Talk:Occupy Los Angeles

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Occupy Los Angeles article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Occupy Los Angeles. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Occupy Los Angeles at the Reference desk.

California: Los Angeles / Southern California

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force.
	This article is supported by Southern California task force.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

OWS (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject OWS, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.OWSWikipedia:WikiProject OWSTemplate:WikiProject OWSOWS articles

Media Response, Meighan's report[edit]

Patrick Meighan's report of the events of police action against Occupy LA represent a valuable primary source of information counterpointing the major media portrayal.

Wikipedia seeks to be NPOV, but the major media does not seek to counterpoint itself; even (allegedly) opposing-view biased news sources will mainly follow the common version of events. Often Wikipedia's NPOV goals are used as an argument to suppress counterpoint views, usually paired with notability or bias (especially conspiracy theory) claims. I make here in particular the argument that Wikipedia is automatically biased toward the mainstream view: if equal attention is given to two views on an issue, then the Wikipedia reader will find stronger affinity with the mainstream view as less information is given in the Wikipedia article.

In other words, a Wikipedia article that supplies a balanced coverage of an event will seem strongly slanted to mainstream view with one sentence coverage for each side, and almost completely balanced with two multi-paragraph sections equally covering both views. This is because of information saturation: everyone else supplies a large volume of information on one view, and the single sentences in Wikipedia are placeholders for these volumes of information. As one placeholder represents much more information than the other, it holds more weight.

To that end, I feel that the small bit of information I've injected overbalances Wikipedia significantly toward the counter view. There is a vague mention of the raids--with no coverage of media sentiment--and I've only put in information from Meighan's recount. The semi-informed and the uninformed will read this and gain the same bias as simply reading Meighan's recount.

Perhaps some editors should add a separate section about the raid on November 29, covering the media sentiment ("LAPD's Finest Hour") and Meighan's sentiment. Meighan is notable because he was there; his obvious bias is counterbalanced by the news media's obvious bias: their information came from police statements, not on-site news reporting or interviews with the protesters.

--John Moser (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook page[edit]

While I am sure the Facebook page is the official one, that is not why I removed the external link to it. Per WP:ELOFFICIAL:

"More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. Instead, provide only the main page of the official website in this situation." (emphasis added)

Because there is a prominent link on the official website to the Facebook page, there does not need to be an external link to it in this article. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rtnews template[edit]

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 ☏ 05:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Occupy Los Angeles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111127060234/http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-protest-westcoasttre7ap012-20111125,0,6620326.story to http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-protest-westcoasttre7ap012-20111125,0,6620326.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]