Talk:Occupy movement

"Part of the impact of the Arab Spring"

Could somone explain to me why the infobox says "Part of the impact of the Arab Spring" ... why Arab Spring? because it's in the same year (2011)? Hello, correlation, not causation... I know that Tunisia was caused by an unemployed guy, but the protest was against the oppressive Tunisian government and not Wall Street/Greed. . Similarly, Egypt and Libya were antigovernment protests against military dictators. Are we saying that people in the US are rising up to overthrow the government? Where is the source for that? I suggest we take out unsourced, unattributed "causal" references to "Arab Spring" unless someone can provide a compelling reason to keep. Peace, MPS (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I am with you on this one. Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street are two different topics. XantheTerra (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Read some of the remarks of the original organizers of Occupy Wall Street. They were explicitly trying to emulate the occupation of Tahrir Square. It's absolutely been impacted by the Arab Spring. It doesn't have to be of the same scale or importance to still be influenced by it.

--Qwerty0 (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree the world saw the success of Tunisia, and Egypt, and with Libya and Syria in the news so much (and to a lesser extent Bahrain earlier on, as well as Yemen) it undeniably influenced the Occupy Movement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.255.226 (talk) 05:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that, but my opinion, and the opinion of everyone else here, is irrelevant. We need a reliable source to say it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

See the Blog http://thenextstageintheworldrevolutions.blogspot.com/ where Egyptian Activist Nawal El Saadawi, the 80 year old Egyptian Feminist who was constantly at Tahrir Square during the protests that toppled Mubarak has stated that this is the beginning of a non-violent world revolution.

first, this movement has no official heads who could be interviewed on this, there will never be a proof! secondly north africa is the neighbour of spain, the influence is comprehensible. and third: I share the opinion (:)) these protests which may appear on different scales are in a way interrelated as we are facing serious global problems. concluding I have to state social phenomena are always hard to catch by evidence (life forms are different from machines) but in this case I find it more valuable to keep the reference to the arabic spring as it all started there...historically it ought to be seen like that. believe me ;) [sry I am a lousy editor and I hate htmlcoding, I am unable to sign correctly. missingheel) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missingheel (talk • contribs) 08:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

To put your signature, just put 4 tildes (~) in a row. mcklucker (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source to confirm that the Occupy movement was inspired by Arab Spring. From http://occupywallst.org -- the sidebar says, "We are using the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to achieve our ends and encourage the use of nonviolence to maximize the safety of all participants." Also, from the About section of that site, "Occupy Wall Street is a horizontally organized resistance movement employing the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to restore democracy in America." I apologize if this is formatted wrong--I'm new to this, but I do have an interest and knowledge about this topic so I wanted to share this. Stacey B. 03:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StaceyLB1987 (talk • contribs)

I think this is in fact a very reliable source. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.61.7.33 (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

To use a quote that includes "...restore democracy in America" is incorrect. America has not lost it's government. People has lost it's government. In the sense, that this generation has the right to vote, but they don't. Arab Spring is/was about fighting democracy with their lives. This movement is more along the line of a protest. It's to show government that if things don't change, we will vote people into office that will change things. — DarkFrog (talk) — 17:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "frequently compared to the Arab Spring" would be more accurate and referencable. Or rather than "inspired by" say "modeled on the Arab Spring movements". 82.44.81.83 (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is well documented that AdBusters was inspired by the Arab Spring in its call to occupy Zucotti park on September 17th. One reference here: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/adbusters-occupy-wall-street-innovator-movement-wind-start-spring-article-1.977956 That's one stream. Another stream of inspiration for this particular action is certainly the G8 anti-internationalization protests. Folks from those protests went to Zucotti park with experience and systems which have been in evidence at Zucotti park. That group is likely not inspired by the Arab Spring since they were active before the protests in Tunisia (and also before the Iranian election protests in 2009). A third stream is that a more general public has gotten activated and supportive of this kind of protest. It is likely that this group was educated in the potential effect of overnight protests by watching the Arab spring. I therefore think that it is valid to cite the Arab Spring as one of several sources of inspiration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.109.196.34 (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Selective merges of some "Occupy X" pages

There's a proliferation of city specific pages at the moment (see List of North American "Occupy" protests), and while some of these will undoubtedly be notable standalone articles, some may need to be merged in the future. There needs to be some discussion about merging some of these city-specific articles together in some capacity, although certainly not all of them.

The problem with lots of small separate articles is that much of the information is common to all of them, and having them in one place is much more useful to readers, and much easier to monitor for vandalism/accuracy. Not to mention that virtually any city of size is having these and we'd be looking at hundreds if not thousands of potential articles. Centralizing all but the most notable of these seems prudent at some point.

I'm content to wait for a few weeks because then we can judge whether the coverage of a particular movement is notable enough. But we do not need an "occupy" article for every city where people protest, especially when much of the useful information about them is common to all. Also, it seems like some of these smaller occupy pages are serving as itineraries which isn't exactly great encyclopedia content.

Any thoughts? Shadowjams (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

My initial thought is that while some of the protests stand alone notable, some will not be by themselves. However, we could create several decent articles combining them by U.S. state, like Occupy Canada. Occupy Ashland may or may not expand to a full detailed article, but we could create Occupy protests in Oregon, and merge all Oregon Occupy protests into one article and make one decent one (with no prejudice to having Occupy Salem or related Oregon Occupy articles remain intact). — Moe ε 00:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Lets start with a "Occupy" movement in the United States or Occupy movement in the United States article as an overview and for a place to add individual "Occupy X" info that does not warrant its own article. I have already created Category:Occupy movement in the United States. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think those're both great starts. I think even now, two weeks later, it's safe to wait before mass merging, but yes, this is good to start thinking about how to combine some of these now to make it more accessible for readers, and easier to add to / maintain for editors. Shadowjams (talk) 06:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Start date?

The infobox says the movement started in September 17 (when Wall Street was Occupied), but the lead claims a July 30 date. So which is it?--~TPW 21:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

A Legal Section On Camps Would Be Useful

The legality of setting up a 'camp' , and the circumstances under which Police/Local Authorities can remove them would be interesting and useful. 'Hooverville' types of squatters camps are bound to increase in the UK in the near future, as cuts in benefits make tens of thousands homeless in London alone: where can these be set up, what form can they take, how long can people stay, etc etc. Which laws are used agaisnt such protesters, and what are the possible defences? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.229.57 (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There have been hundreds of these events. Each location could have a different legal situation. Such an addition for each location would massively increase the size of this article. I'd suggest including such information in the articles on specific protests, where they have been deemed important enough to exist. HiLo48 (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-03/politics/30353835_1_tea-party-movement-unfavorable-view-positive-views. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Jacksoncw has repeatedly inserted poll numbers into the article using the same wording as an article in Business Insider:

• "Just 30 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the protests, while 39 percent do not." (Business Insider)
• "...just 30 percent of American voters have a favorable view of the protests, while 39 percent do not." (Jacksoncw)

I have warned Jacksoncw not to put this text into the article, but he returned it anyway, ditching the Business Insider cite for another. However, copying text from Business Insider does not stop being a problem if the article is not used as a cite. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Explain

Please explain your reverts [1] of well-sourced information, and your addition of highly disputable information. B^e——C_ritical 20:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly I haven't added anything, I have reverted the undiscussed deletion of half of the lead, and its replacement with a bold statement which in my view is overly simplistic and not reflected in most sources, and which is in any case in the body of the article, where it works and can be balanced. Sources from opinion pieces should be treated with extreme caution when making broad brush comments about such a wide-ranging and complex topic as the Occupy movement. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

'The protesters want more and better jobs, more equal distribution of income, bank reform, and a reduction of the influence of corporations on politics' is very much an opinion, not a fact, and should not be presented boldly as a trite description of the movement in the lead, in my view.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, but the other badly sourced stuff should come out. Do you have an objection to that? B^e——C_ritical 22:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks pretty well sourced to me, and pretty factual. What do you want to cut?Rangoon11 (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The relationship to the arab spring is in question. this is a primary source, and seems to be rhetoric at most, without any historical data offered to show a connection beyond the "in the name of" kind of allusion. This merely asks the question. This doesn't even count as a source for the statement. B^e——C_ritical 00:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Try these for size: [2] and [3]. I didn't think this was a disputed point, more a self-evident fact.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Much better. Looks like you've got your sources. Consider coming over to Occupy Wall Street, and putting this information in. For whatever reasons I can't now find in the talk archives, I think it was deleted there. B^e——C_ritical 03:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

File:The first OccupyDataran poster.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:The first OccupyDataran poster.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Info Box: Characteristics: Non-Violence

Why does the info box list non-violence as a characteristic? There are many people protesting using violent means:

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/11/06/11-protesters-arrested-after-assaulting-police-at-occupy-riverside-rally/

http://www.ksbw.com/politics/29740962/detail.html

http://www.ksbw.com/politics/29715318/detail.html

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10/occupy-dc-protest-thugs-pin-museum-guard-against-wall-try-to-storm-smithsoniun-video/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-11-13/occupy-movement-violent-fringe/51188258/1

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/28/flier-at-occupy-phoenix-asks-when-should-you-shoot-a-cop/

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/209671.php

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/132064518.html

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/occupy_er_slugs_cop_yCFvG1cOT7Mbq3XGgz2cHI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T1BWETV75hU#%21

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/crime&id=8429956

http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_19325025

http://www.kmtr.com/news/local/story/Gresham-police-bill-Occupy-Portland-for-vandalism/iYoFYCooQECw8P20siWWeQ.cspx

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0%2c2817%2c2395836%2c00.asp#fbid=xLk0md9IGYm?fbid%3dF94U_cqQb5A

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/man-cited-occupy-sf-arrested-again-threatening-par/nFZ9L/

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1275437870001/violence-and-the-occupy-movement/

--72.47.85.22 (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there have been thousands of arrests and hundreds of cases of violent acts being committed by the protesters; I am removing that description. --Jacksoncw (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you had better wait for discussion before you remove it. I do not agree with the removal. Gandydancer (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Neither do I, in a movement of this scale and decentralised/leaderless nature random acts by certain individuals operating on the fringes cannot be held as reflective of the movement as a whole. The broad movement is non-violent (although it is increasingly the victim of violence by police etc).Rangoon11 (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The great civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. advocated non-violence and his protesters were trained in non-violence, but the movement was met by extreme violence and police brutality that resulted in many deaths. That does not change the fact that it was organized as a non-violent protest. Gandydancer (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

While you're right about MLK and the civil rights movement, that doesn't transfer to the occupy movement. There is a difference between the civil rights movement "being met by violence" and occupy movement being a source of violence.--160.133.1.228 (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupy protestors are breaking windows at various banks on the west coast...

http://www.kptv.com/story/16033228/windows-smashed-at-portland-bank --72.47.85.22 (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There are several fundamental differences between non-violence as advocated by MLK and the OWS movement. For one thing, MLK was against civil disobedience, and said that if the police wishes to arrest you or to beat you, you would let yourselves be arrested and beaten (until the conscience of the attacker stops him). That is not what was happening in OWS. MLK also advocated non-violence not just as a means but as an ends to itself, whereas the current OWS movement focuses on non-violence as a means to achieve its goal. Example: One third of surveyed protesters in a WSJ poll said that they are willing to use violence to achieve their goals, which shows that the mostly peaceful nature of the protests are more about image than philosophy. I actually find OWS's conception of "non-violence" more sensible myself, but that is not the way MLK or Gandhi saw it, so the use of the term is misleading. I believe the term "civil disobedience" which is currently in the article is a good substitute. JimSukwutput 16:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of civil disobedience. Read the articles. Gandydancer (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

So you insist that the OWS was organized as a "non-violent" protest following the philosophy of MLK? Why? JimSukwutput 05:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

removal of speculative sentence in introduction?

The end of the introduction section states "Protestors and commentators such as former Financial Times editor Richard Lambert have suggested that the shift to confrontational tactics by authorities is more likely to spur on the movement rather than cause it to disband. [24] [25]"

This sentence is not a factual statement and purely speculative analysis. This could be deemed as inciting outcomes rather being informative of events. The sentence may be more appropriate later on in the page, along with some other analysis.--Halma10 (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A well made point. I moved the speculative sentence to the Chronology sentence, and added a non speculative source by the excellent journalist Beth Davies to the lede. It has a detailed city by city break down of the evictions and facts about the immediate aftermath, along with reaction by the protestors. I hope you read it if you like to see non speculative coverage from a global perspective.

It was good of you to ask on talk, but just as a fyi I never mind editors reverting or changing stuff Ive added which they dont like. Only in the rare cases that I object would we need to discuss on talk. Just my opinion, but I think it saves spending time on chat if we edit boldly on the main pages by default. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

create or activate translations

Forgive me, I have never used the Discussion board, and do not know how to do so properly. However, it would be a significant contribution if an editor could activate or create translations of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement into more languages than the six listed. It is an "international protest movement"[4] therefore it should be available on Wikipedia in as many languages as possible. Thank you for your time and patience.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.219.123.132 (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2011‎ (UTC)

Occupy Everything

I've seen several references to the 2009 Occupy Everything being part of the basis of the Occupy movement. See Los Angeles Review of Books [5] by Joshua Clover. occupyca dates back to 2009. There were similar Occupy events in NYC.[6] While it is always going to be difficult to draw the line to say where this movement started, I think we need a 'history' section to broadly cover some of these obvious fore-runners. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, good idea.Rangoon11 (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Deaths

The death count says that there are eight deaths, but of the three sources linked to it one's a dead link, one doesn't link to the article, and the third only lists two deaths. The titles of the other two imply that there were only 4 deaths total; one woman and three men. 68.42.20.87 (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Impact

This entire section was removed with the explanation that it's OR. This article needs a section that describes what, if any, impact, including social impact, this movement has had. Every proposition is amply supported by RS. I will restore this unless there are objections.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It is too soon to gauge the full global impact of this fledgling and multifaceted social movement. In the United States, the protests have helped shift the national dialogue from the deficit to economic problems ordinary Americans face, such as unemployment, the large amount of student and other personal debt that burdens middle class and working class Americans, and other major issues of social inequality, such as homelessness. The movement does appear to have generated a national conversation about income inequality, as print and broadcast news has mentioned the term “income inequality” more than five times more often during the last week of October 2011 than during the week before the occupation began.

Labor unions have become bolder in the tactics they employ and have been using digital social media more effectively because of the Occupy movement. In New York City, the Occupy Wall Street protest has also provided hundreds of protesters to help in picket actions conducted by labor unions. A survey by the media analysis company Global Language Monitor published in early November 2011 found that 'Occupy' had been the most commonly-used word in English-language media worldwide over the prior 12 months.

Personally I thought that the deletion of the whole section was too swingeing. It needed some work, but not gutting.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Bias

there doesn't seem to be...any... mention of "the movement" experiencing any troubles. the whole article reads with heavy bias toward propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.180.123 (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Be specific. Where is the bias, and what trouble were you expecting? If you can cite it, you can add it. +mt 08:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Weezer1982 or the revision before. Thank you. 67.61.16.136 (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)bRiMaTiOn

potential resource A Sleeping Giant Awakens cover story

• American Spring? by Robert Hirschfield in December 2011 issue of Sojourners magazine, "Finding connections between the past, present, and future at Occupy Wall Street."

• An Open Letter to Occupy Wall Street by Jim Wallis, "Nonviolence is not just a critical tactic but a necessary commitment."

• From the Editors, "Even while Occupy Wall Street and the worldwide movement it has helped ignite captured the public’s attention this fall, some observers claimed not to understand what the protests were all about."

99.190.83.205 (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)