Talk:99 Percent Declaration/Archive 2

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. Per our policy on original research, please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:

--Amadscientist (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report about your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of such reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion.
 * 2) Personal inventions. If you or a friend invented the word frindle, a drinking game, or a new type of dance move, it is not notable enough to be an article until multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources report on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day.
 * 3) Personal essays  that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinion of experts). Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of an individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.
 * 4) Discussion forums.  Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk, and questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages. Wikipedians who wish to hold casual discussions with fellow Wikipedians can use the IRC channels, such as #wikipedia. Note that this is an IRC channel, not a message board. There are also a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines.

Background section
I propose that the Background section be changed. First, it does not seem to me that it "sets the stage" properly and I believe that that needs to be addressed. Also, The Demands Group and the Liberty Square Blueprint are or were connected to the OWS movement. The NYT article is the only source that says they are not. Here is what I propose:

In mid-2011, the Canadian-based Adbusters Foundation, best known for its advertisement-free anti-consumerist magazine Adbusters, proposed a peaceful occupation of Wall Street to protest corporate influence on democracy, address a growing disparity in wealth and the absence of legal repercussions following the recent global financial crisis.[1] Zuccocci Park in New York City was selected as the location for the occupation and the date was set for September 17. According to an article in The Guardian, New York City activist David Haack met with other activists in mid August during the early days of the planning and they formulated and introduced a resolution for a list of demands to the New York CityGeneral Assembly, the main governing body of the movement. However, by late August the resolution was struck down by the General Assembly.[2] Rather than a list of demands the General Assembly adopted a "Declaration of the Occupation of New York City", listing grievances.[3][2]

However, in early October those protesters that strongly favored demands formed a Demands Working Group to identify and present a formal statement of specific actions they would ask local and federal governments to adopt.[4][5][6][7] On October 15, 2011, the "Demands Working Group" published the declaration of demands, goals, and solutions.[3][2] On October 31, 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 the groups controlling administrator. 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".[8] 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.[9] Gandydancer (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, to those of you that find this whole thing rather confusing, don't feel lonely - it is. From reading a statement by the person who says he is the author of the 99% Declaration (here on Wikipedia):


 * My name is Michael Pollok and I am the person who wrote the first drafts of the 99% Declaration now found at www.the99declaration.org. Most of what is in this article is false. I am a criminal defense attorney who became involved in #OWS when I began representing a number of students who were arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge. After meeting with these students, giving a talk at their college and discussing what issues mattered to them, I wrote the 99% Declaration.


 * And from reading the posts at the OWS forum, it appears that while the Demands Wording Group is an "official" group of the OWS, the published Demands were not voted on and approved by the group. I realize that our article says that the Demands document was released by the Demands Working Group, but until we get an acceptable ref that offers a different story, this is all we've got to work with. ...add to that the fact that we do not know that this Michael Polluck is the real Michael Polluck, or just someone impersonating him on Wikipedia...Gandydancer (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well...you have just proposed that we merge this articles facts into the facts of OWS movement. Funny....and no offense, but it makes the best case yet to merge all this into a section of OWS. Why mention ad busters? I have changed the section slightly for clarity.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, I don't agree. I do not see that I have advocated merging this article, in fact I am strongly against it. My aim is to address the fact that this article needs to be able to stand on its own and not require a reader to first read the OWS article. Gandydancer (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I should attribute the Gaurdian UK, but not in that way. You have attributed the media site itself and it's Haack's blog or Opinion peice so he himself is the attribution from the source site.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, however reading the present version one would have to wonder "who in the world is this Haack person?", which you don't get into. As a matter of fact, he's pretty much Joe Blow, and not one bit noteworthy other than the fact that the Guardian published his thoughts, which actually may not represent the "pre-demands" working group at all or what they were about. Gandydancer (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am only confused about one thing right now...and that's how the assumed words of Mr. Pollock relates at all to this discussion. It doesn't matter if we were Skyping right now, live with the man himself. There is NO current reference to him being the author. There are several references to "authors" other than him in different forms and different people, including a Current TV interview with two co-authors who are niether Haack, Reddin or Polluck. So...go figure. No...don't. LOL! Lets stick to what we have and not attempt to "Figure this out" because no matter what we think it's irrelevant. Facts are all we have that can be verified and sourced. If we don't stick to that I would be for speedy delete.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that I included anything re "Michael Polluck Esq." in my suggestions for change in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest you did. I am still confused as to why you mentioned the message left by an idef blocked user with no relation to the subject at hand claiming to be something he himself cannot reference right now. I simply don't see how it relates to this discussion on the article. That's all. You brought it up and I assumed you were going somewhere with it.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The Demands working group WAS OWS. It's not any more. They broke off. Yes, the internal disputes say that the Working Group was deleted by a specific person, but that is also from unreferenced facts that we can't use. There was an Admin of the group. He deleted the group. We can't say his name here because he is not referenced in anything I can find but comments from the main article on the NYCGA...and trust me..BLP is an issue for making claims against people not in any reference.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not include the name in my suggested edit. What I am suggesting is that your statement in the article re calling the DWG a splinter group is based on pretty flimsy information.  Your source also says that the Liberty Square Blueprint is a splinter group when it is listed at the OWS site.  We have plenty of sources that say the the DWG was an "official" OWS working group.  It is the declaration that seems to be in question, and if you read the OWS forum you would find that those in the DMG are not at all happy with the declaration and want to remain part of the OWS group. Not that all this matters to the article other than the fact that you have called the Demands Working Group's origional status into question in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop right there. Please retract that accusation. I have not called anything into question. The Blocked user makes a statement that you post here that makes a claim without references and you make an accusation that I am doing something. The references have the information. How exactly have I called Anthing into question. And be specific, as this is now edging close to a disturbing situation --Amadscientist (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems like much ado about nothing to me. The article reads:
 * The New York City General Assembly, the main governing body of the Occupy Wall Street movement, initially adopted a "Declaration of the Occupation of New York City", listing grievances. However, two break-away groups, the Demands Working Group and the Liberty Square Blueprint decided, that wasn't sufficient and placed themselves in charge of authoring other demands.[1]
 * From every ref other than this particular one it is understood that the DWG did not break away from the main group till 2 weeks after the Demands were published. And as I have already said, the Liberty Square Blueprint is not a break-away group at all but is listed at the OWS site. As for "the blocked user" and accusations I have made, and some sort of connection...I really have no idea where you are getting this all from.  I have nothing to to with mr Esq. and from reading his edit on this page and the dispute page he sounds like a first class jerk to me - that's why I said he should run for president.Gandydancer (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Show me the references you speak of.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Gandydancer that source isn't one of mine. It was already here. I pulled further information out of it for neutrality and accuracy to the reference. Do you have a more reliable secondary source that contradicts that one. Even with the listing from the Primary source is there anything to claim they too have not "splintered" off? You have still not explained your reasoning for the using the post from another Wikipedia editor making claims not yet substantiated. Perhaps you are just unaware that he has sent me several legal threats against Wikipedia that I have turned over to admin. So, I ask you one more time to explain your use of his posts here in this discussion. Surely you are not trying to intimidate me or others on his behalf or attempting to keep a message from a blocked account active on this page.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Good grief, I have no idea what I said that may make you think that I'm trying to intimidate you! There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding going on and I don't know how to correct it because I'm really not sure what it is that I have done. When I re-did the section I did not add any new sources - I just used the ones that were already here. As for printing a section of his post here, I copied it from the dispute article so that anyone not familiar with the entire picture could perhaps better understand what is going on. I have had more than enough of controversy at the OWS article and certainly had no intention of getting into more of it at this article. I thought I was helping but now I am sorry that I posted here. If others believe that the DWG was never actually connected to the OWS group I will not argue it, though from what I've read that does not seem to be accurate. I never said that it does not appear that they have not since "splintered" off - it seems that they have. At this point I'm sorry I posted here and I will leave this article. Gandydancer (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you feel that way. I have asked you to retract the accusation that you made against me in regards to your claim that I have done anything close to what you stated above my "Stop Right there" marker. You are not only editing in bad faith by making that accusation you are making a claim that editors are responsible for the claims made in references simply by adding them to an article. That sure sounds like an attempt at intimidation there. Simply line it out and we'll move on.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This seems like a huge misunderstanding to me. I'm not even sure what you want me to strite out.  Is it this: What I am suggesting is that your statement in the article re calling the DWG a splinter group is based on pretty flimsy information.  Your source also says that the Liberty Square Blueprint is a splinter group when it is listed at the OWS site.?  I only thought that the wording in the article "...two break-away groups, the Demands Working Group and the Liberty Square Blueprint" seems to me to suggest that the group broke away and formed the Demands, and that's why I left that out of the rewrite I did.  I had no idea it was going to cause so much trouble.  I'm not accusing you of adding a flimsy reference - I only feel that the wording the ref used is misleading and I don't think it should be in the article.  It seems to me that you felt that I was coming across as questioning your editing, etc., but that was not my intent at all.  I'm sorry now that I didn't word my thoughts better, but at the time I had no idea that there would be a huge misunderstanding, if indeed that's what it is. Gandydancer (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked you to strike out the accusation you made about my calling into question... I have not called anything into question. It's the reference.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But you were right about one thing, that "Times" reference is one I did add. However the refernce is a RS and states very clearly:

--Amadscientist (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

True Background
This text was added to the article. I converted it to house style and propose inclusion:


 * A New York attorney named Michael Pollok wrote the first drafts of the 99 Percent Declaration. Pollok is a well known criminal defense attorney in New York who became involved in Occupy Wall Street when he began representing a number of students pro bono who were arrested with about 700 people on the Brooklyn Bridge.(ref> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-03/-occupy-wall-street-protesters-request-trial-at-court-hearing-in-new-york.html


 * After meeting with these students, giving a talk at their college and discussing what issues mattered to them, Pollok wrote the first draft of the 99 Percent Declaration.(ref> name=99percentdeclaration /> On October 15, 2011 Pollok and some of the members of his group appeared before the New York City General Assembly and addressed the General Assembly. This statement is available on You Tube. (ref> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le5YI_QPPKk


 * During his address to the General Assembly on October 15, 2011, Pollok described the formation of the Working Group on the 99% Declaration and the group’s purpose. He stated that the proposed plan is to organize an election of 870 delegates to a National General Assembly in Philadelphia to convene on July 4, 2012. Their mission will be to draft a petition for a redress of grievances on behalf of the 99% of Americans. This right of all citizens is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. (See Right to petition in the United States.)


 * The current 21 points or grievances in the 99 Percent Declaration are only suggestions and the final petition will be created completely by the elected delegates. Upon completion and ratification by the National General Assembly, the petition for a redress of grievances will be formally served upon all three branches of the United States government and released to the media at the close of the National General Assembly and before the 2012 federal election. The Working Group on the 99% Declaration claims to have a membership of more than 2400 people on its Facebook page who actively work on the declaration and planning of the election and National General Assembly. :The Declaration webpage has had more than 179,000 hits from October 18, 2011 to November 5, 2011. The Declaration has been edited hundreds of times using online polls and takes suggestions sent to the99declaration at gmail dot org.


 * With respect to the disappearance of the forum on October 31, 2011,(ref> http://www.nycga.net/2011/11/01/the-nycga-true-hollywood-story-the-99declaration-group-an-expose/ Pollok denies that anyone from his group self-deleted their forum on the NYCGA website which is what caused the angry remarks back and forth between the two groups. He claims that the forum was never administered by his group and a rogue administrator deleted the forum. Pollok says he continues to seek the Occupy Wall Street's support of his working group’s efforts to democratically elect 870 delegates to a National General Assembly in July, 2012.

If there are objections to including this, please state them. Dualus (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Please state your reasoning to include.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are there any specific statements you feel are unsupported by the cited sources? Dualus (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bloomberg reference looks like a reliable secondary reference, but I don't see where it mentions Michael Pollok.--Nowa (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I note your reversion and I am now in discussion mode. I will proceed to look for sources on the question you raised. Dualus (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, most of the media sources are distorting the truth to try and sabotage OWS. Although I had previous disagreements with Dualus in the past, I think a section like this (especially backed by reliable sources such as bloomberg news) is a wonderful alternative to the corporate controlled media. Obviously we'll need to tone it down a little bit, like changing the section title to something a little less brazening, but I say if we can tone it down, then keep; but otherwise, it's too extremist/activist to gain consensus, even though we're all in the 99%. Why don't you tone it down some (write it in prose as you plan to do) then try to narrate it in such a way that your adversaries will become your advocates? Have you not read the book I told you to yet? ;-) 완젬스 (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC) switched from agreement to disagreement, unfortunately I didn't read the sources he used, sorry guys. I'll be more sharp from now on. 완젬스 (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We can merge the two background sections, because they are more accurately a controversy, in that they do not agree. Such multiple controversial points of view should be summarized in the introduction. Dualus (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, see WP:LEAD and also if you blend contradicting information together, then it will combine truth with propaganda, which gives more weight & legitimacy to the propaganda. 완젬스 (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:LEAD does say to include controversies. Which side do you think is the truth and which side do you think is the propaganda? They could just be different perspectives on the same facts. Is there a way to combine them that way? Dualus (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not the role of Wikipedia to challenge, question, or provide an alternative to mainstream coverage. Rather, WP, is supposed to reflect mainstream coverage. We don't allow OR and otherwise disregard all the core policies just because someone thinks that is the only way to get to the TRUTH. None of this appears to be even remotely fit for inclusion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 20:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Centrify for the most part but, if there is a real RS in there show that and discuss. Entire chunks of information attempted to be shoved down the throats of editors is not likely to be seen as a good faith attempt to discuss improvements to this article. Any information not attributed to a reliable source in the article will be removed without discussion. While I know that sounds harsh....it is per policy and very much justified given the editors history.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is one RS in there that doesn't even talk about the subject matter Dualus is citing it for (he seems to do this a lot). So, that equals zero reliable sources. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 20:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahhhhhh, I see. Dualus must have pulled a fast one on me, I was trusting his work without looking at his actual refs, prima facie. I thought he was beyond that, but now after doing my homework, I was wrong and should have looked at the actual sources. I'll drop him a note on his talk page later in a few. 완젬스 (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Which reference are you two talking about? 1=0, Cent.? Dualus (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "A New York attorney named Michael Pollok wrote the first drafts of the 99 Percent Declaration. Pollok is a well known criminal defense attorney in New York who became involved in Occupy Wall Street when he began representing a number of students pro bono who were arrested with about 700 people on the Brooklyn Bridge.(ref> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-03/-occupy-wall-street-protesters-request-trial-at-court-hearing-in-new-york.html "


 * The ref contained does not talk about the 99% Dec., and it doesn't talk about Pollok. It doesn't talk about what it's being cited as a reference for.  It's the only reliable or secondary source in a largely unsourced OR paragraph.  Hence there are no reliable sources. QED. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 23:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Michael Pollok
I note that an attempt to communicate from the apparent author of the document has been repeatedly blanked from this talk page. Does anyone agree with this violation of WP:TALK and WP:BITE? Dualus (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting comment. A few replies:


 * I note that that user has never posted or attempted to post on this talk page.
 * I note that once again, you are trying to derail normal editorial processes by manufacturing drama, and that you never ask a question that isn't loaded.
 * I note that angry, user-generated manifestos of questionable origin are generally not relevant to improving a Wikipedia article of any kind.
 * I note that the angry, user-generated manifesto in question was inserted directly into the article by a user who apparently is not aware of, or feels free to disregard, basic WP policy (sound familiar?).
 * I note that we don't actually know who Michael Pollok is, or whether he is actually the author of "The 99% Declaration, or whether the user mentioned above is actually him.
 * I note that regardless of the correct answers to any of the above, the above editor has been indef blocked and has resorted to making dubious legal threats on his talk page.


 * Regards. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 19:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * He has made outright legal threats against Wikipedia in E-mails. But as this discussion is just chat and has no relevance to the article or improving it, this is subject to removal as well, by myself or any other editor.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless anyone agrees with Amad. that the deleted text should not be returned to the talk page, I intend to replace it. Dualus (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why Amad's opinion doesn't hold sway with you, and I thought I made it relatively clear that I agreed with the removal, but let me now say that I agree with Amadscientist that you should not re-copy that user's deleted text to the article talk page, due to the reasons I stated above, especially the one in the third bullet point, and also because if WP allowed content discussions to be conducted in this fashion, it would a be trivial matter for an editor to make an end-run around Verifiability and other core policies simply by claiming to supply some undiscovered truth about an article topic, and claiming it to be noteworthy despite not being reflected in reliable sources. I recommend that you contact an administrator to discuss how, or whether, this user's comments would be a constructive topic of discussion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 22:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What did you think of my attempt to merge the sections? Dualus (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that it added repeatedly rejected, unsourced OR for the purpose of soapboxing, and seemed to reflect a studied ignorance of basically everything that any other user or policy page on Wikipedia has told you about proper editing habits over the last few weeks. I think you're not even trying. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 23:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed inclusions

 * I would like to make the following inclusions. Note: these are the actual inclusions made in an attempt to reach a compromise. Dualus (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The 99 Percent Declaration is a political document including a list of suggested grievances on which its organizers have been trying unsuccessfully to get Occupy Wall Street protesters to vote. It calls for a United States General Assembly on July 4, 2012 in Philadelphia to support public works programs, tax hikes on the wealthiest, debt forgiveness, ways to get money out of politics, and amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Declaration says the Assembly would operate like the Committees of Correspondence of the Founding Fathers of the United States who met in Philadelphia.

The protesters' slogan "We are the 99%," refers to income inequality in the United States. The wealthiest 1% control about 40% of the total wealth of the country and their incomes increased 275% from 1979 to 2007. Since 1979, average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive.

Occupy movement protesters have joined the call for a constitutional amendment. On November 1, 2011, Senator Tom Udall introduced a constitutional amendment to reform campaign finance.

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."
 * Suggested grievances

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; caps on greenhouse gas emissions; and implementation of new and existing programs to transition away from fossil fuels to renewable 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.



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.
 * Constitutional amendment introduced in Senate

Occupy movement protesters have joined the call for a constitutional amendment....[as in introduction]


 * Further reading
 * Berg, A.G. and Ostry, J.D. (September 2011) "Equality and Efficiency" Finance and Development (Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund)
 * Sommers, R.L. (1999) "Donald Trump’s Wealth Tax Proposal" TaxProphet.com
 * Coghlan, A. and MacKenzie, D. (October 24, 2011) "Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world" New Scientist
 * Lefcourt, D. (October 21, 2011) "The Essence of the Occupy Movement, 'Redress of Grievances'" Op-ed news
 * Benn, J. (October 2, 2011) "Occupy protestors make demands in The99Declaration" Rocky Mountain Collegian
 * Moore, T. (October 25, 2011) "The Populist's Dilemma" Cornell Sun
 * Udall, T. (November 1, 2011) "A Constitutional Amendment to Reform Campaign Finance" 112th Congress, 1st Session (Washington, D.C.: United States Senate)


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


 * Please share your objections, if any, to reinclusion of the above. Thank you. Dualus (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Why don't you start by sharing your objections, if any, to the current text, and we'll work forward from there? It's not normal editorial process to simply reject a mainspace article you don't like, ignore the normal processes in favor of rewriting your own version in your personal userspace, and then request that the mainspace article be replaced with your personal rewrite.


 * Oh, I should also note you should probably not attempt to wrongfully list the 99% Declaration at International human rights instruments again, since it's clear it doesn't belong there and you have been told that by every other user who appears to have considered the question. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 19:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Opposed to above being included
I think it is best if you try a different route than to shove all this information as a discussion for inclusion. Be specific to what you feel is justified and why each individual claim and each individual reference should be added.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I too agree that you should break it up piecemeal rather than make it all-or-nothing. Take it low & slow until you gain consensus, and then, use bulletpoints to delineate claim by claim, so we can discuss each one more effectively. There is so much interest in doing this the right way, and we all support you in the long run, but this blitzkrieg style of making us pale to keeping up with you, has got to slow down, bro. 완젬스 (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll start from the bottom. Dualus (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

In favor

 * I note there were no objections to the information of the constitutional amendment matching the demands at the beginning of the document, the further reading, and the external links. I'm going to start by adding those at the end. Dualus (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Dualus, this is flat-out dishonest. You were just explicitly told that multiple editors objected to your attempt or desire to simply replace the entire article text with one you fashioned in userspace (largely out of material that has already been rejected for one or more failures of policy adherence) and that you needed to both discuss, and garner consensus for, content you want to add.  Responding by saying "there were no objections to" one or another item included in your text above is just willful ignorance, or worse. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 23:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The article at the moment is much different than the working version in my userspace, because it contains the WP:SUMMARY section which Laura requested. However, I did update my preferred version. Dualus (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't change the subject. Your flurry of activity of a few moments ago restored a large quantity of material that you know lacks consensus for inclusion.  Again, this is willful ignorance, or worse. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 23:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Specifics, please. Dualus (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you think there is consensus for any of it, you can be specific about which material and where the consensus comes from. And if there is consensus, there's a pretty decent chance that someone other than User:Dualus will say so in Talk.  That's how this works. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 23:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Centrify here, basically it is perceived by us that you're wearing us down with exhaustion & red tape. It was only during the 31h block that GandyDancer & I could focus on the parts of the article which we actually wanted to edit. It seems like we must keep up with you before we can do our own thing; and then, if we're lucky, we might have enough residual energy at the end of the day to actually work on the various OWS articles. The amount of activity you're capable of forcing us to deal with each day is daunting. We simply can't keep up, and when you attempt "red tape" such as this (which I will define as deliberate edits you know have almost zero chance of passing) then you're weakening our admittedly lower wiki-energy that we have to devote to you at Wikipedia. You move too fast, your "presence" is too domineering, and you unify weakened editors against you. If you listen to one thing I say from today (and more to come, later) then please listen to this: please slow down, make fewer massive changes, and don't lump together a group of edits into an "all or nothing" section on the talk page because we simply don't have the power to compete with you, so we're requesting that you work with other editors collaboratively and try to work on your "bully persona" which makes everyone fear you. Wikipedia is about collectivism; and, Wikipedia's power structure is like that of a pyramid. The power is not concentrated at the top, but the power comes from the bottom. If you don't learn this soon enough, then you'll give us the impression that you don't ever listen--even to this earnest, heartfelt advice. Although I see praiseworthy efforts from you attempting to change your old ways, it's still not all the way there. Please be a friend, not a foe, because your passion for Wikipedia would be an invaluable blessing to the rest of the Wikipedia community, if and only if your work is constructive rather than destructive (as taken by the amount of "good efforts" you cancel out, from benevolent editors such as centrify, who have to devote time to deal with & neutralize your edits). Thanks for understanding, 완젬스 (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not a collectivist any more than I am a Democratic Socialist, but I believe I can make good improvements. Your inability to edit efficiently is not a valid reason for me to contribute less frequently. Have you considered creating a version in your user space as Amad. and I have? Dualus (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a subpage for another article that I didn't write and don't contribute to much so I may work on formatting issues, not write a version I like. LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and yet another editor's patient and charitable advice is rudely ignored. You just don't get it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 01:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead
I have removed the copy paste from the OWS article as undue weight. To add prose with references it must have context to the subject. The subject of the article is the 99 Percent Declaration. None of that information is in the body of the article and if included needs to speak to why it relates to the document specifically. I'll try to look at it when I can.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Videos
In chronological order:, ,. Are those as good as or better than ? Dualus (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No they are not...but at least this post shows me the video is not related to this document. What is it doing here? I thought it was the authors of the 99 Percent Declaration. I am removing it as not enough context to the article. If anything this would go on the Declaration they authored, if it has an article. We can use an external link to the actual document as it is mentioned and it relates, but this interview is undue weight even in the external links section!--Amadscientist (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Bold Background edits
I removed what I felt was contentious prose from the section that could be BLP, as claims from a primary source not backed up by secondary sourcing.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC) I made changes to the "break away" that were details that could be lost without changing the claim and seemed contentious as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC) I moved the Haack and Redding references up to fit chronology more accurately.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Since the deletion discussion has ended and suggestions made, I decided to be bold and make changes for neutrality as suggested towards the very end of the talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikirage
Greetings folks, I am an established editor on WP and I see the conflict going on over here at 99 Percent Declaration. I am sympathetic to their cause, and I have been in contact with Michael Pollok about the situation. Mr Pollok is a lawyer, and not a Wikipedian, so I hear that he is "seeing the world as a nail" as it were. I will try to act in a diplomatic capacity so that everything works out for everyone. I think many of the concerns he has can be addressed within the process we have here at WP just fine. I will keep in touch with everyone about the evolution of the article. Thank you for your efforts. Greg Bard (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think you should attempt such. If the gentlemen in question is the indef blocked account, you could be blocked for attempting to do work for an editor who has been blocked for specific reasons, including inappropriate contact and spam. Frankly....I see no reason to believe you. No disrespect intended, but better to think you are just a little too enthusiastic than to believe you are really trying to attempt to do the work of an editor who has been blocked. We do not work this way on Wikipedia. If the editor wishes to return he should make the proper request. It is not impossible.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Um, the reason to believe me is the Wikipedia guideline Assume Good Faith along with the fact that I am a senior editor. I find your response a little shocking and insulting quite frankly. I am not intending to do anyone else's work. I think for myself, and am interested in the best possible Wikipedia. I am not a member or affiliated with this group at all, just sympathetic to their concerns. I happen to have no problem with the ban on this editor, it is completely understandable, and we experienced editors have seen this before (i.e. User:Mygarageband or User:Myneworganization make a pages has a flurry of activity, and then either disappears or is banned because of their naive approach to WP.) I have assured Mr Pollak that his concerns can be addressed without legal threats, and he appears to have relented on that point (gee, your welcome). If it is true that there are falsehoods in the article, that actually is a concern OF ALL OF US... I thought. I think your response is completely inappropriate and presumptuous. I think you should make some conciliatory response to me and pledge to work together for the benefit of the reader.Greg Bard (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no patience for any editor trying to play a go between to anyone who sends me threats against Wikipedia or trying to personaly intimidate me. You are shocked...? so am I. I think you should consider what you are doing and why I don't accpet it and think very hard about what you do here in regards to an editor that has been blocked. There is a reason they blocked him and a reason they have not unblocked him. As a senior editor I am sure you know that...right? Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you have no patience, then you do not belong in the Wikpedia community. Furthermore, you are taking out your conflict with this editor out on me. That's guilt by association. I have no idea why you are asking me if I know if there are reasons for blocking someone, when I have already stated that I understand why this editor was banned and agree. Furthermore, I counseled him to relent and he has. So that makes me a collaborator, and you.... well... a fucking asshole. I have about 5 times as much experience here as you. SO CAN IT. I am also a little concerned that you characterize me as "enthusiastic." I have made ONE minor edit to the article, and have telegraphed my intentions to the community on the talk page. Whereas you have actually gotten you hands quite dirty in the article, and have immediately insulted a person wanting to "act in a diplomatic capacity." Project much? I have seen many many many many conflicts on Wikipedia. Your actions here are about the stupidest I have seen. If you don't immediately back down, apologize, and continue behaving respectfully, I will ask ANI to counsel you. Please observe, you are the only one projecting a bad attitude here. All of my approach was in good faith, and that should be quite obvious to anyone. Be well, Greg Bard (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is what you should be doing as a senior editor...you should be advising and mentoring the editor about the proper way to request unblock....if that is even possible at this point. That is an Administrative action and I have no part in those decisions as i am sure you are aware.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have done just that.Greg Bard (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Look....you seem to know your way around Wikipedia. Don't you know the easiest way for this to include material about the subject...especially if you are in contact with the head of the group? Have them put it in their official website and the editors will form a consensus on whether it is acceptable for the article. Pretty simple and to MOS which basically states this.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have advised that he keep a scrapbook of media coverage, which actually would be a better source. Say listen, you really do need to back down and apologize or I will take this to ANI. You have been a complete jerk for absolutely no reason. What kind of arrogant jerk gets on Wikipedia and tells an editor with much more experience that you "have no patience." Get some counseling, and GET PATIENT. In fact I would advise that you cool off from this article for a week and it will still be here if you want to behave like an adult.Greg Bard (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You make chat with an obvious attempt to game the system for a blocked user and then make demands, threats and insults yourself. Take it to ANI. It's your choice.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * One other thing...if you wish to truly help...maybe titling this thread as "Wikirage" and then going into a "Wikirage" isn't the best approach...just saying.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, what an arrogant rant. And then tell the other editor to cool down, grow up, and get counseling? Gandydancer (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, seriously Gregbeard, you sound more like a pirate than a serious editor. Arggh!!! 완젬스 (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Arrogance involves presuming to be due something that you are not due. Assume good faith is due. The main confusion here is that this editor has made some extreme presumptions and has just run with it the whole time. A simple apology would have ended this a long time ago. Please do correct me, Gandy, and 완+. I offer my help and this guy who seems to have a much larger investment in this article than I have attacks my credibility for no good reason. How am I the bad guy here? Greg Bard (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sighs, you're asking candidly so I'll answer honestly. You're probably more "in the right" than everyone else is giving you credit for. I'm not involved, and I'll try to give you some general advice only:


 * For starters, leave your baggage behind. What's in the past is in the past. Whatever the confusion you're trying to clear up, or "righting" a wrongdoing, will not magically get better as a result of your commitment and determination. It may be starting to look that way for you, but it has long looked that way to the rest of us.


 * The second lesson: look forward, not backward.
 * Third lesson: the world around you is already full and beautiful.


 * Fourth lesson: the world is silent.


 * Fifth lesson ends with a quote:
 * With that said, and after devoting about 45 minutes to this post, please use your temporary, newfound wisdom to realize there's no reason to throw "good time" after bad. 완젬스 (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time. This is some good advice for everyone. Great story and great analogy. Greg Bard (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time. This is some good advice for everyone. Great story and great analogy. Greg Bard (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! (and thank you for sharing ;-)) You had me pausing and smiling many times there and you have given us all something important to keep in mind.  OK, you started it - here's the world I live in...  Yes, I know exactly what you mean about those moments of perfect clarity and your story reminded me of one I had many years ago.  It is still so clear that I can easily put myself back in the moment and remember everything around me.  I had just left work after a conversation with one of our clients and I was troubled with what a screwed up picture he had of the world.  Then it came to me in an instant: We all live in different worlds.  Not it seems like our worlds are different, they really are different worlds.  In that moment I understood that we each create our own worlds and they are very real to us - in fact they are real...in our minds.  In that moment I was momentarily aware of a hidden level of reality too, the real REAL world I'll call it, for lack of words because it is beyond words. In that world we are are all one and the same. But in this world, the one I have created, I need to remember to stop, look back, and find the problem rather than just pull harder, as is my nature. :-) Actually, in a round-about way you have reminded me of that... Gandydancer (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Greg. Yeah, I do see you as the bad guy here.  A little background:  Working on this article has been a nightmare for all of us.  If it hasn't been one thing, it's been another, so as to speak.  Firstly, we have had to form some sort of an article with almost the worst sources imaginable.  Secondly, in the other fast-moving articles I've worked on, or even the "slow" ones, an editor needs some sort of background knowledge - but not this one!  It seems that everybody is an expert when it comes to this article - thus we have had a lot of complaints about how biased the article is because we have had to constantly delete edits and justify it on the talk page.  Furthermore, most of our time has been devoted to damage control until now.  In the first few weeks the article was a total free-for-all.  Slowly most of them left but we were still left with one extremely disruptive editor that was busy, busy, busy 24/7.  And then consider that it takes some time to get to know who the "good" editors are and to learn to work together with them.


 * From what I've read in print the Demands document was rather sneaked through in an underhanded manner. I don't like that!  Then when "mr Esq" made his post here, my comment was that he seemed to be on quite the power trip.  I don't like that either.  As for your first post here, it seems reasonable enough to me and it seems you were using good faith, though as for how appropriate it was, I don't know - I only know I've never seen anything like it in the time I've been editing...and I know very little about Wikipedia policy.  As for Amadscientist's reply, it seemed quite reasonable and courteous to me.  But then your reply to him was extremely arrogant, insulting, and totally uncalled for.  And it just went downhill from there.  I see no reason that he needs to apologize to you, rather it seems to me that it is the other way around.   Gandydancer (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The mad scientist (anonymous account) has made over 90 edits to this article, and I have made one (1). The only reason to try to get rid of an experienced editor if you have an agenda. Period. I can tell you that I am experienced enough to be able to edit in a NPOV way, and all of the conflict seems to stem from the near religious belief that merely being sympathetic to the cause of a person who is involved with the subject means that I couldn't possibly help the situation. This is really just his and your presumption. Discouraging people to edit is not what we do here. We collaborate civilly. This mad scientist did exactly what you are not supposed to do: questioning motives, and calling credibility into question. I am sorry gandy, I am going to have to, after having duly considered your opinion, reject it. I am completely in the right here, and mad scientist is completely in the wrong. If I come across as arrogant, please let me correct you on that. No, I;m not. I started out only asking for some form of conciliatory remark. That was his cue to tone it down. Then I asked for an apology. If you see me as the bad guy, in any way, well, with respect, You are as delusional as he is. Be well, Greg Bard (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Very long change of subject Mr.Bard. You suggest that I am discouraging people to edit. No...I am asking you to not attempt to mediate Original Research from a blocked editor with a major conflict of interest against the spirit, if not the policy of Wikipedia. I also have not told anyone to leave this page, you have.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Greg, if you are waiting for an apology or for me to agree with you, it must be clear by now that that is not going to happen. But why should that prevent you from editing this article?  Gandydancer (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No you don't owe me an apology. You are entitled to your opinion. I don't have to edit articles where there are no conflicts, why should I waste my time in an area where I am not welcome?! Good luck.Greg Bard (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * OK crybaby, take your ball and go home. Gandydancer (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

University Newspapers
Are University newspapers considered reliable sources? (e.g. The Harvard Crimson). The reason I ask is that there are a number of University newspapers that seem to be providing good coverage of the the 99 percent declaration. See for example--Nowa (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I know we have used Harvard online articles, and there is at least one student contributed article to a justice site. Not sure what the guideline says if anything specifically.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was trying to figure out if David DeGraw of AmpedStatus was a notable supporter of the 99 percent declaration, but I couldn't find evidence  of notability of either Mr. DeGraw or AmpedStatus.--Nowa (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My personal rule of thumb (not WP policy, so far as I'm aware) is that if an aspect of a topic has not been considered noteworthy by actual professional mainstream news services, it's not noteworthy enough for inclusion in a WP article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 21:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Liar, liar pants on fire?
A few days ago the editor that identified himself as Michael Pollok made a long post in this article expressing pretty much the same sentiments that he expresses here on the talk page. It was deleted, but it can be read if one looks back. Then user 24.161.123.221 posted here saying he was "one of the 2900 members of the #OWS 99% Declaration Working Group". Then he made another post saying, "I have not tried to edit this article myself because I heard that when facilitator Michael Pollok tried to edit the article you completely banned him from Wikipedia. Very democratic and representative of free speech", calling himself KPA 24.161.123.221. Then in the next post the editor states, "Since I am apparently no longer banned from Wikipedia" giving the impression that he is Pollok. But when I look at the contributions of this number, as I just did, I find a couple of Batman edits and a couple of vandalism edits, and then nothing till these edits. What's up? Gandydancer (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I wouldn't make too much of the "apparently no longer banned" comment; that could mean a lot of things.


 * At the same time, recall that we're talking about a group of people that presumes to run an "election", without any authority or political legitimacy whatsoever, to choose a "national assembly" that will then claim to speak for an entire country of 300 million people (or "99%" of it, at any rate). So I really wouldn't past them to ignore and deceptively subvert WP policy, once they have decided that they think it is unfair or corrupt (as it appears they have).   These guys obviously think they have all the answers, judging by the tone and substance of the "Declaration" itself.  Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If his account was banned and he is now an IP user...it could be anyone from any computer and the post itself was a lie or it could be an attempt at sock puppetry. Who knows?--Amadscientist (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not going engage in this nonsense. The amount of damage you are doing to Wikipedia by these childish remarks is astounding. Our web page www.the99decalration.org just passed 200,000 unique hits today. For those of you who can maintain some professionalism and objectivity, this article was published today in the Atlantic Monthly today http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/has-a-harvard-professor-mapped-out-the-next-step-for-occupy-wall-street/247561/. I have been in daily contact with Professor Lawrence Lessig and we have asked him to give the Keynote Speech at the National General Assembly. You may also be interested to know that I was invited to attend the Demands Working Group session at 60 Wall Street Atrium but due to the raid on the park, I was unable to attend and had to spend my time trying to get people out of the system since I donate my time as an attorney to the #OWS movement. Michael S. Pollok, Facilitator of the #OWS Working Group on the 99% Declaration. 24.161.123.221 (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sighs, time to take off the kiddie gloves. The rogue, breakaway group from OWS is headstrong to take over our articles. The more this article upsets Lawrence Lessig, the more we Wikipedians are successfully keeping this talk page/article from going to them. 완젬스 (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't surprise me if it is Dualus making these posts! Gandydancer (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Michael, the only childish remarks here are your remarks whining that WP is not your soapbox and isn't going to break all its own rules in order you to help spread The Truth. In fact, WP policies are explicitly designed to prevent people from using WP as a platform for spreading The Truth.  If there's something you want said here, call a newspaper and get them to publish it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 12:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting Atlantic reference. I added it.--Nowa (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems pretty obvious that Pollok and Lessig wrote the document. We know that Lessig contacted Huff Post on October 5 saying he was headed for the NYC OWS site, and then it was released on the 15th. .  I'd guess that Lessig knows how to use the press.  But they seem to be having a problem when it comes to using the OWS movement... Gandydancer (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I say there's zero chance Lessig helped write it, or if he did, he didn't have editorial control. The document is full of way-out ridiculous demands that I don't think he could have made with a straight face.  For example, can we imagine a Harvard con law professor demanding that Congress pass a law that has failed to achieve the requisite Congressional support?  No way in hell, IMO. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 21:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen: May I respectfully suggest that you all review WP:NPA.--Nowa (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

you people are embarrassing and should be ashamed that you are treating Jim Wales' creation like this; I had no idea what a joke WP is until I saw this. I am posting this entire talk in a note on our 3100 member FB page so they can see what you people are all about: "LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!"24.161.123.221 (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen: I would have to agree with user '221 in the sense that this particular discussion section seems to be more focused on a user's behavior than the content of the article. Any objection to deleting this discussion from the article talk page?--Nowa (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, but I think (1) Gandy was well within bounds to bring this up, as potentially deceptive/manipulative/disruptive editor behavior seems to be a real concern here; (2) the substance of the discussion has been relevant to improving the article, and (3) the comments from Pollok and various IP users show the hostile attitude and general disrespect for WP that seems to be emanating from this group, indirectly validating the concerns underlying (1) and (2). Also, not to nitpick, but Gandy falls under "ladies" rather than "gentlemen". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 15:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (EDIT CONFLICT) Nowa, please correct me if I am incorrect in my understanding of the history of this editor.


 * An editor that says that he is Michael Pollok Esq., the person that wrote the 99% Declaration, makes an edit saying that the article is mostly disinformation and demands that it be written to conform to what he says is accurate.


 * When told that Wikipedia does not allow his word to be adequate to fulfill our sources requirements he sends a "threatening email" to one of the editors and his account is subsequently blocked.


 * An established editor makes an entry stating that he would like to work as a go-between with Pollok to help make the article more factual. That editor is told that that would not be allowed under Wikipedia policy and that editor leaves saying, "why should I waste my time in an area where I am not welcome?".


 * Then an editor calling himself, "one of the 2900 members of the #OWS 99% Declaration Working Group" makes a post.


 * Rather than answer several questions or follow any suggestions, the editor again posts saying, "I have not tried to edit this article myself because I heard that when facilitator Michael Pollok tried to edit the article you completely banned him from Wikipedia".


 * Next, an editor from the same address makes a post saying, "Since I am apparently no longer banned from Wikipedia...", and calls himself Michael Pollok. Then, using the same name he makes a talk page post saying, "I am not going engage in this nonsense. The amount of damage you are doing to Wikipedia by these childish remarks is astounding".


 * And his last edit: "you people are embarrassing and should be ashamed that you are treating Jim Wales' creation like this; I had no idea what a joke WP is until I saw this. I am posting this entire talk in a note on our 3100 member FB page so they can see what you people are all about: "LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!"24.161.123.221 (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)"


 * If this summary is correct, I would think that it is important for Wikipedia to discuss the behavior of this editor. Please explain why you do not agree. Gandydancer (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree it should be discussed, but not on the article talk page. I would be happy to host the discussion on my talk page if we wanted to move it there.--Nowa (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO, the rule that article Talk pages are for discussing matters relevant to improving the article supersedes the rule that you're supposed to avoid commenting on other editors. In this case, it is precisely the conduct and threats of numerous IPs and a couple named editors that endangers the integrity of this article, such as it is. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

What you do not get, while you all hide behind your phony names unlike Pollok, is the comments on here came from ordinary people not "wiki editors" We are people involved in the #OWS movement and you have disgraced yourself and Wikipedia before the eyes of literally hundreds of thousands of people and when this television commercial http://www.youtube.com/user/the99declaration#p/u/2/PnNazuRXoEc airs nationally in two weeks you will be made fools of before millions. All the people who published false information on this phony planted page should be permanently banned from Wikipedia. I urge you to delete the entire article and this absurd talk page before it is too late. When people see this commercial they will go to the webpage and then to wikipedia and this is disaster you have written here will be seen by millions. LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!24.161.123.221 (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Returning then to the issue at hand, it seems to me that we have here on the talk page is trolling.   The traditional advice is to simply not respond.--Nowa (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't argue with that. I think that in some cases, deleting unconstructive comments may also be called for, but please revert if you disagree. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Considering that I have accused this editor of lying, I would like to keep his/her posts. Gandydancer (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

What is your real name Gandydancer? Why don't you all publish your real names? You have accused Pollok of lying in a public forum so publish your real names so he can take appropriate legal action so a court of law can determine who is telling the truth. He should totally sue the pants off of Wikipedia. 24.161.123.221 (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not concerned about a "appropriate legal action" against me or Wikipedia. Initially I did believe that it was the "real" Michael Pollok that was making these posts, however, considering that (as far as I know) the real Michael Pollok is a lawyer, I am beginning to doubt that he is responsible for any of these posts.  I would think that an attorney would understand that Wikipedia could not possibly accept the word of an internet personality to be enough to base our articles on for accuracy, and especially so when that person is making edits both in his own name (Pollok) and that of another person that apparently supports Pollok. You don't need to be educated in law to see a problem.  At this point it seems more likely to me that an ardent Pollok supporter is making these edits.  Gandydancer (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi IP 24, the legal threats you're making are baseless and ridiculous (talk to a lawyer if you want to know why), but you still shouldn't be making them. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 17:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback please
Memorandum: Corrections to Wikipedia Article relayed from the board of directors of the 99% Working Group, Ltd., the not-for-profit entity d/b/a the 99% Declaration Working Group: Adeline Malone, Esq., Michael Pollok, Esq. and Kevin Archambault with a copy to James Wales, Wikimedia Foundation Inc., 149 New Montgomery Street, 3rd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105 via facsimile with cover letter to 415-882-0495. Please correct article to mitigate damages to the 99% Working Group, Ltd. http://appext9.dos.ny.gov/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=4428814&p_corpid=4166688&p_entity_name=%74%68%65 %39%39% %77%6F%72%6B%69%6E%67 %67%72%6F%75%70&p_name_type=%41&p_search_type=%42%45%47%49%4E%53&p_srch_results_page=0

“The 99 Percent Declaration or 99% Declaration is an unofficial political document including a list of suggested grievances on which its organizers have been trying to get Occupy Wall Street protesters to vote.”
 * FALSE: We do not seek any vote from #OWS; we hope each GA will run delegates in the March 2012 election.


 * NOTE: The document is neither “official” nor “unofficial”, it is a document created by members of the 99%.

“It calls for Occupy Wall Street protesters to organize and conduct an "election" of 870 delegates to a "National General Assembly" to convene on July 4, 2012 in Philadelphia.”
 * INCORRECT: We the organization of the election is not limited to #OWS.

the number of delegates will be 876 and not 870 (six delegates will represent D.C., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Territories). One man and one woman will be elected from each of the 435 Congressional Districts. “Among the 21 suggested grievances and solutions in the 99% Declaration[s] are support of public works programs, tax hikes on the wealthiest, student loan debt forgiveness, ways to get money out of politics, and amendment of the U.S. Constitution if necessary to effect change in current the political system.[2][3][4]”
 * INCORRECT: There are now 22 suggested grievances and solutions. The grievances and solutions are “suggested” because the elected delegates will draft and ratify a formal petition for a redress of grievances and guaranteed by the constitution even though you do to mention this.

“The 99% Declaration describes this new National General Assembly as a body that would operate like the first two Continental Congresses attended by the Founding Fathers of the United States who also met in Philadelphia.[5][6][7]”
 * CORRECT.

Background “Occupy Wall Street is a movement, which began as an advertised demonstration asking "What is our one Demand". David Haack, an anti-corporate activist who lives in New York City, wrote in the The Guardian UK that he and a small group had introduced a proposal outlining demands during the early planning stages of the Occupy Wall Street protests, but they were struck down in late August. He discovered a "goals" working group and hoped that common ground could be found.[4] 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.[8]”
 * NOTE: We have no information as to the accuracy of these statements but see no relevance to the 99% Declaration which is the subject of the article. The statements are also ambiguous.

"The New York movement adopted a "Declaration of the Occupation of New York City", listing grievances. However, two groups, the Demands Working Group and the Liberty Square Blueprint, have begun authoring their own group demands.[9]"
 * FALSE: The 99% Declaration Working Group has nothing to do with these two other groups and never has. Thus there were at least three groups working on grievances or demands. The 99% Declaration Working Group started its work on October 7, 2011 and was announced to the NYCGA on October 15, 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le5YI_QPPKk. The 99% Declaration Working Group is now a not for profit organization filed under the laws of the State of New York. See NYS Secretary of State Web Page: http://appext9.dos.ny.gov/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=4428814&p_corpid=4166688&p_entity_name=%74%68%65 %39%39% %77%6F%72%6B%69%6E%67 %67%72%6F%75%70&p_name_type=%41&p_search_type=%42%45%47%49%4E%53&p_srch_results_page=0

“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.[10]”
 * FALSE: See video of announcement of Working Group on 10-15-11 at 7:45 pm to the NYCGA. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le5YI_QPPKk That is all that is required to start a working group. The rules may have changed since October 15, 2011 but at the time we started a valid #OWS Working Group.

“On October 15, 2011, the "Demands Working Group" published the declaration of demands, goals, and solutions.[3][4]”
 * FALSE: The Demands Working Group has nothing to do with the 99% Declaration Working Group or the 99% Declaration which was published on our webpage on October 7, 2011 not October 15, 2011. The 99% Declaration Working Group was formally announced on October 15, 2011. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le5YI_QPPKk

“On October 31, 2011 the Demands Working Group disappeared from the New York City General Assembly website.”
 * FALSE: The 99% Declaration Working Group was deleted. The Demands Working Group was never deleted and is still on the website. See http://www.nycga.net/groups/demands/


 * NOTE: You are either deliberately or negligently confusing the 99% Declaration Working Group with the Demands Working Group when they have nothing to do with one another. Even the website story you cite states this and notes that thestormkrow@gmail.com deleted the 99% Declaration Working Group web page. See http://www.nycga.net/2011/11/01/the-nycga-true-hollywood-story-the-99declaration-group-an-expose/#comment-14646

That person is Stanley Ford and he deleted the web page without any permission from us or anyone else except himself. He was never a part of the 99% Declaration Working Group. “The server logs show the group was self-deleted by the group's controlling administrator. The Official NYC GA website, "Site News", stated that administrators of groups have the ability to delete their own group at any time.[11]”
 * FALSE: Stanley Ford aka thestormkrow@gmail.com deleted the web page unilaterally.


 * NOTE: What really happened here appears on the 99% Declaration web page here: https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/about-the-99-declaration-1 and states in part:

On October 15, 2011, the group took about 400 copies of the declaration to Occupy Wall Street in Zuccotti Park where they passed out the copies, answered questions and took down emails of people interested in helping implement the plan called for in the document. The students and people who joined at Occupy Wall Street formed the core of the original working group. That evening, the group announced to the New York City General Assembly the formation of the 99% Declaration Working Group. The reception to the idea of an election and National General Assembly was positive and it was the group's intention to return in two weeks and introduce the 99% Declaration to the NYC General Assembly for a consensus opinion. Three days later, however, on October 18, 2011, the Huffington Post and Russell Simmons' Global Grind found the online version of the 99% Declaration that was posted for edits and erroneously reported that the 99% Declaration was an official #OWS document sanctioned by the New York City General Assembly. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/18/occupy-wall-street-planning-convention_n_1018570.html and http://globalgrind.com/news/occupy-wall-street-releases-list-demands-photos Other media outlets jumped on this story and reported it. http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/10/19/‘occupy’-to-hold-national-assembly-in-philadelphia/ and http://nation.foxnews.com/occupy-wall-street/2011/10/19/occupy-may-hold-national-assembly-philadelphia. These erroneous stories were reported without contacting any member of the working group which at that time numbered around seven people. After the Huffington Post story came out, despite being inaccurate, the web hits on the declaration went from about 3,000 to over 150,000 in a couple of days. The members of the NYCGA were understandably angry. We find it curious that you ignore the Huffington Post story and the story on the Global Grind. Document “Although unofficial, the declaration calls for a national general assembly to represent the 435 congressional districts to gather on July 4, 2012, for the purpose of assembling a list of grievances and solutions.”
 * NOTE: This is totally repetitive. Why don’t you just list the 22 headers and summarize Clauses I-V rather than just repeat what was in the first paragraph? The document is neither official nor unofficial.

“The draft list overlaps a proposal by Robert Reich to support public works programs, tax increases, debt forgiveness, and ways to get money out of politics.[2]”
 * FALSE: Robert Reich was not used as a source for the 99% Declaration nor was Lawrence Lessig but we support many of the ideas Professor Lessig wrote about in his book Republic Lost. We simply did not use Reich as a source.

“A National General Assembly idea comes from the Demands Working Group, a protester committee designated at one of the General Assembly meetings in Zuccotti Park.”
 * FALSE: The Demands Working Group had and has nothing to do with the idea of a National General Assembly or the 99% Declaration. The Demands Working Group and the 99% Declaration Working Group have only had one contact when the DWG invited Michael Pollok to attend a meeting at the 60 Wall Street Atrium and he could not make it. So there has been no collaboration.

“The plan includes elections by direct vote of two delegates from the Congressional Districts. These delegates would vote on a list of grievances at an assembly in Philadelphia. “
 * NOTE: Repetitive unless you want to list all paragraphs of the plan under “Document.” You are also missing the six delegates for DC and the others.

“After forming, the group launched a website and published the list online, but the plans have not been backed by the OWS movement in New York or accepted nationally.[3][4] The Declaration says the Assembly would operate like the Committees of Correspondence of the Founding Fathers of the United States who met in Philadelphia.[5]”
 * NOTE: Repetitive to the statements to first paragraph.

24.161.123.221 (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I just realized that the correction to the article I sent you still has some typos and errors from the original text. I also added a very important sentence regarding a discussion between the 99% Working Group and the Demands Working Group to merge the demands effort. If you need any additional sources, please email us at the99declaration@gmail.com as we have emails supporting these facts.

The 99 Percent Declaration or 99% Declaration is a proposed political document including a list of suggested grievances to be included in a formal Petition for a Redress of Grievances as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 99% Declaration calls for the 99% of Americans to organize and conduct an online and in-person election of 876 delegates to a "National General Assembly" to convene on July 4, 2012 in Philadelphia. One man and one woman will be elected from each of the 435 Congressional voting districts plus six additional delegates to represent American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands.

Among the 21 suggested grievances and solutions listed in the 99% Declaration are: support of public works programs, tax hikes on the wealthiest 1%, student loan debt forgiveness, detailed solutions to get money out of politics, and possible amendments of the U.S. Constitution, if necessary, to effect permanent change in current the political system. The 99% Declaration describes this new National General Assembly as an independent body that would operate like the first two Continental Congresses attended by the Founding Fathers of the United States who also met in Philadelphia in 1775-76. Section V of the 99% Declaration provides that If the ratified Petition for a Redress of Grievances is ignored by the United States government, the delegates will reconvene to organize a new grassroots independent party to run candidates in the 2014 mid-term elections to replace all members of Congress regardless of party. No candidate for delegate or person serving as a delegate to the National General Assembly may not take any private money to support their campaign.

Background

The 99% Declaration originated in the Occupy Wall Street movement, which began as an advertised demonstration asking "What is our one Demand". David Haack, an anti-corporate activist who lives in New York City, wrote in the The Guardian that he and a small group had introduced a proposal outlining demands during the early planning stages of the Occupy Wall Street protests. Haack reports that his suggestions were 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 [which 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 to obtain consensus whether to make demands or grievances.

The New York movement adopted a "Declaration of the Occupation of New York City" in September 2011, listing grievances. Later, three groups, the Demands Working Group, the Liberty Square Blueprint, and the 99% Delcaration Working Group, all originating in NYC, began authoring their own demands. According to political commentator, Taylor Marsh: "[T]he one thing I’ve seen at OWS, the “working group” isn’t mentioned by name." [NOTE WHICH WORKIG GROUP IS SHE REFERRING TO?] She goes on to mention postings from OWS and "[T]hat seems to indicate the issuers of the 99% Declaration are not directly tied to OWS. On October 15, 2011, the 99% Working Group announced itself to the New York City General Assembly and published the 99% Declaration’s list of grievances, goals, and solutions. There is a video available on You Tube of the announcement to the NYCGA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le5YI_QPPKk. On November 13, 2011, the Demands Working Group of the NYCGA invited the 99% Working Group to attend a meeting at the 60 Wall Street Atrium to discuss a plan to merge the two groups. This merger discussion never too place because the NYPD under orders from Mayor Michael Bloomberg cleared Zucotti park that day and arrested several key participants.

[WE SUGGEST DELETING THIS DIVISIVE CONTENT AS IT IS NO LONGER RELEVANT] On October 31, 2011 the The 99% Declaration Working Group disappeared from the New York City General Assembly website. The server logs show the group was self-deleted by the group's controlling administrator called “thestormkrow@gmail.com. The Official NYC GA website, "Site News", stated that administrators of groups have the ability to delete their own group at any time. The current leaders of the 99% Working Group deny that “thestormkrow@gmail.com had authority to delete the web page. [edit]

Document (WE SUGGEST THAT most of this section is repetitive to the points in the first section and really adds nothing to the article)

The 99% Declaration suggests that the 99% elect a National General Assembly to represent the 435 congressional districts, U.S. Territories, Peurto Rico and D.C. to gather on July 4, 2012, for the purpose of ratifiying a formal Petition for a Reddress of Grievances, The current draft overlaps a proposal by Robert Reich to support public works programs, tax increases, debt forgiveness, and ways to get money out of politics.[2] The National General Assembly idea came from the author Michael Pollok, an attorney who represented a number of protesters who were arrested during the NYC protests in October 2011. The Demands Working Group, a protester committee designated at one of the General Assembly meetings in Zuccotti Park is a separate entity as is he Liberty Square Blueprint. The plan includes elections by direct vote of two delegates, one man and one woman, from the 435 Congressional Districts. [repetitive] These delegates would vote on a list of grievances at an assembly in Philadelphia [repetive]. After forming, the 99% Working Groupi group launched a website and published the list online on October 7, 2011, but the plans have not been backed by the OWS movement in New York or accepted nationally but OWS in Philadelphia and Boston do back the plan and have published the plan on their webpages.[ The Declaration says the Assembly would operate like the Committees of Correspondence of the Founding Fathers of the United States who met in Philadelphia.[5] [repetitive]

Again, please contact us at the99declaration@gmail.com if you want more sources or need more information. Please do this right or don't do it at al. This document is about to go on national television so please correct the Article.

24.161.123.221 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC). 24.161.123.221 (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am one of the five facilitators of the 99% Declaration Working Group and the only accurate version of this article is the text above and even that is not complete since we are working with the #OWS Working Group now. We really don't care what you write but I think it would be damaging to Wikipedia to leave this article published like this. Isn't the last paragraph a restatement of the first paragraph? Anyway it's your article but it's just wrong. Just thought you should know.99%DWG65.73.129.33 (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe that the following sentence in the article should be used:

However, two break-away groups, the Demands Working Group and the Liberty Square Blueprint, decided that wasn't sufficient and placed themselves in charge of authoring other demands.[12]

It is from the South African Times written by a columnist that lives in NYC and the wording is similar to what she wrote with only minor changes to avoid copyright violations. I would call the article an opinion piece. I believe that it is misleading for several reasons. Firstly, it calls both groups "break-away" demands groups. The Liberty Square Blueprint is neither a break-away group nor a demands group. Apparently it is a wiki document of goals drawn up by the General Assembly. And secondly, the Demands Working Group was a "real" working group until it was (apparently) hijacked by Michael Polluck who did subsequently break away, or was removed from the site by another person. (From what I read at the OWS forum, the Demands group would like to continue with their work.) To group these two groups in the same sentence is misleading. Also, the wording "decided that wasn't sufficient and placed themselves in charge of authoring other demands" may not paint a fair picture of the original DWG, which may well have had members who were sincerely trying to follow their image of what was needed for the movement to survive, within the boundaries of the OWS movement overall.

I also believe that the sentence, "David Haack wrote in the The Guardian UK that he had introduced a proposal outlining demands" in the article is misleading. Haack did not say that he proposed the early Demands document, he said that he and a group of activists proposed it. Gandydancer (talk) 12:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The line is nearly verbatim from the RS. Is South Africa an unacceptable location? The hack quote is acceptable as it does not state he wrote the demands document, it's background to the fact that he has every early on attempted the same thing and then Reddin began the group. Again, in the reference. It sounds like you are attempting to pick out what you don't like based on what does not promote the document in a manner you would prefer.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I will look at both to be sure clarity is not questionable.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with the news service. The Gaurdian UK is being used with an opinion piece and the Times live is a Reliable Source with full editorial over site and a staff of journalists.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement of the demands group and the Liberty Square Blueprint is accurate to the source and you have provided no RS to contradict it. The FNF site is not a reliable source.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * First, and most importantly, I am not attempting to promote the 99% Document in some sort of manner in which I would prefer. I am attempting to write a Wikipedia article that best represents this issue in the most accurate manner possible, given the often confusing and scanty information that we have to work with.  I'm sure that the South African Times is a perfectly fine source of news, however I question that it be used in this article to introduce information that seems to contradict information what one finds at the OWS site, and has not been used in any other news source.  In other words, I do not believe that it is appropriate to use this source and this journalist to state that the Liberty Square Document is a break-away group.  Furthermore, if this journalist is confused about that issue, one must wonder what else she may be confused about.  And finally, I have never said that you have not quoted her almost verbatim, in fact I actually said that that is exactly what you have done. I only believe that you are giving too much weight to her statements. Gandydancer (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Please show the OWS homepage information that contradicts that they are a break away group.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Granted we have little to go on for this article and have had no choice but to pick and choose from conflicting sources. Speaking in the Guardian Haack seems to say he dropped out of the Demands group in August and then a NYT's article seems to say he was in on the later Demands group in September.  I'm not even certain the the DWG produced the 99% article, what with mr Esq saying he wrote it.  But as to the Liberty Square Document, I believe that we can be fairly certain that it is not a product of a "break-away" group.  It was mentioned as early as the 18th in the Mother Jones article  as being issued by the OWS GA.  I've already given the LSD site several times (see above). Gandydancer (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess it's trying to determine what "Breakaway" is meant to mean. As the OWS movement is not about demands in many reliable sources and is indeed mentioned in more RS's as not being associated with the DWG. I believe it's simply meant to say they "broke away" from consensus of the GA and continued their work away from the movement. Not they they have been dropped...although with the Demands Working Group I believe they were. But they can always be brought back into the "fold" so to speak. Break away is simply stating that they are not acting in an official capacity and no document has been accepted as official OWS sponsored as no consensus has formed around them and they are acting for their own interests at this point and will bring these to either the NYC GA or to individual GA's across the nation. OWS is not a single entity. Many groups have not been brought in, in an official capacity.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I tend to disagree, however no one has given any feedback and it appears that I am the only one that sees any problems with the way it reads. Thanks for the patience! Gandydancer (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge the fact that you have concerns. That is why I have been researching this as much as I can and have added no further content in that regard. I can't find anything but gossip blogs and the few references I do find don't show a contradiction yet. In fact i found a Harvard article that apears to state conflict within the movement and I am not sure if that would help the situation much to your liking so I just skipped it for now. I was kind of hoping you actually had some mention from the official OWS site, as all I can find are forum posts. Well...I did find another post from the NYC GA but we don't need to over weight the article with more from them at the moment. I tried to look at what the 99 Percent Declaration site is saying but see nothing usable in that context. What I did find was that there is no 99PercentDeclaration.org...just a facebook page with that name (and that's actually a .com url address). I thought I had found something the other day but can't locate it now. What I did find was this: . I am trying Gandydancer. I really am.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * To restate my position: I feel that it is a mistake to quote something written in a South African news source written as an opinion piece by a woman that generally writes about life in NYC (if I remember correctly), (and makes a quip about tent sex in her piece).  She says, "Then two break-away groups - the Demands Working Group and the Liberty Square Blueprint - decided that that was not enough and put themselves in charge of drawing up other demands. Somewhere out of that chaos has emerged a list of demands which has been criticised and ridiculed at every turn."  On the other hand we have an article in Mother Jones, the most widely read liberal magazine in the US, saying that "Ketchup", a well-known protester who is strongly against Demands,  prefers the Liberty Square Document, which certainly suggests that it is not the product of a break-away group at all (or a Demands document either).


 * If it were important to use the term "break away" in our article, that would be one thing - but it's not necessary at all. We have so little information to work with, it hardly seems reasonable to me to state something as factual when it actually comes from one news source, and that source is a South Africa source to boot.


 * However, I asked for feedback and the other editors agree with you or they would have spoken up by now. This is not my article and I certainly don't want it to reflect only my opinion.  I don't agree, but I do agree that it is important that group decisions be followed or we go back to having a situation like we had when Dualus was editing. Gandydancer (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reiterating your position. We may well be the two that make this consensus and since we currently do not agree we simply have no consensus at the moment. But let me try to restate my position. First, the need to mention "break away" is as the most notable part of all the documents being mentioned with the exception of the "Declaration of the Occupation of New York City", which was officially adopted by the NYC GA and the OWS official site. This part could use a specific reference and seems easy enough to accomplish if needed. The NYC GA continues to restate there own claim that there are no other groups authorized to speak on their behalf or for the OWS movement in general. This is very clearly in regards to the all groups. As for the reference itself, it is a reliable source with the full editorial over site required for such. The author is a legitimate journalist and editor and is not writing from a distant land but is writing from New York. The article is not a blog or opinion piece but a normal news article and can be used as a reference to facts. The author does have a regular blog that she writes which is the "New York State of Mind" Blog, but that means nothing. Many journalist have newspaper blogs on top of other reporting and editing duties. The fact that this is an article from "South Africa" has absolutely no bearing whatsoever. A single news source is all that is required to reference a claim as long as that source fills all requirements per Wikipedia policy and Guidelines as this does.


 * You state that Mother Jones is "the most widely read liberal magazine in the US". OK, I agree and as a registered Liberal Democrat and a Wikipedian, I have to mention that Websites and publications of political parties and partisan groups, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution.. The specific example you gave of a protesters preference neither suggests or proves a point of opinion to the subject of either document being a "Break away" group or not. To establish a contradiction of the source we need an equally weighted view point written in a similar reliable source. This would not mean that we would over ride the facts from the other...but that we would include both, per Neutral point of view Balance which states, "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."--Amadscientist (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

In looking at this from a different perspective the material is just contentious and has no encyclopedic value and it's removal doesn't change the statement. Further bold editing to remove un-encyclopedic contentious prose.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay since you refuse to delete this article and we love Wikipedia, here are corrections to make the article accurate. The last section is totally repetitive and should simply be excised. If you need more sources email us at the99declaration@gmail.com

The 99 Percent Declaration or 99% Declaration is a proposed political document including a list of suggested grievances for a formal Petition for a Redress of Grievances as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1] The 99% Declaration calls for the 99% of Americans to organize and conduct an "election" of 876 delegates to a "National General Assembly" to convene on July 4, 2012 in Philadelphia. One man and one woman will be elected from each of the 435 Congressional Voting Distriscts plus six additional delegates to represent American Samoa, District of Columbia, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands.

Among the 21 suggested grievances and solutions in the 99% Declarations are support of public works programs, tax hikes on the wealthiest 1%, student loan debt forgiveness, detailed solutions to get money out of politics, and possible amendments of the U.S. Constitution, if necessary, to effect permanent change in current the political system.[2][3][4] The 99% Declaration describes this new National General Assembly as a body that would operate like the first two Continental Congresses attended by the Founding Fathers of the United States who also met in Philadelphia.[5][6][7] If the Petition for a Redress of Grievances is ignored by the United States government, the delegates will reconvene to organize a new grassroots independent party to run candidates in the 2014 mid-term elections to replace all members of Congress regardless of party.

Background

The 99% Declaration originated in the Occupy Wall Street movement, which began as an advertised demonstration asking "What is our one Demand". David Haack, an anti-corporate activist who lives in New York City, wrote in the The Guardian that he and a small group had introduced a proposal outlining demands during the early planning stages of the Occupy Wall Street protests. Haack reports that his suggestions were struck down in late August. He discovered a "goals" working group and hoped that common ground could be found.[4] Shawn Redding [who is this person, cite source] and others formed the working group [which 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 to obtain consensus whether to make demands or grievances.[8]

The New York movement adopted a "Declaration of the Occupation of New York City"in September 2011, listing grievances. Later, three groups, the Demands Working Group, the Liberty Square Blueprint, and the 99% Delcaration Working Group begun authoring their own group demands.[9] According to political commentator, Taylor Marsh: "[T]he one thing I’ve seen at OWS, the “working group” [which 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 99% Declaration are not directly tied to OWS.[10] On October 15, 2011, the 99% Working Group announced itself to the New York City General Assembly and published the 99% Declaration’s list of grievances, goals, and solutions.[3][4] Site video of the announcement to NYCGA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le5YI_QPPKk

On October 31, 2011 the The 99% Declaration Working Group disappeared from the New York City General Assembly website. The server logs show the group was self-deleted by the group's controlling administrator called “thestormkrow@gmail.com. The Official NYC GA website, "Site News", stated that administrators of groups have the ability to delete their own group at any time.[11] The currently leaders of the 99% Working Group deny that “thestormkrow@gmail.com had authority to delete the web page. [edit]

Document (most of this is repetitive to the points in the first section and really adds nothing to the article)

The 99% Declaration suggests that the 99% elect a National General Assembly to represent the 435 congressional districts, U.S. Territories, Peurto Rico and D.C. to gather on July 4, 2012, for the purpose of ratifiying a formal Petition for a Reddress of Grievances, The current draft overlaps a proposal by Robert Reich to support public works programs, tax increases, debt forgiveness, and ways to get money out of politics.[2] The National General Assembly idea came from the author Michael Pollok, an attorney who represented a number of protesters who were arrested during the NYC protests in October 2011. The Demands Working Group, a protester committee designated at one of the General Assembly meetings in Zuccotti Park is a separate entity as is he Liberty Square Blueprint. The plan includes elections by direct vote of two delegates, one man and one woman, from the 435 Congressional Districts. [repetitive] These delegates would vote on a list of grievances at an assembly in Philadelphia [repetive]. After forming, the 99% Working Groupi group launched a website and published the list online on October 7, 2011, but the plans have not been backed by the OWS movement in New York or accepted nationally but OWS in Philadelphia and Boston do back the plan and have published the plan on their webpages.[ The Declaration says the Assembly would operate like the Committees of Correspondence of the Founding Fathers of the United States who met in Philadelphia.[5] [repetitive]

Again, contact us at the99declaration@gmail.com if you want more sources or need more information. Do this right or don't do it at al. This document is about to go national so please correct the Article.24.161.123.221 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC).


 * I still have doubts about the strength, paucity, and accuracy of the references used for this article.  However, the article was rejected for deletion, suggesting that editors more experienced in such matters than I were not concerned about the references, and I have had to accept their position. Gandydancer (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Once again, IP 24, please recognize that WP articles are built off of what is published in reliable sources—not by word of mouth. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 17:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)