Talk:Zuccotti Park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Edit request from Greenthumbnails, 22 September 2011[edit]

please change: In September 2011, an anti-corporate and anti-big bank protest in the Financial District, organized on social media, used Zuccotti Park as a campground and staging area for their actions

to read: In September 2011, an anti-corporate and anti-big bank protest in the Financial District, organized on social media, using Zuccotti Park as a campground and staging area for their actions

because: 'used' implies that this protest has ended (it hasn't), 'using' does not send this same message. Greenthumbnails (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Your suggested edit is grammatically incorrect. The edit should not be made, as the tense ("using") is unencyclopedic -- we are not a newspaper, and we are not here to "send a message". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Note: The article was protected at the time of the request, it only expired half an hour ago. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 22:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources for renaming[edit]

I'm not going to edit the article myself to reflect this, as I, shamefully in spite of my edit count, don't really remember to add the edit tag, but varying degrees of reliability of source for the informal (so no article moves) name change back to LPP: Muncie Free Press, NYT City Room, …I thought I had more but apparently that's all for now. Can someone give a second look-over and change the article if necessary? Thanks. Abeg92contribs 14:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The NYT cite is reliable, and I have added the information it supports to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Bloomberg's girlfriend on the board of directors[edit]

There are numerous internet sources that place Diana Taylor, the girlfriend of Mayor Bloomberg, on Brookfield's board of directors. Given how this is information tangential to the OWS movement, perhaps it should be included in this article? There is a veritable cornucopia of sources to pick and choose from while doing a simple Google search. (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it should not be in the article. It is irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Really? A high-level connection like that? Shouldn't it be up to individual readers to make up their mind whether it is relevant or not? It has been mentioned in quite a number of articles, so I fail to see the justification of your disagreement. (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Try adding it. It will be removed per our WP:BLP policy, since the only reason to mention it is to imply some kind of misbehavior, with no basis to do so. You find a reliable source that says that Bloomberg's girlfriend being on the Brookfield board in some way specifically effects Zuccottii Park, and you might have something, but in the absence of that, you're not going to be allowed to add unsupported implications regarding a living person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
You are implying that adding the information about Diana Taylor, who is in a relationship with the Mayor, being on the board of Brookfield in some way indicates wrongdoing. Why? This is a simple fact. She is on the board. Whatever implications you read into it, or anybody else, are your (or their) own. On the other hand, this information can be considered important to people following the events in the Zuccotti Park, for whatever reasons (positive or negative). (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
So you are planning on adding all the members of Brookfield's Board? What relevance does that have to Zuccotti Park?

Oh, I'm sorry, you were going to add only the mayor's girldfriend, right? There's absolutely no reason to do that unless you wish the reader to infer that the fact has some sort of significance, which, without a reliable source to back it up, it doesn't, not on Wikipedia anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

In all your responses you resort to making subjective judgement call on whether the potential reader should be aware of a fact or not. Where I'm from, that's called censorship. The information that a member of the Brookfield board has extremely close relationship with the city's mayor is a fact. It is also potentially important information to inquisitive reader, whatever the reason of their interest. If it makes you feel better, it can be used to stipulate that the OWS protest is taking place in that park to take advantage of the potential fallout from making the very link between the board and the city officials. That's just a single speculation. I can, on the spot, come up with 10 different considerations from both "sides." Won't bother since it would clearly be a waste of time as an argument to include this information.
Your continued argument is, again, based on your judgement what information should be available to the reader, as well as immediate stipulation about what that information would be used for. I have read WP:BLP, and I contend that your accusation of the addition of this information violating the policy is unfounded. Frankly, I would love Wikipedia to carry the names of board members of all companies - in my experience, life in general is interconnectivity, and all the more so for any human endeavor.
To make it absolutely clear:
Me: "Diana Taylor, Mayor Bloomberg's live-in girlfriend, is on the board of Brookfield" - Fact. Also, potentially interesting consideration for those following the OWS protests from both sides. If any additional information emerges about similarly close (rather doubtful in this case, isn't it?) connections between other board members and the highest city official, I am all for adding it.
You: "Wikipedia is not for undocumented accusations. This should not be in." - Unsubstantiated subjective judgement call. Nowhere in my suggestion was there a mention of any spin on how this information is to be presented. The If you feel that mere inclusion of it results in NPOV tone, then perhaps there is all the more reason for it to be part of the article.
I thought Wikipedia's purpose was to document, in as neutral form as humanly possible, facts. Thank you for clarifying my misconception. (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Your understanding is incorrect. Please see WP:BLP, especially WP:BLPREMOVE, the clause under which I will remove this material if you add it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you should read it yourself. BLPREMOVE is "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material". The fact that Diana Taylor is Mayor Bloomberg's girlfriend and a member of the Brookfield board of directors is not contentious and is well-sourced. Both facts are specifically mentioned in her own Wikipedia article. (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not an annex to the "Occupy Wall Street" article[edit]

Although the occupation of the park by protesters is obviously a very significant event in the park's history, this article is not about the protest, nor is it an annex to Occupy Wall Street. The focus of material added to this article must be narrow, about the park specifically, and significantly. Not everything that happens in the park because of the protest is significant in regard to the park (however significant it might be to the protest) I'd also point editors to the fact that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. it's an encyclopedia.

Also, because this is a controversial subject (the protest that is, not the park), all material added to the article must be supported by citations from reliable sources -- in general that means newspapers, magazines and news broadcasts which are known to check their facts and which have a general reputation for accuracy. Blogs, are not reliable sources, except for the opinions of the blogger, and if the blogger is nopt a notable person in of out him- or herself, that opinion doesn't belong in the article. "Street" newspapers, on- or off-line, with an unknown reputation regarding fact-checking are generally not considered to be reliable. Material which is not supported by reliable sources will be removed from the article, as will unsourced opinions and declarative statements, which violate WP:OR, WP:POV and WP:V. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we are in complete agreement about the importance of focus in this article — so why are you reverting every progressive edit I make to reduce the importance of the OWS section and expand surrounding sections and the lead to place that protest in it's proper context? These dual edits were an expansive attempt to refocus the article on the park's history.[1] [2] Why did you revert them in favor of a regressive move towards greater focus on that protest? [3] A whole section just to it? Why not a small sub-section as part of the park's history? And isn't the question of sanitation best left off, since those sanitation concerns are only existing in the context of this protest? That either belongs in the OWS article, or it deserves to have a few sentences on what those protesters are doing to clean up the place. Otherwise it just looks like they are slobs, which throws up POV issues. If you don't want this article to focus on that protest, plan on expanding this article to focus on its history and stop disrupting development with consistent reverts. You've even reverted important details, such as when you cut the year of creation just because you didn't like a sentence on why the park was chosen as a site of protest.[4] You and I clearly care a great deal about this article and apparently have both the time and enthusiasm to put up with interference, but I for one would prefer to move on to other articles after I make an edit here. That's my editing style. I don't care to have to edit this article several times just to make important details stick. My advice would be to focus on building on the work of others — not reverting it. --Cast (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Write the new section and then move the scultpure section into it, not before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add material supported by a citation from a blog, it will be removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
You are consistently engaging in unhelpful, disruptive edits, and I'm going to ask you to stop. This tendency of yours to revert, rather than build upon the effort of other editors, is not helpful to this article's development. It isn't even in line with your "thoughts" on the matter:
Wikipedia exists for the people who use it or who will potentially use it, not for the people who edit it. Every edit should either improve the factual accuracy of Wikipedia or make it easier and more useful for the reader. Any edit which does not serve these goals is a waste of time and energy, and quite possibly counterproductive."
The "Scola" reference you continue to delete as an "unreliable blog" is acceptable as a reliable resource presented by the Capital New York Media Group, Inc. I have personally used blogs in the creation of FA quality articles, on the basis that their reference material was verifiable. The staff information for Capital New York is fully available online. Feel free to follow this link: Scola, Nancy (5 October 2011). "For the Anti-corporate Occupy Wall street demonstrators, the semi-corporate status of Zuccotti Park may be a boon". Capital New York Media Group, Inc.
And why must I rewrite the section on the park sculptures in order to create a new section devoted to them, when the section as it exists is already enough to justify its own section? And if you did feel it wasn't expanded enough, why did you choose to revert it without expanding it yourself? Stop relying the revert key. You might break it. --Cast (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
If you think that particular blog is reliable, go to WP:RSN and get them to say so. Until then, it's just a blog, with no particular reputation for accuracy or fact checking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion for editors of "Zuccotti Park"[edit]

The park existed before Occupy Wall Street and will exist afterwards. If you want to add something encyclopedic and not newsy to the Zuccotti Park article, use this as a mental test -- would this addition to this article make sense if OWS never took place here? patsw (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

How unique is the status of Zuccotti Park as public/private space?[edit]

There are several plaza areas in New York City. The most famous of which is probably Rockefeller Center. These are areas of unroofed, unfenced private property where barriers are erected every year for one day to assert their private ownership. Even the vast plaza at the World Trade Center which was/is owned by a public authority managing it private property did this once a year ritual. This also allows the owners to define some rules of conduct for the public. Violation of these rules would be trespassing, and if you didn't leave upon request you would be subject to arrest.

Is the situation at Zuccotti unique? Namely that public access to it 24x7x365 is so unrestricted such that behavior, if done in a city, state, or federal park, or sidewalk would be an arrestable offense, but Zuccotti is uniquely in New York City its own private island of anarchy? I mention this to encourage others to research this as I am now. patsw (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Attempted re-occupation of the park[edit]

An editor is atempting to insert into the article an extensive account of the clash between police and protestors who tried to re-occupy the part, in violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Since the primary source is a blog, WP:SPS was also violated. I reduced this to a one-line account sourced by a reliable source (the website of a local TV station), but the editor reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I restored it to the original state because the original edit provided the details of what happened. WP:Undue was not violated because it did not express one side of the situation. It is fair-balanced and provides what happened that night. Saying "Clash between police" does not specify what exactly was significant about the re-occupation. I ask you to keep it the way it is. It short and provides a unique history of Zuccotti park. To those who complaining about occupy being part of the Zuccotti park article, it was added because it is important to the park's history and usage. Thanks, Alex (Alexf505 (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)) I am asking Wikipedia to protect the re-occupation of the park as it is written
It violates WP:UNDUE because it gives undue weight to the event, which gets as much space as the rest of the occupation. It violates WP:SPS because blogs are not reliable sources. It violates WP:NOTNEWSPAPER because we are an encyclopedia, giving overviews, not a newspaper giving daily details about events. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Seperate Article for Occupation[edit]

May I add a suggestion to resolve the occupation frustrations. I suggest that it be split into its own article. I will move it if you all okay with it. (Alexf505 (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC))

No. There is already an article on Occupy Wall Street, and this small event does not merit its own article, per WP:ONETIME. In any case, it would still violate WP:SPS and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I was not talking about just the re-occupying, I was talking about taking all the occupy stuff off this page and moving it to it's own article titled 'Zuccotti Park Occupy Encampment." or "Zuccotti Park Occupation." People have been complaining about all the occupy stuff on this page. (Alexf505 (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)).

No, people are complaining when the material on Occupy Wall Street in relation to the park takes up more space than general material about the park -- that's what WP:UNDUE is about. The balance at this moment is OK, but we don't need a blow-by-blow of every Occupy-related event. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)