Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 1

Links with the 2011 Israeli social justice protests ?
The OWS movement is rather economic/social than related to civil rights as in the Arab spring. Any link with the Israeli social justice protests ? Yug (talk)  09:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Media and Social networking coverage.
There seems to be a common thread that the event is being carried by social networking but not in the Main Stream Media. Is it worth commenting on this or at least supplying any references to this issue? Lordandrei (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A comment about the low mainstream media coverage should fit right in, I'd say. Nearly everywhere I go reading about OWS, there are people complaining about just that. (Then again, though, if it's true there are only a few hundred protesters, low media coverage doesn't seem so strange.) MattieRenard (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Granted it would seem better if there was a media report on the lack of media report to have something to cite rather than just attendees. Lordandrei (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

WSJ, The Atlantic, MSNBC, The Christian Science Monitor, Associated Press, bloomberg.com, Daily News (New York), ... resources
97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wall Street Protesters Plan to Stay Awhile by WSJ Staff September 19, 2011, 11:33 AM ET. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The NYPD Is Arresting Wall Street Protesters for Wearing Masks by Adam Clark Estes
 * Wall Street protest enters fourth day by John Schoen
 * 7 protesters arrested at Wall St. demonstration BusinessWeek via AP September 20, 2011, 3:58PM ET
 * Wall Street protests: On Day 3, seven arrests; Wall Street protests involve several hundred activists calling attention to links between financial firms and Congress. Organizers of Wall Street protests are posting videos of arrests AP/CSM September 20, 2011
 * NYPD Arrest Seven More Wall Street Protesters by Charles Mead - Sep 20, 2011 6:04 PM ET
 * Wall Street-area pizza shop rakes in dough from hungry protesters by Emily Sher, Erik Badia and Rocco Parascandola in NY Daily News; updated: Monday, September 19th 2011, 7:48 PM

Potential resource
Videos Show Police Using Pepper Spray at Protest on the Financial System by Joseph Goldstein in The New York Times September 25, 2011,page A22 in a print edition. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Arrests reported 9/24/11
There are reports that between 50-100 protesters were arrested by the NYPD today, 9/24. My Google searches have come up with several mentions in marginal sources that will be difficult to call WP:RS... if the reports are true, this is a big jump in the number of total arrested to date. Anyone seeing a reliable source for this information? Jus da  fax   22:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Article is updated, I see. Here is the New York Times article, for the record:   Jus  da  fax   05:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I see the NYT video of the 'pepperspray' incident is used as a ref. This article claims to identify the NYPD officer responsible, though I don't know if the website will stand as a reliable source.  Jus  da  fax   17:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A professional photographer, David Myles, has said on his blog that he was present and witnessed the 'pepperspraying' while photographing the event and later identified the officer in question from photographs as Deputy Inspector Bologna.  Myles is also the source cited by the article on Common Dreams that Jusdafax referenced (above).  Wouldn't it be reasonable to quote Myles with attribution, that ought to stand as a reliable source? - Elmarco 13:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe we need to wait for an acceptable reference - his blog is not acceptable to use as a reference. Gandydancer (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Incite?
Currently the article says Anonymous incited their followers to take part in OWS. While the word incite does mean to encourage or stir up, it carries a connotation of encouraging violent or illegal behavior (e.g., inciting a riot), and so far OWS is neither. I propose to say that Anonymous urged or encouraged their followers to participate. Comments? - Elmarco 13:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree - it should state "encouraged" rather than "incited". Gandydancer (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Alleged excessive use of force
A section of Alleged excessive use of force incidents has been deleted and some of it merged with other sections for no particular reason. We have many evidence for it, as much as we had in Libyan revolt, Tunisian revolution, Egyptian revolution, but in those articles it wasn't deleted. Explanation anyone? Mrwho00tm (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like the entire section was merged. I don't see that any text was deleted.  The person who deleted the section heading left an edit summary that read, "section title is inherently pov", and since the section title was "Excessive use of force incidents", I'm inclined to agree. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hold on there, if there are various sources pointing out the possibility that there have been violations of of human rights, that according to regular practice in Wiki deserves a section dedicated to it. It has been the same in every Arab spring article, only in the US or EU related articles there are constantly some people denying and deleting any "anti-american/"anti-EU" articles or parts of article.
 * If there are 5 different sources saying there has been police violence against protesters in Yemen, then it gets a section that describes the allegations.
 * If there are 5 different sources saying there has been police violence against protesters in US/EU it only gets a small mention in the whole article? Mrwho00tm (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not yet seen acceptable references that state Alleged excessive use of force incidents. Could you provide a reference? Gandydancer (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Arent the occupywallst.com site and various videos on Youtube showing the suspicious acts by police pretty big references to consider? I will check for more of them when I have time, but hey, we had sections on wikipedia dedicated to things that only few people claimed, and even they didn't have the evidence to prove. Now we have evidence, we have atleast one source claiming the acts did occur, yet we still dont have a section dedicated to it?
 * I have a feeling some people forgot that this is an encyclopedia, and if one side gets the attention, so must other.Mrwho00tm (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at what the police are doing yourself and then declaring that the force used is excessive is original research. We must wait for reliable third party media to start labeling it as such. I might even agree that some of the police interaction has been excessive, but this is irrelevant. We must strive to be neutral and have no opinion in the article; I deleted no information with my edit and only removed a section title that displayed a clear POV. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously people writing on the Occupywallst site can't be doing "original research". Still, it's important to remember that the web site is just one primary source - there is some risk of getting bogged down in blow-by-blow tactical information with day-by-day importance to protesters while missing the overall point and impact of the protest.  I don't think Wikipedia should shy away from detail, but it's easier to defend it from those who do when the rest of the topic is also well covered. Wnt (talk) 06:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Union Support for Occupy Wall Street
According to various sources including Crain's New York Business, Business Insider and Huffington Post  there has been a vote in support of Occupy Wall Street by the board of the largest local (Local 100 in NYC) of the Transport Workers Union of America, as well as support from other union and liberal organizations. I tend to be on the cautious side with refs, and have yet to see mention of this in what has been called the mainstream media, but if we are calling any or all of these three posted sources 'reliable' then this is info that belongs in the article, in my view. Jus da  fax   02:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed that these are reliable sources and belongs in the article. Your information has been transferred to Timeline of Occupy Wall Street so that this main article's general subject does not lose its focus and become too large, or unwieldy and unmanageable. Thanks. Christian Roess (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is a timeline article really necessary? The current main article is nowhere close to large enough to require size restriction splits. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that, Scalper. I think the separate timeline does the article a major disservice, as many casual readers will not click to go to that link. This has the effect of "burying" information that would otherwise be readily available.  Jus  da  fax   04:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that it is a good thing to get a timeline article going since I believe that over time this article will grow considerably. But I agree that it should not take the place of any new developments because linked articles don't get much traffic.  I certainly do plan to include the new union developments in this article as they develop.  I think that the editor did a good job with the timeline and I have already been glad to have if for reference. Gandydancer (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to have it but I think it belongs in the article. Otherwise important information like the union support gets buried away from the article, as I say. I disagree with the lengthy section below supporting two articles... I say we replace the current merger proposal about the NYPD officer, which has gained no traction, with a proposal to merge the two articles- this and the sepatate timeline, which makes much more sense to me. Let's see where consensus is on merging the timeline to here. Jus  da  fax   05:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Please use the Timeline of Occupy Wall Street before making daily updates to this page
My suggestion is to consider using Timeline of Occupy Wall Street before adding daily updates and continuous coverage to this article's subject which is about this movement that calls itself Occupy Wall Street. Let's help keep the focus here. Otherwise this article is going to get away from us. This is a "current event". It is a fluid situation. It is constantly shifting and changing. My suggestion is when in doubt, record the item at Timeline of Occupy Wall Street, using its talk page if need be, and document the items with reliable sources and NPOV.

Consider that the various events associated with the Arab Spring have timelines (see: Category:Timelines of the Arab Spring). Or consider this: Timeline of the 2011 Israeli social justice protests. We don't know what's going to happen with this event which has been named "Occupy Wall Street". We don't know what's going to happen with the other planned "#occupy" events in other cities. Will it grow and expand? Will it just fizzle out?

Also consider that what today seems unimportant to this event, and doesn't belong in the main article here, could become important in the future. What are the dynamics at play in this event? A "small" happening today could have unforseen consequences for the future. Later on down the road various editors agree that something which at first was considered of relative unimportance is now seen as important and does belong in the main article here. We have the item already on the timeline and can move it over to here again.

I think we are fortunate to be setting the tone for the initial wikipedia main article page about this "new movement". Maybe not. But if it does become a major happening, this article can set the precedent for future articles and coverage of this topic on Wikipedia. We are leading the way. Please use the timeline! If this becomes a major happening, we will have an invaluable resource to help us understand how we got from there to here. Christian Roess (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"What is our one demand?"
If there is only one demand can it be that this article be more concise? The information is very indirect and runs on. This article is in serious need of some clean-up. This article is a very disjointed collection of statements and ramblings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.26.209 (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There isn't one demand, part of it seems to be deciding on what kind of demands they have. 70.140.26.124 (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"Spanish Revolution"
I would like to see some mention to the spanish revolution. I believe the 15M movement in spain has been one of the best examples for this kind of social movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indignados  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.78.208 (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"Russia Today"
Russia Today is considered by virtually all credible media monitors to be an unreliable source. If the decision to include RT's account of the events on the bridge is based on the fact that they are a part of an influential corporation, then it is a bit ironic.

Also, is there a chance that RT weaseled that reference into the wiki in order to advertise their brand? They do pride themselves on being controversial, and they use that word a lot in their marketing.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.17.89.55 (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Already got rid of what I think you are talking about, noticed it before reading your comment.AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.17.89.55 (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"Specific demands are in the process of being developed."
Well, that about says it all. There is nothing specific in this article. It's hard to read and is a mishmash of the "movement," whatever it is. Someone coming here for some information on all of the hubbub goes away with nothing. They have no organized agenda. Just show up and chant, "greed," and run with the ball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.62.236.179 (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

*PEACEFUL* Protests using FARM EQUIPMENT ?
{{Collapse|title=Sections not about Occupy wall street -> hidden.|1= I thought you might find this cross-cultural protest info of value or interest for discussion.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/french-farmers-protest-at-channel-tunnel-738263.html

http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/french-farmers-protest-over-price-fall-3080474

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFdpx6gxtLk

CLEARLY, one would have to consult a lawyer here to see IF it is LEGAL to use Farm equiptment (or similar urban counterparts) as part of a *PEACEFUL* protest. (If it is NOT legal then CLEARLY you should NOT do it, but IF IT *IS* LEGAL, it might be worth looking into or at least discussing to compare cross cultural protest approaches?)

(I might add that I think Hoffa used trucks in Washington DC as part of a union protest many years ago, but again the key is that is must be PEACEFUL and you should also speak with your lawyers to make sure that it is LEGAL to do so...)

Here is a link to an article about a recent French protest using TRUCKS :

http://www.euronews.net/2008/06/05/french-truckers-block-roads-in-more-fuel-price-protests/

Youtube video of Farm Equipment in French Protest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFdpx6gxtLk

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND PEACEFUL PROTESTS ? Any Info ?
Has anyone found any good sources on the use of CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT in PEACEFUL PROTESTS ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.116.128.56 (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC) }}

POV Article
This article seems to be exactly the type of piece that the demonstrators would write in their media narrative drive. It is not objective. Some more fact based narrative would go a long ways towards making this seem encylopedic rather than propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.145.224.34 (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What specific suggestions do you have, and what reliable sources are they based upon? --John (talk) 06:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there might be some editing going on here that may fall under WP:COI; still, WP:SOFIXIT is always good advice. Wnt (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes......and your specific suggestions? Gandydancer (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "hacker group Anonymous", half of the Media subsection, the entire Personalities subsection all appear to be written with a slanted POV. Not just what is quoted, but how it is quoted.  Occupy_Wall_Street states multiple statements, but there is only one claim that is taken out of context given that it was describing the police as fearing the crowd and retreating, which is much unlikely. Ipuvaepe (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"peaceful demonstration"
Using the term "peaceful demonstration" in the lead is POV, even if true (which could be debated). I propose changing it to "demonstration", which is what it links to, or "protest".--Metallurgist (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point - I will change the wording. Gandydancer (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Is "peaceful" really in contention? I have not yet read any reports claiming it is a violent demonstration. The word "peaceful" has a specific, objectively observable meaning, and is not POV unless there is some disagreement. 66.87.0.78 (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless there have been documented acts of violence by the protesters I can't imagine why "peaceful" would be contentious here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.228.28 (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I hardly consider an attempt to attack wall street and block it off via force peaceful. In fact this is worse than 9/11 at least then it was foreigners — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.169.226 (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "foreigners"!? Are you arguing for a neutral point of view here? "peaceful" is potentially a matter of objective fact. While there are always matters of degree between peaceful and violent, the only violence I have heard of is from the NYPD.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow...did he really just compare this to 9/11? Right to assembly, regardless of whether we agree with the cause, is a fundamental Constitutional guarantee. You're going to compare Americans exercising that right, in admittedly sometimes silly ways, to the MASS MURDER of American citizens by a direct act of violence? That's a pretty huge POV you're pushing there. Show some reputable sources that indicate that Wall Street was "attacked" or shut off "by force", or, you know, shush now, and let the adults talk. As per the rest of the comments, peaceful is a term that can have more than one connotation...I think it's a bit generic of a term if what we really mean is "without violence on behalf of the protestors." Peaceful is arguably broader than that. I think a more precise way of saying it, like making mention of nonviolent demonstration, etc, would be better. 204.65.34.80 (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Anthony Bologna be merged into Occupy Wall Street. Bologna only gained media attention after the Occupy Wall Street incident, and while he has been involved in alleged civil rights violations in the past, none of these garnered any media attention until the macing incident. There's really no need for a separate article, since all of the media articles I've seen are in some way connected to the incident discussed on this page. Originally I had asked for a redirect, but more information has been added to Bologna's page than is here, so if we are to redirect his page to this one, some of the information on his page will first have to be merged here. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above proposal to merge the Anthony Bologna page into the Occupy Wall Street article. Christian Roess (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree.

The Anthony Bologna article has a lot of detailed information that would be off topic for this entry about the Occupy Wall Street Protests. In fact, many of the sources cited in the Anthony Bologna article do not refer to the Occupy Wall Street incident at all--specifically the following: Furthermore, many of those sources that do refer to that incident also refer to unrelated incidents, such as the alleged civil rights violations committed by Anthony Bologna during the 2004 Republican National Convention protests--specifically: The suggestion that the articles be merged seems, on its face, designed to shield officer Bologna from public scrutiny, rather than being based on objective criteria. PromiseOfNY (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Shapiro, Julie (May 4, 2010). "Commanding Officer Leaves First Precinct After Five Years of Service"
 * Aries de la Cruz (2001-05). "POLICE BLAMED FOR INCITING MAYDAY RIOT IN NYC. AGAIN."
 * Amateau, Albert (June 24, 2005). "New captain busted pushers, gangsters and cops". Downtown Express.
 * "Hackers grab Goldman CEO's personal data". CBS News. September 27, 2011.
 * Read, Max (September 26, 2011). "Pepper Spray Cop Already Had Civil-Rights Complaint". Gawker.com
 * And an additional Huffington Post citation that was deleted by the same editor who suggested merging the articles (who also deleted numerous other sources from the article).


 * That is a very baseless accusation you make charging another editor with trying to promote some sort of shadowy censorship in favor of the subject of an article. I remind you to assume good faith. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And in no way do I think his page should be deleted. If people type his name into Wikipedia, it will still redirect here (as it should). Inks.LWC (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

*Support merge. Bologna is only famous because of the alleged pepper spray incident. It makes sense to redirect that article here. --John (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge. I didn't dig around very long and was finding articles about Bologna from long before any controversy.  He occupied a high-level position, controlling police in Lower Manhattan, a vast number of people, and (rightly or wrongly) was credited with lowering the crime rate in the precinct during his tenure there.  This is all pretty important stuff to cover on its own.  Then we have this controversy, which extends over multiple events.  It doesn't matter that some media didn't publish about it until this time; the point is, the sources are out there and they're about more than one event. Wnt (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose merging of the two articles. They are on two different topics. As long as they link to each other, merging the two articles is quite unneeded and does a disservice to readers.  Jus  da  fax   01:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge per Wnt and Jusdafax. --John (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support only because the merge source lacks notability for an article on its own and that trumps other considerations in this case. I.e. merge or delete. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose merging of the two articles. The details of Bologna's biography and of his participation in other controversial and noncontroversial incidents have no relevance to the Occupy Wall Street article. PromiseOfNY (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose merging of the articles. The actions of a police officier are connected to the protests, however it does not belong to the protests' main article, as it goes "offtopic".Mrwho00tm (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support or Delete he's a police officer that became slightly notable because of his actions during the a occupy wall street protest. He should only be mentioned, at best, in the occupy wall street article.  If he did something notable outside of pepper spraying some people, than he should have his own article.  Can we get a better and less biased picture of him?Racingstripes (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose merging the two article. The idea is just insane, I can't believe it's even being entertained. Nick carson (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. The article is devoted primarily to disparaging Bologna. If it is not merged I am going to seriously consider nominating for deletion on the grounds that it is an attack page. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Were this officer just notable for his actions at the ongoing Occupy Wall Street event, I would wholeheartedly agree that this page should be merged into the other one. However, this police officer is notable for actions on other occasions and, therefore, is deserving of a Wikipedia article for himself. -- Sharkface T/C 17:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If he was Bull Connor I would agree with you. But I just don't see him rising to that level of notoriety just yet. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support merging. this person is of no note other than in connection w/Occupy Wall St. all information pertaining to his record can be included in a section devoted to him. Jvol (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"New Poster"
I see no evidence that the McDonald's poster is from AdBusters; it appears to be a slam on the protesters and should not be put back up. It's also a low quality image. -- David  Shankbone  21:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the poster which is supposedly the work of the editor. The threatening message was highly improper as well.  We will need a ref to show that this poster is being used to represent the protest before it is again suggested for this article. Gandydancer (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Indiscriminate changes: Occupy Wall Street is in San Francisco?
There is a strong case to be made for the timeline after looking at today's edits. The Infobox now says San Francisco is the location of Occupy Wall Street and information about the occupation of banks in San Francisco is in the main article. What is Occupy Wall Street? Is it a generic term that now refers to all the subsequent Occupy movements? Ok, then let's keep San Francisco in here. But isn't that POV? Why aren't other cities listed as part of the Occupy Wall Street (in the generic sense) movement? I think consensus will need to be reached on this issue eventually. I think San Francisco does not belong in the infobox. Christian Roess (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Now this reference to San Francisco could be worked into the Timeline of Occupy Wall Street (in fact another editor has already added it today!). For example, just a one sentence NPOV line in the timeline like: "Protesters in San Francisco claim to be inspired by the Occupy Wall Street Movement". Then add a citation to back up this statement. If Occupy San Francisco becomes a sustained movement like Occupy Wall Street, then start a new Wikipedia article. Christian Roess (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Now the poster in the infobox is changed. I put the original OWS poster back in. I suggest that this article which documents a current event is also a "historical" record. The new poster with "join U.S." looks like an advertisement to spread the movement across the U.S.. It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to update this site to correspond with the Occupy Wall Street's every change. We are not a mouthpiece for the movement. This page is documenting this situation that is ongoing, centered around a core group of 200-300 supporters camped out in Liberty Plaza. The infobox lists 2,000-3,000 in the infobox. Once again that changes. The group's supporters do swell to those numbers on certain days. But news reports from different sources indicate that the core group occupying Liberty Park/Plaza on a consistent basis (eating there, sleeping, cooking) is NOT more than 200-300 Christian Roess (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous' threat to the NYPD
I found this article where Anonymous directly threatens the nypd, surely this is relevant. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/27/anonymous-threatens-nypd-_n_983941.html --132.198.160.246 (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree and I added that information. Gandydancer (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism Watch
Can we put some sort of advisory notice on this article alerting readers to be on the lookout for deliberate vandalism? Incidents of vandalism have been popping up. Also one of those headers that states that this is a current event (I forget the tag for it but you more astute wikipedians will know what I’m talking about). PGRandom (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If there's a lot of vandalism it can be semiprotected. But looking at the history I'm not seeing that much vandalism. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Added the current event header. --Fayerman (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Flag is officially supporting the protests now.
You can read their blog entry here. http://www.anti-flag.com/?p=146

o.o Off topic but my captcha was chestranch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kranchan (talk • contribs) 12:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

October 1st sources
NYTimes coverage of Brooklyn Bridge arrests. I noticed that the "arrests" number is up in the infobox, but the recent arrests and Brooklyn Bridge incident isn't yet in the article body. This notes that a NY Times reporter was actually arrested at this time. Thought the source may be useful. LoriLee (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Total arrested?
Just wonder, because I just read this claiming that the past day alone has had 700, citing NYPD, and I don't want to change the 500 figure without mentioning it here. 68.227.169.59 (talk) 04:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All major outlets updated their count to 700 at Brooklyn Bridge. --Fayerman (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

BIASED ARTICLE???
CAN WE PLEASE GET SOMEONE WHO ISN'T BIASED TO FIX THIS ARTICLE!!!ALSO PLEASE CITE EVERY FACT PUT IN HERE ESPECIALLY THE NUMBERS!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.165.191.73 (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You. --Fayerman (talk) 04:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * could I have a better response than just the one word "you"???!!! I'm not sure what that exactly means!?!141.165.191.73 (talk) 05:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he means be bold and fix it yourself. Or, for another way to say it:
 * Information.svg Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).
 * &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Commentary on the Demographics of the crowd?
Would it be appropriate to do a section on the demographics of the crowd such as there race, wealth status, political ideology. I think that this article needs it in order to more fully develop it. 141.165.191.73 (talk) 05:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

(New to editing so bear with me please :) ) I've been down there most days spending a few hours taking video of the people at the event so I'm fairly familiar with some of what goes on down there at Liberty Park Plaza.

The demographics consist of the following (my estimation) crowd numbers started at under 1,000 the first day then dropped to approximately 100 to 150 the first week. On Rainy days the numbers are knocked down to about 1/2 of that, with only 1/4 the total at night. The following Saturday (Oct 24th) numbers jumped to several hundred. Following the pepper spray incident numbers increased to a few hundred. As celebrities and major media began to show up on Monday & Tuesday the numbers increased to about 300 -400. (I'm not privy to details on the weekend of Oct 1st - I was not there but a reasonably reliable on-site source is putting the numbers at 2,500-3,000).

Those sleeping at the park consist of a mix of area NY'rs and out-of-towners. The age range of this group varies but it strikes me as an under 30-40 crowd. During the day people from the tri-state Area and the Outer Boroughs stop by making up the majority of the rest of the numbers. This group varies greatly in age, background and education level (to much for me to really give any clear numbers).

Race? To difficult to say but ethnicity seems fairly representative of what you get in the five boroughs(Caucasian, Puerto Rican/ Hispanic, African American, Semitic, etc). Wealth Status? That's too difficult a question to answer and I couldn't begin to guess but again - fairly representative of the five Boroughs. Ideology? That has varied. The actions of the first few week (such as the Friday sympathy demonstrations for Troy Davis & Sotheby's Union workers) left them with what struck me as a rather liberal crowd. But since the pepper-spraying incident the political landscape is much more varied.

What ideology are they espousing? Everyone has their own ideologies down there but they've adopted an Anarchist form of "Consensus Government" that strikes me as coming from some sort of "Volunteerism Philosophy". Use the word; "In-charge" and you'll get a 5 minute lecture on the evils of authoritarian mind-sets.

I'm not sure if this helps at all. If you can tell me what you specifically want maybe I can do better? TheTruePooka (Pooka666) (Pooka666 (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC))


 * So there weren't 10,000 people there as the information in the article says. Somebody changed it back from what I had done and didn't even cite any appropriate sources i'll change it from 0-1000 using what you told me but i'll try and find some appropriate sources for it. AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * so i wouldn't be going to far as to say these people consist of 20 to upper 30 somethings, who hold far-left wing views, pretty much nobody but communist, anarchist and socialist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk • contribs) 08:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Without a reputable source(s), "going too far" is exactly what you're doing. Please refrain from generalizations that might be construed as POV pushing.204.65.34.80 (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

False information, unreliable primary sources.
A quick example, in the lead it has three citations for the claim that there are events in 52 cities...but a closer look clearly shows that none of those sources can be considered reliable, all being heavily biased in favour of the protests. Perhaps that they are making the (incorrect) claim should be in the article, but to have it in the lead without mention that it's wrong is severely undue weight. Also, don't respond with 'you', not every IP who comes here is going to know how to edit wikipedia and the article is semi-protected. 92.16.104.63 (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted 'You' (04:52, 2 October 2011) in response to another poster before the article was semi-protected (07:08, 2 October 2011). Editing an article is almost as easy as writing here. But I agree with you that any unreliable and unsourced facts should be removed. --Fayerman (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Article restructuration need
I moved together similar contents, 4 sections now make 2 new super-sections. Please, a native English speaker is welcome to make these two section more balanced in size. The chronology section goes too much in details about incidents and arrests, which can be moved to the chronology & peeper spray articles. The Demand and goals section sound like a poorly written draft with content duplication. Yug (talk)  14:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) #Chronology — now hosting both key dates and the major incidents,
 * 2) #Demands and Goals — now hosting all the demands and political view of the protesters.


 * I believe that you are being a little too critical of the article. If you have not worked on an article such as this it is hard to understand how difficult it can be.  Keep in mind that as editors we have diverse backgrounds and viewpoints, and must negotiate what is/is not included.  On the other hand, most of us desire a good article that fairly expresses all points of view, and that is what inspires us to go forward.  From Day 1 we had no idea where this protest was going - and we still don't, so we add, subtract, and reorganize as we go along.  I'd say that all-in-all we're doing a very good job! Gandydancer (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree ;) I've been active and structuring about 5 to 10 similar socio-political articles since 2005: French riots, Tibetan riots, Greek riots, Tunisian revolution, Egyptian revolution, Libyan revolution, Occupy Wall street. Editing and being bold to avoid content duplication, clarify the socio-economic background, goals, and increase the quality. I stated directions I pushed, and where we should continue to push forward. I made about 20 edits, moves, merges, copyedits, but I'm simply not a native speaker. My ability to merge/rewrite sections involve... a poor grammar. But yes, we are moving toward a better article. Cheer ! Yug (talk)  19:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can someone merge the remaining chronology list to Timeline of Occupy Wall Street? Perhaps a short paragraph written in prose would suffice in the Chronology of events section. Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. (See WP:EMBED). --Fayerman (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Vague statement from NYPD spokesperson about ongoing legal cases
"Spokesman for the New York Police Department, Paul Browne, vouched that protesters were given "multiple warnings" not to block pedestrian walkways on the bridge, and were arrested when they refused." It's unclear from this statement which protesters (among the 700+ arrested) were warned or what some protestors (among the 700+ arrested) did to "refuse". There's also no citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.228.28 (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Open Source Posters Available
Should we include a couple of these open source images? I vote yes. http://www.occupytogether.org/downloadable-posters/    KSRolph (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I love the idea, but there isn't any clear licensing set out on that page. I think that you'd have to follow the usual process of getting the artist's permission to release under an appropriate license in order for it to be considered "open source" in a way that is useful here.  I expect that most, if not all, of the artists would be willing.--~TPW 18:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Adbsuters description
In the main title it's stated that "It was initially called for by Adbusters, an anti-capitalist group based in Canada"

On adbusters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters page it states

Adbusters Media Foundation is a not-for-profit, anti-consumerist organization

Also further down on the OccupyWallStreet page it states

a Canadian-based group, the Adbusters Media Foundation, best known for its advertisement-free anti-consumerist magazine called Adbusters

Can someone please correct it, I believe it should be anti-consumerist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DdraigX (talk • contribs) 19:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Fixed - thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Emchristiansen, 2 October 2011
If the page mentions Lupe Fiasco's poem "Moneyman", it should link to the poem, not to the Wikipedia page on poetry as it currently does. This is a link to the poem on Lupe Fiasco's official site:

http://www.lupefiasco.com/news/ad146c-to-the-sep17-occupiers-moneyman/

Emchristiansen (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose; per the policy on external links we do not link to outside sites in the text of an article. The citation is fine.--~TPW 21:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * ❌ There is no article about the poem and at this point it's not likely there will be one. There's already a mention of Fiasco's support for the protest. Steven Walling • talk   21:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request - Protesters with Troy Davis Placards
Request to add this text: "Some demonstrators were seen wearing "I am Troy Davis" placards on images in the news media. Troy Davis was executed in September 2011 after a lengthy battle for clemency."

I would place this in the first segment that describes reasons for OWS to act. Will contain Washington Post ref with link to image, and link to Troy Davis. KSRolph (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You should be able to edit the article regardless of the semi-protection, and that edit sounds just fine. Let me know if you can't... Steven Walling &bull; talk   21:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Archive bot
With the activity on this page, I propose setting up archiving via a bot. Please weigh in, and (if you support) offer suggestions about how old threads ought to be prior to archiving.--~TPW 20:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sounds good. Steven Walling &bull; talk   21:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I added the code but commented it out; once there's consensus it's ready to go. I opted for archiving threads seven days after the last entry, which of course can be changed.--~TPW 21:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Cost
Does anyone know a way of determining how much money these protests have cost each municipality. Either police officers are from the local precinct and they're making overtime, or the police officers from other areas in the city. I have to assume the cost has to be pretty high.Racingstripes (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't really see the point. You want to balance this price with how much money these bankers have cost each municipality ? Yug  (talk)  21:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I think the request was to document what the cost of the protest is. That is probably verifiable and neutral.--~TPW 22:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To assign the cost of additional police manpower to the protest assumes that the additional manpower is justified and necessary, and that assumption (absent convincing supporting evidence) is hardly neutral. Cities overreact when they perceive (or think they perceive) a threat; in particular law enforcement overreacts.  Also putting additional manpower on the street gives the impression to TV viewers that the situation is more dangerous than it in fact is, an impression that those in power may have a vested interest in creating.  Politicians who want to appear "tough on crime" may put more police on the street for the voters to see on TV.  To blindly assume that the police presence is necessary and justified and assign the cost of it to the protests is far from neutral. - Elmarco 02:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless, it is not up for us to decide whether it is warranted or not. Nor is it up to us to make implications that the cost of the response is relevant. Without sources to indicate any of this, this is just conjecture. Municipalities provide police presence for pretty much any large gathering, not because they expect violence, but to guard against the potential. This is the same for planned/permitted events as it is for unplanned demonstrations. Before we start adding information about cost, we need to be careful about finding sources that indicate it is relevant, indicate that it is notable and been an issue. Calling it out specifically without any backing is as much POV pushing as downplaying it as overreaction is.204.65.34.80 (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

resource NYT October 2nd.
‘White Shirts’ of Police Dept. Take on Enforcer Role by Al Baker and Joseph Goldstein, published October 2, 2011 in The New York Times. 99.190.85.170 (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Canadian cities are doing occupations
Hey there the movement is spreading to a few Canadian cities as well, http://ca.news.yahoo.com/activists-occupy-torontos-financial-district-wall-street-protests-195435326.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.83.35 (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The following link was circulating at Delicious (website) during mid September: "Yahoo Appears To Be Censoring Email Messages About Wall Street Protests" By Lee Fang on Sep 20, 2011 at 1:50 pm http://thinkprogress.org/media/2011/09/20/323856/yahoo-censoring-occupy-wall-street-protests Ottawahitech (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Motive & Goals of protesters
Shouldn't the main goal be listed as ending corruption? That's the main focus with the protests and it isn't even listed in the goals of protesters (section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.4.168 (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There are many different goals of the protesters. I have not been personally, but I have friends and relatives who have been. "Ending corruption" is a vague term and probably would not be synonymous with all the protesters. S51438 (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Their goals seem to be solidifying somewhat; Occupy Wall Street has released a Declaration of Occupation and a working list of goals. - Elmarco 02:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Extremely unorganized
For some reason when I read this article I feel extremely scatter-brained. There seems to be useless information everywhere and it is not organized correctly. I helped write the 2011 Wisconsin protests article and it went much more smoothly than this one. I will continue to make small edits everywhere but would need general consensus before making major changes. S51438 (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You certainly did not ask for consensus before adding the Alex Jones "editorial" or the non-related section discussing union/corporate political donations. Gandydancer (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This edit is a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well this protest has only been going on for roughly two weeks now. It's a very fluid and ongoing situation and it will take time for the facts to settle in order to write a more mature article. My main concern is to make sure that this article doesn't get hijacked by people with agenda and that it represents the truthfulness of the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk • contribs) 04:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The truth of the situation is that people wearing OBAMA 2012 shirts have been reported at the protests. But we wouldn't DARE mention that would we?! S51438 (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you have a reliable source for it then feel free to put it in. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 05:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But yeah, I agree that this article is unorganized and poorly written. There is so much unsupported stuff put in here!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk • contribs) 07:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Then why not add "citation needed" notes and remove it after a reasonable amount of time if a ref is not provided? Gandydancer (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"Noted" hypocrisy?
Noted by whom? And what makes it important enough to mention? - Elmarco 03:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I just added the following to the article:


 * Mk2z0h (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Paul Joseph Watson points are a serie of unsourced false associations : "1. Obama was free and happy to support these banks ; 2. OWS protesters all support Obama ; 3. OWS protesters close their eyes upon the influence of corporate on the President Obama." These points are clear POV and abusive association. This source is a complete non-sense NOT worth citation in wikipedia. A core and cristal clear demand of Occupy wall street is actually the opposite, the OWS movement is opposed to the strong influence of the financial sector which tied up all the US president, his allies and his opponents (senators, etc.). Thus, this source is a low level attack with an huge biases : associate to the OWS movement the opposite of their demands, and deserves removal from the article. Yug  (talk)  10:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Impact of #occupywallstreet
Currently there is no information about the impact of the movemtn, i've read that it has started similar movements in boston, denver, chicago etc, there is now a website http://www.occupytogether.org/ "an unofficial hub for all of the events springing up across the country in solidarity with Occupy Wall St." which should definitly be included--120.151.136.251 (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Inserting that kind of information would violate multiple policies of Wikipedia (e.g. WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY, WP:NPV, etc.) --Fayerman (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem tags: explanation needed
The following tags have been added to this page:
 * It may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
 * Its neutrality is disputed.
 * It needs to be updated.

Can someone please explain the rationale behind placing these tags and say, specifically, WHAT needs to be cleaned up, what parts are not NPOV and what needs to be updated? Without a talkpage discussion, these templates are not only worthless, they also make the article look ugly. If someone can't provide an explanation (which is required under the guidelines) for each of the three templates, I will delete the unsupported ones. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd tend to agree with the Neutrality tag. The whole article seems to read like a press release loaded with implied praise for the protestors, repetition of POV-pushing claims from unreliable sources, etc.  I'd say removing the tag for lack of explicit explanation is putting the cart before the horse. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's required to explain what the problems are and engage in talk page discussion when placing that template. The point of it is to discuss and resolve the issues through consensus. Otherwise, the template just becomes a weapon for people to drop any old place when they don't like something. Can you give me one or two examples of sentences you feel are POV and/or present the group in a promotional or unbalanced manner? Which provided sources are unreliable? We need to start the discussion in order to finish it and resolve the issues. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I left the NPOV tag in for now since you seem to be finding and deleting some puffery, but I removed the "needs to be updated" tag. Everything on Wikipedia needs to be updated, really, so that template doesn't really help anything. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Examples? I'll start with a single example, which IMO ought to be enough.  Take a look at the entire "Brooklyn Bridge mass arrest section" contained in this previous version that stood before I began editing: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupy_Wall_Street&oldid=453682209. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No, one example is not enough. I agree with Burpelson in that tags are sometimes slapped on to suggest that an article has numerous problems to suggest that the article is not trustworthy. Gandydancer (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are numerous problems, and that is why the tag needs to stay. Hell, the "single" example I provided showed several problems all at once.  Take a look through the edits I have made if you want several more examples. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm removing the NPOV tag. I currently see no reason for it and no one has provided substantial evidence, with specific examples, of why it's needed.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of the civil conflict template
It doesn't seem appropriate to use Template:Infobox civil conflict here, for what is still a demonstration (to my ear, a "civil conflict" implies the government is using more than just its power to arrest people). It also diminishes the motives of the protesters to say that they are in opposition to the NYPD, who would officially have no stand on the political views, instead of industry and the federal government. Cmprince (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Was just thinking this. Isn't this tag usually used for civil wars? As for the opposition to NYPD, it's my understanding that some protestors have complained about allegedly brutal tactics by police.  Is that what you're referring to ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factchecker atyourservice (talk • contribs)  13:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Factchecker, just to confirm, did you strike out your first sentence yourself (being ironic, perhaps) or did someone else come along and do that? - Elmarco 00:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I struck it out myself in an act of contrition. No irony was intended, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This event is a protest, with demonstrations. This protest is civil; it's a non-military series of events. The government does not have to arrest anyone for a protest to qualify to be a civil conflict. If you don't think the NYPD is a party to Occupy Wall Street, then you should probably dispute the placement of the NYPD entry within the infobox. --Fayerman (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose while this fits the definition of "conflict", I'm used to seeing "civil conflict" (especially in Wikipedia) associated with more aggressive, sustained crackdowns and violence on one or both sides (either the use of riot police or the military), such as in Bahrain, Yemen, or the London riots. If the box has been used in other, similar non-violent protests, I would not object, but I have not found such a counterexample. Cmprince (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming, for the purpose of this argument, that the term civil conflict is used only for violent protests -- the words "civil conflict" in this infobox are used only within the infobox metadata that is visible only to the editors of the article. Template:Infobox civil conflict is used in this article because the fields of that infobox are highly suitable for populating with relevant data. Out of curiosity, if you had to create an infobox for Occupy Wall Street from scratch, how would you name it? And if you had to create one, what else would be different? --Fayerman (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair point about the name of the template: that's not really pertinent. The template identifies the parties of a (typically) violent clash, and is regularly used that way. While the template might be used here to convey other information, when I see the box used here, I associate it with other articles that have used it. At this point, I don't see this event being similar enough to other recent conflicts whose articles used the civil conflict box. (I'll admit to not yet knowing what should constitute "similar enough".) I write all this out to point out that how we use templates may introduce an editorial bias, even without invoking the template's name in the article, simply by association. Cmprince (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I have never liked that we use this template for protest pages as it seems to represent certain facts. Perhaps it is time for a new protest infobox? かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The choice of template can inadvertently label a situation as being something it's not. - Elmarco 00:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)