Revision as of 16:03, 27 September 2011 editMrwho00tm (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users865 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:26, 27 September 2011 edit undoFactchecker atyourservice (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,476 edits →Alleged excessive use of forceNext edit → | ||
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
A section of ''Alleged excessive use of force incidents'' has been deleted and some of it merged with other sections for no particular reason. We have many evidence for it, as much as we had in Libyan revolt, Tunisian revolution, Egyptian revolution, but in those articles it wasn't deleted. Explanation anyone? | A section of ''Alleged excessive use of force incidents'' has been deleted and some of it merged with other sections for no particular reason. We have many evidence for it, as much as we had in Libyan revolt, Tunisian revolution, Egyptian revolution, but in those articles it wasn't deleted. Explanation anyone? | ||
] (]) 16:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC) | ] (]) 16:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC) | ||
:Looks to me like the entire section was merged. I don't see that any text was deleted. The person who deleted the section heading left an edit summary that read, "section title is inherently pov", and since the section title was "Excessive use of force incidents", I'm inclined to agree. ] (]) 16:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:26, 27 September 2011
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Links with the 2011 Israeli social justice protests ?
The OWS movement is rather economic/social than related to civil rights as in the Arab spring. Any link with the Israeli social justice protests ? Yug (talk) 09:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Media and Social networking coverage.
There seems to be a common thread that the event is being carried by social networking but not in the Main Stream Media. Is it worth commenting on this or at least supplying any references to this issue? Lordandrei (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- A comment about the low mainstream media coverage should fit right in, I'd say. Nearly everywhere I go reading about OWS, there are people complaining about just that. (Then again, though, if it's true there are only a few hundred protesters, low media coverage doesn't seem so strange.) MattieRenard (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Granted it would seem better if there was a media report on the lack of media report to have something to cite rather than just attendees. Lordandrei (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
WSJ, The Atlantic, MSNBC, The Christian Science Monitor, Associated Press, bloomberg.com, Daily News (New York), ... resources
- Wall Street Protesters Plan to Stay Awhile by WSJ Staff September 19, 2011, 11:33 AM ET. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- The NYPD Is Arresting Wall Street Protesters for Wearing Masks by Adam Clark Estes
- Wall Street protest enters fourth day by John Schoen
- 7 protesters arrested at Wall St. demonstration BusinessWeek via AP September 20, 2011, 3:58PM ET
- Wall Street protests: On Day 3, seven arrests; Wall Street protests involve several hundred activists calling attention to links between financial firms and Congress. Organizers of Wall Street protests are posting videos of arrests AP/CSM September 20, 2011
- NYPD Arrest Seven More Wall Street Protesters by Charles Mead - Sep 20, 2011 6:04 PM ET
- Wall Street-area pizza shop rakes in dough from hungry protesters by Emily Sher, Erik Badia and Rocco Parascandola in NY Daily News; updated: Monday, September 19th 2011, 7:48 PM
97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Arrests reported 9/24/11
There are reports that between 50-100 protesters were arrested by the NYPD today, 9/24. My Google searches have come up with several mentions in marginal sources that will be difficult to call WP:RS... if the reports are true, this is a big jump in the number of total arrested to date. Anyone seeing a reliable source for this information? Jusdafax 22:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Article is updated, I see. Here is the New York Times article, for the record: Jusdafax 05:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- I see the NYT video of the 'pepperspray' incident is used as a ref. This article claims to identify the NYPD officer responsible, though I don't know if the website will stand as a reliable source. Jusdafax 17:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- A professional photographer, David Myles, has said on his blog that he was present and witnessed the 'pepperspraying' while photographing the event and later identified the officer in question from photographs as Deputy Inspector Bologna. Myles is also the source cited by the article on Common Dreams that Jusdafax referenced (above). Wouldn't it be reasonable to quote Myles with attribution, that ought to stand as a reliable source? - Elmarco 13:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Potential resource
Videos Show Police Using Pepper Spray at Protest on the Financial System by Joseph Goldstein in The New York Times September 25, 2011,page A22 in a print edition. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Incite?
Currently the article says Anonymous incited their followers to take part in OWS. While the word incite does mean to encourage or stir up, it carries a connotation of encouraging violent or illegal behavior (e.g., inciting a riot), and so far OWS is neither. I propose to say that Anonymous urged or encouraged their followers to participate. Comments? - Elmarco 13:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Alleged excessive use of force
A section of Alleged excessive use of force incidents has been deleted and some of it merged with other sections for no particular reason. We have many evidence for it, as much as we had in Libyan revolt, Tunisian revolution, Egyptian revolution, but in those articles it wasn't deleted. Explanation anyone? Mrwho00tm (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Looks to me like the entire section was merged. I don't see that any text was deleted. The person who deleted the section heading left an edit summary that read, "section title is inherently pov", and since the section title was "Excessive use of force incidents", I'm inclined to agree. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)