Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 2

Personalities
this section is a mess; the paragraphs are not structured in a way that makes them coherent, and it comes across as a laundry list of random statements made by celebrities and newspeople. Taking a list of quotes and putting them in paragraph form doesn't make magically create a paragraph:) Mrathel (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not restructure it? Everyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I would prefer to let someone already engaged in the article do it, as they will know how to organize it better than I do. But the paragraphs need introductory sentences and the quotes need to be grouped and ordered in a meaningful way. Mrathel (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is understandable that sections such as this do tend to get disorganized as new information is added, however I'd sure agree that it is presently quite muddled and needs improvement. Unfortunately, it was somewhat better until recently when somebody "improved" it. Gandydancer (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Centralized Discussion: The neutrality of this article is disputed
Please report non-neutrality issues and perhaps we may get rid of any problems with the article.Gandydancer (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See discussion above Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are complaints scattered throughout, but perhaps we may place them here so they may be addressed properly. Gandydancer (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reprinted from above, for starters: 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. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As an experienced editor I am sure that you are aware that specific points must be made if they are to be corredted. Gandydancer (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed that some editors are tacking on labels to the protesters and/or Adbusters such as "anti-capitalist", "anti-consumerist", "environmentalist" and so on, which are definitely viewed in a negative light by some. They are obvious attempts to diminish and prevent conservative support. yonnie (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Adbusters itself explicitly SAYS it is for the purpose of anti-consumerism. Furthermore, it is not us, but other reliable sources like The Guardian that call them anti-capitalist. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Guardian is referring to the demonstrators, not the Adbuster's group. :yonnie, I'd suggest that you look at the ref to see if the label was used - for instance in the case of Adbusters, the label anti-consumerist is used and it is used on their article page as well.  As a matter of fact I have twice changed "anti-captalist" to the correct "anti-consumerist". Gandydancer (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My only concern is the breathless enthusiasm by some editors "reporting from the field" on the talk page here. I would only reiterate to editors reading this that Wikipedia is not a place to earn your pulitzer prize and that if you are trying to start a social movement by editing wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest issue and might want to review the WP:NPOV policy. As for content, I do see lots of promise as long as this article doesn't become too "pro" or "anti" with repsect to the rectitude of the protest. One example I would point out is that the article lists a "Celebrity support" section where several famous people have made stands 'for' it... has there been any public condemnation at all? That would be one way to pursue balance. Peace, MPS (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you tried to add any alternate POV info? Gandydancer (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Pull the NPOV tag for now
I suggest we pull the tag. With the possible exception of the 'Goals' section which has in any case been heavily CN-tagged, the article appears balanced and very well sourced. It may also be worth noting that the page was tagged by what appears to be a Single Purpose Account with very few edits who has a surprisingly extensive knowledge of Wikipedia policy. Jus da  fax   19:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Background info
May be useful to expand the background section:
 * A WashPost interview with David Graeber covering some of the origins of the campaign.
 * The list of tactical briefings on the adbusters campaign site.

– SJ + 17:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Participants section
The infobox list of participants is growing unwieldy. I accept some responsibility for this, as I started to expand it, but it is quickly dawning on me that since this is an ongoing affair, the list will grow as the conflict continues. Further, there doesn't seem to be a clear opposition. Certainly opposition exists, but shall we list it as "The Man" or "The Status-Quo"? Obviously not. A new section needs to be created to list the participants. The current section on the political views of the protesters, and celebrity supporters, should be merged together. The celebrity supporters, while certainly an element of the media reaction, are more accurately typified as participants in the loose sense that they are donating and collaborating in a way that is no different from other protesters who are just there for a short time, but are still counted as participants. I'll be creating this section now; this entry is simply an explanation for those who want justification for my changes.--Cast (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Why were comments Roseanne Barr made removed?
Roseanne Barr recently appeared on RT at the scene of the protests and suggested that anyone who makes over $100 million a year should be sent to "education camps" and that anyone who refuses should be beheaded. Why was this information deleted? I have an ever growing feeling that several of the editors on this page have an agenda they are pushing and any opposition to the protests is immediately deemed insignificant or in violation of some rule. This behavior is not appreciated. There is tons of criticism, shaming, and downright condemnation of the protests from Michael Bloomberg, Alex Jones, and countless other people, including Fox News pundits (Not surprising). Why is any criticism of the protests promptly removed? I even tried to create a "criticism" section with information already stated in the article and it was subsequently removed. I have been called in violation of NPOV several times already (mostly focusing on an article about Alex Jones criticizing the protests), but I have noticed that several articles that are in unanimous support of the protesters have NOT been deemed in violation of NPOV. Why is this? The truth of the matter is this article is being run by a few rogue Wikipedians who want to silence differing opinions. S51438 (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool story, bro. Meanwhile, "criticism" sections are inherently POV and shouldn't be permitted in all but a few cases in which the criticism was itself noteworthy. Other wise, balanced sections for response are preferred. However, some sources are also themselves inherently unverifiable, and so cannot be used as a report upon events, but instead must be used as a report on the way segments of the population of responded to a situation. So lets take Alex Jones for example here. This is a man with a very particular point of view, and not known for his neutrality. I'm sure he would agree with me that he isn't neutral. He has his point of view and he sticks with it. We can't cite reports by him on what is happening on the ground, but we can cite his opinion when it becomes useful for reader understanding. As for Rosanne? Well, as soon as we have a comedy section for sarcastic remarks, I'm sure we can put her call for a French Terror there. Until then, those remarks are not noteworthy. --Cast (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say that her comments about beheadings really have much to do with these protests; reliable sources that have covered her ridiculous idea have focused on her and not mentioned the Occupy Wall Street backdrop. However, things like Bloomberg's criticisms of the protests are definitely relevant, which is why they are ALREADY included in the media reaction section. I also want to assure you that I am not personally trying to silence anyone; I am fiscally Conservative, support this group's right to protest but not to block traffic and close down bridges, and am not a supporter of the group's message. I have to agree that a criticism section is unwarranted, though those who remove it should merge the content into the article rather than wholesale deleting it. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * POV notwithstanding and to depersonalize it for a moment from Roseanne, I'm not sure that the fact that Celebrity A showed up and said Outrageous Thing B is necessarily notable or adds anything important to the reader's understanding of the OWS protests, regardless of who Celebrity A is or what they said. If we start quoting every celeb that shows up and opens their mouth that would quickly become unwieldy and (IMHO) would not add value to the article.  I think an exception might be someone like Michael Moore (and I don't necessarily even like him) who is more of an activist and social commentator and has something substantive to contribute to the dialogue (whether one agrees with his positions or not.) - Elmarco 01:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. We should only include quotes from people who have more of a connection to the event like Mayor Bloomberg or if they are being widely reported as having made statements related to the event by reliable sources, like Moore. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Together Cities
The list of cities is going to need constant updating as the movement spreads. As of 10/3 there are also demonstrations in Seattle, Philadelphia , and Minneapolis (and possibly other cities in MN?). Also, please change 'Washington' to 'Washington, D.C.' A lot of people (the West coast, mainly) will read 'Washington' as 'Washington state', so please post the full name of the city to avoid confusion. 140.160.178.105 (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If I can throw a question into the mix, what would be the pros and cons of starting a separate article for Occupy Together, so as not to burden the OWS article with a lot of non-NYC protests? Its my understanding this has spread to more than 100 cities in 34+ states, and it doesn't seem practical or logical to me to try and include all of these new protests in an article that basically pertains to the NYC demonstrations.  I'm not necessarily saying it needs to be called Occupy Together, except that's the umbrella identity the non-NYC groups seem to be aligning themselves with, which means it's the name readers will likely search for when they come to Wikipedia.  (Related thought: if the name "Occupy Together" does not currently redirect to this article, it probably should, until we have some consensus about whether to start a second article.) - Elmarco 01:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Source for File:Wall-Street-1.jpg
If somebody could find a better source for this poster, it would increase the likelihood of it not being deleted from Wikipedia. Anyway, I am disappointed that as far as I can tell, this protest has not generated a single freely licensed image... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 01:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are loads of images of the protest that are free on Flickr. Paul Stein or PaulS has a stream of them. I used one on a news article on Open Globe. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 02:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The article should clarify why celebrities in the top 1% are protesting against themselves.
The article states:

The movement is leaderless, centered upon the statement: "the one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%."

But at the same time, the article cites support from several celebrities who are in the top 1%.

As a reader of this article, I find this to be confusing. Would someone please fix the article so it makes more sense?

74.98.40.177 (talk) 03:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not the place to manufacture original commentary or research that has not already been published in reliable sources.
 * Furtheremore, there's nothing contradictory, paradoxical, or confusing about rich celebrities rallying around protests against perceived greed, inequality, and corruption in the financial sector. Hell, Warren Buffett has spoken out in favor of increasing taxes on the extremely wealthy, and I think it's safe to say he's in the top 0.0001% of wealthy people, or thereabouts.  Nothing to see here. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from ZerozxCJ, 4 October 2011
Under the section titled "Celebrity support," I was wondering if it would be possible for a registered user to edit this article and add the musician/rapper Immortal Technique to the list at the end of this section? --> (Other celebrities lending their support were Russell Simmons,[33] Anti-Flag,[34] Salman Rushdie, Michael Moore, Margaret Atwood, Noam Chomsky, and Radiohead.[35])

Here is proof of him being there (there are a couple of other videos) --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjAxncEjnQE and here is his Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal_Technique

Thank you.

ZerozxCJ (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The "proof" you put forward is objectively true, but it wouldn't be something we would want to cite, given that if the video is ever deleted, there would be no archive for us to then cite instead. Here is a link to a reference we may use, but I'm not sure if its verifiable. Seems to be a University online press, which would be fine, but may not be preferable. If a better source is not found, we can go with this instead. --Cast (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request - NPOV and disappeared information
The first segment of this article has morphed into a concise set of statements that do not do the overall phenomena justice. Earlier, the time line included important multivariate information that lets readers know how complex the issues are and that strata from throughout society are engaged. Gone is the march by airline pilots, gone are other issues; now the focus is arrests. I'd like to bring back the breadth of the movement, the arrests ended in "tickets" and are not nearly as important as the reasons the masses are expressing sociopolitical malaise. Saturday night I had to again, and again, and again replace my postings; this gets tedious. Tuesday Oct. 4th my students and I will be visiting the page and I want students who are interested to be able to engage. Our ambassador is: User:Dcoetzee - Wikipedia Regional Ambassador - California and Hawaii KSRolph (talk) 05:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome! Great to see someone coming in from the ambassador program!
 * After a quick glance through the history (FYI, you can see everything you've ever added there), I can't find the information you're referring to. It sounds interesting and potentially valuable, but I can't say why it was deleted. If you see that someone disagrees with your edits, you can make a comment here to talk it out with the opposing editor and find a solution. I'm sure Dcoetzee has mentioned the 3-revert rule but please make sure you're not getting into edit wars.
 * Since you mention changes to the timeline, I just want to make sure you've seen Timeline of Occupy Wall Street. Has your information gone there? If not, perhaps that's one place to re-add it.
 * My apologies if none of this is new information. I just want to make sure your introduction to editing is less confusing than it normally is :).
 * --Qwerty0 (talk) 06:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

JP Morgan donation to NYPD section
Hello, I've added a new section, Revelation of JPMorgan Chase donation to NYPD to the chronology. It seems this is a significant event in the timeline, as I've been hearing about it frequently since it was revealed (and increasingly so). Note, I'm not saying the donation event itself is actually significant. But I think it's become a significant minor element of the discourse and coverage of the protest.

I'm open to suggestions if people don't think it's significant enough to warrant its own subsection. Please suggest another place for it if you don't agree with its current placement, because I couldn't figure out any other place it would fit. I definitely think it's part of the chronology and it's not part of any of the other chronology sections.

--Qwerty0 (talk) 05:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite what some web articles suggested, this donation is actually 6 months old. To keep it clear. Yug (talk)  06:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is just an unsubstantiated and frankly wacky complaint from a couple of bloggers with no credentials. Inappropriate for WP.  Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Whoa, whoa there guys. I tried to make clear I'm just acknowledging this popping up in the discourse. I know they're quite mistaken about it in several ways. Maybe you don't think it's quite significant enough to warrant it's own section? Cool. I was expecting to maybe see it moved to a sentence elsewhere, not a wholesale insta-delete. But sure, maybe I jumped the gun adding it. Let's keep it out until we see if the news on it builds or dies down.
 * Uh, and I kinda have to point out, it was more than "a couple of bloggers." And one was Matthew Yglesias. No credentials?
 * --Qwerty0 (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Bologna and the 2004 incident
My problems for inclusion of this, which I believe is giving it vastly too much weight are:
 * Calling it multiple events when it was not ("...and previously faced civil rights complaints"). The Guardian article used as a source refers to one lawsuit that has been filed but not yet adjudicated. No reliable sources have been presented yet that show more. It's one complaint. That as yet, has not been judged to have any merit.
 * Implying that is was related to the 2004 Republican Convention ("...for his role during the 2004 Republican Convention"), as to link it to his behavior during another mass demonstration, OWS. The Guardian article clearly states "His arrest was not directly related to the protest against the Republican convention..."
 * Tacking on a second cite as if to add gravitas to the charges, when the second cite is just a copy of the original Guardian report. The Guardian article is the only MSM article I have read so far that references this incident. The second cite is fakery.
 * The lawsuit is not about an excessive force incident that might relate to the pepper-spraying event. The plaintiff, a certain "Post A Posr" "approached the driver of a Volkswagen festooned with anti-abortion slogans...Police contend that Posr hit the man with a rolled-up newspaper. He said he was just talking to the guy. Bologna ordered another officer, Camejo, to arrest Posr." Well, duh.
 * As much as he is hated right now, after a 29-year career in the NYPD, starting as a patrolman and serving in DWI-enforcement, Narcotics, Organized Crime, Internal Affairs and other postings the best that has been able to be dug up on him is this? If anything that makes him squeaky-clean. Why don't you write it as "the only known charges during his 29-year career was a single lawsuit from an incident in 2004"?. It should not be included in this sub-section, or anywhere in this article. It's just character assassination and piling on. LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Mmmmkay, I found this one sentence from the NYT's coverage the past 30 days: "Like a number of other officers, Inspector Bologna is a defendant in lawsuits claiming wrongful arrests at protests staged during the Republican National Convention in 2004." Even though it's just a snippet it does describe the accusations in plain English ("false arrest"). "Civil rights violations" is purposefully vague term, used, by lawyers, to obsfuscate. We should instead use the most descriptive term (like the NYT) so the reader know what the accusations actually are. Also the NYT quote (the one sentence they deemed the matter was worth in all their coverage, I read every single Bologna article) puts it in context of him and all the other officers slapped with a lawsuit following the fallout from 2004, rather than attempting to specifically single him out as an abuser.


 * We know that Bologna is one of two officers being sued, by name, by Post A Posr, for false arrest. He is likely named as a John Doe defendant, like many other officers, in lawsuits from the 2004 protests because he was in the command of a precinct where some other cop was accused of false arrest (though I'm still waiting on confirmation of that, rather than just taking Anonymous' word for it). The current statement in the article (it's actually a quote from the headline of the article rather than the content) exists to show a pattern of misconduct by Bologna, by using allegations only. It's just so wrong. LoveUxoxo (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I edited this section to accurately reflect the detail reported in the Guardian. It currently reads:


 * "The police officer who used the pepper spray was identified[4] as Anthony V. Bologna a Deputy Inspector of the New York Police Department,[5][6][7][8][9][10] who was appointed C.O. of New York's First Precinct in 2005.[11] Officer Bologna was previously named in a lawsuit alleging false arrest and civil rights violations after Bologna ordered another officer to arrest a protestor at the 2004 Republican national convention who had allegedly harassed a man and struck him with a rolled-up newspaper."


 * Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

NYT resource
Anti-Wall Street Protests Spreading to Cities Large and Small by Erik Eckholm and Timothy Williams, published October 3, 2011 in The New York Times; excerpt ... 99.190.85.146 (talk) 06:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Image of pepper-spray incident
There's an image of it. It's already added to the Kettling article. Perhaps it can be added to this article's section as well? -  Niri M / ನಿರಿ   09:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That image is a copyright violation. I have tagged it for speedy deletion, so there's no point putting it in any more articles. Inks.LWC (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Media reaction balance
Why is The New American, Ron Arnold, and the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise leading the media reaction section? We need notable, mainstream sources leading this section, not fringe groups. Viriditas (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the over the top accusation published by a fringe group calling protesters "terrorists". Please don't add it back. Viriditas (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've also removed The Blaze "alternative" source. Please use mainstream sources in controversial articles. Viriditas (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed... Good job!  Another editor suggested removing anything without a source and for an article such as this which is so hard to keep up with, I tend to agree.  BTW, who removed the "See also" section and why? Gandydancer (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Opps! I did not notice that you removed most of the Media section - I opened a discussion on that... Gandydancer (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have further cut back the section to relevant, notable commentary covered by Eric Randall's third-party source, which is the best way to do this. All I see are two links to the see also section, so I don't know who cut it back, but keep in mind, it is best to keep the see also section reserved for links that can be merged into the article. Viriditas (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * While that may be best I hardly see how it's possible to include the many other world-wide but similar demonstrations that have been held this past year. I strongly feel that they should be returned. Gandydancer (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Add it from the secondary source coverage. Editors should not be picking and choosing what is important but depending on sources to do that, and that's exactly what Eric Randall did.  I've also changed the focus of the section from "media reaction" to "media coverage" which is what Randall is talking about.  "Media reception" sections are often POV-driven, Wikipedia editor repositories for quote farms that have little to no encyclopedic value and are no different than badly composed "in popular culture" sections that serve to illustrate trivia.  The fact of the matter is, the media reports and covers important stories for a reason.  How it is "received" by the media is a misnomer.  I removed quotes that accused the protesters of being "terrorists" and "spoiled brats"—that's hardly encyclopedic.  In its place, I restored sources highlighted by secondary sources like Randall, not by Wikipedia editors, and showed the continuity between Olbermann's initial claim of coverage disparity followed by the perceived lack of attendance which might have contributed to it, closing with the reaction of two journalists who explained why it didn't receive coverage it deserved.  That kind of connected, encyclopedic narrative is far superior to the previous version, which amounted to a random hodgepodge of trivial, unencyclopedic quotes that had no connection to anything other than the editor who added it. Viriditas (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Propose to include diverse personal opinions/responses of individual Manhattan/Brooklyn wage workers and lower income resident.
Some hardhats from the World Trade Center construction site joined the growing protest on their lunch breaks. “If you look at it, this is becoming larger than life. Unions should support the people. Unions were built on the people,” said ironworker Yves Hyppolite, 42, of Long Island. -New York Post

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/ghoulish_on_wall_st_he7Pz8IHFneJgsKWQtbeNO#ixzz1ZoSI4c6F

the New York Times also highlighted these videos of a municipal unionized but hierarchical public workers collective who identify as the "NYPD" who by consensus of the local people are asked to enforce the laws (consensus), preserve peace, reduce fear, and provide for a city-wide safe space.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rwWmM1h-P8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSf7JzpD7kg

yet this does not negate the fact that city workers lured them to the bridge under a false flag, and then issued them over 700 tickets, in a blatant act of extortion. 184.253.249.189 (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Moi

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.253.249.189 (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

media reaction section overwhelmingly negative
Can someone fix this? There are countless mainstream articles citing positives of the movement. To be npov, both sides just be included. I would edit myself, but the article is locked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.72.132 (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Media section returned
I have restored the deleted Media section. IMO an editor should not make such a drastic cut without discussion. The editor gave the reason that the media is supposed to inform about the news, not make it (or something to that effect). S/he may be correct, but I think we need to discuss it. Gandydancer (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did discuss it, in the above thread titled "Media reception". Is there a reason you have now opened a new thread and you've ignored my reply in the above thread?  Your most recent edit shows you've restored a quote farm and you've duplicated a paraphrased quote from the Boston Globe which is appropriately attributed to Joanna Weiss, not the "Boston Globe".  If you're going to blindly revert without understanding what you are reverting, I'm not going to waste my time cleaning up after you.  Bye. Viriditas (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, I am sorry. I respect your work and I make my share of mistakes.  I did not see the above.  I will read it and delete what I restored if someone does not do it first. Gandydancer (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not going to edit here. I just want you to know you restored plagiarism, misattribution, and spelling errors.  This is my last comment here. Viriditas (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, bye. As per the media section, I think it needs pruning, but unilateral deletion was not called for, and I support the reversion.204.65.34.80 (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As you will, however in reviewing our conversation, I'm now not surprised that I missed your post. I  have read your link and I will leave it up to other editors to decide if the deleted section should be returned.  Here is the rational that you used to delete it:

Add it from the secondary source coverage. Editors should not be picking and choosing what is important but depending on sources to do that, and that's exactly what Eric Randall did. I've also changed the focus of the section from "media reaction" to "media coverage" which is what Randall is talking about. "Media reception" sections are often POV-driven, Wikipedia editor repositories for quote farms that have little to no encyclopedic value and are no different than badly composed "in popular culture" sections that serve to illustrate trivia. The fact of the matter is, the media reports and covers important stories for a reason. How it is "received" by the media is a misnomer. I removed quotes that accused the protesters of being "terrorists" and "spoiled brats"—that's hardly encyclopedic. In its place, I restored sources highlighted by secondary sources like Randall, not by Wikipedia editors, and showed the continuity between Olbermann's initial claim of coverage disparity followed by the perceived lack of attendance which might have contributed to it, closing with the reaction of two journalists who explained why it didn't receive coverage it deserved. That kind of connected, encyclopedic narrative is far superior to the previous version, which amounted to a random hodgepodge of trivial, unencyclopedic quotes that had no connection to anything other than the editor who added it. Viriditas (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Gandydancer (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Young Anarchists in Love
So I found an interesting human interest piece on a male protester to developed a crush on a female anarchist, but was separated from her when they were arrested: Wall Street Protester’s Missed Connection: ‘We Got Arrested On the Brooklyn Bridge’. He turned to Craigslist to seek her out, but hasn't received a response as of this post. Utterly adorable. So what's the point? Well, the author for Gawker writes that Liberty Park has become a great mingling place for singles. I just want to put forward that if anyone else has read stories on the social lives of the protesters, we might be able to put together a short section on the interpersonal aspects of the protest. --Cast (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * IMO, this sounds pretty unencyclopedic and would be much more appropriate for an AdBusters blog or other site dedicated to promoting the protests and otherwise presenting them in a positive light. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't deny that it seems silly on its face level, but humor aside, I'm referring to any possible analysis of the behavior the protesters are exhibiting towards each other, and how their relationships are affected by their divergent political beliefs and political goals. This is essentially my call to other editors to observe this, since it can be easily overlooked if we're focused on spotlighting high profile events. What may seem unencyclopedic now may ultimately be highly encyclopedic a year from now. We should try to spot these patterns now, so that we don't find ourselves needing to retroactively add overlooked topics of interest later. --Cast (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think your suggestion is akin to the Babies made as a result of cabin fever from the great snowfall of 2004 article. Interesting and quirky, but not encyclopedic. I would support a side article with a detailed listing of who exactly (names and/or organizations) is at this protest, but I suppose that would violate some sort of WP privacy policy. Also, I wonder if there should be a section detailing all the fun little games they are playing, such as human microphone. Peace, MPS (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be any need for us to "spot patterns" such as this. If such patterns are spotted by reliable sources, we can include them.  If not, we can't.  Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm pretty sure that isn't what Wikipedia is about, and I'm pretty sure its got to violate some policy of Wikipedia's.AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Insert Tumblr site under "External Links"
This website should be added under "External Links": http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/page/2 This is a Tumblr page conducted by the people who occupy Wall Street. Fillthegap (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * disagree. Wikipedia is not a place to promote people's blogs or to help people organize movements. What authoritative source is there that says this blog is more notable than the the many other blogs with stories about the protest? I propose a thought experiment:  the Zuccotti Park test ... if I go down to Zuccotti Park with my laptop, does my blog get a link on wikipedia? Peace, MPS (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * While Wikipedia may be no place to promote blogs, it is a place to report on the promotion of blogs. "Wall Street's 99 Percent Show Family Values", by Sonya Huber does that, and this article can be expanded with the internet activism and outreach people are doing as part of this occupation. A section on internet activity, such as the actions of Anonymous to reveal the name of "Tony Baloney", and this Tumbler blog, can be very useful. The infobox already notes the use of internet activism, but the article itself should be expanded to include this element of the story. --Cast (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with the reputable secondary sources, but given that this is essentially a leaderless group, and amorphous in its goals and memberships, I think singling out any specific blog is probably too soon. And I agree with the previous poster...this source is not necessary for the understanding of the article, and is too singular to be notable. My personal preference is to avoid Tumblr blogs altogether. 204.65.34.206 (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

resource USA Today
[http://travel.usatoday.com/destinations/dispatches/post/2011/10/new-yorks-newest-tourist-attraction-wall-street-protests/550164/1 New York's newest tourist attraction? Wall Street protests] by Laura Bly, in print October 4, 2011 Newsline frontpage column and 2A. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous/Legion involvement
The group "Anonymous" (also Legion), who has supported the messages and actions behind OWS have announced that they will delete the NYSE website on 10 October and have called for a collapse of the capitalist system. Any word on this?

And a side note, I thought I saw The Blaze was cited on the page earlier but might have been removed. Is there any reason the website was removed? From what I've seen they look pretty reliable.

24.254.126.57 (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Preceding unsigned comment guy

global perspective resource, NYT frontpage A1/A8
As Scorn for Vote Grows, Protests Surge Around Globe by Nicholas Kulish, published September 27, 2011 in The New York Times, excerpt ... 99.119.128.249 (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Bare-breast photo
I'd like a little feedback on the woman with her breasts bared. I am not a prude and have no problems with naked or half-naked photos in Wikipedia, however since this photo represents "protesters", and I assume that this example was extremely rare and perhaps even one of a kind, I question that it should be used on this page. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would normally agree that it is not representative, but the NYT and a number of other sources pointed her out specifically. It seems relevant if she were included in the article text more. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I sort of agree, even though I placed it. As Scapler said, she's been in a number of sources and having spent six days photographing the encampment, I can vouch that Ms. Tikka definitely embodies the spirit you find there.  And at least I didn't choose a topless photo without sources.  That said, I do want to change the photos a bit.  I think the crowd shot works because it's the first day and shows a grouping of people.  I think the Anonymous shot can be replaced.  Anonymous played a hand in supporting OWS, but aside from the first day there is not much evidence that they are a force within it.  I am going to put up one of barricaded Wall Street, which shows the effects of the protest, and one from the camp, which shows life in it.  If you guys don't like my choices feel free to change them - there's 163 images at commons:Category:Occupy Wall Street that you can use, more tomorrow after I go back.  -- David  Shankbone  02:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. --John (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I respectfully and adamantly disagree with the inclusion of the bare-breasted photograph. My brother has been one of the protesters of this movement from its inception, and two other participants are friends of mine. I discussed the issue of this photograph with my brother and friends, and they are of a mind that this woman's attention-seeking stunt is not representative of the majority of the group of protestors, and this illegal and inappropriate display is not how most people want the protest to be viewed and remembered.


 * I understand your point, but Wikipedia is here to cover the entire event, as perceived by all sides, not just what you want it to be. We can make it a lot clearer that this is an isolated event, but given the availability of the photo and specific media commentary about it, it belongs in the article.  Among other things, it provides significant context in terms of how freedom of speech (such as it is) is being practiced and regulated in New York during this event. Wnt (talk) 06:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually Wikipedia never covers the entire event. As any wikipedia editor knows, generally one uses only one or two sentences from a reference, and if an incident is "isolated" it does not deserve even a mention. Gandydancer (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, baring breasts is not illegal in New York State. Courts rules it acceptable in 1992.--~TPW 19:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

On a personal note, it is my belief that such cheap attempts to be noticed through shock-value are not helpful to a group striving for higher ethical values through peaceful demonstration. --talk (talk) 1:20, 28 September 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.122.232 (talk)

o_O bare breasts are "shock value"? (i think i must have been shocked quite a few times when i was a baby ;) oh, and btw, i think it was an isloated incident and is not woth to be mentioned. 62.138.56.171 (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "o_O" the anon was certainly correct! Bared breasts have nothing to do with this protest.  I just happen to have a couple of them myself, and would have (perhaps) been willing to expose them if the protest was about a women's right to nurse in public (for instance), but in this case it was a (rather silly) attempt to gain attention. Gandydancer (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You fucked it up mang. If this was Easy Rider or Woodstock, a kid would come up and throw a turd at yous.See WP:CENSOR. And it wasn't even fully topless, there's dresses that show as much as were in that picture. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with the general sentiment against the photo, for now. I also feel a good case can be made for WP:UNDUE. Jus  da  fax   02:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This woman has become a symbol in NYT of the #occupywallstreet. she is not posing in an erotic way - she is an important person in this movement, and her picture has been included in numerous New York based and mainstream pubs.

The photo is not culturally comprehensible all over the world, and has the potential to offend both males and females in broad and great numbers. Any global viewer and listener knows there is homegrown individualism and real-time group collaboration at work within Occupy, but the topless shot (or other relatively unclothed shots) has the potential to discredit Occupy and the groups' struggle to be understood beyond our self-serving selves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSRolph (talk • contribs) 08:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Reopened discussion below. --Lexein (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Casualties
Arrests are casualties? If someone breaks the law and they are arrested, we consider them casualties?Racingstripes (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

98.244.72.132 (talk)Please note that it is Arrests SLASH Casualties, as in one or the other. It then lists the number of arrests and the number of injuries —Preceding undated comment added 04:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC).
 * There is now 'arrests' and 'casualties' in the Infobox. Someone should mention: "4 maced" and perhaps: "dozens dragged", "several lightly injured"... --Fayerman (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * it should also be mention how it was the protesters faults for resisting a lawful arrest!!!141.165.191.73 (talk) 05:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ive seen the videos and they didnt look like they were resisting--132.198.76.149 (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Media spin?
I just visited two most popular new sites for Polish speakers.

One lacked any information about the 700+ arrests on B'klyn Bridge (despite having a plethora of "curiosity" "world news" articles) (the site is onet.pl).

The other claims that one of the main issues the Wall Street protesters want addressed is mistreatment of minorities, particularly muslim (http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kat,1356,title,Dramatyczne-sceny-w-Nowym-Jorku---700-osob-zatrzymano,wid,13853254,wiadomosc.html). "Ich uczestnicy buntują się przeciw nieuczciwemu - jak twierdzą - traktowaniu mniejszości, w tym muzułmanów, a także m.in. nadmiernemu użyciu siły przez policję, dużemu bezrobociu i przejmowaniu domów należących do ludzi, których nie stać na spłatę pożyczek."

"The participants [of the protests] are rebelling against unfair - they claim - treatment of minorities, including muslims, as well as disproportionate use of force by the police, high unemployment, and repossessions of houses belonging to those unable to afford mortgage payments"

Seriously? That's the core issues?

The second site does usually cater to somewhat more right-wing leaning readers, but the discrepancy between the (admittedly, vague) demands of the protesters and those outlined in the article are hardly something that could've resulted from confusion or lack of knowledge...

I wonder if anybody else noticed this in non-english news? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.47.205 (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This polish news don't make sense. The movement goals are knew: oppose the corruption of democracy by and for the benefit of the 1% richests. Yug (talk)  19:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you are missing the point - the events are portrayed (if they are) as something different. My question was whether or not other non-english news sites put similar spin when (if) they report them.

Why did you feel that pointing out such manipulation deserves "non sense" tag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.47.205 (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just: the journalist made a non sense very poor job not needing our consideration. I'm like you, I wonder if this is on good will or a conscientious corruption/hidding of the truth, but can't say. Conclusion: better to focus on other (sourcable) issues. Yug (talk)  20:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Which makes you slap a non-sense tag, hiding the body of the text, on a request to clarify if similar tactics are used by news aggregates in other languages, because obviously such tactics, even if reported (I cited one source from a major Polish site), are beyond the scope of what Wikipedia should cover? Right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.47.205 (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No response, removing the non-sense tag as unwarranted. This is a discussion of possibilities. If it was a set fact, I'd modify the article itself. 66.234.47.205 (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Cities holding similar protest
This section could use a bit of an update, many major media outlets have reported similar protest across many other cities. Thank you. Mattisacat (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What should be the threshold for such inclusions? I could even give you a story from the local Tallahassee Democrat about an Occupy Tallahassee group springing up here. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You can submit original stories to Main Page. There are three drafts about Occupy Wall Street: Occupy Wall St Protest Continues, Occupy Wall Street Protesters Still Fighting and Hundreds of Occupy Wall Street protesters arrested. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand; I meant I could provide reliable sourcing from the local newspaper here in Tallahassee, which happens to be called the Tallahassee Democrat. No original reporting here. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think an exceptional amount of detail is warranted, but several major cities have seen copycat actions of varying degrees. This is notable, but we may want to wait until things settle down to write it up in any detail. Maybe just an addition indicating other cities have seen similar protests stemming from this set of demonstrations, etc. 204.65.34.206 (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 5 October 2011
U.S Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

WilbergWBWW (talk) 05:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * ❌ - Request is not sufficiently clearly stated. Feel free to re-open (answered=no) after further clarifying language is added to the request. Thanks! --Lexein (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 5 October 2011
add

Asdgdsgdgad (talk) 05:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not namely anti government, but anti financial influence upon the government. Yug (talk)  11:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to agree; these protests are not explicitly anti-government. The primary "focus" of this generally unfocused demonstration seems to be more explicitly about finance and the private sector and wealthy than government. 204.65.34.206 (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur with the above positions that "anti-government" is not appropriate for this article. It may be so later, if reliable sources support such a claim (templates and categories are claims, too). --Lexein (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Media coverage section : restore, confirm deletion, review, pruning ?
Have been deleted. While both side expressed in the section are biases, I agree, this media coverage debate may nevertheless need ... coverage. So, do we restore or keep deleted ? Yug (talk)  11:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * better source:


 * restore. And whoever keeps deleting it either needs to bring the issue here for consensus, or knock it off. It needs pruning, but the media reception is notable in and of itself.204.65.34.206 (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This issue came up yesterday (see above). It brought up a core question re whether or not media reaction was a legit topic for the article or not.  I left the question open after most of the Media section was deleted at that time and only one editor had anything to say about it, including you, Yug. Gandydancer (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that media attention **is** relevant since the protestors themselves claimed that they were getting "silenced" or that the mainstream media were either mocking them or deliberately ignoring them. Here is one such opinion. I have read claims (that may or may not be revisionist history) that the mainstream media heaped praise on the tea party movement when they came out but are now scorning leftists protests. I would support a NPOV examination of this common claim as part of the article. MPS (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried to get some information regarding another issue, as outlined in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street#Media_spin.3F . Alas, Yug deemed it "non-sense" and slapped a tag hiding the content based on his (subjective) estimate of importance of this. I received information from two friends about a major Russian site running something similar (the article disappeared after four or so hours), and a Czech friend also recalled seeing misreports (similar to the Polish site described below), but could not recall where.


 * To summarize - at that time, out of two largest Polish news sites, one was not reporting on the protests, while another manipulated the information to make it appear as having completely different goals. 66.234.47.205 (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In my opinion media views should be included. I felt that the media section which included Fox views, etc., was appropriate.  It was deleted and there was no support to include it.  Since I am not "the boss" of the article I dropped it.  Editing articles is not easy, and as often as not the most difficult part is what goes on here on the talk page, or at least it should be.  I've edited several hotly contested and fast-moving articles, and this is the worst one yet.  To delete (or to a lesser extent open) entire sections, especially if they are of long-standing, in a contested article without opening a discussion is not appropriate IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've looked through this whole talk page and there was never any consensus to remove the whole thing. FYI, it seems to have been removed by AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER on Oct 5 on the basis of it being "biased as hell," in the edit summary.
 * Reading the version he deleted, I can sympathize. It was unbalanced, and even implied Twitter was censoring it as a trending topic because JPMorgan is a Twitter investor. It looks like it'd been watered down from its state a few days ago, when I thought it was quite good and fair. So, solution: we should talk more about the bad press it's been given. Throw in some statements from Fox, maybe bring back that "spoiled brats" comment. Not because we agree with them necessarily, but for better or worse that's been part of the coverage.
 * IMO the coverage is a major facet of this whole event and one of the most significant and interesting things about it. This is definitely important


 * --Qwerty0 (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually it was deleted before American deleted it. But I agree that it is relevant and part of the entire picture of what is going on.  Having worked extensively from start to finish on the Gulf oil spill and the flu pandemic, it is newsworthy and interesting to read the history of the events and how they evolved.  Should I be bold and restore the previous section that was deleted, and we can work from there? Gandydancer (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Another two thoughts (entirely separate in my mind)... First, I thought of the idea that we might create a separate article, perhaps Media coverage of Occupy Wall Street that would allow a little more depth on compiling various media reactions over time, to be summarized in the main article. ... Second (again a completely different thought) I am wondering if it is even possible to determine the point at which this protest actually became newsworthy. Was it June 9 when adbusters bought the domain name? Was it August somethingorother when the "leaders" planned a strategy session? Was it September 17, when a bunch of people actually showed up? Clearly now, after getting national attention (perhaps form the police actions, perhaps from political and celebrity endoresements, perhaps from twitter trending) there is plenty of news media attention over it and there is no question of its notability... but at some point, it crossed that line from just another flash mob into legitimate media notability... and in the grand scheme of things, there are a lot of other idealistic protests out there that want the world press to descend on their protest march and bless them with "coverage" ... and they are going to complain unless they get it... but to some degree the media did not "owe" this movement coverage from its inception... there WAS a point when this protest **did not** merit coverage... so in my opinion that understanding ought to flavor our documentation of any "media bias" against the event. In summary (1) should we start a separate media coverage of OWS article, and, (2) what possible authoritative source is there that could definitively say whether this movement deserved coverage all along? Peace, MPS (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * MPS, arguing the current notability of articles is tough enough. I don't think we want to try to decide when it became notable. Also, we aren't the ones to decide when "media bias" happened. Our role is to report others '  allegations of media bias, if there are prominent allegations.
 * And Gandydancer, I think you can go ahead and restore it, especially if you can find some opposing views first (and take out that Twitter JPMorgan thing!). I think we've agreed it was taken out against procedure.
 * --Qwerty0 (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Qwerty0, agreed... we (wikipedia editors) don't need to decide when ... and my point is that since there is no single authoritative source for yea or nay, the best we can do is document the controversy... there will be differences of opinion, and so we document protestor POVs (allegations of non-coverage, allegations of imbalanced coverage compared to teaparty) and document MSM coverage (high profile media opinions and allegations that the protest is or is not notable, that the protesters do or do not deserve attention, that events are or are not adequately covered) and then let these opinions balance each other out. We state all sides as fairly as we can and let the reader be informed by the various arguments put out there. I think that's the best we can do unless God himself (or Jimmy Wales) writes an authoritative history of OWS. MPS (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds great! Yeah, I'm in favor of covering the controversy by quoting sources who themselves cover the event.
 * --Qwerty0 (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the media section is back and on its way. FYI, here's a past version of the article with some good material from both sides (criticism in the "Criticism" section and support in the, er, "Reactions" section). --Qwerty0 (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, nevermind that. Looks like even the "Criticism" section in that version was devoted to erecting straw men. Here's a revision that's a bit more nuanced.
 * --Qwerty0 (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Time to split --Polmas (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)