User talk:Dualus/99 Percent Declaration

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[1] 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 [2] and [3]. 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)

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[4][5][6][7][8] 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)

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:

• [9] 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)

• [10] 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)

• [11] 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)

• [12] 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)

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 [13], [14], and [15]. 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 [16] and [17] would need to be similarly included if the article is to be neutral. Dualus (talk) 19:31, 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)