Talk:Occupy Wall Street

"What is our one demand?"

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

"Spanish Revolution"

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

"Russia Today"

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

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

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

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

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

"Specific demands are in the process of being developed."

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

*PEACEFUL* Protests using FARM EQUIPMENT ?

: Sections not about Occupy wall street -> hidden.

I thought you might find this cross-cultural protest info of value or interest for discussion. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/french-farmers-protest-at-channel-tunnel-738263.html http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/french-farmers-protest-over-price-fall-3080474 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFdpx6gxtLk CLEARLY, one would have to consult a lawyer here to see IF it is LEGAL to use Farm equiptment (or similar urban counterparts) as part of a *PEACEFUL* protest. (If it is NOT legal then CLEARLY you should NOT do it, but IF IT *IS* LEGAL, it might be worth looking into or at least discussing to compare cross cultural protest approaches?) (I might add that I think Hoffa used trucks in Washington DC as part of a union protest many years ago, but again the key is that is must be PEACEFUL and you should also speak with your lawyers to make sure that it is LEGAL to do so...) Here is a link to an article about a recent French protest using TRUCKS : http://www.euronews.net/2008/06/05/french-truckers-block-roads-in-more-fuel-price-protests/ Youtube video of Farm Equipment in French Protest http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFdpx6gxtLk CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND PEACEFUL PROTESTS ? Any Info ? Has anyone found any good sources on the use of CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT in PEACEFUL PROTESTS ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.116.128.56 (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Links with the 2011 Israeli social justice protests ?

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

Media and Social networking coverage.

There seems to be a common thread that the event is being carried by social networking but not in the Main Stream Media. Is it worth commenting on this or at least supplying any references to this issue? Lordandrei (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

A comment about the low mainstream media coverage should fit right in, I'd say. Nearly everywhere I go reading about OWS, there are people complaining about just that. (Then again, though, if it's true there are only a few hundred protesters, low media coverage doesn't seem so strange.) MattieRenard (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Granted it would seem better if there was a media report on the lack of media report to have something to cite rather than just attendees. Lordandrei (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

WSJ, The Atlantic, MSNBC, The Christian Science Monitor, Associated Press, bloomberg.com, Daily News (New York), ... resources

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

97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Arrests reported 9/24/11

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

• Article is updated, I see. Here is the New York Times article, for the record: [1] Jusdafax 05:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• I see the NYT video of the 'pepperspray' incident is used as a ref. This article [2] claims to identify the NYPD officer responsible, though I don't know if the website will stand as a reliable source. Jusdafax 17:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A professional photographer, David Myles, has said on his blog [3] that he was present and witnessed the 'pepperspraying' while photographing the event and later identified the officer in question from photographs as Deputy Inspector Bologna. Myles is also the source cited by the article on Common Dreams that Jusdafax referenced (above). Wouldn't it be reasonable to quote Myles with attribution, that ought to stand as a reliable source? - Elmarco 13:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Potential resource

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

Incite?

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

I agree - it should state "encouraged" rather than "incited". Gandydancer (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Alleged excessive use of force

A section of Alleged excessive use of force incidents has been deleted and some of it merged with other sections for no particular reason. We have many evidence for it, as much as we had in Libyan revolt, Tunisian revolution, Egyptian revolution, but in those articles it wasn't deleted. Explanation anyone? Mrwho00tm (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like the entire section was merged. I don't see that any text was deleted. The person who deleted the section heading left an edit summary that read, "section title is inherently pov", and since the section title was "Excessive use of force incidents", I'm inclined to agree. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hold on there, if there are various sources pointing out the possibility that there have been violations of of human rights, that according to regular practice in Wiki deserves a section dedicated to it. It has been the same in every Arab spring article, only in the US or EU related articles there are constantly some people denying and deleting any "anti-american/"anti-EU" articles or parts of article.

If there are 5 different sources saying there has been police violence against protesters in Yemen, then it gets a section that describes the allegations.

If there are 5 different sources saying there has been police violence against protesters in US/EU it only gets a small mention in the whole article? Mrwho00tm (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I have not yet seen acceptable references that state Alleged excessive use of force incidents. Could you provide a reference? Gandydancer (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Arent the occupywallst.com site and various videos on Youtube showing the suspicious acts by police pretty big references to consider? I will check for more of them when I have time, but hey, we had sections on wikipedia dedicated to things that only few people claimed, and even they didn't have the evidence to prove. Now we have evidence, we have atleast one source claiming the acts did occur, yet we still dont have a section dedicated to it?

I have a feeling some people forgot that this is an encyclopedia, and if one side gets the attention, so must other.Mrwho00tm (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at what the police are doing yourself and then declaring that the force used is excessive is original research. We must wait for reliable third party media to start labeling it as such. I might even agree that some of the police interaction has been excessive, but this is irrelevant. We must strive to be neutral and have no opinion in the article; I deleted no information with my edit and only removed a section title that displayed a clear POV. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously people writing on the Occupywallst site can't be doing "original research". Still, it's important to remember that the web site is just one primary source - there is some risk of getting bogged down in blow-by-blow tactical information with day-by-day importance to protesters while missing the overall point and impact of the protest. I don't think Wikipedia should shy away from detail, but it's easier to defend it from those who do when the rest of the topic is also well covered. Wnt (talk) 06:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

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. Jusdafax 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)

POV Article

This article seems to be exactly the type of piece that the demonstrators would write in their media narrative drive. It is not objective. Some more fact based narrative would go a long ways towards making this seem encylopedic rather than propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.145.224.34 (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

What specific suggestions do you have, and what reliable sources are they based upon? --John (talk) 06:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there might be some editing going on here that may fall under WP:COI; still, WP:SOFIXIT is always good advice. Wnt (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes......and your specific suggestions? Gandydancer (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"hacker group Anonymous", half of the Media subsection, the entire Personalities subsection all appear to be written with a slanted POV. Not just what is quoted, but how it is quoted. Occupy_Wall_Street#March on Brooklyn Bridge states multiple statements, but there is only one claim that is taken out of context given that it was describing the police as fearing the crowd and retreating, which is much unlikely. Ipuvaepe (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"peaceful demonstration"

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

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

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

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

I hardly consider an attempt to attack wall street and block it off via force peaceful. In fact this is worse than 9/11 at least then it was foreigners — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.169.226 (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"foreigners"!? Are you arguing for a neutral point of view here? "peaceful" is potentially a matter of objective fact. While there are always matters of degree between peaceful and violent, the only violence I have heard of is from the NYPD.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

What is our one demand?

The poster shown is given a caption that "What is our one demand?" indicates the absence of a single demand. Is that based on a source or is it original research? I have no inside knowledge, but to me the image of a woman standing on one leg with outstretched arms on top of a raging bull would seem to give the answer, "Balance!" - so I am reluctant to accept the interpretation provided here. Wnt (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the demand, actually? Is this just an event where people who are angry at Wall St protest? No demand at all but just crowd influence to scare Wall St?--72.19.122.62 (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This page does not represent the people whose political ideologies are diverse, so please open up this protest as common people uniting against wall street and their control of the white house. It is not purely an anti-capitalism movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJJ509 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No, not completely, but it still is mostly an anti-capitalism movement. The rest is from other groups, also mostly extremists of various forms. It was started by Adbusters, and has not moved into the mainstream. You shouldn't try to make this look like it's a bunch of normal people. They're not. It's like putting lipstick on a pig. That only makes the article look foolish.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW: The opinion from an activist that's posted on HuffPo is not a good enough reference to say it's a "diverse group of demonstrators from various social and political backgrounds."

At best, you could use a reference that so-and-so says it's diverse, and let the reader decide based on the merits of that person. But a one-shot opinion piece on HuffPo isn't enough to make this worth doing.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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

I agree with the above proposal to merge the Anthony Bologna page into the Occupy Wall Street article. Christian Roess (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree.

The Anthony Bologna article has a lot of detailed information that would be off topic for this entry about the Occupy Wall Street Protests. In fact, many of the sources cited in the Anthony Bologna article do not refer to the Occupy Wall Street incident at all--specifically the following:

• Shapiro, Julie (May 4, 2010). "Commanding Officer Leaves First Precinct After Five Years of Service"
• Aries de la Cruz (2001-05). "POLICE BLAMED FOR INCITING MAYDAY RIOT IN NYC. AGAIN."
• Amateau, Albert (June 24, 2005). "New captain busted pushers, gangsters and cops". Downtown Express.

Furthermore, many of those sources that do refer to that incident also refer to unrelated incidents, such as the alleged civil rights violations committed by Anthony Bologna during the 2004 Republican National Convention protests--specifically:

• "Hackers grab Goldman CEO's personal data". CBS News. September 27, 2011.
• Read, Max (September 26, 2011). "Pepper Spray Cop Already Had Civil-Rights Complaint". Gawker.com
• And an additional Huffington Post citation that was deleted by the same editor who suggested merging the articles (who also deleted numerous other sources from the article).

The suggestion that the articles be merged seems, on its face, designed to shield officer Bologna from public scrutiny, rather than being based on objective criteria. PromiseOfNY (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a very baseless accusation you make charging another editor with trying to promote some sort of shadowy censorship in favor of the subject of an article. I remind you to assume good faith. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

And in no way do I think his page should be deleted. If people type his name into Wikipedia, it will still redirect here (as it should). Inks.LWC (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"New Poster"

I see no evidence that the McDonald's poster is from AdBusters; it appears to be a slam on the protesters and should not be put back up. It's also a low quality image. --David Shankbone 21:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the poster which is supposedly the work of the editor. The threatening message was highly improper as well. We will need a ref to show that this poster is being used to represent the protest before it is again suggested for this article. Gandydancer (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

See also

The New York Times recently compared OWS with social justice/anti-corruption/economic protests around the world that synthesized them into a global movement, so I added the protests they mentioned to 'see also'. Here is the ref. --David Shankbone 00:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Union Support for Occupy Wall Street

According to various sources including Crain's New York Business[4], Business Insider [5] and Huffington Post [6] there has been a vote in support of Occupy Wall Street by the board of the largest local (Local 100 in NYC) of the Transport Workers Union of America, as well as support from other union and liberal organizations. I tend to be on the cautious side with refs, and have yet to see mention of this in what has been called the mainstream media, but if we are calling any or all of these three posted sources 'reliable' then this is info that belongs in the article, in my view. Jusdafax 02:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that these are reliable sources and belongs in the article. Your information has been transferred to Timeline of Occupy Wall Street so that this main article's general subject does not lose its focus and become too large, or unwieldy and unmanageable. Thanks. Christian Roess (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Is a timeline article really necessary? The current main article is nowhere close to large enough to require size restriction splits. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, Scalper. I think the separate timeline does the article a major disservice, as many casual readers will not click to go to that link. This has the effect of "burying" information that would otherwise be readily available. Jusdafax 04:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is a good thing to get a timeline article going since I believe that over time this article will grow considerably. But I agree that it should not take the place of any new developments because linked articles don't get much traffic. I certainly do plan to include the new union developments in this article as they develop. I think that the editor did a good job with the timeline and I have already been glad to have if for reference. Gandydancer (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to have it but I think it belongs in the article. Otherwise important information like the union support gets buried away from the article, as I say. I disagree with the lengthy section below supporting two articles... I say we replace the current merger proposal about the NYPD officer, which has gained no traction, with a proposal to merge the two articles- this and the sepatate timeline, which makes much more sense to me. Let's see where consensus is on merging the timeline to here. Jusdafax 05:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Indiscriminate changes: Occupy Wall Street is in San Francisco?

There is a strong case to be made for the timeline after looking at today's edits. The Infobox now says San Francisco is the location of Occupy Wall Street and information about the occupation of banks in San Francisco is in the main article. What is Occupy Wall Street? Is it a generic term that now refers to all the subsequent Occupy movements? Ok, then let's keep San Francisco in here. But isn't that POV? Why aren't other cities listed as part of the Occupy Wall Street (in the generic sense) movement? I think consensus will need to be reached on this issue eventually. I think San Francisco does not belong in the infobox. Christian Roess (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Now this reference to San Francisco could be worked into the Timeline of Occupy Wall Street (in fact another editor has already added it today!). For example, just a one sentence NPOV line in the timeline like: "Protesters in San Francisco claim to be inspired by the Occupy Wall Street Movement". Then add a citation to back up this statement. If Occupy San Francisco becomes a sustained movement like Occupy Wall Street, then start a new Wikipedia article. Christian Roess (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Now the poster in the infobox is changed. I put the original OWS poster back in. I suggest that this article which documents a current event is also a "historical" record. The new poster with "join U.S." looks like an advertisement to spread the movement across the U.S.. It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to update this site to correspond with the Occupy Wall Street's every change. We are not a mouthpiece for the movement. This page is documenting this situation that is ongoing, centered around a core group of 200-300 supporters camped out in Liberty Plaza. The infobox lists 2,000-3,000 in the infobox. Once again that changes. The group's supporters do swell to those numbers on certain days. But news reports from different sources indicate that the core group occupying Liberty Park/Plaza on a consistent basis (eating there, sleeping, cooking) is NOT more than 200-300 Christian Roess (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Please use the Timeline of Occupy Wall Street before making daily updates to this page

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

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

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

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

Anonymous' threat to the NYPD

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

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

Vandalism Watch

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

If there's a lot of vandalism it can be semiprotected. But looking at the history I'm not seeing that much vandalism. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Added the current event header. --Fayerman (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Flag is officially supporting the protests now.

You can read their blog entry here. http://www.anti-flag.com/?p=146

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

October 1st sources

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

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)

Total arrested?

Just wonder, because I just read this claiming that the past day alone has had 700, citing NYPD, and I don't want to change the 500 figure without mentioning it here. 68.227.169.59 (talk) 04:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

All major outlets updated their count to 700 at Brooklyn Bridge. --Fayerman (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

BIASED ARTICLE???

CAN WE PLEASE GET SOMEONE WHO ISN'T BIASED TO FIX THIS ARTICLE!!!ALSO PLEASE CITE EVERY FACT PUT IN HERE ESPECIALLY THE NUMBERS!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.165.191.73 (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You. --Fayerman (talk) 04:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

could I have a better response than just the one word "you"???!!! I'm not sure what that exactly means!?!141.165.191.73 (talk) 05:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think he means be bold and fix it yourself. Or, for another way to say it:

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).

—Darkwind (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Commentary on the Demographics of the crowd?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• So there weren't 10,000 people there as the information in the article says. Somebody changed it back from what I had done and didn't even cite any appropriate sources i'll change it from 0-1000 using what you told me but i'll try and find some appropriate sources for it. AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
• so i wouldn't be going to far as to say these people consist of 20 to upper 30 somethings, who hold far-left wing views, pretty much nobody but communist, anarchist and socialist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk • contribs) 08:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

False information, unreliable primary sources.

A quick example, in the lead it has three citations for the claim that there are events in 52 cities...but a closer look clearly shows that none of those sources can be considered reliable, all being heavily biased in favour of the protests. Perhaps that they are making the (incorrect) claim should be in the article, but to have it in the lead without mention that it's wrong is severely undue weight. Also, don't respond with 'you', not every IP who comes here is going to know how to edit wikipedia and the article is semi-protected. 92.16.104.63 (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I posted 'You' (04:52, 2 October 2011) in response to another poster before the article was semi-protected (07:08, 2 October 2011). Editing an article is almost as easy as writing here. But I agree with you that any unreliable and unsourced facts should be removed. --Fayerman (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Article restructuration need

I moved together similar contents, 4 sections now make 2 new super-sections.

1. #Chronology — now hosting both key dates and the major incidents,
2. #Demands and Goals — now hosting all the demands and political view of the protesters.

Please, a native English speaker is welcome to make these two section more balanced in size. The chronology section goes too much in details about incidents and arrests, which can be moved to the chronology & peeper spray articles. The Demand and goals section sound like a poorly written draft with content duplication. Yug (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that you are being a little too critical of the article. If you have not worked on an article such as this it is hard to understand how difficult it can be. Keep in mind that as editors we have diverse backgrounds and viewpoints, and must negotiate what is/is not included. On the other hand, most of us desire a good article that fairly expresses all points of view, and that is what inspires us to go forward. From Day 1 we had no idea where this protest was going - and we still don't, so we add, subtract, and reorganize as we go along. I'd say that all-in-all we're doing a very good job! Gandydancer (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree ;) I've been active and structuring about 5 to 10 similar socio-political articles since 2005: French riots, Tibetan riots, Greek riots, Tunisian revolution, Egyptian revolution, Libyan revolution, Occupy Wall street. Editing and being bold to avoid content duplication, clarify the socio-economic background, goals, and increase the quality. I stated directions I pushed, and where we should continue to push forward. I made about 20 edits, moves, merges, copyedits, but I'm simply not a native speaker. My ability to merge/rewrite sections involve... a poor grammar. But yes, we are moving toward a better article. Cheer ! Yug (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Can someone merge the remaining chronology list to Timeline of Occupy Wall Street? Perhaps a short paragraph written in prose would suffice in the Chronology of events section. Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. (See WP:EMBED). --Fayerman (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Vague statement from NYPD spokesperson about ongoing legal cases

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

Open Source Posters Available

Should we include a couple of these open source images? I vote yes. http://www.occupytogether.org/downloadable-posters/ KSRolph (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Media spin?

:Non sense

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)

Adbsuters description

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

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

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

Also further down on the OccupyWallStreet page it states

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

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

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

Edit request from Varunvkrishnan, 2 October 2011

:JP Morgan donation -> actually 6 months ago
Donation from JP morgan chase - can it be separated to a different section? Also would it be interesting to add details of the response of other Wall streen firms? Varun (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Actuay 6 months old. To edit or remove. I'm on it. Yug (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Emchristiansen, 2 October 2011

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

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

Emchristiansen (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Edit request - Protesters with Troy Davis Placards

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

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

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

Archive bot

With the activity on this page, I propose setting up archiving via a bot. Please weigh in, and (if you support) offer suggestions about how old threads ought to be prior to archiving.--~TPW 20:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good. Steven Walling • talk 21:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I added the code but commented it out; once there's consensus it's ready to go. I opted for archiving threads seven days after the last entry, which of course can be changed.--~TPW 21:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Cost

Does anyone know a way of determining how much money these protests have cost each municipality. Either police officers are from the local precinct and they're making overtime, or the police officers from other areas in the city. I have to assume the cost has to be pretty high.Racingstripes (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't really see the point. You want to balance this price with how much money these bankers have cost each municipality ? Yug (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I think the request was to document what the cost of the protest is. That is probably verifiable and neutral.--~TPW 22:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

To assign the cost of additional police manpower to the protest assumes that the additional manpower is justified and necessary, and that assumption (absent convincing supporting evidence) is hardly neutral. Cities overreact when they perceive (or think they perceive) a threat; in particular law enforcement overreacts. Also putting additional manpower on the street gives the impression to TV viewers that the situation is more dangerous than it in fact is, an impression that those in power may have a vested interest in creating. Politicians who want to appear "tough on crime" may put more police on the street for the voters to see on TV. To blindly assume that the police presence is necessary and justified and assign the cost of it to the protests is far from neutral. - Elmarco 02:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

resource NYT October 2nd.

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

Canadian cities are doing occupations

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

Stop putting in non-cited information in

There is a lot of information being put in the article that isn't being cited and sourced. This why I got the article protected, so that I could stop people just dumping whatever they want in it. If you want to change something, it needs to be talked about on this page before! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk • contribs) 00:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Motive & Goals of protesters

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

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

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

Extremely unorganized

For some reason when I read this article I feel extremely scatter-brained. There seems to be useless information everywhere and it is not organized correctly. I helped write the 2011 Wisconsin protests article and it went much more smoothly than this one. I will continue to make small edits everywhere but would need general consensus before making major changes. S51438 (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You certainly did not ask for consensus before adding the Alex Jones "editorial" or the non-related section discussing union/corporate political donations. Gandydancer (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This edit is a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

If you have a reliable source for it then feel free to put it in. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 05:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• But yeah, I agree that this article is unorganized and poorly written. There is so much unsupported stuff put in here!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk • contribs) 07:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

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

"Noted" hypocrisy?

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

I just added the following to the article:

Accusation of hypocrisy regarding protestors' alleged opposition to corporate welfare
In an opinion piece at infowars.com, Paul Joseph Watson pointed out the hypocrisy of protestors who supported the reelection of President Obama, stating, "How can a self-proclaimed Occupy Wall Street protester simultaneously support the man whose 2008 campaign was bankrolled by Wall Street, whose 2012 campaign is reliant on Wall Street to an even greater extent, and whose cabinet was filled with Wall Street operatives?" While Senator, Obama had voted in favor of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which provided $700 billion in corporate welfare to Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, Capital One, Bank of New York Mellon, and many other large corporations.

Mk2z0h (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Impact of #occupywallstreet

Currently there is no information about the impact of the movemtn, i've read that it has started similar movements in boston, denver, chicago etc, there is now a website http://www.occupytogether.org/ "an unofficial hub for all of the events springing up across the country in solidarity with Occupy Wall St." which should definitly be included--120.151.136.251 (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Inserting that kind of information would violate multiple policies of Wikipedia (e.g. WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY, WP:NPV, etc.) --Fayerman (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem tags: explanation needed

The following tags have been added to this page:

• It may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
• Its neutrality is disputed.
• It needs to be updated.

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

I'd tend to agree with the Neutrality tag. The whole article seems to read like a press release loaded with implied praise for the protestors, repetition of POV-pushing claims from unreliable sources, etc. I'd say removing the tag for lack of explicit explanation is putting the cart before the horse. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's required to explain what the problems are and engage in talk page discussion when placing that template. The point of it is to discuss and resolve the issues through consensus. Otherwise, the template just becomes a weapon for people to drop any old place when they don't like something. Can you give me one or two examples of sentences you feel are POV and/or present the group in a promotional or unbalanced manner? Which provided sources are unreliable? We need to start the discussion in order to finish it and resolve the issues. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I left the NPOV tag in for now since you seem to be finding and deleting some puffery, but I removed the "needs to be updated" tag. Everything on Wikipedia needs to be updated, really, so that template doesn't really help anything. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Examples? I'll start with a single example, which IMO ought to be enough. Take a look at the entire "Brooklyn Bridge mass arrest section" contained in this previous version that stood before I began editing: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupy_Wall_Street&oldid=453682209. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No, one example is not enough. I agree with Burpelson in that tags are sometimes slapped on to suggest that an article has numerous problems to suggest that the article is not trustworthy. Gandydancer (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There are numerous problems, and that is why the tag needs to stay. Hell, the "single" example I provided showed several problems all at once. Take a look through the edits I have made if you want several more examples. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm removing the NPOV tag. I currently see no reason for it and no one has provided substantial evidence, with specific examples, of why it's needed.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

Use of the civil conflict template

It doesn't seem appropriate to use Template:Infobox civil conflict here, for what is still a demonstration (to my ear, a "civil conflict" implies the government is using more than just its power to arrest people). It also diminishes the motives of the protesters to say that they are in opposition to the NYPD, who would officially have no stand on the political views, instead of industry and the federal government. Cmprince (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Was just thinking this. Isn't this tag usually used for civil wars? As for the opposition to NYPD, it's my understanding that some protestors have complained about allegedly brutal tactics by police. Is that what you're referring to ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Factchecker atyourservice (talk • contribs) 13:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Factchecker, just to confirm, did you strike out your first sentence yourself (being ironic, perhaps) or did someone else come along and do that? - Elmarco 00:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I struck it out myself in an act of contrition. No irony was intended, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• This event is a protest, with demonstrations. This protest is civil; it's a non-military series of events. The government does not have to arrest anyone for a protest to qualify to be a civil conflict. If you don't think the NYPD is a party to Occupy Wall Street, then you should probably dispute the placement of the NYPD entry within the infobox. --Fayerman (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose while this fits the definition of "conflict", I'm used to seeing "civil conflict" (especially in Wikipedia) associated with more aggressive, sustained crackdowns and violence on one or both sides (either the use of riot police or the military), such as in Bahrain, Yemen, or the London riots. If the box has been used in other, similar non-violent protests, I would not object, but I have not found such a counterexample. Cmprince (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Assuming, for the purpose of this argument, that the term civil conflict is used only for violent protests -- the words "civil conflict" in this infobox are used only within the infobox metadata that is visible only to the editors of the article. Template:Infobox civil conflict is used in this article because the fields of that infobox are highly suitable for populating with relevant data. Out of curiosity, if you had to create an infobox for Occupy Wall Street from scratch, how would you name it? And if you had to create one, what else would be different? --Fayerman (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair point about the name of the template: that's not really pertinent. The template identifies the parties of a (typically) violent clash, and is regularly used that way. While the template might be used here to convey other information, when I see the box used here, I associate it with other articles that have used it. At this point, I don't see this event being similar enough to other recent conflicts whose articles used the civil conflict box. (I'll admit to not yet knowing what should constitute "similar enough".) I write all this out to point out that how we use templates may introduce an editorial bias, even without invoking the template's name in the article, simply by association. Cmprince (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I have never liked that we use this template for protest pages as it seems to represent certain facts. Perhaps it is time for a new protest infobox? かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The choice of template can inadvertently label a situation as being something it's not. - Elmarco 00:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

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 [7] by what appears to be a Single Purpose Account with very few edits who has a surprisingly extensive knowledge of Wikipedia policy. Jusdafax 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| 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. [8] FloNight♥♥♥♥ 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)

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. [9] 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)

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:[10] "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)

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 ...

This week, new rallies and in some cases urban encampments are planned for cities as disparate as Memphis, Tennessee; Hilo, Hawaii; Minneapolis; Baltimore; and McAllen, Tex., according to Occupy Together, an unofficial hub for the protests that lists dozens of coming demonstrations, including some in Europe and Japan.

99.190.85.146 (talk) 06:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Image of pepper-spray incident

There's an image of it here. 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)

OWS, Tea Party, capitalism relationship

From my understanding :

• OWS demands to strongly regulate, taxe, sue the financial sector (Wall street) to restore economic justice, so hard work = good income again ;
• the Tea Party request taxes reductions and reduction of the government for a fairer economy, so hard work = good not taxed income.

Upon what some news reports suggest that OWS and the Tea Party principles are compatible, while others say they are opposed. OWS supporter Mickael Moore said the movement is pro-capitalism, but against the Casino capitalism of Wall street (source). Other OWS supporter Van Jones said it is not against the Tea Party, he want to do like the tea party, to restore the american, pro-midde class way of capitalism (source). While the association of the two political views is not perfect, and not openly claimed or visible, we should also be careful with sources about a claimed 'opposition' between TP and OWS. From the direct sources I read, OWS political position and the TP actually have a lot in common. Wanted: a calm and serious source about the two movements will and compatibiity/opposition. Yug (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that there is little difference in Tea Party and Progressive/Liberal viewpoints, you are pretty much alone in your belief. Van Johnson said he wanted to "rival" the Tea Party's influence, not copy it. Gandydancer (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It's also my opinion (few differences). But OWS is still a large group various people and political views, so journalists wording I read *sound like* OWS is progressive or anti-capitalist idealists so they are oppose to conservatives views, without explaining seriously why, and in which points they oppose. My point is : Wikipedia should not reports such simplistic claims I myself neutralized several times. Yug (talk) 12:02, 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)