This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Occupy Wall Street article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Occupy Wall Street was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject OWS, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.OWSWikipedia:WikiProject OWSTemplate:WikiProject OWSOWS articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
The first paragraph of the article seems to have been mildly vandalised with the inclusion of "The ruling Burgeo class who have oppressed tHE BIPOC latinx for one million years" 178.51.177.207 (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted recent additions which characterized the movement as socialist when it was more anarchist in nature, and corporate influence over government, or money in politics, was indeed one of the core issues of the movement. Plus no sources were included to justify these additions. Just leaving this here because my edit summary was cut off as I accidentally hit submit while making edits on my phone. Sorry about that.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Thank you C.J.! I was one of the original organizers of OWS in NYC. I made a feature film on the experience, and I just wrote a book. You are correct that it was much more anarchist. OWS operated via democratic structures such as assemblies and councils, and used the consensus decision-making process. These are rooted in anarchist, and feminist organizing practices, and have precursors in the Anti-Nuke Movement and Global Justice Movement. There are a number of aspects of this entry that I'd like to change. I would love to talk with you and others at wikipedia to make this entry historically accurate. MarisaHolmes2011 (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid adding your own work to the 'see also section'. If you feel that your work meets reliable source guidelines and is the best available citation to support a specific change, please propose such changes here on this talk page.
It is a reliable source, since I was directly involved, and have done extensive research. Also, the book is being published by a reputable press and underwent peer review. I propose that it is added. MarisaHolmes2011 (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Graeber and Sitrin books are still there. I hope that by 'recognition' you mean recognition by readers wishing to better understand the topic.
What specific information is this book being cited for? See also and further reading sections do not have quite the same standard as inline citations. Please see Wikipedia:Further reading#Conflicts of interest.
Ok, I looked at your link here. I totally understand the conflict of interest section. You don't know me, so It makes sense you'd have reservations. I can assure you, though, that my motivation is not to promote or sell my book. I will likely lose money on it anyway, and hope its available for free. I just want everyone, and especially future generations of organizers and activists, to have access to more direct and primary sources. The book includes these. I held off on making revisions to this entry with specific citations. I'm happy to do this work If you like. Some of what I reference in the book has already been included in other books, such as Graeber's and Sitrin's. However, I do provide additional sources. I could also send over a copy of the book, and someone else here could decide what to do with it. Then, there would be less conflict of interest. MarisaHolmes2011 (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fully accept that you are acting in good faith. With that in mind, conflict of interest editing isn't limited to financial gain, and promotional editing doesn't have to be profitable to still be promotional. Adding your own book doesn't provide any context to readers about what the book is or why it would be useful, so it is promotional either way.
So once again, what specific information would this book support? It would be much better to use this book as a citation for specific information. Grayfell (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The book could be used as a citation for the following already existing entry text:
"Many commentators have stated that the Occupy Wall Street movement has roots in the philosophy of anarchism."
-I definitely make this argument.
"It derives from a "We the 99%" flyer calling for OWS's second General Assembly in August 2011"
-There's a whole section of the book devoted to the early assemblies. I describe how the 99% was created...
"The assembly was the main OWS decision-making body and used a modified consensus process, where participants attempted to reach consensus and then dropped to a 9/10 vote if consensus was not reached."
-I describe this at length.
-This section could benefit from more historical and theoretical context for the practices. They were not unique to OWS.
"the protesters created the "human microphone" in which a speaker pauses while the nearby members of the audience repeat the phrase in unison"
-- The way this is currently written is incorrect, though. The human mic was the result of a improvisation by the facilitation team and not because of the police sound ordinance. This is an often repeated error. Actually, the film I made shows what happened ..https://vimeo.com/172339354. In the book I give more context for how the human mic comes from WTO in Seattle. You can actually see the human mic being used in Showdown in Seattle https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Showdown_in_Seattle.
You could add my book as a citation in the Occupy Media section
-However, what you currently have doesn't include anything from the OWS Media Working Group or Global Revolution Media, which were part of OWS from the beginning. The section is also very print and writing focused generally. There would need to be an additional section written for a citation to be appropriate.
Under Criticism...
You could cite my book for the sentence "instead represented a host of broad demands that did not specifically allude to a desired policy agenda"
-This is weirdly written though. More could be said about the reasoning for not having demands, and what our actual goals were. We wanted to build a new society, from the bottom up, through taking space, engaging in mutual aid, and practicing direct democracy.
There's more I could say, but I hope all this helps. If you need page numbers and reference lists I can definitely provide them. I can also help with revising the entry, as I mentioned. However, I want to respect the process you have here, and not just go in and make big changes without discussion. 24.185.42.144 (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i don't think that theses rules and caveats would preclude writer from making or proposing changes--as you can see, the suggestions were not taken upActio (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under the Criticism section (an odd and inelegant way to frame some questions), there are three references to the supposed antisemitism of Occupy that do not seem to have held up very well over the years. There is visual evidence linked to in which we see a person come forward with frightful opinions, but there was no "official" line at Occupy about this, of course, it was never put forward as a principle, and there does not seem to have been wider support voiced by group members. (Further, being anti-Zionist is by no means the same as being anti-Semitic. Jews have been arguing about Zionism for over 100 years, and it is unlikely that the ultra Orthodox Jewish groups in the US would ever be called anti-Semitic, as that would be ridiculous.) The right-leaning writer Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post is cited in what we might call a hand-wringing column, and a group is linked to with an ad attacking Obama's policies toward Israel. Wikipedia itself characterizes this group as follows: 'The Emergency Committee for Israel is a right-wing nonprofit political advocacy organization in the United States." The third link is to Fox News, whose politics are clearly on the right and happy to make any charges that suits its political agenda.
It is essentially an overblown slur on OWS to feature this in the article. I write this on Rosh hashanah, the Jewish New year. (By the way, OWS held New Year's services, but I don't remember the date.)
Actio (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't only assume this is some one joking right? A general reference page in their reference directory giving a brief summary of what the organization is and what their goals are and why they might be a issue, sourced directly to the organizations own websites and public social media posts, is "surveiling them closely"? "We set up massive public protests and are actively trying to forment rebellion and create public disorder and disruption, and the government is paying attention to the situation!? Ensuring their employees are informed of current events?! Literally fascism!
Like this has to be someone trolling, it has to be.
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
