 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Krista.EH. Peer reviewers:
Kellyshen621.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I have added that Thai Jones is an anarchist. To call him only a "writer" gives a misleading impression that he is an unbiased source. We note that Graeber is anarchist, why not Jones too? I was informed my edit was removed because it was not "constructive." No definition of constructive was given, nor how the term was applied in this case. AECwriter 05:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)AECwriter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aecwriter ( talk • contribs)
This is likely not a reliable source (except for illustrating the views of those interviewed), but it gives an interesting (and somewhat depressing) look at the changing relationship between anarchism and the occupy movement, these days. [1] Sindinero ( talk) 20:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I've marked a couple of statements that to me seem both questionably sourced and dubious in nature.
- The anarchist principles of direct action, direct democracy, and rejecting recognition of existing political institutions are the roots of the Occupy Wall Street movement.
- This sentence is sourced by this article, written by anarchist and Occupier David Graeber and would appear to be drawing from him saying "This is not the first time a movement based on fundamentally anarchist principles – direct action, direct democracy, a rejection of existing political institutions and attempt to create alternative ones – has cropped up in the US." While Graeber is a good source, his opinion is not definitive on the roots of Occupy. His use of "fundamentally" is key here, as it is certainly up for debate whether "rejecting recognition of existing political institutions" is a root of the Occupy movement and I'd question whether direct action is actually a "principle".
- The contemporary anarchists involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement face the same challenges their predecessors faced.
- This sentence is overly vague and invites the reader to draw false conclusions. The source used actually supports the opposite of that, with the possible exception of the last paragraph.
These statements speak to a larger problem here. Having the second sentence of the article say "David Graeber, who was one early organizer of the movement, is an anarchist" is really synth-y and advances the article's thesis in a less than academic manner. An imprecise use of terminology combined with broad generalizations and original research do a disservice to this subject. A movement as broad as Occupy (the 99%) simply can't be made to fit inside blanket statements claiming to know the intentions of the organizers. Gobōnobo + c 00:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I feel that undue weight is being given to the role of anarchism in the Occupy movement in this article. While it's easy to google "anarchism" + "Occupy movement" and find plenty of sources that talk about the connection (and there is one), I'm concerned that the emphasis here suggests that the predominant influence on the Occupy movement is anarchism and the truth is much more nuanced. Further, the statement about "whether to use violence or not" is sourced but disregards the fact that the Occupy movement has been overwhelming non-violent with roots in the direct action of Gandhi and King. Gobōnobo + c 18:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- There are several major problems with the article. To begin with, the lede is poorly written by starting off with the opinion of unamed parties in a manner that is simply not encyclopedic. Is the perspective of the entire concept one of scholarly opinion? If so, then we need not use the first line to state the fact. If this is speculation from several sources this might be considered OR. But we know there are several sources that use this "over arching" research from the perspective of an unenvolved socialogical sort of way. In short, the article requires a re-write and it may need far more sources and much more research.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 03:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Krista.EH. Peer reviewers:
Kellyshen621.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I have added that Thai Jones is an anarchist. To call him only a "writer" gives a misleading impression that he is an unbiased source. We note that Graeber is anarchist, why not Jones too? I was informed my edit was removed because it was not "constructive." No definition of constructive was given, nor how the term was applied in this case. AECwriter 05:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)AECwriter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aecwriter ( talk • contribs)
This is likely not a reliable source (except for illustrating the views of those interviewed), but it gives an interesting (and somewhat depressing) look at the changing relationship between anarchism and the occupy movement, these days. [1] Sindinero ( talk) 20:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I've marked a couple of statements that to me seem both questionably sourced and dubious in nature.
- The anarchist principles of direct action, direct democracy, and rejecting recognition of existing political institutions are the roots of the Occupy Wall Street movement.
- This sentence is sourced by this article, written by anarchist and Occupier David Graeber and would appear to be drawing from him saying "This is not the first time a movement based on fundamentally anarchist principles – direct action, direct democracy, a rejection of existing political institutions and attempt to create alternative ones – has cropped up in the US." While Graeber is a good source, his opinion is not definitive on the roots of Occupy. His use of "fundamentally" is key here, as it is certainly up for debate whether "rejecting recognition of existing political institutions" is a root of the Occupy movement and I'd question whether direct action is actually a "principle".
- The contemporary anarchists involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement face the same challenges their predecessors faced.
- This sentence is overly vague and invites the reader to draw false conclusions. The source used actually supports the opposite of that, with the possible exception of the last paragraph.
These statements speak to a larger problem here. Having the second sentence of the article say "David Graeber, who was one early organizer of the movement, is an anarchist" is really synth-y and advances the article's thesis in a less than academic manner. An imprecise use of terminology combined with broad generalizations and original research do a disservice to this subject. A movement as broad as Occupy (the 99%) simply can't be made to fit inside blanket statements claiming to know the intentions of the organizers. Gobōnobo + c 00:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I feel that undue weight is being given to the role of anarchism in the Occupy movement in this article. While it's easy to google "anarchism" + "Occupy movement" and find plenty of sources that talk about the connection (and there is one), I'm concerned that the emphasis here suggests that the predominant influence on the Occupy movement is anarchism and the truth is much more nuanced. Further, the statement about "whether to use violence or not" is sourced but disregards the fact that the Occupy movement has been overwhelming non-violent with roots in the direct action of Gandhi and King. Gobōnobo + c 18:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- There are several major problems with the article. To begin with, the lede is poorly written by starting off with the opinion of unamed parties in a manner that is simply not encyclopedic. Is the perspective of the entire concept one of scholarly opinion? If so, then we need not use the first line to state the fact. If this is speculation from several sources this might be considered OR. But we know there are several sources that use this "over arching" research from the perspective of an unenvolved socialogical sort of way. In short, the article requires a re-write and it may need far more sources and much more research.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 03:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)