Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:24, 4 November 2011

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philadelphia 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Government 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States History 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject United States History To-do: edit history watch purge 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=}} United States: Government 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

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

Notability

Per WP:WEB, 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. Dualus (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The draft was moved to User:Dualus/99 Percent Declaration as the article still does not appear to be independently notable of Occupy Wallstreet. If you believe otherwise, please prove sources that meet WP:GNG to demonstrate independent notability. --LauraHale (talk) 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 secondary sources:

1. Walsh, J. (October 20, 2011) "Do we know what OWS wants yet?" Salon
2. Kennedy, A.L. (October 22, 2011) "Protesters Plan to Occupy Williamsburg" Williamsburg Yorktown Daily
3. Duda, C. (October 19, 2011) "Occupy Wall Street Protesters Call for National General Assembly, Put Forward Possible Demands" Juvenile Justice Information Exchange
4. Lopez, L. (October 19, 2011) "Finally! The Protesters Have Drafted A Set Of Demands For The Jobs Crisis" Business Insider
5. Haack, D. (October 24, 2011) "How the Occupy movement won me over" The Guardian
6. Kingkade, T. (October 18, 2011) "Occupy Wall Street Protesters Propose A National Convention, Release Potential Demands" Huffington Post
7. Lefcourt, D. (October 21, 2011) "The Essence of the Occupy Movement, 'Redress of Grievances'" Op-ed news
8. Benn, J. (October 20, 2011) "Occupy protestors make demands in The99Declaration" Collegian
9. Moore, T. (October 25, 2011) "The Populist's Dilemma" Cornell Sun

Are there any reasons to believe otherwise? Dualus (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Does not meet WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 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? Dualus (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL

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

Has anyone noticed that the text of the Lopez story has been changing? Dualus (talk) 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 WP:NOR and seems to have created this page in response to having the same material rejected for OR, source misrepresentation, and POV push at Occupy Wall Street. He's also inserted some of the exact same material (regarding Lessig) into the articles on Lawrence Lessig, Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, and "Occupy" protests, apparently because there aren't many editors watching those pages for policy violations. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 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. I have no conflict of interest. What are your interests in this article? Dualus (talk) 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. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I will try to list the diffs over the next week or two. Dualus (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Suggested grievance 2: constitutional amendment filed

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

Suggested grievance 19: electoral college reform

Are there any objections to using instant runoff voting as the example for one person, one vote in commentary on grievance 19? I will see if any of the sources have noticed the connection. Dualus (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Mortgage reform

is pertinent to grievance 17 and possibly 18, providing a Republican (GOP) perspective. See also. Dualus (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Archived OWS talk page sections

These are from Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 12:

resource?

How OccupySF thwarted a police raid 10.27.11 11:15 am San Francisco Bay Guardian by Yael Chanoff 99.35.15.107 (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Not for this article. There is an Occupy San Francisco Misplaced Pages article.--Amadscientist (talk) 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? Dualus (talk) 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.--Amadscientist (talk) 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 Alliance for Global Justice, 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 a real HuffPo story but per the reliable source criteria, we would need corroboration if something like that goes in the intro. Dualus (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't find anything else about it. B——C_ritical 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. Dualus (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Source for growth caused by income equality

The International Monetary Fund recently published a timely report showing that income equality causes economic growth. The principal component analysis in its Chart 4 is particularly instructive. Someone should add that to the article. In the "Background" section? Dualus (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Do we get to add IMF graphics per copyright? B——C_ritical 00:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think so. I'll check on that. We certainly get to include their images per fair use/WP:NFCC and WP:OI.

This is related to , , and which others have asked be included above. Dualus (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This too. 67.6.179.27 (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaaaaand it looks like we get to put this info in the article, since this article links the IMF to OWS] B——C_ritical 00:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Dualus (talk) 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. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 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? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The ones posted above -or at least the one I posted- are secondary sources linking the IMF article to OWS. B——C_ritical 01:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

And I would draw attention to this change 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. B——C_ritical 01:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please note this. B——C_ritical 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. Night Ranger (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I reported it. Thanks (: B——C_ritical 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 |much love: 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) The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that someone needs to create 99 Percent Declaration and New York City General Assembly if they have not been created already, or at least have them redirect to an appropriate section of an existing article. Dualus (talk) 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. B——C_ritical 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? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you please be specific about your objections? This is one source . B——C_ritical 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. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I just told you one of the sources. Read post above. B——C_ritical 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. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 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. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Stats in the lead

The statistics

The participants' slogan "We are the 99%" refers to income inequality in the U.S. 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. B——C_ritical

I think it was removed unintentionally the last time; I restored it.--~TPW 02:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, you did? Oh, you did once, then it was taken out here. B——C_ritical 02:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

That was fast. I support keeping it in.--~TPW 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 WP:OR. Which is probably the case, when I googled "occupy wall street 40%" I found how "absolutely central" the statistic is not to the movement. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 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.--~TPW 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. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 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: "As 2.6 million Americans fell under the poverty line last year, the top 1 percent continued to control more than 40 percent of the country’s wealth." and "In comparison, the 60 percent of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their incomes increase by just 40 percent during the same time period, according to the study, which was based on a combination of IRS and Census data." 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. B——C_ritical 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". The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 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. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 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. B——C_ritical 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. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (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. B——C_ritical 05:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

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 (: B——C_ritical 06:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

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

The participants' slogan "We are the 99%" refers to the difference in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% whose incomes have increased by 275% since 1979, and the bottom 90% whose incomes have shrunk.

Any objections or suggestions? B——C_ritical 17:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I prefer:

The protesters' slogan "We are the 99%," refers to income inequality in the United States 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? Dualus (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Better, thanks. B——C_ritical 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. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a matter of encyclopedic terminology. I have copy edited further for more neutral phrasing.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Progressive stack

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

This edit replaces a more or less reliable blog post with a Fox News report obviously copied from the Misplaced Pages article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 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 other discussion thread on this topic. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I have images of the hand gestures used in the General Assembly, from the pdf file at The General Assembly Guide. No copyright information on them, but fair use I think. Any thoughts? User:Fred Bauder Talk 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. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you have to be doing the talking to appreciate the effect of The no/disagree hand gesture used at the New York City General Assembly. User:Fred Bauder Talk 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 99 Percent Declaration? Dualus (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Vaguely related, here's a smart video about communication with banks. Dualus (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be inviting original research, 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. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV 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? Dualus (talk) 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. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 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? Dualus (talk) 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 (which is OR). Arzel (talk) 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. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Photo for week 5

I thought this photo might be suitable for Occupy_Wall_Street#Week_5_.28October_15.E2.80.9321.29. The photo itself, subject, and quote have all become notable. See Conor Friedersdorf. Here's a link to the reference in the photo. Adam Clark Estes and Dino Grandoni, “Another Public Radio Freelancer Gets the Ax Over Occupy Wall Street”, The Atlantic, October 28, 2011

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

I'd oppose it, too much of a WP:COATRACK for the quote. The article is a record of the protest, not publicity for the protests or their messages. SDY (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Better?--Nowa (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The photo is the problem, not the caption. SDY (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the concern the message that is visible in the sign or something else?--Nowa (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The photo is the sign. Basically, if we want to include text, we should include text. Photos of text are just silly. SDY (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but here is what Forbes Magazine had to say about the photo |"One could write at length about the semiotics of the already-famous photo, including the way in which Ms. Curran’s eyeballs have moved upward and to her right, an intriguing detail that reinforces our own attention to the words of her poster." So there certainly is a reliable source indicating that the image is more than merely a picture of words.--Nowa (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That link doesn't work. Honestly, the "week by week coverage" is kind of dubious anyway, per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, 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. SDY (talk) 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.--Nowa (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please include per WP:OI. Dualus (talk) 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?--Amadscientist (talk) 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. --David Shankbone 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--Nowa (talk) 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. Dualus (talk) 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.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, she was quoting someone else. And I did put it in Timeline_of_Occupy_Wall_Street#October_2011 so there is no rush here.--Nowa (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"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. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 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. Dualus (talk) 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. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 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? Dualus (talk) 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. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

How about this Washington Post blog entry? Dualus (talk) 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. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

How about this Felix Salmon piece? Worthy of inclusion with the photo? Dualus (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Clean up references

What are the most urgent needs for article clean up? {{refimprove}}? Dualus (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

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?--Nowa (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Dualus (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Laura for pointing to the best places to add sources. Dualus (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

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.--Nowa (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure File:Inequality-by-Kenworthy.png is based on reliable sources, but that doesn't matter because of WP:OI which allows original research in illustrations. Dualus (talk) 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 Income inequality in the United States--Nowa (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Section blanking

I noticed some deletions being made 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 fair use, 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. Dualus (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

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. Dualus (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggested grievances

There are twenty sections in Part IV of the 99 Percent Declaration, the "Suggested Content of the Petition for a Redress of Grievances" includes: (1) a ban on private contributions from individuals, corporations, political action committees, super political action committees, lobbyists, unions, et al. to politicians in federal office, replaced by, "fair, equal and total public financing of all federal political campaigns."

Also included are demands for: (2) overturning the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, "even if it requires a constitutional amendment"; (3) elimination of private contributions to politicians (see 1); (4) Term limits 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 United States Tax Code into a progressive, graduated income tax by "eliminating loopholes, unfair tax breaks, exemptions and deductions, subsidies (e.g. oil, gas and farm) and ending all other methods of evading taxes."

Further goals and solutions include (6) "Medicare for All," a single-payer health care system; (7) Environmental Protection Agency 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 Washington Declaration on carbon emissions caps; and implementation of new and existing programs to transition away from fossil fuels to reusable or carbon neutral sources of energy; (8) reduction of the national debt to a sustainable percentage of GDP by 2020; (9) a comprehensive job and training act such as the American Jobs Act to repair infrastructure in conjunction with a new Works Progress Administration or Civilian Conservation Corps program; (10) student loan debt relief forgiveness; (11) Enactment of the DREAM Act with comprehensive immigration and border security reform, "including offering visas, lawful permanent resident status and citizenship."

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 military–industrial complex; (13) reforming public education 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 outsourcing by business tax incentives to locate and hire locally.

(15) reduce currency intervention; (16) reenactment of the Glass-Steagall Act; a transaction tax on stock and financial transactions; 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 foreclosure moratorium; requiring the Federal Reserve Bank to buy underwater and foreclosed mortgages, e.g., refinanced at 1% or less; (18) a non-partisan congressional commission to audit and investigate the Federal Reserve, empowered to replace it with the U.S. Treasury; (19) abolition of the U.S. electoral college in favor of the popular vote in presidential elections (see also instant-runoff voting); (20) ending the war in Afghanistan with an immediate withdrawal of all combat troops, and veteran job training and placement.

Constitutional amendment

Harvard law professor and Creative Commons board member Lawrence Lessig had called for a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution in a September 24-25, 2011 conference co-chaired by the Tea Party Patriots' national coordinator, in Lessig's October 5 book, Republic, Lost, and at the Occupy protest in Washington, DC. Reporter Dan Froomkin said the book offers a manifesto for the Occupy Wall Street protestors, focusing on the core problem of corruption in both political parties and their elections. 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 public campaign financing and electoral college reform to establish the one person, one vote principle. Lessig's web site convention.idea.informer.com allows anyone to propose and vote on constitutional amendments. Similar amendments have been proposed by Dylan Ratigan, Karl Auerbach, Cenk Uygur, and others. Occupy movement protesters have joined the call for a constitutional amendment.

1. Adam Clark Estes and Dino Grandoni, “Another Public Radio Freelancer Gets the Ax Over Occupy Wall Street”, The Atlantic, October 28, 2011
2. Kenworthy, L. (August 20, 2010) "The best inequality graph, updated" Consider the Evidence
3. "FDIC chief in tune with Democrats" November 18, 2008 Los Angeles Times
4. "The 99 Percent Declaration" the99declaration.org
5. "The Movement to Organize the Call for a Convention" CallAConvention.org
6. Conference on the Constitutional Convention, Harvard University, September 24-5, 2011
7. Lessig, L. (2011) Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It (New York City: Hachette/Twelve) excerpt
8. Tackett, C. (October 19, 2011) "Could #OccupyWallStreet Become a Constitutional Convention?" Discovery / TreeHugger.com
9. Froomkin, D. (October 5, 2011) "Lawrence Lessig's New Book On Political Corruption Offers Protesters A Possible Manifesto" Huffington Post
10. Hill, A. (October 4, 2011) "Campaign finance, lobbying major roadblocks to effective government" Marketplace Morning Report (American Public Media)
11. Lessig, L. (2011) "Propose Amendments to the Constitution" convention.idea.informer.com
12. Ratigan, D. (2011) "It's Time to GET MONEY OUT of politics" GetMoneyOut.com
13. Auerbach, K. (2011) "Proposed Amendment to the United States Constitution To Redress the Increasing Distortion of Elections and Political Speech by Corporations and Other Aggregate Forms" cavebear.com/amendment
14. Blumenthal, P. (October 20, 2011) "Cenk Uygur Launches New Effort To Separate Money And Politics" Huffington Post
15. Public Citizen (January 21, 2011) "One Year Later, Movement Is Growing to Overturn Citizens United" Citizen.org
16. Shane, P.M. (October 11, 2011) "Occupy the Constitution" Huffington Post
17. Manning, B. (October 21, 2011) "Lynch Shares Views on 'Occupy' Movement" Needham, Mass. Patch
18. Crugnale, J. (October 14, 2011) "Russell Simmons: Occupy Wall Street Protesters Want Constitutional Amendment" Mediaite
19. Niose, D. (October 13, 2011) "What the Occupy Wall Street Protesters Want — Constitutional amendment on corporations is a starting point" Psychology Today
20. McCabe, J. (October 21, 2011) "Dear Occupy Wall Street: 'Move to Amend' (the Constitution)" NewsTimes.com

External links

• Website (also www.the99declaration.org)
• Facebook
• Video describing the making of the document
• CBS Philadelphia tag
• Equality Trust

Should anyone have any questions about whether the CBS Philadelphia tag should be in the ELs, here are excerpts from their first tagged story:

"...plans are found in a document posted online by an “Occupy Wall Street” 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.

The proposal says the Assembly would operate similarly to the original “Committees of Correspondence” — 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.

“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 Dilworth Plaza."(ref>CBS News (October 19, 2011) "‘Occupy’ May Hold National Assembly In Philadelphia" CBS Philadelphia</ref>

Dualus (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Constitutional ammendment

Dualus does not have consensus for this section to be included in the article. If anyone else supports this being included, please say so.

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 ? Dualus (talk) 04:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It's undue weight.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Documents introduced into the United States Senate 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. Dualus (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyvios

If the large amounts of quoting go back in, I will report the person putting those large tracks of quoting for WP:COPYVIO. Summarise it in Misplaced Pages's summary style.--LauraHale (talk) 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." Schenck v. United States, 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." Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten, 244 F. 535, 545 (S.D.N.Y. 1917)(Hand, J.).

Per Fair use, 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. Dualus (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You could just put it in a Block quote 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. Silverseren 05:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The text is not particularly well written. I'd rather keep paraphrasing until people stop deleting it. Dualus (talk) 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.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone agree that the five paragraph summary style paraphrased above is a copyright violation? Dualus (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Going once.... Dualus (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Going twice.... Dualus (talk) 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.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair use is covered in WP:NFCC, not the Manual of Style. Dualus (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional prose and references

I added stuff.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Dualus (talk) 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.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Demands working group

The Brookings Group reference 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?--Nowa (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The New York City General Assembly has several working groups, as you can see on their website. 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. (Threat condition Elmo!) Dualus (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Michael Pollok

Copied from Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/99 Percent Declaration:

The Position of the Founder of the #OWS Working Group on the 99% Declaration.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

-Michael Pollok, Esq. 11-3-11, 9:38 p.m. The99declaration (talk • contribs) 01:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk page section blanking

The original author of the Declaration, Michael Pollok, has recently attempted to communicate with us here and at the deletion discussion. 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 WP:TALK, WP:NPA, WP:BITE, and WP:AGF, and it must stop immediately. Dualus (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Take it to an ANI. If the readers of this talk page would simply view the history, it is clear the "author" (which I use loosely as we have no proof this was him to begin with..but probably) never made any such post. It was just Dualus with more copy paste.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• Stub-Class Human rights articles
• Unknown-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• Stub-Class New York City articles
• Unknown-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• Stub-Class Philadelphia articles
• Unknown-importance Philadelphia articles
• Stub-Class politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Stub-Class United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Stub-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Stub-Class United States Government articles
• Unknown-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Stub-Class United States History articles
• Unknown-importance United States History articles
• WikiProject United States History articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed United States Government articles