Talk:Occupy Cal

External links

Links should be added to the petitions and resolutions (though in some cases only UC Berkeley faculty and staff are asked to sign). Links should also be added to the Colbert and the hair-pulling Prof Langan video. Also recommend adding still image of baton hit.

Great suggestion. A link to the video has been added. If you have a quality still image of a baton hit, please share it, it would indeed merit inclusion. Most of all, Welcome to Wikipedia, let me encourage you to join in and help edit the article yourself too. --Tangledorange (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Petitions and faculty resolution - links?

There are at least two petitions and faculty/staff resolutions that have been circulating, however Wikipedia prevents creating links to them in order to use them as citations. The text could be reproduced here for one of them originating among the biology departments (it's only a paragraph), while the other is rather longer; signatures are restricted to UC faculty and staff (plus graduate students). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.71.26 (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Source for Integrative Biology statement added. There are others - from the social work department, english department, etc; and a petition signed by 2300 faculty and staff. Wikipedia will not allow linking to the petition itself; but the text of it was released to several news outlets etc - anyone got the link?Devangel77b (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is highly unreliable

I just removed several unsourced and strongly negative claims (arguably personal attacks) from this article which pertain to living subjects. While I realize this subject is a contentious one, every effort should be made to provide a reliable and trustworthy source (or at least *some* source) before adding a section of text and clicking the Save button.

Thanks.

--Polka — added by AgentPolkaDot (talk • contribs) 23:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

+ Tagged with ((neutrality)) template. There is so much loaded language here it's difficult to tackle. I request help from the experts. --Polka — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgentPolkaDot (talk • contribs) 23:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

AgentPolkaDot is blocked. I suggest we revert AgentPolkaDot's edits and move forward by adding the citation needed tags or citations as Frank suggested. Devangel77b (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Disputed content needs to be sourced before it is restored.--v/r - TP 01:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit War

Ladies and gentlemen,

can the edit warring on this article be turned down a notch or two before somebody gets blocked from editing.

As this is effectively an edit war, discussion should take place here, not on individual's talk pages.

Please sign all comments with ~~~~

It appears to me that much of the material that has been deleted was sourced, albeit rather poorly.

It would be more in the spirit of Wikipedia to source this material properly or tag it with rather than deleting it.

Finally, it would be helpful if any editors directly involved on either side of this dispute declared any such connection.

FrankFlanagan (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to add better sources to the removed material. Just couldn't get past the edit conflicts due to the constant reverts. Eeekster (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Frank that is very reasonable, and I like the suggestion of adding and letting people add the sources. As for editors involved on either side of this dispute - I will declare my connection - I am a graduate student at UC Berkeley. I have not been active in the Occupy movements, but I have seen first hand what is happening on my campus and I am party to discussions among faculty and students. I recommend we revert the page to a much earlier one, and let folks add the sources or citation needed mark before outright deletion. Devangel77b (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Added some of the sources and reverted the now-sourced previously deleted material but I haven't got it all back in yet. Devangel77b (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Background information removed

Someone removed important background information regarding 81% tuition hikes, furloughs, firings and reorganization from "Operational Excellence" etc. These are sourced in multiple places that can be added. Any neutral party wishing to understand the circumstances surrounding what these particular protests are about needs to know these details. Devangel77b (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Find the sources and you can restore it. Until then, the edits are disputed (not by me, I don't particularly care).--v/r - TP 01:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources added. Will add some more later. Devangel77b (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I set them up to use the {{cite}} template. Please be sure to use it with your citations. It's a real pain to come in behind someone and make the corrections, no offense.--v/r - TP 03:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Will do - still learning how to cite things in media wiki. Devangel77b (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Rachel Librarian - you removed a bunch of relevant background as "old sources" and then suggested adding a background section? I don't quite understand - what was there was not overly long and was important for understanding the context of Occupy Cal. Also the role of education in creating jobs etc is a major factor in the protests and is also a major factor in what UC administration discusses in the press and in statements in Sacramento. Sources for these and for cuts may look "old" but they've be consistent for the last 2 years. Devangel77b (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Devangel177b - Going back that far seemed out of the scope of the article which is just about Occupy Cal. There seems to be enough information to warrant an entire Wikipedia article about budget cuts in California public universities and the response by students & faculty. I added a Background section that gives context to the current Occupy Cal movement. What do you think? Rachel librarian (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Rachel - Very nice. There is a lot of background to this issue, including issues of "shared governance", tuition hikes, furloughs, reductions in services, and the broader issues of higher tuition forcing out people, privatization, driving of students who would have been at CSU or CCC to private for profit colleges linked to Regents, etc. That goes beyond any one protest and is not described in a neutral manner anywhere. Ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devangel77b (talk • contribs) 00:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Idea: There is a section called Finances on University of California that you can add to. Once you have enough information, that section could be broken off into it's own page: History of Finances at UC or something... Rachel librarian (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Mario Savio Memorial lecture by Robert Reich

Someone deleted the Mario Savio lecture stuff - the speech by Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor? This seems important to include; the lecture was planned way before the baton stuff and Savio's importance in the Free Speech Movement and parallels with Occupy Cal are also, objectively and neutrally, important to note. Anyone have good sources on this? I had to leave the speech early, but there were 1000 people there including a good number of professors - this also seems notable as those attending are not just "fleabags" or homeless or slacker failing students.

What parallels? Most of these people have never heard of Savio. If you want a revolution, you have to at least know how to spell the word. Viriditas (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Education

A major theme of the Occupy Cal demonstrations is role of education in creating jobs and improving quality of life for society as a whole

If it is so major, then why does the article say nothing about it? All I see is paragraph after paragraph about the police response. The problem isn't the "role" of education, and if the demonstrators think that, then they should just go home. The problem is education itself. Reality check: education was never intended to teach people to think critically or to learn to learn. The role of education is and always has been to uphold the status quo. Viriditas (talk) 07:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way Viriditas. When I educate people in science, (and I think this is true for every faculty and grad student I know), we do ask them to think critically and we do try illustrate different ways to learn. Devangel77b (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with how I feel. Try researching the history of education. It has never been about teaching people to think or to learn. You can find examples from every generation and every century. Education has, for the entirety of human history, been taught in terms of obedience, whether we must obey the laws of physics or the will of parents and teachers, or even the orders of a military commander, the directive is one and the same. Obey, obey, obey, obey. Education does not and never has taught people to "think for themselves", because that would undermine the institutions of government and society. Educator Tsunesaburo Makiguchi asked the necessary question: "Is the purpose of education to create independent thinkers or to foster loyalty and obedience to the state?"[1] The authorities answered the question for him. He was thrown in prison where he died from malnutrition. Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Professor Langan

Why are we listing this professor by name? This news article, for example, lists him as "a professor". We should do the same unless there is something particularly notable about this person that is significant. If there isn't, than only the fact that he is a professor is significant and should be used.--v/r - TP 13:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

A fair question, but also one that illustrates why she perhaps ought to be named. You automatically assumed it's a male professor, based on assumptions about what kind of person might be at a protest with violent cops. The protestors seem to include a wide cross section of the UCB community; I've observed grandmothers, kids, puppies, students, professors, secretaries; while it is clear many in the inter webs comment on these events from afar assuming protestors are anarchist thugs. The cops involved choose to be nameless, but Prof Langan's statements and description of the event are part of one of the text (the faculty petition with 2,300 signatures; she is the one who was dragged by her hair. She does not have a Wikipedia page but she does have a UCB page - her research and teaching interests fall in English Romantic period literature. All that detail is perhaps off topic, but perhaps naming her is not. Devangel77b (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The article neither describes the Professor as a "her" nor needs to. Unless there is something particularly notable about her being dragged away instead of that a professor was dragged away, there is no reason to include her name specifically.--v/r - TP 21:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Langan is a tenured female professor and member of the Academic Senate; I have found multiple sources in which she describes the experience further. It is notable that a tenured professor and member of the Academic Senate is treated in this manner as opposed to a "protester" or "outside element" - The attention given by Birgeneau to the words used to describe the people getting arrested is also telling. One could either delete the name but make it clear this was a tenured female professor, which is actually very rare in some disciplines and notable because it establishes a little about the type of people being arrested, or keep the name and add the quote with sources, which is notable as a first-hand description of the events by someone the University has vested a large amount of trust in by granting tenure. Your call, SSGT. Devangel77b (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is notable that a tenured professor was treated that way. I'm not disputing that and I think it should be writen about. I just disagree that the name of the professor is important. The reader is not going to garner any additional understanding by having the professor's name. So I'd like to remove her name. Also, we use lowercase "g" and "t" in the Air Force. So "SSgt" would be the appropriate abbreviation ;).--v/r - TP 01:46, 24 November 2011 (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 ☏ 03:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Update and neutrality check needed

The article is far outdated, with next to no information about events after November 2011. I see a mention that activity is going on as late as March 2012, but more info is needed. I also have serious neutrality concerns about the piece; ample space is given for all possible negative reaction to the alleged police misconduct, but the police side of the story is limited to a single statement. We should check if there have been any legal action against any involved parties, and generally spruce up to include more analysis of the impact of Occupy Cal. If there isn't more that what we've seen, I'm afraid this article will get sucked into the AfD debates other similar articles have been involved in this year. —Ed!^(talk) 14:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)