Talk:Occupy Wall Street

vandalism

The first paragraph of the article seems to have been mildly vandalised with the inclusion of "The ruling Burgeo class who have oppressed tHE BIPOC latinx for one million years" 178.51.177.207 (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

socialist?

I reverted recent additions which characterized the movement as socialist when it was more anarchist in nature, and corporate influence over government, or money in politics, was indeed one of the core issues of the movement. Plus no sources were included to justify these additions. Just leaving this here because my edit summary was cut off as I accidentally hit submit while making edits on my phone. Sorry about that.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you C.J.! I was one of the original organizers of OWS in NYC. I made a feature film on the experience, and I just wrote a book. You are correct that it was much more anarchist. OWS operated via democratic structures such as assemblies and councils, and used the consensus decision-making process. These are rooted in anarchist, and feminist organizing practices, and have precursors in the Anti-Nuke Movement and Global Justice Movement. There are a number of aspects of this entry that I'd like to change. I would love to talk with you and others at wikipedia to make this entry historically accurate. MarisaHolmes2011 (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@MarisaHolmes2011: Hello, and welcome.

Please avoid adding your own work to the 'see also section'. If you feel that your work meets reliable source guidelines and is the best available citation to support a specific change, please propose such changes here on this talk page.

Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

It is a reliable source, since I was directly involved, and have done extensive research. Also, the book is being published by a reputable press and underwent peer review. I propose that it is added. MarisaHolmes2011 (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I propose adding books by David Graeber and Marina Sitrin as well. They were bot integral to OWS, and their work deserves recognition. MarisaHolmes2011 (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The Graeber and Sitrin books are still there. I hope that by 'recognition' you mean recognition by readers wishing to better understand the topic.

What specific information is this book being cited for? See also and further reading sections do not have quite the same standard as inline citations. Please see Wikipedia:Further reading#Conflicts of interest.

Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I looked at your link here. I totally understand the conflict of interest section. You don't know me, so It makes sense you'd have reservations. I can assure you, though, that my motivation is not to promote or sell my book. I will likely lose money on it anyway, and hope its available for free. I just want everyone, and especially future generations of organizers and activists, to have access to more direct and primary sources. The book includes these. I held off on making revisions to this entry with specific citations. I'm happy to do this work If you like. Some of what I reference in the book has already been included in other books, such as Graeber's and Sitrin's. However, I do provide additional sources. I could also send over a copy of the book, and someone else here could decide what to do with it. Then, there would be less conflict of interest. MarisaHolmes2011 (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I fully accept that you are acting in good faith. With that in mind, conflict of interest editing isn't limited to financial gain, and promotional editing doesn't have to be profitable to still be promotional. Adding your own book doesn't provide any context to readers about what the book is or why it would be useful, so it is promotional either way.

So once again, what specific information would this book support? It would be much better to use this book as a citation for specific information. Grayfell (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The book could be used as a citation for the following already existing entry text:

"Many commentators have stated that the Occupy Wall Street movement has roots in the philosophy of anarchism."

-I definitely make this argument.

"It derives from a "We the 99%" flyer calling for OWS's second General Assembly in August 2011"

-There's a whole section of the book devoted to the early assemblies. I describe how the 99% was created...

"The assembly was the main OWS decision-making body and used a modified consensus process, where participants attempted to reach consensus and then dropped to a 9/10 vote if consensus was not reached."

-I describe this at length.

-This section could benefit from more historical and theoretical context for the practices. They were not unique to OWS.

"the protesters created the "human microphone" in which a speaker pauses while the nearby members of the audience repeat the phrase in unison"

-- The way this is currently written is incorrect, though. The human mic was the result of a improvisation by the facilitation team and not because of the police sound ordinance. This is an often repeated error. Actually, the film I made shows what happened ..https://vimeo.com/172339354. In the book I give more context for how the human mic comes from WTO in Seattle. You can actually see the human mic being used in Showdown in Seattle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showdown_in_Seattle.

You could add my book as a citation in the Occupy Media section

-However, what you currently have doesn't include anything from the OWS Media Working Group or Global Revolution Media, which were part of OWS from the beginning. The section is also very print and writing focused generally. There would need to be an additional section written for a citation to be appropriate.

Under Criticism...

You could cite my book for the sentence "instead represented a host of broad demands that did not specifically allude to a desired policy agenda"

-This is weirdly written though. More could be said about the reasoning for not having demands, and what our actual goals were. We wanted to build a new society, from the bottom up, through taking space, engaging in mutual aid, and practicing direct democracy.

There's more I could say, but I hope all this helps. If you need page numbers and reference lists I can definitely provide them. I can also help with revising the entry, as I mentioned. However, I want to respect the process you have here, and not just go in and make big changes without discussion. 24.185.42.144 (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Oops! This was me. I guess I was logged out. MarisaHolmes2011 (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

why are you not encouraged or permitted to make changes yourself, within Wikipedia guidelines?

You don't need to ask or beg others to do it for you!. My advice is for you just to do it (with citations).

Actio (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Actio, See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#COI editing. czar 12:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

i don't think that theses rules and caveats would preclude writer from making or proposing changes--as you can see, the suggestions were not taken upActio (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

antisemitism?

Under the Criticism section (an odd and inelegant way to frame some questions), there are three references to the supposed antisemitism of Occupy that do not seem to have held up very well over the years. There is visual evidence linked to in which we see a person come forward with frightful opinions, but there was no "official" line at Occupy about this, of course, it was never put forward as a principle, and there does not seem to have been wider support voiced by group members. (Further, being anti-Zionist is by no means the same as being anti-Semitic. Jews have been arguing about Zionism for over 100 years, and it is unlikely that the ultra Orthodox Jewish groups in the US would ever be called anti-Semitic, as that would be ridiculous.) The right-leaning writer Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post is cited in what we might call a hand-wringing column, and a group is linked to with an ad attacking Obama's policies toward Israel. Wikipedia itself characterizes this group as follows: 'The Emergency Committee for Israel is a right-wing nonprofit political advocacy organization in the United States." The third link is to Fox News, whose politics are clearly on the right and happy to make any charges that suits its political agenda. It is essentially an overblown slur on OWS to feature this in the article. I write this on Rosh hashanah, the Jewish New year. (By the way, OWS held New Year's services, but I don't remember the date.) Actio (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

"Surveillance"?

I can't only assume this is some one joking right? A general reference page in their reference directory giving a brief summary of what the organization is and what their goals are and why they might be a issue, sourced directly to the organizations own websites and public social media posts, is "surveiling them closely"? "We set up massive public protests and are actively trying to forment rebellion and create public disorder and disruption, and the government is paying attention to the situation!? Ensuring their employees are informed of current events?! Literally fascism!

Like this has to be someone trolling, it has to be.

Idumea47b (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)