Talk:List of Occupy movement protest locations/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Citations

Could you add citations to this page? I'm surprised by the extent of international protests you claim are part of the Occupy Wall Street movement, which my impression is has been a predominantly American movement. Tdslk (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

On the very first revision I added the source from www.occupytogether.com which gave the list of every place. I started with the countries because there are thousands of cities involved in this event. However, there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to delete the countries that I originally put up because they were complete as of posting. There are currently 1,521 cities as of 23:46 GMT and expanding, so copying every city would be an enormous task. Putting down the individual countries would be a lot better. Many meet-ups haven't made their own sites yet, but it is undoubtedly a global movement. I recommend bringing back the last revision I made because it was complete as of that point and sticking with individual countries, because the number of cities holding protests is expanding too rapidly to stay up to date. They range from the largest cities in the world to smaller cities globally. As it is, this page is completely incomplete now. Also, I am not claiming that these are part of Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Wall Street is claiming these protests and the organizers of these groups have all registered with the blanket organization. Stidmatt (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a host for the Occupy organisation to put up places it might choose to run an event if it chooses. Nor is it here to host an article which gives a false impression of how popular this event might or might not be. The movement and its leaders should not use Wikipedia for false purposes. Remember also Wikipedia rules on "crystal balling", which means editors cannot just list every other country on earth without citation on the hope that something might evolve there. What has been done to this article (by me, mostly) is right and proper. We always ask for citations. There was almost no citation when I got here. doktorb _words^deeds 00:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Map

The map needs to have all Arab Spring material removed. I would do it if I knew how. XantheTerra (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Look at it some more and the map looks even worse. Not only does it have non-related material(Arab Spring), but it counts places where protests have not even happened yet. In one of the "Occupy" countries, Japan, the source seems uncertain that a protest will even occur. Kinda new here, so I have to figure out how to change the map, but it clearly needs it. My version of the map will have the US, UK, Canada and Ireland highlighted. XantheTerra (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no protest in my country on any local news and it's there blue on the map. I very much doubt there's protests in "over 1500 cities" that's utterly ridiculous. Pure Original Research based on Facebook likes or forum comments or something silly like that, come on we need a reliable list of places where things happened and have been reported on not this. That map needs to go. Helixdq (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. Apart from it appearing to be original research, it was confusing. I know of no clear overlap or connection between "Arab Spring" and "Occupy", they are about quite different things. Don't know what it meant by "impact" either. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 01:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where you guys get the claim that it is "original research" because I put a link at the bottom of the page on wikimedia commons giving the source as www.occupytogether.com which is where people are announcing their city protests. Stidmatt (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Put the cities as well

its much more easier to understand if you put the cities as well(of course with refference)--Nrpf22pr (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree it might help as well as provinces for Canada, since more and more cities in Canada, at last count at Occupytogether.org its over 1300 cities now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.83.35 (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No. There is no reason to list every city where protests occur. That would be an incredibly bloated list given how easy it is to claim a city has an Occupy movement. You really want a list of 1600+ cities? XantheTerra (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge with "Occupy" protests???

Hey I just spend a great deal of time loading cities and references into a table over at "Occupy" protests... and so we should prolly merge these two articles, but I don't wanna be the guy that starts the debate on this... but now you know. I can't see both these articles having reason to exist at once, so what are we gonna do? Peace, MPS (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that the main article for the Occupy protests should be a prose article focusing on the larger movement as it grows. It seems to be a mistake for that article to be replicating the efforts of this list, and it should be restructured. This list is fine as it, and needs only to be expanded upon. No merge is necessary at any point. Drop that idea and just focus on building that other article into what it should be. --Cast (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I merged the 2 lists here. I agree that the other article should be prose. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment At a later time, a merger discussion might be warranted. While I do feel as if the two could benefit from being merged, at the moment I am okay with keeping the two separate. However, I do question the reason for separation as prose/list, but this is a minor gripe and definitely not the end of the world if no change is made.Ampersandestet (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cast and Timeshifter. Gandydancer (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/ Cast, Timshifter, & Gandydancer. No merge necessary at this point.--JayJasper (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with MPS, the two should be merged. Sovetus (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cast, Timeshifter, Gandydancer, and Ampersandestet. No need to merge right now. We should wait for events to unfold. For the time being, I think a separate page for the list is appropriate. Who knows what might happen in a month or two? Which cities will have sustained demonstrations? A year or so from now, what might be important to record about this event? Maybe several pages; maybe a single entry. Let's just wait. No harm in being patient. Jocilar (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that they should merge, and this page be the one that stays.Ericl (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• NO!!! I REFUSE!! this was an event planned from my homecountry, Spain. Occupy is related to this, but it didn't create the world wide event! it came from the Spanish Indignants, on fact, form the Real Democracy Now! organization. 13:32, 16 October 2011 (GTM) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.147.78.229 (talk)

Here are some articles:

• Direct Democracy Now! - 2010–2011 Greek protests
• Real Democracy NOW! - 2011 Spanish protests --Timeshifter (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• I still say that there is no need to merge at the moment. On a side note, as an Australian citizen who has never cared much for Americans, I have no personal stake in this. But simply from a factual and objective point of view, there is no question that the global protests which began in October were inspired (perhaps not solely but most immediately and principally) by the Occupy Wall Street protests, not the Spanish Indignants. Again, I have no stake in this, but that is simply a fact. C'mon, let's be fair to the Americans. The protests here in Sydney refer soley to Occupy Wall Street, not the Indignants. All the protestors interviewed in Tokyo, Berlin, Rome, London, Taiwan, Melbourne (AU), Canada, Chile, South Africa and many others have referred to the Occupy Wall street protests as their principal inspiration. All the placards refer to Occupy Wall Street ('Occuppy Tokyo' and 'Occupy Sydney', for instance). And having visited the Sydney protest, I can personally attest to this. I am sure that the Arab Spring, the other social justice protests in Greece and Israel etc., and the Spanish Indignants are all the proximate cause but there is absolutey no doubt that the Occupy Wall Street protests are the immediate cause of the current worldwide protests. C'mon, be fair. Give the yanks their due; they got this one right. Jocilar (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I am new here and am not sure how to add Olympia, WA to the cities in Washington state that are occupied. [The Olympian] Karenjlewis (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 05:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

bloated list from OWS article

I moved this list from the main article, for now...MPS (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

, including:
Albuquerque, Ann Arbor, Athens, Atlanta, Austin, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Des Moines, Ft. Worth, Hartford, Houston, Iowa City, Jacksonville, Jersey City, Kansas City, Lexington, Los Angeles, Miami, Minneapolis, Mobile, Alabama, New Haven, Normal, Illinois, Oakland, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh Portland, Oregon, Portland, Maine, Providence, Roanoke, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Barbara, Santa Fe, Savannah, Seattle, St. Louis, Tampa, Toledo, Trenton, Venice, Washington D.C.
Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary
London
Dublin
Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane

-- MPS (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I copied all the above cities with references to the list here. I did not copy the cities without references. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Added Jacksonville to the List

Jacksonville had not been added from the old list, and I went ahead and re-added it with the appropriate diffs. Ampersandestet (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:"Occupy" protests - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 06:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Other move discussions at Talk:"Occupy" protests#Single quotes versus double quotes and Talk:"Occupy" protests#Occupy/Indignants protests — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Table subpage

Talk:List of "Occupy" protest locations/Table - table subpage for a possible table to be substituted for the list a few weeks from now. See discussion here: Talk:"Occupy" protests#Moved table

I am not sure this will ever happen though. From what I read there are already over a thousand cities involved. I am sure references could be found for hundreds of cities. So a table would be a humongous amount of work. I am not volunteering. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I finished copying cities and references from the table to the list. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy?

The term 'Occupy movement' might do for the time being, but, just as the term 'Arab Spring' quickly supplanted 'protests in Tunisia', perhaps some term like 'The 99% uprising' or 'The 99% autumn' might be more appropriate. Note that the uprisings in the Arab countries and the current protests have very similar goals; both want to change what might be termed oligarchical regimes. Too Old (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a great point, Too Old. I agree. 'The 99% movement' makes more sense. No change should be made yet, though. We should always lean toward patience when it comes to current events. Jocilar (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Actual Occupations versus Protests

The use of the "Occupy City-X" label has been used as a name for time-limited protests and marches AND actual occupations of public spaces. Should this Wikipedia list of Occupy protest locations just list occupations of space or also include protests taking place under an "Occupy City-X" moniker? Rachel librarian (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Both. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Reliable sources have tended to place both under the "Occupy" banner, so that's what Wikipedia should do. Lagrange613 06:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation overkill in intro

There were more refs than necessary in the intro. I've kept two (BBC and CNN) that should be enough for verifiability. I've fixed other refs in the article that were damaged by this removal.

Per WP:CITEKILL:

Less is more when it comes to footnotes. Basically, if you can cite it sufficiently in three citations, four and more citations that essentially parrot that information don't necessarily help the cause.

Pristino (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree there was "citation overkill" in the lead. Much better now, well done.--JayJasper (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

They are not citations that duplicate each other. There are many cities all over the world. No one site is organizing it all, nor covers it all. Not even close. Please do not remove the citations without more discussion. I have examined the sites and the news media articles. Have you? --Timeshifter (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Simply find a ref that says something akin to "Many "Occupy" protests have been organized in other cities worldwide" instead of filling the intro with citations for every protest in every city. That should go next to the city in the list below the intro. What you're doing is dangerously close to WP:SYNTH. Pristino (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You obviously have not looked at the citations much. The news media articles are overviews. The other links are the organizing sites. To use the main organizing sites as citations for dozens of cities would be overkill. So they belong once at the top. Please do not edit war. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Citations 1 to 5 are OK. Citations 5 to 12 are not reliable sources: citations 5 to 11 are organizing sites, and citation 12 is a blog. None of them comply with WP:RELIABLE and none of them are necessary to back up the second phrase in the intro. Pristino (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/ Pristino. Citations 6 to 12 do meet WP:RS.--JayJasper (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed Thank you, User:Timeshifter. Pristino (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Can the other citations go in a See Also section at the end?--filceolaire (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The remaining ones in the introduction are secondary sources for the info in the intro. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Differentiate

We should differentiate those cities that will only host Indignants/Occupy-inspired protests on 15 Otober 2011 and those where there were protests before or after that date. Pristino (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not just create a List of 2011 protests table?

Everybody seems really confused because they are trying to differentiate between what is an "Occupy" protest and what is an "Indigents" protest. Why is this the job of wikipedeia to name and sort protests? why not list all protests with "occupy" in the name here, and then add these and all other protests to a list called List of 2011 protests? Peace, MPS (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea....most of the European protests WERE an "Indigents" event, just with kudos to an ally. Ericl (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Kona source

The source for the Kona protests is the same for the Hilo protests. http://www.bigislandvideonews.com/2011/10/04/video-hawaii-rallies-behind-occupy-wall-street/ If you read the article the first thing it states is, and I quote, "HILO & KONA, Hawaii", if you read it in depth you find that people in Kona "massed to sign wave in solidarity" (again quoted the article) as well. Now I must have done something wrong when I added this source because it was removed, so can someone add it in properly? - Zabuza825 (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

nevermind, found a different source that is a bit more clear. Delete this whole section if the mods/admins feel like it. - Zabuza825 (talk) 08:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed that source from Kona because there was much more about Hilo in the article. The new source you added for Kona looks great!Rachel librarian (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Blanking by Nabla

Nabla blanked most of this article that passed a deletion discussion, and meets WP:LISTS requirements. See this diff of his blanking. His edit summary was this: "remove links to city articles with moention of these non-notable (by themselves) events"

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of "Occupy" protest locations.

The topic is notable. All items on a list do not have to be notable. See WP:LISTS. Nabla is an admin. I left a note at User talk:Nabla and linked to this discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I have not blanked the page. I edited to contain the links to articles. That is not mandatory but is certainly not forbidden either.

Second, the topic being notable does not necessarily merit a list.

There is MacDonald's but no list of "Cities having a MacDonald's", there is Church_(building) but no list of "Cities having a Church", why?

Third, passing a AfD does not assert that all content should stay forever, only that the community thinks it is a legitimate article subject with enough decent information. It may (and should) be copyedited to be improved, as any article.

Fourth, I performed no administrative action, nor I have made no claim of special rights, neither have edited against any policy or guideline, as far as I am aware. So I do not get the relevance being an admin to the discussion

The article as is is of poor quality. Very good arguments for that come from the very editor that started it (see the first section in this page) - Nabla (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

PS: sorry for a couple spelling errors in the edit summary, it was to be: "remove links to city articles without mention of these non-notable (by themselves) events" - Nabla (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, it didn't pass a deletion discussion. That discussion was prematurely closed by a non-admin as "snow", despite the fact that there was at least one "delete" !vote and the fact that most "keep" votes didn't address policy at all (and hose that did, did that mostly wrongly; in addition that was a very hostile and uncooperative "discussion"). In 2 months, when all the brouhaha has died down, nobody will care any more if someone would take this to AfD again... WP is not Facebook or a newspaper, people... --Crusio (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is Nabla's version of the article. (oldid=455854397). He reduced it down to 20 cities, from the previous version of around 250 cities and 253 references. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• MUCH better than the current unencyclopedic laundry list, kudos to Nabla for the hard work. --Crusio (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. But forgetting it for a few months is probably the best for now. It is a pity though that WP (and WMF) allows itself to be (ab)used as webhosting. - Nabla (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Should most of the cities with protests (even with references) be deleted?

Nabla deleted most of the cities from the list. They were returned pending discussion of WP:LISTS. -- 18:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeshifter (talk • contribs)

• Unsourced information is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Find sources for any information you want to include. Hipocrite (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • All the cities are sourced, or have the {{fact}} tag added to them. If they are not soon referenced (WP:RS), then those cities are removed from the list. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Are the sources reliable? Hipocrite (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I will comment that the sources for the many cities I have entered are primarily local sources; local newspapers, local TV stations, patch etc. They may not be major media, but they are feet on the ground and the best sources in each of those areas. They have no agenda and are under far less propaganda control than the centralized, corporately owned media may have. I consider them highly reliable and will continue to do so until proven otherwise. Trackinfo (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• I see no problem with local news sources verifying that a protest existed at a certain location if it's not disputed. There may be a problem with how accurately they can estimate crowd numbers, or what constiutes a "protest" but that is another matter. Rich Farmbrough, 20:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC).
  

• In the case of an essentially local phenomenon like the Occupy Protests (local in the sense that new protests seem to pop up everyday in countries, towns, neighborhoods which are so small that you can't even find them on a map), local media sources would obviously be in the best position to cover them. I think the distinction between protests and occupations (sustained protests) is something that should eventually be given some thought, but for now I see absolutely no reason why we should not list every town which has held an Occupy Wall Street-inspired demonstration (subject to reliable sourcing, of course). In fact, from the perspective of objective Wikipedia editing, we would not be doing justice to this event if we deleted any sourced material at this point. On a side note, forgive me if this is innappropriate on a talk page, but can I just thank Timeshifter (whoever he/she is) for all the work he/she (and some others) has done for Wikipedia on this subject. Objective and fruitful additions, many thanks. Jocilar (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC) Jocilar (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. And thank you. :) Just another guy with a PC. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with the previous opinions. The "Occupy" movement and protests have become a world wide spectacle and local news should be the ones to cover such protesters in their geographic area. Now as for the reliability of those locations, that is another story. I have not looked into the various areas around where I live but it would not surprise me to find a blog that list all of the possible areas that are in use or can be used as an "Occupy" protest location. I also agree that we should not delete any of this information. We live in a nation that gives us the right to express our opinions openly and freely with out ridicule or punishment. This also extends to the free press and freedom of information. If a list of locations is presented, it should be treated with the same respect that we give to each other when expressing opinions. The list should not be deleted just because one or a few people believe it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwalk87 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Further note: As a guy who is sourcing a lot of these, there are a lot of Facebook, Twitter and self generated websites. There are enough people with access to technology, they can self reference. As far as establishing the existence of an event, these are by themselves less reliable. I haven't used them. But they serve as a path to find press in that area. Some areas do not refer to themselves based on the political location as much as some other regional euphemism. The new concept to address, I added some content about this, is where the Occupy is location fluid, instead following a target (Occupy Eric Cantor). Trackinfo (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with the views expressed above that local media citations are legitimate sources, provided of course, that they are reliable and independent of the subject. As stated earlier, what better source to cover the events in a particular geographic area than the local media of that area?--JayJasper (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• I see no harm from a long list with many {{fact}} tags. Searching for such references takes time, and at the same time readers are informed of the unverified material. And local news are absolutely legitimate sources for local events. On local occasions they are typically more accurate then the other sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

what are the criteria for inclusion

There is currently an AfD going on on this article... and one delete comment rightly asks "At its current state it is not an encyclopedic page. A loose list that will never be complete; also, what is the criteria for inclusion? Is a 7-man protest in Ayr, Queensland (population 8,000) to be included as well? The page does not state what the criteria for listing is, meaning that anyone can make non-notable additions, with an external link attached"... and so I ask... what are the criteria for inclusion... please comment below or we will keep revisiting this question until the cows come home Peace, MPS (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Only list deletionists ask this question until the cows come home. :)

For now the list criteria is any city that is participating. If that becomes a problem we can bring this question up again. See also Trackinfo's comment in the previous talk section concerning reliable sources. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

City? That is a word with different meanings in different places. Rich Farmbrough, 20:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC).

Tables

This article would really benefit from a table for each country as opposed to lists like the current format. I made an example with a portion of the United States protests:

State:	Cities:	Date protest began:	Number of protesters:	Reference:
Maryland	Baltimore	October 3, 2011	100-200
	Cumberland	October 8, 2011	3
Massachusetts	Amherst	October 5, 2011	24-36
	Boston (Occupy Boston)	September 30, 2011	10,000+
	Worcester	October 9, 2011	100

Obviously you could dispute the notability of the Cumberland and Amherst protests since them combined have less than 50 people participating, but this is an example of the table I could create for this article. Removal of cities and protests would obviously be dependent on later discussion, but using the information provided in the references in the article (and one I dug up for this example), this would be a better alternative for this article rather than lists of cities. 67.142.161.21 (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I like the table idea but am not sure about listing the number of protesters. Number of protesters can vary precipitously from day to day and even from moment to moment. Are we talking about average, median, or maximum number of protestors? Or some other benchmark? Also the number of protesters is not dispositive of notability. For example (to use an extreme example) if the U.S. President and the Pope were the only two protestors, it would be highly notable. Or, to use a real-world example, in Oakland, Scott Olsen became highly notable (I wouldn't recommend arguing against this if you recognize his name)Sngourd (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I like your format. Seeing the cities more clearly in the context of their state or nation helps show the geographic spread of the Occupy movement more clearly, especially on a regional basis. This makes the smaller protests more relevant, especially when there are many such protests in a state.

If you want to create such a table first on one of your user talk subpages, we could copy it here when it is finished. The list format is more intuitive to use at first while hundreds of people are adding cities and references. But now that additions have slowed down, I like the idea of a table. But it is a lot of work, and I am not volunteering to do the initial work. I can help maintain it though a little once it is finished.

I suggest using the reference format for the table used at 15 October 2011 global protests where all the reference details are at the bottom of the page in the references section (in alphabetical order). This makes the addition of more info to the table much easier, less messy, and much more intuitive. I also suggest titling the number column "largest number of people at a single event". --Timeshifter (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I've started the process of turning it into tables at Talk:List of "Occupy" protest locations/Table 2. If you want to move it table by table once each country is done, you can. Otherwise, it might take a couple days. 67.142.161.30 (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks good so far. I am afraid people might mix up the 2 reference methods if we don't wait until all the references are moved to the references section in alphabetical order. Also, we might want to tweak the chart some more before we start adding it region by region. I don't know about country by country.

I suggest a 'Notes' column also. There is some important info that needs to be there such as the Spanish 15-M Indignados roots of the events in Spain. I started a Notes column as an example. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they might. Guess we can wait until it goes into one format style for the references. I don't mind whatever you plan to put into the notes section, it's fine with me. Names of specific protests like Occupy Boston or whatever would be good for that too. 67.142.161.30 (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I moved the tables to User:Timeshifter/Table 2 after the first page got a speedy delete notice for being a talk page without a corresponding article page. It is a better location since now we have a talk page for the tables instead of using my main user talk page. I moved the discussion from User talk:Timeshifter to User talk:Timeshifter/Table 2. I also installed the Google Chrome browser to check browser compatibility. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Student occupation of Starbucks at Boğaziçi University in Turkey has occurred in Europe, not in Asia. Thus it should be listed under Europe instead of giving a citation as "See Asia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.242.208.254 (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Disputed title

My apologies to Pristino for labeling my reversion of his edit as Vandalism, that was a mistake as my page moves while loading and I clicked the wrong spot. I did deliberately undo his placement of the unnecessary tag referring to a disputed title of this article. The title is clear. His tag, which does deface the look of this article, said to visit the talk page, but he does not discuss a title dispute here. l On a fast moving, highly active, visible, newsworthy page, well over an hour after placing that defacement, still no talk. Start by explaining yourself here. Trackinfo (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Corner Brook

http://www.thewesternstar.com/News/Local/2011-10-24/article-2784507/Under-occupation%3B-Locals-form-Occupy-Corner-Brook-committees-to-establish-worldwide-movement%26rsquo%3Bs-presence/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.182.16 (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. — Moe ε 04:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Islamabad

Please some one should add about a small protest that took place in Pakistan's Islamabad, called as "Occupy Islamabad" that was against capitalism. HunterZone (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done by another editor. — Moe ε 04:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Totally wrong article

Most of the cities listed in this page don't be log at all to the Occupy movement, I may change most of the article as it is quite wrong... thank you. - Pencil (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

On what basis do you make that statement? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Many of the cities listed on this article have nothing to do with the Occupy movement, such as the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Greek, Chilean, etc ones. All these protests had been planned much before the Occupy movement kicked off, they have nothing to do with it. (see http://www.thereader.es/spain-news-stories/6592-Democracia-Real-Ya-movement-plans-worldwide-October-protest.html) - Pencil (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I added it as a reference. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

We know the Indignados movement, Rome protests, etc have started prior to the Occupy movement, and it's made clear in the introduction and by linking of their similar protests. However, even in Rome (provided in the reference in the article), they were part of the Occupy movement, even going as far as to chant "We are the 99%." The reference for Greece refers it as "Occupy Athens." They may started much earlier in another unrelated movement, however they were part of the October 15 protests and Occupy. I don't think the article needs to be cut of its content, but an article name change might be worth doing, to reflect that not only Occupy is involved. — Moe ε 23:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

They weren't part of the Occupy movement in Rome, that protest had been planned much before September 17, and the protest was called by the Indignados movement (May 15) in Italy along with trade unions (see how Italian media call it "indignati": http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica?query=indignati&view=repubblica&testata=&sortby=ddocdatetime&page=5). The Athens protest had been called by the Indignados movement too, called Direct Democracy Now (see http://real-democracy.gr/event/2011-10-05-15-oktobrioy-oloi-mazi). I suggest that we use this article just for the Occupy protests which are permanently camping, and we leave the October 15 one for all the demonstrations held on October 15. - Pencil (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone be opposed to the title of the article being "List of "Occupy" and 15 October 2011 protest locations"? It would satisfy what this article is really about. We shouldn't cut all of the international October 15, 2011 protests off of the "Occupy" list. The protests are interlinked as with the case of Occupy Melbourne which started October 15 under the Occupy name. — Moe ε 23:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good, but it should be single quotes. The Manual of Style does not prohibit single quotes in titles. Only a few editors think so. A way out of this, and it sounds better, is List of Occupy movement, and 15 October 2011, protests. "Locations" is not needed. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we could take out one of the "protests" as List of 15 October 2011 and Occupy movement protests. — Moe ε 00:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

How about this: List of Occupy movement, and 15 October 2011, protests. With or without the commas. Listing the date first might get people thinking it is only October 15 protests being listed. I don't know. Other ideas? --Timeshifter (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Without the commas looks perfect to me, as List of Occupy movement and 15 October 2011 protests. — Moe ε 00:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to change the name of the article. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Article is currently move protected, I'll ask an administrator. — Moe ε 00:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Many of the movements in Europe have rebranded themselves as "Occupy this or that" so there is no reason to screw around with this article. The current title is fine, just leave it as it is. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No editor other than 'Timeshifter' has opined that the MOS does not prohibit use of single quotes in this context. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The current title, ist of "Occupy" locations, is both concise and inclusive without being overly so. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

To Timeshifter: {{cite}}? I haven't found anything at WT:MOS. Most haven't stated an opinion on the issue, and two (including myself) have stated the opinion that MOS does ban single-quotes in text. WP:TITLE is silent on the issue, other than the implication that, unless there is a specific reason, the title should reflect would appear in text, which is clearly double-quotes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect again. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Cite again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved to List of Occupy movement protest locations. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

List of "Occupy" protest locations → List of Occupy movement and 15 October 2011 protests – Formal move request based on initial discussion above Talk:List_of_"Occupy"_protest_locations#Totally_wrong_article.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Please add Support or Oppose below...

• Support - As the article describes an intertwining relationship of the "Occupy" protests and the 15 October 2011 global protests, it seems only right that it be renamed this. The Occupy movement and the 15 October 2011 protests are indistinguishable in the sense of the many characteristics they share. Rome using the We are the 99% slogan, the Greece protests using the Occupy name, the Spanish Indignados supporting the Occupy movement calling for them to protest with them and the hoards of Occupy protests that have started on the date of October 15. This article already does and can contain both protests locations as one. — Moe ε 01:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Please quit screwing around with this article. Leave it as it is. The current title is fine. The protests in Spain, Portugal, etc., that someone else has proclaimed have nothing to with OWS have in fact rebranded themselves thusly. So knock it off. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. (I now prefer List of Occupy movement protest locations). Though now after reading the title again it may not be the clearest name. It is better than the current name, though. See also: Occupy movement | World news. The Guardian. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the current name. It is simple, concise, inclusive without being overly so and neither too exclusive or not exclusive. It is exactly descriptive of what the article purports to be, a list of Occupy locations, period. A list, that is all. A list with a reference for every single location listed because people kept trying to limit the list to make the event seem less significant. Given that the same people are in favor of the name change as were in trying to either abolish the article entirely or submerge it in another, I believe the current suggestion should be seen in that context. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Moe and I have been working on the list, and the table, and have no desire to "abolish the article entirely or submerge it in another." --Timeshifter (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as you can see at User:Timeshifter/Table 2 we have been working the past week on making this entire article into a table format, trying to reference when they began and how many there have been. However, the list does contain protests from the 15 October 2011 global protests, as does the 15 October 2011 global protests' lists of locations include Occupy protests. These are two separate protests, with very similar characteristics and similar days of assembling. If you would like to suggest a better name than the one we came up with, I am for suggestions, but simply calling it Occupy isn't the most accurate. — Moe ε 17:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Calling it Occupy (with or without quotes) is the most accurate which isn't confusing. I think we (Wikipedia) just need overlapping articles: List of Occupy movement protest locations (for those which clearly are part o the "Occupy" movement, or use the word "Occupy" in their name) and List of 15 October protest locations, for those which are clearly part of the 15 October movement, or do not use "Occupy" in their name). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no clear distinction in many cases. There is already an article for October 15. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Another suggestion. List of Occupy movement protest locations. As mentioned by Arthur Rubin. But I don't see the need to separate out all the October 15 events though. Some of the events are ongoing, belong here, and are clearly Occupy events. Some drew a mixture of Occupy and Indignados supporters no matter who organized the event. Trying to separate out the Indignados events is problematic. 15 October 2011 global protests is fine as is. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

  Seems reasonable; I was saying that if an event is part of the Occupy movement or uses the name "Occupy", it should be acceptable. I suppose that groups not obviously not part of the Occupy movement should be included, as well, as it is a "movement". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

  I have no personal preference to this article being titled List of Occupy movement protest locations, with or without quotations. My only concern is editors saying "this is part of the 15 October 2011 global protests, not the "Occupy" protests, and X should be removed." — Moe ε 21:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article is about what it is about. Renaming it or trying to reframe it, just like the inclusion of the indignant protests, is unnecessary and I suggest including POV. The "occupy" events are ongoing, not limited to October 15, though (as I have noted in many of my inclusions) began on October 15. Here we are barely two weeks later and we are trying to place a cap on when this is over? If we discover historically that October 15 was a limiting date, then we can create an article on that subject. If historically we discover there is a linkage to the indignant movement, we can establish it. At this time, that conjecture is forcibly defining an undefined series of events that is still currently developing. It is not our role to place that definition. Trackinfo (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll be more passive on the use of quotation marks. At this point in time, I think it is understood that Occupy is used as a noun. We do not yet know how history will regard these events. In its normal form, as a verb, the title is not grammatically correct. The quotation marks serve to frame the word to make that point clear. Trackinfo (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you misinterpret my intention on renaming the article. It was an attempt to make it all inclusive of both protests, since both are related to each other heavily, not limiting it to one protest. It is already established that the global protests of October 15 and the Occupy movement is related, albeit different. Many of the locations referenced and referred to as locations of the October 15 protests (including New York City) are listed on the 15 October 2011 global protests article as part of that protest. Likewise, many countries such as Rome and Madrid, part of their own related movements, are referenced as part of Occupy. This renaming was an attempt have both protests in the article name and both locations lists, as one. — Moe ε 06:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The current title covers both quite adequately. The October 15 global event is/was part of the Occupy protest. There is no need to change it. The change suggested is the equivalent of titling an article "List of World War II battles and the Battle of Normandy". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

By expanding the scope of the content, through renaming the title, this is in itself a POV. I've commented elsewhere, associating protest groups that do not use the word "Occupy" is someone conjecturing a relationship between those groups. OK, the date is a common issue--but it could be a separate issue. History may show a separation between other groups protesting on the same date, and the directly name related Occupy groups. I think including such unlinked groups, particularly the ones NOT IN the United States, overreaches the Occupy phenomenon. They might justify separate articles, rather than trying to artificially group them just to reduce wikipedia's article count. Trackinfo (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There are references citing that many of these outside the United States are part of Occupy. Greece, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and many, many others have adopted the Occupy name, There are quite a few exceptions to the international cities that don't specifically use the Occupy name. Rome would be one, as they specifically adopted the slogan We are the 99% in one of the references listed. The Guardian reference in the article also has a list of Occupy protests map visualization, which names lots of the international cities as being part of Occupy, with references outside their own as being part of Occupy. One reference in this article also says that the Occupy protests had arrived in Sao Paulo in Brazil, which does not use the Occupy name, but calls themselves part of the same movement on Wall Street, and that Amsterdam, London, Taipei, Paris, Tokyo, Stockholm, Rome and Sydney are all Occupy protests. One of the references of the Hispanic countries says that Occupy Wall Street is one of the Indignados protests. There is an official website which lists Occupy protests and lists Spain, Portugal among other Indignado protest participating cities as being Occupy protests. How do you sort all of this out whether they were there for Occupy or there for the October 15 protests? — Moe ε 09:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

And if that wasn't hard enough to figure out, the official website of Occupy has listed the 15-M Indignados as an Occupy protest. — Moe ε 10:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Groups, outside the United States that specifically call themselves Occupy are appropriate. We can certainly trust press accounts of that. But citing an "official" site for a group that has no leaders, no official spokesman and nothing "official" shows a misunderstanding of the (lack of) organization itself. Such a site is just the voice of one or maybe a handful of supporters, as are the local facebooks that coordinate local activities. As reporters, our job here is to identify the common elements, dates, names, we even conjecture a similarity of style. It might take time for these trends to establish themselves before we can say something specific was significant. Right now it is a current event. Before historians theorize on what happened here, as the world's internet encyclopedia, we run the risk of pre-defining what is not yet established. Trackinfo (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A move discussion can decide on a name different from the one originally proposed. Rather than emphasizing your opposition (which some people seem to get off on) what name are you for? I now like List of Occupy movement protest locations. It was proposed by someone else. A UK newspaper is using Occupy movement. See: Occupy movement | World news. The Guardian. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. I like that one too. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ditto Now that the main article has been changed to the Occupy movement, this is appropriate and makes sense. It solves the noun/verb conflict I mentioned above. I still do not support limiting or overreaching phrases like the date or including Indignants as part of this subject. Trackinfo (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. - Per the comments above I also prefer "List of Occupy movement protest locations", which matches up better with the article contents and the parent article.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.