Talk:We are the 99%

First chat
is there a source for what the average wall street banker makes? below 550k? there were older blogs and sites that coined the term before adbusters got involved. the term "we are 99 percent" is concerning 99% of humans across the world. its is not limited to u.s.a. after you consider that all the numbers of who makes what in the 99% drastically fall. like i said, im just citing the originators of the coined term. weare99percent.blogspot is one of em.

Disingenuous picture - try one of these instead
The term "socialism" is loaded in American discourse. It should be avoided in this context, as neither the protest movement nor the users of this slogan identify primarily as socialist. While I have no doubt that the young man in the picture is sincere in his beliefs, it is disingenuous to pretend that mixing them in this article could not be seen as an attempt by the editors to turn off a segment of the population. The licensing information for that image is also misleading and insufficient - it is a derivative work, but lists Own work in the source parameter and User:Jorgenev as the author (CC-BY-SA is a copyright license, and its terms should be respected). As encyclopedia editors, it is your solemn duty to strive to ensure that each topic is conveyed with as little baggage as possible. The pictures below are from the Commons category for the Occupy Wall Street protests, presented roughly in order of descending preference: 192.42.92.28 (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is not about the protests, it is about the slogan. And that picture was a perfectly accurate example of the format in which the slogan is used. The other pictures are no good because the signs are unreadable, atypical and have significant extraneous content &mdash;again, this article is not about the protests. JORGENEV  21:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur with the original poster - these two pictures are great, though I think the second one (the "look it up!" photo) is the better of the two. ★★  Violet Fae   (talk)★★  06:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * All of these images would be appropriate for the Occupy Wall Street article not this one, which is solely about the slogan and so needs an image that illustrates its typical format ("[story]. I am the 99%"), which none of these do satisfactorily. The first is unreadable and atypical of use. The second one does not even use the slogan. The third is unreadable and atypical of use. JORGENEV  07:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

@ jorgenev: if youre so unsatisfied with the images then find one suitable but it must NOT have any party affiliations nor links on the poster as including a pic with either is misrepresentative of the slogan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.227.137 (talk) 08:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It misrepresents nothing. The image is a perfect and typical example of how the slogan is used. These images are entirely irrelevant as they are representative of the OWS protests, which are not the subject of this article. JORGENEV  08:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

the slogan is not subject to party affiliation which your picture choice misrepresents by having "socialist party" and links though I agree with you about your points regarding the other pictures as well, your choice and the other pictures are still unsuitable as a representation of this slogan. there are thousands of pictures available of the slogan. why focus on restoring that particular photo? is it a pic of you or something? it's simply illogical by this point. 70.255.227.137 (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)70.255.227.137 (talk) 11:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC) tomas rivera
 * The slogan is also not subject to fashion choice yet the man is wearing a brown coat when I am sure not all protesters are wearing similar clothing. What does it matter? It is a perfectly good example of how the slogan is used and so I am re instating it. If an equally good example is found that if more to your liking I would have no objections about substitution. We just need to illustrate the article if we can and a picture of protesters sitting around with unreadable signs or signs with different slogans does not do that. JORGENEV  05:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have again removed the picture. It should be obvious that a placard rooting for a particular political party is not representative of the larger whole here, and is thus an inappropriate image. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Y'all... see below section ("how bout this pic" ... we could edit the text on the cardboard any old way we want, in order to make a "characteristic" cardboard sign. We could even say something like "This is a sample. bullet point about my age. bullet point about my job. bullet point about a personal crisis. We are the 99%." MPS (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge List of "Occupy" protest locations here
This should probably be worked in here, as a landing page for the national movement, although we do have a good article on the Wall Street encampment. -- Kendrick7talk 12:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that the List of "Occupy" protest locations article should remain a standalone article. As per the proposed page move below, I believe that this article should be about the slogan, not the perceived movement. Gfcvoice (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I found the right article and I added a dab to this for future readers. -- Kendrick7talk 17:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Propose merge from "Occupy" protests
Propose "Occupy" protests be merged here. -- Kendrick7talk 12:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As per the proposed page move below, I believe that this article should be about the slogan, and that the "Occupy" protests article should remain as a separate standalone article. Gfcvoice (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I rescind :) -- Kendrick7talk 17:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no move. As an outside observer I would suggest that the article itself should make it clear that it is about the slogan, not the protests, and if it doesn't at present then it ought to be rewritten accordingly. fish &amp;karate 10:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

We are the 99% → We are the 99% (slogan) – There seems to be some confusion regarding what this article is about. ie, is "We are the 99%" about the global protests, or is it about the slogan "We are the 99%"? If it is about the global protests, then this article should be merged into the "Occupy" protests article or the Occupy Wall Street article. However I believe that this article is about the slogan. To avoid confusion, this article should be renamed We are the 99% (slogan) to ensure that the article does not evolve into another generic "Occupy" protests article. Gfcvoice (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * comment At 12:05 on 16 October 2011‎, the first sentence of the article referred to the slogan, "We are the 99% is a slogan originating from the Occupy Wall Street series of demonstrations in 2011:. Subsequent edits at 12:45 on 16 October 2011‎ saw this sentence refer to the perceived separate movement "We are the 99% is a movement originating from the Occupy Wall Street series of demonstrations in 2011.". Gfcvoice (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support The article should be changed back to be about the slogan. And then I Support the title change. Silver  seren C 16:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * comment I note that editor Silver seren has changed the article to be about the slogan. Thank you for your contribution. Gfcvoice (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: there's no need to move the article unless you intend We are the 99% to either redirect somewhere else or be a disambiguation page - is that the case? 81.142.107.230 (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Making the title include slogan clarifies for readers that this is about the slogan and not some general article about the protests. You don't always have to have other articles with the same name to make a specific title for an article. Silver  seren C 16:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I see no need for disambiguation. What is this slogan to be confused with? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 21:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the format of articles in Category:Slogans. JORGENEVSKI  21:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support It's a slogan, not a movement. If we are explicit that it is a slogan, people will know that the article is not about OWS or any other particular movement, which is why this move was proposed in the first place. MPS (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's a slogan, it's an Internet meme, it's a tumblr, it's still developing. USchick (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how that has to do with this requested move? The purpose of this is to make sure that readers (and editors) understand it is about a slogan and not the Occupy movement in general. Silver  seren C 04:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not just a slogan. It's also an Internet meme and a tumblr USchick (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on the slogan, yes, and this article is about the slogan. Silver  seren C 06:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a concept in an economics study by Joseph Stiglitz about 1% of the America's wealthiest people . Then it was a tumblr blog that went viral. Only then it was picked up as a slogan. USchick (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now. But doesn't that make it even more necessary to change the title of this article, since this article is about the slogan aspect and not the rest? Silver  seren C 07:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My original point was that this article is still developing. USchick (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1% study
There was a study that measured American wealth (and we need to find it). Joseph Stiglitz wrote a book about it, Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy. Experts discussed it and made charts. The article in Vanity Fair is interesting, but it's only a reference, that's not where the findings were published originally. It's kind of silly to claim in an encyclopedia article like Wiki that an economist claims something in Vanity Fair. The magazine article is simply where it was presented to the public, where people would actually read it. USchick (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * you can do a search on the whole book here: Google Books but you will not find the phrase "wealthiest" or "one percent" anywhere in the book. Unless and until we have a reliable source that says what you want him to have said, we can't cite "his study" ... AFAIK, it is a book, not a study, which may be semantics, but in the book, he says, "when I wrote this book" so I would go with book if we decide to cite it. Also, consider that a vanity fair article published in May of 2011 that is entitled "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%" is likely very relevant to the "we are the 99%" article. Peace, MPS (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

How bout this pic

 * MPS (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok here is what I am going to add if nobody has any objection...


 * ... what do y'all think? MPS (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, now that you've shown your photoshopping skills, maybe it's time to drop the idea as flagrant OR. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually there are a bunch of other ones more relevant, but I like to use the word 'naughty'. Penyulap  talk 04:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Massive OR and SYNTH violations in this article
I see a fundamental problem with quite a bit of material here. If it's not directly tied to, mentions and/or quotes the slogan in direct connection with the various RECENT versions of the Occupy Wall St. movement, then it's OR and SYNTH and doesn't belong here. Anyone can find primary sources that mention 99% and 1%, but they must be directly tied to this recent movement, ergo they must be from this year, and not before. If primary and secondary sources from before that are used, they must be found in secondary sources discussing this slogan and the movement. Editors must not engage in OR and original synthesis by finding anything THEY believe is relevant and including it. Others must have done it for us and done it in RS. If this continues I'll nominate this article for deletion. Clean it up. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * So you are saying that the only reliable sources for the "wealthiest 1%" slogan are ones that have been published in the last 6 weeks? I disagree. Criticizing the "wealthiest one percent" is not a new phenomenon, and even though we have recent OWS-related sources mentioning Gore's well-known 2000 debate accusation (or as some recent sources call it, "class warfare"), I figured it would be better to use reliable sources from 2000. Peace, MPS (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * To avoid OR and SYNTH violations they must be recent secondary sources directly related to coverage of the subject of this article, which is the "We are the 99%" movement and slogan (not any "...1%" slogan, unless it is a direct reaction to the "....99%" slogan). Such secondary sources may indeed quote earlier sources, but because they are making a synthesis connecting earlier data or sources with the current phenomenon, it's okay. It's just not okay for Wikipedia editors to do that. I hope that's worded clearly enough! -- Brangifer (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be entirely possible, and very interesting, to write articles which demonstrate clearly the history of wealth inequality in the United States and economic inequality, and show they are a large part of the background for the "We are the 99%"/Occupy Wall St. slogan and movement, but we mustn't do that carelessly. Fortunately such connections are already being made in many reliable sources, so we must stick to them. We just have to be careful not to get beyond those sources, because it certainly is tempting to do so! That's what I see happening here. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I understand what you are saying with respect to not drawing connections ourselves. I agree that selective cherry picking of the facts in order to convey a biased impression would be WP:OR/WP:SYNTH ... If we are talking about the slogan "we are the 99%" don't you agree that it is topical to explain the meaning of it (who are the 99% ??? who are the other 1% ???) and the cultural context it refers to (the people who say "we are the 99%" are showing solidarity against the wealthist 1% whose irresponsibility supposedly caused the 2008 economic crisis and fallout, but who did not suffer the consequences). Don't you also think it is within the scope of this article to inform the reader that the choice of 1% vs 99% is not new, that in fact was famously discussed in the news in 2000, as well as in a prominent film 2006 film entitled The One Percent. I agree with you that we shouldn't tread beyond what is contained in the sources on matters that are controversial, but I am not sure what exactly you think is controversial about what has been written in this article. I think this is a valuable discussion we are having.  Peace, MPS (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

removed "criticism" passage about "47% of Tea Partiers paying no income tax"
I removed the following passage... "The slogan has also been criticized on the basis (as has the 99% movement) that the particular policy goals suggested are unreflective of their demographic namesake (there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that a greater proportion of Tea Party supporters pay income tax: distribution of income is relatively the same among Tea Party supporters and others)." ...because the the cited article talks about Fox News and the demographics of the Tea Party, but does not contest the slogan or the notion that 53% of USA pays taxes. Peace, MPS (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Anon IP keeps adding in slogan "We are the 84%" without sources to back it up.
My first engagement... User talk:173.77.22.201 my second engagement: User talk:24.214.157.24... Uschick and I have both reverted this particular edit... and it keeps getting reverting back by anon IP I would advise not biting the newcomers per WP:NOOB and WP:AGF ... but we need to walk this person through the process of how to cite a source. MPS (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Anon IP did it again. I added a warning to their talk page. Someone else made the revert. Peace, MPS (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Anon IP is back (see this edit by User:173.77.28.155. The person who keeps adding in this edit refuses to take it to the talk page and doesn't use any sources for the 84% number. Not sure what the process is for "punishing" or banning someone who wil probably just keep using multiple IP sock-puppets to reinsert the same content... Should we prohibit IP edits of this article? I hesitate to do that because there have been positive editors who only edit with IP addresses. Ideas? Peace, MPS (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have requested semi-protection. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are some IPs who edit responsibly (by far the exceptional few), but pretty much all vandalism is caused by IPs. Those who really want to edit seriously can just register. That gives them more privileges and protects their privacy better. Semi-protection doesn't prevent them from editing, just from doing it by misusing anon IPs. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

this "later we are the 84% and now we are the dangerous anarchists" and "Recently, the Occupy Wall Street movement has begun to deny New York City's hungry and homeless, as well as those convicted of a crime who have paid their price to society, a voice and food within the movement, and the 99% eliminated the bottom 10% and another 5%, now the group is the 84%. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/zuccotti_hell_kitchen_i5biNyYYhpa8MSYIL9xSDL?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=" and this "We are the 84%" – Now reflects that the 99% excludes the homeless, hungry and poor from its ranks. At Zucotti Park, the group refused to serve food to the hungry of New York City. In addition, within a few blocks in downtown Manhattan, you'll see young homeless people in their 20s and possibly early 30s who appear to be unwelcome at Occupy Wall Street. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/zuccotti_hell_kitchen_i5biNyYYhpa8MSYIL9xSDL?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=" i think should not belong but i'm not sure....help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.83.22.121 (talk) 11:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Solidarity poster
The "Together" poster shown in the article bears resemblance in its concept to the Polish "Solidarność" ("Solidarity") movement iconic poster. Did any sources you came across mention whether is was perhaps some inspiration for the present movement poster? Piotr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.21.106.162 (talk) 10:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

NYT resource, regarding the United States presidential election, 2012 and phrase
[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/us/politics/most-presidential-candidates-are-not-the-99-percent.html Presidential Candidates? Few Are the 99 Percent] ... "As Occupy Wall Street turns a spotlight on income disparity in America, most of the presidential candidates find themselves on the wealthy side ..." October 29, 2011 by SHAILA DEWAN on page A10 and A13 of The New York Times 99.181.157.189 (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Wealth and income
The article starts referring to wealth distribution. This is correct, AFAIK. However, the first graph shown is about income, not wealth. The economic context section implies that 99% refers to both income and wealth (which is confusing, if true, because while there is significant overlap between the top 1% of the two groups, they are not the same groups). The article goes on cite stats, some about income, some about wealth. Some clarity would be helpful. Does the slogan ref to two different groups? If so, how is that reconciled? Does the slogan refer to the top 1% in wealth (which is my impression)? If so, why is the article muddled with irrelevant stats and graphs about income? I suspect that the original of the slogan refers to wealth distribution, but those concerned about unequal distribution of wealth are natural interested in the distribution of income. Nothing wrong with that, but it could be explained more clearly. Readers of this article aren't going to be educated about the difference between wealth and income; they are likely to come away more confused.-- SPhilbrick  T  12:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

99 Percent Declaration
I added Berg, A.G. and Ostry, J.D. (September 2011) "Equality and Efficiency" Finance and Development (Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund) as a source for the 99 Percent Declaration in the support reactions. Please review this edit. Thank you very much. Dualus (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

simple edit
"Other occupations such as farmers, scientists, pilots, real estate professionals and entertainers," farmers were listed three times in this same senctence. I took out the other two. - tomas rivera — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.227.168 (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Misleading reference?
I question how the reference [2] for "Daniel Indiviglio. "Most Americans Aren't Occupy Wall Street's '99 Percent'". The Atlantic, 10/5/2011." is relevant to this article. It was used as the reference for the sentence in the first paragraph that reads: "It started as a 4chan blog[2] and became an Internet meme that went viral, showing a picture of a person holding a piece of paper with their story on it, ending with the phrase, "We are the 99%".[3]" However, I followed the link in the reference and read the article from The Atlantic. I do not see any relationship between the article cited and the sentence it is supposed to support. In fact, the article in The Atlantic never mentions the 4chan blog.

I believe this is an incorrect citation. I believe this citation should be removed.

I'm not a regular wikipedia-er (and don't even have a login) so I think I'll leave this to someone else to look into and edit as necessary. Thank you. 24.168.61.203 (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but original research would indicate it started even before the 4chan and tumblr accounts were created. even a blogspot account weare99percent.blogspot is older than the two latter but since no known journalist has written it, it doesnt exist considering wiki's source rules. and even further im sure that the weare99percent.blogspot got the saying from someone else. it's a pretty generic slogan i dont think anyone could really take credit for. its like saying we are the people or we are the masses and so forth. my point is that the entire sentence "It started as a..." is going to be inately inaccurate. to be more accurate you could say it started when mass hoarding of resources started which goes back to the begining of hiearchy. this page is riddled with misconceptions such as the slogan referring soley to the U.S.A. which doesn't make too much since until you expand the slogan to be talking about the 99% of the world's population. then the numbers becomes much more accurate according to how many people are truly in oppression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.227.168 (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Income vs. Wealth
In fact the two are closely related but "wealth" confounds the issue. The upper 1% of income includes people we want to be there (e.g. certain manual laborers such as neurosurgeons) and is not the same as the upper 1% of wealth but the two classes are largely congruent and it's income, i.e. the distribution of the total social product, that is at issue. Also moved the speculation about origins into the history section, I thought I'd heard it was part of the whole original Adbusters campaign, but redacted what was there as the likely and supported thing. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think two closely related but separate ideas are being conflated here. First the 99% slogan is meant to refer to Americans that are not part of the economic elite oligarchy which (supposedly) controls the distribution of wealth and power the United States. It is not necessarily literally or precisely the top 1% by income or wealth.  The second idea is that because this economic elite largely controls the distribution of both wealth and income most of the economic gains of the last decade or more has gone to them. This can be shown by measuring  how much income or wealth has gone to (for example) the top 1%.  In other words one of the problems caused by the concentration of power by the elite (estimated to be about 0.5% of the population) is the concentration of wealth (or income) by the wealthiest Americans, which can be seen by comparing the gains by the (literal) 1% of the population.CaptCarlsen (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Origins of 99% slogan
Below is a quote from an  Amped Status article by David DeGraw titiled  "Full Report: The Economic Elite Vs. The People of the United States of America" and  published in Feb 2010.

"It has now become evident to a critical mass that the Republican and Democratic parties, along with all three branches of our government, have been bought off by a well-organized Economic Elite who are tactically destroying our way of life. The harsh truth is that 99% of the US population no longer has political representation. The US economy, government and tax system are now blatantly rigged against us."

- According to Yves Smith of Naked Capital DeGraw "is widely credited as the originator of “We are the 99%.” "

CaptCarlsen (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Name change
I think this article should be redirected to Economic basis of the United States Occupy Movement, or similar title. That would allow much better use of sources, and also coverage of the 99% meme. Be— —Critical 22:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

People not associated with the occupy movement use this term. Also why bury it with an extensive title? - tomas rivera — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.227.168 (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Because it deserves further explanation, but with Wikipedia sourcing rules, it is difficult to write about so narrow a subject. Be— —Critical  01:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This article was never intended to be about the economic basis of the 99% claim. In fact I don't understand why so much about it has been inserted. I originally created it to be about the internet meme. Oh, well... JORGENEV  03:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So are we covering something here that couldn't be covered in the article I suggested? Because "We are the 99%" is an economic claim isn't it?   Be— —Critical  08:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is an economic claim. I think it is a slogan. It refers to the claim that a large majority, almost everyone, has been disenfranchised politically and economically.


 * When you say you are 99% sure about something or that someone is wrong 99% of the time it doesn't necessarily mean you have taken a precise measurement, it's just an expression. Don't try to get overly technically about it.
 * CaptCarlsen (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * When I say it's an economic claim, I'm quoting the reliable sources. If I'm misreading the sources, then I need to be corrected, but otherwise, it's an economic claim... just like it appears at face value.  In its original meaning anyway.  Slogans have meaning.   Be— —Critical  19:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is going from the general to the specific. A slogan is general. It may be in some specific cases be an economic claim but  not all. Sources can be found showing it refers to political disenfranchisement as well as other claims.CaptCarlsen (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

History section
I ran across this if someone wants to use it. Gandydancer (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice, I used it (: Be— —Critical  01:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Meme resource, NYT
From Talk:Occupy movement ...

'Camps Are Cleared, but ‘99 Percent’ Still Occupies the Lexicon by Brian Stelter published November 30, 2011; excerpt ... A version of this article appeared in print on December 1, 2011, on page A1 of the New York Times print edition. This article mentions the Vanity Fair Joseph Stiglitz article that is mentioned in Talk:Occupy Wall Street

99.190.86.93 (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105 99.109.124.130 (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resource The 99%, the 1%, and Class Struggle
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2011/1111toc.html by Alejandro Reuss ...

Within article capitalist, bank profits, executive compensation, Collective bargaining, Performance-related pay, Bankers' bonuses,

SOURCES: 99.181.130.209 (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Bureau of Labor Statistics, Real Hourly Compensation, Private Business Sector, Series ID number: PRS84006153;
 * Bureau of Labor Statistics, Output Per Hour, Private Business Sector, Series ID number: PRS84006093;
 * Congressional Budget Office, Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007 (October 2011);
 * James Heintz, “Unpacking the U.S. Labor Share,” Capitalism on Trial: A Conference in Honor of Thomas A. Weisskopf, Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts-Amherst (September 2011).


 * Hi, you might want to check out Economic inequality and Wealth inequality as well. Gandydancer (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a wp article on Dollars and Sense. 99.56.123.120 (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

potential Newsweek resource
2011 FAILS: The 1 percent Emmanuel Dunand / AFP-Getty Images, excerpt ... 99.190.85.17 (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resource
The Making of the 99% by Barbara Ehrenreich and John Ehrenreich December 14, 2011. This article appeared in the January 2, 2012 edition of The Nation. 99.181.153.29 (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

potential Time (magazine) resource
Where the 1% Lives. (page 14 in January 9, 2012 print issue) "Areas with large wealth gaps have more unstable economies" by Stephen Gandel Monday, Jan. 09, 2012; excerpt ... 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

potential resource
January/February 2012 in-print issue of Mother Jones (magazine), page 8 by Lauren Ellis The 99 Percent Solution: The evolution of the slogan heard 'round the world. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

potential Further reading or cultural impact
with inside cover quote from Bill Moyers, excerpt ... 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

potential impact resource, including page 1 (of 3) internal links
97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Among the Wealthiest One Percent, Many Variations by Shaila Dewan and Robert Gebeloff published NYT January 14, 2012 (frontpage of 15th).
 * http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/15/business/one-percent-map.html?ref=business What Percent Are You?
 * http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2012/0115-one-percent-occupations/index.html?ref=business The Top 1 Percent: What Jobs Do They Have? January 15, 2012 by Jeremy White, Robert Gebeloff, Ford Fessenden and Shan Carter; Source: IPUMS
 * http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=2972
 * http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/pre-tax_income_shares.pdf
 * http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/r/recession_and_depression/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier
 * http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/social_security_us/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier
 * http://www.russellsage.org/blog/r-mascarenhas/wealthiest-1-percent-and-common-good
 * http://www.scribd.com/doc/75022549/Wealthy-Americans-Philanthropy-and-the-Common-Good
 * http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/standard_poors_caseshiller_home_price_index/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier
 * http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf

We aren't the 99%
It seems at least slightly odd that (unless I'm missing it, and I very well might be) there doesn't seem to be any reference to the polls showing that the OWS protesters really aren't the "99%". That is to say, polls showing that majorities don't consider themselves represented by the protesters. Even the quickest of google searches shows the Siena poll of New Yorkers, and the Hill poll of "likely voters". Not saying it's a tremendous deal or anything. It just seemed like it should've gotten a footnote or something. 139.57.100.63 (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The name doesn't refer to public opinion, rather the fact that the protesters are not among the 1% of the population with the greatest wealth. I don't believe they've ever claimed (nor does the article state) that 99% of the electorate agree whole-heartedly with them. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 01:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (sorry for the delay in replying) I'm sorry. I sometimes dash things off quickly and don't properly explain my point.
 * The phrase, "We are the 99%" implies that the 'we' are representing the '99%'. This is patently false, but far more importantly, there has been (some) media coverage addressing whether or not they actually represent 99% of the population. It isn't directly a matter of 99% supporting them, but rather than they are claiming to speak for 99%, when they clearly aren't.
 * More importantly, like I said, there's enough reliable sources addressing it as an issue, specifically with relation to that term (e.g. "New Yorkers don't believe Occupy Wall Street represents the '99 percent'"). So I really don't see why it doesn't warrant any mention at all. 139.57.100.63 (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant?
The following addition (and reference) under subsection "Precedents": "The concept of percentages has a long history. Roman emperor Augustus levied a tax on all goods sold at auction in terms of fractions normalised on 100. It was, however, not until the 15th century that the term "per cento" came into use, with the % symbol first appearing in the 17th century."

As I understand it, the section is about the history of specific 1% vs. 99% concepts that may be related to the (newly resurrected) slogan the article is about. I do not think it is about the history of the concept of percentages. 208.105.82.45 (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Upton Sinclair, historical context
Intriguing piece in The Nation for anyone interested in giving these Occupy articles more historical context: "When Upton Sinclair's '99 Percent' Movement Sparked the Birth of the Modern Election Campaign" about Upton Sinclair's political influence in the 1930's. El duderino (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Rtnews template
I've removed the Russia Today news template from the page, as it had raised concern because it pointed to a single trending news page, rather than a selection of trend pages, and after discussion in the appropriate places, it's easier to remove it than it is to add lots of other trend pages, as I don't know of any (don't have time to look). If there are any comments, concerns, or suggestions please reply on my talkpage, as I don't watch this page. Penyulap  ☏  03:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Howard Zinn Mentions the 99% in 2003
I caught the below excerpt by Howard Zinn in a documentary series titled, 'XXI Century'. 

"The "they" consists of the political leaders of the country, who are in close connection with the business interests of the country, who are in close connection with the military, you'll see the same people go back and forth from the government to the military to the corporations. People leave the government and take jobs in the corporations. People are retired generals and they're immediately given jobs as CEO's of major companies that will then do business with the Pentagon. There is a close connection between these three groups. The "we" is everybody else. The "we" is 95% of the American people, ... Maybe 99% of the American people."

Howard Zinn 2003 - An excerpt from the documentary, 'XXI Century.' From part 2 '...and the Pursuit of Happiness'

This is my first entry of discussion ever on Wikipedia. I am wondering should this be included in in the article about 'We are the 99%' and the origin of the slogan 'We are the 99%'? I have not seen an earlier reference to the slogan, and I am curious if this is the first reference to the 99% and possibly the formation of the idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myfriendcharles (talk • contribs) 17:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Origins section
The origins section is a major mess and frankly...the way it is written does not give proper context to the use of the meme to include a history going back to...1765? Oh, come on. LOL! At least provide reasoning for this inclusion in prose to its relevence to 2011 before making a claim that seems to be OR. Not sure. Also...the rollingStone article used as a reference to claim that Graeber originated the meme is not sufficient. For one, the article itself doesnot explain the claim at all or provide any information on exactly how. Now, I know a lot of this is accurate...but it is not being referenced correctly and seems to have strayed a great deal. This should be the focus of a collaborateive effort by Project OWS. Please help improve this article if you can with a bold edit with a reliable source, written in prose that has direct context to the subject!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Is This Overthinking the Meaning of "We are the 99%?"
Try as I might, I can't conceive of those who originally coined the term expending this much effort in calculating an income cutpoint for a slogan that simply means that a very few of the people control the lives of the masses and the financial outcomes for these masses. The most recent market disaster was a product of speculation and manipulation of the markets by people who produced nothing and employed no one. These people are the "1%."

Although there is no way of knowing who these "marketeers" are or how much they make, I do believe the term was just coined as "We are the 99%!," as a catchy phrase. I don't think that "We are the 99.75%!" is anywhere near as catchy and it probably is not any more accurate.

I think a lot of the thinking here is missing the point which is: why should useless drones who produce nothing and help no one but themselves control the financial prospects and welfare of those who are productive and produce something that contributes to society using methods, while not illegal, certainly are immoral?

Using just a monetary income gauge would include people of industry who actually contribute something to society. Bill Gates is a case in point. He probably ranks right up there in the 1% according to income. But Mr. Gates certainly has contributed things of value to society and employed huge numbers of people around the world. I would not think that he is a 1%er. I can think of others though--some who have actually done jail time for stepping over the line into illegal areas--who made less than Mr. Gates but are true 1%ers because they took without providing anything or giving back to society.

I would be interested in hearing others viewpoints on this, especially those involved in the movement.StopYourBull (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge with "99 Percent Declaration"
We have two separate articles covering basically the same topic from two slightly different angles (the declaration document, and the slogan); as the articles didn't link one to another, it seems a case of isolated parallel development. I don't think the ammount of information at 99 Percent Declaration merits a separate article; merging it as a section of We are the 99% would provide better context. If nobody opposes I will merge it here in the next days. Diego (talk) 11:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually there is no connection between these two articles that would suggest that they be merged. This one is about a slogan and the other one is an off-shoot of the NY OWS movement. Gandydancer (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Diego...we have to stop meeting like this. LOL! (actually I was here checking on a sockpuppet account name) But since I am here....Oppose. As per Gandydancer's comment. No connection.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"We are the 1 percent; we stand with the 99 percent" – by members of the "one percent" who wish to express their support for higher taxes, such as nonprofit organizations Resource Generation and Wealth for the Common Good.[33][34]"   Say what??????  The 1% or, to be more specific, the 1/10 of 1%, live off the 99%.  They are parasites off of the 99%.  Taxes are a means of distributing wealth to the 1/10 of 1%, the bourgeois.  Be careful with this "plurality" of subjective views being presented as 'neutrality' on Wikipedia

"who wish to express their support for higher taxes, such as nonprofit organizations Resource Generation and Wealth for the Common Good.[33][34]" this sentence is not even grammatically correct. What is the connection between higher taxes and non profit in a Capitalist system where the State and the government of such a system is to tax in order to support the wealthy billionaires and monopoly corporations, finance capital. It is an upward distribution of wealth. Most non profits are part of the exploitative State Capitalist Imperialist system anyways. Capitalism cannot be reformed. I am astounded at how people contributing to wikipedia are completley incapable of thinking independently and assessing the socio-economic processes going on around them. Scientific Socialism and proletarian revolution is the only way to overcome the contradictions of capitalism. It was violent revolution that created the Bourgeois social system, a.k.a. Capitalism. Violent revolution in the name of progress and production, peace and freedom for mankind is the only way forward. CPGB-ML (Proletarian TV, Youtube), Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. Read Read Read and stay away from Wikipedia!!!

On a global level, as of 2011, all individuals with incomes less than $34,000 belong to the lower 99%.
I added the following to the article:

On a global level, as of 2011, all individuals with incomes less than $34,000 belong to the lower 99%.

72.77.61.208 (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I discussed at Talk:Occupy movement‎ where this was also inserted. Trackinfo (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on We are the 99%. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111105065419/http://www.cbsnews.com:80/2300-201_162-10009481-50.html? to http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-201_162-10009481-50.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120403043222/http://www.the99declaration.org/ to http://www.the99declaration.org
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150120203129/http://99online.us/ to http://99online.us

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Redundant Statement
The statement "The phrase directly refers to the income and wealth inequality in the United States with a concentration of wealth among the top earning 1%." is repeated twice, and I think it should be removed from the "Economic Context" section. Does this redundancy add any value the second time it is stated? – Zrauf124 (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

A Global Optimization Of Economy
What used to be 68'er politics, and now 99% movement, should be about a global optimization of economy. Starting with India, where idolatry is still widespread -

"Óne Dewa Without Company". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:FE0:C700:2:781F:1A82:338:D2B7 (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Relation to Occupy doesn’t seems to contradict another source
The following source: https://www.pressenza.com/2013/06/the-spanish-roots-of-the-99/ seems to imply the NYC Occupy fliers were printed in September 2011, not August, as it is currently claimed in the article. It also gives names of people involved. Maybe someone who knows this subject better than me can edit accordingly? Askateth (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)