Talk:Occupy London/Archive 1

Archive 1

Use of '666' on St Paul's Cathedral -links to A4e Telephone Number

I know protesters got the blame for this act of vandalism, but was it actually partially daubed by Emma Harrison, director of A4e, in attempt to drum up business for her company amid allegations of 'poverty pimping'? The contact line number for A4e (http://www.mya4e.com/2012/02/23/ersa-responds-to-criticisms-levelled-at-a4e/) uses 0800 345666 - did she only have time to paint some of it before being stopped by law abiding protesters? When dealing with distressed people, its customary never to use '666' because of its connotations to religious types as 'the number of the beast'<http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast>); it appears it can trigger disturbed behaviour in christians who believe it is the mark of the Antichrist, and heralds the end of the world. I would have thougth DWP outsourcers given the responsibility of helping people with mental health problems (who have difficulties finding work with an honest CV) would have been sensitive to this - it appears to have been changed since the fraud allegations were made public - does anyone have a link to an archived page? Its rather an odd thing to do on a company website.

Will have a look. Many christian jobseekers have been distressed at having to phone A4e because of this, as it is forbidden to use the 'number of the beast' at all. It is also an encryption of the holy prophets name (see Wiki entry at <http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast>, and should therefore NEVER be used; likewise to some Futurist Christians, is a representation of the Papacy, and signals 'End Times'. <http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast#Futurist_view>): I'm sure the number has previously been banned from use by the UK government for this reason, but cannot remember when or by who. Why Emma Harrison used this insult to some religious groups is a mystery. I thought Cameron's government 'did God'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.217.124 (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

11 Further Arrests

Occupy activists claim some use of 'aggressive' force by police attempting to move them from area outside Bank of England Saturday 12 May 2012 23.47 BST http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/12/occupy-london-arrests-bank-of-england — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.98.129 (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Brian Haw and all that

The fact is, is that there's been an "occupy" movement in London for almost 20 years, shouldn't we mention that in the article?Ericl (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not related so I'd go with no, the Parliament square camp is protesting human rights abuses and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Occupy protests are directed at corporate influence. Other than the fact that they're both protests there's no way to link them in any meaningful way. Pongley (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Manifesto

Not sure it actually needs its own section, but I went ahead and summarized it. I think if the manifesto is left in word for word, it might be a bit point-of-viewy. I used quotes around some unique phrases that were used in the manifesto, but that may make it look like "scare quotes" (not my intent), but it was the best I could think of. And lastly, I'm a Yank, so sorry about any misspellings in the summary. 107.10.43.91 (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

1 in 10

I added the fact that one in ten tents are empty at night, this is sourced to the telegraph which is a reliable source, please discuss before removing it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Telegraph can be relied on to be wrong: [1]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As no doubt the guardian is infallible? So are the BBC and Sky News also "wrong"? after all, they reported the same thing. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Links please. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Already in the article, references 35 and 36 I believe. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Since the BBC stated that "Police in London say thermal imaging cameras show most of the 142 tents outside St Paul's were not used overnight" (Sky said much the same), yet the Telegraph claim to have filmed the tents themselves, and the Met Police have stated they were not the source for the Telegraph, this is demonstrably false.

Meanwhile, from the New Statesman: 'Occupy London "empty tents" claim exposed as bogus' [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Since the Telegraph had the filming done themselves then why would they need a source from the police? Has the BBC corrected the story? Or Sky? And of course the hippys have admited as much which you already know from the RSN board. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

External links?

Please read WP:LINKSTOAVOID before adding external links to self published sites or blogs. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Backed by UK uncut

The lead of the article says that "The Occupy London protests are backed by the tax avoidance protest group UK Uncut". Though it may be true, I don't think it is relevant enough to be mentioned in the opening. This protest is not organised by a specific group or organisation, though it's backed and endorsed by many. Perhaps we could add a section to mention the persons and organisations who are supporting it? --386-DX (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

A section is fine, if there is extra info to be added apart from that short sentence. Which other groups and organisations should be included in your view.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Initial statement

There have been comments regarding the inclusion of this statement and presenting a neutral point of view. Quotations, where correctly attributed, can be an important aspect of articles. What would be desirable here is a counter statement from government and/or the banks. Has such a statement been made and reported? -- Trevj (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC) How's this for a start? I'd suggest his statement be summarised if it can be replaced by an "official" response. -- Trevj (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted - again - the addition of the text which quotes a single member of the public. It is a fragrant breach of WP:UNDUE and reads almost like a joke. I support the addition of a proper and serious 'reactions' section, which should include references to responses of senior politicans, established media outlets and commentators etc, not quotes from individual members of the public. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest not reverting again but leaving other editors a chance to review the 'Reaction' section. As initially explained above, this section was added in response to previous removals of the "Initial statement", per WP:NPOV. -- Trevj (talk) 07:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not the idea of a section, but the bizarre content which you are trying to add to it. The quote from a single member of the public has now been removed three times, and for very good reasons. Please do not add it again until you are able to gain a consensus for it here. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned by User:107.10.43.91 above in #Manifesto, inclusion of the entire statement could be viewed as giving undue weight, use as a soapbox and/or not offering a neutral point of view. However, as I stated above, I believe that such a fundamental quotation has its place in this article. Therefore, a reasonable solution would seem to be to balance the statement with a response. Not doing so will only encourage further removal (and likely reinstatement) of the statement by editors. I've just had another search and haven't turned up any counter reactions. (Do such responses exist from government/business/right-wing commentators?) In fact, my search only turned up a sympathetic view from a cabinet member! Including this statement right now may instigate further disputes, so I shan't do so.

I understand that there seems to be no problem with the existence of the section, but the issue is what to put in it! The Miliband statement which I moved sits on the fence, so that's fine. But in order to improve the validity of the article, I feel that counter-arguments are necessary. The only one I've found is that one, which I've reincluded. Maybe I'm missing an obvious response by a notable person, but I feel the comment to be neither "absurdly selective"[3], [4] nor "drivel"[5] nor "bizarre". Yes, it's a quote from a single member of the public - but it's been reported in a reliable source and not simply lifted from a comments board or similar. Does anyone know of a response from someone notable? If so, please include it, per WP:NPOV!

It would be in the spirit of Wikipedia to not remove the statement again until other editors are given ample time to contribute to achieving consensus for its removal (or otherwise) here. (Sorry for the lengthy response and thanks for reading.) -- Trevj (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are desperate to include negative reactions in the section, refer to one of the many highly negative pieces which have been in the likes of the Daily Mail or Telegraph, and which are easily located online. Once again, a quotation from a single unknown member of the public, where both the quotation and the individual are non-notable, is not the approach followed in sections like this. Wikipedia is not like the BBC television news (and many others), where they show soundbites from a couple of members of the public on an issue in a supposed reflection of public opinion. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

e.g. this one by Janet Daley [6] (in my view it's a garbage piece, but I have no problem with it getting a brief mention in the article).Rangoon11 (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not that I'm "desperate to include negative reactions" but is more the case that Negative criticism of a topic is acceptable material, and should be included in this encyclopedia [...] IMO The Daily Mail will be a last resort, and the Janet Daley piece helpfully referred to doesn't specifically respond to the London group's statement but the New York branch (in the final paragraph). As for BRD, WP:BRD-NOT states The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD. Inclusion of the statement is made per WP:NPOV and its reinclusion per WP:OWN. -- Trevj (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that a quote from a single random member of the public is wholly undue, it infers some wider representation which is completely subjective. Referring to a known commentator, or a politican, it is clear to readers that the views are theirs and theirs alone, and that they will be reflecting their personal agenda/opinion/interests etc. Selecting a member of the public is misleading, it infers that their views might in some way be representative of members of the public. For this reason such quotes are not used in Wikipedia. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The undue guideline says "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Grim²³★ 01:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Now we have a third opinion I'm less inclined to continue and progress into a pointless edit war. Regarding WP:UNDUE, I think it highly unlikely that this member of the public's quoted opinion could be classed as a "tiny minority". The comment was hardly "selected" in order to be "misleading": it was the only comment I found - initially within the included references, and later within a wider search. Janet Daley's comments could be included, but they're not a specific counter-argument to the London group's statement. I'm not planning any further reverts/reinclusions in the near future and would welcome further discussion of the issues by other editors. -- Trevj (talk) 06:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Im in agreement with Trevj on this issue. Im very interested in occupy and have been talking to a wide cross section of Londoners to gauge opinion - close to half the public seem to have, at best, mixed feelings about the camps. If anything the quote is quite tame compared to what much of the public thinks. I have a number of very positive events that need to be included ( Radio Head and Massive attack performing for free at one of their Christmas parties, Caroline Green in talks with occupy, the CEO of the FSA meeting them etc). I will add back the quote to help balance out the positive incidents. I also agree with Rangoon and Grim that criticism from high profile figures would be much better, but untill we can find that the quote is at least something... FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thousands

There needs clarity about the 'numbers', right now it's hugely misleading. There might not even be hundreds left, certainly isn't thousands. Some distinction between the biggest daily attendance and the few dozen still hanging around? 92.16.115.235 (talk) 11:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I updated to show that applies just to Oct & Nov. There's still close to a thousand active London occupiers (inluding part timers) but many of them are now on missions rather than statically sitting around in the camps. We can be more specific about this in the article once good sources become available. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:00, 15 January 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 ☏ 03:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The 2014 London Protests: under-reporting of police over-reaction

As far as the 2014 Hong Kong Protest are concern, the MSM report almost any police reaction - no matter how minor. And yet, outside the British House of Commons, the police over-reaction goes under-reported. Could Wikipedia address this imbalance? 92.24.230.100 (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an entity. It does not address" things. It is put together by volunteers (like you) who contribute their time and effort. However we have rules to follow. We can report what is reported in the media. Find news coverage from Reliable sources and post what they say on the subject. If someone is reporting the issue, we can report it here, and you can do all the work Try to write from a neutral point of view, but you can get the point of view covered by the quotes the media use from the people on the scene. Trackinfo (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That said, could not Wikipedia reflect a greater level of balance when it is reporting protests closer-to-homes? Sometimes it appears that UK/US over-reaction to protesters are played down. For how many times have Wikipedia had to defend against comments that it has a pro-Western point-of-view? 78.147.86.53 (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)