![]() | 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Why is there nothing about the majority who oppose the Occupy movement? Nothing about the illegal actions? The Anti-Semeitism? The lost jobs? The people who have exposed the lies or the view that the occupy movement is more of an entitlement demand than an economic justice?```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basil rock ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Here is a link to the anti Semetism of Occupy, I'd like to put this on the main page as there is no mention right now. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/10/11/occupy-wall-street-has-an-anti-semitism-problem/ Basil rock ( talk) 21:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
What would you accept if I get Fox News or WSJ will that be acceptible. I could complain about Media Matters which seems to be accepted on Wikipedia even that is a George Soros sponsered hit squad. Basil rock ( talk) 10:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Another source you can deny Fox as a legitimate source, http://nation.foxnews.com/wall-street-protests/2011/10/26/networks-and-cable-still-mostly-silent-anti-semitism-occupy-wall-street-protests Basil rock ( talk) 10:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Fox News is the leading U.S cable news source. It is a legitimate source far more than some of the accepted ones.Unless I get a real argument why I will post. Not Fox News is bad. Basil rock ( talk) 15:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a criticsm section on most pages, I'll double check but that would include the Tea Party. It should be part of the main article. Basil rock ( talk) 14:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm new to this article, but looking it over I'm surprised that there's no mention of David Graeber at all, since he was central to the original planning of OWS and has been a prominent, informed commentator on the movement. Out of curiosity, is there a specific reason for this? Like I said, I haven't worked on this article before so I'd hesitate to make any changes to the text without sounding out consensus on this, but it seems like he'd be worth a mention. I've (tentatively) added an article of his to the further reading section; a couple more useful pieces are here: [2] [3]. Sindinero ( talk) 16:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone, the occupy wall street article is going through cleanup. We're asking basic questions about the boundaries between these two articles:
Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is a protest movement that began September 17, 2011 in Zuccotti Park, located in New York City's Wall Street financial district. The protests are against social and economic inequality, high unemployment, greed, as well as corruption and the undue influence of corporations on government—particularly from the financial services sector. The protesters' slogan We are the 99% refers to the growing income inequality and wealth distribution in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population.
OWS was initiated by the Canadian activist group Adbusters and has led to Occupy protests and movements around the world.
As you can see right off the first sentence, there is obfuscation whether or not "occupy wall street" is a movement, or if it refers to the zuccotti park encampment, or if it includes paying churches to let homeless people sleep in their pews. ( see here) Before we correct the inconsistencies across wikipedia about the boundaries between this movement article and the ows article, we must first have wikipedia-wide consensus of how to treat the two articles. The media sources themselves have been inconsistent, but I've opined that we place greater emphasis on more recent sources rather than 2011 sources. To think prophylactically, we're headed in the direction of how things like occupy oakland are going to be renegade from the occupy movement, and whether or not to include them as part of the occupy movement when they do stuff that the nycga tells them not to. There are no right or wrong answers, because the movement is so autonomous, leaderless, and organic. It won't be easy to fit "occupy cityxyz" into a "box" and be able to educate our readers of the difference between a particular occupied city, verses the overall movement. I'll chime in with my own comments later on, because I've had contact with several people outside of Wikipedia who are also concerned about the lack of clarity, especially with new leadership changes (business affinity group, occupy money group, and interoccupy) which will dramatically rebrand the movement's message. We as Wikipedian editors should be the first to be able to understand how to classify the movement against its "occupied cities" and how to delineate the movement from its cities. Later on, the creation of the nycga article will allow information to be shifted, especially as "goals" may vary city by city, but the nycga still has the last word on everything. 완젬스 ( talk) 20:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
First of all I, like many do not consider most of what the MSM writes to be a credible source, as they tend to pick and choose who they choose to interview, thus spinning it with their particular brand of thinking. My sources tend to mainly be the independent media from within the movement itself. I have contacts in dozens of cities around the world that report on the movement daily. Thanks for the article, it's interesting, though I don't particularly trust the NY Times brand for fair and open reporting. The main stream media is after all controlled by those that the Occupy Movement is focusing on. I am always open to different perspectives however, as by sharing perspectives consensus may form, as long as parties are open to truly attempting to understand. On a side note: I don't see anyone being able to "reign in Occupy Oakland" or any other occupy groups at this point. Each Occupy tends to focus on what effects them directly, it's been that way from the start. Oakland focus is on police brutality for good reason. That being said, I don't always agree with their tactics, I am simply stating I understand the "why" of it. I guess it would be fair to say I am an independent journalist as well, if that helps you to understand where I am coming from. I run a livestream channel that is dedicated to education & support for the movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfinityCircle ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
It's dead in the UK, & according to timeline article last us camps evicted on 3rd. 92.15.77.176 ( talk) 14:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
And in the process my attempted changes have been lost. It gets harder and harder to edit anonymously. Basically I removed the meetup communities line (a no brainer IMO, no decent source, non notable, misleading, undue weight), and used sources from the timeline to mention that most camps are now gone. 92.15.81.20 ( talk) 17:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
... ? 99.109.125.114 ( talk) 02:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Occupy Together, We All Occupy, InterOccupy and the Federated General Assembly (OWS) pooled/scrubbed/verified our data and created a Drupal-based directory with over 1300 individual nodes (occupy locations) around the world. The site went live on Feb 10. The dataset is curated by some of the original data collectors and is updated daily (soon to be updated in real-time by crowdsourcing, so it's a moving(but validated) target. I'm the bottom liner on data integrity...just wondering if we can work together OR how I might get the data into Wikipedia. Cyberinga ( talk) 05:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I just had to remove from the lead something along the lines of 'police have arrested thousands of people and 24 have been killed'. I further note that the 24 deaths are numbered in the infopanel....should this be reconsidered? Listing every heart attack or whatever in the same style deaths are listed in conflict articles.....is more than a little dodgy. 92.15.49.13 ( talk) 15:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
You could create a section for these things if you take offense to where they are currently listed. -- ProfPolySci45 ( talk) 05:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
This article lacks a critism section. A very large one, for that manner. Occupy does not have a good track record, and it doesnt even have a critism section. WTH. Bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Mentlegen ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Criticism sections are normally only demanded by people opposed to the subject of an article. That, by definition, is a POV position to take. They should be avoided like the plague. HiLo48 ( talk) 15:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to propose the creation of either Occupy movement (US) or Occupy movement (California) (latter as example of state by state articles) and begin merging smaller articles as a rescue effort and clean up of Occupy articles. I honestly believe the situation with Occupy is beginning to be an issue we should deal with ourselves as editors. I also propose that we begin building Wikipedia: Wikiproject Occupy movement to centralize discussion of individual articles and attempt to remain within guidelines and policy.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 09:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The Project idea gained support a while back. Here is the thread. [4]-- Amadscientist ( talk) 20:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I am moving forward with the Project within the recommended guidelines. The proposal has been made and listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. The discussion page is Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Occupy movement. You may add your name to the "support" list and add comments for discussion.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 21:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I propose merging the newly created Anarchism and the Occupy movement into this article per WP:CFORK. While David Graeber's anarchism is mentioned here, the claim that the Occupy movement "has its roots on the philosophy of anarchism" strikes me as something that would be best resolved here. Gobōnobo + c 23:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Due to the massive worldwide importance of Occupy, its important we keep the lede reasonably up to date so it reflects the movment's progress. Untill I made a much needed update to the article last week, the lede had remained essentially the same for over 3 months, failing to capture events for the second half of the movement's development. Bizarrely, my changes have been largely reverted, with an edit summary saying the claim that the last high profile camp has been cleared is uncited and incorrect!
In fact this FT article ,already at the end of the applicable lede paragraph, says: "tearing down the last remaining high-profile tent city of the worldwide Occupy movement." It was claimed that the Finsbury park camp is high profile. In my experience even fellow Londoners often don't know about the Finsbury camp. To claim it counts as high profile in the context of an article on the global movement seems extraordinary. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 11:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Granted she's a fairly notable person, but this is a blog (used here). But the main thing is that she said
This means she knows that they actually do have articulated demands, and that kind of contradicts the article diff above. We may be quoting her out of context, and I thought I'd raise the question. Be——Critical 07:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Intriguing piece in The Nation for anyone interested in giving these Occupy articles more historical context: "When Upton Sinclair's '99 Percent' Movement Sparked the Birth of the Modern Election Campaign" [8] about Upton Sinclair's political influence in the 1930's. El duderino ( talk) 13:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Re this revert: Here's what I want to suggest, which is more in accord with Wikipedia process: You seem to have some good sources, but you're using them wrong. You have the material for a history section for this article. It can also be incorporated into owws, as part of the origins section. After that is done, then it's the right time to incorporate it into the lead. How about that? Be——Critical 04:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe so. I tried to rework it the second time, but that got rejected as well... I'll try to work it in there. That sounds good. I'm sort of new to wikipedia, so the edits may not always be the best. But I still never edited the mainstay of the article because most of it was pretty good... Thanks for the advice. -- 108.3.157.32 ( talk) 23:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:OCCUPY or
WP:OWS or
WP:99%.--
Amadscientist (
talk)
22:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Article needs an update to remove dead links.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:47, 10 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 ☏ 03:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I think we can now clearly add Violence as a characteristic of the movement. Arzel ( talk) 13:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
is now (finally) getting some serious media coverage and more than deserves a mention here - these people are risking their lives for freedom: [11]. 92.24.191.247 ( talk) 15:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
More stuff has happened since May Day, why isn't it covered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theworldisbig ( talk • contribs) 14:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The template says the protests are still ongoing. However in the past four months there has been only one protest. We should either remove the word "ongoing" or replace it with something else. Pass a Method talk 21:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE85606J20120607?irpc=932
http://m.postbulletin.com/postbulletin/pm_105564/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=TZ1YFNxs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.146.216 ( talk) 04:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The movement has been going on since September 17th, and protest and meetings have been held everyday. As long as actions are planned in the future and are being active right now, it should remain it's ongoing status.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexf505 ( talk • contribs) 02:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
...intentionally, of course. Need your guys' help. I have added sections to the Political Activity section of this article Koch family that is being hotly contested by conservative Tea-Partiers. Its creating more work than I could have ever imagined. I have to argue down repeated re-visitation of the same arguments by different users over and over and over again. And one user that acts like an attorney, where, if one argument doesn't work, well then, he'll just try another, and another, and another. I've asked for the article to be protected so this can all be discussed on the talk page, but all that did was get more attention focused on the article by what appear to be conservative "Citation BOTs". Help!!! LoL! -- XB70Valyrie ( talk) 01:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
My edit starts like this and is the whole paragraph... "The Koch brothers contributed $20.5 million to political interests in 2008. Koch Industries employs at least 30 government lobbyists...."-- XB70Valyrie ( talk) 01:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
A relatively small group of occupiers successfully occupied Harbourside Park in St John's Newfoundland for the entire 2012 Winter season. quote from wikiarticle
Is wikipedia becoming clairvoyant? On the basis of a linear time contraint I would question such assertions as unfounded and in need of editing. Yogiadept ( talk) 19:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi - I need your help. I have set up an e-petition at http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/35996 – which should be self-explanatory. Many, many people both here and abroad are having their lives ruined by government austerity measures. They are losing their jobs and homes, Young people are facing years of unemployment with no hope and no prospects of escaping from economic hardship. The volume of misery, depression and lack of hope is enormous. As I understand it, it is basically because bankers allowed greed to cloud their judgement so that they took risks which failed. They then ran out of money, and because, they are apparently an indispensable part of our system, “we” were forced to bail them out. Our governments thereby are in financial trouble, so they have to cut spending, creating a financial crisis which is blighting the lives of millions who were in no way to blame for the problem. The person-in-the-street sees: • the bankers still living well, receiving large salaries and obscenely large bonuses, in reality untouched by the crisis • politicians apparently unable to deal with the situation except to offer austerity with no sign of any beneficial economic outcome • the leaders of nations without any idea of a solution, lurching from one emergency summit meeting to the next • that they are totally trapped while a range of shadowy figures make millions, if not billions of pounds speculating in the “market.” He or she does not understand: • why they are suffering while the people who were responsible for the mess are untouched • where the money the banks lost has gone? Who has got it? Why can’t we get it back? • what are the “markets” that seem to control the whole system. Who runs them? Is it just a few people? • why there can’t be a better way. There is not a lot going on to tackle any of the root causes. There are some initiatives like regulating banks. Although this is a good step, it does nothing to help relieve the misery. I want to force the government to start an investigation to see if there is a better basic system to insulate the person-in-the-street from mistakes made in the financial markets. This should involve a root and branch examination – not just a tinkering with regulation. If this involves international co-operation then so be it. The present system is inequitable and evil. There must be a better way. If there really is no better system then politicians should come clean and explain that the lack of hope, the misery and the extreme inequality will remain and that they are impotent to do anything about it. I need 100,000 signatures to have a chance of forcing some action – this may seem a lot but if I can galvanise the unions, the action groups, the labour and liberal parties, and so on, it should be possible, but I also want as many “ordinary” folk to sign and to encourage others. I have no idea what could emerge. Maybe I am being over-optimistic that we can do achieve some change. I think, it is worth a go and I hope that you do too. Gordon Blackwell GRBlackwell ( talk) 16:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
This doesn't read like an encyclopedia article, it reads like a manifesto for the orginaization itself. The comments immediately above are a perfect example. Get more objective!
Yeah the nonviolence section should be removed
Irishfrisian (
talk)
22:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I haven't been able to work out why the Israel section was removed in these edits by 202.128.252.141. The addition to the Hong Kong section above is uncited as well. -- Nigelj ( talk) 16:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The section on "Reactions" / "Political" cannot be representative of what is going on. Reading it, I get the impression that world leaders tend to support the movement - Obama for instance. This is just plain illogical - they are on opposite sides. This needs to be better constructed to reflect reality. (Also, Iran should not be first - I think they are meant to be Alphabetical - I wonder if someone put it there deliberately to influence readers: Iran = bad... Iran agrees with Occupy... therefore Occupy = bad.) 86.144.148.39 ( talk) 22:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
"Reality" on Wikipedia means supported by sources. The article says that Obama "spoke in support," which is exactly what he did. He probably speaks in support of many things that will bring him campaign money, votes, political power, etc. The occupy movement speaks in support of whatever will let their supporters pretend that they are not a few centuries late to this discussion. There are no "sides," because this is not Star Wars. There are just objectives, actions and rhetorical constructions. Grow up, and find a source that shows Obama actually opposing the occupy movement. 70.171.204.39 ( talk) 02:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
By the way, the original funding for the Occupy Wall Street movement was provided primarily by donations from those with well above the median income. Their funding is now provided by wealthy businessmen. What does their "side" look like now? 70.171.204.39 ( talk) 02:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC) The nonviolence section is innacurate and should probaly be removed Irishfrisian ( talk) 18:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
two editors blanked a well sourced widely reported/discussed crime committed by an occupy movement member. Darkstar1st ( talk)
OWS is a mix of liberals, libertarians, democratic socialists, revolutionary socialists, social democrats, and anarchists with no central ideology. A lot of people do not understand the political nature of this event and attempt to claim fame or smear it with a political classification. Historically I believe this will be looked at as a reactionary movement to give awareness to and open dialogue for the crisis of capitalism, but a minority of OWS protestors are themselves capitalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.223.43 ( talk) 18:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
In the opening paragraph, it reads "The Occupy movement was a protest movement against social and economic inequality, its primary goal being to change the economic structure and power relations in society into what organizers consider to be more fair." I have changed the "was" to "is", additionally, in the info-box on the right of the page, it says it went from "17 September 2011 until - " which I suppose means it is ongoing. Aleksandar Bulovic' ( talk) 12:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't this entry contain a link...somewhere/anywhere...to ethical consumerism? I was just going to add it to the see also section but was so intrigued by its glaring absence that I decided to bring it up here first. Thoughts? -- Xerographica ( talk) 23:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps tax evasion can be mentioned in the see also section. Appearantly, large companies sometimes pay only about 2% tax (ie double Irish with a Dutch sandwich method) where the standard rate is about 20 to 40% (depends on country), see Tax Free documentary by Marije Meerman. Since Occuply protests against large companies/incorrect distribution of wealth, it seems relevant to mention it.
Also worth to add would be a link to List_of_minimum_wages_by_country. The fact that developing countries have lower wages means companies are quick to move there, increasing the great recession KVDP ( talk) 10:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
This page although titled Occupy Movement focuses on early Occupy Wall Street and other location protests and encampments.
What about all the current Occupy Action, issue and project groups (i.e. Occupy Sandy, Strike Debt, Occupy Homes, etc.)?
Should there not be a section dedicated to these Occupy groups with links to the current already existing wiki pages for them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnNashua ( talk • contribs) 04:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
This page although titled Occupy Movement focuses on early Occupy Wall Street and other location protests and encampments.
What about all the current Occupy Action, issue and project groups (i.e. Occupy Sandy, Strike Debt, Occupy Homes, etc.)?
Should there not be a section dedicated to these Occupy groups with links to the current already existing wiki pages for them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnNashua ( talk • contribs) 21:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
In Turkey There were protests in more than 10 cities not 1-3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.251.93.60 ( talk) 06:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Here is a Guardian article about homophobic groups in Russia that seem to have appropriated the name of the movement: they call themselves Occupy Paedophilia and Occupy Gerontophilia. Yep, you couldn't make it up. Should they be covered here as 'fake offshoots'? Or a disamb page made? It sounds like the groups should have their own pages soon, perhaps. Malick78 ( talk) 19:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The movement is all but spent, yet there is nothing in the article on how it went from a worldwide mass movement to an insignificant entity that never makes the news anymore. How could such an enormous powerful body be reduced to inaction in such a short time? I am hheard of infiltration by the CIA and NSA etc, has this taken place and was this instrumental in its downfall? Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 21:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC) |
I added the following to the article:
On a global level, as of 2011, all individuals with incomes above $34,000 belong to the richest 1%. [1]
72.77.61.208 ( talk) 22:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I was not using this as a forum, I am merely pointing out that the article is incomplete without a section on how/ why it came to a sudden halt. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 21:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Let's face it, Occupy Wall Street still has a website up, and I doubt that the movement's core followers are intent on giving up any time soon. 68.37.254.48 ( talk) 14:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes keep it present tense as many occupy groups still meet (example occupynaperville.org) and there is even a Occupy National Gathering being planned ( http://interoccupy.net/natgat2014/save-the-date-occupy-national-gathering-natgat3-july-31-thru-aug-3-2014-sacramento-ca/)-- 98.206.129.63 ( talk) 23:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I dispute the assertion that a line can be drawn between the Occupy movementas well as the Tea Party movement. The statement cannot be found in sources 26, 27 or 28 so can somebody involved please tell the source of this? The two have radically different objectives, the latter being primarily a right wing movement instigated by the Koch family. If somebody does not respond I will remove the relevent material. KingHiggins ( talk) 18:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
there are similar grievances among occupiers and original tea party people (not the AstroTurf-corporate tea party people). HOWEVER it is the actions and views to fix those grievances where Occupy and the TP differ greatly. -- Sfiga ( talk) 15:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Is the following real? Whatever does it mean?
Apart from dismissals by the Right, there have also appreciative criticism from leftist scholars. One such critique concerns itself with the way in which the Occupy movement has focused its demands around a narrowly modern understanding of freedom that differs little from the claims of mainstream liberal pluralism: “ The modern ideology of freedom ... provides its point of departure. This singular dominance of the modern becomes clear in the long list of demands that follow. Practicality dominates and there is not a single demand for relief from the ontological dominance of modern practices and subjectivities that abstract, codify, rationalize and objectify our lives. Though the ideals and demands ... are laudable, they are not that much different in form from the Millennium Goals of the United Nations.[388] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.16 ( talk) 17:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I see that somebody above has defended the use of the present tense on the basis that the Occupy Wall Street website is still live (although that post itself is over a year old). That may well be, although I've seen sources which suggest that movement is functionally dead (e.g. The Guardian, BuzzFeed). I don't know much about it, but I do know that the movement is not the same today as it was in 2011, and this is not reflected in the article.
At a basic level, there are a large number of dates without years, which is contrary to WP:DATE. For example under Goals we have "During the early weeks", "Speaking on 7 October", and so on. The Occupy movement in Norway is stated to have started on "15 October". I suspect all of these dates are 2011, and that the edits were made in 2011 so that the editor considered it unnecessary to state the year, and that the article was at that time an example of WP:RECENTISM.
The section Chronology of Events is bizarre, because the period 17 September 2011 to 31 December 2011 is broken down into intervals of 3-5 weeks, then there is a final section covering the entire period 1 January 2012 to present, and this section really doesn't explain what the movement is doing now. I can't see that it refers to any sources postdating September 2013. Again the article seems to be largely written from a 2011 or early 2012 perspective with various addenda shoved into the final section.
Also we have a section of Subsequent Activity, but what is this subsequent to? Havelock Jones ( talk) 00:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a problem in several Occupy articles. For example, Occupy Portland, which states that its general assembly was disbanded last year, is claimed by this article to be the only remaining "occupation" in the United States. Occupy Portland's website indicates that it has reduced and refocused to more recent events (e.g Ferguson & Michael Brown), clearly not the large-scale protest that this article implies. Wikipedia's Occupy articles need to reflect current realities and not those of 2012 -- ( Wikipedian1234 ( talk) 17:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC))
While the use of the word 'occuupy' is new, the 99% vs 1 % is not new. I was most astonished to find a mentioning of 'the 1%' in a book from the 1920s. It was a pulp fiction B or even C grade fantasy pocket book about the Vanderbilts. I forgot the title and can't find the book on the net now. However, I checked the copyright then, it was from the 1920s, 1929 in all likelihood but written before the crash. I was astonished that the term "THE 1 %" goes back that far into history. 121.209.56.83 ( talk) 00:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Occupy movement which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bchange\.org\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Occupy movement which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bchange\.org\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Occupy movement which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bchange\.org\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi there,
Minor thing, but this is an unsourced statement presented as an actual thing (if I'm not misreading it.)
I think we'd all accept that "The Great Depression" is a thing, but I've never heard of this "Great Recession of 2008" until now.
Can someone please make a more neutral description or post a source for that phrase? It seems like if you're going to make a big deal out of it with formatting like that, then it should then be a well-sourced thing. (I would do this myself, but I came upon this article through an unrelated point and literally know nothing about it or the use of that phrase, so I'll defer to individuals who are more familiar with the area.)
Thanks,
~[Removed prior failure to sign, sorry about that. (Edited for a grammatical mistake and the signature, can't figure out strike-through and all.) ] -- PiousCorn ( talk) 02:27, 29 October 2015 (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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Why is there nothing about the majority who oppose the Occupy movement? Nothing about the illegal actions? The Anti-Semeitism? The lost jobs? The people who have exposed the lies or the view that the occupy movement is more of an entitlement demand than an economic justice?```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basil rock ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Here is a link to the anti Semetism of Occupy, I'd like to put this on the main page as there is no mention right now. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/10/11/occupy-wall-street-has-an-anti-semitism-problem/ Basil rock ( talk) 21:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
What would you accept if I get Fox News or WSJ will that be acceptible. I could complain about Media Matters which seems to be accepted on Wikipedia even that is a George Soros sponsered hit squad. Basil rock ( talk) 10:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Another source you can deny Fox as a legitimate source, http://nation.foxnews.com/wall-street-protests/2011/10/26/networks-and-cable-still-mostly-silent-anti-semitism-occupy-wall-street-protests Basil rock ( talk) 10:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Fox News is the leading U.S cable news source. It is a legitimate source far more than some of the accepted ones.Unless I get a real argument why I will post. Not Fox News is bad. Basil rock ( talk) 15:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a criticsm section on most pages, I'll double check but that would include the Tea Party. It should be part of the main article. Basil rock ( talk) 14:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm new to this article, but looking it over I'm surprised that there's no mention of David Graeber at all, since he was central to the original planning of OWS and has been a prominent, informed commentator on the movement. Out of curiosity, is there a specific reason for this? Like I said, I haven't worked on this article before so I'd hesitate to make any changes to the text without sounding out consensus on this, but it seems like he'd be worth a mention. I've (tentatively) added an article of his to the further reading section; a couple more useful pieces are here: [2] [3]. Sindinero ( talk) 16:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone, the occupy wall street article is going through cleanup. We're asking basic questions about the boundaries between these two articles:
Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is a protest movement that began September 17, 2011 in Zuccotti Park, located in New York City's Wall Street financial district. The protests are against social and economic inequality, high unemployment, greed, as well as corruption and the undue influence of corporations on government—particularly from the financial services sector. The protesters' slogan We are the 99% refers to the growing income inequality and wealth distribution in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population.
OWS was initiated by the Canadian activist group Adbusters and has led to Occupy protests and movements around the world.
As you can see right off the first sentence, there is obfuscation whether or not "occupy wall street" is a movement, or if it refers to the zuccotti park encampment, or if it includes paying churches to let homeless people sleep in their pews. ( see here) Before we correct the inconsistencies across wikipedia about the boundaries between this movement article and the ows article, we must first have wikipedia-wide consensus of how to treat the two articles. The media sources themselves have been inconsistent, but I've opined that we place greater emphasis on more recent sources rather than 2011 sources. To think prophylactically, we're headed in the direction of how things like occupy oakland are going to be renegade from the occupy movement, and whether or not to include them as part of the occupy movement when they do stuff that the nycga tells them not to. There are no right or wrong answers, because the movement is so autonomous, leaderless, and organic. It won't be easy to fit "occupy cityxyz" into a "box" and be able to educate our readers of the difference between a particular occupied city, verses the overall movement. I'll chime in with my own comments later on, because I've had contact with several people outside of Wikipedia who are also concerned about the lack of clarity, especially with new leadership changes (business affinity group, occupy money group, and interoccupy) which will dramatically rebrand the movement's message. We as Wikipedian editors should be the first to be able to understand how to classify the movement against its "occupied cities" and how to delineate the movement from its cities. Later on, the creation of the nycga article will allow information to be shifted, especially as "goals" may vary city by city, but the nycga still has the last word on everything. 완젬스 ( talk) 20:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
First of all I, like many do not consider most of what the MSM writes to be a credible source, as they tend to pick and choose who they choose to interview, thus spinning it with their particular brand of thinking. My sources tend to mainly be the independent media from within the movement itself. I have contacts in dozens of cities around the world that report on the movement daily. Thanks for the article, it's interesting, though I don't particularly trust the NY Times brand for fair and open reporting. The main stream media is after all controlled by those that the Occupy Movement is focusing on. I am always open to different perspectives however, as by sharing perspectives consensus may form, as long as parties are open to truly attempting to understand. On a side note: I don't see anyone being able to "reign in Occupy Oakland" or any other occupy groups at this point. Each Occupy tends to focus on what effects them directly, it's been that way from the start. Oakland focus is on police brutality for good reason. That being said, I don't always agree with their tactics, I am simply stating I understand the "why" of it. I guess it would be fair to say I am an independent journalist as well, if that helps you to understand where I am coming from. I run a livestream channel that is dedicated to education & support for the movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfinityCircle ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
It's dead in the UK, & according to timeline article last us camps evicted on 3rd. 92.15.77.176 ( talk) 14:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
And in the process my attempted changes have been lost. It gets harder and harder to edit anonymously. Basically I removed the meetup communities line (a no brainer IMO, no decent source, non notable, misleading, undue weight), and used sources from the timeline to mention that most camps are now gone. 92.15.81.20 ( talk) 17:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
... ? 99.109.125.114 ( talk) 02:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Occupy Together, We All Occupy, InterOccupy and the Federated General Assembly (OWS) pooled/scrubbed/verified our data and created a Drupal-based directory with over 1300 individual nodes (occupy locations) around the world. The site went live on Feb 10. The dataset is curated by some of the original data collectors and is updated daily (soon to be updated in real-time by crowdsourcing, so it's a moving(but validated) target. I'm the bottom liner on data integrity...just wondering if we can work together OR how I might get the data into Wikipedia. Cyberinga ( talk) 05:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I just had to remove from the lead something along the lines of 'police have arrested thousands of people and 24 have been killed'. I further note that the 24 deaths are numbered in the infopanel....should this be reconsidered? Listing every heart attack or whatever in the same style deaths are listed in conflict articles.....is more than a little dodgy. 92.15.49.13 ( talk) 15:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
You could create a section for these things if you take offense to where they are currently listed. -- ProfPolySci45 ( talk) 05:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
This article lacks a critism section. A very large one, for that manner. Occupy does not have a good track record, and it doesnt even have a critism section. WTH. Bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Mentlegen ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Criticism sections are normally only demanded by people opposed to the subject of an article. That, by definition, is a POV position to take. They should be avoided like the plague. HiLo48 ( talk) 15:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to propose the creation of either Occupy movement (US) or Occupy movement (California) (latter as example of state by state articles) and begin merging smaller articles as a rescue effort and clean up of Occupy articles. I honestly believe the situation with Occupy is beginning to be an issue we should deal with ourselves as editors. I also propose that we begin building Wikipedia: Wikiproject Occupy movement to centralize discussion of individual articles and attempt to remain within guidelines and policy.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 09:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The Project idea gained support a while back. Here is the thread. [4]-- Amadscientist ( talk) 20:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I am moving forward with the Project within the recommended guidelines. The proposal has been made and listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. The discussion page is Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Occupy movement. You may add your name to the "support" list and add comments for discussion.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 21:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I propose merging the newly created Anarchism and the Occupy movement into this article per WP:CFORK. While David Graeber's anarchism is mentioned here, the claim that the Occupy movement "has its roots on the philosophy of anarchism" strikes me as something that would be best resolved here. Gobōnobo + c 23:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Due to the massive worldwide importance of Occupy, its important we keep the lede reasonably up to date so it reflects the movment's progress. Untill I made a much needed update to the article last week, the lede had remained essentially the same for over 3 months, failing to capture events for the second half of the movement's development. Bizarrely, my changes have been largely reverted, with an edit summary saying the claim that the last high profile camp has been cleared is uncited and incorrect!
In fact this FT article ,already at the end of the applicable lede paragraph, says: "tearing down the last remaining high-profile tent city of the worldwide Occupy movement." It was claimed that the Finsbury park camp is high profile. In my experience even fellow Londoners often don't know about the Finsbury camp. To claim it counts as high profile in the context of an article on the global movement seems extraordinary. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 11:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Granted she's a fairly notable person, but this is a blog (used here). But the main thing is that she said
This means she knows that they actually do have articulated demands, and that kind of contradicts the article diff above. We may be quoting her out of context, and I thought I'd raise the question. Be——Critical 07:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Intriguing piece in The Nation for anyone interested in giving these Occupy articles more historical context: "When Upton Sinclair's '99 Percent' Movement Sparked the Birth of the Modern Election Campaign" [8] about Upton Sinclair's political influence in the 1930's. El duderino ( talk) 13:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Re this revert: Here's what I want to suggest, which is more in accord with Wikipedia process: You seem to have some good sources, but you're using them wrong. You have the material for a history section for this article. It can also be incorporated into owws, as part of the origins section. After that is done, then it's the right time to incorporate it into the lead. How about that? Be——Critical 04:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe so. I tried to rework it the second time, but that got rejected as well... I'll try to work it in there. That sounds good. I'm sort of new to wikipedia, so the edits may not always be the best. But I still never edited the mainstay of the article because most of it was pretty good... Thanks for the advice. -- 108.3.157.32 ( talk) 23:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:OCCUPY or
WP:OWS or
WP:99%.--
Amadscientist (
talk)
22:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Article needs an update to remove dead links.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:47, 10 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 ☏ 03:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I think we can now clearly add Violence as a characteristic of the movement. Arzel ( talk) 13:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
is now (finally) getting some serious media coverage and more than deserves a mention here - these people are risking their lives for freedom: [11]. 92.24.191.247 ( talk) 15:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
More stuff has happened since May Day, why isn't it covered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theworldisbig ( talk • contribs) 14:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The template says the protests are still ongoing. However in the past four months there has been only one protest. We should either remove the word "ongoing" or replace it with something else. Pass a Method talk 21:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE85606J20120607?irpc=932
http://m.postbulletin.com/postbulletin/pm_105564/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=TZ1YFNxs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.146.216 ( talk) 04:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The movement has been going on since September 17th, and protest and meetings have been held everyday. As long as actions are planned in the future and are being active right now, it should remain it's ongoing status.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexf505 ( talk • contribs) 02:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
...intentionally, of course. Need your guys' help. I have added sections to the Political Activity section of this article Koch family that is being hotly contested by conservative Tea-Partiers. Its creating more work than I could have ever imagined. I have to argue down repeated re-visitation of the same arguments by different users over and over and over again. And one user that acts like an attorney, where, if one argument doesn't work, well then, he'll just try another, and another, and another. I've asked for the article to be protected so this can all be discussed on the talk page, but all that did was get more attention focused on the article by what appear to be conservative "Citation BOTs". Help!!! LoL! -- XB70Valyrie ( talk) 01:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
My edit starts like this and is the whole paragraph... "The Koch brothers contributed $20.5 million to political interests in 2008. Koch Industries employs at least 30 government lobbyists...."-- XB70Valyrie ( talk) 01:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
A relatively small group of occupiers successfully occupied Harbourside Park in St John's Newfoundland for the entire 2012 Winter season. quote from wikiarticle
Is wikipedia becoming clairvoyant? On the basis of a linear time contraint I would question such assertions as unfounded and in need of editing. Yogiadept ( talk) 19:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi - I need your help. I have set up an e-petition at http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/35996 – which should be self-explanatory. Many, many people both here and abroad are having their lives ruined by government austerity measures. They are losing their jobs and homes, Young people are facing years of unemployment with no hope and no prospects of escaping from economic hardship. The volume of misery, depression and lack of hope is enormous. As I understand it, it is basically because bankers allowed greed to cloud their judgement so that they took risks which failed. They then ran out of money, and because, they are apparently an indispensable part of our system, “we” were forced to bail them out. Our governments thereby are in financial trouble, so they have to cut spending, creating a financial crisis which is blighting the lives of millions who were in no way to blame for the problem. The person-in-the-street sees: • the bankers still living well, receiving large salaries and obscenely large bonuses, in reality untouched by the crisis • politicians apparently unable to deal with the situation except to offer austerity with no sign of any beneficial economic outcome • the leaders of nations without any idea of a solution, lurching from one emergency summit meeting to the next • that they are totally trapped while a range of shadowy figures make millions, if not billions of pounds speculating in the “market.” He or she does not understand: • why they are suffering while the people who were responsible for the mess are untouched • where the money the banks lost has gone? Who has got it? Why can’t we get it back? • what are the “markets” that seem to control the whole system. Who runs them? Is it just a few people? • why there can’t be a better way. There is not a lot going on to tackle any of the root causes. There are some initiatives like regulating banks. Although this is a good step, it does nothing to help relieve the misery. I want to force the government to start an investigation to see if there is a better basic system to insulate the person-in-the-street from mistakes made in the financial markets. This should involve a root and branch examination – not just a tinkering with regulation. If this involves international co-operation then so be it. The present system is inequitable and evil. There must be a better way. If there really is no better system then politicians should come clean and explain that the lack of hope, the misery and the extreme inequality will remain and that they are impotent to do anything about it. I need 100,000 signatures to have a chance of forcing some action – this may seem a lot but if I can galvanise the unions, the action groups, the labour and liberal parties, and so on, it should be possible, but I also want as many “ordinary” folk to sign and to encourage others. I have no idea what could emerge. Maybe I am being over-optimistic that we can do achieve some change. I think, it is worth a go and I hope that you do too. Gordon Blackwell GRBlackwell ( talk) 16:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
This doesn't read like an encyclopedia article, it reads like a manifesto for the orginaization itself. The comments immediately above are a perfect example. Get more objective!
Yeah the nonviolence section should be removed
Irishfrisian (
talk)
22:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I haven't been able to work out why the Israel section was removed in these edits by 202.128.252.141. The addition to the Hong Kong section above is uncited as well. -- Nigelj ( talk) 16:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The section on "Reactions" / "Political" cannot be representative of what is going on. Reading it, I get the impression that world leaders tend to support the movement - Obama for instance. This is just plain illogical - they are on opposite sides. This needs to be better constructed to reflect reality. (Also, Iran should not be first - I think they are meant to be Alphabetical - I wonder if someone put it there deliberately to influence readers: Iran = bad... Iran agrees with Occupy... therefore Occupy = bad.) 86.144.148.39 ( talk) 22:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
"Reality" on Wikipedia means supported by sources. The article says that Obama "spoke in support," which is exactly what he did. He probably speaks in support of many things that will bring him campaign money, votes, political power, etc. The occupy movement speaks in support of whatever will let their supporters pretend that they are not a few centuries late to this discussion. There are no "sides," because this is not Star Wars. There are just objectives, actions and rhetorical constructions. Grow up, and find a source that shows Obama actually opposing the occupy movement. 70.171.204.39 ( talk) 02:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
By the way, the original funding for the Occupy Wall Street movement was provided primarily by donations from those with well above the median income. Their funding is now provided by wealthy businessmen. What does their "side" look like now? 70.171.204.39 ( talk) 02:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC) The nonviolence section is innacurate and should probaly be removed Irishfrisian ( talk) 18:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
two editors blanked a well sourced widely reported/discussed crime committed by an occupy movement member. Darkstar1st ( talk)
OWS is a mix of liberals, libertarians, democratic socialists, revolutionary socialists, social democrats, and anarchists with no central ideology. A lot of people do not understand the political nature of this event and attempt to claim fame or smear it with a political classification. Historically I believe this will be looked at as a reactionary movement to give awareness to and open dialogue for the crisis of capitalism, but a minority of OWS protestors are themselves capitalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.223.43 ( talk) 18:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
In the opening paragraph, it reads "The Occupy movement was a protest movement against social and economic inequality, its primary goal being to change the economic structure and power relations in society into what organizers consider to be more fair." I have changed the "was" to "is", additionally, in the info-box on the right of the page, it says it went from "17 September 2011 until - " which I suppose means it is ongoing. Aleksandar Bulovic' ( talk) 12:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't this entry contain a link...somewhere/anywhere...to ethical consumerism? I was just going to add it to the see also section but was so intrigued by its glaring absence that I decided to bring it up here first. Thoughts? -- Xerographica ( talk) 23:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps tax evasion can be mentioned in the see also section. Appearantly, large companies sometimes pay only about 2% tax (ie double Irish with a Dutch sandwich method) where the standard rate is about 20 to 40% (depends on country), see Tax Free documentary by Marije Meerman. Since Occuply protests against large companies/incorrect distribution of wealth, it seems relevant to mention it.
Also worth to add would be a link to List_of_minimum_wages_by_country. The fact that developing countries have lower wages means companies are quick to move there, increasing the great recession KVDP ( talk) 10:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
This page although titled Occupy Movement focuses on early Occupy Wall Street and other location protests and encampments.
What about all the current Occupy Action, issue and project groups (i.e. Occupy Sandy, Strike Debt, Occupy Homes, etc.)?
Should there not be a section dedicated to these Occupy groups with links to the current already existing wiki pages for them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnNashua ( talk • contribs) 04:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
This page although titled Occupy Movement focuses on early Occupy Wall Street and other location protests and encampments.
What about all the current Occupy Action, issue and project groups (i.e. Occupy Sandy, Strike Debt, Occupy Homes, etc.)?
Should there not be a section dedicated to these Occupy groups with links to the current already existing wiki pages for them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnNashua ( talk • contribs) 21:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
In Turkey There were protests in more than 10 cities not 1-3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.251.93.60 ( talk) 06:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Here is a Guardian article about homophobic groups in Russia that seem to have appropriated the name of the movement: they call themselves Occupy Paedophilia and Occupy Gerontophilia. Yep, you couldn't make it up. Should they be covered here as 'fake offshoots'? Or a disamb page made? It sounds like the groups should have their own pages soon, perhaps. Malick78 ( talk) 19:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The movement is all but spent, yet there is nothing in the article on how it went from a worldwide mass movement to an insignificant entity that never makes the news anymore. How could such an enormous powerful body be reduced to inaction in such a short time? I am hheard of infiltration by the CIA and NSA etc, has this taken place and was this instrumental in its downfall? Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 21:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC) |
I added the following to the article:
On a global level, as of 2011, all individuals with incomes above $34,000 belong to the richest 1%. [1]
72.77.61.208 ( talk) 22:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I was not using this as a forum, I am merely pointing out that the article is incomplete without a section on how/ why it came to a sudden halt. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 21:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Let's face it, Occupy Wall Street still has a website up, and I doubt that the movement's core followers are intent on giving up any time soon. 68.37.254.48 ( talk) 14:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes keep it present tense as many occupy groups still meet (example occupynaperville.org) and there is even a Occupy National Gathering being planned ( http://interoccupy.net/natgat2014/save-the-date-occupy-national-gathering-natgat3-july-31-thru-aug-3-2014-sacramento-ca/)-- 98.206.129.63 ( talk) 23:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I dispute the assertion that a line can be drawn between the Occupy movementas well as the Tea Party movement. The statement cannot be found in sources 26, 27 or 28 so can somebody involved please tell the source of this? The two have radically different objectives, the latter being primarily a right wing movement instigated by the Koch family. If somebody does not respond I will remove the relevent material. KingHiggins ( talk) 18:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
there are similar grievances among occupiers and original tea party people (not the AstroTurf-corporate tea party people). HOWEVER it is the actions and views to fix those grievances where Occupy and the TP differ greatly. -- Sfiga ( talk) 15:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Is the following real? Whatever does it mean?
Apart from dismissals by the Right, there have also appreciative criticism from leftist scholars. One such critique concerns itself with the way in which the Occupy movement has focused its demands around a narrowly modern understanding of freedom that differs little from the claims of mainstream liberal pluralism: “ The modern ideology of freedom ... provides its point of departure. This singular dominance of the modern becomes clear in the long list of demands that follow. Practicality dominates and there is not a single demand for relief from the ontological dominance of modern practices and subjectivities that abstract, codify, rationalize and objectify our lives. Though the ideals and demands ... are laudable, they are not that much different in form from the Millennium Goals of the United Nations.[388] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.16 ( talk) 17:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I see that somebody above has defended the use of the present tense on the basis that the Occupy Wall Street website is still live (although that post itself is over a year old). That may well be, although I've seen sources which suggest that movement is functionally dead (e.g. The Guardian, BuzzFeed). I don't know much about it, but I do know that the movement is not the same today as it was in 2011, and this is not reflected in the article.
At a basic level, there are a large number of dates without years, which is contrary to WP:DATE. For example under Goals we have "During the early weeks", "Speaking on 7 October", and so on. The Occupy movement in Norway is stated to have started on "15 October". I suspect all of these dates are 2011, and that the edits were made in 2011 so that the editor considered it unnecessary to state the year, and that the article was at that time an example of WP:RECENTISM.
The section Chronology of Events is bizarre, because the period 17 September 2011 to 31 December 2011 is broken down into intervals of 3-5 weeks, then there is a final section covering the entire period 1 January 2012 to present, and this section really doesn't explain what the movement is doing now. I can't see that it refers to any sources postdating September 2013. Again the article seems to be largely written from a 2011 or early 2012 perspective with various addenda shoved into the final section.
Also we have a section of Subsequent Activity, but what is this subsequent to? Havelock Jones ( talk) 00:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a problem in several Occupy articles. For example, Occupy Portland, which states that its general assembly was disbanded last year, is claimed by this article to be the only remaining "occupation" in the United States. Occupy Portland's website indicates that it has reduced and refocused to more recent events (e.g Ferguson & Michael Brown), clearly not the large-scale protest that this article implies. Wikipedia's Occupy articles need to reflect current realities and not those of 2012 -- ( Wikipedian1234 ( talk) 17:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC))
While the use of the word 'occuupy' is new, the 99% vs 1 % is not new. I was most astonished to find a mentioning of 'the 1%' in a book from the 1920s. It was a pulp fiction B or even C grade fantasy pocket book about the Vanderbilts. I forgot the title and can't find the book on the net now. However, I checked the copyright then, it was from the 1920s, 1929 in all likelihood but written before the crash. I was astonished that the term "THE 1 %" goes back that far into history. 121.209.56.83 ( talk) 00:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Occupy movement which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bchange\.org\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Occupy movement which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bchange\.org\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Occupy movement which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bchange\.org\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi there,
Minor thing, but this is an unsourced statement presented as an actual thing (if I'm not misreading it.)
I think we'd all accept that "The Great Depression" is a thing, but I've never heard of this "Great Recession of 2008" until now.
Can someone please make a more neutral description or post a source for that phrase? It seems like if you're going to make a big deal out of it with formatting like that, then it should then be a well-sourced thing. (I would do this myself, but I came upon this article through an unrelated point and literally know nothing about it or the use of that phrase, so I'll defer to individuals who are more familiar with the area.)
Thanks,
~[Removed prior failure to sign, sorry about that. (Edited for a grammatical mistake and the signature, can't figure out strike-through and all.) ] -- PiousCorn ( talk) 02:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)