Talk:Occupy movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject QRpedia
WikiProject icon The organisation featured in this article uses QRpedia. For further information, please see WikiProject QRpedia.
 

Tea Party Inspiration?[edit]

I dispute the assertion that a line can be drawn between the Occupy movementas well as the Tea Party movement. The statement cannot be found in sources 26, 27 or 28 so can somebody involved please tell the source of this? The two have radically different objectives, the latter being primarily a right wing movement instigated by the Koch family. If somebody does not respond I will remove the relevent material. KingHiggins (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The Washington Post disagrees with you. Hot Stop 18:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

there are similar grievances among occupiers and original tea party people (not the AstroTurf-corporate tea party people). HOWEVER it is the actions and views to fix those grievances where Occupy and the TP differ greatly. --Sfiga (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Article requires update[edit]

I see that somebody above has defended the use of the present tense on the basis that the Occupy Wall Street website is still live (although that post itself is over a year old). That may well be, although I've seen sources which suggest that movement is functionally dead (e.g. The Guardian, BuzzFeed). I don't know much about it, but I do know that the movement is not the same today as it was in 2011, and this is not reflected in the article.

At a basic level, there are a large number of dates without years, which is contrary to WP:DATE. For example under Goals we have "During the early weeks", "Speaking on 7 October", and so on. The Occupy movement in Norway is stated to have started on "15 October". I suspect all of these dates are 2011, and that the edits were made in 2011 so that the editor considered it unnecessary to state the year, and that the article was at that time an example of WP:RECENTISM.

The section Chronology of Events is bizarre, because the period 17 September 2011 to 31 December 2011 is broken down into intervals of 3-5 weeks, then there is a final section covering the entire period 1 January 2012 to present, and this section really doesn't explain what the movement is doing now. I can't see that it refers to any sources postdating September 2013. Again the article seems to be largely written from a 2011 or early 2012 perspective with various addenda shoved into the final section.

Also we have a section of Subsequent Activity, but what is this subsequent to? Havelock Jones (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I was the one who used the term "Subsequent." It is clear the "Movement" has not continuously had protesters in the streets worldwide. Because it was a global activity, with a lot of associated events going on, there is no specific end date to the protests. Each geographically sub- article discusses the specific dates of their encampments. Occupy London is notably active currently with protests and encampments in the streets. Similarly, it would be difficult to pin down a wholesale set of goals. I haven't bothered to retrace the historical portions of the article that went through massive editing by others. I have posted various links on multiple articles that document other, less public activities by the "Movement" as I find out about them in the press. That shows it is still active and ongoing. There is no date of death as so many want to post. So what is it you want added? Do you have additional sourced information that is missing? Trackinfo (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
As stated in my previous post, I do not know much about this topic. So, no, I do not have sourced information which I wish to add (and if I did I would simply add it). What I do know is that the bulk of the article as it stands reflects a 2011 or early 2012 perspective, and it is now late 2014, so the article requires updating. I suspect (but do not know) that the movement continues in a significantly different form, and if this is the case, the article needs to reflect this. I appreciate your efforts in adding recent references, but these do seem like they've been tagged on to the end. So what we have is a 2012 article with a series of addenda, which isn't the same as up-to-date article. The lead needs rewriting to reflect whatever has happened since 2012. The Background section is probably fine, but the Goals, Methods, Chronology, Reactions and Impact sections need updating. The Criticism section requires expansion, but that's a slightly different issue (it seems imply that there is a significant body of criticism, but only refers to 2 examples). I think probably Subsequent Activity should be merged into a rewritten Chronology (which could, for example, be divided by year). I would be amazed if there is not academic literature charting the movement's history and evolution. The article has a very rich set of references, but they're almost all to news reports. Per WP:RS "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." So what I would really like would be for someone with the relevant academic background to rewrite the article to reflect the current consensus. Failing that, I would like someone involved in the movement to update the article in the areas indicated (although of course that raises possible POV issues).Havelock Jones (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, it is stated in the lead that "By the end of 2011 authorities had cleared most of the major camps, with the last remaining high profile sites – in Washington DC and London – evicted by February 2012." However, these evictions aren't described in the Chronology. So, although you state "It is clear the "Movement" has not continuously had protestors in the streets worldwide", that isn't really clear. It may well be correct (I imagine that continuous worldwide protests would have come to my attention), but the only indication of it in the article is the one sentence in the lead I just quoted.Havelock Jones (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a problem in several Occupy articles. For example, Occupy Portland, which states that its general assembly was disbanded last year, is claimed by this article to be the only remaining "occupation" in the United States. Occupy Portland's website indicates that it has reduced and refocused to more recent events (e.g Ferguson & Michael Brown), clearly not the large-scale protest that this article implies. Wikipedia's Occupy articles need to reflect current realities and not those of 2012 -- (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC))

Word for word from the "Criticism" section[edit]

Is the following real? Whatever does it mean?

Apart from dismissals by the Right, there have also appreciative criticism from leftist scholars. One such critique concerns itself with the way in which the Occupy movement has focused its demands around a narrowly modern understanding of freedom that differs little from the claims of mainstream liberal pluralism: “ The modern ideology of freedom ... provides its point of departure. This singular dominance of the modern becomes clear in the long list of demands that follow. Practicality dominates and there is not a single demand for relief from the ontological dominance of modern practices and subjectivities that abstract, codify, rationalize and objectify our lives. Though the ideals and demands ... are laudable, they are not that much different in form from the Millennium Goals of the United Nations.[388] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.16 (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Historic reference[edit]

While the use of the word 'occuupy' is new, the 99% vs 1 % is not new. I was most astonished to find a mentioning of 'the 1%' in a book from the 1920s. It was a pulp fiction B or even C grade fantasy pocket book about the Vanderbilts. I forgot the title and can't find the book on the net now. However, I checked the copyright then, it was from the 1920s, 1929 in all likelihood but written before the crash. I was astonished that the term "THE 1 %" goes back that far into history. 121.209.56.83 (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)