![]() | Do you want Talk:99 Percent Declaration? |
This is a subpage of Dualus's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
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)
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)
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 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)
97.87.29.188 ( talk) 22:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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 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)
This statement: "Occupy movement protesters have joined the call for a constitutional amendment." is not supported by the following references:
“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.
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.
[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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
That's removed. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The first one reads, "... Here's the proposal:
Jobs for ALL - A Massive Public Works and Public Service Program
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)
I placed the tags on the section below, and I would like to discuss it. Dualus ( talk) 19:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This section's factual accuracy is
disputed. (November 2011) |
This section needs additional citations for
verification. (November 2011) |
On October 15, 2011, the "Demands Working Group" published the declaration of demands, goals, and solutions. [2] [3] 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. [4] 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." [4] 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. [5]
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. [3] 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. [6]
On October 31, 2011 the Demands Working Group disappeared from the New York City General Assembly website. citation needed 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". [7] 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. [8]
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
Are the sources cited reliable? Dualus ( talk) 19:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | Do you want Talk:99 Percent Declaration? |
This is a subpage of Dualus's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
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)
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)
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 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)
97.87.29.188 ( talk) 22:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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 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)
This statement: "Occupy movement protesters have joined the call for a constitutional amendment." is not supported by the following references:
“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.
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.
[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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
That's removed. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The first one reads, "... Here's the proposal:
Jobs for ALL - A Massive Public Works and Public Service Program
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)
I placed the tags on the section below, and I would like to discuss it. Dualus ( talk) 19:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This section's factual accuracy is
disputed. (November 2011) |
This section needs additional citations for
verification. (November 2011) |
On October 15, 2011, the "Demands Working Group" published the declaration of demands, goals, and solutions. [2] [3] 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. [4] 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." [4] 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. [5]
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. [3] 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. [6]
On October 31, 2011 the Demands Working Group disappeared from the New York City General Assembly website. citation needed 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". [7] 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. [8]
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
Are the sources cited reliable? Dualus ( talk) 19:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)