Talk:99 Percent Declaration

Notability

Per WP:WEB, the document has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the site itself including such works as are listed in many of the article's references. Dualus (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The draft was moved to User:Dualus/99 Percent Declaration as the article still does not appear to be independently notable of Occupy Wallstreet. If you believe otherwise, please prove sources that meet WP:GNG to demonstrate independent notability. --LauraHale (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"Wall Street" is two words. Why do you say that it is not independently notable? The following non-trivial published works are independent of the site itself, and most of them meet the reliable source criteria for secondary sources:

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

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

• Comment: Does not meet WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not? You didn't respond for over an hour to my question above. You did try to canvass someone with whom you have had no interactions independent of me[1] and try to delete questions concerning this article from your talk page[2][3]. Do you believe your actions are trying to improve the encyclopedia, or are you attempting to be retributive because of your opinion of my opinions? Dualus (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL

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

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

Archived OWS talk page sections

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

I was looking through http://www.afscme.org/news/press-room/press-releases/2010/barclays-northern-state-street-and-vanguard-top-list-of-mutual-funds-enabling-excessive-ceo-pay and it occurred to me that I have no idea where to find a list of mutual funds targeting investments from the protesters. It's the financial district. Do any of the financial conglomerates[4] offer a mixed and balanced socially responsible credit union fund to try to get customers off the rebound from http://moveyourmoneyproject.org/? Is anyone else offering socially responsible investments specifically tailored to the 99 Percent Declaration? Dualus (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

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

You seem to be inviting original research, or else offering to perform some yourself. Please avoid manufacturing topics that you believe should be of interest to OWS protesters. That is not the kind of material that goes in a WP article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires that we cover both sides of controversies. I am trying to find funds both for and against the protester's goals. Why is that not completely appropriate for a movement based in the financial district? Dualus (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

WP NPOV doesn't require you to manufacture a topic and then cover "both sides" of it, or whatever the hell it is you think you're doing. Actually NOR forbids you from manufacturing a topic in the first place. As I said, that's not the kind of material that goes in WP articles. Period. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying I'm manufacturing the afscme.org story cited above? Or am I looking for a neutral way to include it? Dualus (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It can never be included. You need some RS's to make the case for the connection. Since the article is from 2010, the article itself cannot make the connection, only you can (which is OR). Arzel (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, you're talking into a black hole of rationality. All logic that is fed into it is never seen again. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Photo for week 5

File:Caitlin sign.jpg

Caitlin Curran holding a sign with a quote from Conor Friedersdorf at Occupy Wall Street demonstration held at Times Square New York on October 15, 2011. Photo by Ben Furnas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That link doesn't work. Honestly, the "week by week coverage" is kind of dubious anyway, per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, and a couple of other policies. If we're going to have six weeks, OK, but if we go into twenty weeks, we're going to have to start condensing some of that so having an image gallery is problematic. SDY (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Link should work now. Not sure what the problem was. Regarding the week by week coverage, I agree, if too many weeks go by we will have to come up with a different structure and no doubt we will have to weed images at that time.--Nowa (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please include per WP:OI. Dualus (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Why include this? Seems very much pushing the point of view of the protester and is in no way encyclopedic or neutral. Thoughts Dualus?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It's better for the Timeline article. There should be some bit about the journalists being fired as a significant moment, along with the photo. --David Shankbone 17:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I posted a similar query on the Timeline talk page. And also good idea on the journalist firings. Let me draft something up and we can put below for vetting--Nowa (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I find the protester's English composition skills and focus notable. I think this should be in the main article. Dualus (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please explain in detail how her "English composition skills and focus" apply to Wikipedia guidelines for notability. It may be significant to her that she was fired and may be notable for the time line but would be undue weight to the article as being "sensational" and attempting to create more than an employee being terminated for cause. Since this deals with subjects of ethics, and a living person, this will probably be a BLP concern.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

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

"I find the protester's English composition skills and focus notable" is a comment which illustrates the very problematic editing, including the tendency to bog the Talk page down with utterly irrelevant considerations, that we're seeing at this page. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

What are the reasons to the contrary? It is easy to find stories about her, especially with image search. Dualus (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Notability has nothing whatsoever to do with your opinion. And generally speaking, notability never has anything to do with anyone's opinion about anybody else's "English composition skills and focus". In short, your previous comment is utterly irrelevant to this article and fairly nonsensical. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not about my opinion. Several news outlets have found the person, sign, and events surrounding both notable. Have you tried searching? Dualus (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

All you've talked about here is your opinion, which once again is irrelevant. Bring up something relevant, and we can discuss that. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

How about this Washington Post blog entry? Dualus (talk) 10:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What about it? Do you think everyone who's had a blog entry written about them gets on Wikipedia? If there are arguments to be made in favor of inclusion, you need to actually make those arguments. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Resource BusinessWeek and the Charlie Rose (talk show)

See also [5] and [6]. Dualus (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The extent to which the protesters have been discussing the Volcker rule is not entirely clear to me but this Business Week source seems very appropriate per WP:NPOV. I wonder if others have opinions on it. Dualus (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Clean up references

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

It has been suggested on the AfD page for this article that we clean up the references on the current page. Anyone else interested in joining in? My thought is to first identify references that aren't suitable, post them here, see if we can find alternate suitable references, and then replace. Sound good?--Nowa (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Graph showing changes in US real income in top 1%, middle 60%, and bottom 20% from 1979 through 2007.

Well, since a moderator wasn't called for, I thought I would get started. I'll try to find reliable secondary sources to replace primary source and private blog I deleted.--Nowa (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure File:Inequality-by-Kenworthy.png is based on reliable sources, but that doesn't matter because of WP:OI which allows original research in illustrations. Dualus (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect interpretation of WP:OI. It does NOT allow original research in illustrations. Please review these policies.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but my real concern is that I don't think the graph really adds anything to the article. If we really do need a graph, there are lots over at Income inequality in the United States--Nowa (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I think those all look pretty bad, like they were made in Excel. The point of the graph is to accentuate the "99%/1%" divide, and so I am replacing it. Please feel free to insert any graph you think would work better. Dualus (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Clean up does not require posting new references for others to approve. Editors are not required to adhere to any request to show references on talk page first. If you dispute them you may delete them and leave an edit summary. Talk page discussions should be a natural discussion that commences as needed.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Constitutional ammendment

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

I intend to replace the section after [7] and [8] are included. I would like to know what problems people see with inclusion. Do you understand that grievance (2) asks for [9]? Dualus (talk) 04:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Documents introduced into the United States Senate are notable. However, we are discouraged from creating or referencing documents such as "S.J.Res. ____" because it's never clear how many underlines there are. Dualus (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyvios

If the large amounts of quoting go back in, I will report the person putting those large tracks of quoting for WP:COPYVIO. Summarise it in Wikipedia's summary style.--LauraHale (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

How do you define "large amounts"? As far as I can tell, the standard of inclusion for determining whether a paraphrase is fair use is:

"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919). "One may not counsel or advise others to violate the law as it stands. Words are not only the keys of persuasion, but the triggers of action, and those which have no purport but to counsel the violation of law cannot by any latitude of interpretation be a part of that public opinion which is the final source of government in a democratic state." Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten, 244 F. 535, 545 (S.D.N.Y. 1917)(Hand, J.).

Per Fair use, the use is transformative because redundant and subordinate passages have been deleted for educational and public policy communications purposes. The use is minimal because it is only five paragraphs from twenty sections. The factual content in the quoted passages copied and cited is trimmed to support encyclopedic information. Only selected relatively insubstantial passages are quoted. Most importantly, there is no market to be harmed for this document which is given away free on the internet. If there are any reasons that my paraphrase above does not meet that standard of inclusion, please tell me them. Dualus (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You could just put it in a Block quote and add the reference material as a source for it. That way, it is clearly used as a quotation and, thus, isn't a copyvio. Silverseren^C 05:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The text is not particularly well written. I'd rather keep paraphrasing until people stop deleting it. Dualus (talk) 06:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead...put it all back in and see how quickly it is speedy deleted with the correct tag placed. Fair Use case law is not the entirety of what must be met...you have to comply with all Wikipedia policy in that regard for use. As a text document you can only use small "snippets" and even then it depends on how it is used and why. Paraphasing is the policy. Text must be original and not copy pasted.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Going twice.... Dualus (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if you are asking about the Fair Use explanation above or something else. As I stated, Wikipedia has an Manuel of Style guideline for fair use that must be adhered to, but unclear if you are referring to other information on this talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Demands working group

The Brookings Group reference makes the point the the authors of the 99 Percent Declaration is an organization called "The Demands Working Group" and this group is not the same as Occupy Wall Street.

"The General Assembly of the New York City occupation has explicitly denied the Demands Working Group’s claim to speak on behalf of the movement."

Several other references we have for this article also use the term "Demands Working Group" separately from "Occupy Wall Street". Should we rely on these sources to clarify that point in the article? Does "Demands Working Group" warrant it's own article?--Nowa (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The New York City General Assembly has several working groups, as you can see on their website. I think that would be a better new article. Be careful: the amount of prankage taking place is probably red or orange on a scale from red to green. (Threat condition Elmo!) Dualus (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk page section blanking

The original author of the Declaration, Michael Pollok, has recently attempted to communicate with us here and at the deletion discussion. This talk page has recently been blanked three five times[10][11][12][13][14] by Amadscientist, in his attempt to prevent readers of this page from seeing Mr. Pollok's correspondence, calling it "spam" and referring to Mr. Pollok, a new user, as a "SPA account." This behavior is strongly contrary to WP:TALK, WP:NPA, WP:BITE, and WP:AGF, and it must stop immediately. Dualus (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Somebody inserting a completely uncorroborated personal message to readers into the article space in a (possibly fictitious) attempt to complain about the treatment he's received by OWS? What would you call that, if not "spam"? Got a better word? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's what we get on talk pages all the time, and in this case a communication from an author of the subject of the article should not be blanked from the article talk page because no actual BLP violations have been associated with any particular passages of the message. Dualus (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted from the talk page. The author inserted it into the article space, obviously caring as little for policy as you do. You were the one who decided (wrongly) that it should be posted on the talk page. It has no more bearing on improving the article than my own personal thoughts about OWS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to suggest that the message from Michael Pollok which you have deleted eight times from various locations is somehow a BLP violation? If so, how so? Dualus (talk) 07:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not seeing the BLPVIO either. Perhaps you can explain how it violates BLP. Please can neither of you add or remove that section until we have a consensus on this. But for the section to remain deleted there has to be consensus that this is a BLP vio and I'm not seeing it right now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Spartaz, I think it is unfortunate that you do not see the inclusion of information about a living person, not yet confirmed to be written by the actual person in question as a BLP issue. This was placed on the article itself and the continued use by Dualus is a clear manipulation of an unreferenced claim and are indeed contentious material. If the editor wishes to make this claim himself here it wouldn't be, but with another editor doing so...it is.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please explain why it is violates BLP by reference to the harm that this posting makes to a living person and by indicating exactly what section of BLP it violates. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a BLP issue. Am I missing something?? Caden ^cool 08:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

A claim was made on the article by a new user that could well be an SPA. The editor announced that he was the author of the document and used the name of a real person with no references to back up either the claim that the person authored the document or that he was indeed the person. Dulaus took the Soap Box and ran with it here, again, with no proof the editor is indeed this author..or that the person indeed wrote the document.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• That's not a BLPVIO but they are valid reasons to depreciate the content. We certainly cannot use an unverified posting as any kind of source for article content but its incorrect to remove it or call it a BLPVIO. Its simply reasons to note the content on the talk page, reach a quick consensus to not use it and move on. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You asked me another question I have not yet answered. "Harm" can indeed come to the reputation of the subject if the claim is not referenced to show verifiability and accuracy. The real person could see his reputation smeared and his work in his field effected. The claim also refers to other parties that well may be effected in major ways. The content makes claims without references about the NYC GA, specifically that "the facilitators" removed his comments from minutes, and that is an accusation without any source to prove it.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Further reading shows more accusations about 3 specific people named with no references. This is indeed a BLP issue and violation.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Which parts of the message correspond to the policy you have quoted below, or it didn't happen. Dualus (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Specific sections of BLP violated

Criticism and praise[15]: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.

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

Challenged or likely to be challenged [16]: Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article.

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

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material [17]: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards.

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

Avoid gossip and feedback loops[18]: Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources.

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

Using the subject as a self-published source[19]:Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: # it is not unduly self-serving; # it does not involve claims about third parties; # it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; # there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; # the article is not based primarily on such sources.

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

Presumption in favor of privacy Avoid victimization[20]: When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

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

Privacy of personal information and using primary sources[21]: With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted. See above regarding the misuse of primary sources to obtain personal information about subjects.

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

People who are relatively unknown[22]: Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there is additional protection for subjects who are not public figures.

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

Subjects notable only for one event[23]: Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.

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

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

Privacy of names[24]: Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons.

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

Where BLP does and does not apply Non-article space[25]: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate. When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot. The same principle applies to problematic images. Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion.

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

Legal persons and groups[26]: This policy does not normally apply to edits about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with the other content policies. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources. --Amadscientist (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no BLP violation. Which specific sections of the message do you believe violated the BLP policies you list above? Dualus (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The entire contentious unsourced message from someone claiming to be a specific, named living person would appear to violate the very letter and core spirit of BLP. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what life would be like if I believed that, but it doesn't seem like it would help write a very good encyclopedia. Dualus (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you can go start a competing online encyclopedia that doesn't have such stuffy and onerous policies preventing True Believers from spreading the TRUTH? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Claim not supported by references

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

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

“I firmly believe that the Citizens United decision—I would support a Constitutional amendment to overturn that decision. Granting citizenships to corporations, which are state-created entities that are immortal—they live forever—greatly diminishes the rights of ordinary citizens. I think it was wrong-headed. I think it was probably the worst decision of my lifetime of the Supreme Court.”

This is a quote from the congressman, not a protester. Reference does not support claim.

On the contrary, it clearly does from a reading of the plain language of the excerpt. Dualus (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• [28] This is a tertiary source and not the actual source which is CNN. The actual information is this:

Hip Hop mogul and progressive activist Russell Simmons told CNN that Occupy Wall Street protestors will remain at Zuccotti Park possibly until Congress passes a constitutional amendment that says “money is going to leave Washington.” “We want the people to control the government, not the corporations and not the special interests,” said Simmons.

Simmons is not actually one of the protesters, but a celebrity adding support to them. The article actually states that protesters were yelling at Simmons that he was not one of them. Reference does not support the claim.

He is a secondary source reporter in this case, or if not then your premise that he isn't a protester is false. Dualus (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• [29] This reference states:

[A]lthough the general anti-corporatism theme of the protest has been reported widely, a more detailed policy aim that seemed to frequently come up in conversation has not. That policy aim is very specific: a constitutional amendment addressing corporate personhood and redefining the role of corporations. I'm baffled that, having come away from one day at OWS with a clear understanding that this policy objective is important to the protestors, it seems to be unnoticed by journalists much more experienced than myself. A constitutional amendment surely is not the only thing the demonstrators want, but there can be no doubt that it is an important part of the early conversation.

Again, no mention of the protesters joining a call. Reference does not support the claim.

What part of "That policy aim is very specific: a constitutional amendment addressing corporate personhood and redefining the role of corporations ... having come away from one day at OWS with a clear understanding that this policy objective is important to the protestors, it seems to be unnoticed by journalists much more experienced than myself" is not clear? Dualus (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

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

But OWS and its supporters would be wise to take notice of a separate but allied movement that predates them but is also growing: "Move to Amend" which specifically addresses one of OWS's main concerns, "Corporate Personhood."

The article goes further:

Addressing that very demand, "Move to Amend" www.movetoamend.org was formed by a coalition of nonpartisan citizens and organizations in January 2010 in response to the Supreme Court decision, Citizens United vs. the FEC, which affirmed corporations as "legal persons" with first and 14th Amendment protections including speech, due process and equal protection.

This simply does not state that anyone joined any call for anything. It suggests they should. Reference does not support the claim. --Amadscientist (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It most certainly supports the claim because joining is bidirectional. Dualus (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not. What a ridiculous statement. Dualus, as I've told you about ten times now (though you reject it each time), it's not the burden of others to comprehensively show that a source doesn't support a statement, because among other things that's an inefficient and impractical task. It's your burden to show that sources support text you include or want to include. If there's a dispute, that may mean you actually have to quote some article text to prove your point. If there is no article text that proves your point, you lose the dispute. That's it. The end. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight to Lessig removed

As has been mentioned a number of times. Lessig has nothing to do with this document. It also has little to nothing to do with the senatorial introduction. It's undue weight to Lessig for what appear to be promotional activism. Still no consensus to add this information.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the sources shows him speaking at the Occupy Washington D.C. event. The Slate source says he and the Nobel prize winners give credibility to the movement. I intend to replace the disputed material with a {{POV}} tag at the top of the article. Dualus (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

So you openly admit you plan to add material that has nothing to do with this document or the article about it? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Article must adhere to MOS and there is no consensus to rename section and move it

The background section was moved down and renamed "Controversy". What controversy? Original Research, synthesis of facts. Replacing back to top as "Background" as intended and written.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The section is entirely about the controversy surrounding the document. Dualus (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Tags above "Background" section removed

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

Neutrality and POV tags

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

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

Replacing POV tag

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

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

Our dispute is legitimate, on a subject upon which ordinary people would be expected to disagree. Dualus (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-sequitur, and debatable Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of WP is not to republish entire list of demands

That's removed. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't the entire list, it was the five paragraph WP:SUMMARY style version. How would you feel about this version updated? Dualus (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It was a numbered 20-point list. Even if you paraphrased it, that's still the entire list of demands, or virtually all of it, and it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to republish information that you, Dualus, personally feel everybody in the world needs to know. It also contained inexplicable OR. Thus, not fit for inclusion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I am working on User:Dualus/99 Percent Declaration. Dualus (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to shake the feeling that you are trying to use Wikipedia as a platform for spreading the word about this list, even after OWS itself refused to serve as a platform for spreading the word about this list. Doesn't seem an appropriate use of WP article space. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The competing lists for WP:NPOV compliance appear to be at [31], [32], and [33]. Which do you want to look for sources for? Dualus (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please rephrase or otherwise clarify your comment and/or question. What are you saying, and/or, What are you asking? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NPOV? It requires that we include all major points of view on a subject. Dualus (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have read NPOV. (Note that it requires that articles reflect only significant views that have been published by reliable sources, and only insofar as they can be reflected without bias.)

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

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

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

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

1. Expand education: cut class sizes and provide free university for all;
2. Expand healthcare and provide free healthcare for all (single payer system);
3. Build housing, guarantee decent housing for all;
4. Expand mass transit, provided for free;
5. Rebuild the infrastructure�bridges, flood control, roads;
6. Research and implement clean energy alternatives; and
7. Clean up the environment.

• These jobs are to be open to all, regardless of documentation/immigration status or criminal record.

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

The other two links [34] and [35] would need to be similarly included if the article is to be neutral. Dualus (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever NPOV does require, it certainly doesn't require that we repeat the entire substance of this "99% Declaration" that you seem obsessed with, nor that we also repeat the entire substance of every other list of demands that has been discussed. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm just hoping I can get you to discuss your reverts. You'll find out how to write articles about documents soon enough. Dualus (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

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

Moved from the article for discussion.

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

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

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

Are the sources cited reliable? Dualus (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how they are not.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

But I do see that the posted section has the title "Controversy" and not "Background" I see nothing to support the prose as such. Also I have removed the Kinkade reference and statements as unverifiable e-mails mentioned in opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I tried to merge the two sections and am interested in your comments. Dualus (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

"WP:FORUM" redirects here; you may be looking for Wikipedia:Forum shopping or Wikipedia:Village pump.

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:

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.

--Amadscientist (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

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 [36] 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:

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.

--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 </ref>

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 </ref>

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/ </ref> 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 </ref>"

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.[37][38][39][40] 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.

Suggested grievances

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

Also included are demands for: (2) overturning the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, "even if it requires a constitutional amendment"; (3) elimination of private contributions to politicians (see 1); (4) Term limits for the House of Representatives to no more than four two-year terms; two six-year terms for the Senate; (5) complete reformation of the United States Tax Code into a progressive, graduated income tax by "eliminating loopholes, unfair tax breaks, exemptions and deductions, subsidies (e.g. oil, gas and farm) and ending all other methods of evading taxes."

Occupy Wall Street at Washington Square Park (David Shankbone, 2011)

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.

Graph showing changes in US real income in top 1%, middle 60%, and bottom 20% from 1979 through 2007.

Constitutional amendment introduced in Senate

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.

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)