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.

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (Article is on a highly notable topic and capable of radical improvement and expansion) --Rangoon11 (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

CSD templates are not supposed to be removed. But you can contest the speedy by clicking in the appropriate place in the template. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I reverted my edit. My mistake. Non-article creators can remove CSD templates. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Can we rename this as Occupy protests (2011)? Rationale is the ten year test... basically, in ten years, the title of this article should reflect "when it happened" ... see also 2011 protests in Tunisia and other such protest articles. MPS (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - unnecessary because there have been no prior protests by this name capable of confusion. This is also, at present, the common name.Rangoon11 (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree, except that I'm uncertain about using quotes in an article title. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with events like these is that you have a ton of reliable sources telling you how many people attend but every source has a diffrent total. So overall is this bit really needed? If the protest becomes notable enough there are always articles for the protests that can state how many people attended the protests. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Why can't we just put, say, "500-1,000", with both the high and low numbers cited? I think that the information is important and of interest to readers. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with giving just a min/max range if there is contradictory information. Also, the frequency title is there because some protests get larger and smaller. For example if you have like 100-200 overnight and then 15,000 on the weekend days when the labor unions et al come out... so you could say "100^[1]-200^[2] nightly , 15,000^[3] on weekends" MPS (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Also the frequency thing is there in case they are meeting like every saturday at noon in perpetuity, like the Women in Black movement. MPS (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I was bold and moved the table entries to List of Occupy Protests locations. This article should be prose. There is no need for 2 lists. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Genuine thanks for your boldness (I am also glad you recognized and explicitly stated your boldness, that makes it easier to accept)... I agree that we don't need two lists in two different articles, but I disagree about whether it should be prose or a table. Can you give me a little time to rework the table into a sortable table? I think I can convince you that some table functionality is valuable. MPS (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about prose for this article, and a list or table for the list article. Tables are a pain to maintain, though, especially for the many new editors that will drop in to add their city and reference. It is not at all intuitive for new editors to add cities and references to tables. Non-English-speaking editors will have even more difficulty, and this is an international set of protests. I have worked on many wiki tables, but I will not be around enough to maintain a table for such an active situation.

Many cities and/or references will not be entered by new editors if we use a table format. I am going to be bold again (insert smiley), and move the table off the list article to a talk section or talk subpage at the list article. If you or someone else want to convert the whole list to a table a few weeks from now after the list is filled out, then it would make sense to do so. I am not volunteering though. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 10:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this a legit movement or are just the cities involved here? Looking at the article I see it was just thrown in here as an add on and looks to be mirrorlike to Occupy Wall Street. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliable news sources usually use single quotes instead of double quotes for this.

Also, double quotes in URLs are problematic when the URL is placed in some email, Facebook comments, Wikipedia, etc.. Many places can not make double-quote URLs clickable at all.

For example; try pasting in such URLs here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/'Occupy'_protests - single quotes.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Occupy%22_protests - double-quote URLs can not be pasted in edit windows here, and stay with the double quotes. Wikipedia converted it to this version with %22 for "

%22 is the URL code for double quotes. %27 is the URL code for single quotes.

Google News:

• http://www.google.com/search?&tbm=nws&q=%22Occupy%22+protests - Google News.
• http://www.google.com/search?&tbm=nws&q=%27Occupy%27+protests - Google News.
• http://www.google.com/search?&tbm=nws&q='Occupy'+protests - Google News.
• http://www.google.com/search?&tbm=nws&q=Occupy+protests - Google News. No quotes.

Note that reliable news sources use all of the above names, but lean towards single quotes when quotes are used. Wikipedia is all about sharing the articles. So single quotes are better, and it seems to be more grammatically correct. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Google is not good at matching punctuation of any sort. For example, if you explictly match quotes as in your examples, they fail to match “smart quotes”, which are often used in online copies of print news sources, for reasons I am apparently unable to comprehend. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Google ignores punctuation in search results. The results are the same for all the above Google News searches. In those results one sees that reliable news sources mostly use single quotes for 'Occupy' protests. Double quotes are used much less, i.e. "Occupy" protests.

Google only pays attention to double quotes when used as a phrase search. Compare to the search results for the non-phrase search. The results are different. Note especially the number of results for the Google whole-web search.

• http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Occupy+Wall+Street%22 - Google phrase search.
• http://www.google.com/search?q=Occupy+Wall+Street - Google search.
• http://www.google.com/search?&tbm=nws&q=%22Occupy+Wall+Street%22 - Google News phrase search.
• http://www.google.com/search?&tbm=nws&q=Occupy+Wall+Street - Google News search. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not a question to be settled by appeal to "reliable sources". The choice of styling for quotation marks is always up to the publisher. Wikipedia is, in a broad but relevant sense, the publisher of this article. Single quote marks are ruled out by the Manual of Style (see WP:PUNCT at WP:MOS). There is no benefit in resorting to them here, and we should not contemplate doing so. Noetica^Tea? 08:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the WP:MOS and WP:PUNCT links. Those sections do not discuss scare quotes though as far as I can tell so far. I see no prohibition against using them, nor against single quotes. The scare quotes article shows many uses for them. Single quotes can also be used as scare quotes. It seems to be more common than double quotes in many cases (such as in titles). One of your comments in the previous talk section explains why scare quotes are needed in this article's title:

"I am ready to consider arguments to the contrary; but to me this use of quote marks looks perfectly reasonable. Simple unrestricted Google searching shows that the quotes are indeed common in sources, and well-motivated as a means of clarifying the sense for readers. Some seem to prefer quotes around the whole phrase: " 'Occupy protests' ". That works too; but it is not suitable for titles on Wikipedia (see below). A word that normally functions as a verb, "occupy" calls for quotes when it is pressed into use in premodification of a noun. That is standard; it is supported in most publishing and by style guides – which I might search for this RM, if I can find the time. Let New Hart's Rules suffice: it allows "scare quotes" for unfamiliar usages or new coinages (see 4.14, on p. 86), and it does not exclude headings or titles from this. It's hard to see why it would. Beyond all that, Wikipedia's style guidelines in the MOS pages are the primary resource in settling matters of style for the Project. (Of course they are. Why have them at all, if that were not the case?) So "reliable sources" are only of secondary interest for the present question, which is purely a matter of Wikipedia style choices, not anything to do with the wording of the title. The policy provision invoked above (WP:TITLEFORMAT) does not affect this case. (Its illogical wording needs to be fixed; what it calls exceptions are not exceptions to the principle it states.) Here we are not talking about enclosing a title in quotes, but using quotes in a standard way within a title. I think that nothing in the MOS pages precludes that; and if it did, here is a case that would warrant an exception."

I think you are very clear in that comment. And I now understand what you meant about the use of scare quotes not being what is discussed by WP:TITLEFORMAT.

I found this too:

Use Single Quotation Marks in Headlines.

The Associated Press uses single quotation marks for quotations in headlines.

Use Single Quotation Marks to Highlight Words Not Being Used for Their Meaning.

It's the convention in certain disciplines such as philosophy, theology, and linguistics to highlight words with special meaning by using single quotation marks instead of double quotation marks.

It is from Single Quotation Marks Versus Double Quotation Marks. August 18, 2011. By Mignon Fogarty aka Grammar Girl.

We should use what reliable news sources use most, and what makes the most sense for various reasons, as long as we are not going against Wikipedia guidelines. Scare quotes article has this: "If scare quotes are enclosing a word or phrase that does not represent a quotation from another source they may simply serve to alert the reader that the word or phrase is used in an unusual, special, or non-standard way or should be understood to include caveats to the conventional meaning."

There are many examples from major news sources:

• Voight, K. (October 7, 2011) Beyond Wall Street: 'Occupy' protests go global. CNN.
• Worldwide 'Occupy' protests held over financial crisis. 15 October 2011. BBC News. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Timeshifter, you write above (in answer to me):

Thanks for the WP:MOS and WP:PUNCT links. Those sections do not discuss scare quotes though as far as I can tell so far. I see no prohibition against using them, nor against single quotes.

But you are mistaken. Scare quotes are included in the scope of WP:PUNCT. Nothing is said against their use; but they are to be double quotes (unless nested within double quotes). See my quotations from those guidelines above (in the main section, answering your accusation that I contradict myself). References to the Wikipedia article on scare quotes, or to external sources, are not relevant here. If you want the Wikipedia style guidelines changed, I suggest you take the issue to WT:MOS. You can be sure of some discussion there. Noetica^Tea? 21:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Noetica. You wrote:

WP:MOS says this, at WP:PUNCT: "The term quotation in the material below also includes other uses of quotation marks such as those for titles of songs, chapters, episodes, unattributable aphorisms, literal strings, "scare-quoted" passages, and constructed examples." The "material below" includes this: "Wikipedia prefers double quotation marks because some search engines cannot find quotations within single quotation marks, like 'I ate the apple'. (Wikipedia's search facility will only find such an expression if the search string is also within single quotation marks.) In addition, double quotation marks are harder to confuse with apostrophes." The only use of single quotes that WP:MOS approves is as internal quotes (nested within double quotes).

I read the whole section earlier, and it does not say what you think it says. The section you quote concerns actual quotations, not scare quotes. Read it carefully. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Timeshifter, I have no more time for this. Let others here judge whether an explicit and specific stipulation to include " 'scare-quoted' passages" in ensuing provisions marks an intention to cover scare quotes in those provisions. Some ingenious hair-splitting may occasion a second or two of doubt; but the intent could hardly be clearer. I have said all I need to. If you want more concerning the interpretation of MOS provisions, or their modification, take it to WT:MOS. As I have already suggested. Noetica^Tea? 22:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not make claims or prohibitions you are not sure of. Single quotes are allowed in Wikipedia. They are used when there is a quote within a quote, for example. WP:PUNCT does not specify that scare quotes must use double quotes. And common sense trumps guidelines. WP:PUNCT is a guideline not a policy. And doing phrase searches in Google or Wikipedia's search engine has nothing to do with the punctuation in the phrase as it stands in the text. One adds double quotation marks in the search form. The search engine completely ignores the punctuation and quotes (double or single) in the text that is being searched. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

We no longer need quotes now that Indignants and 'Occupy' protests are coordinated together.

Occupy and Indignant protests - possible title.--Timeshifter (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment. See related discussion at #What is the guideline or policy? farther down. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Discussion started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. See: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Scare quotes in titles. Single or double quotes. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why this use of quotes is being called scare quotes; it doen't appear to fit the definition. In any case, WP style for quotes is double. Maybe italic Occupy would be a logical alternative here? Dicklyon (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You are thinking of regular quotations. See previous discussion higher up. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Pristino changed the title of the article. He pointed out to me on my talk page that the October 15 protests were initiated by the Indignants. News media articles point out that it was then also taken up by the 'Occupy' protesters. See the BBC and CBS articles. I am OK with keeping the new title for now unless a better title is found. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• COMMENT: Oppose (October 18th, 2011) I am afraid Trackinfo (see below) is objectively correct. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the Guardian newspaper, the International Herald Tribune, CNN International news network: Occupy Protests is more accurate than Spanish Indignants. As an Australian citizen who has never cared much for Americans, I have no personal stake in this. But simply from a factual and objective point of view, there is no question that the global protests which began in October were inspired (perhaps not solely but most immediately and principally) by the Occupy Wall Street protests, not the Spanish Indignants. Again, I have no stake in this, but that is simply a fact. C'mon, let's be fair to the Americans. The protests here in Sydney refer soley to Occupy Wall Street, not the Indignants. All the protestors interviewed in Tokyo, Berlin, Rome, London, Taiwan, Melbourne (AU), Canada, Chile, South Africa and many others have referred to the Occupy Wall street protests as their principal inspiration. All the placards refer to Occupy Wall Street ('Occupy Tokyo' and 'Occupy Sydney', for instance). And having visited the Sydney protest, I can personally attest to this. Though I admire the Spanish Indignants, to be fair and objective about this, I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY REFERENCE TO THE SPANISH iNDIGNANTS. I am sure that the Arab Spring, the other social justice protests in Greece and Israel etc., and the Spanish Indignants are all the proximate cause but there is absolutey no doubt that the Occupy Wall Street protests are the immediate cause of the current worldwide protests. C'mon, be fair. Give the yanks their due; they got credit for these protests. Jocilar (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Someone has already, I'm going to guess unilaterally, changed the name(s) to the name(s) we find it under now, derivatives of "Occupy/Indignants protests." In watching the press coverage, I have yet to hear any major media use the word "Indignant" in regard to the name of these events. I suggest this could a POV insertion to confuse the public from the commonly used term of "Occupy" or as a whole "Occupy protests." Worse yet, that particular word can easily be misread as "indigent" which could certainly fall into the POV of those who oppose the movement. WP is here to provide accurate, NPOV information. When our article titles are designed to mislead or confuse, that is counter to that goal. Trackinfo (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The BBC is calling it the "Indignants" movement. See here and here. Pristino (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep "Occupy/Indignants protests" title for a while. According to the BBC and CBS, the 15 October protests were inspired by and called by Spanish protesters, yet you cannot ignore the amplifying power of the "Occupy" New York protests. That's why I've decided to credit both movements in the title, as both seem to have acted as catalysts for protests worldwide. Pristino (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
• Revert immediately. I oppose the move, as no one uses the new term, but the new move is also out of process. If I have time, I'll put it back. Again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You have not been editing these pages. So relax from your annoying habit of reverting without thinking. Admins should show more common sense. Both terms are used, and in the same articles. Get a clue. Read what other people say. Read what the articles say. Or please resign from being an admin. Respectfully. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The media is are using BOTH names (see my comment above). Of course nobody is reporting it as "Occupy/Indignants". They either use one or the other. Wikipedia should not take sides and use only one of them. If you can find a better solution please propose one. Pristino (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

If the media are using both names, we need to find either a neutral name, or a descriptive name. Names like this are only used in Wikipedia after an arbcom ruling banning all the editors who continually change the article name, from the topic. Or, sometimes if the "Occupy" protests and the "Indignants" protests were separate, and are now merged. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Pristino found a neutral descriptive name. Article names are usually changed without problems. When there are problems they are usually worked out on the talk page without admin intervention. Admins like you are the people who get banned. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Even if Pristino had found a "neutral descriptive name", moving it while a move discussion is in progress is disruptive, as seen below. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not find it disruptive. I found it to be an improvement. You do not seem to care either way. You do not edit the article or the list. You just want to find some hairsplitting activity. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Arthur Rubin meant that the move was disruptive as it caused several links and redirects to have issues as the name of the article they linked to was changed. I do not think that Arthur Rubin was trying "to find some hairsplitting activity" as you say they were. In any case, I think that there should not be a move while the move is being talked about as it could mess up parts of the wiki. 204.106.255.23 (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. See also: Global protests of October 15th, 2011. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Revert The Occupy Protests have nothing to do with the Spanish protests outside of some influence. The Occupy Protests originated from Occupy Wall Street which was proposed by Adbusters. yonnie (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment I'd also like to add that the Indignants are mainly Spanish protests, and this article is about the entire, world wide Occupy movement as a whole. yonnie (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no "worldwide Occupy movement". There are worldwide protests inspired by both Madrid and New York protesters. Pristino (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Concerning October 15 events worldwide that both 'Occupy' and 'Indignants' are participating in:

Spain's 'Indignants' lead international protest day. 14 October 2011. By Sarah Rainsford, BBC News.

'Indignant' protests across Asia. 15 October 2011. Bangkok Post. Article quote: "Protesters across the Asia-Pacific region Saturday joined worldwide demonstrations inspired by the 'Occupy Wall Street' and 'Indignants' movements."

We need some kind of accurate title for this. See WP:TITLE. How about Occupy and Indignant protests? No quotes needed. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Just "15 october 2011 protests", as 1- we don't know if there will be more global demonstrations, 2- with that title we include any demonstration that happened that day, form both movements. - Pencil (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Two diffrent unrelated events. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. See related discussion at #What is the guideline or policy? farther down. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I requested move-protection of these articles, and a helpful admin also deleted some of the redirects, although I didn't request that. I think I patched all the redlinked redirects to go to a current location, but I may have missed some. This is one of the natural consequences of multiple moves without discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

My move and Pristino's move were improvements over the current title. You have been no help at all. Your reversions were not helpful. You do not engage in discussion first. You should seriously consider resigning as an admin. Respectfully. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Alhough I believe neither of your moves were improvements, it's still the case that no move should be made while a move discussion is in progress, with the exception of BLP-violating names. Such a move confuses matters, causes RM bot to add incorrect pointers which prevent reverting the move by a non-admin, and generally makes it difficult to determine what is being discussed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That is your opinion based on your hair-splitting analysis of rules over common sense. You are one of the worst admins I have ever seen as concerns bureaucracy uber alles. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, my analysis is based on convenience and common sense. I'm glad I don't edit on Wikia, where you state your are an admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the guideline or policy?

Under what authority, guideline, or policy can you close the more recent move request? It is not logical. Maybe there is some guideline or policy that allows this, but it is illogical to use it in this case. If it is a guideline then it should not be used in this case since exceptions are allowed concerning guidelines.

The more recent move request is for a name that more accurately represents the article. It is based on newer info. So I suggest you unclose this move request. People can think about both move requests. People can have more than one discussion about the title, or anything else. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The guideline that I understand is in place is that you need to close the first move request before you start a second. It is difficult enough to close many of these requests with multiple discussions about various naming options in one place. Two discussions open at the same time does nothing to help reach consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It is happening here. People no longer care much about the first move request. Current discussion (see the other talk sections) is about variations of the second move request. Now that I think about it more, it may be better to just close both move requests as "no consensus" because it is accurate, and because then we could work on it more with less drama and stress. I am talking about the stress of more uninvolved admins getting involved and trying to make decisions without putting as much thought into it as we have been doing.

The whole concept of uninvolved admins making decisions is a little illogical at times. I understand its purpose. I have a lot of edits over years. I know the drill. But in this case I think the move requests haven't helped much. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I see no consensus on the move requests as well, just curious but arent the move request 1 and move request 2 things meant to be for diffrent pages at once and not for the same page? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Both move requests deal with the title of this article. That is part of the problem. The actual issue may end up being resolved by creating more articles, and not with just changing the title of this article. There have been many options discussed, and the move requests seem to just get in the way. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment. It now looks unlikely that a combined name like Occupy and Indignant protests will happen here. This is due to several reasons. There are separate articles, 2011 Spanish protests, 2010–2011 Greek protests, etc.. for the 'Indignants', etc.. There is the article called 15 October 2011 global protests that covers that event that was loosely coordinated by the 'Occupy' and 'Indignant' organizers. Coordination may be too strong a word. People saw that October 15 was happening in many nations and decided to do an event in their cities too, for their demands, be it 'Occupy' or 'Indignants'. The 'Occupy' protests were already expanding worldwide (mainly in English speaking nations) before cities started signing on to the October 15 date too as an additional protest day.

The current name for this article (with double quotes) was created by me. I created that name on both Wikipedia and Commons categories too. I have created hundreds of category names. After studying the issue further I saw that the news media preferred single quotes when using quotes to name the protests. They use double quotes far less. I changed the name on this article and the Wikipedia and Commons categories to single quotes. I suggest we let this article use single quotes. I noticed yesterday that the list article name with double quotes messed up an RFC bot that tried to add an RFC (request for comment) notice to the list talk page. I had to post the RFC notice on the talk page manually. So that is another practical reason to use single quotes. Since the Wikipedia category name is based on the article name that is another reason to use single quotes. Double quotes in titles cause other problems too. See the relevant talk section higher up.

So the two move requests are irrelevant to the current situation. There is little desire by most people to remove all quotes (single or double). That is what the first move request is about. I think it can be closed with 'no consensus'. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the normal procedure would be to suggest new target names in the open move request, rather than opening new move requests, as is frequently done at WP:CFD or WP:TFD in regard move/rename requests. We would have to trust those considering closing the request to wait until 7 days after the new title(s) was/were proposed, but that's the only significant problem.

I don't know about the RFC bot; RM bot was messed up because the article was moved while a move request was in progress, so RM bot properly attached the move request under the old name.

As for Timeshifter's original argument, people no longer care about the first, second, or third move requests as written; they're all considered clearly suboptimal. Perhaps if we have a discussion as to the best name, and then make the move request, it would work better. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not the one that initiated the formal move requests. Waiting 7 days is just a waste of time. The RFC bot tried to leave a notice at Talk:List of "Occupy" protest locations. It got hung up at the double quotes. Click the redlink and you will see this: "A page with this title has previously been deleted. ... 18:29, 16 October 2011 Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs) deleted 'Talk:List of' ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page)." That was after I had removed the errant RFC notice and put a speedy tag on the page. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

RFC bot wasn't the first to edit that page; in fact, it never did. Although, with previous deletions, it's hard to tell, you seem to be the only one who edited that page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

So you say it's "hard to tell", but you make a claim that the RFC bot "never did" edit the page. Then you say that I seem to be the only one who edited the page, when the page indicates 2 deletions of the page. As I said before I am admin on Wikia, and I try to keep up with how MediaWiki software works. Respectfully, you need to get with the program. Otherwise you should seriously consider resigning as an admin. I used this RFC bot:

• http://toolserver.org/~messedrocker/postingtool.php

It is linked from here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment through talk pages. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Discussion started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. See: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Scare quotes in titles. Single or double quotes. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Back to the original move request

We might as well go back to discussing things at the first move request section. Since supposedly any title can be discussed at a move request, and not just the one proposed originally, then let's do it. See #Requested move higher up. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The BBC sources refer to the "Occupy" and "Indignants" movements as separate movements both sponsoring 15 October events. Some note the "Occupy" movement was inspired by the "Indignants" movement, but some deny it. There should probably be two separate articles. (I see Pristino seems to agree, if I understand his comment of 22:23.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

We cannot really make separate articles about it. The worldwide protests cannot be credited to a single movement anymore. Pristino (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

We can make it clear in the article as to the timeline involved. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

As I look at the list of International locations, the international sourcing and international nature of the "Indignants" linked article, I think some are making an overzealous linkage to the "Occupy" events that have a strong American nature. I think a distinction can be drawn between the various protests if through no other point at the United States border. If the International events have the same name, it is obvious they identify with the American events. If they have a different name as well as locale, they could be . . . anything, at least until they declare such linkage. The American groups do not have any leadership with whom to join at this point in time. How exactly would that linkage be formally expressed? The only answer is from outside analysts who are trying to conjecture a linkage. Trackinfo (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia just describes these notable events according to reliable sources, such as the news media. Those sources say that these protests are spreading worldwide in a very decentralized way. I suggest Occupy and Indignant protests as a possible title. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we prove a linkage before we (potentially) artificially declare such. Otherwise we just have protests going on around the world . . . for loosely defined goals. If they also call themselves something different, as opposed to the Occupy (fill in a locality) naming, which makes for an obvious linkage. Trackinfo (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: if the title of the protest has the word "occupy" in it, then it should fall under the"occupy" protests article. If it is a protest in 2011, it should be under an article called List of 2011 protests or 2011 protests — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPS (talk • contribs) 05:41, 16 October 2011‎

Comment. Loosely coordinated groups is what these articles indicate:

• October 15th: Dreaming of a “new global citizen power”. Periodismo Humano (Human Journalism). By Juan Luis Sánchez. Translation by Blanca G. Bertolaza. Take The Square. From the article intro: "It does not intend to be just any other demonstration, but to spark off an international social movement. Part of the 15M movement admits to some fragmentation and places hopes of reunification on Saturday."
• 'Indignant' protests across Asia. 15 October 2011. Bangkok Post. Article quote: "Protesters across the Asia-Pacific region Saturday joined worldwide demonstrations inspired by the 'Occupy Wall Street' and 'Indignants' movements."
• 'Indignant' protests to go global on Saturday. 15 October 2011. AFP via France 24. Article quote: "Protesters will take to the streets worldwide on Saturday, inspired by the 'Occupy Wall Street' and 'Indignants' movements, to vent their anger against alleged corporate greed and government cutbacks." --Timeshifter (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• COMMENT: According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the Guardian newspaper, the International Herald Tribune, CNN International news network: Occupy Protests is more accurate than Spanish Indignants. As an Australian citizen who has never cared much for Americans, I have no personal stake in this. But simply from a factual and objective point of view, there is no question that the global protests which began in October were inspired (perhaps not solely but most immediately and principally) by the Occupy Wall Street protests, not the Spanish Indignants. Again, I have no stake in this, but that is simply a fact. C'mon, let's be fair to the Americans. The protests here in Sydney refer soley to Occupy Wall Street, not the Indignants. All the protestors interviewed in Tokyo, Berlin, Rome, London, Taiwan, Melbourne (AU), Canada, Chile, South Africa and many others have referred to the Occupy Wall street protests as their principal inspiration. All the placards refer to Occupy Wall Street ('Occupy Tokyo' and 'Occupy Sydney', for instance). And having visited the Sydney protest, I can personally attest to this. Though I admire the Spanish Indignants, to be fair and objective about this, I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY REFERENCE TO THE SPANISH iNDIGNANTS. I am sure that the Arab Spring, the other social justice protests in Greece and Israel etc., and the Spanish Indignants are all the proximate cause but there is absolutey no doubt that the Occupy Wall Street protests are the immediate cause of the current worldwide protests. C'mon, be fair. Give the yanks their due; they got credit for these protests. Jocilar (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The protests has to be credited to the Spanish indignant movement (see here in Spanish: http://politica.elpais.com/politica/2011/05/30/actualidad/1306761727_898845.html) as they had been promoting and announcing the global protest since October 15. Later, the Occupy movement appeared and they joined the October 15 date, but the rest of the protests were mainly organized by the indignant movement. I think this article should only talk about the October 15 protests. The article doesn't really make any sense, the Madrid, Rome, Santiago, Barcelona or Berlin protests were not influenced in any way by the Occupy movement, they have nothing to do with it. This article should be moved to "15 of october 2011 protests" as this was a day were two groups joined and you can't name just one, the Indignats (in Spain, Italy, Greece, Berlin or Paris) and Occupy (New York or London). - Pencil (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I propose that we do not merge any articles, and instead explain the actual separate yet simulations organizing of all these different groups and movements, and create a new article Global Uprising/Movement/Protests.... that explains how they are all coming together into a unified movement starting on Oct 15. See bellow in a new stream for details on my proposal. Xacobi (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. - I do not recommend any deletion for the reason that there is a good argument that the "Occupy" and "Indignants" movement have become loosely associated with similar goals. I am neutral on retaining the "disputed" designation. Sngourd (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. See: 15 October 2011 global protests. It explains some of the organizing efforts, groups, timelines, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. There is a total confusion in what yesterday's protests were about. Neither the protests in Spain, Rome, Germany, Greece or Chile were influenced in any way by the Occupy movement. They were all protests called by the May 15 movement in Spain (see in Spanish here: http://politica.elpais.com/politica/2011/05/30/actualidad/1306761727_898845.html) back in May 30. Later (and influenced by the Spanish movement), Occupy Wall Street movement emerged and a few weeks later they made a call to join the October 15 protests. In my opinion, this article should focus just on the October 15 protests and leave other articles for each movement, but you just cannot say that these protests started in September, when they actually did in May 15. I'm from Spain and we're seeing how the media has absolutely no idea on what's going on, the call was made by Spanish indignants, not Occupy Wall Street. It's not the Occupy protests the ones that have gone global, but the Indignants one. Thanks - Pencil (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, things are confusing. Here are some relevant media articles as to how protests spread in English-language sites.

• Beyond Wall Street: 'Occupy' protests go global. 7 October 2011. By Kevin Voigt. CNN.
• ‘Occupy’ groups pick up steam, spread to hundreds of cities. 6 October 2011. By Joseph Neese. Raycom News Network.

From what I read people outside Europe latched onto the October 15 date, and started organizing events for that date. Many people in English-language nations such as the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. mostly organized under the 'Occupy' banner. Most English speakers don't even know the meaning of the Spanish word 'Indignants'. It is an English word, too, and is not used in the same way.

Another article: 'Indignant' protests spread across Europe. By Alessandra Rizzo, Meera Selva, Associated Press. Sunday, October 16, 2011. Note that the article has to explain the meaning of the word: "Elsewhere, hundreds of thousands nicknamed 'the indignant' marched without incident in cities across Europe, as the Occupy Wall Street protests linked up with long-running demonstrations against European governments' austerity measures."

Mother Jones article has a map and a timeline: "October 6: Demonstrations spread to hundreds of US cities and around the world, with a global day of action planned for October 15. President Obama comments on the Occupy Wall Street protests." --Timeshifter (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, the October 15 protests was organized by European people and the USA Occupy movement just joined it. See the following piece of news: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/english/Madrid/protestors/aim/to/go/global/elpepueng/20110530elpeng_9/Ten, it's from May 30 and it already talks about October 15, therefore it's impossible that the October 15 protest appeared AFTER Occupy Wall Street. The problem is that the the foreign media (I'm from Spain) are confused too, so I have no idea how I could prove to all of you that the protests were not influenced at all by Occupy movement neither organized by them, at least in most of European countries. This article should just talk about October 15, when two movements merged and leave each other article for the rest. - Pencil (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

From this October 6, 2011 article. "Thanks in part to Occupy Together, a hub for the movements forming around the nation and in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street, it's easy for citizens to find ways to join a movement that is sharply critical of corporate wealth, among other things, at a grassroots level. On Thursday afternoon, Occupy Together 'meetups' could be found in 575 cities that stretched across the world to places as diverse as Athens, Greece, and Wellington, New Zealand."

They were organizing on their own, and had events on many dates, including October 15. It looks almost leaderless because it is. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is leaderless, I'm just stating a fact and that is that the October 15 protests were not influenced in any way by the Occupy protests and yet, this article which should be about the October 15 protests is called "Occupy" protests. For example, that part of the article that you're quoting is totally false, as the Athens meet up had nothing to do with Occupy but with the Indignant movement there, born in May 25, 2011 (2010–2011 Greek protests#The "Indignant Citizens Movement" (May–August) and http://real-democracy.gr/). I'm gonna edit the article and make everything clear... yesterday wasn't about Occupy Wall Street. - Pencil (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you want this article: 15 October 2011 global protests. It was 'illegally' deleted today by User:Gfcvoice. I started it back up again just now. One can't normally delete an article without going through a deletion discussion. One can be blocked or banned for doing this kind of 'illegal' deletion. See this diff of the page blanking and redirecting. I left a notice on the talk page of Gfcvoice, and he has already deleted it (which is his right). See this diff. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I propose that we do not merge any articles, and instead explain the actual separate yet simulations organizing of all these different groups and movements, and create a new article Global Uprising/Movement/Protests.... that explains how they are all coming together into a unified movement starting on Oct 15. See bellow in a new stream for details on my proposal. Xacobi (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The 15 october 2011 global protests is the best name and article to be merged into, i think.Mrwho00tm (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. As per my comment on the talk page for the 15 October 2011 global protests article, the content of the 15 October 2011 global protests article relates to the "Occupy" protests article. Today is 16 October and there is very little content about protests that occurred on one specific date. (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15_October_2011_global_protests&oldid=455801028). The date has little significance other than being the start of global protests, which are covered in the "Occupy" protests article. I support the merger of the 15 October 2011 global protests article into the "Occupy" protests article. Gfcvoice (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No, the 15 october protests are not only about the Occupy protests. There were Occupy protests in USA, Japan or London but in most of the countries they weren't about Occupy but the Indignant movement. Therefore, there should be an article called "15 october global protests" that would cover both the Indignant demos (Spain, Italy, France, Germany, Greece, Chile, Argentine, Brasil...) and the Occupy (Japan, USA, etc...) that occurred on October 15. . Pencil (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. See the #Disputed section higher up for some news media articles and quotes that point out that the protests are "inspired by the 'Occupy Wall Street' and 'Indignants' movements." There are many more news media articles covering the October 15 events and protests. See Google News. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Pencil and Timeshifter for your comments. I now have a better understanding of the Spanish background to the global protests. Gfcvoice (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, but I thought that the "occupy" protests occurred not only on 15 October, but also on some other days? I'd rather merge the 15 October page into this one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree also to Merge the 15 October page into this one, it is the same content and the protests had already gone global before October 15th. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Just to note the title Global protests of October 15th, 2011 redirects to this articloe but 15 October 2011 global protests does not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I propose that we do not merge any articles, and instead explain the actual separate yet simulations organizing of all these different groups and movements, and create a new article Global Uprising/Movement/Protests.... that explains how they are all coming together into a unified movement starting on Oct 15. See bellow in a new stream for details on my proposal. Xacobi (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - the "Occupy" protests are ongoing, certainly in Canada, London and the U.S. (e.g. [2], [3], [4]). I understand the complexity caused by the fact that Spanish protests influenced Occupy Wall Street, and many of the protests which took place yesterday, but this is not the answer.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment I think people misread the merge target It has been suggested that 15 October 2011 global protests be merged into this article or section The merge proposal is for the 15 October 2011 global protests article to me merged into this one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - The October 15 protest and the Occupy protest were organized separately and simultaneously. THerefore they should each get their own article. In many places the umbrella name of the October 15 protests is United for Global Change and/or Democracia Real Ya! (Real Democracy Now!) I propose that we should create a new article entirely that is called "Global Protests 2011" that umbrellas all the protests, movements, and organizations that each have their own page. See my proposal bellow. Xacobi (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

oppose to merge but Strongly agree new article - First: this was the origin of the convocatory http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2011/05/30/madrid/1306754358.html it came from Real Democracy No!, 15 days after the Spanish Indignants movement came out. theirs was the iniciative, others such as occupy extended. I don't know if you can understand spanish, if not, please make me translate but this is the first source on the media you are gonna find. I am surprised there is not still a unifying page for all the protes, revolution and movemnts we are living since the Global credit crisis broke up: Arab Spring, Europe, Occupy, Chile, Iceland... Jasandia (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2011 (GTM)

Strongly Oppose - the occupy movement in the United States is far to remarkable to not warrant it's own article. Petiatil ^»Talk 15:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge, unless that article gets too big. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The list from where? List of "Occupy" protest locations? First, I see no merge template at this article (please add it), second, I am not sure I see such a need (for the merge, that is). The list seems encyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought I had commented on this previously, but it sure seems like there is no discussion, no move afoot to suggest this change. I, for one, think it would be crazy to take two huge and evolving articles and merge them into one even bigger mess. I would eagerly like to close the discussion (that virtually nobody is participating in) and remove the tag that defaces the other article. Trackinfo (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting a related, but broader, discussion thread below. Shadowjams (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Everyone. I have read through this and realize that there is a lot going on, very fast, and we've never seen anything like it, so I understand how it is overwhelming and there doesn't seem to be agreement how to organize this.

Well here is my understanding of what is going on, and then I will propose how we organize it on Wikepedia

Simply stated, there are and were a lot of different simultaneous organizations that have organized local, regional, national, and international protests and movements.

Each of these deserves its own page and they all deserve a unified page as well. Here is an abbreviated list which is my proposal for the types and subjects of pages:

1) October 15 gets its own page that explains the separate organizing of the October 15 global protests 2) The Occupy protests, that explains the separate organizing of the Wall Street Occupy protests and how it expanded 3) The Spanish Revolution which explains the separate organizing of those protests ..... There are also other global and regional protests that have there own pages, including October2011...This is also called Democracia Real Ya (Real Democracy Now!) in spanish, as well as United for Global Change. There is also Take the Streets, and 15M...

All of those articles would be unified under an article that explains how all the protest have merged and now there are now Global Protests going on, that we won't fully understand for a while, but it is obvious that all of these protests and movements have and are merging as of October 15, as is clearly stated in all the media outlets. Xacobi (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Weather you call it Protets, Occupy, Uprising, Oct 15, Movement, Indigents or one of the many other names this movement has been given, it doesn't change the fact that there is definitely something much bigger going on.

I propose a simple title like Global Protests 2011, Global Uprising 2011 or Global Movement 2011 (eventually 2011-2012...)

There are two ways of doing that, one would be to Change the name of this article to Global Protets 2011, and create a new article about "Occupy" Protests, or the other way around which might make more sense but require a lot of duplication.... To create a new Global Protests 2011 Page, and keep this "Occupy" Protests Page and Keep the October 15 page and NOT MERGE ANY OF THE PAGES. Instead we would explain the separate organization of each movement and protests and then explain how they are coming together to become a unified Global Protest and what I would anticipate could be the first ever Global Uprising and potentially could result in a Global Revolution but we won't know unless it is successful.

In the larger scope of what has happend, this could actually umbrella the Arab Spring, and all the other international and Global Protests that have happened in 2011

I Vote for creating a new article from scratch called "Global Protests 2011", and it will take some time to get it up to speed, but I think it really is the only correct way to do this. If people think this is a good idea, I will go ahead and create it ASAP.

I look forward to hearing what you think about my idea(s) Xacobi (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

End of Xacobi's comments and the proposal to be voted on-----------

Start of Timeshifters suggestion------------- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xacobi (talk • contribs) 16:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are some articles:

• 15 October 2011 global protests
• 2011 Spanish protests
• 2010–2011 Greek protests
• 2011 United Kingdom anti-austerity protests and 2010 UK student protests
• 2011 Chilean protests
• 2011 Israeli middle class protests
• 2011 United States public employee protests
• 2011 Wisconsin protests

These categories have many more protests and groups:

• Category:Protests in the United States
• Category:Protests by country
• Category:Protests --Timeshifter (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

As well as: :*Arab Spring??? Xacobi (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I would also say that there is a difference between "Broad Based Global Protests" that have an issue of changing the power and financial structure of countries and the world, as opposed to localized protests that are about a specific issues like food, housing, labor bargaining rights etc.... For example the 2011 Wisconsin protests really were about Laybor issues and Barganing Rights for Unions. So although you could put it on the bottom as a See Also, or a link to a list of other protests, I don't think it would be included in the article itself because the article will be focussed on the unifying global protests about the financial and power structures of the world etc.... But pretty much every other category I think is related to the same issues that the current Global Protests are about. Of course I could easily be convinced otherwise.. Xacobi (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Many of these articles are focused on current events that are likely to be elaborated upon more in mass media. It seems premature to merge them into one article, as they are very likely to be further expanded. If one very long article were to be created, then in the future someone will likely come along and decide to split them off into separate articles again. Perhaps hold off until the events have concluded. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - The creation of a new list article to index all of these events would be functional. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - the above are all independently notable, all big topics capable of lengthy treatment, and although many share some of the same causes, they all have their own distinct features. For example the 2011 United Kingdom anti-austerity protests were specifically about cuts to government spending, the 2011 Chilean protests were principally about the Chilean school voucher system, the 2011 Spanish protests are very broad based and concern the economic crisis, perceived lack of democracy, unemployment and much else.

However I agree with Northamerica1000's suggestion above for a new list article to index all of these events, great idea.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. - for the same reasons listed by Rangoon11 above, also in agreement with Northamerica1000's suggestion for a new list article to index all events. Sngourd (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Response to Opposition. I do not understand why you are address Timshifters ideas for content for the page, and not the proposal that I originally proposed. My proposal is very simple. Obviously there were "Global Protests", we do not need to "hold off until events have concluded", because it already happened. So why not make a clear article that connects all the dots. It would not be just a list because there is clear reasoning and connections between the protesters, and they are on-going protests and occupations, not a list of unrelated protests that happened to occur in the same year. Rangoon11 notes that there are distinct differences between the list of protests that was given from Timeshifters, not myself, and that is not part of the original proposal. I aree with what Rangoon11 says when he describes the Spanish Protests as "very broad based and concern the economic crisis, perceived lack of democracy, unemployment and much else. " That is what the focus of the article would be to combine all the protest that focus only on these Broad based issues. This would include the Spanish Protests, Occupy, October 15, Democracia Real Ya, and possible an alluded connection to the broad based protest that happened with the Arab Spring that obviously got other people in the rest of the world excited. I am in no way proposing or have any interest in creating a list of unrelated protests throughout the world that "happened" to occur in 2011. I want to create an Article about the "Broad Based Global Protests of 2011" it is very different case. It will have a clear summary that explains the relationship between October 15, Occupy, the Spanish Protests etc..., A Short Historical Background. And it will have a world map that clearly shows where these "Broad Based Global PRotests" have taken place around the world and where they were just protests as one color, and where the protests escalated to rioting like in rome, and where they are ongoing occupations of public spaces with summaries and links for each individual country. It is a very simple idea that I am proposing and makes complete sense with the information we already have. We do not need to wait. Please understand and vote on the original idea of the article, not the list of random additions that Timeshifter suggested which don't really make sense.Xacobi (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It is very clear to me that all of these articles need an umbrella, READ THIS! Here is some of the beginning of each of the articles being suggested to be merged (which as been opposed and is not going to happen)

From the October 15 Global Protests article: "The 15 October 2011 global protests were part of a series of protests inspired by the Arab Spring, the Spanish "Indignants", the Greek Protests and the Occupy Wall Street movements. "

and From the "Occupy" Protests article: "On May 30, the Spanish Indignants movement, inspired[5] by the Arab Spring[6] made call for a worldwide protest on October 15.[7] The Occupy Wall Street protests began in New York City in September 2011. On 9 October 2011 activists in cities in more than 25 countries made calls for global protests on 15 October.[8][9][10] "

How can you say that these aren't all related and need a Umbrella article on the Broad Based Global Protests of 2011. I just don't understand your reasoning in opposing my clear, straight forward, and simple proposal to create a new article. It just makes sense! Just let me do it and then if everyone really doesn't like it, they can all be merged back or it can just be deleted, but I think you will find it will actually simplify it, improve everything and people will like it. So I really don't understand why you guys are holding this up by opposing it. Xacobi (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You can start another article called 2011 global protests, but I doubt it would last long. It would probably be deleted because it is not a specific topic. An encyclopedia article has to be more specific than that. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be awesome. I certainly agree with you that "2011 Global Protests" could and does represent every single protest in the world during 2011 which is not what I want. What I know is that the name of the movement will eventually emerge and will get its name, and that we shouldn't worry about the name so I propose starting with something that simply describes them: "Broad Based Global Protests of 2011" what do you think as that for a title? I do understand that it could be deleted, but there would at least be discussion first.Xacobi (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

OOO also I just thought of a great name (to at least start): "2011 Global Economic & Democracy Protests" and then have 2011 Global Protests redirect  :)Xacobi (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok Well maybe in a few weeks or months it will become more apparent and we could do it. I'm definitely willing to give it time to see if there is more of a merger. 63.243.169.190 (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I think a list or category would be a better idea than a merger. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - strikes me as WP:SYNTH... I have repeatedly suggested that someone start a generic 2011 list of protests and interested readers could certainly glean from it the related protests... but to cherry pick your favorite 15 protests in a wikipedia list article strikes me as arbitrary, almost akin to List of protests that are related to something to do with people angry at their government or list of protests by speakers of Arabic or list of peaceful protests that can be tangentially related back to either Martin Luther King or Ghandi... see what I mean? MPS (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Combining arguably related protests that happened in a single year? Ridiculous! That could result in something like, say, Protests of 1968. Oh. Wait. Support 140.247.159.205 (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Currently, this article has a "see also" section linking to other "occupy" articles. This section, in turn, has been copy/pasted to several individual "occupy" articles. As such, these sections in various articles all quickly become out of sync, and adding a new one or removing a dubious link (1971 May Day Protests?) becomes impossible. There is also a template with these same links in it. Any reason not to promote the template up to the "see also" section of all of these articles rather than duplicating? Oren0 (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it does strike me as largely duplicative of the template. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Awhile back I helped delete a bunch of duplicate links found higher up in the list article: List of "Occupy" protest locations. The "see also" sections are no longer the same everywhere. I and others have deleted duplicate links in other articles in this area too. The 'See also' sections should not be the same. The (("Occupy" protests)) template does not cover all the 'see also' links being used. As for moving the template up to the bottom of the 'see also' section it sounds like a good idea to me. I don't know if there is any style rule against it, though. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt I only support removing those links from the "See also" section which are duplicated in the template, I support all of the other links in the See also section remaining. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think links should be removed due to duplication in the (("Occupy" protests)) template unless the template is moved up under the 'see also' section. People currently have to scroll down past some long reference lists, and the external links section, to get to the (("Occupy" protests)) template. Many new readers may never think to look there for additional 'see also' links. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's move it move up then.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not have proof of this, but it seems to me inconceivable that the impetus for open protest was not strongly influenced by democracy protests and revolts in southern Mediterranean countries. This may, after all, be a post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc argument, but the timing seems more than a coincidence. The grievances have not changed, nor has the lack of response of the federal government. One should ask, 'Why now?' In my opinion this issue should be investigated and addressed for any later incarnation of the article.

Steve Aronoff 10/17/2011 Oceras (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The 'timing' you refer to is the 'coincidence' of a global financial crisis. The western world is going through a fundamental change in how we conduct business, and how governments function. These protests and disputes have been 30 years in the making, since banking was deregulated. Open protests are not a new thing for the US. So the cause/effect chain-reaction relationship you might observe in North africa and the middle east does not apply here.Meatsgains (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

not to mention, the protests in the mederterainian are fundamentally different. Greece is protesting the austerity programs being initiated, they are not occupying the athens wall street because they are mad at their government.Meatsgains (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "ongoing" in the lead sentence. This is a time relative description, meaning that in time it will become inaccurate. Wikipedia is not an newspaper, the reader does not know when this word was written, and so cannot tell whether it is true any more. In this regard it is no different from "current" and, as guidelines suggest, should be avoided. Please remove it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The lead only reflects what is in the infobox. We also have a template specifically for current events, which describes them as such, and one is currently at the top of the article so it is hard to argue that the WP community wishes to exclude all references to events being current from articles. Those guidelines should not be interpreted in such an inflexible manner, the fact that these protests are ongoing is one of the most significant facts concerning them, and to exclude that information from readers based on an inflexible interpretation of a guideline is not the right approach. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Should we put in any info on the failed protest? Ominae (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to elaborate. What failed protest? Is there a source? HiLo48 (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Failed as in a few people showed up. And yeah, there are sources. Ominae (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess I asked the wrong question. WHAT is the source? What we really need to know is exactly what are you wanting to put in the article? HiLo48 (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I got some samples. Here., Here, Here and Here. Let me know if these are viable or not that I have to find better ones. Ominae (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think a (brief) mention is justified, particularly as there is no separate article for it.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Where will it be placed? Ominae (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Please make the Occupy movement related articles with the following hierarchy structure:

• Occupy Movement
  • Occupy Wall Street
    • Occupy (subarticles of Occupy Wall Street for example)
  • Occupy LA
  • Occupy London

Similar movements:

• Spanish Indignants
• Other movements at the national level

All Occupy should be children nodes of Occupy Movement. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it seems as if the Occupy-movement is the right name. On the Swedish wp we use this. Then there should be separate articlas called Occupy Wall Street, Occupy London and so forth. --Mats33 (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think what we have at the moment on the English WP is close to what is proposed above, except that we are using "Occupy" protests instead of "Occupy" movement for the top-level article. Personally I think that 'protests' rather than 'movement' still better reflects the bulk of reliable third party sources.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have seen plenty of third parties referring to it as Occupy movement. Besides, movement is more general where other forms of expression could/would/might be included.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

While the image [5] in question is of high quality and in several regards fits, I feel that it broadcasts the wrong message. To anyone new to the topic, it makes it seem like the protesters are largely in support for a global democracy. While many may be, that is not the main goal behind this movement. Images like [6] and [7] seem closer to the movement's goals.

I personally would like to see it replaced with a more appropriate image. Theyain Riyu (talk) 06:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Since the protests are taking place in many places and are multi-faceted a montage of perhaps six images would in my view be the best approach, such as is used in the Arab Spring infobox. The exisiting image would be quite appropriate as one of the six in my view. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone keeps deleting the summary and polls from the main OWS article. Please help. Thank you. Dualus (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And now this. Sigh. Dualus (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Now an administrator has accused me of edit warring for this even though the reason I can't obtain consensus is because a group of people have been objecting for reasons such as needing to see a quote from each source supporting each statement before they will consider agreeing. I've asked for a reconsideration, and I would like advice. Dualus (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This is my latest frustration. I don't know why I bother sometimes. Dualus (talk) 09:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Google News phrase searches for

• Occupy protests - "About 2,210 results".
• Occupy movement - "About 5,070 results".

The phrase search pulls up all versions with and without quotes. Some news media are still using single quotes around 'Occupy'. I did not see any using double quotes on the first page of search results. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've heard it called "Occupy movement" more often and your google search seems to also confirm this is the more common usage. If you are suggesting a name change then I support it. Mystylplx (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• I would support this rename, also because it matches our Tea Party movement article. Dualus (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• Considering the number of global locations over the past five weeks, it has advanced from a few protests to a movement. +mt 18:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I added a ((movenotice)) without the quotation marks. Why are either kinds of quotes a good idea? Dualus (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm neutral on a move from protests to movement at this point, but for all the reasons which were discussed before I still think that quotation marks are needed from a sense perspective (neutral on double or single but strongly in favour of harmonising on one for the sake of neatness).Rangoon11 (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Scare quotes in titles. Single or double quotes - --Timeshifter (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Im also in favour of a change to Occupy movement. IMO Rangoon11's point about the need for quotes was good for the early days, but now the movements becomming high profile enough not to need them. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be right. I see almost no use of quotes anymore. These types of quotes are used for unfamiliar uses of a word. The Occupy movement is no longer unfamiliar, and the strange usage of 'Occupy' as part of a name no longer seems strange. Are we agreed to move the page to Occupy movement? --Timeshifter (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It's settled, then. No scare quotes. Dualus (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 3

Should the alleged rape in Cleveland as reported by CBS[9] or the instruction by Baltimore "Occupy" protesters for sexual assault victims[10] be reported in the article? Kelly ^hi! 05:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

In my view inclusion of the alleged rape would be WP:UNDUE. Assaults of this type can happen anywhere, there is no indication that it is in any way a feature of the protests/movement. I've no strong feelings either way on mentioning the 'instructions', although in my view if added they should go in a Baltimore sub section as they only apply to Occupy Baltimore. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I blanked the section on the demands working group and constitutional convention since it completely misrepresented their relationship to the NYC General Assembly and the Occupy movement generally. See http://occupywallst.org/article/so-called-demands-working-group/ 68.239.82.231 (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, now I realize blanking was wrong, thanks to Piotrus. I pared down the discussion of Lawrence Lessig since he's basically just a commentator about the protests and doesn't warrant a lot of space here. Clarified Demands Working Group relationship to NYC GA. In this case, media reports are less reliable than statements on the website of Occupy Wall Street itself. 68.239.82.231 (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source for repudiation of demands?

In this diff is the statement "However, the declaration was not an official Occupy Wall Street statement and the Occupy Wall Street website has repudiated the Demands Working Group." properly sourced to http://occupywallst.org/article/so-called-demands-working-group/ ? I have reasons to believe otherwise, and it doesn't generally fit our reliable source criteria as it's self-published. We need a story from a reliable news reporter. There's nothing in Google News corroborating it that I can find. Dualus (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You'll notice that the original source that was cited ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2011/10/18/occupy-wall-street-planning-convention_n_1018570.html ) says that it was not an official statement of OWS, so if that source is good enough to make the claim in this article that there was this "demands" statement, then it is good enough to cite to support the claim that it is not an official statement. Also, the extended discussion of Lessig is superflous. Many groups have called for a constitutional amendment to ban money in politics (e.g. see http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=3264 ) As it now reads, it appears to be simply promoting Lessig. Is there any reason why it should simply read something like, "Some participants in the movement have urged that a constitutional convention be convened to strip money out of politics, a goal that Lawrence Lessig, among others, has supported."? He gave a talk at Occupy DC, but there are plenty of teach-ins happening all the time. (I was writing from 68.239.82.231 earlier) 72.75.67.8 (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Good catch! I'd agree to that, and any other way to make it seem less promotional, as long as none of the sources for people involved with the related set of amendments are removed. There's a Slate story in there saying that Lessig lends credibility to the movement, so I'm not sure the movement is promoting Lessig any more than Lessig is promoting the movement. I would prefer to have that Public Citizen source in there too, as I'm sure there aren't a whole lot of organizations who have been pushing or have proposed a constitutional amendment, although it's growing fast now.[11] Dualus (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope you like my compromise. Please let me know. Dualus (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: under the Occupy Protests Australia the number of people charged over their actions at the Occupy Melbourne site has been reported on Australian SBS One Television World News on Monday 24 October at 6.50pm as 95 not the initial 20 arrested (it rose first to 50 over the day or two after the police physically removed the protesters). I suggest the entry should read: "Approximately 95 charges have been laid" for the final sentence of the Australia paragraph. Also, on the first day of the protest (Sat 22 October) I personally visited the site and counted the number of site protesters at 1400 to 1500 from 2pm to 3pm (with four hundred or so extra persons on the immediate sidelines, separate to the general pedestrian traffic) so the current article statement "each attracting at most several hundred participants" should read "each attracting at most several hundred core participants". Australian SBS TV's estimate for Melbourne was a peak of 500 demonstrators on the day but I can assure you I counted more carefully than they did, taking twenty minutes to do so and not rushing. Star A Star (talk) 08:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This editor made numerous attempts to include this information in the OWS article and not only received no support what-so-ever, most editors became extremely frustrated with his tactics and unwillingness to comply with the consensus process. Obviously, if the editors for the U.S. article believe it is not notable, it has no place in the international article. In my opinion it reads like an advertisement for Lessig's book. Gandydancer (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed copy related to Lessig. See Occupy Wall Street article, section "Source does not match claims". Gandydancer (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I replaced an edited version. Are there any sources which you think don't match the claims? Dualus (talk) 05:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I see you deleted it again, apparently without discussion here. Dualus (talk) 08:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I refuse to go through this again. You started numerous threads with this information at the OWS article and got no support what-so-ever. To continue to add this information is nothing more than vandalism and I will continue to revert it. Gandydancer (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You are simply mistaken. Several people have supported the inclusion. Dualus (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

With the advent of so many new "Occupy" articles and the need to self regulate with consensus I would like to propose a new project that would allow editors the opportunity to work together to improve all existing articles, form consensus, create to-do-lists, organize images etc. Any interest?--Amadscientist (talk) 09:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Great idea! Bearian (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

And an "Occupy" template to go on all related articles please! USchick (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There is one already, take a look at the 'See also' section of this article.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I must admit I lack confidence in your ability to edit accurately and without bias. What process do you propose to achieve consensus? Dualus (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Well sir, many more people feel far worse about you and there is an actual editing history from you that can be viewed. Your actions show your lack of neutrality and willingness to work with others, combative with constant accusations.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

All related articles need to be added to the category before the project can be launched.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I support this proposal.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a proposal towards the archiving of consensus as that would require some discussion. Do you have a preference Dualus?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I propose that we ask on WP:3O for disputes involving two editors, and WP:EAR for disputes involving more than two editors. Also I hope people will remain true to their ideals and still be willing to find a way to compromise. Dualus (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly interested as well. Justinform (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I very much agree with the sentiment of having a place where editors can refer to some sort of consensus guide. I have been mulling this over in my head for a while actually. I wonder if we also need one or more WP:ESSAYs to remind people that Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.... that is to say, Wikipedia is informative to many people, but it is not a "pre-eminent political and ideological leader" or "a pioneer of satyagraha, or resistance to tyranny through mass civil disobedience" or "a non-violent leader in your community's struggle for civil rights." Admittedly humorous in tone, it could remind people that if you are showing up to edit wikipedia and expecting The People to be editing in Solidarity with an eye towards furthering The Movement, then you will be sorely disappointed. The nutshell would be that people have many reasons for editing wikipedia, but ultimately, we should collectively be creating an encyclopedia, not fighting a non-violent encyclopedia-based resistance movement. MPS (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

That was very well put. Now...do you understand what a Wikipedia project is? You sound like you are saying that an attempt to form a consensus on a Wikiproject is a subversive attempt to take over the encyclopedia. Really? Please see these projects: WikiProject_Conservatism, Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, Wikipedia:WikiProject Investment, Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Libertarianism, Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity, Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism. There are projects for all kinds of subjects for all kinds of people that support and believe in all kinds of things: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Nintendo, Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Amadscientist, yes I do understand what a wikipedia project is, but I have not participated in one, so I am glad you provided those links. I think that I have been misunderstood, though, since I disagree with your characterization, as you say above, "attempt to form a consensus on a Wikiproject is a subversive attempt to take over the encyclopedia" ... I disagree with that statement... I personally don't think forming a principles of consensus is a takeover attempt or anything like that... consensus is good... consensus is part of the wikipedia ethos... I just know that there have been a lot of people who came to wikipedia to edit OWS articles and interact with editors as if we are all on the same OWS team and that wikipedia is their vehicle for furthering the movement. People go down to zucotti park or their local occupy Peoria site and take pics of protestors and post them online, perhaps hoping to win the wikiPulitzer prize.... and when someone deletes their edits, their argument for saving the content has nothing to do with WP:NPOV or WP:RS or WP:V, but instead they say, "why are you deleting this, don't you think this will be good for the movement?" ... they are non-plussed about the fact that I don't care about furthering their movement, I am just a news junky who thinks wikipedia should be NPOV and high quality. so support on the project, and support on an essay. btw you can jump start a consensus guide on a talk page and that might help people to get the idea. Peace, MPS (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I would add that it could get complex if the focus of Occupy articles starts to get conflated with the Spanish Indignants movement and other movements. Peace, MPS (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your very civil posts. Your concerns are legitimate when placed in this manner. However, this is true of all articles that contain controversial subjects. Heck...even editing an article on a city results in complaints from people that think the edit promotes or criticizes their home town unfairly. We always handle those from within the encyclopedia on a case by case manner when needed. Projects simply give a centralized location for the organization of existing articles and a place for some editors to contribute in improving the overall coverage of a certain subject. Many projects form consensus that goes against the general consensus of Wikipedia. This is where projects stray and the overpowering nature of...say the amount of Christians to effect the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia face a daunting challenge...but then...even non Christians can join the project, just as critics of the Occupy movement would be allowed to join and help improve these articles and Wikipedia's coverage of them. I'm not Mormon....but am a member of the LDS project. I contribute where I see fit. I think it helps the neutrality of the articles.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good suggestion and i support this proposal. Roomi (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

For starters, someone should make a WP:NAVBOX template where we can list all these articles. Dualus (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikilink global financial system. 99.35.13.28 (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Potential resource from Talk:Global financial system ... Financial world dominated by a few deep pockets -- Economic “superentity” controls more than one-third of global wealth by Rachel Ehrenberg Science News Monday, August 15th, 2011, related to Talk:Wealth also see arXiv of Cornell University Library ...

<redacted, due to excessive quoting>

99.35.13.28 (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Where do you propose to include this? Dualus (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

He wanted to include it in the "See also" section. As the IP-hopping editor is known to add links to increase connectivity to his featured projects, I removed it, in the absence of justification. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is part of one sentence: In 2007, a mere 147 companies controlled nearly 40 percent of the monetary value of all transnational corporations ...

And here are the wikilinks: Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon in Pittsburgh. ... financial information database Orbis, ETH Zurich ..., such as fair labor practices or environmentally friendly policies. ... changed drastically since 2007 (now-defunct Lehman Brothers is a key element of the core), the analysis shows that ownership is becoming increasingly concentrated and increasingly transnational, ... University of Michigan ... Stanford University, mutual fund, Merrill Lynch, ... even when shareholders do have voting rights, they may not exercise them. 99.190.85.15 (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

DualUs, see quotation in the article from 2011-10-12 reference; "Protests against the global financial system which have seen huge demonstrations in New York's Wall Street will spread to the City of London this weekend. ..." 99.19.44.40 (talk) 04:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Rangoon11 just reverted me twice and suggested we take it to the talk page.... First time, Second time. I think Rangoon11 is trying to do the right thing, as am I, but we still disagree on how to word the lede. The substance of our disagreement is whether we should say "The "Occupy" protests are ...primarily directed against [greed etc]" ... versus my contention that we should not say the word 'primarily' without a source. The first time I tried to replace 'primarily' with "many of which are directed against[greed etc]" ... the second time I tried to leave the primarily in there but insert "solidarity with OWS" between that and the list... because for me OWS is the obvious immediate cause of the other occupy protests. I just think that the burden of proof is on Rangoon11 or someone else who wants to claim that for all ~1500 protests, the primary focus of each protest is among the list of five economic ideas that we have cobbled together in the lede. Peace, MPS (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

According to CNN, the global consensus is "What we have in common is that we are the other 99%, that we want people over profit, that we are making our voices heard against greed and corruption and for a democratic and just society" [12] USchick (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I would hope that we can agree that the protests are primarily against 'social and economic inequality and corporate greed'. Whether we should also include the wording 'and the influence of corporate money and lobbyists on government' in the sentence is perhaps less definitive, although I don't think it should be removed without discussion. I will try and find some better sources for this sentence which deal with the protests as a whole rather than from a U.S.-only perspective. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Both of your responses reassure me that you both understand my concern... it's not that I have an opinion one way or the other, it's that our sourcing for the use of "what the protests are primarily about" is currently lacking... /// To Uschick, I want to point out that CNN did not provide that analysis, CNN quoted what "London organizer James Alexander Fancourt told the Telegraph newspaper" ... so we would have to attribute that particular assessment not to CNN, but to the guy in London who has a certain belief about what the protests are about. /// to Rangoon11, Thanks... I personally agree that it is uncontroversial to assert something about 'social and economic inequality" given the ample sourcing available on the We are the 99% rallying cry. Uschick's source actually has CNN stating "'Occupy Wall Street' began on September 17 and is now spreading to cities across the U.S. The demonstrations, inspired by the Arab Spring protest movement, are against economic inequality and power vested in the top 1% income earners. Its rallying cry, 'We are the 99 percent,' is now being picked up by groups around the globe" ... we might want to rework those words and cite CNN. /// Again to reiterate, basically this is a sourcing issue for me. Peace, MPS (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys, for your dedication to this article. The emerging theme seems to be "economic inequality and power vested in the top 1%" – a Google search comes up with over 19 million hits. USchick (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The graph used for the background section is from a questionable source and to be frank, it looks like it was made in MS Paint. Can someone post a graph from a legitimate source that is done in a proper software (e.g. Matlab, SPSS, Excel)?

Graph in Question

-Sylon

How would you improve it? Dualus (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This article should talk about the 15M Indignants movement in Spain, as is one of the inspirational starters of Occupy Wall Street. It seems incredible there is no even one mention although they are very related movements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.29.49.117 (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a mention, in the first paragraph. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this revert. On the face of it, the revert was inappropriate since no objection was voiced. B^e——C_ritical 21:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The removed content was well cited and in my view relevant. It wasn't moved elsewhere in the article, simply deleted. The lead is, in my view, far from perfect - like the rest of the article - but the general problem is too little detail, not too much. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I note that the deleted content from the lead is in fact found elsewhere in the article. I would still prefer a discussion here about whether that third paragraph should be removed from the lead however. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not a reason to revert other edits: that's a reason to re-insert the paragraph. B^e——C_ritical 22:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The other edits to the first paragraph struck me as inseperable, since some content from the deleted third paragraph had been moved to the first. I am very happy to discuss changes to the lead, I am not saying that I think the current text is perfect.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

They took out redundant information and copy edited. I think if you compare [13] with [14] you'll find my version is better. B^e——C_ritical 22:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I took out "and at the present time their growth is widely seen as a primary goal of participants." I think that's a dated statement, no? B^e——C_ritical 22:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204777904576654142226175696.html Police and Protesters Scuffle in Oakland, While Eviction Leads to More Than 50 Arrests in Atlanta by BOBBY WHITE, TIMOTHY W. MARTIN and DOUGLAS BELKIN. Regarding Occupy Oakland and Occupy Atlanta. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Capitalism and its critics; People are right to be angry. But it is also right to be worried about where populism could take politics Oct 22nd 2011 from the print edition 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Please include. Dualus (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Include images of common symbols representing Occupy activists: 1. V for Vendetta Guy Fawkes mask 2. Clenched Fist Sources: 1. "The V for Vendetta mask: a political sign of the times", by Euclides Montes; guardian.co.uk, Saturday 10 September 2011; http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/10/v-for-vendetta-mask 2. "Pictures: Why OWS Protestors are wearing V for Vendetta masks", by Shruti Dhapola; Oct 18, 2011; website: www.firstpost.com; http://www.firstpost.com/world/pictures-why-ows-protestors-are-wearing-v-for-vendetta-masks-110617.html 3. "Raised Fist" article in Wikipedia. 4. "List of gestures" article in Wikipedia. 5. "A brief history of the "clenched fist" image", by Lincoln Cushing; Docs Populi; http://www.docspopuli.org/articles/Fist.html Non-Occupied (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

What about Anonymous??

Psychonaut25 (13375p34k!) 3:55 AM EST, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

What about them? Sources, please, and we can discuss inclusion then. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The URL: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_protests" does not redirect to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/"Occupy"_protests"; it is it's own outdated article yet it has the same header title. Are people aware of this? ProfNax (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Works fine to me, other than your second url is broken. But Occupy protests redirects here just fine. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it was just a client side thing, but it was very odd. Seems to be fixed now. ProfNax (talk) 04:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

'We Are All Scott Olsen': Movement Marches in Solidarity With Iraq Vet Wounded in Oakland by John Nichols on October 27, 2011 3:28pm ET in The Nation; regarding Occupy Oakland and then Occupy Wall Street, and related Talk:Occupy Wall Street # November 2nd launching a nationwide general strike. Maybe it would be better there?

99.35.15.107 (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No mention is made on this page of Occupy Newcastle. Unconfirmed reports are saying that protest was attacked last night by the English Defense League (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/10/487677.html?c=on). Can someone update this - I don't know the formats well enough to do it myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.105.126 (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's an unconfirmed report, obviously from someone involved with the protest. It's not a good enough source for Wikipedia. Can you find any more reporting on the incident from an independent source? HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The size of the demonstrations in the United States tower over the movement in Australia; I am of the opinion that the United States section needs to be greatly expanded because of its imprtance in comparison, perhaps incorporating all those unecessary individual city articles into a larger paragraph. Additional work needs to be done, no question, but at least its somewhere to start. ProfNax (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I recently started 99 Percent Declaration. The bad news is that it got nominated for deletion, but the good news is it got nominated for rescue by the rescue squadron. Please help if you can. There's already many potential improvement ideas on the talk page. Please weigh in on the deletion discussion or answer questions on the talk page if you don't have time to improve the article. Dualus (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says that the article introduction, "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources."

What are the controversies surrounding the Occupy movement, and are any of them notable enough for the introduction to this article? I would suggest that the controversy surrounding the 99 Percent Declaration has the most support in reliable published sources at present. Dualus (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

These two sources should be of some use:

• Berg, A.G. and Ostry, J.D. (September 2011) "Equality and Efficiency" Finance and Development (Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund)

Please see in particular the principal component analysis in its Chart 4.

• Udall, T. (November 1, 2011) "A Constitutional Amendment to Reform Campaign Finance" 112th Congress, 1st Session (Washington, D.C.: United States Senate)

Dualus (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

 Added Dualus (talk) 05:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please review this edit. Thank you. Dualus (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop pelading that disgraced article. It needs to be deleted, why are you trying to use Wikipedia as a platform????!!! --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. I am trying to write the best possible encyclopedia. Dualus (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

And who are you to say you could achieve something the Britannica hasn't?? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Who wants to create a New York City General Assembly article? They have a web site, and several working groups, and a zero tolerance policy.[15] Dualus (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Such a new article is a good idea. First, the idea of OWS was proposed and formulated in large part in GA meetings in NYC starting this past Summer. The GA remains the main decision making body of each occupy protest and recently approved the creation of a spokes council. Also, the hand signals used at meetings have started to penetrate the general public's consciousness.--NYCJosh (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The infobox says that the Occupy protests are a part of the Arab Spring. I totally disagree with such description as this would imply they are directly related to such movements, even if it is true that the Occupy protests are/were inspired by the Arab Spring to say they are a part of would mean by definition Occupy seeks or has the same goals than their Arabic countries counterparts, which is obviously not true as many of the protests in the middle east are more related to pro-democracy, freedom of expression and other things we take for granted in the west as they are usually well protected. Occupy is more a protest against economic policies and business behaviors, the only thing in common with the Arab Spring is that they are all "protests" but the comparisons should end there, allowing a description like that will make the article biased and incorrect. There is a semantic difference between part of and influenced by. I have tried to change this but my editions have been reverted. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it says that they are 'Part of the impact of the Arab Spring', which is heavily cited.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Part of the impact implies a direct outcome of the Arab Spring, which is not true. In fact the Occupy protests had been brewing way before when Michael Moore was calling for people to protest against Wall Street. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Specious connection, in my opinion. A nuanced view of this is that SOME of the protestors themselves talk, rightly or wrongly, as if they are a "part of the Arab Spring." Even so, I think it is controversial to say that this protests is actually part of the Arab Spring movement. Many Arabs certainly disagree with the comparison. Further, attributing saying it's "part of the impact of the Arab Spring" is sort of a post hoc statement, since most everything in the past impacts the present somehow. I say take it out. Other thoughts? MPS (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

'Part of the Arab Spring', which the article does NOT say, and has NEVER said, is VERY different to 'Part of the impact of the Arab Spring', which can be widely and lavishly cited. It does not mean that the Arab Spring is the sole cause, but it was without doubt a trigger and a significant one, acknowledged by the protesters themselves as such.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to be confused, I think the wording could be improved. How about "Partly impacted from the series of protests stemming from the Arab Spring..." or "Partly impacted by the Arab Spring" or let Camilo Sanchez offer a suggestion and let's hear what he or she has to say? 완젬스 (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is to remove the "part of the impact of the Arab Spring" altogether. In this case not mentioning is much better for the article than to include any reference. Oh and I am a boy. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - relevant, long-standing and well covered in third party sources.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I just screwed up a bunch of references. I am very sorry to cause work for others but I have no idea how to do this properly. I copied them from the OWS article thinking that that would work - obviously it did not. Gandydancer (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC) I removed my edit till I can figure out what to do since perhaps another editor may not be able to fix my refs because they are not even from this article. Gandydancer (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)