Talk:99 Percent Declaration

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)

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)

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 [1]. Selery (talk) 17:42, 14 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)

Don't you have anything better to do than to attack a working group of the nycga? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.218.221 (talk) 19:25, 27 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)