Talk:Occupy Oakland/Archive 1

Archive 1

Portal:Current events/2011 October 25 resource

• Police arrest 75 people outside Oakland City Hall in the U.S. state of California while clearing the campsite of the Occupy Oakland protest. (CBS News) 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The events you may be referring to are unfolding as I type, so it is best to hold off for just a bit to let the sources get the information correct. There are a number of issues to consider but in the overall scheme of things these protests in Oakland have a historical significance that will not fade with time and are proving at least to justify notability.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

TOC formatting

Can we dispense with the numbered formatting somebody added to the TOC recently? It needlessly clutters the sections and doesn't help navigation one bit. (I don't know enough about Wiki-TOC formatting to mess with it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.53.120.30 (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The TOC appears after there are more than about 2 sections. It's automatic/how MediaWiki works.--67.54.235.190 (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the editor is referring to the dates. Not the table of contents itself. I was the editor who added the dated format. As I briefly explained in the edit message, as the article is now rapidly expanding with updates from the recent escalation of events, we're going to need to create a chronology section to separate the sequence of events from the reaction to Occupy Oakland, information on the participants, reactions to OccOak, and potentially, the impact of OccOak. And if this chronology becomes too large, we can split it off into a spin-off article, a Timeline of Occupy Oakland, as was done in the Occupy Wall Street article. This may not seem like it helps navigation right now, but as we expand it, this will be a big help. It usually is. --Cast (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I am referring to the "techdoc" formatting style of the TOC (n.m.x, etc.). So are you saying that this happens automagically and there's no way to override it? I think it's ugly and unhelpful.

I just checked the article and saw that there's no TOC template in it. I believe (but could be wrong) that if one puts in an explicit TOC template, one has control over its formatting. Perhaps someone more interested than me in delving that deeply into Wiki-formatting could do this ...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.53.120.30 (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well I see then. No, there are ways to override the appearance of a table of contents, or change the default to a different type of TOC, but for this style of article, this is the default and best style. Alphabet and numerical styles are available for glossaries and lists, but this is an article so... yeah. You can learn more here: WP:TOC --Cast (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't keep linking Frank H. Ogawa

Please, folks - There's no need to link every appearance of Frank H. Ogawa. A couple of times is enough. Cgingold (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Actually, anything more than once is overlinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.53.120.30 (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

LA Times resource

Occupy Oakland: Mayor lays out 'ground rules' for protesters October 27, 2011 9:57 pm — Robert J. Lopez 99.35.15.107 (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Mother Jones report on violent elements in the Occupy Oakland group

Mother Jones is reporting that elements among the Occupy Oakland group are inciting violence against police. Kelly ^hi! 01:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Mother Jones's reporters were filing reports on this division early in the OccOak's first week, and their reporting was taking a certain slant in favor of the peaceful protesters. Peaceful protesters were quoted more, and often placed in a sympathetic light. Supposed agitators were quoted less often, and their motivations were largely unexplored or unexplained. Several mainstream media news sources should also be noted for their increased anti-OccOak opinion pieces, while conversely, several alternative media sources, such as radio station KPFA [1] took a pro-OccOak perspective. Mother Jones can be used as a source for this article, but as with all sources, editors should observe WP:NPOV with due diligence. --Cast (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Is Mother Jones regarded as having a pro-Occupy or anti-Occupy POV? Or has there been splitting into smaller factions? Kelly ^hi! 03:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Mother Jones is regarded as being a Liberal leaning paper, and its coverage of OWS has leaned favorably, following an initial period of non-coverage. That mirrors the rest of the world. There has also been some reporting of differing opinions among members of Occupy Oakland, and different Occupy communities, but I haven't seen this develop into "splitting" yet. There were quotes by some protesters reported by journalists for conservative leaning papers that suggested factionalism. The Mercury ran an article that arbitrarily lumped "thugs", "drug dealers", and "anarchist" activists as creating unsafe conditions in OccOak. No current participants within OccOak have been quoted suggesting that anarchist participants were a problem, but one former participant was quoted saying — which I paraphrase here — "if I had known there would be such a large anarchist contingent, I wouldn't have joined." --Cast (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Scott Olsen's condition

The Marine's condition here is said to be critical, although I've tried putting it into past tense, since his condition has been upgraded to fair, but he still needs surgery to relieve swelling in his brain. Is there any more detail required on his condition or not? -Mardus (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As conditions change, all details should be updated with citation. This can be done in chronological order, based on how notable the details are. It would be useful to mention that he was able to walk into Highland hospital on his own power, but was put into a medically induced coma by doctors for his benefit. It may not be useful to mention what his nurse's name was — but then, I don't think that's been mentioned. Just update things as you find them. Thank you for your effort. --Cast (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please use American date formatting

Since this is an article about an event in an American city, please use American date formatting (mm-dd-yyyy), even for references.

If I were editing the article on the counterpart protests in London, I would use dd-mm-yyyy, as that is the format native to that place. Same goes here.--66.53.217.209 (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The template for citations has the dd-mm-yyyy format for dates automatically, which is why a lot of the references had that format. Rachel librarian (talk) 02:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Requested semi-protection status

I have requested semi protection for this page. There are some conscientious editors here who are trying to make a solid NPOV page about a controversial timely topic. I'm thinking that with the strike coming on Nov. 2 that the vandalism will just get worse. Rachel librarian (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

File:OccupyEverything-LiberateOakland.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:OccupyEverything-LiberateOakland.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

related Portal:Current events

Portal:Current events/2011 November 3 99.109.125.146 (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Kayvan Sabeghi

Kayvan Sabeghi is another local Iraq/Afghanistan veteran injured by Oakland PD in an incident related to the occupation. Press reports indicate his injuries were more serious and that there is an allegation of failure to allow him medical attention while in custody despite the fact that he was clearly in extremis. I was going to start a Kayvan Sabeghi article but noticed that (so far, at least) Scott Olsen's situation is folded into this article and he does not have a separate article. I assume it's probably because Olsen was not particularly famous or notable prior to the incident in which he was injured, and neither was Sabeghi. I realize there's an effort toward coordination of what goes into this article since the situation is so fluid, so I wanted to bring up Kayvan Sabeghi and ask for input on how best to integrate his situation into the article. I have references to two published news sources (UK Guardian and El Cerrito Patch) if that would facilitate the discussion. I'm not asking whether Sabeghi should be included because the rationale is clearly the same as for the earlier inclusion of Scott Olsen, but I do want to coordinate with those who are already waist-deep in editing this article rather than dive right in. - Elmarco 18:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need to be concerned with coordination for the moment. While incidents are happening quickly, there doesn't seem to be enough editors working on this article. No need to worry about stepping on anyone's toes. Just add Sabeghi to the article in chronological order as best you can. As sections grow too large, they can be split into their own articles, and if the chronology gets too large, that can be split into a Timeline of Occupy Oakland. This is the model set by other articles, including Occupy Wall Street.--Cast (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I added some information about him into the events of Nov. 3. Please feel free to add to this page! Rachel librarian (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Good job, Rachel, you pretty much covered what I was going to say. I just added the name of the hospital and a reference to a Huffington Post article because they interviewed Sabeghi's friends and they have a different version of the events. It's in the refs now, people can go there if they want. - Elmarco 03:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

USA Today resource

Oakland protesters condemn violent clashes; excerpt ...

Occupy Wall Street supporters who staged rallies that shut down the fifth-busiest U.S. port on Thursday condemned the demonstrators who clashed with police in the latest flare-up of violence.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Police wounded

I'm concerned with the current injury count for the Oakland police department, which lists two officers were "wounded from the paint and chemicals" thrown by protesters. I have seen the photographic evidence of paint landing on officers, but none of unspecified "chemicals", which could be anything from very hazerdous acids, to benign "stink bombs". My concern is that while this comes from a verifiable media source, I haven't seen any other mentions of these injuries. While this may be a case of a major media narrative (excessive police force and injuries to protesters) drowning out another (two officers "wounded by paint"), I question if this isn't just a case of a journalist dramatizing a minor event (two officers had paint on them, and this becomes "wounded"). Compare this to when Geraldo Rivera visted OWS and was "assaulted". That may sound like he was seriously attacked, but to be "assaulted" from a legal stand point merely means that he felt threatened, and in that case, he merely had powder dumped/sprinkled on his head. From another angle, that looks like a mere prank. The words used to describe the action can change our out look on them tremendously. Should we list these two officers as injured on the strength of this single sentence in a single article, or is this undue weight, and should we hold off until this gets more attention? --Cast (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It was reported by the police commissioner(or some other high up police guy), and not a reporter, that they had two casualties from paint and hazardous chemicals, which if I hazarded a guess could include household cleaners. Powder "sprinkled" on your head is an underestimation of having crowds of people throwing and dousing random chemicals at you. Agreed that we should look more more descriptive sources though.AerobicFox (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The example of sprinkled powder on the head of Rivera was not made as a comparison to the thrown paint and chemicals -- though we still don't know what those chemicals were, and in fact could have been as benign as a nondescript "powder". Rather, I was drawing attention to how words like "assault" and "wounded" can convey meaning beyond what actual details were. What does it mean to be "assaulted" by powder? What does it mean to be "wounded" by paint. Lets just find a better source for the descriptions of these injuries. --Cast (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If (other) news outlets are not picking it up, then it's probably insignificant and the two officers can be placed in the infobox.
Significance rises when someone's life or limb is seriously threatened or worse. — A good example would be French gendarme Daniel Nivel,^[:de][:fr] who was life-threateningly mugged by German hooligans in Lens, Pas-de-Calais during the 1998 FIFA World Cup (dubbed France 98), was consequently six weeks in a coma, can't remember anything after recovering, sustained lifelong impairment to his speech, and is blind from one eye. About the same story of Nivel at first para of Football hooliganism#Germany, with consequences to hooligans. -Mardus (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I have similar concerns, and an updated reference. According to Oakland's police chief Jordan, no officers had any serious injuries, but 7 were "banged or bruised". I'm very skeptical about the idea that we're going to list a bruise as a "casualty" or "injury".

"Jordan said seven Oakland officers did not suffer any serious injuries during the clash Tuesday, just bangs and bruises from bottles and other objects that were thrown at them." [WP article]

Since there was only bruises and no real injuries, can we now remove them as "injured"?-- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we tried to include "bangs and bruises" as injuries significant enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox, the number of protesters injured would swell, given the photographic evidence of many people injured with pepper spray to the face and "bean bags" to abdomens and limbs— and further, it would be impossible to know how high the list will eventually get. I agree that we should remove these two painted officers as injuries, and that we hold off any further inclusions unless significant news events warrant reporting. --Cast (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have the same concerns as Cast. I too have not seen any mention of police injuries in other articles. I think it should be removed. If the injuries were that significant, they would have been mentioned many times and headlined. Rachel librarian (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

While we're at it, we should also remove listed injuries of protesters that are not significant. The citation used right now states that activists claim two protesters besides Olson were injured. I've seen no significant coverage of that. Olson has monopolized coverage—understandably. Unless there are other references to these injuries, the infobox drops to 1 injured protester. --Cast (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Addendum I just remembered that there has been coverage of injuries to other protesters, with coverage focusing on a few people with very large bruises, following accusations that police used rubber bullets, and police countering that they only used 'bean bag' rounds. While there was no official count of how many protesters were hit in this way, this at least warrants greater explanation than the infobox can provide. There should be a section on injuries. Indeed, there is more than enough coverage of that protest event to give it a dedicated article, with section on background, the event, and the fallout for Jean Quan, the Oakland Police Department, and Scott Olson. This was the event that led to contemporary news reports stating the momentum of the Occupy movement has shifted to Oakland, and the images of Scott Olson is leading to increased participation by military vets. If nothing else, the citation on the infobox injuries should be replaced with a note link for a footnote going into how the infobox injury count was made. --Cast (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Cast, what is your reasoning to lower the injured protest count? Doing that would contradict the referenced source. Do you have any reason to believe that RS is wrong? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Pardon, I thought I made my reasoning clear with my multiple comments above. The referenced source includes a single sentence comment stating that anonymous protesters claim two people besides Scott Olson were injured. The reference is there for all to see. It's quite scant: "­Protesters say that at least three were injured and more than 105 arrested in the skirmishes." Who were these injured people? What was the extent of their injures? We're they reported in the media or not? This is not a good source for these statistics, and that's understandable given how early this report was. More comprehensive reporting took place after this story was written, but editors haven't included those in this paper. The problem is that not all "reliable" sources are made equal. Some are better than others, and for our needs, most would be better than this one. --Cast (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Number of protesters

Has this been accurately published yet? I didn't see it in the article and I was surprised.--Львівське (говорити) 05:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

There have been no confirmed reports of the number of protesters. I have seen numbers from 7,000 to 100,000! I think that discrepancy might be worth mentioning actually. Rachel librarian (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That same discrepancy is what brought me here!--Львівське (говорити) 05:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I added a sentence with some sources about the march numbers. If you find any other sources, feel free to add them! Rachel librarian (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sequence of events

Does anyone know the sequences of events for the injured US marine whether protesters threw the rocks and bottles first or whether the tear gas and flash-bang grenades were fire first. I have heard conflicting accounts in the media Manofmyth (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, I was watching events live from a live stream that would tune in intermittently with the crowed as it gathered at 4pm and roamed through downtown Oakland. Since the stream was mobile, it cut in-and-out as interference cut in. When it did, I would follow events on twitter and media news reports.

Early in the events the Police began setting road blocks at intersections, and so rather than taking a direct route, the march split off into side streets, and occasionally split into different groups. The march should only have taken a few minutes, as the gathering point was on the same street as Frank Ogawa Plaza. Along the zig-zag path, police would block intersections leading directly to the Plaza, and when an officer felt threatened by someone taking a picture, or when a protester attempted to cross the intersection blockades, snatch teams would catch the person and make arrests.

One such arrest took place in the middle of a street, and not an intersection. A crowd of marchers could be seen surrounding the officers, and when zoomed in on, two officers could be seen with a light splat of green and white paint across their helmets and exposed necks. In this article, I have already provided an External Media template. These events can be seen in the first video posted there. During one arrest, the camera operator for the livestream was to close to the events, and his camera was broken or other wise disabled. As the protesters began to doubt they could make it to the Plaza, they began a march towards the Police Headquarters, also in the downtown, but in the opposite direction of Ogawa Plaza. They reached to within a block of the Headquarters, but by that time they were so disorganized that they lacked sufficient numbers to perform any meaningful action, while those they had left behind still intended to get to the Plaza.

As I recall, at about this time a new stream connection was enabled. Throughout this march, some people had already gathered outside of the plaza, separate from the march themselves. The march than turned 180 degrees and began back towards the Plaza. Along the way, the livestream cut in and out. The cat-and-mouse game played by protesters and police took over two hours before they finally got to Ogawa Plaza. When they got there, they were rebuffed by an intimidating line of motor cycle striding police officers.

The marchers turned around and regrouped at Snow Park, where a brief speech detailing their plan was directed to the crowed via people's mic. At this point it was approx. 6:30, and mainstream media was carrying the event live, but did not convey what the people were planning. That was only audible over the livestream. The plan was that the crowd would march in a direct line, keeping together to avoid more snatch-and-grab teams, and would move at a steady pace to avoid being surrounded. They also agreed that no matter what happened, if they couldn't take the park back that night, they would gather again at the same time, 7pm, and try to retake the park again, and each night after that if necessary. En route to the plaza, the second livestream cut out and never reconnected. It was explained that the batteries on the second operator had died.

When they arrived at the intersection where Olson would eventually be struck, the sun was starting to go down and the crowed gathered for aprox. 30 minutes to face down with the Police Line, but at the time this was almost 7, so local media cut out for sitcoms and other shows. Over the intersection, local media choppers continued to circle the event and broadcast their events live, but with no audio. You can see the flag being waved by the navy uniformed compatriot of Scott Olson throughout the event.

The police continued to hold their ground and declared the event an illegal assembly, and issued a 5 minute warning to move. After the five minutes, the chopper for local news outlet KGO suddenly cut its feed and announced it was leaving to refuel. Five minutes later, the police opened fire. The event was captured by other media choppers, and of course cameras on the ground. Many tweets followed, accusing KGO of conspiring to cut their feed in compliance with an alleged deal to protect "access". Scott Olson was hit during this first wave. They returned in a second wave afterward, and and finally a third, with decreasing numbers each time. KGO's chopper reappeared during the second wave, tweeting out that they had finished refueling. After the third wave, they finally dissipated.

Of these, only the first wave was covered by local news outlets. Throughout these events, it can be extremely difficult to see any objects being thrown by the protesters, but discussion among protesters at the time could be seen, and some were attempting to stop throwing from taking place, but no actions were made by some activists to turn on others. However, in one heated exchange (viewable in a link to Mother Jones magazine above, two protesters can be seen arguing. This exchange took place in the face-off period of the first Ogawa Plaza wave.) One protester announces that they are not with the "violent ones". Another protester expresses anger, also critical of the bottle throwers, but insists that they should not be labled as "violent." An unseen protester threatens to perform a citizen's arrest. Sadly, no one punched that dumbass in the face for it.

So I feel that I can safely assert that while protesters were throwing bottles first, the police initiated tensions by blockading routes and performing snatch and grab arrests of non-violent marchers trying to cross blockades or photographing police arrests. --Cast (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Cast, I don't think you can safely assume that at all. The police _did_ threaten to tear gas peaceful protesters if they refused to disperse. As to what actually happened later, and if they didn't actually fire tear gas until after someone threw stones is unclear. But whatever, we an _never_ safely make assumptions when writing an article. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I never stated that I assumed these events. I assert them. I witnessed them all play out. I did not state that the police did not present warnings/threats of tear gas. I know they did. I never saw a protester throw bottles live. I did see protesters acknowledge that they did. I do not have any plans to include any of these details into the article without citation, which is why I haven't provided any edits to the article yet. Few citations are available with these details, as few reporters are providing the level of detail I'm aware of. I don't include assumptions in articles. Please read comments more closely in the future. --Cast (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I did certainly misread the word "assert" as "assume". I'm sorry about that. Here's some new news from today. Police chief backs off claims It's not a good enough RS, but it does support the idea that the facts remain very much in question. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Great discussion! Has there been a second marine hurt in the violence? 07:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manofmyth (talk • contribs)

Restructure civil conflict info box

Considering the press release by the Oakland Police Officers Association a couple days ago: http://www.opoa.org/uncategorized/an-open-letter-to-the-citizens-of-oakland-from-the-oakland-police-officers%E2%80%99-association/ It would seem that the police department and the mayors office/city government are not actually on the "same side". It is misleading and an oversimplification to divide the issues into two parts. Other thoughts? Rachel librarian (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, this would seem to merely be a case of an internal, political squabble between bureaucracies. The Police Department and it's union—and the police union is the strongest in California—are trying to bully Quan around, and has engaged in this kind of behavior in the past with this and other mayors. It's a way of threatening the Mayor, suggesting that they would swing away from supporting her during an election year. It doesn't mean they have formed a third, breakaway faction in contestation with both the city government and the protesters. The government isn't that fragmented. It's just backbiting. If you'd like, we can remove the Oakland Police Department from the infobox entry as an aligned element of the second group. Falling under the city government, interim Police Chief Howard Jordon can remain listed as a leading figure in the infobox, falling under the alignment of the city government.--Cast (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective. I'm concerned about putting this movement into a split up box that puts the city on one side and Occupy Oakland on the other. Do you feel strongly that the box is there at all? What value do you think it adds to understanding the information on the Occupy Oakland page? Rachel librarian (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think it's important to maintain the split to provide information on key organizational figures in both camps. The article is now lacking information on some of the key figures of the Occupy camp who have continually given interviews, such as Boots Riley, and other key activists. There is also an absence of information on the comments and views of city council members, such as Ignacio De La Fuente, who is a very outspoken critic of OO in local media. I also think it is important to note just how confrontational OO is compared to other Occupy protests, given the high volume of participating anarchists and other radicals, who staunchly pushed a position of anti-statism early in the founding of the Occupation, a week prior to the actual taking of the park. That position is what led to the early, anti-OO media reports which painted the protesters as dangerous. Shouting at police to leave, and refusing to recognize them as part of the 99% (ideologically, even if they are materially); blocking MoveOn participant politicians from speaking at the GA; the refusal to meet with and negotiate any position with the city government; the protesters are decidedly against the city government, and this was highlighted in a recent Time article. --Cast (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Bias

The last sentence is biased by calling the protest a riot and the demonstrators criminals. --70.134.52.4 (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. "Riots" has been changed to "clashes" like 5 times in the past 48 hours. Criminals is clearly biased. This is an ongoing issue with this page. The police (and some sources) call it a riot; the protesters (and most sources including Reuters) call it a clash. WP:NPOV Loaded language Rachel librarian (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Would it be worth having this page protected, or semi-protected? There appear to be several conflicts of interest. Junhalestone (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It was protected for a few days. If there continues to be problems, we can have it protected again. Rachel librarian (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Timeline split

I think it's finally time to push for a split of the article into a chronology. First, I want to thank all of the editors who have worked so hard to keep up with events to make this possible. This puts OO beside OWS as the two most up-to-date articles of the Occupy protest articles. Sadly, that is a relative statement, and OO is still very bare of overall comprehensiveness, but that can change with time. For now, something must be done with this chronology. If we go by the precedent set by the Timeline of Occupy Wallstreet, most date entries should be single sentences or a paragraph for larger events. Major events can remain largely described on this article. If an event warrants more coverage than we are currently giving it—and I'm thinking here of the Oct. 25th morning raid and evening showdown, and the Nov. 2 General Strike— then we should put some serious effort into expanding them to such a size that they will justify their own articles.

I'd like to start a discussion here if anyone thinks the split is not yet necessary, or does not like the current make up of the Timeline of Occupy Wallstreet, and would rather the Timeline of Occupy Oakland look different. Otherwise, I'll just move forward.--Cast (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Summary style is our friend-- i started a rough rough version by copying the main chronology text to the timeline article, and am now trying to trim the main article down. There is definitely enough to be documented about the Nov 2 that it will eventually warrant its own article. Thx for excellent suggestions and good work. --Tangledorange (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Cast for your time and expertise. I especially appreciate your knowledge of Wikipedia page structuring. I like the idea of creating a separate timeline page. I am looking forward to filling out the OO page with more historical context about Oakland's radical history and police brutality. Also, thank you to Tangledorange for filling out recent events! Rachel librarian (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's put some positive spin before the media can do negative spin

source and source says that occupy oakland protesters served as medics to the downed civilian. Also, here's aerial map. It just happened, and nobody in "occupy movement" was involved, except to lend a helping hand. Any further details from anyone here in Oakland? 완젬스 (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I want to warn you now that while I'm very sympathetic to your sentiments, our priority should not be to put a "spin", positive or negative, on this event. Our priority should be to be accurate, but don't fret. From what I'm learning of this situation, an accurate description of events may prove generous to the camp. Being objective should be a strong defense of the protesters. --Cast (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

$20,000 deposit into Wells Fargo

Please stop removing the reliably sourced statement that Occupy Oakland deposited $20,000 into Wells Fargo. This is extremely notable, given that just a few days earlier, Occupy Oakland had held a protest against the very same bank. Mk2z0h (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, notable in the present, maybe—but in the long term, not likely. This would be a minor footnote in the financial issues of the protest. An "extremely notable" event would be if an embezzlement scheme were revealed, and someone at the protest were to turn up one day with a new car and a really fancy watch. No, this isn't an "extremely notable" event. From what is now being revealed as reporting on the subject becomes more accurate, the group had treated this as a time sensitive issue. They needed to give the money to an attorney to help protesters who had been arrested, but the attorney had a Wells Fargo account. So they voted on the issue and agreed that the practical necessity was more important than ideological purity, and gave the money to the attorney who pledged to move the money to a community bank as soon as possible. However, this entire event turned out to be unnecessary because the wire transfer wasn't completed before all of the arrested protesters were released from custody. This is not just a minor issue—it's a non-issue. Still, it's a notable non-issue for all of the commentary it has generated. It belongs in a section on the group's finances. Not in its own section on the chronology. Now that we have a timeline, the chronology should only have major issues. Minor issues like this can be incorporated into other sections. I'll be creating a finance section now to get the ball rolling.--Cast (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You said, "they voted on the issue and agreed that the practical necessity was more important than ideological purity." (italics added by me)

Yes, exactly. That is my entire point.

I would like to point out the following reliable sources for this information:

On November 7, Occupy Oakland deposited $20,000 into Wells Fargo, the very bank which it had protested just a few days earlier. The money had been donated to Occupy Oakland by Occupy Wall Street for urgent medical and legal expenses. The Occupy Oakland general assembly approved the decision to hold it temporarily in a Wells Fargo account so that it could begin being used immediately while the group waits on the state to finalize its status as an unincorporated association able to hold funds. At that point, the money will be moved to a local credit union. Wells Fargo spokesman Ruben Pulido said that this desposit "demonstrates that even Occupy Oakland understands — firsthand — the value and service that Wells Fargo provides its customers. Wells Fargo welcomes the 100 percent of Americans to allow us to help them meet their financial needs."

ABC News, CBS News, and The San Francisco Examiner are all reliable sources.

Mk2z0h (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

BLP reminder about the two "pedestrians" who were hit by a Mercedes.

Since the reliable source says these two people were in the street deliberately blocking traffic, I removed the word "pedestrians," and replaced it with "protestors who were in the street blocking traffic." I also added the info that the driver had a green light. I did this, because that's what the reliable source said. The previous version of the article falsely made the driver look like a law breaking maniac, which violates wikipedia's BLP policy. Mk2z0h (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, law breaking maniac wouldn't be my words, but it is illegal to hit pedestrians even if you do have a green light. That they were blocking the intersection would indicate they did not step into the driver's field of view when he was in motion, so this was no accident. That references point that he tried to switch seats with his passenger would indicate evasion. So "law breaking" would be accurate. Not that I'm trying to suggest we should paint this incident as something that it isn't, but I hope you aren't either. Just stick to what the most accurate references state.--Cast (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much was I going to say. It's still illegal to hit intentionally hit people even if they are blocking the intersection, and that's what at issue-- if the driver intended to hit another human being with a car, it would be a very serious crime. No clue if that's what happened though-- just explaining why it MIGHT be a big deal, but might not be. --Tangledorange (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Following up-- we mention that it "angering protesters who witnessed the events and called for the driver's arrest.". If we think this is notable enough to report, we probably need to say why they were angry-- i.e. the believed it to be intentional. I'm not certain if the anger merits mentioning, but if we include it, we have to explain it. BLP is heavily at play here though, so tread lightly. --Tangledorange (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Not to get overly "forum-ish", but it should be noted that there is a video of the incident. Might be good to bare in mind as we look for references on this. Some would have been written before the video came to light, and those would be less reliable if they describe an event differently than what can be explicitly observed. --Cast (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Broken link, but I think I've seen the video you mention. The situation has changed a bit since my prior comments-- the two victims have since publicly gone on the record formally saying the driver should be arrested for attempted murder, so I feel a little more comfortable talking about it (with regard to BLP issues) now that it's out there in a big way. --Tangledorange (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the link. You probably have seen it. It's really circulating now. --Cast (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Murder at NEAR the Occupy Oakland camp

The Oakland Tribune claims the murder was the result of a dispute inside the Occupy Oakland encampment, and that the victim was attempting to run away when he was killed. The current verbiage doesn't match this, and indeed, doesn't make much sense at all. Kelly ^hi! 04:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, a Chronicle reporter was attacked when she attempted to take a cell phone photo of the crime scene. Kelly ^hi! 04:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Not to be too dismissive here, but we should tread very carefully so as to provide only the most accurate information, as this would seem to be a rapidly developing situation. I'm moving some previously posted comments here to centralize the discussion. This brings up an important issue on my mind. The simple fact is that being in a city with a high crime rate (Oakland presently has one of the highest murder rates in the country), Occupy Oakland has seen a high rate of violence tagged to it. This goes back to an early fight that broke out in the camp and a TV reporter had his shirt ripped when he was bit by a dog during the first two weeks, up through the police raid and stand off, and to the General Strike car hit-and-run and plaza arrests. This is only the most recent event, and city officials have cited these as reasons why the camp should be closed. The local corporate media has been pretty harsh in their editorial commentary. I think we might need a section on violence and accusations of violence, but I'm worried about what it should be called. I'm very concerned with neutrality, weight, and POV issues.--Cast (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

A more useful resource is this AP report on the incident: Man Fatally Shot on Plaza Near Occupy Oakland Camp. More detail, more interview quotes, more police comments, more more more. That's why it's always best to wait just a few minutes for the fresh data to roll in. --Cast (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I had a statement about gun violence in oakland which I think is important give context to the shooting-- that is, shooting aren't rare there. It was removed as synth yesterday, though his connection has now been explicitly made by the police union has now connected those dots, pointing out that Oakland has "highest violent crime rate in California. We are the 5th most violent city in the United States". [2]. Not a big deal, I won't restore it myself, just seems like a useful fact for people globally to know about the area in weighing the nearby shooting. --Tangledorange (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Manual of Style

This sentence about the shooting has a terrible anti-OWS pov: Police released descriptions of the two suspects in the shooting, one of which witnesses told them, “was a frequent resident at the Frank Ogawa Plaza for the past several days. which needs to avoid creating the impression which anyone from OWS was involved. Don't let the media try and make this look like it's coming from within the OWS protests, because there are no reliable sources reporting that it was definitely from within OWS. Other than that, great job ows-Oakland. You're our counterpart, and all eyes from around the nation are on your city. 완젬스 (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Preemptive RS's

Since I know controversy abounds whenever something is added to the article I am going to go ahead and place sources here for a variety of things:

• Shots fired near 'Occupy Oakland,' one dead ABClocal, "But some members of the movement became hostile to the media trying to document the scene. In fact, ABC7 photographer Randy Davis got punched several times in the head." Also includes multiple videos, in video number two the camera man's partner describes the events: "probably a dozen young men who started to hit him over the head and hit his camera and push him away"(around 5:20)
• Police union pleads for Occupy Oakland to disband as authorities investigate homicide near camp, Mercury News, photo #8 in the slideshow is of the reporter almost being pushed over the rail
• New details surface from Scott Olsen's past

They point to a website, which is no longer active, called IHateTheMarineCorps.com. It's registered to a Scott Olsen. The site is also listed on Olsen's YouTube profile page.

According to a story published by Reuters, Olsen also received an administrative discharge from the Marines, instead of an honorable discharge. These new details of Scott Olsen's military record are extremely controversial, especially for members of the Marine Corps and people who have family who served.

• Occupy Oakland and News Media Coexist Uneasily New York Times,

"... Randy Davis, a cameraman for KGO-TV, turned his lens on a group of protesters helping the victim. Then part of the crowd turned on him. Protesters formed a chain around the victim. About a dozen men — some shouting, “No cameras!” and “No media!” — punched Mr. Davis in the head and pushed him to the ledge overlooking a BART station stairwell before other protesters intervened, witnesses said. The attack, one of at least two against journalists that night, highlighted the growing tensions between Occupy Oakland and the news media after a week of largely negative coverage of problems at the encampment."

"The shooting occurred in Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, about 25 yards from Occupy Oakland’s 180 tents. On Friday night, police released descriptions of two suspects, including one who witnesses told investigators “was a frequent resident at the Frank Ogawa Plaza for the past several days.”

• Occupy Oakland Movement Tries To Regroup After ShootingNPR, "and at least one camera man was assaulted. One camper told me to put away my recording gear or risk getting beaten up "like the others.""

AerobicFox (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts to expand this article. I don't have time to go into each resource now, but I'm concerned by the way these are being used for the same reason I was concerned with the constant use of a Wells Fargo spokesman quote. It seems that many sources currently being used are only being used for single quotes or sentences, rather than for the full content these resources provide. Further, many are being used because they were chosen immediately after events took place, rather than later when details settled. Newer reports with greater detail should be favored, while older, smaller stories should be phased out. Finally, I'm concerned that some resources that are more balanced in their reporting are being ignored in favor of ones that have useful quotes, but are lopsided in their reporting. For example, The New York Times article which describes a reporter being assaulted actually describes that happening twice. The first time leaves us only with the impression of the OO protesters having a siege mentality and a lack of compassion. A cameraman simply doing his job, and even capturing the protesters in a moment of humanity, is assaulted and put in very serious danger of injury or worst. That several protesters intervened is a minor note. However, in the second described attack, not quoted for this article, a journalist's equipment is taken away, but then returned by another protester who apologizes. That act is given more weight, and the journalist comments:

"Another protester quickly retrieved the phone, ran over and apologized to Ms. Allison and helped her stand.

'That’s the complex thing,' Ms. Allison said. 'This is a space that welcomes all people, but there was no one in control.'"

I think that second story is the more balanced one, but it is not quoted, with the more sensational story being used in stead. Certainly it is fine to use that story given its significance, but it would be misguided not to use both, since they present a more complex and complete narrative of events and attitudes. This article should not strive for simplicity. It should strive for accuracy, and it is falling short. --Cast (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I am all for including multiple attacks on journalists reported if you believe it wouldn't be WP:NPOV. I had only mentioned the first because it was covered by over news sources and was clearly more significant, and because I thought including other incidents would bring out calls of WP:COATRACK. I do disagree though that the second story was "given more weight" as it was only 3 sentences long as opposed to the 4 sentences of the other one, and since the other one was covered by multiple news outlets. Again, I didn't use the other parts of the NYT article which describe vandalism, a failed referedum to end violence, mentioning the Wells Fargo deposit, a member of the Occupy Oakland’s media committee criticizing the corporate media, or a "resurgence of violence and drug use at the increasingly squalid encampment" because they seemed redundant to the article, if you want to mention anything else or rewrite some of what I put then go ahead.AerobicFox (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons

More images added from today. more to come.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so very much. I've been meaning to try and reach out to people who have been in the area to do just this. If you know of anyone else that has similar images of the camp or of events—any events—please encourage them to upload to WikiCommons as well. --Cast (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I dont know anyone else, but I of course note that many, many people were taking photos. I could have snapped an image of a psychotic man getting into a fight, who was later being sought by police, but i didnt want the person angry at me (and he was really angry). I do hope that others will post their images here. I dont know how one searches for images on Flikr, but Wikimedia Commons seems like the best organized place to do so. My last images are uploading right now. If anyone feels that a particular image is really good, I do have 4mb files of each image (i uploaded 400kb images for quicker uploading).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

We have users manually searching Flikr as well as bots that scour flickr for pics. This can be done because Flickr gives users the option to release their photos under a variety of creative commons licenses. Unfortunately many users release their photos under a noncommercial license which Commons does not accept. That being said there appears to be plenty of images uploaded that can be used freely used. You can search for images here by clicking on one of the licenses(but not the noncommercial ones) and then searching for images related to Occupy Oakland which you can then upload to Commons. Specifically you can upload them here and find more info about uploading from flickr here.AerobicFox (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Occupy Oakland Nov2 Strike Poster.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Occupy Oakland Nov2 Strike Poster.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Scott Olsen wounded and carried - tiny thumbnail.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Scott Olsen wounded and carried - tiny thumbnail.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"Less lethal" discussion?

The edit summary of this diff which has changed "tear gas" into "less lethal weapons" appears to be referencing a discussion on this that I am not aware of:

"corrected photo caption and paragraph to broader and thus more accurate "less lethal" weapons (see discussion)"

I am not seeing a discussion here on this(was there something about this on another Occupy talk page?), and I am in disagreement with the ambiguous phrasing of "less lethal weapons" as being OR. The photo was taken from here on Flickr where it was uploaded by an anonymous user with no captions. The photo was tagged with "tear gas", but I see no other tag or commentary stating that other dispersants were being employed during this photo. Also to note the article is getting too crowded with media. The video "Shot by police with rubber bullet at Occupy Oakland" is placed redundantly in two different sections, the video "RAW VIDEO: Ground footage of Occupy Oakland march and crowd dispersal" also contains the footage of Scott Olsen getting hit as well as other video, making redundant the video "Occupy Oakland video: Riot police fire tear gas, flashbang grenades" to also be included. If the article continues expanding with new media then it may be best to start placing a ref like where it is getting overcrowded and have it just bring the user down to the external links section with a link to the video.AerobicFox (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

External links

I will copy and respond to your comments, whomever you are, below. CriticalChris 06:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"Tear gas"/"non lethal"/"less lethal"/etc.

There has been substantive controversy over the degree to which police, law enforcement agents, or other individuals on the police lines used less lethal weapons to disperse crowds or accomplish other objectives during the events of these protests. Did police/agents use "Bean bag"/flexible baton rounds and "flash banger" stun grenades? ...as it appeared to New York Times news bloggers here ( http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/police-said-to-fire-tear-gas-at-protesters-in-oakland-calif/?hp# ) or were those M80's from a fireworks catalog? OPD Chief Jordan has denied the deployment of the city's $675,000 LRAD "sound cannon." ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/turnstyle/oakland-chief-denies-use_b_1035677.html ) Did Police officers and agents deploy "tear gas" or CS gas or pepper gas? Were undisclosed "chemical agents" used? The SF Chron reported that police announced (over bullhorns) that they would deploy such "chemical agents." ( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/25/BAUB1LLTC9.DTL ) ( http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=23012 ) Which canister are you talking about, and which police agency or other law enforcement agency out of the many on the scene fired that one, and that one over there? My point is that, until these questions are further answered with videos that may surface in the coming weeks and months, and further addressed in reports of official investigations by the authorities, (and Chief Jordan has asked the other agencies to document their use of force) I don't see a problem with the use of the term "less lethal" in some parts of this article. I'm not aware of any "live" ammunition being fired during these protests, but I may have missed that somewhere. Thus "less lethal" seems to me to be a more objective and broadly encompassing term to use in situations where the type of weapon deployed is in question. I've restored it's use to a photo caption and to replace the use of "non lethal" where the source didn't support it. CriticalChris 06:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary of this diff which has changed "tear gas" into "less lethal weapons" appears to be referencing a discussion on this that I am not aware of:

"corrected photo caption and paragraph to broader and thus more accurate "less lethal" weapons (see discussion)"

I am not seeing a discussion here on this(was there something about this on another Occupy talk page?), and I am in disagreement with the ambiguous phrasing of "less lethal weapons" as being OR. The photo was taken from here on Flickr where it was uploaded by an anonymous user with no captions. The photo was tagged with "tear gas", but I see no other tag or commentary stating that other dispersants were being employed during this photo.

Also to note the article is getting too crowded with media. The video "Shot by police with rubber bullet at Occupy Oakland" is placed redundantly in two different sections, the video "RAW VIDEO: Ground footage of Occupy Oakland march and crowd dispersal" also contains the footage of Scott Olsen getting hit as well as other video, making redundant the video "Occupy Oakland video: Riot police fire tear gas, flashbang grenades" to also be included. If the article continues expanding with new media then it may be best to start placing a ref like where it is getting overcrowded and have it just bring the user down to the external links section with a link to the video. ;External links

AerobicFox (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The use of the term "less lethal" is deliberately ambiguous and more broadly encompassing precisely because there has been controversy over the nature and type of weapons used by police ostensibly to disperse Occupy Oakland demonstrators. Perhaps the photo caption should be less specific generally. I do think it is a relevant and encyclopedic photo that improves the article. In the body of the article, my replacement of "non lethal" with "less lethal" is not WP:OR; on the contrary it's used in this [3] news source which was originally erroneously referenced. If we are to accept the Palo Alto Weekly article about Palo Alto Police Officers coming to Oakland to assist OPD as a credible source as per WP:RS than I suggest we stick to the language of the source and not rebrand special weapons that can kill (remember Ruben Salazar?) as "non lethal." CriticalChris 06:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

While there has been discussion and debate over what specifically was used during the riots in general, there has been no such discussion on what was used at this point in the picture. The uploader doesn't even state that they are people retreating from tear gas, it just has tags, one of which states tear gas. There is no reason to assume the protesters at this time were running away from other weapons since, as my understanding, they began with using tear gas and only moved onto other weapons later in the riots. We could also just put "rioters being dispersed by police" since we have no direct description of what is being used in this scene anyway. AerobicFox (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Concerns that this article is "getting too crowded with media."

Also to note the article is getting too crowded with media. The video "Shot by police with rubber bullet at Occupy Oakland" is placed redundantly in two different sections, the video "RAW VIDEO: Ground footage of Occupy Oakland march and crowd dispersal" also contains the footage of Scott Olsen getting hit as well as other video, making redundant the video "Occupy Oakland video: Riot police fire tear gas, flashbang grenades" to also be included. If the article continues expanding with new media then it may be best to start placing a ref like[video 1] where it is getting overcrowded and have it just bring the user down to the external links section with a link to the video. ;External links1. ^ Link to "example video" AerobicFox (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the We currently have 5 videos of police clashing with Occupiers:

1. "Raw Video: Protesters Clash With Oakland Police."
2. "RAW VIDEO: Ground footage of Occupy Oakland march and crowd dispersal."
3. "Occupy Oakland video: Riot police fire tear gas, flashbang grenades."
4. "CA Violence: RT footage from 'occupied' Oakland"
5. "More RT footage: Riot cops tear gas Occupy Oakland strike"

This is needlessly redundant in the article itself, either some of these needs to be removed(#3,4 since their content seems like it might be repeated in #2,5) or moved to a subsection in External links for the vids of protesters clashing with police. If no one has any objections I will go ahead and remove the duplicated "Shot by police with rubber bullet at Occupy Oakland" video link in the Chronology of Events section since the same box is already in the Scott Cambell subsection.AerobicFox (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should have media that is not relevant or is redundant. As a reader, if a section is referring to video footage I appreciate that the video footage is right next to the section. Rachel librarian (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Occupy Oakland Poster.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Occupy Oakland Poster.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Integrate Chronology into Thematic Sections?

I would like to begin integrating the information from the Chronology into thematic sections. I, however, do not have much experience with Wikipedia article organization. My initial ideas: move info about Scott Olsen to the Scott Olsen head injury section; move the beginnings of the protest to the Frank Ogawa Plaza section. Any guidance, thoughts, ideas? Rachel librarian (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea. Fortunately for you there is great individual lee way within an article on how to organize it due to no standardized guidelines being able to gain consensus at WP:MOS. The two should be worked into one continuous documentation of events though like you have suggested, so feel free to be WP:BOLD, and I will likely back anything you do to make the article flow better.AerobicFox (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Okey dokey. I appreciate the support. Rachel librarian (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Quote from Wells Fargo spokesperson

Given that Wells Fargo was a specific target of Occupy Oakland, the quote from the Wells Fargo spokesperson is highly notable. NPOV requires that both sides of the debate are included.

Therefore, I have restored the following to the article:

Wells Fargo spokesman Ruben Pulido said that this deposit "demonstrates that even Occupy Oakland understands — firsthand — the value and service that Wells Fargo provides its customers. Wells Fargo welcomes the 100 percent of Americans to allow us to help them meet their financial needs."

Gb8pGFyohbcg (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't we use the whole quote? “If this report is true,” he wrote, “it demonstrates that even Occupy Oakland understands — firsthand — the value and service that Wells Fargo provides its customers. Wells Fargo welcomes the 100 percent of Americans to allow us to help them meet their financial needs.”--Nowa (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

or should we go for the more abbreviated paraphrase Wells Fargo spokesman Ruben Pulido said the move demonstrates that Occupy Oakland recognizes the value and service the bank provides its customers.--Nowa (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure - use the whole quote. The "if" part seems kind of redundant, but I'd rather use a quote than a paraphrase. Gb8pGFyohbcg (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Oscar Grant description & Race

Apostle12 - I put the racial descriptors in the description of Oscar Grant because there are credible sources that say that race most definitely played a role in Oscar Grant's death. See [4] - "I don't think the officer shot the gun because Oscar was black, but I think the way he approached the situation in an aggressive way was based on race," said attorney John Burris, who is representing Grant's family in their claim against BART. "If they were white, the officer might have asked them what was going on, rather than throw them in handcuffs." and [5] - "Latest census figures show black people make up the biggest single ethnic group in Oakland at 27.3%, with white people at 25.9% and Hispanics at 25.4%. Despite having almost the same size populations in the city, however, white people account for only 16% of OPD vehicle stops, and 6.7% of motorists searched. Black people in Oakland, by contrast, account for a whopping 48% of vehicle stops, and 65.8% of motorists searched." Rachel librarian (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What you aren't asking yourself, Rachel Librarian, is WHY black drivers in Oakland are stopped and searched more often. (I will leave Hispanic/latino drivers out of this discussion, since they can be of any race.) Perhaps you are unaware that the skewed figures for black drivers would be even higher if OPD officers exercised probable cause as often as they do with white and asian drivers--the plain fact is that Oakland's black drivers are more prone to motor vehicle violations and far more prone to serious, often violent, criminal activity, which any honest perusal of the statistics will reveal. Look at the homicide rates among Oakland blacks. Look at the assault rates. Look at the rape rates. Look at the rate of involvement in dealing hard drugs among Oakland blacks. The rate of such crimes for whites and asians does not even approach that of blacks. There is no discriminatory enforcement in Oakland--in fact OPD officers often stop asian and white drivers for minor offenses that they routinely let slide if a driver is black; this is a self-limiting attempt to keep the numbers from getting even more skewed, thus inviting inappropriate scrutiny from Oakland's highly politicized Internal Affairs Department. Don't believe me though; ask some OPD officers for off-the-record statements, especially black officers. They will tell you the same thing.

With respect to what attorney John Burris said, of course he presented it this way. It was his job to play the race card, and every other card, to get a maximum settlement. Burris was ignoring the aggressive, insulting behavior of Oscar Grant, e.g. calling latino Officer Tony Pirone a "bitch ass nigger." Among many East Bay blacks, this mouthy, aggressive approach (which includes the romanticization of the gun) is a STYLE begun by Huey Newton, promoted by the Black Panthers, and now incorporated into East Bay culture, especially in Oakland. Again, it is not asians and whites who are primarily responsible for armed assault on OPD and BART officers in Oakland. No, such assaults are perpetrated almost exclusively by blacks--the actual figure is 95%. Lovelle Mixon was a prime example. Any Oakland or BART police officer who does not assume that an unsearched suspect is armed, especially a suspect who is mouthing off aggressively, will not last long. This is not primarly a "race" thing, though it IS primarily blacks of a certain background who most often mouth off aggressively to OPD and BART officers. If an asian or white suspect were to display a similarly aggressive demeanor and attitude, which is rare, I can guarantee you that he or she would earn the same sort of aggressive response from law enforcement.

Johannes Mehserle was appropriately suspicious that Oscar Grant might have been carrying a weapon, especially since his hands, which he refused to surrender, remained near his waistband where such weapons are often kept. Armed suspects had been reported earlier in the evening on BART trains--fights were breaking out in many cars, and the atmosphere was explosive. BART officers were responsible for putting a stop to these fights, and Mehserle was justified in deciding to use his stun gun when Oscar Grant resisted arrest. The terrible tragedy of that evening is that, instead of subduing Oscar Grant by administering a shock to his back with a stun gun, Mehserle fired his service revolver into Oscar Grant's back, which ended up killing him. There was no justification for this, and Johannes Mehserle must never work in law enforcement again; his error was too grave for him ever again to be trusted with armed authority. Neither the judge, nor the jury members, nor any responsible pundit has come forward and said that this was a race thing. It was not. A racialized description of the Oscar Grant shooting is inappropriate in this article.

I believe it is wrong for you to push your racialized point of view, amply demonstrated in the paragraph you wrote above, instead of maintaining NPOV. Apostle12 (talk) 08:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place to debate whether race played a part in the killing of Oscar Grant. Observers are divided on the matter, anyway. A reporter for the Chronicle said "Many see race as central to BART killing", and that is so: many do. On the other hand, many do not. So let's drop it and stay as neutral on the subject as possible. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Binksternet, I agree. Rachel Librarian insisted we take it to talk. I believe this article is not the place to highlight the racial issue and simply favor its removal. Apostle12 (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I value and strive for NPOV in my Wikipedia edits. I think that the racial element in the Oscar Grant incident is directly related to why Occupy Oakland changed the name of the plaza from Frank Ogawa Plaza to Oscar Grant Plaza. The protests around Oscar Grant's death & Mehserle's sentencing took place in and around Frank Ogawa Plaza. Many of the same people who protested then about issues of police brutality and racial profiling are protesting now as part of Occupy Oakland. This is why I put the races of the individuals involved. Perhaps this information would be better suited to a Background section that describes a little bit of that information. What do you think? Rachel librarian (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The question, then, is whether race played a part in the Occupiers renaming Frank Ogawa Plaza. If reliable sources say it is, then we will reflect that. Binksternet (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That Oscar Grant's killing constituted a major injustice is beyond question, and I respect those who protested that injustice. The "Occupy" movement is also about protesting injustice, the inequities caused by a false economic system and the undue political power wielded by the economic elite. In this context, I can understand honoring Grant by renaming Frank Ogawa Plaza.

Less deserving of respect are those who distort the facts of Grant's killing to suit their own agendas, whether they are self-styled "anarchists" intent on provoking mindless violence or those who seize every opportunity to cast "people of color" as victims. The Guardian article you reference above, "Oakland Police: Controversial History Sets Tone for City's Discord," is rife with such distortions, especially the absolutely false claim (please read the testimony) that Grant was already handcuffed when he was shot. It seems to me we dishonor Grant by perpetuating such distortions.

I believe Binksternet has it right; if a reliable source says that race played a part in the decision by the "Occupiers" to rename Frank Ogawa Plaze, then this information should be included in the context of explaining their reasoning. Perhaps we can at least agree that the main thrust of the "Occupy" movement has little to do with race. Apostle12 (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Sounds good. Thanks. Also, I agree that the main thrust of the Occupy movement is not specifically about race. Racial inequality is, however, included as part of Occupy Wall Street's Declaration of the Occupation of New York City : "They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one's skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation." It seems that each Occupy location has integrated whatever local issues are on the front-burner within their protests.Rachel librarian (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Tangential: I'm reading Searching For Whitopia right now and I recommend it as both entertainingly excellent writing and as an informative investigation of white American attitudes about race. Author Rich Benjamin is very critical of unspoken, toxic race attitudes that are woven into the fabric of society as a matter of course. At the same time, he is gently accepting of (most) individual stances. His spelling errors identify him as something of an outsider but he composes marvelous turns of phrase. Check it out! Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Read an excerpt; interesting. Good writing to be sure. Apostle12 (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I remember hearing about it when it came out. As a white person, I realized several years ago that I often view race and racial issues from a different lens than people of color. I try to be open-minded to the possibility that the way that I see a situation is not the only way to see a situation.Rachel librarian (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I try to be open-minded to the possibility that the way that I see a situation is not the only way to see a situation.True in every way, and not just related to racial identity. As a person of mixed race, for me this has never been a simple thing, and my children and grandchildren are even more racially complex. Basically it comes down to the fact the we each occupy separate spheres shaped by a myriad of influences, yet commonalities abound and we do well to seek them out. Apostle12 (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well said. A good reminder. (: Rachel librarian (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

potential NYT resource

• http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/us/occupy-oakland-angers-labor-leaders.html
• http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/business/media/occupy-movement-shows-potential-of-live-online-video.html

97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I can use the labor-related article at the OWS article (got your link...) Gandydancer (talk) 12:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

POV Check

This article is in need of some serious work. It reads more like an editorial than a neutral encyclopedia article. The article is written to make Occupiers look like heroes, almost no POV from the police side of things. I've already removed several unfounded statements (it is not appropriate to state that the Occupy Oaklanders were subject to "police repression" in an encyclopedia article without clear real world consensus, see WP:SOAP). - Damicatz (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment that the article has been trying to paint the protesters like heroes, such as the previous description of the Mercedes/Pedestrian clash: "Cell phone video footage shows the driver of the Mercedes attempting to drive through the intersection as the march is happening prompting one protester, Lance Laverdure, to jump in front of the car to stop the driver from hitting demonstrators."(no mention of provocation, unsourced attribute of motives, etc)

Here is a policeman needing stitches on his face after a protester throw a bike at him, he can be the first entry into the police injury column.AerobicFox (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I actually came here to say the protestors being stuck by a car doesn't necessarily belong in the police misconduct section. Unlike the other misconduct, this just alleges unfair enforcement or ineffective enforcement. I understand how this could be viewed as misconduct, but it seems like this could be merely incompetent conduct or appropriate conduct. Seeing this opinion already here, I'll try to fix it a little somehow.--HectorMoffet (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The most important factor affecting neutrality is the antisemitism, which I must strongly recommend be removed from the article because it creates a POV of the protesters, which hurts the New York arm of the movement by association. 완젬스 (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Antisemitism? What in the world are you talking about?! There is no antisemitism in this article. Apostle12 (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any references to antisemitism either, please be more specific about what you're referring to.AerobicFox (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

완젬스 refers to the resolution on Israel (I suspect). Criticism of Israel government policies is sometimes conflated with anti-semitism. The people are out there mostly because of critiques of Oakland and its Police-- people aren't out there marching over some critique of Israel. --04:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the intro paragraphs need to be re-written as well, to show a more neutral opinion. I am surprised at the number of "references" in the article are actually links to blogs that are purely opinion based. I have edited 1 section, created 1 section, and only used references that are credible, well know, reliable news sources for credible news reporters who were there, not just someone posting their one sided opinion online. The section on police misconduct also needs to be re-written, and shortened. Reading the headers, how many times does it talk about someone who has been "shot by the police". Reading this, you would think that they were shot with bullets and killed. But rather, they were people who were hit by rubber bullets during riot outbreaks and the police attempts to reclaim the streets from the rioters. Legal use of riot control is not the same as shooting and killing someone, although the article words it as though it is the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FiverFrith (talk • contribs) 20:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say context of the Police-citizen relations in Oakland is essential to understanding this article, as my understanding is that situation is unique in Oakland. —Ed!^(talk) 04:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur that Occupy Oakland seems uniquely Anti-Police, much as Occupy Wall Street is distinctly anti-Financial Sector. The pre-existing dispute with the police and local government seems to set Occupy Oakland apart from other similar protests. --10:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Occupy Oakland movement has devolved into pointless "Fuck the Police" rallies that are held every Saturday. FTP rally leaders engage in clumsy, inaccurate attempts to represent Oakland's police force as abusive, yet this is hardly the case. In fact it takes immeasurable tolerance and professionalism to be a successful OPD officer, especially in the face of abusive language that Occupy folks routinely use in an attempt to taunt the police and precipitate a violent response. For at least the past seven years, extensive psychological testing has been used to weed out imbalanced personalities, and the current force is highly educated, many with advanced degrees. Occupy should recognize that OPD officers are clearly among the 99%--every attempt should be made to gain their support, rather than purposfully antagonizing them with pointless insults. Until Occupy gets more professional and self-polices to eliminate Black Bloc anarchists and agents provocateurs from their ranks, all attempts to limit the power of the 1% will be impossible. Get smart! Apostle12 (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Apostle12, much agreement about the pointlessness of "Fuck the Police" as a rallying cry.

In posting here, just remember-- we here are not Occupy Oakland, we're not affiliated with them, we're not necessarily supporters of them. We're Wikipedia-- an independent media agency. We're trying to document, we're not trying to support.

Criticisms for the OccupyOakland should be sent to them by email or social media. We're not them, and I don't think they check this page. :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Any idea how to impact "Occupy" in a more direct way? I am at a loss. Apostle12 (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

After reading the entire article, I feel as though there is many many facts that are missing from the article. What is written here is completely different than what has been written on and reported. Many of the "sources" used here are blogs and opinion based. I have gone through through several major news sources that have been closely covering Occupy Oakland (SF Chronicle, Oakland Tribune, San Jose Mercury News, New York Times, etc), and compiled a master text document for myself that has the date, and then links to the articles written on that date, from beginning of Occupy Oakland to the current time. I am now going through periods and reading all of those articles, and bringing out the major topics that were covered in those articles, which is missing here, and adding it to the article. I am not removing any content, even if it is opinion based, speculation, pure propaganda, or completely overblown out of context. Just trying to make the article match the timeline of what really happened, and add in the important details that were left out. If anyone would like a copy of this text document to help with their editing, I'd be glad to email it to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FiverFrith (talk • contribs) 18:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Project Occupy

WP:OCCUPY or WP:OWS or WP:99%.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Agents provacateurs in "Occupy", Time to get smart!

http://www.truth-out.org/black-bloc-cancer-occupy/1328541484

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/440-occupy/10172-the-agent-provocateurs-in-occupys-midst

Occupy participants need to get smart about three things:

1./ Agents provacateurs may have attached themselves to "Occupy," and their purpose is to disrupt and discredit the movement. (Please see linked articles, above.)

2./ The Black Bloc anarchists who have attached themselves to "Occupy" have no other purpose than to disrupt for disruption's sake. They have no positive plan and their dominance will prove fatal to the movement.

3./ Every successful protest movement comes to the point where it must gain the sympathy of those who are charged with enforcing the status quo--thus the police, the army, or even goons hired by corrupt dictators eventually become unwilling to do the bidding of those in power. "Occupy" must realize that Oakland Police officers sit squarely among the 99%. It is counterproductive to taunt them verbally, to assault them and to be generally insulting; instead the goal should be to win them over. Fortunately, the OPD consists almost exclusively of officers who are highly professional, disciplined and well-educated. Intensive psychological testing, mandated during the past decade of federal control, has weeded out those who are psychologically imbalanced, and most new recruits have four-year degrees or even advanced degrees. If "Occupy" makes sense, they will listen and act accordingly. Apostle12 (talk) 10:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

FiverFrith (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC) I have read the article, and watched the video. The video shows nothing, other than the commentary on top of the footage, which is all opinion. The article itself comes from a web site which is less than credible. The article is written by a person in DC (not a reporter), who never claims to have visited Oakland, but rather puts out all this information as opinion. Now, if the section was written as though it was an opinion, rather than claiming to be factual, then it may have a place. Otherwise, it is just opinion meant to misinform the reader, and subvert them.

-The continued demonizing of those who utilize the tactic of the black bloc, and associated tactics such as property destruction, needs to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.66.180.172 (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Some kind of context is needed to explain the resolution and why it failed to pass. East Bay Express is a notable publication, but if there are other countering viewpoints, they should be included as well. —Ed!^(talk) 19:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Split

Please consider splitting the article into smaller sub-articles. It is too long and difficult to load the page. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 04:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

True and this is likely to happen. Please join the project WP:OCCUPY and lend a hand!--Amadscientist (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Rtnews template

I've removed the Russia Today news template from the page, as it had raised concern because it pointed to a single trending news page, rather than a selection of trend pages, and after discussion in the appropriate places, it's easier to remove it than it is to add lots of other trend pages, as I don't know of any (don't have time to look). If there are any comments, concerns, or suggestions please reply on my talkpage, as I don't watch this page. Penyulap ☏ 03:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

Gilderien - why did you revert my edits? They were all minor edits to make the articles language more exact. Let's go through them.

1. For the move-in day section I changed "police had to" to "police did" because it is more accurate - they did no "have" to do anything, and using this kind of language indicates a bias. Let's keep this factual and talk about what the police did and didn't do, not what they "had to" or didn't "have to" do.

2. I removed scare quotes from the phrase "social center" because they seem unnecessary. Why put "social center" in quotations?

3. I removed the word "alleged" in reference to the January 28 kettle at 19th and Telegraph because there are videos showing the kettle linked to from this page. Why "alleged"? This edit I'm willing to negotiate on, but the phrase just seemed unnecessary and out of place, since there is clear evidence and as far as I can tell no one is denying that it happened.

I am reinstating my edits. Please talk to me here if you disagree instead of undoing them again.

I also think that the "Alleged Hate Crimes" section should be deleted since all charges have been dismissed: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/21/BASF1OLD3C.DTL. I am more than willing to have a convo about that, and will wait to make that edit until people have time to discuss here. Mariabl276 (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with edit 1, but not the others. For 2, it isn't clear to me what kind of "social center" is intended, is it the social center we have an article for, or is it more of a rallying point for protestors? some further meaning may be needed if the quotes aren't there. For 3, unless we have a source from the local government admitting it was kettling, it's a loaded word and in this context it's been used four times in two paragraphs and are uncited. Find a source where the kettling is indisputable legally. As for the "Hate crimes" section, we should add in that the charges were dropped, not remove the section. It happened and attracted news, regardless of the outcome. —Ed!^(talk) 12:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Article needs updating

Occupy Oakland continues to engage in organized meetings, events and activities. This page needs updating. Most significant omission is the failed May Day general strike of May 1, 2012, which led to violent confrontations with police, vandalism and arson (an unmarked police sedan was torched). JohnValeron (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Outright falsehood in this article

This article says Occupy broke into City Hall and vandalized it. That has been debunked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.237.70 (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Prove it with a source. —Ed!^(talk) 12:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The ¶ beginning "On the night of January 28, 2012, Occupy Oakland protesters reconvened at Frank Ogawa Plaza, entered and vandalized City Hall …" is supported by four citations to reputable, third-party published sources. Each of these articles is still accessible online, and each provides embedded video or links to video that enable the Wikipedia reader to see for him or herself what happened. If you honestly believe that this evidence "has been debunked," then it is incumbent upon you to inform the community of Wikipedia editors what led you to this conclusion. Please provide at least one independent, verifiable source to back up your claim. Until then, the only "outright falsehood" here is your own unsupported accusation of outright falsehood. JohnValeron (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Question

What is the latest update? I put in a update but it got deleted. What are they up to recently? Have they successfully got that poor family their house back that was their goal in July? Is there any progress yet or some pics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.198.33 (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome, as is everyone at Wikipedia, to update this or any other article. However, please understand that your contributions to this article must (1) relate to Occupy Oakland and (2) be supported by citations to third-party sources in reputable publications. Your addition relating to the August 2012 sit-in at Obama's campaign office met neither of these requirements. That protest was one of five coordinated actions—in Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Seattle, Oakland and Portland, OR—organized by, in the words of the Bradley Manning Support Network, "dozens of veterans and antiwar demonstrators." It was not conducted under the aegis of Occupy Oakland or any of its autonomous committees. Just because a protest occurs in Oakland does not mean it belongs in this article. JohnValeron (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Is Occupy Oakland ongoing or defunct?

I concur with Trackinfo's reversions today on the Occupy movement and Occupy Oakland articles, where other users (possibly vandals) attempted to cast Occupy in the past tense. It's premature to portray the overall movement as deceased. However, solely with respect to Occupy Oakland, this is an issue worth discussing.

Note that the Infobox at Occupy Oakland differs from those on Wikipedia's pages for Occupy movement and Occupy Wall Street, respectively. Occupy Oakland is the only one where the word "ongoing" appears—once on the Date line and again on a separate Status line.

I submit that Occupy Oakland's lack of activity over the past several months suggests that it may now be time to reconsider Wikipedia's use of "ongoing" applied exclusively to Occupy Oakland.

There is currently a small amount of autonomous organizing around two upcoming anniversaries: the group's October 10 birthday and the October 25 riot where Scott Olsen was shot in the head. However, none of this stems from Occupy Oakland collectively or any of its designated committees. It's being conducted strictly by self-appointed individuals. Even allowing that anniversary activities are likely to take place, the question looms: do these constitute evidence of an "ongoing" group or are they merely nostalgic gestures by a few diehard remnants?

I hope Trackinfo and other experienced Wikipedia editors will clarify this for me. Please, at what point do we stop referring to Occupy Oakland as ongoing? JohnValeron (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. From what I have seen, the popular movement is essentially over in the protest sense; the name is probably being carried on by a few hardcore individuals, but these are nowhere near the numbers they used to be, they will probably never want to say the movement is "over," and I don't think they represent an image of the movement that is synonymous with the Occupy movement when it began. I would say the wording could reflect this. I also think the larger issue of protests in Oakland should be some kind of larger article if the new protests are receiving as much attention. —Ed!^(talk) 20:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Oakland jumped the shark on May 1, 2012—the last day of its riotous glory—which, by the way, hasn't been written up at either Occupy Oakland or Timeline of Occupy Oakland, probably because nobody gives a damn anymore. Now, after five months of inactivity, Occupy Oakland again evokes a shark metaphor. "A relationship," Woody Allen observed in Annie Hall, "is like a shark. It has to constantly move forward or it dies. And I think what we got on our hands is a dead shark." JohnValeron (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It is perhaps wishful thinking on some people's behalf but absolutely WP:POV for people to declare the movement over. As recently as the last day there are signs of activity. There has certainly been no formal declaration of an end to Occupy Oakland or the Occupy Movement in general. I'll keep reverting these things as long as I still hear it mentioned in the news. Here on Wikipedia, we are reporting factual information. When there is a formal end, we'll report it. When the movement has failed to have any public presence over a long period, we will probably call it defunct as that will be what reliable sources have also concluded. That will probably be more in tune with the Beatnik or the WIN button than something that has occurred in the last week or even a couple of months. Hippies still exist, we have a section in the article about their "decline" since the 1970's. We will match what the world's consensus opinion becomes. In short, when challenged about any information posted here (or better yet in a controversial article like this, always), add the reliable source you got your information from. Then we can discuss the reliability of that source and its continuity (or lack thereof) with other opinions. For a statement that momentous to these articles, that clearly means its not one person's opinion, its not one faction's POV, its viewed by multiple, neutral parties. Trackinfo (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. In other words, you consider a handful of leftover Occupiers (alongside a couple of dozen non-Occupiers) engaged in a shouting match with Oakland City Councilmembers to be proof that Occupy Oakland is ongoing. I think that's absurd, but I'm in no position to challenge your authority here at Wikipedia. JohnValeron (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Stating that the movement is over is a declaration of fact, a creation of news. On Wikipedia we do not make up information, we report and summarize. And to the point, I have no more authority here at Wikipedia than you do, perhaps just more experience with the policies. We deal in sources. So name your sources when you make an edit. I named one to back my action. I could have chosen any one of fifty sources showing activity. Without sources, modifying such a key point of information to a front line article here in order to push a POV is vandalism. If it is a well founded source, then we can have a more civil discussion about the facts. Trackinfo (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You treat me like I am the one who "vandalized" your article. I did no such thing. But the condescension among senior Wikipedia editors towards the rest of us is standard issue, with which I am already regrettably acquainted. JohnValeron (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Lede

The lede (lead) is rather vague at first. i was going to add this article to the SFBA portal under topics, but i am not going to until the article is fixed up. to a newcomer to the topic, the first sentence doesnt give enough context.76.254.32.25 (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)