Talk:Occupy Atlanta/Archive 1

Archive 1

NYT video resource

Protesting the Establishment October 13, 2011, 6:45 PM; Their politics differ, but the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements agree on one thing. Kate Zernike reports from Atlanta. 99.119.131.17 (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete Intragroup Discussion

The section "Intragroup Discussion" is not noteworthy because it is describing the typical procedures and practices of the Occupy Wall Street movement, namely the human mic and consensus decision making. The two sources that are referenced are from the same source and are describing the practices in biased terms. WP:IRS. Rachel librarian (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Youtube video that detailed the repetitions and finger-waving received over 200k hits on Youtube, was featured in the NYT, AJC, Drudge Report, ABC, Fox News, etc. Feel free to add commentary that defends it, but something receiving such large-scale national attention is noteworthy. I know of no other Occupy groups who use the finger waving or repetitions.--Mmann1988 (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

All of the occupy groups use finger waving and repetitions. See: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street#Sound_system AND http://www.thenation.com/blog/163767/we-are-all-human-microphones-now AND this excerpt from a reference on the Occupy Wall Street Wikipedia page: "Because it's hard to be heard above the din of lower Manhattan and because the city is not allowing bullhorns or microphones, the protesters have devised a system of hand symbols. Fingers downward means you disagree. Arms crossed means you strongly disagree. Announcements are made via the "people's mic... you say it and the people immediately around you repeat it and pass the word along." Wall Street functions like a small city." http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j1cCvOt8hya8vGX0L0BuZu6lxt_A?docId=0b872a8c42874850a511343166b0b871 Additionally, the references you use are not neutral. See: WP:NPOV. Rachel librarian (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't heard back from Mmann1988. I am going to remove this section. Youtube is not a reliable source and neither is that particular article from FoxNews. If you find an article from a reliable source that describes the uniqueness of Occupy Atlanta's intragroup discussion as separate from the rest of Occupy Wall Street, you can put the section back. I will work on filling out the page with relevant information about local officals' reactions and other things like that so it isn't so bare. Rachel librarian (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I dont check Wikipedia by the hour. First of all, Youtube is never once referenced in the section. NYT is a reliable news source and so is Fox News. Please do not make the article biased towards the occupy movement by removing information you do not think represents the movement in a favorable light. I think right now, the article is very balanced and acknowledges that the inragroup discussion did attract attention. I will also note that while other occupy movements may have adopted this particular discussion style, Occupy Atlanta was the first to gain national attention for it. Besides, you are not the final arbitrer of what is included. Many other editors have reviewed this page and found its content satisfactory. Any blanking of the page need to be approved first by developing consensus. --Mmann1988 (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not want this article to be biased either way. The foxnews article describes it as "strange group ritual". That is biased. Can we agree on removing that foxnews link? Rachel librarian (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed Fox News and replaced it with the Washington Times. As you can see, Occupy Atlanta is the only movement outside of OWS that is mentioned in the article.--Mmann1988 (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I just pulled this section on sight prior to seeing this. Rachael librarian is quite right.. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Redirect discussion occurring for this article

• There's a discussion occurring regarding a proposal to redirect this article to the Occupy Wall Street article, occurring here: at the administrator's noticeboard. Please feel free to comment regarding this matter there. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• The discussion above was closed on 21 October 2011 (UTC). Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture of tents

How about we put the image down in the start of a gallery, with the following caption. Jesanj (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the shooting section

Here I removed a section on the basis that its notability has not been established by reliable sources. If the AJC, for example, mentions the protest as using the shooting as motivation, then by all means, lets add that source. The indy media site and the libcom.org sites don't have the weight to establish a section here, in my opinion. Jesanj (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this, but if more sources are brought up then it should be re added.Beefcake6412 (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that your reasoning is terrible - I don't mean that to sound very aggressive. But if we have to depend on corporate media to make our news for us, Wikipedia is going to get really bad really fast.

The article has citations and it accurately reflects what actually occurred without bias.

I say we put it back up, with the citations, and leave it up.

If the loyalty to corporate infrastructure is so strong, maybe something like "independent media sources claim that..." before the section. :::Either way, I feel it must go up there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.119.229 (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll look around for sources and I'll post what I find. Thanks for commenting here. We really don't care if our sources are corporate or not. We just want them to be along the lines of this: WP:Identifying reliable sources. Jesanj (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

For one thing, it could go under an "incidents" section at Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority: MARTA: Dead teen was armed (for a corporate headline and link). Jesanj (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That's done. Jesanj (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Found this, "The rally and march, however, did not appear to be connected to the Occupy Atlanta movement that has been based at Woodruff Park downtown." Sure some occupiers could have gone, but if there was no formal link then it appears to have been a separate event. I'll see what else pops up. Jesanj (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys, between this and the how TB thing, there is alot of miss information about Occupy Altanta being done by some with interests agains them (do I mean Koch brothers? Nah... probably just trolls). Honestly I have found that the ajc.com is providing one of the most neutral perspectives on this particular section of the occupy movement.72.152.128.30 (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Removied FOX News citation

There was a citation from fox news w/ video (http://nation.foxnews.com/occupy-wall-street/2011/10/10/occupy-atlanta-silences-civil-rights-hero-john-lewis)- and while the video was informative it is available unedited elsewhere. Also the article itself is not as informative as other accounts, and uses language and inferences that could not be construed from the video alone. The title of the article is not neutral, and contradicts the nature of the incident which was not censorial by a long stretch of the imagination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.90.204 (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

We care more about how the text in the article stands as a representation of all reliable sources (WP:NPOV) but OK, thanks for your contributions. Jesanj (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

NOVEMBER 5TH THERE WERE 19 ARRESTS AT WOODRUFF PARK (TROY DAVIS PARK ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.103.225 (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)