible over the livestream. The plan was that the crowd would march in a direct line, keeping together to avoid more snatch-and-grab teams, and would move at a steady pace to avoid being surrounded. They also agreed that no matter what happened, if they couldn't take the park back that night, they would gather again at the same time, 7pm, and try to retake the park again, and each night after that if necessary. En route to the plaza, the second livestream cut out and never reconnected. It was explained that the batteries on the second operator had died.

When they arrived at the intersection where Olson would eventually be struck, the sun was starting to go down and the crowed gathered for aprox. 30 minutes to face down with the Police Line, but at the time this was almost 7, so local media cut out for sitcoms and other shows. Over the intersection, local media choppers continued to circle the event and broadcast their events live, but with no audio. You can see the flag being waved by the navy uniformed compatriot of Scott Olson throughout the event.

The police continued to hold their ground and declared the event an illegal assembly, and issued a 5 minute warning to move. After the five minutes, the chopper for local news outlet KGO suddenly cut its feed and announced it was leaving to refuel. Five minutes later, the police opened fire. The event was captured by other media choppers, and of course cameras on the ground. Many tweets followed, accusing KGO of conspiring to cut their feed in compliance with an alleged deal to protect "access". Scott Olson was hit during this first wave. They returned in a second wave afterward, and and finally a third, with decreasing numbers each time. KGO's chopper reappeared during the second wave, tweeting out that they had finished refueling. After the third wave, they finally dissipated.

Of these, only the first wave was covered by local news outlets. Throughout these events, it can be extremely difficult to see any objects being thrown by the protesters, but discussion among protesters at the time could be seen, and some were attempting to stop throwing from taking place, but no actions were made by some activists to turn on others. However, in one heated exchange (viewable in a link to Mother Jones magazine above, two protesters can be seen arguing. This exchange took place in the face-off period of the first Ogawa Plaza wave.) One protester announces that they are not with the "violent ones". Another protester expresses anger, also critical of the bottle throwers, but insists that they should not be labled as "violent." An unseen protester threatens to perform a citizen's arrest. Sadly, no one punched that dumbass in the face for it.

So I feel that I can safely assert that while protesters were throwing bottles first, the police initiated tensions by blockading routes and performing snatch and grab arrests of non-violent marchers trying to cross blockades or photographing police arrests. --Cast (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Cast, I don't think you can safely assume that at all. The police _did_ threaten to tear gas peaceful protesters if they refused to disperse. As to what actually happened later, and if they didn't actually fire tear gas until after someone threw stones is unclear. But whatever, we an _never_ safely make assumptions when writing an article. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I never stated that I assumed these events. I assert them. I witnessed them all play out. I did not state that the police did not present warnings/threats of tear gas. I know they did. I never saw a protester throw bottles live. I did see protesters acknowledge that they did. I do not have any plans to include any of these details into the article without citation, which is why I haven't provided any edits to the article yet. Few citations are available with these details, as few reporters are providing the level of detail I'm aware of. I don't include assumptions in articles. Please read comments more closely in the future. --Cast (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I did certainly misread the word "assert" as "assume". I'm sorry about that. Here's some new news from today. Police chief backs off claims It's not a good enough RS, but it does support the idea that the facts remain very much in question. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Great discussion! Has there been a second marine hurt in the violence? 07:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manofmyth (talk • contribs)

Please use American date formatting

Since this is an article about an event in an American city, please use American date formatting (mm-dd-yyyy), even for references.

If I were editing the article on the counterpart protests in London, I would use dd-mm-yyyy, as that is the format native to that place. Same goes here.--66.53.217.209 (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The template for citations has the dd-mm-yyyy format for dates automatically, which is why a lot of the references had that format. Rachel librarian (talk) 02:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Requested semi-protection status

I have requested semi protection for this page. There are some conscientious editors here who are trying to make a solid NPOV page about a controversial timely topic. I'm thinking that with the strike coming on Nov. 2 that the vandalism will just get worse. Rachel librarian (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

File:OccupyEverything-LiberateOakland.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:OccupyEverything-LiberateOakland.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Restructure civil conflict info box

Considering the press release by the Oakland Police Officers Association a couple days ago: http://www.opoa.org/uncategorized/an-open-letter-to-the-citizens-of-oakland-from-the-oakland-police-officers%E2%80%99-association/ It would seem that the police department and the mayors office/city government are not actually on the "same side". It is misleading and an oversimplification to divide the issues into two parts. Other thoughts? Rachel librarian (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, this would seem to merely be a case of an internal, political squabble between bureaucracies. The Police Department and it's union—and the police union is the strongest in California—are trying to bully Quan around, and has engaged in this kind of behavior in the past with this and other mayors. It's a way of threatening the Mayor, suggesting that they would swing away from supporting her during an election year. It doesn't mean they have formed a third, breakaway faction in contestation with both the city government and the protesters. The government isn't that fragmented. It's just backbiting. If you'd like, we can remove the Oakland Police Department from the infobox entry as an aligned element of the second group. Falling under the city government, interim Police Chief Howard Jordon can remain listed as a leading figure in the infobox, falling under the alignment of the city government.--Cast (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective. I'm concerned about putting this movement into a split up box that puts the city on one side and Occupy Oakland on the other. Do you feel strongly that the box is there at all? What value do you think it adds to understanding the information on the Occupy Oakland page? Rachel librarian (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think it's important to maintain the split to provide information on key organizational figures in both camps. The article is now lacking information on some of the key figures of the Occupy camp who have continually given interviews, such as Boots Riley, and other key activists. There is also an absence of information on the comments and views of city council members, such as Ignacio De La Fuente, who is a very outspoken critic of OO in local media. I also think it is important to note just how confrontational OO is compared to other Occupy protests, given the high volume of participating anarchists and other radicals, who staunchly pushed a position of anti-statism early in the founding of the Occupation, a week prior to the actual taking of the park. That position is what led to the early, anti-OO media reports which painted the protesters as dangerous. Shouting at police to leave, and refusing to recognize them as part of the 99% (ideologically, even if they are materially); blocking MoveOn participant politicians from speaking at the GA; the refusal to meet with and negotiate any position with the city government; the protesters are decidedly against the city government, and this was highlighted in a recent Time article. --Cast (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

related Portal:Current events

Portal:Current events/2011 November 3 99.109.125.146 (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Bias

The last sentence is biased by calling the protest a riot and the demonstrators criminals. --70.134.52.4 (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. "Riots" has been changed to "clashes" like 5 times in the past 48 hours. Criminals is clearly biased. This is an ongoing issue with this page. The police (and some sources) call it a riot; the protesters (and most sources including Reuters) call it a clash. WP:NPOV Loaded language Rachel librarian (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Would it be worth having this page protected, or semi-protected? There appear to be several conflicts of interest. Junhalestone (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It was protected for a few days. If there continues to be problems, we can have it protected again. Rachel librarian (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Number of protesters

Has this been accurately published yet? I didn't see it in the article and I was surprised.--Львівське (говорити) 05:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

There have been no confirmed reports of the number of protesters. I have seen numbers from 7,000 to 100,000! I think that discrepancy might be worth mentioning actually. Rachel librarian (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That same discrepancy is what brought me here!--Львівське (говорити) 05:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I added a sentence with some sources about the march numbers. If you find any other sources, feel free to add them! Rachel librarian (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Kayvan Sabeghi

Kayvan Sabeghi is another local Iraq/Afghanistan veteran injured by Oakland PD in an incident related to the occupation. Press reports indicate his injuries were more serious and that there is an allegation of failure to allow him medical attention while in custody despite the fact that he was clearly in extremis. I was going to start a Kayvan Sabeghi article but noticed that (so far, at least) Scott Olsen's situation is folded into this article and he does not have a separate article. I assume it's probably because Olsen was not particularly famous or notable prior to the incident in which he was injured, and neither was Sabeghi. I realize there's an effort toward coordination of what goes into this article since the situation is so fluid, so I wanted to bring up Kayvan Sabeghi and ask for input on how best to integrate his situation into the article. I have references to two published news sources (UK Guardian and El Cerrito Patch) if that would facilitate the discussion. I'm not asking whether Sabeghi should be included because the rationale is clearly the same as for the earlier inclusion of Scott Olsen, but I do want to coordinate with those who are already waist-deep in editing this article rather than dive right in. - Elmarco 18:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need to be concerned with coordination for the moment. While incidents are happening quickly, there doesn't seem to be enough editors working on this article. No need to worry about stepping on anyone's toes. Just add Sabeghi to the article in chronological order as best you can. As sections grow too large, they can be split into their own articles, and if the chronology gets too large, that can be split into a Timeline of Occupy Oakland. This is the model set by other articles, including Occupy Wall Street.--Cast (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I added some information about him into the events of Nov. 3. Please feel free to add to this page! Rachel librarian (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Good job, Rachel, you pretty much covered what I was going to say. I just added the name of the hospital and a reference to a Huffington Post article because they interviewed Sabeghi's friends and they have a different version of the events. It's in the refs now, people can go there if they want. - Elmarco 03:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

USA Today resource

Oakland protesters condemn violent clashes; excerpt ...

Occupy Wall Street supporters who staged rallies that shut down the fifth-busiest U.S. port on Thursday condemned the demonstrators who clashed with police in the latest flare-up of violence.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Timeline split

I think it's finally time to push for a split of the article into a chronology. First, I want to thank all of the editors who have worked so hard to keep up with events to make this possible. This puts OO beside OWS as the two most up-to-date articles of the Occupy protest articles. Sadly, that is a relative statement, and OO is still very bare of overall comprehensiveness, but that can change with time. For now, something must be done with this chronology. If we go by the precedent set by the Timeline of Occupy Wallstreet, most date entries should be single sentences or a paragraph for larger events. Major events can remain largely described on this article. If an event warrants more coverage than we are currently giving it—and I'm thinking here of the Oct. 25th morning raid and evening showdown, and the Nov. 2 General Strike— then we should put some serious effort into expanding them to such a size that they will justify their own articles.

I'd like to start a discussion here if anyone thinks the split is not yet necessary, or does not like the current make up of the Timeline of Occupy Wallstreet, and would rather the Timeline of Occupy Oakland look different. Otherwise, I'll just move forward.--Cast (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Summary style is our friend-- i started a rough rough version by copying the main chronology text to the timeline article, and am now trying to trim the main article down. There is definitely enough to be documented about the Nov 2 that it will eventually warrant its own article. Thx for excellent suggestions and good work. --Tangledorange (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Cast for your time and expertise. I especially appreciate your knowledge of Wikipedia page structuring. I like the idea of creating a separate timeline page. I am looking forward to filling out the OO page with more historical context about Oakland's radical history and police brutality. Also, thank you to Tangledorange for filling out recent events! Rachel librarian (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's put some positive spin before the media can do negative spin

source and source says that occupy oakland protesters served as medics to the downed civilian. Also, here's aerial map. It just happened, and nobody in "occupy movement" was involved, except to lend a helping hand. Any further details from anyone here in Oakland? 완젬스 (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I want to warn you now that while I'm very sympathetic to your sentiments, our priority should not be to put a "spin", positive or negative, on this event. Our priority should be to be accurate, but don't fret. From what I'm learning of this situation, an accurate description of events may prove generous to the camp. Being objective should be a strong defense of the protesters. --Cast (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

$20,000 deposit into Wells Fargo

Please stop removing the reliably sourced statement that Occupy Oakland deposited $20,000 into Wells Fargo. This is extremely notable, given that just a few days earlier, Occupy Oakland had held a protest against the very same bank. Mk2z0h (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, notable in the present, maybe—but in the long term, not likely. This would be a minor footnote in the financial issues of the protest. An "extremely notable" event would be if an embezzlement scheme were revealed, and someone at the protest were to turn up one day with a new car and a really fancy watch. No, this isn't an "extremely notable" event. From what is now being revealed as reporting on the subject becomes more accurate, the group had treated this as a time sensitive issue. They needed to give the money to an attorney to help protesters who had been arrested, but the attorney had a Wells Fargo account. So they voted on the issue and agreed that the practical necessity was more important than ideological purity, and gave the money to the attorney who pledged to move the money to a community bank as soon as possible. However, this entire event turned out to be unnecessary because the wire transfer wasn't completed before all of the arrested protesters were released from custody. This is not just a minor issue—it's a non-issue. Still, it's a notable non-issue for all of the commentary it has generated. It belongs in a section on the group's finances. Not in its own section on the chronology. Now that we have a timeline, the chronology should only have major issues. Minor issues like this can be incorporated into other sections. I'll be creating a finance section now to get the ball rolling.--Cast (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You said, "they voted on the issue and agreed that the practical necessity was more important than ideological purity." (italics added by me)

Yes, exactly. That is my entire point.

I would like to point out the following reliable sources for this information:

On November 7, Occupy Oakland deposited $20,000 into Wells Fargo, the very bank which it had protested just a few days earlier. The money had been donated to Occupy Oakland by Occupy Wall Street for urgent medical and legal expenses. The Occupy Oakland general assembly approved the decision to hold it temporarily in a Wells Fargo account so that it could begin being used immediately while the group waits on the state to finalize its status as an unincorporated association able to hold funds. At that point, the money will be moved to a local credit union. Wells Fargo spokesman Ruben Pulido said that this desposit "demonstrates that even Occupy Oakland understands — firsthand — the value and service that Wells Fargo provides its customers. Wells Fargo welcomes the 100 percent of Americans to allow us to help them meet their financial needs."

ABC News, CBS News, and The San Francisco Examiner are all reliable sources.

Mk2z0h (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Murder at NEAR the Occupy Oakland camp

The Oakland Tribune claims the murder was the result of a dispute inside the Occupy Oakland encampment, and that the victim was attempting to run away when he was killed. The current verbiage doesn't match this, and indeed, doesn't make much sense at all. Kelly ^hi! 04:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, a Chronicle reporter was attacked when she attempted to take a cell phone photo of the crime scene. Kelly ^hi! 04:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Not to be too dismissive here, but we should tread very carefully so as to provide only the most accurate information, as this would seem to be a rapidly developing situation. I'm moving some previously posted comments here to centralize the discussion. This brings up an important issue on my mind. The simple fact is that being in a city with a high crime rate (Oakland presently has one of the highest murder rates in the country), Occupy Oakland has seen a high rate of violence tagged to it. This goes back to an early fight that broke out in the camp and a TV reporter had his shirt ripped when he was bit by a dog during the first two weeks, up through the police raid and stand off, and to the General Strike car hit-and-run and plaza arrests. This is only the most recent event, and city officials have cited these as reasons why the camp should be closed. The local corporate media has been pretty harsh in their editorial commentary. I think we might need a section on violence and accusations of violence, but I'm worried about what it should be called. I'm very concerned with neutrality, weight, and POV issues.--Cast (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

A more useful resource is this AP report on the incident: Man Fatally Shot on Plaza Near Occupy Oakland Camp. More detail, more interview quotes, more police comments, more more more. That's why it's always best to wait just a few minutes for the fresh data to roll in. --Cast (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I had a statement about gun violence in oakland which I think is important give context to the shooting-- that is, shooting aren't rare there. It was removed as synth yesterday, though his connection has now been explicitly made by the police union has now connected those dots, pointing out that Oakland has "highest violent crime rate in California. We are the 5th most violent city in the United States". [2]. Not a big deal, I won't restore it myself, just seems like a useful fact for people globally to know about the area in weighing the nearby shooting. --Tangledorange (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Manual of Style

This sentence about the shooting has a terrible anti-OWS pov: Police released descriptions of the two suspects in the shooting, one of which witnesses told them, “was a frequent resident at the Frank Ogawa Plaza for the past several days. which needs to avoid creating the impression which anyone from OWS was involved. Don't let the media try and make this look like it's coming from within the OWS protests, because there are no reliable sources reporting that it was definitely from within OWS. Other than that, great job ows-Oakland. You're our counterpart, and all eyes from around the nation are on your city. 완젬스 (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

BLP reminder about the two "pedestrians" who were hit by a Mercedes.

Since the reliable source says these two people were in the street deliberately blocking traffic, I removed the word "pedestrians," and replaced it with "protestors who were in the street blocking traffic." I also added the info that the driver had a green light. I did this, because that's what the reliable source said. The previous version of the article falsely made the driver look like a law breaking maniac, which violates wikipedia's BLP policy. Mk2z0h (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, law breaking maniac wouldn't be my words, but it is illegal to hit pedestrians even if you do have a green light. That they were blocking the intersection would indicate they did not step into the driver's field of view when he was in motion, so this was no accident. That references point that he tried to switch seats with his passenger would indicate evasion. So "law breaking" would be accurate. Not that I'm trying to suggest we should paint this incident as something that it isn't, but I hope you aren't either. Just stick to what the most accurate references state.--Cast (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much was I going to say. It's still illegal to hit intentionally hit people even if they are blocking the intersection, and that's what at issue-- if the driver intended to hit another human being with a car, it would be a very serious crime. No clue if that's what happened though-- just explaining why it MIGHT be a big deal, but might not be. --Tangledorange (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Following up-- we mention that it "angering protesters who witnessed the events and called for the driver's arrest.". If we think this is notable enough to report, we probably need to say why they were angry-- i.e. the believed it to be intentional. I'm not certain if the anger merits mentioning, but if we include it, we have to explain it. BLP is heavily at play here though, so tread lightly. --Tangledorange (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Not to get overly "forum-ish", but it should be noted that there is a video of the incident. Might be good to bare in mind as we look for references on this. Some would have been written before the video came to light, and those would be less reliable if they describe an event differently than what can be explicitly observed. --Cast (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Broken link, but I think I've seen the video you mention. The situation has changed a bit since my prior comments-- the two victims have since publicly gone on the record formally saying the driver should be arrested for attempted murder, so I feel a little more comfortable talking about it (with regard to BLP issues) now that it's out there in a big way. --Tangledorange (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the link. You probably have seen it. It's really circulating now. --Cast (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Preemptive RS's

Since I know controversy abounds whenever something is added to the article I am going to go ahead and place sources here for a variety of things:

• Shots fired near 'Occupy Oakland,' one dead ABClocal, "But some members of the movement became hostile to the media trying to document the scene. In fact, ABC7 photographer Randy Davis got punched several times in the head." Also includes multiple videos, in video number two the camera man's partner describes the events: "probably a dozen young men who started to hit him over the head and hit his camera and push him away"(around 5:20)
• Police union pleads for Occupy Oakland to disband as authorities investigate homicide near camp, Mercury News, photo #8 in the slideshow is of the reporter almost being pushed over the rail
• New details surface from Scott Olsen's past

They point to a website, which is no longer active, called IHateTheMarineCorps.com. It's registered to a Scott Olsen. The site is also listed on Olsen's YouTube profile page.

According to a story published by Reuters, Olsen also received an administrative discharge from the Marines, instead of an honorable discharge. These new details of Scott Olsen's military record are extremely controversial, especially for members of the Marine Corps and people who have family who served.

• Occupy Oakland and News Media Coexist Uneasily New York Times,

"... Randy Davis, a cameraman for KGO-TV, turned his lens on a group of protesters helping the victim. Then part of the crowd turned on him. Protesters formed a chain around the victim. About a dozen men — some shouting, “No cameras!” and “No media!” — punched Mr. Davis in the head and pushed him to the ledge overlooking a BART station stairwell before other protesters intervened, witnesses said. The attack, one of at least two against journalists that night, highlighted the growing tensions between Occupy Oakland and the news media after a week of largely negative coverage of problems at the encampment."

"The shooting occurred in Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, about 25 yards from Occupy Oakland’s 180 tents. On Friday night, police released descriptions of two suspects, including one who witnesses told investigators “was a frequent resident at the Frank Ogawa Plaza for the past several days.”

• Occupy Oakland Movement Tries To Regroup After ShootingNPR, "and at least one camera man was assaulted. One camper told me to put away my recording gear or risk getting beaten up "like the others.""

AerobicFox (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts to expand this article. I don't have time to go into each resource now, but I'm concerned by the way these are being used for the same reason I was concerned with the constant use of a Wells Fargo spokesman quote. It seems that many sources currently being used are only being used for single quotes or sentences, rather than for the full content these resources provide. Further, many are being used because they were chosen immediately after events took place, rather than later when details settled. Newer reports with greater detail should be favored, while older, smaller stories should be phased out. Finally, I'm concerned that some resources that are more balanced in their reporting are being ignored in favor of ones that have useful quotes, but are lopsided in their reporting. For example, The New York Times article which describes a reporter being assaulted actually describes that happening twice. The first time leaves us only with the impression of the OO protesters having a siege mentality and a lack of compassion. A cameraman simply doing his job, and even capturing the protesters in a moment of humanity, is assaulted and put in very serious danger of injury or worst. That several protesters intervened is a minor note. However, in the second described attack, not quoted for this article, a journalist's equipment is taken away, but then returned by another protester who apologizes. That act is given more weight, and the journalist comments:

"Another protester quickly retrieved the phone, ran over and apologized to Ms. Allison and helped her stand.

'That’s the complex thing,' Ms. Allison said. 'This is a space that welcomes all people, but there was no one in control.'"

I think that second story is the more balanced one, but it is not quoted, with the more sensational story being used in stead. Certainly it is fine to use that story given its significance, but it would be misguided not to use both, since they present a more complex and complete narrative of events and attitudes. This article should not strive for simplicity. It should strive for accuracy, and it is falling short. --Cast (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I am all for including multiple attacks on journalists reported if you believe it wouldn't be WP:NPOV. I had only mentioned the first because it was covered by over news sources and was clearly more significant, and because I thought including other incidents would bring out calls of WP:COATRACK. I do disagree though that the second story was "given more weight" as it was only 3 sentences long as opposed to the 4 sentences of the other one, and since the other one was covered by multiple news outlets. Again, I didn't use the other parts of the NYT article which describe vandalism, a failed referedum to end violence, mentioning the Wells Fargo deposit, a member of the Occupy Oakland’s media committee criticizing the corporate media, or a "resurgence of violence and drug use at the increasingly squalid encampment" because they seemed redundant to the article, if you want to mention anything else or rewrite some of what I put then go ahead.AerobicFox (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons

More images added from today. more to come.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so very much. I've been meaning to try and reach out to people who have been in the area to do just this. If you know of anyone else that has similar images of the camp or of events—any events—please encourage them to upload to WikiCommons as well. --Cast (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I dont know anyone else, but I of course note that many, many people were taking photos. I could have snapped an image of a psychotic man getting into a fight, who was later being sought by police, but i didnt want the person angry at me (and he was really angry). I do hope that others will post their images here. I dont know how one searches for images on Flikr, but Wikimedia Commons seems like the best organized place to do so. My last images are uploading right now. If anyone feels that a particular image is really good, I do have 4mb files of each image (i uploaded 400kb images for quicker uploading).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

We have users manually searching Flikr as well as bots that scour flickr for pics. This can be done because Flickr gives users the option to release their photos under a variety of creative commons licenses. Unfortunately many users release their photos under a noncommercial license which Commons does not accept. That being said there appears to be plenty of images uploaded that can be used freely used. You can search for images here by clicking on one of the licenses(but not the noncommercial ones) and then searching for images related to Occupy Oakland which you can then upload to Commons. Specifically you can upload them here and find more info about uploading from flickr here.AerobicFox (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Occupy Oakland Nov2 Strike Poster.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Occupy Oakland Nov2 Strike Poster.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Scott Olsen wounded and carried - tiny thumbnail.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Scott Olsen wounded and carried - tiny thumbnail.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"Less lethal" discussion?

The edit summary of this diff which has changed "tear gas" into "less lethal weapons" appears to be referencing a discussion on this that I am not aware of:

"corrected photo caption and paragraph to broader and thus more accurate "less lethal" weapons (see discussion)"

I am not seeing a discussion here on this(was there something about this on another Occupy talk page?), and I am in disagreement with the ambiguous phrasing of "less lethal weapons" as being OR. The photo was taken from here on Flickr where it was uploaded by an anonymous user with no captions. The photo was tagged with "tear gas", but I see no other tag or commentary stating that other dispersants were being employed during this photo. Also to note the article is getting too crowded with media. The video "Shot by police with rubber bullet at Occupy Oakland" is placed redundantly in two different sections, the video "RAW VIDEO: Ground footage of Occupy Oakland march and crowd dispersal" also contains the footage of Scott Olsen getting hit as well as other video, making redundant the video "Occupy Oakland video: Riot police fire tear gas, flashbang grenades" to also be included. If the article continues expanding with new media then it may be best to start placing a ref like where it is getting overcrowded and have it just bring the user down to the external links section with a link to the video.AerobicFox (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

External links

I will copy and respond to your comments, whomever you are, below. CriticalChris 06:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"Tear gas"/"non lethal"/"less lethal"/etc.

There has been substantive controversy over the degree to which police, law enforcement agents, or other individuals on the police lines used less lethal weapons to disperse crowds or accomplish other objectives during the events of these protests. Did police/agents use "Bean bag"/flexible baton rounds and "flash banger" stun grenades? ...as it appeared to New York Times news bloggers here ( http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/police-said-to-fire-tear-gas-at-protesters-in-oakland-calif/?hp# ) or were those M80's from a fireworks catalog? OPD Chief Jordan has denied the deployment of the city's $675,000 LRAD "sound cannon." ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/turnstyle/oakland-chief-denies-use_b_1035677.html ) Did Police officers and agents deploy "tear gas" or CS gas or pepper gas? Were undisclosed "chemical agents" used? The SF Chron reported that police announced (over bullhorns) that they would deploy such "chemical agents." ( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/25/BAUB1LLTC9.DTL ) ( http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=23012 ) Which canister are you talking about, and which police agency or other law enforcement agency out of the many on the scene fired that one, and that one over there? My point is that, until these questions are further answered with videos that may surface in the coming weeks and months, and further addressed in reports of official investigations by the authorities, (and Chief Jordan has asked the other agencies to document their use of force) I don't see a problem with the use of the term "less lethal" in some parts of this article. I'm not aware of any "live" ammunition being fired during these protests, but I may have missed that somewhere. Thus "less lethal" seems to me to be a more objective and broadly encompassing term to use in situations where the type of weapon deployed is in question. I've restored it's use to a photo caption and to replace the use of "non lethal" where the source didn't support it. CriticalChris 06:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary of this diff which has changed "tear gas" into "less lethal weapons" appears to be referencing a discussion on this that I am not aware of:

"corrected photo caption and paragraph to broader and thus more accurate "less lethal" weapons (see discussion)"

I am not seeing a discussion here on this(was there something about this on another Occupy talk page?), and I am in disagreement with the ambiguous phrasing of "less lethal weapons" as being OR. The photo was taken from here on Flickr where it was uploaded by an anonymous user with no captions. The photo was tagged with "tear gas", but I see no other tag or commentary stating that other dispersants were being employed during this photo.

Also to note the article is getting too crowded with media. The video "Shot by police with rubber bullet at Occupy Oakland" is placed redundantly in two different sections, the video "RAW VIDEO: Ground footage of Occupy Oakland march and crowd dispersal" also contains the footage of Scott Olsen getting hit as well as other video, making redundant the video "Occupy Oakland video: Riot police fire tear gas, flashbang grenades" to also be included. If the article continues expanding with new media then it may be best to start placing a ref like where it is getting overcrowded and have it just bring the user down to the external links section with a link to the video. ;External links

AerobicFox (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The use of the term "less lethal" is deliberately ambiguous and more broadly encompassing precisely because there has been controversy over the nature and type of weapons used by police ostensibly to disperse Occupy Oakland demonstrators. Perhaps the photo caption should be less specific generally. I do think it is a relevant and encyclopedic photo that improves the article. In the body of the article, my replacement of "non lethal" with "less lethal" is not WP:OR; on the contrary it's used in this [3] news source which was originally erroneously referenced. If we are to accept the Palo Alto Weekly article about Palo Alto Police Officers coming to Oakland to assist OPD as a credible source as per WP:RS than I suggest we stick to the language of the source and not rebrand special weapons that can kill (remember Ruben Salazar?) as "non lethal." CriticalChris 06:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

While there has been discussion and debate over what specifically was used during the riots in general, there has been no such discussion on what was used at this point in the picture. The uploader doesn't even state that they are people retreating from tear gas, it just has tags, one of which states tear gas. There is no reason to assume the protesters at this time were running away from other weapons since, as my understanding, they began with using tear gas and only moved onto other weapons later in the riots. We could also just put "rioters being dispersed by police" since we have no direct description of what is being used in this scene anyway. AerobicFox (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Concerns that this article is "getting too crowded with media."

Also to note the article is getting too crowded with media. The video "Shot by police with rubber bullet at Occupy Oakland" is placed redundantly in two different sections, the video "RAW VIDEO: Ground footage of Occupy Oakland march and crowd dispersal" also contains the footage of Scott Olsen getting hit as well as other video, making redundant the video "Occupy Oakland video: Riot police fire tear gas, flashbang grenades" to also be included. If the article continues expanding with new media then it may be best to start placing a ref like[video 1] where it is getting overcrowded and have it just bring the user down to the external links section with a link to the video. ;External links1. ^ Link to "example video" AerobicFox (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the We currently have 5 videos of police clashing with Occupiers:

1. "Raw Video: Protesters Clash With Oakland Police."
2. "RAW VIDEO: Ground footage of Occupy Oakland march and crowd dispersal."
3. "Occupy Oakland video: Riot police fire tear gas, flashbang grenades."
4. "CA Violence: RT footage from 'occupied' Oakland"
5. "More RT footage: Riot cops tear gas Occupy Oakland strike"

This is needlessly redundant in the article itself, either some of these needs to be removed(#3,4 since their content seems like it might be repeated in #2,5) or moved to a subsection in External links for the vids of protesters clashing with police. If no one has any objections I will go ahead and remove the duplicated "Shot by police with rubber bullet at Occupy Oakland" video link in the Chronology of Events section since the same box is already in the Scott Cambell subsection.AerobicFox (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Occupy Oakland Poster.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Occupy Oakland Poster.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Integrate Chronology into Thematic Sections?

I would like to begin integrating the information from the Chronology into thematic sections. I, however, do not have much experience with Wikipedia article organization. My initial ideas: move info about Scott Olsen to the Scott Olsen head injury section; move the beginnings of the protest to the Frank Ogawa Plaza section. Any guidance, thoughts, ideas? Rachel librarian (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Quote from Wells Fargo spokesperson

Given that Wells Fargo was a specific target of Occupy Oakland, the quote from the Wells Fargo spokesperson is highly notable. NPOV requires that both sides of the debate are included.

Therefore, I have restored the following to the article:

Wells Fargo spokesman Ruben Pulido said that this deposit "demonstrates that even Occupy Oakland understands — firsthand — the value and service that Wells Fargo provides its customers. Wells Fargo welcomes the 100 percent of Americans to allow us to help them meet their financial needs."

Gb8pGFyohbcg (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)