Talk:99 Percent Declaration/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Matching the Williamsburg reference

I've carefully read the Williamsburg reference and I don't believe it supports the opening line of the intro. Here is the quote "In the month that’s passed, organizers have been trying to get participants to vote on a list of grievances, and a “99 percent Declaration” has indicated an intention to convene on July 4, 2012 to form a National General Assembly tasked with creating a nonpartisan independent political party." The "list of grievances" and "99 percent Declaration" are presented as two separate things. I'm going to go ahead and modify the opening sentence accordingly, but wouldn't be offended if further discussion is required.--Nowa (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing the Haak article

It's not clear to me that the Haak article has anything to do with the 99% declaration. It only mentions that he proposed demands in the summer and that he attended a demands working group meeting. It doesn't make any connection to the declaration itself. If it doesn't support an assertion, therefore, I'll remove it. As always, I'm not offended if further discussion is required.--Nowa (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing Houdek article about Lessing

All the Houdek article says about the 99 percent declaration is "Already, "The 99 Percent Declaration" is calling for "a NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY beginning on July 4, 2012 in the City Of Philadelphia" to address the influence of money in politics and other issues." Since that is well documented in other references, I'm removing it to clear some clutter.--Nowa (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Not quite sure how to handle this

The current last sentence of the article abstract reads:

The 99% Declaration describes this new National General Assembly as a body that would operate like the first two Continental Congresses attended by the Founding Fathers of the United States who also met in Philadelphia.

I could not find support for this in either the 99 percent declaration, its web sites or either reference. The CBS reference says:

The proposal says the Assembly would operate similarly to the original “Committees of Correspondence” — the Founding Fathers who met in Philadelphia prior to what the group refers to as “the first American Revolution.”

But I couldn't find support for this either in the 99 percent declaration. A Committee of correspondence was a revolutionary shadow government. That's not what the 99 percent declaration is calling for. It's calling for a petition for redress of grievances. Furthermore, the 99% percent declaration has disavowed the CBS article here.

I'm inclined to remove the sentence altogether but keep the references. Any objections or suggested alternatives?--Nowa (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Do what you want - I have no idea how to handle this. It's not possible to expect our refs to match since the documents continue to change. I read a Financial Times (if I remember correctly) site that spoke of "ten goals" with a link to their goals page and now it's been pared down to six goals. As for their claim that the media found their site, I just don't believe it. Kingkade said in his first article that they released it to the NYT's and I believe it. I don't like saying that, but they have not been honest here so I have to reason to trust them. Gandydancer (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll go ahead and remove the sentence. --Nowa (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Trim Background

I read through the references and have the following suggested replacement background section. Since this is a major edit, I thought I would get consensus first. I kept all of the references, but minimized the discussion of tangentially related material.

Occupy Wall Street is a movement, which began as an advertised demonstration asking "What is our one Demand". It has been notable, however, for not having any demands. This has led various individuals and groups to propose demands and try to get Occupy Wall Street support. None of these efforts has succeeded. The 99 Percent Declaration is one of these sets of demands. It has since gone on, however, to have it's own organization.

Candid comments welcome.--Nowa (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Nowa, if you have found refs for that I sure would agree since from the start I had hoped to show that they were no longer connected to the OWS movement, in other words they had never been approved by the GA per their approval criteria. If I remember correctly, "Michael Pollok" has also expressed that wish, though the talk page is such a mess right now that I'm not going to look for the quote. What is the True Hollywood Story" ref you found? Gandydancer (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Nowa, did you catch this site before I deleted it? [1]. I believe that "Pollok" suggested it had nothing to do with this article, and I tended to agree... But it may be helpful for your edit. Gandydancer (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The "True Hollywood Story" ref was already there. Yes, I've looked at the Salon article. I don't think it adds any information, though. Did I miss something?--Nowa (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Since there are no other comments, I'm going to go ahead and make the move. I'll put the current background section below in case there needs to be further discussion.--Nowa (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

Is anyone still disputing the neutrality of this article?--Nowa (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been recently reading up on the articles and need more time to process the given information. I have hesitations given the length of the article comparred to the minimal sourcing as well. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 21:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. No rush to remove the tag. I just wanted to see if the concerns were still there.--Nowa (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I have doubts about both neutrality and even the existence of the article itself. If I had it to do over again, I would never have changed my vote from Delete to Keep. At the time I thought that further usable sources would emerge that would clear things up, however that has not happened. The existing sources are extremely weak - what?...a Huff Post by a non-staff, a Guardian by one of the protesters, one MJ/Salon, and a Philly Daily that saw dollar signs in their dreams...maybe I missed some...the South Africa News, I think that may be in there?... Gandydancer (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is rubbish and should be taken down. It is poorly written, repetitive and filled with false statements. Doesn't wikipedia have any quality controls24.161.123.221 (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

24, I have no sympathy for you what-so-ever. What goes around comes around. You have repeatedly lied on this talk page, sometimes saying you are the un-banned Michael Pollok and sometimes saying you are not, refusing to answer questions put to you, complaining about the editors while refusing to bother to study Wikipedia policy and how to go about editing articles properly, and in general just acting like a dick. You have not even bothered to note that on the talk page one always puts their posts BELOW that of the others rather than at the TOP, suggesting to me that you believe you deserve special treatment around here. Since you have misrepresented yourself here, it doesn't do any good to expect me or anyone else to believe your recent referral to your 99% origin page is an honest representation either. And this is besides what should be obvious to anyone, and especially an attorney, that primary sources, such as yours, are not accepted as a reference without anything to back them up. Gandydancer (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

hey dumb ass, did it every occur to you, whoever you are GANDY, that we work in the same office and that is why we have the same isp address? This article is crap and you know it. It was a plant and you allowed it to grow and distort the truth. You don't take any information from the web page itself with the declaration on it and selective put what you want in the article to make the 99% Declaration Work look bad. You quote one person who posted a comment on the NYCGA. Wikipedia s total bull shit and the 4000 people in our group know it. Liar liar pants on fire? what are you five years old? nice work assholes.24.161.123.221 (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This comment alone is enough to make me think semi-protection would be a good idea. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

Please at least fix the basic factual errors (IN CAPS):

The 99 Percent Declaration or 99% Declaration is a document associated with Occupy Wall Street, however it has not been backed by the OWS movement in New York City or accepted nationally.[1][2][3] It calls for a "National General Assembly" to convene on July 4, 2012 in Philadelphia. The attendees will be 876 delegates elected by direct vote. There will be a man and a woman from each of the 435 Congressional Districts and one delegate from THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PUERTO RICO AND each of the FOUR U.S. territories OF AMERICAN SAMOA, GUAM, THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS AND THE U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS. The delegates will vote on A final Petition for a redress of grievances. The 99% Declaration SETS forth 23 suggested grievances and solutions including an immediate ban on all monetary and gift contributions to all politicians, implementing a public financing system for political campaigns, and the reversal of the Citizens United case by the Supreme Court.[4][1][2][5]

The section called document has the same mistakes and is repetitive.24.161.123.221 (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent Changes submitted to article:

I added corrections of typos in first paragraph now there are 23 not 22 grievances and solution and included the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico and identified the four US territories (4 not 6) because DC and PR are not territories but will also have one delegate. Also indicated the date when the group started and corrected a link for the Lessig article in The Atlantic. The restoration of the 99% Declaration webpage to the NYCGA website should be added since you reported it's removal. I also added the Facebook page the group uses to conduct online polls to make modifications in the agreement. The new website allows for registration of delegates which has now begun. The group reports on their Facebook page they are working on a second more detailed commercial to air on MSNBC24.161.123.221 (talk) 07:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The Official Webpage is now at www.the99declaration.org and allows candidates for delegate to register. A 23rd Grievance and Solution called "Reinstitution of Civil Rights" was voted upon and approved by the 6000 member group addressing sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA, the Patriot Act and FISA. The group's commercial ran the week of 12-5-11 on Current TV on Keith Olbermann's Countdown show. See http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/07/1043045/-The-99-Declarationorg-takes-Occupy-Grievances-to-the-Next-Phase The commercial may be seen on the webpage. The NYCGA restored the 99% Declaration Working Group and may be seen here http://www.nycga.net/groups/the-99-declaration-working-group/ The group has raised sufficient funds to place a downpayment on the venue in Philadelphia and met with Mayor Michael Nuttter;s Chief of Staff and Five top Deputy Mayors on Friday December 2, 2011 The group is working with members of Occupy Philly to provide housing for the 876 delegates when they arrive on 7-1-12 until they leave on 7-5-12 The group has applied for a permit with the national parks service to allow the 876 delegates to sign the National General Assembly's ratified Petition on 7-4-12 in front of Independence Hall. The group formed a not for profit organization called "The 99 Percent Working Group, Ltd." and its filing papers may be viewed here

http://appext9.dos.ny.gov/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=4428814&p_corpid=4166688&p_entity_name=%74%68%65%20%39%39%20%70%65%72%63%65%6E%74%20%77%6F%72%6B%69%6E%67%20%67%72%6F%75%70&p_name_type=%41&p_search_type=%42%45%47%49%4E%53&p_srch_results_page=0

The 99% Declaration was mentioned in an article in the Atlantic and tied to Lawrence Lessig's recent book.24.161.123.221 (talk) 08:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The 99% Declaration has published a history on it's webpage and it should be cited as a source if the facts and neutrality of this article are in dispute: https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/about-the-99-declaration-1 24.161.123.221 (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Is anyone still disputing the factual accuracy of this article?--Nowa (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

While I haven't combed through the current content looking for errors, given the way the whole article is sort of pieced together from questionable/marginal/self-published sources, I can't say I'm comfortable that it actually is factually accurate. This is not intended as a slight to a couple of editors who have been diligently working on the article; since the community has apparently decided that there should be an article on this topic, actually writing an article to conform to WP standards seems to be a nearly impossible task that has nonetheless been mandated by those that voted to Keep in the AFD. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia and one of the 2900 members of the #OWS 99% Declaration Working Group. This wiki page is so inaccurate biased that I do not know where to even begin. Have the writers of this article read the 99% Declaration? What is a United States General Assembly? It is called the National General Assembly. This assembly will be democratically elected in a nationwide election in March 2012 by internet and in-person voting. Why is there no mention of the election or how it will be achieved? Why don't you simply email or call the the authors of the document rather than posting completely wrong information? The 99% Working Group was never part of the Demands Working Group which is a completely separate entity. Where is your source for the assertion the Demands Working Group had anything to do with the 99% Declaration? I was there when the 99% Working Group was announced to the NYCGA but you not have a link to the video of the 99% Declaration Working Group being announced to the NYCGA on 10-15-11? Why? This is a direct primary source that is not hearsay. Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le5YI_QPPKk&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL8CCB094455736796 and yet you do not use it as a source.

As for having the 99% Declaration Working Group deleted on the NYCGA website, the server logs of the NYCGA website reveal that the 99% Declaration Working group was removed by admin thestormkrow@gmail.com. The two admins in control of the 99% Working Group on the NYCGA website were unconnected to the 99% Declaration Working Group and duped the Internet Working Group into believing they were part of the 99% Declaration Working Group. Ryan Hoffman, a/k/a "The Creator" had been urging deletion of the 99% Declaration Working Group from the moment it went online.

In any event, The 99% Declaration Working Group is now on Facebook while it's web designers are working on a new webpage. The link to the FB group is http://www.facebook.com/www.the99declaration.org and has more than 2900 members who work on the document and approve edits by polling.

The group is moving to a new central webpage in the next few weeks. The current concept for the new webpage will be a map of the United States where users will be able zoom into their voting district to register as a candidate for delegate, volunteer in their district or just find out more information about the election of delegates in the district. Then each candidate for delegate will create a mini profile "popup" page with basic information, their platform or reasons the voters should vote for them, pictures, videos and audio files uploaded by the candidate. You will also be able to leave messages for the candidates on a public board and ask questions. We are hoping for several candidates in each district to make it competitive. On election weekend in March, the online polls will open early Saturday and close late Sunday and you will go back to this page and simply check off the candidates in your district that you want to vote for. We will also have polling stations in each district with laptops for people who do not have access to the internet. Meeting with web designers this weekend.

The 99% Declaration is now available in Spanish: https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/home/en-espanol

We are airing our first television commercials in December. You should probably get your facts straight before those commercials air and people discover how wrong and biased this article is. Again, we never had anything to do with the Demands Group or Liberty Blueprint. I and our 2900 members certainly have a completely new view of Wikipedia and will never site it again. You should go to the FB page and see what they are saying about Wikipedia. I have asked our group to delete all links to wikipedia in the 99% Declaration and hopefully that will be done this weekend because we simply cannot rely on the accuracy and neutrality of wikipedia given this experience. KPA

Here are some of the sources about the 99% Declaration that are NOT included in this article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/a-new-declaration-of-inde_b_1075820.html

http://globalgrind.com/news/occupy-wall-street-releases-list-demands-photos

http://occupyphilly.org/declarations/99declaration/

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/culture/activism/6637-occupy-wall-street-s-declaration-of-dependence.html

http://www.nycga.net/groups/the-99-declaration/docs/the-99-declaration (this was where our webpage was on the official sit until some guy named “Stan Ford” who has noting to do with us, deleted it).

http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/The+99+Percent+Declaration (this group has been very supportive of us)

http://www.conservapedia.com/Occupy_Wall_Street (it’s kind of sad that we get a better and more accurate airing on conservapedia than Wikipedia!)

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/10/26/the-conservatives-guide-to-the-occupy-wall-street-protests/ (even the Heritage Foundation has a more accurate article than Wikipedia)

http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/future-occupy.html

http://politeaparty.blogspot.com/2011/10/third-party-threat-and-99-percent.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/24/1029518/-The-Undeclared-Declaration

http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/8189-the-ninety-nine-percent-declaration

http://authenticallywired.com/2011/11/03/the-99percent-declaration/

http://occupyjonesboro.weebly.com/the-99-declaration.html

http://www.nycga.net/groups/internet/forum/topic/re-instating-the-99-declaration-group/

http://thoughtbites.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/the-99-declaration/

http://www.hometalkentertainment.com/forums/showthread.php?t=210276

http://exopermaculture.com/2011/10/17/ows-to-seize-the-moment-the-99-declaration-plan-of-action-and-resolution/

http://www.sluniverse.com/php/vb/politics-religion-society/65619-99-declaration.html

http://www.occupy-bellingham.org/?page_id=90

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=196201

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2011/10/99-declaration

http://www.whatis-theplan.org/t19101-the-99-declaration-working-group-needs-you

http://keepitsimplesurvival.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/the-99-declaration/

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-peoples-party-are-we-witnessing-the-birth-of-a-new-far-left-political-party-in-the-united-states

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/a-new-declaration-of-inde_b_1075820.html

http://atung.net/2011/10/17/the-99-declaration/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/adjustments-to-the-99percent-declaration/ 24.161.123.221 (talk) 06:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC) --

Wow, quite a list. Have you reviewed it against Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources? That might help identify the ones most suitable for the article.--Nowa (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for posting and helping to clear some things up. I hope that some of the Wikipedia editors can try to help to clear some things up for you as well. Firstly, this article was initiated by an extremely disruptive editor to further attempt to broadcast the viewpoint of author Lawrence Lessig. That, along with the fact that IMO his references were dug from the bottom of the barrel, caused me to believe that the article should be deleted. But as the media reports of the 99% Declaration grew, I believed that this article was important to help clear up misinformation about the OWS movement. Clearly, it has not been able to do that.

However, I believe that your intense criticism of the editors of this article and Wikipedia, and your intention to not refer to it because it is ignorant and biased are not a good sign - if they do truly represent the feelings of your group. Here at Wikipedia you have a perfectly good example of direct democracy that works. But instead of joining the effort to help it to be a People's Encyclopedia, free of corporate interests, you turn your back on it because "others" are not living up to your expectations. How will you join with the People to make a better world if you refuse even to join Wikipedia editors to make a better encyclopedia?

I joined Wikipedia about six years ago when I read the extremely biased article for a woman that has long been opposed to nuclear energy and warfare. But rather than sit back and complain I made my first edit even though I had no understanding of how Wikipedia works. So here you and your group are choosing to complain rather than take action to improve the article? You have criticized the editors for not understanding the Declaration even though, as a matter of fact, we have had scanty to no acceptable references to use, and yet you refuse to learn about how to edit Wikipedia articles, even though the way to go about it is abundantly available and there are plenty of people more than willing to help new editors learn the ropes.

Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The editor says, "You should go to the FB page and see what they are saying about Wikipedia". Does anyone know where it's at? Gandydancer (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

From above "The link to the FB group is http://www.facebook.com/www.the99declaration.org and has more than 2900 members who work on the document and approve edits by polling."--Nowa (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I did that already, but one hardly has the time to look through all the posts to find mention of Wikipedia! I wonder if the anon editor is aware of how many endless hours I have already spent reading references and posting blah, blah, blah on the talk page, or edits to the OWS articles to have them deleted. Democracy is very messy and often frustrating! BTW, I wonder if it is Dualus, now that he has time on his hands, that keeps posting Lessig stuff on the FB page.  ;-) Gandydancer (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It would seem that angry user-generated rants have little or no constructive role to play in improving a WP article. My suggestion to the above IP user would be to calm down and become familiar with WP policy before delivering another lecture. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, our informant seems to have slipped back into the shadows. Hopefully s/he and the disgruntled ones will eventually come forward and help us to make Wikipedia a more perfect example of direct democracy. However, if they continue to choose to sit on the sidelines and sneer at our efforts, I'd like to let it be known that I am well aware that many of my edits are just pure bunk, and I suppose will continue to be - maybe it will get even worse as the powers that be attempt to close the camps. The press is largely corporate-controlled, but we editors have nothing else to work with. If their plan is to overcome stupidity and hypocrisy, Wikipedia would be a good learning experience. Certainly there is a time to say, "Fuck this shit", but to say "Fuck Wikipedia" is, IMO, a bad omen of things to come from the 99% people. Gandydancer (talk)

I've had a chance to look through most of the sites the anon provided and I didn't find anything we could use for the article. One site, however, is worth looking at which the anon says gives a more accurate and better report on the 99% group: Conservapedia [2]. What on earth are we supposed to make of that? Gandydancer (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Just so happens I'm a registered editor of Conservapedia. Fascinating take on OWS. There might actually be some useful references there, but not for this article. The only coverage they have of the 99% declaration is a restatement of the declaration itself with a link to its site.--Nowa (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Not quite sure what else we can tell you. The article is completely inaccurate and biased against those who wrote and worked on the 99% Declaration in favor of a small group from #OWS who oppose the declaration and idea of National General Assembly. You have allowed these people to hijack this article. The #OWS 99% Working Group formed on October 15, 2011 still exists and now has 3000 members but until the New York City General Assembly can reach a consensus on a decision to even make formal demands, the Working Group has no role to play in the NYCGA. This working group is starting to grant media interviews, scheduling to appear on the cable news stations and releasing a commercial in December. The most shocking part of this article is that it completely omits the March 2012 election of the 870 delegates who will attend the National General Assembly the week of July 4, 2012 in Philadelphia. There is no information how this will happen as I described in my last talk post. Again, if you would like to interview the facilitators of the 99% Working Group simply email them at the99declaration@gmail.com and they will email you back or set up a conference call on Skype. Or post on the group's facebook page. Here is a preview of one of the commercials to be aired in early December nationwide: http://www.youtube.com/user/the99declaration#p/u/2/PnNazuRXoEc I have not tried to edit this article myself because I heard that when facilitator Michael Pollok tried to edit the article you completely banned him from Wikipedia. Very democratic and representative of free speech. KPA 24.161.123.221 (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you clear something up: Did the #OWS Working Group appear before the General Assembly to announce the formation of the Working Group and its first meeting in Liberty Park that night and publish the document written by Michael Pollok in the NYT's all on Oct. 15? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Since I am apparently no longer banned from Wikipedia, here is how I suggest the article should read but I am just a new user who does not know all of your protocols and procedures.

The Ninety-Nine Percent Declaration or 99% Declaration is a political document including a list of suggested grievances on which its organizers have been trying to get Occupy Wall Street protesters to vote.[1] It calls for the election of 870 delegates to a National General Assembly to convene on July 4, 2012 in Philadelphia. Among the 21 suggested grievances and solutions in the 99% Declarations are support of public works programs, tax hikes on the wealthiest, student loan debt forgiveness, ways to get money out of politics, and amendment of the U.S. Constitution if necessary to effect change in current the political system. .[2][3][4] The 99% Declaration describes this new National General Assembly as a body that would operate like the first two Continental Congresses attended by the Founding Fathers of the United States who also met in Philadelphia.[5]

The 99% Declaration has a detailed plan for its election of 870 delegates. This plan can be found in the declaration itself and on it's webpage www.the99declaration.org. See also the "Six Steps to Non-Volent Revolution in the United States" at https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/home/the-steps-to-non-violent-revolution. To elect these delegates, the document calls for one man and one woman to be elected from each of the 435 Congressional Districts in the United States to gather on July 4, 2012 at the National General Assembly. These elected delegates would then debate, write and ratify a formal Petition for a Redress of Grievances to be served on the United States Government.

This National General Assembly idea comes from the #OWS Working Group on the 99% Declaration announced to the New York City General Assembly meeting in Zuccotti Park on October 15, 2011. See video of announcement to NYCGA at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le5YI_QPPKk. This group currently claims a membership on Facebook of about 3000 people who vote on operational decisions by online poll. On October 7, 2011 the working group launched a website and published a suggested list of grievances and solutions online for the purpose of accepting suggestions and edits. A number of news agencies found the webpage reported the existence of the document. Despite erroneous media reports to the contrary, The 99% Declaration has not been voted on by the OWS movement in New York or completely accepted nationally by other General Assemblies. Some General Assemblies have posted the document on their websites such as Occupy Boston's wiki. See http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/WG/Strategies/Ideas/The_99_Percent_Declaration. The main webpage at www.the99declaration.org has received nearly 200,000 unique hits since it when live on October 7, 2011. You will find various mentions of the 99% Declaration online. Here are some examples:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/a-new-declaration-of-inde_b_1075820.html

http://globalgrind.com/news/occupy-wall-street-releases-list-demands-photos

http://occupyphilly.org/declarations/99declaration/

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/culture/activism/6637-occupy-wall-street-s-declaration-of-dependence.html

http://www.nycga.net/groups/the-99-declaration/docs/the-99-declaration (this was where our webpage was on the official sit until some guy named “Stan Ford” who has noting to do with us, deleted it).

http://occupyboston.wikispaces.com/The+99+Percent+Declaration (this group has been very supportive of us)

http://www.conservapedia.com/Occupy_Wall_Street (it’s kind of sad that we get a better and more accurate airing on conservapedia than Wikipedia!)

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/10/26/the-conservatives-guide-to-the-occupy-wall-street-protests/ (even the Heritage Foundation has a more accurate article than Wikipedia)

http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/future-occupy.html

http://politeaparty.blogspot.com/2011/10/third-party-threat-and-99-percent.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/24/1029518/-The-Undeclared-Declaration

http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/8189-the-ninety-nine-percent-declaration

http://authenticallywired.com/2011/11/03/the-99percent-declaration/

http://occupyjonesboro.weebly.com/the-99-declaration.html

http://www.nycga.net/groups/internet/forum/topic/re-instating-the-99-declaration-group/

http://thoughtbites.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/the-99-declaration/

http://www.hometalkentertainment.com/forums/showthread.php?t=210276

http://exopermaculture.com/2011/10/17/ows-to-seize-the-moment-the-99-declaration-plan-of-action-and-resolution/

http://www.sluniverse.com/php/vb/politics-religion-society/65619-99-declaration.html

http://www.occupy-bellingham.org/?page_id=90

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=196201

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2011/10/99-declaration

http://www.whatis-theplan.org/t19101-the-99-declaration-working-group-needs-you

http://keepitsimplesurvival.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/the-99-declaration/

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-peoples-party-are-we-witnessing-the-birth-of-a-new-far-left-political-party-in-the-united-states

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/a-new-declaration-of-inde_b_1075820.html

http://atung.net/2011/10/17/the-99-declaration/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/adjustments-to-the-99percent-declaration/

The group reports that they have produced a commercial and will go on air in December 2012 to promote the election and National General Assembly concept. The election will take place by internet voting and at live polling stations in all 435 voting districts over the course of a weekend in March 2012.

I hope you correct this article and we can work together in the future.

24.161.123.221 (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WP cannot allow articles to be written based on word of mouth, and self-published sources can only be used in a limited way. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

{EDIT CONFLICT] OK, I changed the lede to the wording you have suggested. I hope we can work with you as well. First, could you please get a name and a talk page so that other editors can work with you with more ease. Also, you will need to understand more about Wikipedia policy on acceptable references for articles or the discussion will cause everybody endless frustration and perhaps bad feelings. Are you willing to learn that? Gandydancer (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Reading the last two posts on this page may help some of us to understand what is going on here [3]. Gandydancer (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you do me a favor and copy the text of the posts here? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

BradB replied 1 week, 3 days ago: oh… god… Michael… the working group page was started by Drew.. to try to help you get this thing going… Drew got tired of it… Stan stepped up because he believed in it… then I tried also…. you still haven’t tried to understand any of it… these people are your friends they are trying to help… If you don’t want their help.. go to the GA again and try to get approval for them to host your working group… let alone get their support…. after you have blasted them in every way… hehehe… so what.. they might help you if you see what is going on for god’s sake…. stop… slow down… take a minute to see what the movement is about… we all believe in you… spend an entire day… not thinking about 99 Declaration… read all the posts at OccupyWallSt.org… it might start making sense… honestly Michael … it’s not hard to draft a National General Assembly document…. however yours is likely the best of the dozen out there,,, you have many good qualities… but you or I or anyone else have all the qualities… we all need help from others… or we ain’t got shit… ;) … come on Michael…. I’m a lot older than you so I can say these these in respect… humble yourself … we need your help… you are good at getting things moving… join us… the 99 Declaration is but one small part… it’s not the solution to it all…. it well help no doubt.. but there is much much more… learn the movement… it will all fall into place… Luv Ya…b

From the reading I have done at "their" site, I tend to get the same impression of "our" Michael as they seem to have of him at their site: Sincere, dedicated, hardworking...but perhaps a little headstrong, obsessive, and lacking in good relationship skills? That said, I can't help but like him, warts and all. I hope that he, or somebody from his team, is willing to learn the (often maddening) ways of Wikipedia and help with the work we do. As I said already, this alone is a good way to build direct democracy skills. For myself, there have been times that I have hated every goddamned one of you guys, and I'll bet you've felt the same way about me! But then we just pick up the pieces and move forward without holding a grudge. I chose the name gandy dancer because I believe that we can accomplish something as a group that one person alone could not even dream of doing. If we work as a team. And not take ourselves too seriously! Gandydancer (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your testimony. And speaking of not taking ourselves too seriously, I thought your name was in honor that other noted gandy dancer Utah Phillips and his famous Moose Turd Pie routine. (Enjoy!)--Nowa (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I know, I know... I have been working on that article for a long, long time and have written much of it myself. Gandydancer (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me, or have none of you noticed a citation, from one of your own "sources" leads to the same URL Mr. Pollok mentioned as being the main website for the group in question? Please allow me to illustrate for you what I'm talking about. If you see your source cited [3] *EDIT* make that [10] sorry *END EDIT*, you will notice that Taylor Marsh, herself, references "I’ll return to more updating tomorrow, but I see this as a basis for general conversation about Occupy. Via The99PercentDeclaration: (all emphasis mine)" The blue link of the words The99PercentDeclaration link to http://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/. Now, if you click that link, or enter it in your browser, where does it go to? It goes to https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/ the EXACT link that Mr Pollok has tried to give you RIGHT HERE as proof of who he is etc. It comes from your own sources and yet you want to suggest that Mr Pollok isn't who he says he is, or that, what, information on the website coming from the actual group isn't valid? Mr Pollok has even gone to the extreme added measures to ensure there was an about page added to help clarify the history behind things. That is located at https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/about-the-99-declaration-1. You need what more to establish the website in question as the ACTUAL SOURCE of this group? If the source is good enough for the rest that's already published in your article here on Wiki, then why is it not good enough to SUBSTANTIATE Mr Pollock's claims of ownership, or at least use the information off the website to correct errors within this write up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.240.216 (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course we have seen that - by now I've read it more times than I even like to think about. We are fully aware that there is a real Michael Pollok and a real 99% Declaration. But we have no way of knowing if he is actually the person making edits here - in fact sometimes he says he is and other times he says he is not. And to further confuse things, what would stop me from making an account here and saying that I am the real Michael Pollok? Gandydancer (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Then what precludes you from using the data on the actual organization site to make proper amendments to this page? THAT was my main point. I understand, and even AGREE with your assertion about the claims here, HOWEVER, how does that preclude editing the page with factual data from the recognized site? THAT is my question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.240.216 (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be obvious that the editors here cannot enter into your argument with the OWS group. The new webpage you refer to suggests that the document was put on the web for further work, but a news source says it was published in the NYT's. At the OWS site they state on 10-16, "...Release a statement in response to “Demands” that were sent to NYT saying “The GA has not reached a consensus regarding any statement of demands or a preamble and the demands list submitted to the NYT was never presented to the GA.” You'd have to agree that if we use your version we would need to use their version as well. That's why we don't base stuff on primary references.

Now, using your terminology, "is it just me" or are you coming off quite smug and condescending in your post? We are all doing our best here and I'll say again, if you think you can do better join us, spend some time reading about how to edit, and edit the article yourself. Gandydancer (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I asked what I thought was a valid question, was it just me? I don't know what your interpretation was, but to me, it was just a question because sometimes people miss things. And as the history does state on the website that this is a SEPARATE movement at this point, from OWS, what, it has to be affiliated with OWS to be included in the wiki and cannot stand on it's own? Look, I understand and applaud ANYONE that DONATES their time to an effort for no compensation. I REALIZE that you are probably over worked as there aren't enough editors to go around, etc. HOWEVER..being I can put myself in your shoes, how many have put themselves in Mr. Pollak's, or anyone else here commenting, to understand our frustration with information that doesn't actually reflect what's going on with the group this page speaks about? This is something with an intention of trying to affect change within a country that needs change, through a democratic process to determine what the people honestly want, and help WE THE PEOPLE bring action against government through the only LEGAL recourse available to WE THE PEOPLE when government fails them. Slanted or incorrect information on such a PROMINENT website property as wikipedia THREATENS that process through mis-information. It is CLEAR to see that the original data within this document was meant to circumvent that process and shed a bad/questionable light upon the goals of this group. Is it any wonder why they are frustrated when they keep hitting brick walls here at wikipedia when trying to get redress of the situation? I am NOT here to condemn nor condone anything. I am simply asking that a resolution be found that helps the PEOPLE obtain the information they need to HELP them make an informed decision. Do not assume, you don't know me, and I'm not trying to assume about ANY of you either. I'm asking valid questions. I asking people to meet in the middle. I'm asking why information from the recognized site is not good enough to help write this document or update it to a status adequately reflecting the actualities of what's going on with this group and the 99% Declaration involved.

I'd GLADLY become an editor, but with my life circumstances and time trying to promote a change for this country through what 99% Declaration stands for, PLUS being a parent, I do NOT have the time to do so, let alone the HUGE learning curve to understand and follow complex editing policies when I have NO editing experience in such a venue.

James Sanders

jim@sanders-consultation-group-plus.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.240.216 (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi James. It seems that your group just keeps asking over and over why we can't use information from your site as a reference to base the article on and then going on to say that the editors here are obviously biased because we won't use it. Your group has been asked time and again to read Wikipedia reference policy to understand why we can't do that, but you continue to only complain of bias. If you refuse to even read the policy I don't see what else I can say to help you understand. Gandydancer (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Former background section

I'm moving the former background section here in case there is need for further discussion.--Nowa (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

== Background ==

Occupy Wall Street is a movement, which began as an advertised demonstration asking "What is our one Demand". David Haack, an anti-corporate activist who lives in New York City, wrote in the The Guardian UK that he and a small group had introduced a proposal outlining demands during the early planning stages of the Occupy Wall Street protests, but they were struck down in late August. He discovered a "goals" working group and hoped that common ground could be found. Shawn Redden 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.

The New York movement adopted a "Declaration of the Occupation of New York City", listing grievances. However, two groups, the Demands Working Group and the Liberty Square Blueprint, have begun authoring their own group demands. 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. On October 15, 2011, the "Demands Working Group" published the declaration of demands, goals, and solutions. On October 31, 2011 the Demands Working Group disappeared from the New York City General Assembly website. The server logs show the group was self-deleted by the group's controlling administrator. The Official NYC GA website, "Site News", stated that administrators of groups have the ability to delete their own group at any time.

Revisit factual accuracy

Now that the article has undergone a major rewrite, are there still concerns about the factual accuracy?--Nowa (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A couple minor points. First, I'd recommend changing all instances of "will" to "would" since this is all hypothetical.

Second, I think the article should be more clear that the entire apparatus they are suggesting, including the running of the supposed "election" itself (scare quotes intentional), is contemplated to be performed by people involved in OWS or the Occupy movements. Thus it appears to be an idea by OWS people, for OWS people, with no involvement by anyone outside OWS except that people outside OWS would supposedly be allowed to "vote" in the "election".

(I wonder how a bunch of protesters with limited means, and with no genuine political authority, could even pretend to conduct a legitimate nationwide election that no one has asked them or authorized them to conduct. And I wonder what they would do if they went ahead with all this only to discover that you don't get to amend the Constitution just because you "elected" a bunch of people and called them "delegates". But that's just my own unpublished thought.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Another thing, I think it would be best to eliminate the use of the "Juvenile Justice Information Exchange" and other self-published sources. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Regarding "will" to "would", it sounds good in principal, but you might want to check readability before doing a global replace.--Nowa (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with the point that delegate elections would be run by OWS people or organizations. Did you see that in a reference?--Nowa (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I also don't think the 99 percent declaration is seeking to amend the US constitution. It instead is calling for the drafting of a petition for the redress of grievances.--Nowa (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree in principal that we should avoid self published sources, but I don't think Juvenile Justice Information Exchange falls into that category. They have an editorial staff. They have also been cited by other reliable sources.--Nowa (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• (1) Wouldn't that make them a reliable source on their field of expertise? Note that reliable sources are only citing them on topics related to juvenile justice. I don't see how they could be considered a reliable source for anything else.

• (2) Regarding who would conduct the elections, this issue is confused somewhat by the fact that they seem to keep changing the text of the Declaration. The comment I made was based on the last time I looked at the document, at which point it read:

Election Committees, elected by local General Assemblies from all over the United States, shall coordinate with the 99 Percent Declaration Working Group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the99declaration /) to organize, coordinate and fund this national election by direct democratic voting.

To see this language in the context in which it appeared before being removed, take a look at this mirror of the original document.

As you can see, it was clearly indicated that this election would be conducted entirely by OWS people, since only OWS people join these "local General Assemblies", and since the document declares that they "shall coordinate with the 99 Percent Declaration Working Group". This leaves little to the imagination.

At the same time, even with this language having been removed, it seem relatively clear, IMO, that these elections would have to be conducted by OWS people or somebody acting on their behalf. After all, it's only OWS people who want any of this to take place to begin with. It's utterly inconceivable that "The 99% of Citizens" are just going to spontaneously self-organize and say, Hey, OWS said we should do this, so let's all do this together in nationwide unified solidarity. It'll be done by OWS, or not at all.

• (3) Regarding amending the Constitution, again, you can see there have been changes since the original document, but it now says:

We demand the immediate and complete elimination of all private political contributions by law and Constitutional amendment. . . . [We also demand] [t]he immediate abrogation, even if it requires a Constitutional Amendment, of the outrageous and anti-democratic Supreme Court holding in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and its progeny."

Note the curious nature of the demand: they're basically ordering Congress to amend the Constitution. But you can't really do that. Congress itself doesn't have authority to amend the Constitution. It only has the authority to propose amendments to state legislatures -- and even then, only by a large majority -- or, in theory, to call for a convention for amendments to be proposed, but only if a majority of states ask for a convention. If there is no large majority in Congress wanting to make that proposal, or if there is not a majority of state legislatures asking Congress to propose amendments, Congress doesn't have the authority to make the proposal in the first place. And even once a proposal is made, the authority to ratify the proposal and thus actually amend the Constitution rests in the state legislatures alone. There's no "we speak for the vast majority of the entire country, and you'll have to trust us on that, so just do what we say!" button that can be pressed. Thank God. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

About the "Juvenile Justice Information Exchange" ref, I tend to agree with FC, but then that has been a problem here from the start: Next to no references to work with. Again I will say, it was our (Wikipedia's) fault that this article was ever accepted in the first place...but now we are stuck with it and have little choice but to do the best we can. So with that in mind, I believe that Nowa has done a fine job of trying to put something together. FC, I'm not sure that you have been following this problematic article, but if not you need to understand that the 99% group is actually not related to the OWS group in NYC other than that some of the people grouped in NYC put it together, mainly Michael Pollok. Not only has it never been accepted by the OWS group, it seems that there has been a great deal of anger and bad vibes between the two of them. Gandydancer (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with your statement about how this mess is our own making (regardless of whether we voted to Keep) and now we have to do our best to clean it up. And I agree Nowa has taken it forward quite well. The things I mentioned above are relatively minor IMO. Regarding your concern that readers not be misled as to how closely this doc is associated with OWS, what do you think about moving the very last sentence of the document section to the lead, or at least including a paraphrase of it in the lead? ("The declaration has not been backed by the OWS movement in New York or accepted nationally.") My own gut tells me that if we're pointing out it's associated with OWS in the lead, we should also point out that the association is disputed and perhaps a bit weak.

My own concern is that the language about delegates, elections, mention of Congressional districts, etc., tends to imply that there is some sort of "official" legitimacy to all of this, as if these plans were sponsored by the government, or are part of some standard, already-recognized means of petitioning the government, when it's all completely outside of the actual official authority of any state or local government. In fact it seems to be an explicit part of the plan that all of this ignores and circumvents the actual government and official mechanisms in place for attempting to bring about political change. Yet using all of this language that is normally associated with established, legitimate political processes looks like an attempt to borrow a sense of legitimacy that has not been earned. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur that the last sentence should go into the lead. I would also amend the first sentence to read The 99 Percent Declaration is a document that some commentators have associated with Occupy Wall Street. Hopefully this will clarify that Occupy Wall Street does not currently associate itself with The 99% Declaration not do they with it.--Nowa (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment on another minor detail. The article says one of the demands is the "reversal" of Citizens United, and that is, indeed, what the source says. But it would be more correct to say they want the abrogation of that case, which would mean Congress declares it is no longer valid. "Reversal" would imply that the Supreme Court decides to hear a similar case, and decides they made the wrong decision in Citizens United, and states that they are overturning that case. You can't really order Congress to pass a law, but even more than that, you really can't order SCOTUS to reverse a case—nor do they even have the authority to do so unless they are considering their previous decision in the context of a newer, similar case that they have decided to hear.

So, this is a subtle but fairly important difference in terminology IMO. And I'll be the first to admit that it'd be OR to let my analysis guide the article. But here at this article, where we have a subject practically untouched by reliable sources, for perhaps the first time ever, I am tempted to invoke WP:IAR. If you disagree, that's fine; I don't care enough about this issue to dispute anyone else's judgment on the matter. But I do care enough to mention it here. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well first, I think that your suggestion to mention that they are not part of the NYC OWS right off the bat is a brilliant idea. But when you get into the nuts and bolts of how our system works, you lose me. Thom Hartman discussed their plan the other day (he too thought it was lunacy), but again, I have so little knowledge that I couldn't follow him either. Now as for your WP:IAR suggestion...interesting. But, again I have little understanding about the finer points of WP policies. I have wished more than once that more editors were willing to use the Common Sense policy, and I felt that perhaps Nowa had used some of that in his rewrite... But I would guess that Common Sense only works when an article is not hotly contested - and how often does that happen? (I have been "hotly contesting" at the Rutabaga article, of all things, for some two years now!) How would you use "ignore all rules" FC? Gandydancer (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I guess I should walk that one back a bit. I am a big believer in rules and following rules for the sake of respecting their universality. I guess what I mean is, for the first time I am thinking it might be ok to sometimes ignore one or two rules, whereas previously I would always want to follow every rule to its letter.

I guess that would basically be the same thing as a "common sense" policy. And yes, I think Nowa has been doing a bit of that, and normally I would protest when this or that rule technically gets broken, but in this case I see this impossible project that is going to be damaging if it is done wrong, but the rules just don't seem to allow it to be done right. I agree that the "common sense" rule will not generally work at a disputed article since everyone's differing common sense will conflict and it'll just be another way of waging the same disputes. But maybe it is OK to give it a try, where there does not seem to be any other way. So I remain willing to look the other way if Nowa plays a little loose with the rules, because (1) I trust his/her judgment and motivations, (2) I want this article to be as accurate and neutral as possible, and (3) *I* sure as heck don't want to take that task upon myself (the only reason I didn't vote to Delete was because I commented exclusively on Dualus in the AFD and didn't want to get involved in too many arguments at once).

That said, give yourself a little more credit. I'm of the opinion that the high-volume, high-profile, hotly disputed articles are where editors really show their depth of understanding of WP policy, because successful editing at such articles requires a solid understanding of the policies that aim at neutrality AND the policies that aim at civility and building consensus. If you don't have that, you won't go far at a hot article without getting blocked or just being ignored by everyone else. And even if you have encountered vicious fights while toiling away at obscure articles (a chore which I respect, and I feel a bit ashamed I can't or don't do that myself), I still get the sense that you're really in the big leagues when you're faced with 50 ideological editors on both sides of the fence, 40 neutrality-minded editors that nevertheless bring their own POV to the article, 30 personal grudges and old hatreds, 20 bombastic, partisan sources, 10 different ways of looking at any given issue, and a partridge in a pear tree. And you've been doing just great at OWS, where we have all of that and more.  ;) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:IAR cool. I hadn't seen that one before.

And don't forget, rules are made to be edited....by anyone.

And I concur with using the word abrogation. Good civics lesson.--Nowa (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change. Did a little civics study as well and am now more knowdedgable. Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice job.--Nowa (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems that whoever placed the NPOV/Fact tags is no longer concerned or is no longer participating in the discussion. (Actually, I think one of the tags was placed by Dualus, who isn't around anymore.) Seems like it should be OK to remove them now. However, if anyone here is a glutton for punishment, they could open an RFC asking outside editors whether they think it's OK to remove the tag. Hey, who doesn't like a fresh can of worms? :)

[runs and hides] Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to remove them.--Nowa (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

NEXT STEP: GA STATUS!!!! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The NYCGA reinstated the 99% Declaration Working Group. See http://www.nycga.net/groups/the-99-declaration-working-group/ Occupy Philly has a link to the 99% Declaration on its homepage. See http://occupyphilly.org/ Other Occupy groups have endorsed it on various levels 24.161.123.221 (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Source suggested by WP:COI editor

Hi, y'all. I have a COI. If anyone thinks this article from the Atlantic should be cited, please consider using it. It's from a WP:RS, it describes a national convention to draft a petition for the redress of grievances and, in its last paragraph, identifies the 99% Declaration group as working toward that end. Thanks for considering it, whether you use it in the article, list it as "Further reading", or decide its not helpful. Here 'tis: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/has-a-harvard-professor-mapped-out-the-next-step-for-occupy-wall-street/247561/ David in DC (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. By now I've read that article more times than I even like to think about and I thought it was still in the refs. I added it as a ref using this info: Already, "The 99 Percent Declaration" is calling for "a NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY beginning on July 4, 2012 in the City Of Philadelphia", but I don't know what else I can do. Please don't think that I (we) are not doing our best to present an article here - we just have not yet been able to find references. I see that Lessig is starting to speak about his thoughts/plans here and there - saw him on Jon Stewart the other night (and he has spoken to Jimbo Wales as well). But until he says he has talked to the 99% group, I don't see that we can use anything from him in this article. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In my view, y'all are doing fine, according to the best standards of wikipediadom. Beyond that general observation, I'll stay silent. If I notice a source I think can help, I'll post it here. Thank you for all your hard work (that "your" is meant to be plural, BTW) under truly vexing circumstances. David in DC (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent POV and unsourced edits

In the last few days some editors have done extensive POV edits to the article. I will try to work on the article today to attempt to bring it back to Wikipedia standards... Gandydancer (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the source for the Occupy Philadelphia rejection? Also, I noticed this newbie work got reverted without any communication with the new user, and on close inspection it does appear to be partially sourced. Is any of that usable? Selery (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I added some refs. They meet with OWS today, so will see what happens... Gandydancer (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Intriguing stuff. Selery (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Minor RS mention suggested by COI editor

"According to news reports, the Occupy movement is organizing a massive general assembly for July 4 in Philadelphia. The plans are found in a document posted online by an "Occupy Wall Street" working group, titled "The 99 Percent Declaration." The proposal says the assembly would operate similarly to the original "Committees of Correspondence" -- the Founding Fathers who met in Philadelphia prior to what the group refers to as "the first American Revolution."" found here. David in DC (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Those "news reports" seem to be [4]. Selery (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

New logo

The 99% Declaration has asked that the logo be updated. The group voted on several different logos and selected the one on their webpage www.the99declaration.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.123.221 (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Selery (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know Wikipedia was taking direction from the subjects of articles.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well, first, it seems clear that there's a lot of COI editing going on in these articles, but, second, this isn't so bad. If they have a new logo and they ask editors here to update, I don't see a problem with that. It does go to show that we need to keep a keen eye on this and other, related, articles. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion a second time

And if this article wasn't being hacked to death by 99% supporters you might know that this is a break away group with no affiliation to the Occupy Wall Street movement. But since it is clear this page exists to distort facts, remove referenced material they do not like and create falsehoods through Wikipedia....I am nominating this page for deletion as purely promotional.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the link to the NYC General Assembly Working Group which clearly establishes the affiliation was just removed per WP:ELNO. I'm replacing it. Selery (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. I'd love to review that reference since the one I found and placed made it clear, with no uncertain terms that they are NOT affiliated. Perhaps you mean there is a reference that shows...that they started with the OWS movement. But they no longer a part of the protest movement but a clear faction that has split away.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Unsupported material

"By omission, it seems, this movement intends to create a countervailing narrative to the election-year joust among the powers that be, to get people thinking about a whole different kind of politics. It’s no small task to compete with an election that will spend more money spent in it than ever before imaginable; the movement will need to offer people something more hopeful, more compelling and more tangible than any presidential candidate can promise to deliver. In order to do so, some believe that the movement needs a national coming-together, an Occupied convention to hammer out points of unity. A group working to develop what it calls the “99% Declaration” — controversial for its embrace of legislative demands and representative politics — has called for a “National General Assembly” in Philadelphia on July 4, with delegates elected through its website. The General Assembly at Occupy Philadelphia has countered by passing its own “National Gathering Process Proposal,” which insists that it would only host such a convention if it were planned and peopled by the other Occupy GAs." http://www.indypendent.org/2012/01/23/dreaming-big-ows-organizers-plan-spring-offensive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.123.221 (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I just removed a number of unsupported assertions. If anyone can provide reliable sources, I'd be happy to add them back in.--Nowa (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Did a bit more cleanup in light of the AfD.--Nowa (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure the material you removed was not in the sources? I'm finding plenty. Selery (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Selery, I can say I saw bigfoot, but without backing it up with proof it means nothing to any argument on the subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Is the 99% declaration working group back with OWS

Selery placed a link that was quickly removed at the bottum of the page. I clicked on it in the histroy....and it does go to what appears to be the 99% Declaration Working group. Further looking does show them listed on the "Groups" section on page two. What this means is unclear, but appears to show that they have been accepted back onto the NYCGA website in the form of starting their own group, separate and apart from the OWS Demands group. They have 124 members in this group and appears that as a group they exist solely on the site as a "Creat your own group". Anyone can do this and there is a link to start your own group. They are NOT officialy endorsed by OWS or the NYCGA to be a separate movement itself. That they did on their own and shows no sign of merging back with the GA or the movement as a whole officially. The link in my opinion is legitimate, although the title should state that it as it really is....a group on the website. They have still not gained consensus for the document to be introduced as part of the demands of OWS and the NYCGA.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: It also appears they are about to be removed from the website again. Probably not a legitimate link only if they are in violation of non compliance etc....whatever internal requirements they are not meeting. It may be that they are not based in New York but I don't know this for sure. And that seems to be the biggest problem with this article...it can't be varified.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What I found was this:"The 99% Declaration Working Group has not met the minimum standards for compliance for among other reasons failure to hold regular meetings with a minimum of five participants." So they are about to be dropped from the site again and the claim of being an "Official group" is inaccruate.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Less is more

Trust me on this one -- if people would like this article to survive, then, follow Wikipedia's excellent rules. Remove unsourced material. Every line should have a good reference. No links to websites of the group or its adversaries. Keep it short and sweet. The admin who looks over all this stuff will be more likely to keep this article if it behaves according to Wikipedia's guidelines: WP:OR, WP:VERIFY, WP:NEUTRAL, etc etc--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Some new developments...

I was recently alerted to some new developments within the 99% group which are discussed at their Facebook page (which I've never looked at till now). See here: [5] (Gandy smirks and rolls her eyes) Gandydancer (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. It looks like there may be some (1) leadership issues (2) possible fraud issues regarding the website, donations, and passwords. I wonder if there is some way to include the information in the article in a toned down form, something along the lines of In February 2012, there appeared to be unresolved questions about website donations or somesuch. What do you think?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Working group of the NYGA

To originate from a working group of the new york general assembly, it needs to have a mandate from it. I would like a source that it ever had a mandate, as I clearly remember that request for a mandate never passed. 70.55.54.35 (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

2012 update article, needs overhaul

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-lanson/occupy-movement_b_1381372.html I'll wait until what other editors say, but this splinter group of occupy could perhaps become the leading group, depending if the NYCGA gets bankrolled by Ben & Jerry & 3 other fat cats. This article seems like a trial balloon so I don't know if it can be used for the article yet. I have no opinion either way (although in the past, I was sharply opposed to this splinter group attempting to "hijack" the nycga's leadership role for the movement, but we'll see). 완젬스 (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I updated the article as of this week and all the changes I made were deleted. The article is completely out of date and wrong. The gathering changed its name months ago to Continental Congress 2.0 and 3,000,000 ballots are going out. This article is meaningless as written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.175.134 (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for you to just write an article from scratch based on what you know. The material needs to be sourced and needs to be written from a neutral point of view. Your rewrite was completely unsourced and read like promotional material. Furthermore, WP articles are generally based on what reliable sources say about the subject. This means that the WP article for this group is not something to be re-written and updated any time the group reinvents itself or comes up with a new message to publish on its website. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Good work on the article Factchecker. The recent additions had all the earmarks of the previous editor/editors who caused so much havoc around here. Gandydancer (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the hat tip, Gandy. Hope all is well. Any suggestions are, of course, welcome. I'm not sure whether to be surprised, but it seems that most of the RS material discussing this group/doc is focused on saying that they're not part of OWS. It's almost as if the organization's sole claim to fame is having been rejected by OWS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Well yes... The history of this article is one of the more interesting histories of WP articles. Aw...I just deleted a lot of stuff I posted...were you posting/reading when this article was first started? BTW, I really like this wording of yours, "It's almost as if the organization's sole claim to fame is having been rejected by OWS." You totally get it. :) Gandydancer (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)