Talk:99 Percent Declaration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1=

"Official OWS groups"[edit]

I added a {{clarify}} tag to the assertion that "the group and document have been rejected by official OWS groups" not because I wasn't certain which OWS groups it refers to (that is indeed clarified further down) but because I wasn't sure about the assertion that these groups were "official" (while the group responsible for the 99% Declaration is/was presumably "unofficial"). In retrospect, {{clarify}} was probably the wrong tag and I should've boldly removed the problematic word and replaced it with "other". I'm going to do that now. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. The other groups referred to in the article are widely understood to be the official groups representing Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Philadelphia. I've reverted your bold edit. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
In which case, I'll request clarification here: what does it mean to be an "official group"? Have reliable sources used that terminology? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe there are many sources that would substantiate that this specific terminology is used to describe the groups in question, but I have changed the prose to address your concern and will leave it that way until I find such sources. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


This article has many factual errors and is out of date. The 99D has not called for a National General Assembly for months. It calls for a new Continental Congress. It does not report the election of delegates as reported on the AP nor does it tell anyone what will happen in Philadelphia. Every time I try to update the article and correct all the factual errors someone erases the changes. What's the point of Wikipedia if everything in the article is wrong and you can see it is wrong by just going to the group's webpage. At least put the AP story in:

Here is the text of the document. Maybe you will actually read the document to make some corrections. I don't care but all these errors make Wiki look foolish especially when people read the AP articles and then go to Wikipedia

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC) 
Hi. These complaints have all been expressed and addressed before; please see the talk page archives. In a nutshell, Wikipedia articles are generally based off of reliable sources. They are not extensions of your group's webpage and you do not have the right to control what is said in the article. Among other things, this means the article must be written in an encyclopedic tone; it is not an advocacy page and should not use random protest rhetoric or lingo such as "Continental Congress 2.0" as if these words were in common parlance. You also can't edit the article so that it contradicts the sources it cites, even if you think those sources are wrong. I'm sorry if you feel that your group is not being given enough attention by the mainstream, or if you feel your group is misunderstood by the mainstream. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place to correct this.
On one specific point, you seem to suggest that something in the WP article is contradicted by the AP article you linked above. But I don't see any contradiction. Could you be more specific? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
And the link provided is dead now...--Amadscientist (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions from an editor with a WP:COI[edit]

Please see these edits to the Continental Congress 2.0 talk page. David in DC (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 99 Percent Declaration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)