Talk:99 Percent Declaration

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: [1] (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 The article is completely out of date and wrong.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)

"Official OWS groups"

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

Thanks for the discussion. The other groups referred to in the article are widely understood to be the official groups representing Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Philadelphia. I've reverted your bold edit. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

In which case, I'll request clarification here: what does it mean to be an "official group"? Have reliable sources used that terminology? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe there are many sources that would substantiate that this specific terminology is used to describe the groups in question, but I have changed the prose to address your concern and will leave it that way until I find such sources. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Complaint

This article has many factual errors and is out of date. The 99D has not called for a National General Assembly for months. It calls for a new Continental Congress. It does not report the election of delegates as reported on the AP nor does it tell anyone what will happen in Philadelphia. Every time I try to update the article and correct all the factual errors someone erases the changes. What's the point of Wikipedia if everything in the article is wrong and you can see it is wrong by just going to the group's webpage. At least put the AP story in: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_20839169/787-elected-occupy-conference-philly

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

Supposed text of declaration according to IP 98.15.175.134

WHEREAS THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. BE IT RESOLVED THAT WE, THE PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in order to form a more perfect Union, by, for and of the People, shall elect citizen Delegates between June 1-7, 2012 to attend and convene a NEW CONTINENTAL CONGRESS the week of July 4, 2012 in the City Of Philadelphia. The Delegates shall then deliberate, draft and ratify a PETITION FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES to be served upon the United States Congress, Supreme Court and President, prior to November 6, 2012. The People through these non-partisan locally elected Delegates shall gather to condemn and demand redress from the individuals currently in control of the United States government. We denounce and indict these entrenched public officials and lobbyists who engage in all manner of corrupt practices for money; for violating the public's trust and general welfare clause of the United States Constitution; for abandoning the precious covenant between those who govern with the consent of the People based upon an oath to protect and defend our Constitution; and for failing to govern with integrity absent all self-serving conflicts of interest. Wherefore, a new Continental Congress for the 21st century will ratify a Petition for Redress of Grievances which may or may not include grievances and solutions demanding: An End to Corporate Personhood The Overturning of the Supreme Court's Decision in Citizens United v. F.E.C. The Elimination of Crony Capitalism and Washington's Revolving Door of Corruption Comprehensive Banking and Securities Reform to end Wall Street's Control of our Politicians 100% Public Financing of Political Campaigns and Other Election Reforms A Freeze on Home Foreclosures Real Student Debt Relief and Refinancing Ending the War in Afghanistan and Taking Care of Our Veterans Medicare for All ("Single Payer Healthcare") Protection of the Planet Congressional Term Limits Tax Reform A New Jobs Program Reforming the Federal Reserve Banking System Handling Education as a National Security Issue Ending Perpetual War for Profit Curtailing Outsourcing and Currency Manipulation New Protections of Civil Rights to Keep Up With Invasive Technology Curtailing the Prison Industrial Complex A Plan to Reduce the Federal Debt YOU MAY SEE ALL 100 OF THE PROPOSED GRIEVANCES TO BE VOTED ON BY CLICKING HERE. Once signed and ratified, the Petition for Redress of Grievances drafted by the delegats will be served on the 535 members of Congress, the President and the 9 members of the Supreme Court before the 2012 general election. If these public officials ignore the petition, the delegates and all those similarly situated (i.e., 99% of the American people), will file a class action law suit in federal court seeking injunctive relief demanding redress of these grievances and asserting violations of the public trust doctrine, the general welfare clause, The Civil Righst Act, and for past and ongoing abuses of government power under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. See the full plan here.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.175.134 (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC) 

Hi. These complaints have all been expressed and addressed before; please see the talk page archives. In a nutshell, Wikipedia articles are generally based off of reliable sources. They are not extensions of your group's webpage and you do not have the right to control what is said in the article. Among other things, this means the article must be written in an encyclopedic tone; it is not an advocacy page and should not use random protest rhetoric or lingo such as "Continental Congress 2.0" as if these words were in common parlance. You also can't edit the article so that it contradicts the sources it cites, even if you think those sources are wrong. I'm sorry if you feel that your group is not being given enough attention by the mainstream, or if you feel your group is misunderstood by the mainstream. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place to correct this.

On one specific point, you seem to suggest that something in the WP article is contradicted by the AP article you linked above. But I don't see any contradiction. Could you be more specific? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)