This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The events you may be referring to are unfolding as I type, so it is best to hold off for just a bit to let the sources get the information correct. There are a number of issues to consider but in the overall scheme of things these protests in Oakland have a historical significance that will not fade with time and are proving at least to justify notability.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Can we dispense with the numbered formatting somebody added to the TOC recently? It needlessly clutters the sections and doesn't help navigation one bit. (I don't know enough about Wiki-TOC formatting to mess with it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.53.120.30 ( talk) 00:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Please, folks - There's no need to link every appearance of Frank H. Ogawa. A couple of times is enough. Cgingold ( talk) 00:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Occupy Oakland: Mayor lays out 'ground rules' for protesters October 27, 2011 9:57 pm — Robert J. Lopez 99.35.15.107 ( talk) 05:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Mother Jones is reporting that elements among the Occupy Oakland group are inciting violence against police. Kelly hi! 01:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The Marine's condition here is said to be critical, although I've tried putting it into past tense, since his condition has been upgraded to fair, but he still needs surgery to relieve swelling in his brain. Is there any more detail required on his condition or not? - Mardus ( talk) 07:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Since this is an article about an event in an American city, please use American date formatting (mm-dd-yyyy), even for references.
If I were editing the article on the counterpart protests in London, I would use dd-mm-yyyy, as that is the format native to that place. Same goes here.-- 66.53.217.209 ( talk) 21:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
The template for citations has the dd-mm-yyyy format for dates automatically, which is why a lot of the references had that format. Rachel librarian ( talk) 02:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I have requested semi protection for this page. There are some conscientious editors here who are trying to make a solid NPOV page about a controversial timely topic. I'm thinking that with the strike coming on Nov. 2 that the vandalism will just get worse. Rachel librarian ( talk) 04:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:OccupyEverything-LiberateOakland.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 05:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC) |
Portal:Current events/2011 November 3 99.109.125.146 ( talk) 23:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Kayvan Sabeghi is another local Iraq/Afghanistan veteran injured by Oakland PD in an incident related to the occupation. Press reports indicate his injuries were more serious and that there is an allegation of failure to allow him medical attention while in custody despite the fact that he was clearly in extremis. I was going to start a Kayvan Sabeghi article but noticed that (so far, at least) Scott Olsen's situation is folded into this article and he does not have a separate article. I assume it's probably because Olsen was not particularly famous or notable prior to the incident in which he was injured, and neither was Sabeghi. I realize there's an effort toward coordination of what goes into this article since the situation is so fluid, so I wanted to bring up Kayvan Sabeghi and ask for input on how best to integrate his situation into the article. I have references to two published news sources (UK Guardian and El Cerrito Patch) if that would facilitate the discussion. I'm not asking whether Sabeghi should be included because the rationale is clearly the same as for the earlier inclusion of Scott Olsen, but I do want to coordinate with those who are already waist-deep in editing this article rather than dive right in. - Elmarco 18:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Oakland protesters condemn violent clashes; excerpt ...
Occupy Wall Street supporters who staged rallies that shut down the fifth-busiest U.S. port on Thursday condemned the demonstrators who clashed with police in the latest flare-up of violence.
97.87.29.188 ( talk) 20:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm concerned with the current injury count for the Oakland police department, which lists two officers were "wounded from the paint and chemicals" thrown by protesters. I have seen the photographic evidence of paint landing on officers, but none of unspecified "chemicals", which could be anything from very hazerdous acids, to benign "stink bombs". My concern is that while this comes from a verifiable media source, I haven't seen any other mentions of these injuries. While this may be a case of a major media narrative (excessive police force and injuries to protesters) drowning out another (two officers "wounded by paint"), I question if this isn't just a case of a journalist dramatizing a minor event (two officers had paint on them, and this becomes "wounded"). Compare this to when Geraldo Rivera visted OWS and was "assaulted". That may sound like he was seriously attacked, but to be "assaulted" from a legal stand point merely means that he felt threatened, and in that case, he merely had powder dumped/sprinkled on his head. From another angle, that looks like a mere prank. The words used to describe the action can change our out look on them tremendously. Should we list these two officers as injured on the strength of this single sentence in a single article, or is this undue weight, and should we hold off until this gets more attention? -- Cast ( talk) 13:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Has this been accurately published yet? I didn't see it in the article and I was surprised.-- Львівське ( говорити) 05:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know the sequences of events for the injured US marine whether protesters threw the rocks and bottles first or whether the tear gas and flash-bang grenades were fire first. I have heard conflicting accounts in the media Manofmyth ( talk) 20:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Great discussion! Has there been a second marine hurt in the violence? 07:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manofmyth ( talk • contribs)
Considering the press release by the Oakland Police Officers Association a couple days ago: http://www.opoa.org/uncategorized/an-open-letter-to-the-citizens-of-oakland-from-the-oakland-police-officers%E2%80%99-association/ It would seem that the police department and the mayors office/city government are not actually on the "same side". It is misleading and an oversimplification to divide the issues into two parts. Other thoughts? Rachel librarian ( talk) 15:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The last sentence is biased by calling the protest a riot and the demonstrators criminals. -- 70.134.52.4 ( talk) 01:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it's finally time to push for a split of the article into a chronology. First, I want to thank all of the editors who have worked so hard to keep up with events to make this possible. This puts OO beside OWS as the two most up-to-date articles of the Occupy protest articles. Sadly, that is a relative statement, and OO is still very bare of overall comprehensiveness, but that can change with time. For now, something must be done with this chronology. If we go by the precedent set by the Timeline of Occupy Wallstreet, most date entries should be single sentences or a paragraph for larger events. Major events can remain largely described on this article. If an event warrants more coverage than we are currently giving it—and I'm thinking here of the Oct. 25th morning raid and evening showdown, and the Nov. 2 General Strike— then we should put some serious effort into expanding them to such a size that they will justify their own articles.
I'd like to start a discussion here if anyone thinks the split is not yet necessary, or does not like the current make up of the Timeline of Occupy Wallstreet, and would rather the Timeline of Occupy Oakland look different. Otherwise, I'll just move forward.-- Cast ( talk) 02:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
source and source says that occupy oakland protesters served as medics to the downed civilian. Also, here's aerial map. It just happened, and nobody in "occupy movement" was involved, except to lend a helping hand. Any further details from anyone here in Oakland? 완젬스 ( talk) 03:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Please stop removing the reliably sourced statement that Occupy Oakland deposited $20,000 into Wells Fargo. This is extremely notable, given that just a few days earlier, Occupy Oakland had held a protest against the very same bank. Mk2z0h ( talk) 03:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Since the reliable source says these two people were in the street deliberately blocking traffic, I removed the word "pedestrians," and replaced it with "protestors who were in the street blocking traffic." I also added the info that the driver had a green light. I did this, because that's what the reliable source said. The previous version of the article falsely made the driver look like a law breaking maniac, which violates wikipedia's BLP policy. Mk2z0h ( talk) 20:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The Oakland Tribune claims the murder was the result of a dispute inside the Occupy Oakland encampment, and that the victim was attempting to run away when he was killed. The current verbiage doesn't match this, and indeed, doesn't make much sense at all. Kelly hi! 04:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
This sentence about the shooting has a terrible anti-OWS pov: Police released descriptions of the two suspects in the shooting, one of which witnesses told them, “was a frequent resident at the Frank Ogawa Plaza for the past several days. which needs to avoid creating the impression which anyone from OWS was involved. Don't let the media try and make this look like it's coming from within the OWS protests, because there are no reliable sources reporting that it was definitely from within OWS. Other than that, great job ows-Oakland. You're our counterpart, and all eyes from around the nation are on your city. 완젬스 ( talk) 11:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Since I know controversy abounds whenever something is added to the article I am going to go ahead and place sources here for a variety of things:
AerobicFox ( talk) 03:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
More images added from today. more to come. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 03:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:Occupy Oakland Nov2 Strike Poster.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
An image used in this article, File:Scott Olsen wounded and carried - tiny thumbnail.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 21:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
The edit summary of this diff which has changed "tear gas" into "less lethal weapons" appears to be referencing a discussion on this that I am not aware of:
I am not seeing a discussion here on this(was there something about this on another Occupy talk page?), and I am in disagreement with the ambiguous phrasing of "less lethal weapons" as being OR. The photo was taken from here on Flickr where it was uploaded by an anonymous user with no captions. The photo was tagged with "tear gas", but I see no other tag or commentary stating that other dispersants were being employed during this photo. Also to note the article is getting too crowded with media. The video "Shot by police with rubber bullet at Occupy Oakland" is placed redundantly in two different sections, the video "RAW VIDEO: Ground footage of Occupy Oakland march and crowd dispersal" also contains the footage of Scott Olsen getting hit as well as other video, making redundant the video "Occupy Oakland video: Riot police fire tear gas, flashbang grenades" to also be included. If the article continues expanding with new media then it may be best to start placing a ref like [video 1] where it is getting overcrowded and have it just bring the user down to the external links section with a link to the video. AerobicFox ( talk) 06:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
There has been substantive controversy over the degree to which police, law enforcement agents, or other individuals on the police lines used less lethal weapons to disperse crowds or accomplish other objectives during the events of these protests. Did police/agents use " Bean bag"/flexible baton rounds and "flash banger" stun grenades? ...as it appeared to New York Times news bloggers here ( http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/police-said-to-fire-tear-gas-at-protesters-in-oakland-calif/?hp# ) or were those M80's from a fireworks catalog? OPD Chief Jordan has denied the deployment of the city's $675,000 LRAD "sound cannon." ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/turnstyle/oakland-chief-denies-use_b_1035677.html ) Did Police officers and agents deploy " tear gas" or CS gas or pepper gas? Were undisclosed "chemical agents" used? The SF Chron reported that police announced (over bullhorns) that they would deploy such "chemical agents." ( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/25/BAUB1LLTC9.DTL ) ( http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=23012 ) Which canister are you talking about, and which police agency or other law enforcement agency out of the many on the scene fired that one, and that one over there? My point is that, until these questions are further answered with videos that may surface in the coming weeks and months, and further addressed in reports of official investigations by the authorities, (and Chief Jordan has asked the other agencies to document their use of force) I don't see a problem with the use of the term "less lethal" in some parts of this article. I'm not aware of any "live" ammunition being fired during these protests, but I may have missed that somewhere. Thus "less lethal" seems to me to be a more objective and broadly encompassing term to use in situations where the type of weapon deployed is in question. I've restored it's use to a photo caption and to replace the use of "non lethal" where the source didn't support it. CriticalChris 06:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
AerobicFox ( talk) 06:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Also to note the article is getting too crowded with media. The video "Shot by police with rubber bullet at Occupy Oakland" is placed redundantly in two different sections, the video "RAW VIDEO: Ground footage of Occupy Oakland march and crowd dispersal" also contains the footage of Scott Olsen getting hit as well as other video, making redundant the video "Occupy Oakland video: Riot police fire tear gas, flashbang grenades" to also be included. If the article continues expanding with new media then it may be best to start placing a ref like[video 1] where it is getting overcrowded and have it just bring the user down to the external links section with a link to the video. ;External links1. ^ Link to "example video" AerobicFox (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:Occupy Oakland Poster.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC) |
I would like to begin integrating the information from the Chronology into thematic sections. I, however, do not have much experience with Wikipedia article organization. My initial ideas: move info about Scott Olsen to the Scott Olsen head injury section; move the beginnings of the protest to the Frank Ogawa Plaza section. Any guidance, thoughts, ideas? Rachel librarian ( talk) 05:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Given that Wells Fargo was a specific target of Occupy Oakland, the quote from the Wells Fargo spokesperson is highly notable. NPOV requires that both sides of the debate are included.
Therefore, I have restored the following to the article:
Wells Fargo spokesman Ruben Pulido said that this deposit "demonstrates that even Occupy Oakland understands — firsthand — the value and service that Wells Fargo provides its customers. Wells Fargo welcomes the 100 percent of Americans to allow us to help them meet their financial needs."
Gb8pGFyohbcg ( talk) 12:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Apostle12 - I put the racial descriptors in the description of Oscar Grant because there are credible sources that say that race most definitely played a role in Oscar Grant's death. See [4] - "I don't think the officer shot the gun because Oscar was black, but I think the way he approached the situation in an aggressive way was based on race," said attorney John Burris, who is representing Grant's family in their claim against BART. "If they were white, the officer might have asked them what was going on, rather than throw them in handcuffs." and [5] - "Latest census figures show black people make up the biggest single ethnic group in Oakland at 27.3%, with white people at 25.9% and Hispanics at 25.4%. Despite having almost the same size populations in the city, however, white people account for only 16% of OPD vehicle stops, and 6.7% of motorists searched. Black people in Oakland, by contrast, account for a whopping 48% of vehicle stops, and 65.8% of motorists searched." Rachel librarian ( talk) 03:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
97.87.29.188 ( talk) 23:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
This article is in need of some serious work. It reads more like an editorial than a neutral encyclopedia article. The article is written to make Occupiers look like heroes, almost no POV from the police side of things. I've already removed several unfounded statements (it is not appropriate to state that the Occupy Oaklanders were subject to "police repression" in an encyclopedia article without clear real world consensus, see WP:SOAP). - Damicatz ( talk) 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:OCCUPY or WP:OWS or WP:99%.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
http://www.truth-out.org/black-bloc-cancer-occupy/1328541484
Occupy participants need to get smart about three things:
1./ Agents provacateurs may have attached themselves to "Occupy," and their purpose is to disrupt and discredit the movement. (Please see linked articles, above.)
2./ The Black Bloc anarchists who have attached themselves to "Occupy" have no other purpose than to disrupt for disruption's sake. They have no positive plan and their dominance will prove fatal to the movement.
3./ Every successful protest movement comes to the point where it must gain the sympathy of those who are charged with enforcing the status quo--thus the police, the army, or even goons hired by corrupt dictators eventually become unwilling to do the bidding of those in power. "Occupy" must realize that Oakland Police officers sit squarely among the 99%. It is counterproductive to taunt them verbally, to assault them and to be generally insulting; instead the goal should be to win them over. Fortunately, the OPD consists almost exclusively of officers who are highly professional, disciplined and well-educated. Intensive psychological testing, mandated during the past decade of federal control, has weeded out those who are psychologically imbalanced, and most new recruits have four-year degrees or even advanced degrees. If "Occupy" makes sense, they will listen and act accordingly. Apostle12 ( talk) 10:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
FiverFrith ( talk) 18:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC) I have read the article, and watched the video. The video shows nothing, other than the commentary on top of the footage, which is all opinion. The article itself comes from a web site which is less than credible. The article is written by a person in DC (not a reporter), who never claims to have visited Oakland, but rather puts out all this information as opinion. Now, if the section was written as though it was an opinion, rather than claiming to be factual, then it may have a place. Otherwise, it is just opinion meant to misinform the reader, and subvert them.
-The continued demonizing of those who utilize the tactic of the black bloc, and associated tactics such as property destruction, needs to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.66.180.172 ( talk) 18:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Please consider splitting the article into smaller sub-articles. It is too long and difficult to load the page. -- SupernovaExplosion Talk 04:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the Russia Today news template from the page, as it had raised concern because it pointed to a single trending news page, rather than a selection of trend pages, and after discussion in the appropriate places, it's easier to remove it than it is to add lots of other trend pages, as I don't know of any (don't have time to look). If there are any comments, concerns, or suggestions please reply on my talkpage, as I don't watch this page. Penyulap ☏ 03:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Gilderien - why did you revert my edits? They were all minor edits to make the articles language more exact. Let's go through them.
1. For the move-in day section I changed "police had to" to "police did" because it is more accurate - they did no "have" to do anything, and using this kind of language indicates a bias. Let's keep this factual and talk about what the police did and didn't do, not what they "had to" or didn't "have to" do.
2. I removed scare quotes from the phrase "social center" because they seem unnecessary. Why put "social center" in quotations?
3. I removed the word "alleged" in reference to the January 28 kettle at 19th and Telegraph because there are videos showing the kettle linked to from this page. Why "alleged"? This edit I'm willing to negotiate on, but the phrase just seemed unnecessary and out of place, since there is clear evidence and as far as I can tell no one is denying that it happened.
I am reinstating my edits. Please talk to me here if you disagree instead of undoing them again.
I also think that the "Alleged Hate Crimes" section should be deleted since all charges have been dismissed: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/21/BASF1OLD3C.DTL. I am more than willing to have a convo about that, and will wait to make that edit until people have time to discuss here. Mariabl276 ( talk) 18:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Occupy Oakland continues to engage in organized meetings, events and activities. This page needs updating. Most significant omission is the failed May Day general strike of May 1, 2012, which led to violent confrontations with police, vandalism and arson (an unmarked police sedan was torched). JohnValeron ( talk) 04:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
This article says Occupy broke into City Hall and vandalized it. That has been debunked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.237.70 ( talk) 05:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
What is the latest update? I put in a update but it got deleted. What are they up to recently? Have they successfully got that poor family their house back that was their goal in July? Is there any progress yet or some pics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.198.33 ( talk) 12:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I concur with Trackinfo's reversions today on the Occupy movement and Occupy Oakland articles, where other users (possibly vandals) attempted to cast Occupy in the past tense. It's premature to portray the overall movement as deceased. However, solely with respect to Occupy Oakland, this is an issue worth discussing.
Note that the Infobox at Occupy Oakland differs from those on Wikipedia's pages for Occupy movement and Occupy Wall Street, respectively. Occupy Oakland is the only one where the word "ongoing" appears—once on the Date line and again on a separate Status line.
I submit that Occupy Oakland's lack of activity over the past several months suggests that it may now be time to reconsider Wikipedia's use of "ongoing" applied exclusively to Occupy Oakland.
There is currently a small amount of autonomous organizing around two upcoming anniversaries: the group's October 10 birthday and the October 25 riot where Scott Olsen was shot in the head. However, none of this stems from Occupy Oakland collectively or any of its designated committees. It's being conducted strictly by self-appointed individuals. Even allowing that anniversary activities are likely to take place, the question looms: do these constitute evidence of an "ongoing" group or are they merely nostalgic gestures by a few diehard remnants?
I hope Trackinfo and other experienced Wikipedia editors will clarify this for me. Please, at what point do we stop referring to Occupy Oakland as ongoing? JohnValeron ( talk) 18:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
The lede (lead) is rather vague at first. i was going to add this article to the SFBA portal under topics, but i am not going to until the article is fixed up. to a newcomer to the topic, the first sentence doesnt give enough context. 76.254.32.25 ( talk) 19:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The events you may be referring to are unfolding as I type, so it is best to hold off for just a bit to let the sources get the information correct. There are a number of issues to consider but in the overall scheme of things these protests in Oakland have a historical significance that will not fade with time and are proving at least to justify notability.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Can we dispense with the numbered formatting somebody added to the TOC recently? It needlessly clutters the sections and doesn't help navigation one bit. (I don't know enough about Wiki-TOC formatting to mess with it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.53.120.30 ( talk) 00:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Please, folks - There's no need to link every appearance of Frank H. Ogawa. A couple of times is enough. Cgingold ( talk) 00:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Occupy Oakland: Mayor lays out 'ground rules' for protesters October 27, 2011 9:57 pm — Robert J. Lopez 99.35.15.107 ( talk) 05:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Mother Jones is reporting that elements among the Occupy Oakland group are inciting violence against police. Kelly hi! 01:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The Marine's condition here is said to be critical, although I've tried putting it into past tense, since his condition has been upgraded to fair, but he still needs surgery to relieve swelling in his brain. Is there any more detail required on his condition or not? - Mardus ( talk) 07:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Since this is an article about an event in an American city, please use American date formatting (mm-dd-yyyy), even for references.
If I were editing the article on the counterpart protests in London, I would use dd-mm-yyyy, as that is the format native to that place. Same goes here.-- 66.53.217.209 ( talk) 21:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
The template for citations has the dd-mm-yyyy format for dates automatically, which is why a lot of the references had that format. Rachel librarian ( talk) 02:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I have requested semi protection for this page. There are some conscientious editors here who are trying to make a solid NPOV page about a controversial timely topic. I'm thinking that with the strike coming on Nov. 2 that the vandalism will just get worse. Rachel librarian ( talk) 04:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:OccupyEverything-LiberateOakland.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 05:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC) |
Portal:Current events/2011 November 3 99.109.125.146 ( talk) 23:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Kayvan Sabeghi is another local Iraq/Afghanistan veteran injured by Oakland PD in an incident related to the occupation. Press reports indicate his injuries were more serious and that there is an allegation of failure to allow him medical attention while in custody despite the fact that he was clearly in extremis. I was going to start a Kayvan Sabeghi article but noticed that (so far, at least) Scott Olsen's situation is folded into this article and he does not have a separate article. I assume it's probably because Olsen was not particularly famous or notable prior to the incident in which he was injured, and neither was Sabeghi. I realize there's an effort toward coordination of what goes into this article since the situation is so fluid, so I wanted to bring up Kayvan Sabeghi and ask for input on how best to integrate his situation into the article. I have references to two published news sources (UK Guardian and El Cerrito Patch) if that would facilitate the discussion. I'm not asking whether Sabeghi should be included because the rationale is clearly the same as for the earlier inclusion of Scott Olsen, but I do want to coordinate with those who are already waist-deep in editing this article rather than dive right in. - Elmarco 18:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Oakland protesters condemn violent clashes; excerpt ...
Occupy Wall Street supporters who staged rallies that shut down the fifth-busiest U.S. port on Thursday condemned the demonstrators who clashed with police in the latest flare-up of violence.
97.87.29.188 ( talk) 20:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm concerned with the current injury count for the Oakland police department, which lists two officers were "wounded from the paint and chemicals" thrown by protesters. I have seen the photographic evidence of paint landing on officers, but none of unspecified "chemicals", which could be anything from very hazerdous acids, to benign "stink bombs". My concern is that while this comes from a verifiable media source, I haven't seen any other mentions of these injuries. While this may be a case of a major media narrative (excessive police force and injuries to protesters) drowning out another (two officers "wounded by paint"), I question if this isn't just a case of a journalist dramatizing a minor event (two officers had paint on them, and this becomes "wounded"). Compare this to when Geraldo Rivera visted OWS and was "assaulted". That may sound like he was seriously attacked, but to be "assaulted" from a legal stand point merely means that he felt threatened, and in that case, he merely had powder dumped/sprinkled on his head. From another angle, that looks like a mere prank. The words used to describe the action can change our out look on them tremendously. Should we list these two officers as injured on the strength of this single sentence in a single article, or is this undue weight, and should we hold off until this gets more attention? -- Cast ( talk) 13:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Has this been accurately published yet? I didn't see it in the article and I was surprised.-- Львівське ( говорити) 05:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know the sequences of events for the injured US marine whether protesters threw the rocks and bottles first or whether the tear gas and flash-bang grenades were fire first. I have heard conflicting accounts in the media Manofmyth ( talk) 20:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Great discussion! Has there been a second marine hurt in the violence? 07:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manofmyth ( talk • contribs)
Considering the press release by the Oakland Police Officers Association a couple days ago: http://www.opoa.org/uncategorized/an-open-letter-to-the-citizens-of-oakland-from-the-oakland-police-officers%E2%80%99-association/ It would seem that the police department and the mayors office/city government are not actually on the "same side". It is misleading and an oversimplification to divide the issues into two parts. Other thoughts? Rachel librarian ( talk) 15:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The last sentence is biased by calling the protest a riot and the demonstrators criminals. -- 70.134.52.4 ( talk) 01:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it's finally time to push for a split of the article into a chronology. First, I want to thank all of the editors who have worked so hard to keep up with events to make this possible. This puts OO beside OWS as the two most up-to-date articles of the Occupy protest articles. Sadly, that is a relative statement, and OO is still very bare of overall comprehensiveness, but that can change with time. For now, something must be done with this chronology. If we go by the precedent set by the Timeline of Occupy Wallstreet, most date entries should be single sentences or a paragraph for larger events. Major events can remain largely described on this article. If an event warrants more coverage than we are currently giving it—and I'm thinking here of the Oct. 25th morning raid and evening showdown, and the Nov. 2 General Strike— then we should put some serious effort into expanding them to such a size that they will justify their own articles.
I'd like to start a discussion here if anyone thinks the split is not yet necessary, or does not like the current make up of the Timeline of Occupy Wallstreet, and would rather the Timeline of Occupy Oakland look different. Otherwise, I'll just move forward.-- Cast ( talk) 02:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
source and source says that occupy oakland protesters served as medics to the downed civilian. Also, here's aerial map. It just happened, and nobody in "occupy movement" was involved, except to lend a helping hand. Any further details from anyone here in Oakland? 완젬스 ( talk) 03:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Please stop removing the reliably sourced statement that Occupy Oakland deposited $20,000 into Wells Fargo. This is extremely notable, given that just a few days earlier, Occupy Oakland had held a protest against the very same bank. Mk2z0h ( talk) 03:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Since the reliable source says these two people were in the street deliberately blocking traffic, I removed the word "pedestrians," and replaced it with "protestors who were in the street blocking traffic." I also added the info that the driver had a green light. I did this, because that's what the reliable source said. The previous version of the article falsely made the driver look like a law breaking maniac, which violates wikipedia's BLP policy. Mk2z0h ( talk) 20:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The Oakland Tribune claims the murder was the result of a dispute inside the Occupy Oakland encampment, and that the victim was attempting to run away when he was killed. The current verbiage doesn't match this, and indeed, doesn't make much sense at all. Kelly hi! 04:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
This sentence about the shooting has a terrible anti-OWS pov: Police released descriptions of the two suspects in the shooting, one of which witnesses told them, “was a frequent resident at the Frank Ogawa Plaza for the past several days. which needs to avoid creating the impression which anyone from OWS was involved. Don't let the media try and make this look like it's coming from within the OWS protests, because there are no reliable sources reporting that it was definitely from within OWS. Other than that, great job ows-Oakland. You're our counterpart, and all eyes from around the nation are on your city. 완젬스 ( talk) 11:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Since I know controversy abounds whenever something is added to the article I am going to go ahead and place sources here for a variety of things:
AerobicFox ( talk) 03:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
More images added from today. more to come. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 03:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:Occupy Oakland Nov2 Strike Poster.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
An image used in this article, File:Scott Olsen wounded and carried - tiny thumbnail.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 21:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
The edit summary of this diff which has changed "tear gas" into "less lethal weapons" appears to be referencing a discussion on this that I am not aware of:
I am not seeing a discussion here on this(was there something about this on another Occupy talk page?), and I am in disagreement with the ambiguous phrasing of "less lethal weapons" as being OR. The photo was taken from here on Flickr where it was uploaded by an anonymous user with no captions. The photo was tagged with "tear gas", but I see no other tag or commentary stating that other dispersants were being employed during this photo. Also to note the article is getting too crowded with media. The video "Shot by police with rubber bullet at Occupy Oakland" is placed redundantly in two different sections, the video "RAW VIDEO: Ground footage of Occupy Oakland march and crowd dispersal" also contains the footage of Scott Olsen getting hit as well as other video, making redundant the video "Occupy Oakland video: Riot police fire tear gas, flashbang grenades" to also be included. If the article continues expanding with new media then it may be best to start placing a ref like [video 1] where it is getting overcrowded and have it just bring the user down to the external links section with a link to the video. AerobicFox ( talk) 06:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
There has been substantive controversy over the degree to which police, law enforcement agents, or other individuals on the police lines used less lethal weapons to disperse crowds or accomplish other objectives during the events of these protests. Did police/agents use " Bean bag"/flexible baton rounds and "flash banger" stun grenades? ...as it appeared to New York Times news bloggers here ( http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/police-said-to-fire-tear-gas-at-protesters-in-oakland-calif/?hp# ) or were those M80's from a fireworks catalog? OPD Chief Jordan has denied the deployment of the city's $675,000 LRAD "sound cannon." ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/turnstyle/oakland-chief-denies-use_b_1035677.html ) Did Police officers and agents deploy " tear gas" or CS gas or pepper gas? Were undisclosed "chemical agents" used? The SF Chron reported that police announced (over bullhorns) that they would deploy such "chemical agents." ( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/25/BAUB1LLTC9.DTL ) ( http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=23012 ) Which canister are you talking about, and which police agency or other law enforcement agency out of the many on the scene fired that one, and that one over there? My point is that, until these questions are further answered with videos that may surface in the coming weeks and months, and further addressed in reports of official investigations by the authorities, (and Chief Jordan has asked the other agencies to document their use of force) I don't see a problem with the use of the term "less lethal" in some parts of this article. I'm not aware of any "live" ammunition being fired during these protests, but I may have missed that somewhere. Thus "less lethal" seems to me to be a more objective and broadly encompassing term to use in situations where the type of weapon deployed is in question. I've restored it's use to a photo caption and to replace the use of "non lethal" where the source didn't support it. CriticalChris 06:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
AerobicFox ( talk) 06:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Also to note the article is getting too crowded with media. The video "Shot by police with rubber bullet at Occupy Oakland" is placed redundantly in two different sections, the video "RAW VIDEO: Ground footage of Occupy Oakland march and crowd dispersal" also contains the footage of Scott Olsen getting hit as well as other video, making redundant the video "Occupy Oakland video: Riot police fire tear gas, flashbang grenades" to also be included. If the article continues expanding with new media then it may be best to start placing a ref like[video 1] where it is getting overcrowded and have it just bring the user down to the external links section with a link to the video. ;External links1. ^ Link to "example video" AerobicFox (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:Occupy Oakland Poster.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC) |
I would like to begin integrating the information from the Chronology into thematic sections. I, however, do not have much experience with Wikipedia article organization. My initial ideas: move info about Scott Olsen to the Scott Olsen head injury section; move the beginnings of the protest to the Frank Ogawa Plaza section. Any guidance, thoughts, ideas? Rachel librarian ( talk) 05:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Given that Wells Fargo was a specific target of Occupy Oakland, the quote from the Wells Fargo spokesperson is highly notable. NPOV requires that both sides of the debate are included.
Therefore, I have restored the following to the article:
Wells Fargo spokesman Ruben Pulido said that this deposit "demonstrates that even Occupy Oakland understands — firsthand — the value and service that Wells Fargo provides its customers. Wells Fargo welcomes the 100 percent of Americans to allow us to help them meet their financial needs."
Gb8pGFyohbcg ( talk) 12:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Apostle12 - I put the racial descriptors in the description of Oscar Grant because there are credible sources that say that race most definitely played a role in Oscar Grant's death. See [4] - "I don't think the officer shot the gun because Oscar was black, but I think the way he approached the situation in an aggressive way was based on race," said attorney John Burris, who is representing Grant's family in their claim against BART. "If they were white, the officer might have asked them what was going on, rather than throw them in handcuffs." and [5] - "Latest census figures show black people make up the biggest single ethnic group in Oakland at 27.3%, with white people at 25.9% and Hispanics at 25.4%. Despite having almost the same size populations in the city, however, white people account for only 16% of OPD vehicle stops, and 6.7% of motorists searched. Black people in Oakland, by contrast, account for a whopping 48% of vehicle stops, and 65.8% of motorists searched." Rachel librarian ( talk) 03:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
97.87.29.188 ( talk) 23:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
This article is in need of some serious work. It reads more like an editorial than a neutral encyclopedia article. The article is written to make Occupiers look like heroes, almost no POV from the police side of things. I've already removed several unfounded statements (it is not appropriate to state that the Occupy Oaklanders were subject to "police repression" in an encyclopedia article without clear real world consensus, see WP:SOAP). - Damicatz ( talk) 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:OCCUPY or WP:OWS or WP:99%.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
http://www.truth-out.org/black-bloc-cancer-occupy/1328541484
Occupy participants need to get smart about three things:
1./ Agents provacateurs may have attached themselves to "Occupy," and their purpose is to disrupt and discredit the movement. (Please see linked articles, above.)
2./ The Black Bloc anarchists who have attached themselves to "Occupy" have no other purpose than to disrupt for disruption's sake. They have no positive plan and their dominance will prove fatal to the movement.
3./ Every successful protest movement comes to the point where it must gain the sympathy of those who are charged with enforcing the status quo--thus the police, the army, or even goons hired by corrupt dictators eventually become unwilling to do the bidding of those in power. "Occupy" must realize that Oakland Police officers sit squarely among the 99%. It is counterproductive to taunt them verbally, to assault them and to be generally insulting; instead the goal should be to win them over. Fortunately, the OPD consists almost exclusively of officers who are highly professional, disciplined and well-educated. Intensive psychological testing, mandated during the past decade of federal control, has weeded out those who are psychologically imbalanced, and most new recruits have four-year degrees or even advanced degrees. If "Occupy" makes sense, they will listen and act accordingly. Apostle12 ( talk) 10:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
FiverFrith ( talk) 18:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC) I have read the article, and watched the video. The video shows nothing, other than the commentary on top of the footage, which is all opinion. The article itself comes from a web site which is less than credible. The article is written by a person in DC (not a reporter), who never claims to have visited Oakland, but rather puts out all this information as opinion. Now, if the section was written as though it was an opinion, rather than claiming to be factual, then it may have a place. Otherwise, it is just opinion meant to misinform the reader, and subvert them.
-The continued demonizing of those who utilize the tactic of the black bloc, and associated tactics such as property destruction, needs to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.66.180.172 ( talk) 18:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Please consider splitting the article into smaller sub-articles. It is too long and difficult to load the page. -- SupernovaExplosion Talk 04:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the Russia Today news template from the page, as it had raised concern because it pointed to a single trending news page, rather than a selection of trend pages, and after discussion in the appropriate places, it's easier to remove it than it is to add lots of other trend pages, as I don't know of any (don't have time to look). If there are any comments, concerns, or suggestions please reply on my talkpage, as I don't watch this page. Penyulap ☏ 03:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Gilderien - why did you revert my edits? They were all minor edits to make the articles language more exact. Let's go through them.
1. For the move-in day section I changed "police had to" to "police did" because it is more accurate - they did no "have" to do anything, and using this kind of language indicates a bias. Let's keep this factual and talk about what the police did and didn't do, not what they "had to" or didn't "have to" do.
2. I removed scare quotes from the phrase "social center" because they seem unnecessary. Why put "social center" in quotations?
3. I removed the word "alleged" in reference to the January 28 kettle at 19th and Telegraph because there are videos showing the kettle linked to from this page. Why "alleged"? This edit I'm willing to negotiate on, but the phrase just seemed unnecessary and out of place, since there is clear evidence and as far as I can tell no one is denying that it happened.
I am reinstating my edits. Please talk to me here if you disagree instead of undoing them again.
I also think that the "Alleged Hate Crimes" section should be deleted since all charges have been dismissed: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/21/BASF1OLD3C.DTL. I am more than willing to have a convo about that, and will wait to make that edit until people have time to discuss here. Mariabl276 ( talk) 18:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Occupy Oakland continues to engage in organized meetings, events and activities. This page needs updating. Most significant omission is the failed May Day general strike of May 1, 2012, which led to violent confrontations with police, vandalism and arson (an unmarked police sedan was torched). JohnValeron ( talk) 04:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
This article says Occupy broke into City Hall and vandalized it. That has been debunked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.237.70 ( talk) 05:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
What is the latest update? I put in a update but it got deleted. What are they up to recently? Have they successfully got that poor family their house back that was their goal in July? Is there any progress yet or some pics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.198.33 ( talk) 12:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I concur with Trackinfo's reversions today on the Occupy movement and Occupy Oakland articles, where other users (possibly vandals) attempted to cast Occupy in the past tense. It's premature to portray the overall movement as deceased. However, solely with respect to Occupy Oakland, this is an issue worth discussing.
Note that the Infobox at Occupy Oakland differs from those on Wikipedia's pages for Occupy movement and Occupy Wall Street, respectively. Occupy Oakland is the only one where the word "ongoing" appears—once on the Date line and again on a separate Status line.
I submit that Occupy Oakland's lack of activity over the past several months suggests that it may now be time to reconsider Wikipedia's use of "ongoing" applied exclusively to Occupy Oakland.
There is currently a small amount of autonomous organizing around two upcoming anniversaries: the group's October 10 birthday and the October 25 riot where Scott Olsen was shot in the head. However, none of this stems from Occupy Oakland collectively or any of its designated committees. It's being conducted strictly by self-appointed individuals. Even allowing that anniversary activities are likely to take place, the question looms: do these constitute evidence of an "ongoing" group or are they merely nostalgic gestures by a few diehard remnants?
I hope Trackinfo and other experienced Wikipedia editors will clarify this for me. Please, at what point do we stop referring to Occupy Oakland as ongoing? JohnValeron ( talk) 18:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
The lede (lead) is rather vague at first. i was going to add this article to the SFBA portal under topics, but i am not going to until the article is fixed up. to a newcomer to the topic, the first sentence doesnt give enough context. 76.254.32.25 ( talk) 19:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)