Talk:99 Percent Declaration: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:23, 4 November 2011 editDualus (talk \| contribs)2,472 edits →Talk page section blanking: replace per WP:TALK ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:05, 25 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,868,619 editsm →top: -misplaced {{WPBSTag: AWB
(502 intermediate revisions by 47 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Talk header}}		{{Talk header\|search=yes}}
			{{Afd-merged-from\|Continental Congress 2.0\|Continental Congress 2.0\|07 September 2013}}
	{{WPB\|1=
			{{Old XfD multi\| date = 2 November 2011 (UTC) \| result = '''keep''' \| page = 99 Percent Declaration }}
	{{WikiProject Human rights \|class=Stub \|importance= }}
			{{Old XfD multi\| date = 24 January 2012 (UTC) \| result = '''keep''' \| page = 99 Percent Declaration (2nd nomination) }}
	{{WikiProject National Archives \|class=Stub \|importance= }}
	{{WikiProject ~~New York City~~ \|class=~~Stub~~ \|~~importance= }}~~		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=Start\|
	{{WikiProject ~~Philadelphia \|class=Stub~~ \|importance= }}		{{WikiProject OWS \|importance=low}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Politics \|class=Stub~~ \|importance= }}		{{WikiProject Human rights\|importance=low}}
	{{WikiProject ~~United States \|class=Stub~~ \|importance= ~~\|USGov=Yes \|USGov-importance=~~ }}		{{WikiProject National Archives\|importance=low}}
	{{WikiProject ~~United~~ ~~States History \|class=Stub~~ \|importance= }}		{{WikiProject New York City\|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject Philadelphia\|importance=low}}
	{{WikiProject United States Public Policy \|class=Stub \| importance= \| comprehensiveness= \| sourcing= \| neutrality= \| readability= \| formatting= \| illustrations= }}
			{{WikiProject Politics\|importance=mid \|American=yes}}
			{{WikiProject United States\|importance=low\|USGov=yes\|USGov-importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject United States History\|importance=low}}
	}}		}}
	{{UScur\|date=November 2011}}		{{UScur\|date=November 2011}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
			\|counter = 3
			\|minthreadsleft = 4
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 2
			\|algo = old(60d)
			\|archive = Talk:99 Percent Declaration/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes
			}}

	== ~~Notability~~ ==		== "Official OWS groups" ==
	Per ], the document has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the site itself including such works as are listed in many of the article's references. ] (]) 00:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

	:The draft was moved to ] as the article still does not appear to be independently notable of Occupy Wallstreet. If you believe otherwise, please prove sources that meet ] to demonstrate independent notability. --] (]) 00:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

	::"Wall Street" is two words. Why do you say that it is not independently notable? The following non-trivial published works are independent of the site itself, and most of them meet the reliable source criteria for ]s:
	::# Walsh, J. (October 20, 2011) ''Salon''
	::# Kennedy, A.L. (October 22, 2011) ''Williamsburg Yorktown Daily''
	::# Duda, C. (October 19, 2011) ''Juvenile Justice Information Exchange''
	::# Lopez, L. (October 19, 2011) ''Business Insider''
	::# Haack, D. (October 24, 2011) ''The Guardian''
	::# Kingkade, T. (October 18, 2011) ''Huffington Post''
	::# Lefcourt, D. (October 21, 2011) ''Op-ed news''
	::# Benn, J. (October 20, 2011) ''Collegian''
	::# Moore, T. (October 25, 2011) ''Cornell Sun''
	::Are there any reasons to believe otherwise? ] (]) 01:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

	* '''Comment:''' Does not meet ]. --] (]) 02:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
	::Why not? You didn't respond for over an hour to my question above. You did try to canvass someone with whom you have had no interactions independent of me and try to delete questions concerning this article from your talk page. Do you believe your actions are trying to improve the encyclopedia, or are you attempting to be retributive because of your opinion of my opinions? ] (]) 02:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

	== LOL ==

	I got a kick out of and I predict most editors will too. ] (]) 10:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

	Has anyone noticed that the text of has been changing? ] (]) 23:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

	==Comment==
	Irrespective of the question of notability, I'd warn that this page is probably full of OR and source misrepresentation; the creator, Dualus, does not understand ] and seems to have created this page in response to having the same material rejected for OR, source misrepresentation, and POV push at ]. He's also inserted some of the exact same material (regarding Lessig) into the articles on ], ], and ], apparently because there aren't many editors watching those pages for policy violations. ] ] ] 12:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
	:There are at least three people in the talk page archives who expressed support for each of the contested inclusions, as far as I know. What are your interests in this article? ] (]) 18:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
	::Nobody expressed support for any inclusion despite weeks of filibustering by you. Diffs or it never happened. And even if there was a momentary peep of support from someone who wasn't otherwise participating in the discussion, your proposed text was overwhelmingly rejected for the reasons I mentioned above. ] ] ] 20:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
	:::I will try to list the diffs over the next week or two. ] (]) 23:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

	This reminds me to add . ] (]) 17:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

	== Suggested grievance 2: constitutional amendment filed ==

	came across my browser yesterday. ] (]) 17:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

	== Suggested grievance 19: electoral college reform ==
	Are there any objections to using ] as the example for ] in commentary on grievance 19? I will see if any of the sources have noticed the connection. ] (]) 18:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

	== Mortgage reform ==
	is pertinent to grievance 17 and possibly 18, providing a Republican (GOP) perspective. . ] (]) 04:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

	== Archived OWS talk page sections ==

	These are from :

	=== resource? ===

	10.27.11 11:15 am ] by Yael Chanoff
	] (]) 05:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

	:Not for this article. There is an ] Misplaced Pages article.--] (]) 05:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

	:I think it's important enough to include. If you get enough protesters, the police can't afford to do anything about it. That's important to know. It seems to be related to about 1m00s of the http://vimeo.com/30778727 video someone else wanted to include. How do people feel about the both of them together, as co-sources? ] (]) 00:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

	Interesting. Not related to the article subject. User submitted video contains copyright material and cannot be used on Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 05:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

	=== 501(c)3 ===

	I deleted this from the intro. Can anyone verify it?

	: In late October, Occupy Wall Street registered for 501(c)(3) status, with the ], a D.C.-based grassroots organization, serving as the movement's fiscal sponsor."(ref>"Money Donated To Occupy Wall Street Brings Much Needed Supplies And Tension" by Lila Shapiro. ''The Huffington Post''. October 24, 2011.</ref>

	It's but per the reliable source criteria, we would need corroboration if something like that goes in the intro. ] (]) 00:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

	:I can't find anything else about it. ] 00:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
	::I'm guessing it's probably a prank; just something some smart-ass said to a reporter. We have reliable sources saying the protesters are encouraging that sort of thing, which doesn't make it any easier to edit this article. ] (]) 00:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

	=== Source for growth caused by income equality ===

	The ] recently published The ] in its is particularly instructive. Someone should add that to the article. In the "Background" section? ] (]) 00:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
	:Do we get to add IMF graphics per copyright? ] 00:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
	::I think so. I'll check on that. We certainly get to include their images per fair use/] and ].
	::This is related to , , and which others have asked be included above. ] (]) 01:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
	::: ] (]) 02:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

	:Aaaaaaaaaaaand it looks like we get to put this info in the article, ] ] 00:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
	::: Thanks! ] (]) 01:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
	:::: Nope. The article does not. Kristoff's opinion piece, already a mark against making it a RS, argues that OWS's feeling of inequality is justified. He then uses the IMF report to show why he agrees with OWS. That's it, folks. There is no reporting - a rare thing in opinion pieces anyhow - of OWS acknowledging the IMF report in any way. Hence no real connection. The editors are trying to use synthesis in this case, and really need to get with the program: we are not a soapbox. ] (]) 02:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
	:: You may think we doubt the truth of that; I don't, but it's synthesis to rely on these sources. Where are the secondary sources that connect the facts to OWS? ] (]) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
	:::The ones posted above -or at least the one I posted- are ] linking the IMF article to OWS. ] 01:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

	::::And I would draw attention to which others including myself do not agree with. There may be portions of that revert which took out questionable material, but it's not appropriate to revert wholesale when some of the changes were well-sourced. ] 01:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

	Please note . ] 01:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
	: I've reinserted it. Blanking entire well-sourced sections is not appropriate, especially when it's derectly pertinent to the topic. ] (]) 02:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
	::Yeah, that's why I reported it. Thanks (: ] 02:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


	Be Critical did some forum shopping to settle a content dispute. Besides being slapped down for using the wrong forum, he didn't get all that : '''You're relying on primary sources outside the topic. Start with the OWS secondary sources you are using first and then show how the secondary sources tie directly into the primary ones. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
	Sourced material only goes into the article if there is a consensus that it is relevant and correctly weighted. The fact that it is sourced is a necessary criteria for inclusion, but not a sufficient one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)''' ] (]) 03:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

	:I agree that someone needs to create ] and ] if they have not been created already, or at least have them redirect to an appropriate section of an existing article. ] (]) 03:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
	::Anonymous has a misunderstanding of OR and SYNTH. I'll explain it once, but I'm not sure that will be enough: When reliable secondary source 1 makes it clear that certain information in reliable source 2 is relevant to the subject of the article, one can use the second source. At any rate, the sources used in the removed text discuss the subject of this article and directly related issues, and they are RS for this article. In addition, if multiple sources support the same text, and you feel one is RS and one is not, that's not reason to remove the text. Please stop taking out this extremely well sourced material. ] 03:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
	::: That is oblique. Is "reliable secondary source 12" the Kristoff article? (An opinion piece, not a RS in any case expect to say something like "Kristoff agrees with OWS because...") That stool is on two legs. If not, then what the hell is it number 1? ] (]) 03:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

	::::Can you please be specific about your objections? This is one source . ] 04:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
	::::: Geez, would "you please be specific" and throw a dog a bone? What is behind the door labeled "reliable secondary source 1"? And what is it supposed to make clear, beyond the ever so vague "certain information"? I'm done guessing. I imagine I'll then need to repeat a well explained objection. ] (]) 04:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
	::::::I just told you one of the sources. Read post above. ] 04:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
	::::::: If you could be so helpful so I could know what you were talking about, you would get an answer. ] (]) 04:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
	:::::::: If it's Kristofff, boy is that lame. Read my above trouncing of that one and pick it up from there. ] (]) 04:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

	=== Stats in the lead ===

	The statistics

	{{quotation\|The participants' slogan "]" refers to ] between the wealthiest 1% which controls about 40% of the total wealth of the country, and the rest of the population. }}

	Keep getting edited out. I've inserted the information in the body of the article now, and I think this statistic is absolutely central to the movement. So I'm not sure why others don't think it should go in the lead. ]
	:I think it was removed unintentionally the last time; I restored it.--'''~]]]''' 02:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
	::Um, you did? Oh, you did once, then it was taken out . ] 02:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
	:::That was fast. I support keeping it in.--'''~]]]''' 02:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
	:::: The forty percent is TMI - read too wonkish - for the lead, and without a link showing OWS working the 40% ratio as much as 99%, this is ]. Which is probably the case, when I googled "occupy wall street 40%" I found how "absolutely central" the statistic is not to the movement. ] (]) 02:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
	:::::The 40% isn't original research - it's how much the 1% owns. All that number does is clarify what "the 99%" is referring to, in a way that the lead doesn't now.--'''~]]]''' 02:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
	:::: Until you have refs showing a high profile connection for OWS and that stat, like them really using it a lot and vocally, it doesn't matter that it is true, it's not that connected to OWS. ] (]) 02:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

	:::::It's connected in the same way that fruit is connected to a banana. If you mention that X likes bananas, and people might not know that bananas are fruit, you might mention the fact. The 40% is just as high profile as the 99% and 1%. Now, that's the logic, but the refs also fully support it, for example: and It's basic background which should be mentioned the first time we mention the "99%," in order that people can understand what they're reading. ] 03:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
	::::::: This is too good to let it slide on by, especially since it demolishes any idea of 40% being notable for the lead: " It's basic background". ] (]) 04:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
	:::::: That would be a classic case of OR through synthesis. Can you show that OWS is aware of this fact and has made a big deal of it? If no, then we can't either. ] (]) 03:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
	:::::::I just did show that. However, it's the share of growth that may be more emphasized. If you prefer that statistic it can be inserted. ] 04:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
	:::::::: We'll keep "basic backround" out of the lead, all the same. That's why it's called the lead. Now, when you can show not OWS putting the 40% figure out there - you know, in the foreground - then we can talk. ] (]) 05:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
	:::::::::Stop the officious tone. You and I both know that this is a basic statistic. Now, it may be that sources favor ''income growth inequality,'' over percentage of wealth, but that's a tweak. I'll get to the sources tomorrow when I have more time. And we will include it in the lead, since the lead summarizes the most important points of the article, and this is in fact the most important point as it's the motivation for the movement. ] 05:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
	{{od}} If you're done barking orders... I indeed know it's a basic statistic - of the background variety, as it were and as you pointed out. Good luck with finding the sources, the one you've come up with so far just didn't cut it. 05:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
	:Thanks (: ] 06:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

	Per the background section, I propose text something like this for the lead:

	{{quotation\|The participants' slogan "]" refers to the ] between the wealthiest 1% whose incomes have increased by 275% since 1979, and the bottom 90% whose incomes have shrunk.}}

	Any objections or suggestions? ] 17:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

	:I prefer:
	:: The protesters' slogan "]," refers to ] between the wealthiest 1%, who control about 40% of the total wealth of the country and whose incomes have increased by 275% since 1979, and the bottom 90% whose inflation-adjusted incomes have declined.
	:How is that? ] (]) 23:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
	::Better, thanks. ] 23:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
	I'm sure this is true, but without secondary sources showing that these facts are very well known and play a large part in OWS's interior dialogues, it's TMI for the lead and the background section. ] (]) 00:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
	:::This is a matter of encyclopedic terminology. I have copy edited further for more neutral phrasing.--] (]) 06:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

	=== Progressive stack ===
	:''Note: this and subsequent items are from different sections of the talk page archives.''

	replaces a more or less reliable blog post with a Fox News report obviously copied from the Misplaced Pages article. ] ] 17:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
	:I'm not sure what you are trying to say. What exactly do you mean by saying the blog post is "more or less reliable", and why do you say the Fox piece is "obviously copied from the Misplaced Pages article"? And are you suggesting that the blog post is somehow a ''more reliable'' source than the Fox piece that quotes it?

	:Perhaps also take a look at on this topic. ] ] ] 17:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
	Also, I have images of the hand gestures used in the General Assembly, from the pdf file at . No copyright information on them, but fair use I think. Any thoughts? ] ] 17:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

	:I'd be especially interested in seeing a piece discussing the methods used to "count" all the jazz hands, if in fact an effort is made to do this. ] ] ] 17:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
	::I think you have to be doing the talking to appreciate the effect of ]. ] ] 19:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)



	=== Which mutual funds invest most and least closely in the protesters' goals? ===

	I was looking through http://www.afscme.org/news/press-room/press-releases/2010/barclays-northern-state-street-and-vanguard-top-list-of-mutual-funds-enabling-excessive-ceo-pay and it occurred to me that I have no idea where to find a list of mutual funds targeting investments from the protesters. It's the financial district. Do any of the financial conglomerates offer a mixed and balanced socially responsible credit union fund to try to get customers off the rebound from http://moveyourmoneyproject.org/? Is anyone else offering socially responsible investments specifically tailored to the ]? ] (]) 01:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

	<small>Vaguely related, ] (]) 03:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)</small>

	:You seem to be inviting , or else offering to perform some yourself. Please avoid manufacturing topics that you believe should be of interest to OWS protesters. That is not the kind of material that goes in a WP article. ] ] ] 15:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
	::] requires that we cover both sides of controversies. I am trying to find funds both for and against the protester's goals. Why is that not completely appropriate for a movement based in the financial district? ] (]) 16:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
	:::WP NPOV doesn't require you to manufacture a topic and then cover "both sides" of it, or whatever the hell it is you think you're doing. Actually NOR forbids you from manufacturing a topic in the first place. As I said, that's not the kind of material that goes in WP articles. Period. ] ] ] 16:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
	::::Are you saying I'm manufacturing the ''afscme.org'' story cited above? Or am I looking for a neutral way to include it? ] (]) 17:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
	:::::It can never be included. You need some RS's to make the case for the connection. Since the article is from 2010, the article itself cannot make the connection, only you can (]). ] (]) 18:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
	::::::FYI, you're talking into a black hole of rationality. All logic that is fed into it is never seen again. ] ] ] 18:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

	=== Photo for week 5 ===

	] at Occupy Wall Street demonstration held at Times Square New York on October 15, 2011. <ref></ref> Photo by Ben Furnas.]]

	I thought this photo might be suitable for ]. The photo itself, subject, and quote have all become notable. See ]. Here's a link to the reference in the photo.

	Any seconds for including it?--] (]) 21:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

			I a {{tl\|clarify}} tag to the assertion that "the group and document have been rejected by official OWS groups" not because I wasn't certain which OWS groups it refers to (that is further down) but because I wasn't sure about the assertion that these groups were "official" (while the group responsible for the 99% Declaration is/was presumably "unofficial"). In retrospect, {{tl\|clarify}} was probably the wrong tag and I should've ] removed the problematic word and replaced it with "other". I'm going to do that now. – ] (]) 15:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
	:I'd oppose it, too much of a ] for the quote. The article is a record of the protest, not publicity for the protests or their messages. ] (]) 22:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
	::Better?--] (]) 22:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

			:Thanks for the discussion. The other groups referred to in the article are widely understood to be the official groups representing Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Philadelphia. I've reverted your bold edit. ] ] ] 16:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
	:::The photo is the problem, not the caption. ] (]) 22:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
	:::~~:Is~~ ~~the~~ ~~concern~~ ~~the~~ ~~message~~ ~~that~~ is ~~visible~~ in ~~the~~ ~~sign~~ or ~~something~~ ~~else~~?--] (]) 22:29, 29 ~~October~~ ~~2011~~ (UTC)		::In which case, I'll request clarification here: what does it mean to be an "official group"? Have ] used that terminology? – ] (]) 21:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

			:::I believe there are many sources that would substantiate that this specific terminology is used to describe the groups in question, but I have changed the prose to address your concern and will leave it that way until I find such sources. ] ] ] 19:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
	:::::The photo is the sign. Basically, if we want to include text, we should include text. Photos of text are just silly. ] (]) 23:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
	::::::Perhaps, but here is what Forbes Magazine had to say about the photo So there certainly is a reliable source indicating that the image is more than merely a picture of words.--] (]) 13:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
	:::::::That link doesn't work. Honestly, the "week by week coverage" is kind of dubious anyway, per ], ], and a couple of other policies. If we're going to have six weeks, OK, but if we go into twenty weeks, we're going to have to start condensing some of that so having an image gallery is problematic. ] (]) 17:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
	::::::::Link should work now. Not sure what the problem was. Regarding the week by week coverage, I agree, if too many weeks go by we will have to come up with a different structure and no doubt we will have to weed images at that time.--] (]) 18:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
	:Please include per ]. ] (]) 22:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
	::Why include this? Seems very much pushing the point of view of the protester and is in no way encyclopedic or neutral. Thoughts Dualus?--] (]) 05:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
	:::It's better for the Timeline article. There should be some bit about the journalists being fired as a significant moment, along with the photo. --<font color="336699" size="2" face="comic sans ms">David</font> ''']''' 17:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
	::::Good idea. I posted a similar query on the Timeline talk page. And also good idea on the journalist firings. Let me draft something up and we can put below for vetting--] (]) 18:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
	::::I find the protester's English composition skills and focus notable. I think this should be in the main article. ] (]) 21:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
	:::::Please explain in detail how her "English composition skills and focus" apply to Misplaced Pages guidelines for notability. It may be significant to her that she was fired and may be notable for the time line but would be undue weight to the article as being "sensational" and attempting to create more than an employee being terminated for cause. Since this deals with subjects of ethics, and a living person, this will probably be a BLP concern.--] (]) 08:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
	::::::For the record, she was quoting someone else. And I did put it in ] so there is no rush here.--] (]) 10:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

			== Complaint ==
	{{od}} '''"I find the protester's English composition skills and focus notable"''' is a comment which illustrates the very problematic editing, including the tendency to bog the Talk page down with utterly irrelevant considerations, that we're seeing at this page. ] ] ] 15:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
	:What are the reasons to the contrary? It is easy to find stories about her, especially with image search. ] (]) 16:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
	::Notability has '''nothing whatsoever to do with your opinion'''. And generally speaking, notability never has anything to do with ''anyone's'' opinion about anybody else's "English composition skills and focus". In short, your previous comment is utterly irrelevant to this article and fairly nonsensical. ] ] ] 16:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
	:::This is not about my opinion. Several news outlets have found the person, sign, and events surrounding both notable. Have you tried searching? ] (]) 17:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
	::::All you've talked about here is your opinion, which once again is irrelevant. Bring up something relevant, and we can discuss that. ] ] ] 19:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
	:::::How about ? ] (]) 10:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
	::::::What about it? Do you think everyone who's had a blog entry written about them gets on Misplaced Pages? If there are arguments to be made in favor of inclusion, you need to actually ''make'' those arguments. ] ] ] 12:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
	:::::::How about ? Worthy of inclusion with the photo? ] (]) 12:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

			This article has many factual errors and is out of date. The 99D has not called for a National General Assembly for months. It calls for a new Continental Congress. It does not report the election of delegates as reported on the AP nor does it tell anyone what will happen in Philadelphia. Every time I try to update the article and correct all the factual errors someone erases the changes. What's the point of Misplaced Pages if everything in the article is wrong and you can see it is wrong by just going to the group's webpage. At least put the AP story in: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_20839169/787-elected-occupy-conference-philly
	==Clean up references==

			Here is the text of the document. Maybe you will actually read the document to make some corrections. I don't care but all these errors make Wiki look foolish especially when people read the AP articles and then go to Misplaced Pages
	What are the most urgent needs for article clean up? {{tl\|refimprove}}? ] (]) 22:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

			{\| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"
	It has been suggested on the AfD page for this article that we clean up the references on the current page. Anyone else interested in joining in? My thought is to first identify references that aren't suitable, post them here, see if we can find alternate suitable references, and then replace. Sound good?--] (]) 22:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
			! Supposed text of declaration according to IP 98.15.175.134
	:Yes. ] (]) 00:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
			\|-
	Thanks to Laura for pointing to the best places to add sources. ] (]) 03:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
			\| WHEREAS THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT:

			Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
	''Consider the Evidence''</ref>]]
	:Well, since a moderator wasn't called for, I thought I would get started. I'll try to find reliable secondary sources to replace primary source and private blog I deleted.--] (]) 00:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
	::I'm fairly sure ] is based on reliable sources, but that doesn't matter because of ] which allows original research in illustrations. ] (]) 00:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
	:::Perhaps, but my real concern is that I don't think the graph really adds anything to the article. If we really do need a graph, there are lots over at ]--] (]) 01:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

			BE IT RESOLVED THAT WE, THE PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in order to form a more perfect Union, by, for and of the People, shall elect citizen Delegates between June 1-7, 2012 to attend and convene a NEW CONTINENTAL CONGRESS the week of July 4, 2012 in the City Of Philadelphia. The Delegates shall then deliberate, draft and ratify a PETITION FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES to be served upon the United States Congress, Supreme Court and President, prior to November 6, 2012.
	== Section blanking ==

			The People through these non-partisan locally elected Delegates shall gather to condemn and demand redress from the individuals currently in control of the United States government. We denounce and indict these entrenched public officials and lobbyists who engage in all manner of corrupt practices for money; for violating the public's trust and general welfare clause of the United States Constitution; for abandoning the precious covenant between those who govern with the consent of the People based upon an oath to protect and defend our Constitution; and for failing to govern with integrity absent all self-serving conflicts of interest.
	I noticed without being discussed here on talk. I generally reserve the right to revert such deletions when there is no indication that excerpted material isn't valid as ], or if several sources are removed, or there are no specific issues which would tend to support deletion. The suggestion to replace in summary style was spot-on. ] (]) 04:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

			Wherefore, a new Continental Congress for the 21st century will ratify a Petition for Redress of Grievances which may or may not include grievances and solutions demanding:
	However, they were again deleted as a copyvio, even after a paraphrase. This is the part where we get to find the supreme court case about paraphrasing. ] (]) 04:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

			An End to Corporate Personhood
	=== Suggested grievances ===
	There are twenty sections in Part IV of the ''99 Percent Declaration'', the "Suggested Content of the ] for a ]" includes: (1) a ban on private contributions from individuals, ]s, ]s, ], ], ], ''et al.'' to politicians in federal office, replaced by, "fair, equal and total public financing of all federal political campaigns."

			The Overturning of the Supreme Court's Decision in Citizens United v. F.E.C.
	Also included are demands for: (2) overturning the '']'' case, "even if it requires a ]"; (3) elimination of private contributions to politicians (see 1); (4) ]s for the House of Representatives to no more than four two-year terms; two six-year terms for the Senate; (5) complete reformation of the ] into a ] by "eliminating loopholes, unfair tax breaks, exemptions and deductions, ] (e.g. oil, gas and farm) and ending all other methods of evading taxes."

			The Elimination of Crony Capitalism and Washington's Revolving Door of Corruption
	Further goals and solutions include (6) "]," a ] system; (7) ] regulations empowering them to shut down corporations, businesses or any entities which, and to criminally prosecute individuals who, intentionally or recklessly damage the environment; agreement to the ] on ] caps; and implementation of new and existing programs to transition away from ]s to reusable or ] sources of energy; (8) reduction of the ] to a sustainable percentage of ] by 2020; (9) a comprehensive job and training act such as the ] to repair infrastructure in conjunction with a new ] or ] program; (10) ] debt relief forgiveness; (11) Enactment of the ] with comprehensive ] and border security reform, "including offering visas, lawful permanent resident status and citizenship."

			Comprehensive Banking and Securities Reform to end Wall Street's Control of our Politicians
	The suggested grievances continue: (12) recalling military personnel at non-essential bases; refocusing national defense goals to address 21st century threats such as terrorism; and limiting the large scale deployment of the ]; (13) reforming ] by, "mandating new educational goals to train the American public to perform jobs in a 21st century economy, particularly in the areas of technology and green energy. Eliminating tenure and paying our teachers a competitive salary"; (14) reducing ] by business tax incentives to locate and hire locally.

			100% Public Financing of Political Campaigns and Other Election Reforms
	(15) reduce ]; (16) reenactment of the ]; a ]; uniform limits on ATM and debit card fees; ending the $4 billion/year "hedge fund loophole" permitting evasion of taxes by treating income as capital gains; (17) a housing ] ]; requiring the ] to buy underwater and foreclosed mortgages, ''e.g.,''<ref> November 18, 2008 ''Los Angeles Times''</ref> refinanced at 1% or less; (18) a non-partisan congressional commission to audit and investigate the Federal Reserve, empowered to replace it with the ]; (19) abolition of the ] in favor of the ] in presidential elections (see also ]); (20) ending the ] with an immediate withdrawal of all combat troops, and veteran job training and placement.<ref name=99percentdeclaration> </ref>

			A Freeze on Home Foreclosures
	=== Constitutional amendment ===
	Harvard law professor and ] board member ] had called for a ]<ref> ''CallAConvention.org''</ref> in a September 24-25, 2011 conference co-chaired by the ]' national coordinator,<ref name=conconcon>, Harvard University, September 24-5, 2011</ref> in Lessig's October 5 book, ''],''<ref name=lessigbook>Lessig, L. (2011) (New York City: Hachette/Twelve) </ref> and at the Occupy protest in Washington, DC.<ref name=occupydc>Tackett, C. (October 19, 2011) ''Discovery / TreeHugger.com''</ref> Reporter ] said the book offers a ] for the ] protestors, focusing on the core problem of corruption in both political parties and their elections.<ref>Froomkin, D. (October 5, 2011) ''Huffington Post''</ref> Lessig's initial constitutional amendment would allow legislatures to limit political contributions from non-citizens, including corporations, anonymous organizations, and foreign nationals, and he also supports ] and ] reform to establish the ] principle.<ref>Hill, A. (October 4, 2011) ''Marketplace Morning Report'' (American Public Media)</ref> Lessig's web site allows anyone to propose and vote on constitutional amendments.<ref>Lessig, L. (2011) ''convention.idea.informer.com''</ref> Similar amendments have been proposed by ],<ref>Ratigan, D. (2011) ''GetMoneyOut.com''</ref> ],<ref>Auerbach, K. (2011) ''cavebear.com/amendment''</ref> ],<ref>Blumenthal, P. (October 20, 2011) ''Huffington Post''</ref> and others.<ref>Public Citizen (January 21, 2011) ''Citizen.org''</ref><ref>] (October 11, 2011) ''Huffington Post''</ref> ] protesters have joined the call for a constitutional amendment.<ref name=manning>Manning, B. (October 21, 2011) Needham, Mass. ''Patch''</ref><ref name=crugnale>Crugnale, J. (October 14, 2011) ''Mediaite''</ref><ref name=niose>Niose, D. (October 13, 2011) ''Psychology Today''</ref><ref>McCabe, J. (October 21, 2011) ''NewsTimes.com''</ref>

			Real Student Debt Relief and Refinancing
	{{reflist\|2}}

			Ending the War in Afghanistan and Taking Care of Our Veterans
	=== External links ===
	* (also )
	*
	* describing the making of the document
	* tag
	*

			Medicare for All ("Single Payer Healthcare")
	:Should anyone have any questions about whether the CBS Philadelphia tag should be in the ELs, here are excerpts from :

			Protection of the Planet
	{{Quote\|<big>"</big>...plans are found in a document posted online by an “]” working group, titled “The 99 Percent Declaration.” The document proposes a National General Assembly to be held in Philadelphia starting on July 4th, 2012 and running through next October.

			Congressional Term Limits
	The proposal says the Assembly would operate similarly to the original “]” — the Founding Fathers who met in Philadelphia prior to what the group refers to as “the first American Revolution.” It was not immediately clear if such a gathering will actually take place, but city officials are aware of the proposal and Mayor Nutter says he wants to talk about it with the organizers.

			Tax Reform
	“I understand national Occupy would want to be in Philadelphia — this is birthplace of freedom, liberty, and democracy for the United States of America — so I look forward to a conversation,” Nutter told KYW Newsradio. “We need to better understand what it is they want to do, where and what it’s all about. But I welcome the discussion.” Nutter says he would like to maintain the same open dialogue with the national organizers as he has with the local group now encamped on ].<big>"</big>(ref>CBS News (October 19, 2011) ''CBS Philadelphia''</ref> }}

			A New Jobs Program
	:] (]) 18:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

			Reforming the Federal Reserve Banking System
	== Constitutional ammendment ==

			Handling Education as a National Security Issue
	Dualus does not have consensus for this section to be included in the article. If anyone else supports this being included, please say so.

			Ending Perpetual War for Profit
	:I intend to replace the section after and are included. I would like to know what problems people see with inclusion. Do you understand that grievance (2) asks for ? ] (]) 04:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
	::It's undue weight.--] (]) 08:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
	:::Documents introduced into the ] are notable. However, we are discouraged from creating or referencing documents such as "S.J.Res. ____" because it's never clear how many underlines there are. ] (]) 18:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

			Curtailing Outsourcing and Currency Manipulation
	==Copyvios==
	If the large amounts of quoting go back in, I will report the person putting those large tracks of quoting for ]. Summarise it in Misplaced Pages's summary style.--] (]) 04:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
	:How do you define "large amounts"? As far as I can tell, the standard of inclusion for determining whether a paraphrase is fair use is:
	::"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." '']'', 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919). "One may not counsel or advise others to violate the law as it stands. Words are not only the keys of persuasion, but the triggers of action, and those which have no purport but to counsel the violation of law cannot by any latitude of interpretation be a part of that public opinion which is the final source of government in a democratic state." '']'', 244 F. 535, 545 (S.D.N.Y. 1917)(Hand, J.).
	:Per ], the use is transformative because redundant and subordinate passages have been deleted for educational and public policy communications purposes. The use is minimal because it is only five paragraphs from twenty sections. The factual content in the quoted passages copied and cited is trimmed to support encyclopedic information. Only selected relatively insubstantial passages are quoted. '''Most importantly, there is no market to be harmed for this document which is given away free on the internet.''' If there are any reasons that my paraphrase above does not meet that standard of inclusion, please tell me them. ] (]) 05:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
	::You could just put it in a ] and add the reference material as a source for it. That way, it is clearly used as a quotation and, thus, isn't a copyvio. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 05:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
	:::The text is not particularly well written. I'd rather keep paraphrasing until people stop deleting it. ] (]) 06:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
	Go ahead...put it all back in and see how quickly it is speedy deleted with the correct tag placed. Fair Use case law is not the entirety of what must be met...you have to comply with all Misplaced Pages policy in that regard for use. As a text document you can only use small "snippets" and even then it depends on how it is used and why. Paraphasing is the policy. Text must be original and not copy pasted.--] (]) 08:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
	:Does anyone agree that the five paragraph summary style paraphrased above is a copyright violation? ] (]) 18:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
	::Going once.... ] (]) 21:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
	::Going twice.... ] (]) 23:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
	:::Not sure if you are asking about the Fair Use explanation above or something else. As I stated, Misplaced Pages has an Manuel of Style guideline for fair use that must be adhered to, but unclear if you are referring to other information on this talk page.--] (]) 00:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
	::::Fair use is covered in ], not the Manual of Style. ] (]) 04:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

			New Protections of Civil Rights to Keep Up With Invasive Technology
	== Additional prose and references ==

			Curtailing the Prison Industrial Complex
	I added stuff.--] (]) 10:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
	:Thank you. ] (]) 18:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
	::I removed the "Citation needed" tags as the information is in the references used. It is not nessecarry to support each sentence just the information itself. The references used at the end of the full claim does contain the information.--] (]) 00:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

			A Plan to Reduce the Federal Debt
	== Demands working group ==

			YOU MAY SEE ALL 100 OF THE PROPOSED GRIEVANCES TO BE VOTED ON BY CLICKING HERE.
	makes the point the the authors of the 99 Percent Declaration is an organization called "The Demands Working Group" and this group is not the same as Occupy Wall Street.
	:''"The General Assembly of the New York City occupation has explicitly denied the Demands Working Group’s claim to speak on behalf of the movement."''
	Several other references we have for this article also use the term "Demands Working Group" separately from "Occupy Wall Street". Should we rely on these sources to clarify that point in the article? Does "Demands Working Group" warrant it's own article?--] (]) 01:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
	:The ] has as you can see on I think that would be a better new article. Be careful: the amount of prankage taking place is probably red or orange on a scale from red to green. <small>()</small> ] (]) 04:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

			Once signed and ratified, the Petition for Redress of Grievances drafted by the delegats will be served on the 535 members of Congress, the President and the 9 members of the Supreme Court before the 2012 general election. If these public officials ignore the petition, the delegates and all those similarly situated (i.e., 99% of the American people), will file a class action law suit in federal court seeking injunctive relief demanding redress of these grievances and asserting violations of the public trust doctrine, the general welfare clause, The Civil Righst Act, and for past and ongoing abuses of government power under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. See the full plan here.
	== Comment from Michael Pollok ==
			\|}

			<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:''Copied from ]:''

			:Hi. These complaints have all been expressed and addressed before; please see the talk page archives. In a nutshell, Misplaced Pages articles are generally based off of reliable sources. They are not extensions of your group's webpage and you do not have the right to control what is said in the article. Among other things, this means the article must be written in an encyclopedic tone; it is not an advocacy page and should not use random protest rhetoric or lingo such as "Continental Congress 2.0" as if these words were in common parlance. You also can't edit the article so that it contradicts the sources it cites, even if you think those sources are wrong. I'm sorry if you feel that your group is not being given enough attention by the mainstream, or if you feel your group is misunderstood by the mainstream. Unfortunately, Misplaced Pages is not the place to correct this.
	;The Position of the Founder of the #OWS Working Group on the 99% Declaration.

			:On one specific point, you seem to suggest that something in the WP article is contradicted by the AP article you linked above. But I don't see any contradiction. Could you be more specific? ] ] ] 19:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
	My name is Michael Pollok and I am the person who wrote the first drafts of the 99% Declaration now found at www.the99declaration.org. Most of what is in this article is false. I am a criminal defense attorney who became involved in #OWS when I began representing a number of students who were arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge. After meeting with these students, giving a talk at their college and discussing what issues mattered to them, I wrote the 99% Declaration.
			::And the link provided is dead now...--] (]) 07:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

			== Suggestions from an editor with a ] ==
	On October 15, 2011 I appeared before the New York City General Assembly and addressed the General Assembly for over five minutes. During that time, I described the formation of the Working Group on the 99% Declaration and our purpose which is to organize an election of 870 delegates to a National General Assembly to draft a petition for a redress of grievances. This petition shall be served on all three branches of the United States government. I received a warm reception and held a two hour meeting following the General Assembly. Interestingly, all of the speakers before the NYCGA on October 15, 2011 appear in the minutes but my five minute statement does not. appear. My ENTIRE appearance and all mentions of me and our Working Group were excised from the minutes by the facilitators because one or more of them disagreed with our point of view.

			Please see to the ] talk page. ] (]) 15:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
	I wish to emphasize that carefully followed all of the procedures to start an #OWS Working Group and appeared before the General Assembly on October 15, 2011 at 7:45pm to announce the formation of the Working Group and its first meeting in Liberty Park that night.

			== External links modified ==
	Since that announcement to the General Assembly, the working group has moved to Facebook http://www.facebook.com/www.the99declaration.org and currently has over 2300 members. The 99% Declaration page has had more than 173,000 hits since October 18th when it went viral. The 99% declaration has been edited several times by using polls on the Facebook page and a yahoo site so anyone can propose edits and substantive changes.

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	From the inception of the NYCGA webpage. In fact, we were one of the first groups to appear on the new NYCGA website. Our group on that page was not set up by me or anyone else connected to the 99% Declaration. Instead it was started by Drew of the Internet Working Group and the admins "Stan Ford" and Brad l/n/u were the admins. I never had any admin control over that group so these statements in this article are false. I did criticize the NYCGA because this working group was taken down unilaterally by "Stan Ford" and we never had any admin control of that group.

			I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	I have requested assistance form the #OWS mediation group to have the 99% Declaration Working Group restored to the NYCGA official site but my requests have been ignored. The NYCGA operates like the very oligarchies they claim to challenge. I have suggested that I be the co-admin of the group with a member of the internet working group. In sum, most of the information in this article is false.
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403043222/http://www.the99declaration.org/ to http://www.the99declaration.org/
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403043222/http://www.the99declaration.org/ to http://www.the99declaration.org/

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	-Michael Pollok, Esq. 11-3-11, 9:38 p.m. <small>] (] • ]) 01:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	=== Talk page section blanking ===

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 14:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
	The original author of the Declaration, Michael Pollok, has recently here and at ]. This talk page has recently been blanked three times by Amadscientist, in his attempt to prevent readers of this page from seeing Mr. Pollok's correspondence, calling it "spam" and referring to Mr. Pollok, a new user, as a "SPA account." This behavior is strongly contrary to ], ], ], and ], and it must stop immediately. ] (]) 05:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:05, 25 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 99 Percent Declaration 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 Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Continental Congress 2.0 was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 07 September 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into 99 Percent Declaration. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 November 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 January 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Archives (inactive)

This article is within the scope of National Archives project, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.National ArchivesWikipedia:WikiProject National ArchivesTemplate:WikiProject National ArchivesNational Archives

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philadelphia Low‑importance

	Philadelphia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

United States: Government Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

United States History Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject United States History To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : United States History articles needing attention
Infobox : United States History articles needing infoboxes
Stubs : Stub-Class United States History articles, Category:United States history stubs
Other :
- Place either of the following WikiProject banners on United States History-related articles and assess:
  - {{WikiProject United States History|class=|importance=}}
  - {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|UShistory=Yes|UShistory-importance=}}

99 Percent Declaration was the November 2011 US Collaboration of the Month.

"Official OWS groups"

I added a {{clarify}} tag to the assertion that "the group and document have been rejected by official OWS groups" not because I wasn't certain which OWS groups it refers to (that is indeed clarified further down) but because I wasn't sure about the assertion that these groups were "official" (while the group responsible for the 99% Declaration is/was presumably "unofficial"). In retrospect, {{clarify}} was probably the wrong tag and I should've boldly removed the problematic word and replaced it with "other". I'm going to do that now. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. The other groups referred to in the article are widely understood to be the official groups representing Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Philadelphia. I've reverted your bold edit. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

In which case, I'll request clarification here: what does it mean to be an "official group"? Have reliable sources used that terminology? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe there are many sources that would substantiate that this specific terminology is used to describe the groups in question, but I have changed the prose to address your concern and will leave it that way until I find such sources. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Complaint

This article has many factual errors and is out of date. The 99D has not called for a National General Assembly for months. It calls for a new Continental Congress. It does not report the election of delegates as reported on the AP nor does it tell anyone what will happen in Philadelphia. Every time I try to update the article and correct all the factual errors someone erases the changes. What's the point of Misplaced Pages if everything in the article is wrong and you can see it is wrong by just going to the group's webpage. At least put the AP story in: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_20839169/787-elected-occupy-conference-philly

Here is the text of the document. Maybe you will actually read the document to make some corrections. I don't care but all these errors make Wiki look foolish especially when people read the AP articles and then go to Misplaced Pages

Supposed text of declaration according to IP 98.15.175.134
WHEREAS THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. BE IT RESOLVED THAT WE, THE PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in order to form a more perfect Union, by, for and of the People, shall elect citizen Delegates between June 1-7, 2012 to attend and convene a NEW CONTINENTAL CONGRESS the week of July 4, 2012 in the City Of Philadelphia. The Delegates shall then deliberate, draft and ratify a PETITION FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES to be served upon the United States Congress, Supreme Court and President, prior to November 6, 2012. The People through these non-partisan locally elected Delegates shall gather to condemn and demand redress from the individuals currently in control of the United States government. We denounce and indict these entrenched public officials and lobbyists who engage in all manner of corrupt practices for money; for violating the public's trust and general welfare clause of the United States Constitution; for abandoning the precious covenant between those who govern with the consent of the People based upon an oath to protect and defend our Constitution; and for failing to govern with integrity absent all self-serving conflicts of interest. Wherefore, a new Continental Congress for the 21st century will ratify a Petition for Redress of Grievances which may or may not include grievances and solutions demanding: An End to Corporate Personhood The Overturning of the Supreme Court's Decision in Citizens United v. F.E.C. The Elimination of Crony Capitalism and Washington's Revolving Door of Corruption Comprehensive Banking and Securities Reform to end Wall Street's Control of our Politicians 100% Public Financing of Political Campaigns and Other Election Reforms A Freeze on Home Foreclosures Real Student Debt Relief and Refinancing Ending the War in Afghanistan and Taking Care of Our Veterans Medicare for All ("Single Payer Healthcare") Protection of the Planet Congressional Term Limits Tax Reform A New Jobs Program Reforming the Federal Reserve Banking System Handling Education as a National Security Issue Ending Perpetual War for Profit Curtailing Outsourcing and Currency Manipulation New Protections of Civil Rights to Keep Up With Invasive Technology Curtailing the Prison Industrial Complex A Plan to Reduce the Federal Debt YOU MAY SEE ALL 100 OF THE PROPOSED GRIEVANCES TO BE VOTED ON BY CLICKING HERE. Once signed and ratified, the Petition for Redress of Grievances drafted by the delegats will be served on the 535 members of Congress, the President and the 9 members of the Supreme Court before the 2012 general election. If these public officials ignore the petition, the delegates and all those similarly situated (i.e., 99% of the American people), will file a class action law suit in federal court seeking injunctive relief demanding redress of these grievances and asserting violations of the public trust doctrine, the general welfare clause, The Civil Righst Act, and for past and ongoing abuses of government power under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. See the full plan here.

Supposed text of declaration according to IP 98.15.175.134

WHEREAS THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT WE, THE PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in order to form a more perfect Union, by, for and of the People, shall elect citizen Delegates between June 1-7, 2012 to attend and convene a NEW CONTINENTAL CONGRESS the week of July 4, 2012 in the City Of Philadelphia. The Delegates shall then deliberate, draft and ratify a PETITION FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES to be served upon the United States Congress, Supreme Court and President, prior to November 6, 2012.

The People through these non-partisan locally elected Delegates shall gather to condemn and demand redress from the individuals currently in control of the United States government. We denounce and indict these entrenched public officials and lobbyists who engage in all manner of corrupt practices for money; for violating the public's trust and general welfare clause of the United States Constitution; for abandoning the precious covenant between those who govern with the consent of the People based upon an oath to protect and defend our Constitution; and for failing to govern with integrity absent all self-serving conflicts of interest.

Wherefore, a new Continental Congress for the 21st century will ratify a Petition for Redress of Grievances which may or may not include grievances and solutions demanding:

An End to Corporate Personhood

The Overturning of the Supreme Court's Decision in Citizens United v. F.E.C.

The Elimination of Crony Capitalism and Washington's Revolving Door of Corruption

Comprehensive Banking and Securities Reform to end Wall Street's Control of our Politicians

100% Public Financing of Political Campaigns and Other Election Reforms

A Freeze on Home Foreclosures

Real Student Debt Relief and Refinancing

Ending the War in Afghanistan and Taking Care of Our Veterans

Medicare for All ("Single Payer Healthcare")

Protection of the Planet

Congressional Term Limits

Tax Reform

A New Jobs Program

Reforming the Federal Reserve Banking System

Handling Education as a National Security Issue

Ending Perpetual War for Profit

Curtailing Outsourcing and Currency Manipulation

New Protections of Civil Rights to Keep Up With Invasive Technology

Curtailing the Prison Industrial Complex

A Plan to Reduce the Federal Debt

YOU MAY SEE ALL 100 OF THE PROPOSED GRIEVANCES TO BE VOTED ON BY CLICKING HERE.

Once signed and ratified, the Petition for Redress of Grievances drafted by the delegats will be served on the 535 members of Congress, the President and the 9 members of the Supreme Court before the 2012 general election. If these public officials ignore the petition, the delegates and all those similarly situated (i.e., 99% of the American people), will file a class action law suit in federal court seeking injunctive relief demanding redress of these grievances and asserting violations of the public trust doctrine, the general welfare clause, The Civil Righst Act, and for past and ongoing abuses of government power under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. See the full plan here.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.175.134 (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. These complaints have all been expressed and addressed before; please see the talk page archives. In a nutshell, Misplaced Pages articles are generally based off of reliable sources. They are not extensions of your group's webpage and you do not have the right to control what is said in the article. Among other things, this means the article must be written in an encyclopedic tone; it is not an advocacy page and should not use random protest rhetoric or lingo such as "Continental Congress 2.0" as if these words were in common parlance. You also can't edit the article so that it contradicts the sources it cites, even if you think those sources are wrong. I'm sorry if you feel that your group is not being given enough attention by the mainstream, or if you feel your group is misunderstood by the mainstream. Unfortunately, Misplaced Pages is not the place to correct this.

On one specific point, you seem to suggest that something in the WP article is contradicted by the AP article you linked above. But I don't see any contradiction. Could you be more specific? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

And the link provided is dead now...--Amadscientist (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions from an editor with a WP:COI

Please see these edits to the Continental Congress 2.0 talk page. David in DC (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 99 Percent Declaration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403043222/http://www.the99declaration.org/ to http://www.the99declaration.org/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403043222/http://www.the99declaration.org/ to http://www.the99declaration.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Categories: