Talk:99 Percent Declaration/Archive 1

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.--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.

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. Be— —Critical  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? Be— —Critical  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] Be— —Critical  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. Be— —Critical  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. Be— —Critical  01:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please note this. Be— —Critical 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 (:  Be— —Critical  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.  Be— —Critical  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 .  Be— —Critical  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.  Be— —Critical  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

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. Be— —Critical
 * 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.   Be— —Critical  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.   Be— —Critical  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.   Be— —Critical  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.   Be— —Critical  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 (:  Be— —Critical  06:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Any objections or suggestions? Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 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.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It, 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, and Lessig provides credibility to the movement. 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. On October 15, the Occupy Wall Street Demands Working Group, published the 99 Percent Declaration of demands, goals, and solutions. Some protesters have joined the call for a constitutional amendment. On November 1, 2011, Senator Tom Udall introduced a constitutional amendment to reform campaign finance.

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)

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

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. 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 Wikipedia 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 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 Wikipedia? 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)

Resource BusinessWeek and the Charlie Rose (talk show)

 * See also and . Dualus (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Charlie Rose Talks to Paul Volcker; The former Fed chief discusses the banking regulation that bears his name, Republican attacks on the Federal Reserve, and the coherence of Occupy Wall Street October 27, 2011, 5:00 PM EDT, also see the Volker Rule.
 * http://www.businessweek.com/mediacenter/qt/podcasts/charlierose/111027_CROSE.mp3

97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The extent to which the protesters have been discussing the Volcker rule is not entirely clear to me but this Business Week source seems very appropriate per WP:NPOV. I wonder if others have opinions on it. Dualus (talk) 21:38, 3 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)

Incorrect interpretation of WP:OI. It does NOT allow original research in illustrations. Please review these policies.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:12, 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)
 * Frankly, I think those all look pretty bad, like they were made in Excel. The point of the graph is to accentuate the "99%/1%" divide, and so I am replacing it. Please feel free to insert any graph you think would work better. Dualus (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Clean up does not require posting new references for others to approve. Editors are not required to adhere to any request to show references on talk page first. If you dispute them you may delete them and leave an edit summary. Talk page discussions should be a natural discussion that commences as needed.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:30, 4 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 Wikipedia'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. Silver  seren C 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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)

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)

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 five 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)


 * Note that the same message was also posted by the same new user to the article page. For what reasons do you call this "spam"? Dualus (talk) 05:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Somebody inserting a completely uncorroborated personal message to readers into the article space in a (possibly fictitious) attempt to complain about the treatment he's received by OWS? What would you call that, if not "spam"?  Got a better word? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's what we get on talk pages all the time, and in this case a communication from an author of the subject of the article should not be blanked from the article talk page because no actual BLP violations have been associated with any particular passages of the message. Dualus (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't deleted from the talk page. The author inserted it into the article space, obviously caring as little for policy as you do.  You were the one who decided (wrongly) that it should be posted on the talk page. It has no more bearing on improving the article than my own personal thoughts about OWS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Per Biographies of living persons
Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to suggest that the message from Michael Pollok which you have deleted eight times from various locations is somehow a BLP violation? If so, how so? Dualus (talk) 07:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm not seeing the BLPVIO either. Perhaps you can explain how it violates BLP. Please can neither of you add or remove that section until we have a consensus on this. But for the section to remain deleted there has to be consensus that this is a BLP vio and I'm not seeing it right now. Spartaz Humbug! 07:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Spartaz, I think it is unfortunate that you do not see the inclusion of information about a living person, not yet confirmed to be written by the actual person in question as a BLP issue. This was placed on the article itself and the continued use by Dualus is a clear manipulation of an unreferenced claim and are indeed contentious material. If the editor wishes to make this claim himself here it wouldn't be, but with another editor doing so...it is.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please explain why it is violates BLP by reference to the harm that this posting makes to a living person and by indicating exactly what section of BLP it violates. Spartaz Humbug! 08:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a BLP issue. Am I missing something??  Caden  cool  08:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

A claim was made on the article by a new user that could well be an SPA. The editor announced that he was the author of the document and used the name of a real person with no references to back up either the claim that the person authored the document or that he was indeed the person. Dulaus took the Soap Box and ran with it here, again, with no proof the editor is indeed this author..or that the person indeed wrote the document.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not a BLPVIO but they are valid reasons to depreciate the content. We certainly cannot use an unverified posting as any kind of source for article content but its incorrect to remove it or call it a BLPVIO. Its simply reasons to note the content on the talk page, reach a quick consensus to not use it and move on. Spartaz Humbug! 08:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You asked me another question I have not yet answered. "Harm" can indeed come to the reputation of the subject if the claim is not referenced to show verifiability and accuracy. The real person could see his reputation smeared and his work in his field effected. The claim also refers to other parties that well may be effected in major ways. The content makes claims without references about the NYC GA, specifically that "the facilitators" removed his comments from minutes, and that is an accusation without any source to prove it.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Further reading shows more accusations about 3 specific people named with no references. This is indeed a BLP issue and violation.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Which parts of the message correspond to the policy you have quoted below, or it didn't happen. Dualus (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Specific sections of BLP violated
Criticism and praise: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.

'''The information was not originally presented in a responsible, conservative or disinterested tone, or repeated in that manner. It was copy pasted simply to repeat the accusations and information.'''

Challenged or likely to be challenged : ''Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article.''

No references of any kind were used when this was placed in the article and repeated again on the talk page.

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material : Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards.

'''This constitutes original research and is not sourced at all. Returning the material is a violation of this section after my removal of it.'''

Avoid gossip and feedback loops: ''Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources.''

The user that placed the material is an anonymous source and we cannot divulge who it actually is or is not, since the user used a username and not a real name and is simply a new Wikipedia user, it fails as a reliable source and should not be repeated even on the article talk page.

Using the subject as a self-published source:''Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:'' # it is not unduly self-serving; # it does not involve claims about third parties; # it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; # there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; # the article is not based primarily on such sources.

If Dualus is going on the assumption that this is indeed the actual person, it violates this section as being self published on Wikipedia and does not meet the standard for use on the article or the talk page.

Presumption in favor of privacy Avoid victimization: ''When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.''

'''The editor that placed this here is playing the victim even though he is not mentioned at all. By repeating these claims and accusations this violates this section.'''

Privacy of personal information and using primary sources: ''With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted. See above regarding the misuse of primary sources to obtain personal information about subjects.''

'''We have to assume the privacy of the subject above the belief that the user is being honest about his or her identity right now. The user has not posted any further evidence or references to prove such and repeating the information violates this section.'''

People who are relatively unknown: ''Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there is additional protection for subjects who are not public figures.''

'''Little to no restraint in repeatedly adding the information back. No secondary sources. Repeating the information is questionable'''.

Subjects notable only for one event: ''Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.''

''If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.[5] In addition, some subject specific notability guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports) provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event.''

'''Undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. Nuetral wording is not used by either the original editor or Dualus by repeating it. There is no notability present in the posting from an anonymous user.'''

Privacy of names: ''Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons.''

'''This person and the people he accuses have not been widely disseminated and in fact some have been intentionally concealed. No value in adding these names in the article as originaly done and then repeated on this talk page'''.

Where BLP does and does not apply Non-article space: ''Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate. When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot. The same principle applies to problematic images. Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion.''

'' The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space, so long as they are not engaged in impersonation, and subject to What Wikipedia is not, though minors are discouraged from disclosing identifying personal information on their userpages; for more information, see here.[6] Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of No personal attack''s.

Legal persons and groups: ''This policy does not normally apply to edits about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with the other content policies. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. '''A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources'. --Amadscientist (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I see no BLP violation. Which specific sections of the message do you believe violated the BLP policies you list above? Dualus (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The entire contentious unsourced message from someone claiming to be a specific, named living person would appear to violate the very letter and core spirit of BLP. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 17:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what life would be like if I believed that, but it doesn't seem like it would help write a very good encyclopedia. Dualus (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can go start a competing online encyclopedia that doesn't have such stuffy and onerous policies preventing True Believers from spreading the TRUTH? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 17:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Claim not supported by references
This statement: "Occupy movement protesters have joined the call for a constitutional amendment." is not supported by the following references:


 * The article is about Congressman Stephen Lynch at a 'Congress On Your Corner' session. Here is the only mention of the subject:

This is a quote from the congressman, not a protester. Reference does not support claim.
 * On the contrary, it clearly does from a reading of the plain language of the excerpt. Dualus (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a tertiary source and not the actual source which is CNN. The actual information is this:

Simmons is not actually one of the protesters, but a celebrity adding support to them. The article actually states that protesters were yelling at Simmons that he was not one of them. Reference does not support the claim.
 * He is a secondary source reporter in this case, or if not then your premise that he isn't a protester is false. Dualus (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This reference states:

Again, no mention of the protesters joining a call. Reference does not support the claim.
 * What part of "That policy aim is very specific: a constitutional amendment addressing corporate personhood and redefining the role of corporations ... having come away from one day at OWS with a clear understanding that this policy objective is important to the protestors, it seems to be unnoticed by journalists much more experienced than myself" is not clear? Dualus (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This reference makes something clear. The Amend call is actually being suggested by the author, not noting that the protesters have answered any call.

The article goes further:

This simply does not state that anyone joined any call for anything. It suggests they should. Reference does not support the claim. --Amadscientist (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It most certainly supports the claim because joining is bidirectional. Dualus (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. What a ridiculous statement.  Dualus, as I've told you about ten times now (though you reject it each time), it's not the burden of others to comprehensively show that a source doesn't support a statement, because among other things that's an inefficient and impractical task.  It's your burden to show that sources support text you include or want to include.  If there's a dispute, that may mean you actually have to quote some article text to prove your point. If there is no article text that proves your point, you lose the dispute. That's it.  The end.  Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight to Lessig removed
As has been mentioned a number of times. Lessig has nothing to do with this document. It also has little to nothing to do with the senatorial introduction. It's undue weight to Lessig for what appear to be promotional activism. Still no consensus to add this information.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the sources shows him speaking at the Occupy Washington D.C. event. The Slate source says he and the Nobel prize winners give credibility to the movement. I intend to replace the disputed material with a POV tag at the top of the article. Dualus (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So you openly admit you plan to add material that has nothing to do with this document or the article about it? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 16:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Article must adhere to MOS and there is no consensus to rename section and move it
The background section was moved down and renamed "Controversy". What controversy? Original Research, synthesis of facts. Replacing back to top as "Background" as intended and written.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The section is entirely about the controversy surrounding the document. Dualus (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Tags above "Background" section removed
No consensus exits for these here. They should be above the entire article if needed at all.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality and POV tags
Should any of the sections contain tags to dispute neutrality or should there be proper tags placed on the top of the article?--Amadscientist (talk) 11:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * At the top of the article, until the dispute is resolved. Dualus (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Replacing POV tag
I am replacing the POV tag on a compromise proposal per the discussions above. Please do not remove the article POV tag until the dispute is resolved. Dualus (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Please do not reinsert the disputed OR/POV-pushing text in the meantime, either. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 17:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Our dispute is legitimate, on a subject upon which ordinary people would be expected to disagree. Dualus (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Non-sequitur, and debatable Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of WP is not to republish entire list of demands
That's removed. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 12:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't the entire list, it was the five paragraph WP:SUMMARY style version. How would you feel about this version updated? Dualus (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a numbered 20-point list. Even if you paraphrased it, that's still the entire list of demands, or virtually all of it, and it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to republish information that you, Dualus, personally feel everybody in the world needs to know. It also contained inexplicable OR.  Thus, not fit for inclusion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 16:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am working on User:Dualus/99 Percent Declaration. Dualus (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's hard to shake the feeling that you are trying to use Wikipedia as a platform for spreading the word about this list, even after OWS itself refused to serve as a platform for spreading the word about this list. Doesn't seem an appropriate use of WP article space. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 17:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The competing lists for WP:NPOV compliance appear to be at, , and . Which do you want to look for sources for? Dualus (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please rephrase or otherwise clarify your comment and/or question. What are you saying, and/or, What are you asking? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 18:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:NPOV? It requires that we include all major points of view on a subject. Dualus (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have read NPOV. (Note that it requires that articles reflect only significant views that have been published by reliable sources, and only insofar as they can be reflected without bias.)


 * So, what's your point? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 18:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The first one reads, "... Here's the proposal:

Jobs for ALL - A Massive Public Works and Public Service Program


 * We demand a massive public works and public service program with direct government employment at prevailing (union) wages paid for by taxing the rich and corporations, by immediately ending all of America's wars, and by ending all aid to authoritarian regimes to create 25 million new jobs to:


 * 1) Expand education: cut class sizes and provide free university for all;
 * 2) Expand healthcare and provide free healthcare for all (single payer system);
 * 3) Build housing, guarantee decent housing for all;
 * 4) Expand mass transit, provided for free;
 * 5) Rebuild the infrastructure�bridges, flood control, roads;
 * 6) Research and implement clean energy alternatives; and
 * 7) Clean up the environment.
 * These jobs are to be open to all, regardless of documentation/immigration status or criminal record.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-10-19/wall_street/30296890_1_jobs-crisis-immigration-status-new-jobs#ixzz1clacyyLu "

The other two links and  would need to be similarly included if the article is to be neutral. Dualus (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Whatever NPOV does require, it certainly doesn't require that we repeat the entire substance of this "99% Declaration" that you seem obsessed with, nor that we also repeat the entire substance of every other list of demands that has been discussed. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 20:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just hoping I can get you to discuss your reverts. You'll find out how to write articles about documents soon enough. Dualus (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversy
I placed the tags on the section below, and I would like to discuss it. Dualus (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Moved from the article for discussion.

On October 15, 2011, the "Demands Working Group" published the declaration of demands, goals, and solutions. However, according to Huffington Post blogger Tyler Kingkade, an email sent to him by a person involved in the NYCGA or the Demands Working Group said that New York City General Assembly official statements are agreed upon by consensus-based general assemblies, while another protester indicated that not all participants agree with issuing demands. The email added, "This matter was not submitted or agreed upon by the NYC general assembly, and therefore by-passed the process all OWS plans have been made through." The lack of formal demands is a matter of pride within the movement. The OWS homepage states: “We are our demands. This #ows movement is about empowering communities to form their own general assemblies, to fight back against the tyranny of the 1%. Our collective struggles cannot be co-opted.” The New York General Assembly has denied claims by the "Demand Working group" that they speak for the movement.

David Haack introduced a proposal outlining demands during the early planning stages of the Occupy Wall Street protests, but they were was struck down in late August. He discovered a "goals" working group and hoped that common ground could be found. Shawn Redding and others formed the working group in early October to establish specific actions they would use to formally ask federal, as well as local government to adopt. Due to the nature of the movement, that has been difficult in New York and other locations.

On October 31, 2011 the Demands Working Group disappeared from the New York City General Assembly website. Later that evening a member of the group began making disparaging remarks about the site administration team and the movement overall. The server logs show the group was self deleted by one of their own controlling members. The Official NYC GA website, "Site News" stated that administrators of groups have the ability to delete their own group at any time and "This story gets especially intriguing, though, when the other group admin decided to blame the movement". According to political commentator, Taylor Marsh: "[T]he one thing I’ve seen at OWS, the “working group” isn’t mentioned by name." She goes on to mention postings from OWS and "[T]hat seems to indicate the issuers of the Declaration are not directly tied to OWS.

Are the sources cited reliable? Dualus (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how they are not.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But I do see that the posted section has the title "Controversy" and not "Background" I see nothing to support the prose as such. Also I have removed the Kinkade reference and statements as unverifiable e-mails mentioned in opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried to merge the two sections and am interested in your comments. Dualus (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)