Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 3

More elected official support


Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has also voiced his support for OWS and the possibility of him joining the movement when it reaches DC. http://www.nationofchange.org/bernie-sanders-and-keith-olbermann-celebrate-wall-street-protests-1317392475 I think this should probably be noted.--132.198.76.149 (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete Article: "Occupy Wall Street Manifesto"
✅ Can somebody delete the article: "Occupy Wall Street Manifesto" It was made a few days ago, but nobody has done any thing with it and I am concerned that the objective of what the user who created it for may in some way violate Wikipedia policy.141.165.41.189 (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I nominated it for speedy deletion. Helixdq (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the 2010 Inside Job (film) related to this event(s)?
Is the 2010 Inside Job (film) related to this event(s)? 99.119.128.87 (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say it is, as the documentary takes a hard look at a number of economic and corporate aspects that the protesters are concerned about. A good case can be made for including a mention of the Oscar-winning film in the article. Jus  da  fax   03:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

potential image?
From http://mediagallery.usatoday.com/G373 Editorial Cartoons of USA Today by Nate Beeler, The Washington Examiner, Cagle Cartoons October 5, 2011 (2 of 4) ... Year 1967 "Occupy Dean's Office: Draft Card burning", Year 2011 "Occupy Wall Street" (burning documents) with apparent Golden Baby boomer protesting "Son, please! Hasn't your old man's 401(k) suffered enough?!?""  (a Generation gap reference).   99.119.128.87 (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Lots of police brutality occurring tonight
We'll need some users to add stuff about it later when the news picks up on it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpOMlDVaXzc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.72.132 (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * IF the media picks it up, then it can be included. But calling it "police brutality" at this point is just absurd. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here we go, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/05/occupy-wall-street-nypd-police-brutality-video_n_997414.html?ref=mostpopular

http://gothamist.com/2011/10/05/video_nypd_breaks_out_pepper_spray.php

More sites should report it tomorrow, this did just happen a few hours ago — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.72.132 (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC) http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/occupy-wall-street-protest-broadens-scope-20111005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.72.132 (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is The Post's coverage, which slants it as "Protests turn violent". The clip from the TV newsguy is funny - him and his cameraman get clubbed and maced and he seems so nonchalant about it. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/it_brawl_street_WGonUcuHz7WBlnQZeK7gWK LoveUxoxo (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is some Daily News coverage which directly references a video of a cop "bragging" about using his nightstick: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/10/06/2011-10-06_occupy_wall_street_protesters_post_video_of_cop_bragging_my_nightsticks_gonna_ge.html LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Image request - "Liberty Park" layout
I've seen two images which provide a layout of the area of Zuccotti Park and would like to put forward that these can be used as the basis for an image created by an editor with .SVG skills and donated to WikiCommons. NYC General Assembly has provided this .pdf graphic on their website on September 29, 2011. More recently the blog provided this city planning image on October 4, 2011. A newer layout has been created by the Wall Street Journal How Occupy Wall Street Turned Zuccotti Park Into a Protest Camp. This was published on October 5, 2011.

If anyone is skilled, or knows someone who would be able to put their skills to our needs, providing an updated image based on the Wall Street Journal's reference would greatly benefit this article, as well as the article on Zuccotti Park. --Cast (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:GL/MAP — make a request to the Graphic lab map workshop. Yug (talk)  10:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 6 October 2011
Add Austin and Dallas to the list of cities also protesting

65.36.77.138 (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &mdash;  Abhishek  Talk  17:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Austin done, below. Please re-open when Dallas is sourced! --Lexein (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Proletarian Revolution?
Is America undergoing a Proletarian Revolution? The Occupy Wall Street protests certainly fulfill all the hallmarks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valheol (talk • contribs) 16:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * lol no, just a bunch of communist throwing a little fit because nobody cares about them.AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * hahaha, no proletarian revolution, nor communist revolution. I'm capitalist and support their core view : enough with the financial sector collusion with the legislative and executive and the casino capitalism, go back with the real economy, and the american entrepreneurship which made the strengh of America. The first on place have been the leftists, but capitalists are clearly part of it too. Yug (talk)  18:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Even assuming there was a revolution the middle class are not part of the proletariat by definition so no. Helixdq (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think American Engineer's openly-stated POV should be taken into account in regards to any further article edits or tags he places on the article. Jus  da  fax   03:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. http://nycga.cc/2011/09/30/declaration-of-the-occupation-of-new-york-city/ Look through the General Assembly website. 152.131.9.132 (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You would need sources that say the NYCGA speaks for that mob. The article currently says they're "leaderless."
 * It's kind of funny, though, because it would throw out the absurd "democraphics" claim that characterizes the protest as having "brought together people of many political positions". That part of the article definitely needs a revision.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request: Violance on 5 October
The protest turned violent when 20-30 protestors rushed a police barricade:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/06/dozens-arrested-in-wall-street-protests-as-rallies-spread-across-hudson/?intcmp=trending http://www.kgoam810.com/rssItem.asp?feedid=118&itemid=29735473

Can someone please add that in to the timeline? 152.131.9.132 (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrote about the second pepper-spraying incident that took place on October 5 to Occupy Wall Street, which is under the the Pepper-Spraying section. Sourced the facts from a NY Daily News article. Anyone else welcome to expand other parts of the article using the sources provided above. Thanks. --Fayerman (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * there should not be a generalized pepper spraying section in the "chronology" unless it the events happened during the same week... the events in the chronology should be in order of time... which is like the definition of chronology. Peace, MPS (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note the Timeline of Occupy Wall Street article that contains chronology. --Fayerman (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That needs to be fixed...it is not a pepper spraying incident. Some of the protesters were attacked police. This article needs to be fixed so NPOV is used. It makes police look heavy handed and the protesters like followers of Ghandi and that is not the case. 173.174.212.164 (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Resource from Portal:Current events/2011 October 5
US labor unions set to join Wall Street protests by Ellen Wulfhorst in New York for Reuters October 5, 2011 4:05pm EDT; including Amalgamated Transit Union. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy L.A.
Don't know if this should be included here. . Lots of peeps in downtown right now at 7th and Figueroa. They want the banks to stop foreclosures and federal govt to extend unemployment benefits. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, people are really getting uppity - what do they want, a bailout? (wink, wink) So what if the banks had to hire people to forge thousands of signatures for days on end on bogus documents... Gandydancer (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * They are saying that the banks got bailouts but the peeps still got foreclosed on. And IMHO all the lenders who bundled the subprime mortgages and all the hedge fund managers who bet that those bundled mortgages would fail, and raked in billions when they did, should be in hiding right now (or orange jumpsuits.) Malke 2010 (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Added the latimes ref to the para.  Feel free to propose extra text, and find free photos from the event.  --Lexein (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 6 October 2011
In the third paragraph of the Occupy Wall Street basic description, there is a sentence listing many cities that have also started "occupying." Austin, TX has also started occupying in front of City Hall starting October 6, 2011. Please add Austin to the the list. http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/occupy-austin-takes-over-city-hall

72.179.50.207 (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Thanks for providing the source. --Lexein (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Organization section
I just now added a section under "Participants" that deals with the organization of the movement. While it is clearly "leaderless" in many aspects, I have also read many articles about how there are various stations (medical, media, food) and other self-organized processes. Just wanted to add a discussion section in case anyone wants to discuss what should be added. I think it is notable because just saying "it is whatever and stuff" is not really true to how OWS functions. Clearly there are leader-like spokespeople and division of labor occurring. I have cited reputable sources that I was able to find so far... Peace, MPS (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 6 October 2011
Sacramento, CA's protests began October 6th as well. Please list in the 6th city names.

99.91.185.43 (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please provide reliable source(s) first. Set answered=no when ready. --Lexein (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable source for Sacramento based protests: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/10/07/3966909/occupy-sacramento-plans-park-curfew.html
 * ✅ - Thanks for providing the link. I added Sacramento to the list. Oh, I put it in order as the last of the U.S. cities, but before the Canadian ones, that OK? LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Bare-breast photo (again)
I don't know if the prior image was in the context of a news report or broadcast, or showed the signage, or showed more than one woman. I added commentary by Bill Maher, and a two-shot, as broadcast, which shows two women with the full text of their protest signs fully legible, specifically as an example of non-mainstream coverage. Earlier in the same broadcast, the protests were lauded by several guests as correct and brave, including Salmon Rushdie - perhaps that should be added. Comments above indicated "not culturally comprehensible" around the world, and "possibly offensive". We're not responsible for the whole world, just the English-reading world. Articles in other Wikipedias can censor them there all they want. More on my point, anyone who has read history knows of women baring themselves in public in direct challenge to orthodoxy, in grief, and in appeal to mercy. This contemporaneous example, in the larger context of Western civilization, is no different. But it turns out not to matter here. Our job and quest is to neutrally report what sources say. If a RS has commented on the female protestors, and the use of their images in the media, by all means, let's report that, (addendum: and RS-sourced opposition) too. --Lexein (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting post and thanks. I am the person that first brought up the question of the inclusion of the photo and I was really happy to find agreement on the talk page.  My argument was, and is, that our articles can only take a small slice of history to record, and as such our slice must represent the  event rather than an unusual event within the event.  For example, in the lead-up to the Iraq war many women did bare their breasts in opposition - do you remember the peace sign of naked women?  So for a war opposition article I would have welcomed a bared-breast inclusion.  But this protest does not seem to be similar to the war protests...in fact it does not seem to be similar to any protest in history - note that even liberal Mother Jones was critical of the (non)agenda!
 * If you go back and look at the last big protests in the US, the Iraq War protests, you will find that most of the protesters were middle age and older. This protest is quite different - how many "grey-hairs" do you see out there?  The traditional "bared breasts" sign of protest is meaningless to them.  Of course, if it suddenly becomes meaningful and many women do bare their breasts as a sign of protest, then a photo would be appropriate.  I am old enough to have been around the block a few times, but unlike Mother Jones I don't have a clue as to where and how far this protest will go... Gandydancer (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wartime vs. peacetime protest: the protestors and commentators have mentioned class war, and the perceived war on the middle class has been in the news for months (years?); I mean, passions run high in any protest, as does rhetoric. It's arguable that military warfare and economic "war" (perhaps focused here on wealth-stripping) have overlapping devastating effects, and that the differences are unimportant to the protesters - only the end results of the war/"war" matter. Can we as Wikipedia editors dismiss either the old-school bared protests, or these, as unimportant? No, because we can conduct no original research. We can make no presumption of "meaningless"-ness: we don't know the education, politics, or intentions of the women (yet). We don't need to: we know that the fact of their act was widely reported in RS, and propagated (whether by design or not) news of the protests.
 * Getting back to policy and guideline, since we're here on Talk to improve the article, given the number of other images in the article, the breadth of other coverage, and the in-text an in-image context of this image, I now don't think WP:UNDUE is triggered. Per this, I have corrected in italics a possibly misunderstood point, above. --Lexein (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm the one that mentioned WP:UNDUE in the discussion above, and I think it applies. If one or two protesting women take their tops off in front of a photographer, that sure seems like undue emphasis to me. If you have 50 or 100 women in a photo, now you have a case. Jus  da  fax   03:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That seems to ignore the in-photo context: it's a two-shot with the commentator, in the context of commenting on it: by comparison, the size of the women in the overall photo is small. In terms of visual weight, it's as follows: the photo, the frame, the commentator, the women's signs, and the women, in that order. WP:UNDUE doesn't really hold up here, especially since few, if any other signage is even shown in the article as it stands. WP:UNDUE would be to censor content which has RS. I don't see the merit in the argument that the numbers are too low, or that 50 or more would be better: that just keeps the door open for prudish censorship. The foundation of our reporting is simply RS. Nothing more or less.
 * And as for the non-discussing (yet image deleting) editor's invocation of WP:Principle of least surprise (an essay purporting to be supporting some unspecified part of MOS, which has nothing to say about content): applying style guides to basic reliably sourced content discussions is inappropriate. As for that editor's edit summary that the picture is not needed to understand the commentary: seeing the poster text is indeed necessary for understanding the comment as intended by the speaker. --Lexein (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jusdafax. It's not just undue weight on the tiny handful of nude/semi-nude protesters, but undue weight on Maher's commentary. He's just one comedian among several with TV shows who commented, and for no reason I can tell his comment is included as a direct quote. Also, no one really expects to see breasts in an article about a political protest. Including a fair use photo (esp. when there are hundreds of free ones available) of tits violates the principle of least astonishment, distorts the perspectives about the protest, and I think violates NPOV by implying that the protestors are the kind of fringe political element that runs around in public nude. To conclude: wrong for a whole host of reasons. Steven Walling • talk   03:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Steven. I find you have expressed what I intended much better than I did myself. I was unfamiliar with the Wikipedia essay you mention, and agree that the thinking at WP:ASTONISH applies directly. And yes, Maher's short commentary and photo use also fit my view of WP:UNDUE.  Jus  da  fax   06:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We generally don't lambast with words like "violates". That's POV, and false: there's no "violation" when there are no firm rules, which is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. I politely request discussion which is more polite.
 * I'll refer readers to the relative size (and area) importance of items in the image, above.
 * Direct quoting of a source is unremarkable, unimpeachably normal, and best when exact meaning is important, in context. That other editors have not elected to include other direct quotes of other commentary is no burden on the Maher entry. That a diversity of commentary has so far not been represented in the article is no mandate for continuation for such exclusion. It is the exclusion of a diversity of commentary which is non-neutral, not the inclusion of one item of commentary.
 * The assertion of violates the principle of least astonishment is empty: there is no such "violation"(no firm rules) nor such a "Wikipedia principle". WP:ASTONISH is neither policy nor guideline, cannot trump policy or guideline, and cannot be a brickbat for the exclusion an eraser of RS content.
 * RS, V, and NPOV take precedence, WP is not censored. If an individual has an issue with a microscopically scaled image which, if zoomed up, shows tits, that is not Wikipedia's problem. IMHO. "Nobody expects" is not an excuse a good reason to reject RS.
 * WP:UNDUE is not a brickbat to be used to pound out of existence an eraser of reliably sourced content. It may be an editor's opinion that wide media coverage of something, by itself, seems undue emphasis, but that does not necessarily meet WP:UNDUE, unless it affects the article as a whole, and it just does not seem that the Maher entry could imbalance the article as a whole. We report what RS say, and even show. There can be no apology, or attack for that.  If there are RS which report that nudity was a vanishingly small element of the protest, then we'll include that too.  That's how reaching NPOV is done. Not by censorship or whitewashing.
 * We don't emphasize opinion over pillar/policy/guideline. WP:UNDUE applies to article bias among a collection of opinions. Disliking or disagreeing with Maher is not a reason to further delay the introduction of other commentary.
 * No undue emphasis on Maher in particular should be inferred or accused. It was included as an example non-mainstream, widely broadcast commentary, outside major corporate news channels. It is merely a datapoint in a highly variate constellation of commentary, as yet underrepresented in the article.
 * Editors may wish to use a variety of means to exclude content directly related to the article's topic, but this runs the risk of being unconstructive or disruptive. Going forward, I sincerely suggest adding content, rather than spending time deprecating other content. --Lexein (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, use your WP:BRAIN people... your editorial opinion matters... personally, I don't think titties belong on this article. If a wwoman bears her breasts on David Letterman, we are not obligated to put a screen capture of it on the Late Show article. Peace, MPS (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 6 October 2011
change "Washington $0.25" to "Washington raises $0.25"

Nick.yarosz (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Lexein (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Major?
It is possible to say that the current (2011 -) Occupy Wall Street civil movement marks the beginnings of a major global proletarian revolution. If so, we may be witnessing the largest proletarian revolution in the history of humankind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_revolution#Communist_revolutions_throughout_history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponderexistence (talk • contribs) 01:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is only possible to say if and only if reliable sources write about this a) as a movement and b) as marking the beginning of something. We can't say it unless RS do. Just for a general contextual reality check, please read WP:FLAT and WP:V. --Lexein (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Portland
Just so you know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Fresno
It should be noted in the first paragraph that there is another protest in Fresno, CA. There is a list in the first paragraph that i cannot edit. Fresno should be on the list. Its called Occupy Fresno. It has a facebook page and is organized by Peace Fresno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.14.85.95 (talk) 04:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy XXX
I worked on the Portland one. It's looking pretty good. There are probably a number of other ones. Should we create a category or something? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 7 October 2011
there is an improperly formatted link to a right-wing, out-of-context YouTube video stuck next to Obama's name. Please remove this link. The video is completely misleading and irrelevant to the article. thx

ps looks like it is already fixed -- thx

68.183.238.154 (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Protests in other cities
Considering there are protests all over the country now, I would like to suggest that this article no longer presents a global view of the subject. While it is still a protest in New York City, it has morphed into a national protest movement, with branches forming or present in every major U.S. city I could think to Google after the word "occupy". I really think we need to cover the national aspects of this better, and I'm sure there are notable events occurring in other cities that could be mentioned. Daughter article, perhaps? --Pstanton (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should start an article called 2011 Occupy protests ? Peace, MPS (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * or List of 2011 Occupy protests if people decide to start their own articles on possibly non-notable occupy (insert city) protests. MPS (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In my view 2011 Occupy protests is a more elegant solution, and provides the opportunity for a bit more contextual text than a list. I have now created an Occupy Wall Street category, although I expect that a 2011 Occupy protests category will need to be created above it in the near future. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with 2011 Occupy protests. Then we can add in the cities, like Los Angeles.  Also, agree we need a 2011 Occupy protests category.  Malke 2010 (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW Buffalo NY also has an Occupy protest going on now too .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.221.166 (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We are the 99%
Other wp articles claim the slogan was a reference to the famous "Wir sind das Volk"("We are the people") East-Berlin protests in 1989 which lead to the collapse of the Berlin Wall. --Rebestein (talk) 09:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what your point is. The US constitution begins with "we the people" ... Populism and Solidarity movements like to use the word "we". ... "We are Virginia Tech"   ... yes we can... etc. Not relevant here. MPS (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

good job on wiki page on occuy wall street, but can I make suggestions?
I am reading Occupy Wall Street Wikipedia page, good job! Can I make a couple suggestions? Searches for 'Occupy Movement' or (for example) 'Occupy Ventura' (my home) do not bring you directly to Occupy Wall Street page. It would be good to keep up to date on all the local movements, and have them listed on that page. Also, a page for the 1% should be made, and include as much specific information as possible, about who, specifically 'they' are (they will hate that), and what kind of excesses they live with, and most importantly - (specific again when possible) how they use their money to manipulate politics and the economy. Koch brothers are the obvious example, but there have to be more, less know ones that people don't know about (I don't know who they are). Trump should be in there too, but to me, he is more of a clown than anything else. Dug — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dugjohann (talk • contribs) 15:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We cannot take sides in this protest or do things to "expose" others per the non-point-of-view guideline. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Scapler ... also, though we have not, to date, included a "responses from Wall Street" section ... If we can find reliable sources from the chair of the Fed... or prominent Wall Street CEOs... or representatives of the NYSE / NASDAQ... I would certainly be in support of including these in the response section. It is also important to note that We are the 99% is just a slogan, and any given percentage number (e.g., wealthiest 1%, top 50%, the other 99%) actually represents an arbitrary mathematical cut line. Wealth is generally understood to be spread across a distribution. Peace,MPS (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

International Occupations
I'm by no means an expert on the use of Facebook for protest movements, but it seems that there are protests being planned for many more locations than the ones listed here... It seems that there are a number of Facebook pages ("communities", "events", "cause", etc., all starting with "Occupy" and then the location), most of them linked to a greater "Occupy Together" page (http://www.facebook.com/#!/OccupyTogether; apparently it has more than twice as many likes as OWS' page). Many of these don't have many followers (though, for comparison, while the Syrian Revolution has nearly .3 million likes, the Egyptian Revolution page with the highest viewership has only 5600 likes, though I acknowledge they aren't necessarily good for comparison). I read on OWS' page that Occupy Baltimore would be initiating there occupation today, and I believe the others mostly represent protests in the planning. As was apparently explained on one, first they found the page, and once it starts to get support, they start to set dates.

Many of these have thousands of likes, and are set for their first events this weekend (mostly large US cities not yet mentioned on the page). Perhaps the global movement of Occupy Together (there are notable pages for not only Canada and Puerto Rico, but also Tokyo, Europe and Berlin, for example) should at least get a mention on the page.

Also, we might note this page (http://www.facebook.com/#!/Op.Revolution.France?sk=info) about a similar movement in France, apparently making reference/linking to both the Occupations and the Spanish protests. It has a considerable viewership apparently. --Yalens (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We are likely to need an article for London soon too: . There is no doubt this is growing fast.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Two points:
 * (1) Before we start an article like is suggested above, we probably need to dicuss notability criteria. Is a protest notable just because it has a website? I say no, because anyone can make an Occupy Peoria website or facebook event. According to wikipedia notability criteria, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." So when your local mainstream news affiliate (not the Peoria Independent Revolution Media Network) covers the occupy Peoria event, then, I would definitely personally agree that it meets notability guidelines.
 * (2) If we do decide to make it, to what degree should an Occupy Together article list all the "related" sites. I mean all these protests are "rising up" in solidarity, but they are supposedly leaderless and unconnected etcetera... I say this because at some point, some organization like ANSWER Coalition or Westboro Baptist Church or SOMETHING is going to come along and we will have to sort out whether they are really "in or "out" ... my provisional suggestion is to start the "2011 Occupy protests article and then have a section on Occupy Together... and sort it out at that point. Also, you know that there will be people unhappy with this name, and we will have to haggle over it some more. Unless I hear substantial suggestion I am going to start this article ASAP.
 * Peace, MPS (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What I found interesting (about the fb pages) is that they (in addition to being in national languages often), tended to cater to the demands of the left-wing of the given nation. For example, there was much more mention of nuclear energy on Occupy Berlin's page (and on Occupy Tokyo, I suspect too). Isn't it true, anyhow, that "Occupy-" protests outside the US have already begun, in Canada and the UK (the latter being mentioned in a section on this page?)? In that case, I think should at least open the possibility of presenting them as a global phenomenon (or, perhaps, a Western and Westernized-country phenomenon) that simply started in the West, rather than the current US-centric coverage.--Yalens (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

table of protest and arrests
how about creating a with all the protest happening all across the u by the starting ate an all the proteters an all of the arrests?--Nrpf22pr (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 7 October 2011
I want to add one more country where the pacific protest is taking form. The following will be: Puerto Rico

There is a group of people who will start to occupy the capital of Puerto Rico in Oct. 15.

Thank you.

Aerisvirella (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia's policy on future events we would need a reliable source to do a story on the protest. Since it occurs in the future, my opinion is that we should wait until it happens to add mention of it to Wikipedia. MPS (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

resource
Wall Street protest functions like a small city by Karen Matthews of the Associated Press 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What specifically is new and appropriate for potential content addition? 99.109.127.58 (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Two topics that could be included are sanitation problems ("sanitary conditions have reached unacceptable levels", although that quote that is from the landlord) and friction with neighbors ("general incivility" and the noise from the drums is what Mayor Bloomberg mentions). Currently the article just says "Many protestors have taken to utilizing the bathrooms of nearby business establishments", which actually is NOT what the link provided says, and should be fixed to point to the above article, even if no changes to content are made. LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and fixed the URLs for those couple of refs (about bathrooms and sleeping) to point to the above article (thanks for providing it anon editor) which is the long version which actually contains the quotes that are provided. LoveUxoxo (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted 3.3.3.6 Security
I assumed this was a wry joke ("The New York Police Department provides security for the protesters")? If not, well, I don't see the point, it's just stating the obvious that the area is under NYPD jurisdiction. When anything can be sourced about anyone acting on behalf of OWS participants in a role of docent, steward, marshall, etc. we should put that in. LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC) Alternatively we could title the section "Policing", but again I don't see the need for it. The article can only be better with less trivial stuff like this, especially when it involves so many sub-sub-sub sections. LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Political views of demonstrators
I find the article to have an inconsistent treatment of the politics of the demonstrators. It says "The protests have brought together people of many political positions including Democrats, libertarians, anarchists,[4] and socialists". This is fine, however, the source used for this information also gives equal weight to one of the supporters being "Conservative". My suggestion is to either list Conservative as one of the groups represented or not to list any specific political factions at all. The reality of the protests seems to be a lack of political specificity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neap24 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To use a common programming trope, consider the possibility that the participants might view the movement's "lack of political specificity" as a feature, not a bug. In other words, some would see it as a point in the movement's favor. - Elmarco 00:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have big concerns about the neutrality of that statement in it's current form. Almost all of the mainstream media sources that i can find on the protests present them as left-aligned (left of the democrats even, often "the left's answer to the Tea Party" or something to that effect) and with the exception of maybe Ron Paul i can find no notable figure or organization right of center that supports the protests. I feel that a lack of political color is more a desire on the part of the organizers than a fact on the ground and by giving equal weight to say "liberals" and "conservatives" that paragraph paints a distorted picture. Helixdq (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. Occupy Wall Street is incompatible with conservatism, because Occupy Wall Street seeks major change, not minimal change. 83.83.118.29 (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comments: rewritten Media section
Per the above discussion, the Media section has been restored. But it's a severely neutered one at the moment. So I've rewritten most of it, adding back some information that was lost in the process. But I tried to stick to sources Viriditas advocated, per another discussion above.

Before I include such a large edit to a contentious section, I thought I'd post it here for commentary and work first. (::ahem:: a practice I would advocate, please.) If you have issues with it, look at it as a first draft and tell me what to change.

--Qwerty0 (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There seems to be agreement so I went ahead and restored the old section. IMO it shows the sequence of events well and contains several comments that have become somewhat "famous" in that they have been repeated so often in other articles.  I didn't try to include what is below into the old section yet... Gandydancer (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a spelling error in the heading "media responce" --60.242.29.171 (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, "responce" is spelled RESPONSE. Also, the section should only contain the most pertinent responses. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * An editor has already removed large sections (without even an edit summary) and I put them back. It is not appropriate to make drastic changes in a section that is being discussed.  Please give other editors a chance to review before removing this info.  Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your decision on what may be pertinent may differ from other editor's opinion. This section is under discussion at this time, please do not be disruptive. Gandydancer (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Before adding further information to the section, post it here and see if others think it is pertinent. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, coming from an editor that has not only never taken part in any discussion on this talk page but has never even made an edit summary for his frequent edits, that's an interesting comment. Gandydancer (talk) 10:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have again restored the previous section which has been under discussion. Wikipedia is a group effort and people that are too lazy or too bossy to take part in discussion should not get the idea that their editing rules.  The section may need trimming but it is up to the editors who have been discussing it to decide what should go.  Please give them a chance to decide rather than decide that you know best. Gandydancer (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The media section restart to be a collection of unfounded POV by angry journalists. There is tons of such criticism online, it's useless to collect so many samples, collect unfounded attacks word by word is to repport garbage. Need pruning, and more neutrality. Yug  (talk)  10:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see how we can be neutral without reporting on what O'Reilly and Hannity have to say about the protest. Since they have their own TV show, clearly millions of people agree with their viewpoint. Gandydancer (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter who agrees or disagrees with them. Sorry, but that's not a reason to include any source.  We include sources that are relevant and current to the subject.  What O'Reilly and Hannity have to say, according to the source material you have cited, is little to nothing about the protests but pure, opinionated attacks.  The material you added back says that liberals are garbage (O'Reilly reporter) and that Obama is to blame for the protests (Hannity).  If you can find good secondary reliable sources that highlight those criticisms, and report them to be notable, then you have an argument for inclusion.  If not, then you are cherry picking non-notable sound bites that are entirely irrelevant and less than encyclopedic.  How many people agree or disagree with their viewpoint never comes into play. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Media coverage


 * Initially many accused the U.S. media of neglecting to give the movement the coverage it deserved. Five days into the protest political commentator and writer Keith Olbermann criticized mainstream media for failing to cover Occupy Wall Street, saying, "Why isn't any major news outlet covering this? ... If that's a Tea Party protest in front of Wall Street ... it's the lead story on every network newscast." However, weeks later, a blogger at The New York Times reported that media coverage eventually increased after the arrests on September 24 and October 1, with the story appearing on all network morning news broadcasts on October 3.


 * Many commentators were repelled by the appearance of the protests. Joanna Weiss wrote in the Boston Globe her feeling that the movement is hard to take seriously due to the "circus" and "Burning Man" atmosphere. Still more criticized the protesters' lack of a coherent message. A columnist at The New York Times, after also criticizing the "carnival" atmosphere, called their cause "virtually impossible to decipher". But Derek Thompson of The Atlantic argued that the protesters' goals would inherently be diverse because of the breadth of problems facing the middle class.



Garbage journalism
What should we do with "garbage journalism", false associations without evidences, naive simplifications and generalisations, and general attacks of journalists against the movement or some political actors, such :
 * In a segment on The Sean Hannity Show, Sean Hannity alleged that, "All the talk the protesters were giving about class warfare came directly from President Obama."

I agree that these statements may be sourced, but the journalist statement is a pure stupidity, POV, based on nothing. So despite the source, I removed the statement above, and encourage similar clean up ! Yug (talk)  10:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As editors it is not up to us to decide what is stupid and what is not. I don't agree with a lot of stuff in Wikipedia, but that does not mean I should remove it.  Many people agree with everything reported on Fox News.  A large number of the Tea Party-ers still believe that Obama is a Muslim born in Africa.  Strange but true...  Gandydancer (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course, we may report that they do. We don't have to report that this is true, or reasonable. Just something to remember. --Cast (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yug shows a tendency to downplay elements that very well might be very important. Just because somebody is spewing non-sense (heh), does not make this a non-issue, especially if it occurs in a major media outlet. In fact, since it can have an effect on shaping the perception of a large audience, it is notable and I believe should be included in the article. 66.234.47.205 (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I confirm, my position is that wikipedia should not copy primitive attacks made by low level journalists. Or we should make it clear that it's a easy and unsourced/unfounded attack. Yug (talk)  14:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would think that an article in the most frequented (based on Alexa rating) news site for a particular foreign language goes beyond "low level journalism." Since it is the news site for a large part of the population, which also may not be able to verify this information in English, it is not exactly the same as posting a blog entry. Incidentally, the other major Polish news site did not report anything about the issue at the time at all, meaning this was the only high-profile article. I fail to understand how this can be considered unworthy of attention or "low level." 66.234.47.205 (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As a general approach, this MEDIA section should not cite ponctual attacks (which belong to the Criticism/Opposition sections), but should cite articles with journalists talking about the media coverage.
 * Articles directly commenting OWS media coverage:
 * Yug (talk)  14:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyway, the section is balanced now. Yug (talk)  15:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I edited your edit. If we can use FAIR as a source, perhaps we can add that her remarks have been criticized.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gandy : ) I indeed used Fair, I eventually though that an organization which is publicly know and there since 1986 is as reliable as online news website. So let's use it. Yug (talk)  18:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * About Burnett, I eventually saw the video : she seems to be more joking around that attacking OWS. Yug (talk)  19:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyway, the section is balanced now. Yug (talk)  15:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I edited your edit. If we can use FAIR as a source, perhaps we can add that her remarks have been criticized.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gandy : ) I indeed used Fair, I eventually though that an organization which is publicly know and there since 1986 is as reliable as online news website. So let's use it. Yug (talk)  18:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * About Burnett, I eventually saw the video : she seems to be more joking around that attacking OWS. Yug (talk)  19:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yug, here is your edit:
 * After interviewing several protesters CNN reporter Erin Burnett criticized them saying, "They did know what they don't want...it seems like people want a messiah leader, just like they did when they anointed Barack Obama", her report being later itself criticized as biased, condescending, and reductionist. [END OF MY EDIT AND YOURS STARTS HERE]
 * Erin Burnett has thus been denounced for her biased report, short view, and conflicting personal interest with the financial sector since she was a Goldman Sachs and Citigroup employee, and is engaged to a Citigroup executive.
 * Huffington Post journalist answered the frequently seen request of a "clear message" from the crow occupying Wall Street as a false interrogation purposely aimed to suggest confusion in the opponent side.
 * CNN journalist Douglas Rushkoff on his side denounced the condescending, reductionist, and superficial view of previous mainstream media reports, and views OWS as the first American political movement fundamentally from the internet, bottom to top, as the Facebook revolutions proceeded. Thus, he claims the movement is gathering numerous complaints, which are believed to be several symptoms of a same governance dysfunction, the collusion between the financial sector and the legislative and executive branches of the country. Over the lack of clear demands, he added:
 * On October 5, TV host Jon Stewart made a humoristic overview of the recent media coverage, enlightening the simplistic and partisan view broadcast in previous days.
 * On October 5, TV host Jon Stewart made a humoristic overview of the recent media coverage, enlightening the simplistic and partisan view broadcast in previous days.
 * On October 5, TV host Jon Stewart made a humoristic overview of the recent media coverage, enlightening the simplistic and partisan view broadcast in previous days.

You are a very nice person and I don't want to hurt your feelings, but your English is not very good. Would you mind deleting it and letting us help you with it before you put it back? The people that read Wikipedia do not know that your native language is French - it just looks like you are poorly educated to them, which reflects poorly on the article and the editors. I would go ahead and do it but it will take some time and I'm not even sure what you are trying to get across in some instances. Gandydancer (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * After having time to read the source I found that this statement: "conflicting personal interest with the financial sector since she was a Goldman Sachs and Citigroup employee, and is engaged to a Citigroup executive" was not even sourced in the ref provided. I have removed all of the above edit and please do not return it until it has been discussed.  Gandydancer (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree for my section's English to copyedit (not to delete), native speaker's help welcome.
 * For the statement, let me check the sources! Was in one of the sources. Yug (talk)  21:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Found:
 * "Burnett used to work for the same financial companies that profited from the bailouts--Goldman Sachs, Citigroup--and she is engaged to be married to a Citigroup executive. Burnett's journalistic career includes plenty of attempts to promote Wall Street interests". Source: >. In an article which is all about Burnett biases over OWS, it's basically talking about a conflict of interest. However, in the video that I later saw, Burnett seems more to make some cool and populist acide jokes over OWS protesters than really transform the reality. In anyway, my wording is excessive = remove. Thanks for your checking. Yug (talk)  21:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yug, when you say anything about living people on Wikipedia your references must be extremely good. And BTW, no she is not fooling around - she is dead serious. Thanks for being so understanding about why I removed your edit. Gandydancer (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm asking copy edit of my 7lines in a new section. Yug (talk)  05:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit requested — help please

 * ✅—— issue closed, the Media section have been reduced, the detailed content below don't need to be included anymore. Yug (talk)  11:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not a native speaker, so my English is poor. May someone spellcheck / copyedit my 9 lines, then reintegrate them to the Media reaction section.
 * After interviewing several protesters CNN reporter Erin Burnett criticized them saying, "They did know what they don't want...it seems like people want a messiah leader, just like they did when they anointed Barack Obama", her report being later itself criticized as biased, condescending, and reductionist, while also reporting she've been an ex-Goldman Sachs and Citigroup employee.
 * Huffington Post journalist answered the frequently seen request of a "clear message" from journalists to the crow occupying Wall Street as a false interrogation purposely aimed to suggest confusion in the opponent side.
 * CNN journalist Douglas Rushkoff on his side denounced the condescending, reductionist, and superficial view of previous mainstream media reports, and views OWS as the first American political movement fundamentally from the internet, bottom to top, as the Facebook revolutions proceeded. Thus, he claims the movement is gathering numerous complaints, which are believed to be several symptoms of a same governance dysfunction, the collusion between the financial sector and the legislative and executive branches of the country. Over the lack of clear demands, he added:
 * CNN journalist Douglas Rushkoff on his side denounced the condescending, reductionist, and superficial view of previous mainstream media reports, and views OWS as the first American political movement fundamentally from the internet, bottom to top, as the Facebook revolutions proceeded. Thus, he claims the movement is gathering numerous complaints, which are believed to be several symptoms of a same governance dysfunction, the collusion between the financial sector and the legislative and executive branches of the country. Over the lack of clear demands, he added:



Please correct directly, it's a wiki. Yug (talk)  05:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yug, could you make the references available? Gandydancer (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What about this ?
 * However, media theorist Douglas Rushkoff criticized Erin Burnett and other Fox News reporters for seemingly being determined to cast the protesters demands as the "silly blather of an ungrateful and lazy generation of weirdos" unsure even of what they are protesting. Rushkoff recognizes the confusion over the protest's goals, however he suggests that, "it is difficult to comprehend a 21st century movement from the perspective of the 20th century politics, media, and economics in which we are still steeped". He says that as the first true Internet-era movement, it does not necessarily have a charismatic leader or particular endpoint, and he argues that unlike a traditional protest which identifies the enemy and fights for a particular solution, the protest is less about victory than sustainability, inclusion and consensus. [END OF MY CORRECTION]
 * A Huffington Post journalist answered the frequently seen request of a "clear message" from journalists to the crow occupying Wall Street as a false interrogation purposely aimed to suggest confusion on the protesters side, while Rushkoff added:
 * On October 5, TV host Jon Stewart made a humorous overview of the recent anti-OWS media coverage, enlightening the simplistic and partisan view broadcast in previous days. but the victimisation of the protesters have also been denounced.
 * On October 5, TV host Jon Stewart made a humorous overview of the recent anti-OWS media coverage, enlightening the simplistic and partisan view broadcast in previous days. but the victimisation of the protesters have also been denounced.

Gandydancer (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's roll ! Yug (talk)  22:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yug, by posting my suggested edit from your talk page and adding some of your ideas to it and then signing my name you have made it look like all of the above post is my work. I am now sorry that I became involved in this and will not do it again. Gandydancer (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We are working on a section of article. You copyedited the first half (abstract from Rushkoff) and posted on my talkpage. I moved your post back here. I didn't added any ideas/opinion in your name, I restored the second part of the text we both said needed correction and are working on and added one more fact/source. That's wiki. We move on fast. Yug (talk)  08:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅— issue closed, the Media section have been pruned, simplistic garbage journalism (Erin Burnett, Fox news) have been remove, so Jon Stewart's & others humorous counter attack is not need anymore as well. Good move for everyone. Yug (talk)  11:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Higher-res Bull/Dancer Poster
Holdithigh (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, everybody. I am extremely new to editing wikipedia, but I am just writing to say that I have a higher resolution version of the poster image. Requesting permission to upload it, or at least email to someone who will put it up for me. Whatever it takes to bolster the cause. Thank you!
 * Thanks for the offer! However, we can only use a low-resolution version under fair use laws because the poster has not been released under an appropriate license by its creator.--~TPW 20:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "To bolster the cause..." Well I guess we know your pov about this subject!141.165.191.208 (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request for the political support section
Please edit the reference to Ron Paul.

"U.S. Congressman and 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) expressed his support for the core demands of protests"

The citation DOES NOT support this claim. The quotes in the article do not support this statement. They speak about his feelings in regard to the pepper-spray incident and his general feeling of support for the act of protest. The specific quote I imagine the author to be referencing as support for the article's claim ("If they were demonstrating peacefully, and making a point, and arguing our case, and drawing attention to the Fed — I would say, good!" Paul said following a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire.") does not say that Ron Paul supports the "core beliefs" of the OWS movement. This misrepresents Dr. Paul's political views and should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djhurt77 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Paul is now quoted directly. Good catch. --Lexein (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)