Talk:Park Slope Food Coop
|WikiProject Cooperatives||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject New York City||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
|It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Brooklyn may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
I removed the sub-section on diversity. While diversity, in the identity politics sense, is very much celebrated by some at the co-op - the co-op itself is not any more or less diverse than Brooklyn as a whole. Outside of mentioning the co-op is open to everyone, a whole subsection is not required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- The subsection does not refer to the diversity of the coop itself but about the coop's efforts to promote diversity. The coop has a diversity committee (whose members receive workslot credit) which works in this area and proposes programs to enhance diversity at the coop. Hopefully someone with better knowledge about the committee's work will edit that subsection. Dave Golland (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Unsigned from aspiration instead of fact. Is PSFC more or less diverse than Brooklyn as a whole? Of course it is. Despite the efforts of the DEC, PSFC's members are surely less-Spanish-speaking, whiter, richer, more educated and younger than Brooklyn on average. According to the 2008 DEC survey, nearly half of the membership makes more than $75,000 in household income and has an advanced degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- The purpose of this page is to discuss changes to the main page. Dave Golland (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The PSFC emerged from a predecessor organization, the Mongoose, 1970-3, a left wing community organization, a left over of the New Left. Many Mongoose members were also active in group therapy and addictions treatment centers in the area. The Co op was one of the projects of the Mongoose, and in fact was all that survived it! This should be recorded in the history section of the main article.............
I was one of the founders of the Mongoose, which existed for about two years before the co-op itself was founded. The building was taken over by the Mongoose with a small co-op as one of the projects. Eventually, only the Co-op remained.
- That's very cool! But can you refer to any published documents referring to the Mongoose as a predecessor organization (online or in print)? Dave Golland (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I've consulted with the CEO of the coop and he confirmed the existence of the Mongoose and that the coop initially rented space there, but said that the two organizations were always distinct. I'll add to the history section. Dave Golland (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
This organization has been the subject of criticism and satire in the city and neighborhood press, as well as in novels by local novelists. The unusual requirement that every member put in work, which is justified by an official ideology of cooperation, etc., has often been criticized as being cultist in origin and result. Overall, the article needs to have a section on The Dark Side of PSFC. Cognoscente18 (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- One could write a section on press criticism of the PSFC, but it would have to follow NPOV. The notion that the work requirement is unusual and part of a "dark side" is an opinion. Dave Golland (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is a good idea: a section on press criticism. But there is the larger issue of criticism by current and former members, some reported in the press, some reported on blogs, etc. At the very least, a reader needs to be told that this criticism exists and where to find it. As the article stands, the impression is created that PSFC always and invariably serves the interests of its members and of the community. That is misleading.Cognoscente18 (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Household membership requirement: "It is Said"
Cognoscente18: I am assuming good faith on your part, so I'd like to explain why I reverted your edit on this topic in the hope that you will assume good faith on mine. I reverted your edit because adding "it is said" prejudices the statement into POV by implying that the writers of the policy (i.e. the Coop General Meeting and General Coordinators) are--or the Wikipedia entry is--disingenuous. The sentence as written describes the statement of the reason for the policy, not whether or not everyone agrees with its validity. Dave Golland (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- My sources tell me that the debate was cool and calm. Newspapers tend to exaggerate to sell copies. In any event, whether it was heated or not is irrelevant. The paragraphs on the other boycotts and political activities do not reflect whether or not those debates were heated. Some in fact were. But this is an encyclopedia article, not a news article.Dave Golland (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Dave Golland, Reliable sources say it was heated. You have a massive conflict of interest (you are paid a substantial in-kind amount to edit this article by the subject.) It is not appropriate to remove the world heated. Hipocrite (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- To the contrary, I get exactly one workslot credit per year to do what I was already doing before I asked for the credit, and will continue to edit this page after I resign from the coop in June. Members are required to obtain thirteen workslot credits per year, and as my wife and I are both members and therefore my family is required to obtain 26 credits per year, the cash value of one credit is exactly 1/26 of the cash savings we accrue from our shopping at the coop rather than at a traditional grocery store. Assuming we save about $200 per year (which is a generous assumption), that brings the cash value of one credit to $7.70. As I have a middle-class salary, this is hardly "a substantial in-kind amount." Regardless of my affiliation with the Coop, I am still required to follow Wikipedia rules. Hardly a conflict of interest.
- Nonetheless, let's say, for the sake of argument, that the discussion was heated. That doesn't mean it belongs in am encyclopedia article. Simplicity, simplicity. Dave Golland (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Hipocrite that the word "heated" should remain when describing the debate but I had earlier acquiesced with Dave Golland's deletion before I knew that he was getting work-slot credit for contributing to Wikipedia. Tarring journalists as exaggerated does not persuade me that the word should be deleted. I also think that the exact date of the meeting belongs in the article. It is not just a question of simplicity. Accuracy is important too. March could mean March 1, March 2, etc. I think it is in the spirit of accuracy to include the date and a description of the debate as heated. I think excessive simplicity leads to key omissions.Iss246 (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I just saw the COI tag. As explained above ("Heated"), $7.70 value does not constitute a conflict of interest. I was editing this page before receiving that credit and will be editing this page after I stop receiving it. If we are to ban all members of the Coop from editing this page because they receive workslot credit from the Coop, then that is discrimination against Coop members. Should I be banned from editing the Journey page because I am a fan of Journey?
I will not remove the tag myself. I call upon every other editor of this page to read it yourself, see if a conflict of interest actually exists (or is being claimed by another editor in an attempt to squelch a different opinion), and remove the tag.
Here's another point. As I receive my one annual workslot credit in January, and as I will be resigning from the Coop in June, I will not be collecting a workslot credit for 2012 and so am not currently receiving any compensation from the Coop, in-kind or otherwise. So I am just like any other Coop member who knows about the Coop and might contribute to this page. Dave Golland (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- One work slot credit a year is worth dramatically more than $7.70. That's 2 hours and 45 minute of your time, bought and paid for. I don't know what the going rate is for whatever you do for a living, but I'm pretty confident it's over minimum wage. If Journey paid you to edit the page on Journey, you shouldn't be revert warring over it. Hipocrite (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Nonetheless, I am not currently receiving a workslot credit for this, as explained above. But even if I were, there is no official coop position that I am upholding. There are no bosses that I answer to. My edits have been and continue to be NPOV. Dave Golland (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
My salary or wage is irrelevant, as my duties at the coop do not detract from my job. My duties at the coop come out of my free time. And I have been a member of other organizations to which I have devoted far more hours per year. Dave Golland (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'll be removing the conflict of interest template from the article as I'm not seeing much to be concerned about, but I would strongly encourage anyone editing on behalf of the coop to be familiar with Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Changing minor details is generally not a problem, but any larger changes (especially from an editor who is being somehow compensated) should be brought to the talk page for discussion first. Gobōnobo + c 01:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Gobonobo. I always considered my first duty to the entry to be to Wikipedia's readers, not the coop, and the rules to be followed the Wikipedia rules, not the coop's (which to my knowledge has no rules about members' public statements anyway). I remember the decision for me to get workslot credit as follows: After being a Wikipedia editor for a few years, I glanced at the coop page and noticed that the entry for the boycott was glaringly incorrect. This was in January or February of 2009, just after the Gaza War, when the letters appeared in the Gazette calling for a boycott. The Brooklyn press and blogs were claiming that the coop was boycotting or considering a boycott, and the Wikipedia page echoed that. I made the necessary corrections and that's where the section first got the title "falsely reported...." A few days later I was choosing kale at the coop and found myself next to Joe Holtz, who was also shopping. We chatted about the recent controversy and I told him about the Wikipedia page. He said something like "I never heard of Wikipedia" or "I had no idea Wikipedia had a page on the coop." As I had already put the page on my watchlist and was planning to monitor it anyway, I asked him if I could get workslot credit for it. He said he didn't see why not, and told me to figure out how much time I spent on it and get back to him. I estimated three minutes a day and figured that added up to somewhere between three and five hours a year, so I asked for one credit per year, to be granted every January. Since then I have added considerably to the entry and made corrections when necessary, and the extent of my communications with Joe or anyone else at the coop on Wikipedia has been the annual request for one credit, which has always been immediately granted (the exception being an interview by the Gazette for an article on unique workslots that appeared about a year ago). No one at the coop has ever tried to influence how I edit Wikipedia. If they had, I would have stopped collecting the credit as it would have compromised my integrity as a Wikipedia editor, which I take seriously. Dave Golland (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I would appreciate statements from editors Hipocrite and Iss246 that they assume good faith on my part, as I have explained my connection to the coop in detail and as the COI tag has been removed by a third party. Dave Golland (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
On the BDS Paragraphs
I am going to assume good faith on the part of ISS246 and Hipocrite. Having addressed the issue of COI, I'd like us to continue the discussion on the merits. Please limit any continued questions about COI to the above section.
Let me also add that despite the COI accusation, it is a pleasure to finally have other editors interested in this entry.
Generally speaking, the reason I am looking for simplicity is that the proposal to boycott Israeli products does not define the coop, or even the coop's political action. The more details included, the greater the danger that it will wrongly overwhelm the page. Many of those details would be quite appropriate on the BDS page, because this was a much more important chapter in the story of BDS than it was in the story of the coop. Even the news articles pointed out that many members of the coop seemed apathetic when it came to BDS. Some evidence of this is that while attendance at this week's GM was unprecedented, it still totalled only about 10% of the membership.
Title: I maintain that as this is not a news article about the meeting but a section of an encyclopedia entry. The title of this section should not be "of the moment" but should be something that can last years (or at least months) after the current passions have faded. In the context of a previous section being titled "Existing boycotts," this title need not be overly negative, but I agree that it should not be confusing or lead anyone to assume that the coop is boycotting, or has ever boycotted, Israeli products. The original title was "falsely reported boycott of Israeli products." I would recommend "Proposed boycott of Israeli products" or "Controversy over proposed boycott of Israeli products."
Heated: Again, the issue of the passions of the moment, and news reporting vs. encyclopaedic style. How important is it this week that the meeting was heated (which my sources still maintain it was not)? Perhaps very important. But how important will it be months from now? For an answer, we should look to the existing boycotts. The Flaum boycott discussion (two years ago) grew heated at times. But all that's important now is the fact that the boycott was approved. But in the interest of compromise I suggest we keep "heated" for now but remain open to dropping it in the not-too-distant future.
Date: The GM is always held on the last Tuesday of the month unless changed in advance. As the exact dates of the GMs for the Coke and Flaum boycotts and the July 2011 discussion of the possible Israeli boycott are not listed, the importance of the date of Tuesday's GM will fade very fast.
Turnout and location: Here too I think there is room for me to compromise. The turnout was unprecedented and the location was changed in expectation of the turnout. But let's keep it simple.
How about this for the second paragraph:
"For three years members of the coop expressed their opinions in the Gazette regarding a potential boycott of Israel, and the July 2011 General Meeting discussed holding a coop-wide referendum on joining the BDS movement, with no action taken. The March 2012 GM, which featured an unprecedented turnout requiring a significantly larger location, considered and rejected a proposal to hold such a referendum after a heated discussion."
- I think the section on the proposed boycott is the right length now. It accurately conveys the issue at hand. It stirred a great deal of interest as reflected in the large turnout. Iss246 (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Here's how paragraph two appears now:
For three years members of the coop expressed their opinions in the Gazette regarding a potential boycott of Israel, and the July 2011 General Meeting discussed holding a coop-wide referendum on joining the BDS movement, with no action taken. A motion to hold a referendum on whether to boycott products made in Israel was introduced at the general meeting held on March 27, 2012. Because the turnout for the meeting was anticipated to be large, the meeting was moved from its usual location to the auditorium of the Brooklyn Technical High School. Almost 1700 members turned up for the vote, which is unprecedented for a general meeting. After a heated debate, the general meeting of considered and rejected the proposal to hold such a referendum.
There are some issues still to be worked out.
First, the use of "motion" rather than "proposal" is inconsistent and implies that anyone can make any motion at the GM when in fact the only motions allowed (main motions, that is) must be for scheduled proposals.
Second, "to hold a referendum on whether to boycott products made in Israel" is redundant because the previous sentence, referring to the July discussion, explains the proposal. The title of July's discussion item was no different than the title of March's proposal item. Hence my suggestion "to hold such a referendum."
Third, unless we are going to add the exact date of every GM when any action was taken, there is no need to include the exact date of the March GM. As I said earlier, the GM normally happens on the last Tuesday of the month. People who need such details are likely to look further than the Wikipedia page, and the external links contain this information in sufficient quantity.
The final three sentences in the current version convey little more information than the one final sentence in my version, despite their huge increase in wordiness. The points that we have agreed to convey, for now, are turnout, location, and heat. I will concede that the specific location could be helpful--for now (I continue to feel that within just a few months such details will be irrelevant). With that concession, my proposed wording for paragraph two is as follows:
For three years members of the coop expressed their opinions in the Gazette regarding a potential boycott of Israel, and the July 2011 General Meeting discussed holding a coop-wide referendum on joining the BDS movement, with no action taken. The March 2012 GM, held at Brooklyn Technical High School due to an unprecedented turnout, considered and rejected a proposal to hold such a referendum after a heated discussion.
I will not make these edits today, because I do not want to get into a revert war. But I will make these edits in the next day or two unless other editors can logically argue against my specific points.
- I prefer that there be greater accuracy in reporting. If the date is March 27, then just saying March is vague. If the meeting was unprecedented because almost 1700 people showed up when the average meeting has fewer than 300 members attend, that would explain why the meeting is unprecedented. A meeting could be unprecedented for many reasons (e.g., all the employees quit en masse). It is better explain that the meeting was unprecedented because the attendance was large that the venue had to be shifted to a large auditorium.Iss246 (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
First, thank you for agreeing to talk this out.
I understand your position on the date, but you're not addressing my point on it. The style needs to be uniform throughout the entry. If you list the exact date of this meeting you must list the exact date of every meeting. Or none at all.
To say "the meeting was unprecedented" by itself is incomplete, because it's not the meeting that was unprecedented but an aspect or aspects of the meeting which were unprecedented. So we need to define which aspects. Clearly the turnout was unprecedented. The use of an alternate venue was not unprecedented because the meeting has been moved in the past. The use of Brooklyn Tech was unprecedented because we had never met there before. So what exactly is wrong with the current language on that point?
BTW, your use of the word "reporting" is telling. Remember that this isn't a newspaper article it is an encyclopedia entry, which is different.
- There's no rule in Wikipedia that requires dates to be uniformly formatted throughout an article. That said, I don't see how specifying the exact date of this meeting contributes much to readers' understanding of the event. The nearly 1700 members who attended though, is a detail that provides additional context and I see no reason why it should be excluded. Gobōnobo + c 17:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I am going to concede on stating the more precise turnout. But I do think that there should be some explanation, some context, for that figure and why it is considered large. The typical GM has from 100-200 attendees. It was closer to 300 for the July discussion of BDS. And this number is up from the 50-100 who attended the typical GM until about eight years ago when we increased the number of GM workslots available per member from 1 to 2. So the March GM had about eleven times the typical turnout. It was also more than 10% of the total membership, while the typical meeting has around 1% of the membership.
I'm open to the insertion of language to make that point succinctly.
Israel section title.
I agree with Gobonobo that using the negative is not a proper way to begin a section title, but I agree with Iss246 that the title needs to be more clear. I can't think of a better alternative than either. The original title, "falsely reported boycott," is insufficient because it refers to the first paragraph only, not the second. Dave Golland (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not fond of the section title "No boycott of products made in Israel" as it seems awkward to me. I propose either changing it to "Proposed boycott of products made in Israel" or changing it to "Products made in Israel" and adjusting the subsections so as not to mislead any casual readers (either by renaming or shifting those subsections around). Gobōnobo + c 17:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
To Dave Golland. You've got some nerve. You enter my talk page and accuse me of being "defensive" when I indicated that I want to improve accuracy of the material on the Park Slope Food Coop. The implication is that someone who disagrees with you about how much accuracy to include is defensive (presumably someone who agrees with you is okay). Then you attack me for using the word "reporting" when I write a response--somehow I am guilty of journalism. You come to this page, and rearrange my comments as if you are shuffling playing cards--I don't shuffle your comments; please don't shuffle mine. Just because the Park Slope Food Coop once gave you or still gives you a work slot for this editing on Wikipedia does not give you authority over my edits of the page, and my commentary on the talk page.Iss246 (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Iss246 (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I add this. Dave Golland expressed the view that if I add one exact date, all other dates need would have to be emended such that they are written exactly. I don't know if I agree with that; I haven't made up my mind. But let's suppose I come to agree. A contributor would not add all the exact dates all at once. The contributor could do it one at a time over a period of weeks or months.Iss246 (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is time to de-escalate. It's my opinion that the proposed boycott section is more or less stable at this point, but I invite everyone to take a fresh look at the section and bring any proposed changes to the talk page. I'm going to note (without pointing any fingers) that:
- Wikipedia doesn't tolerate personal attacks
- admins may block editors who edit war (even if they don't cross the 3RR line)
- extreme prejudice should be taken when refactoring any talk page discussion
- being included in the Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars page is a rather dubious honor
- Gobonobo: Agreed. I considered walking away completely last week, but reconsidered after Iss246 very pleasantly responded on the talk page. I have resumed my normal every-three-days checking. This latest diatribe worries me, though. I am especially concerned that it was originally posted on the main page of the entry. Clearly it was written in haste and likely in anger--but most importantly it doesn't assume good faith. We are all entitled to our opinions. My point continues to be that we need to discuss these opinions on the talk page and come to a consensus here.
- Iss246: I have assumed good faith on your part. As I said, my accusation of your defensiveness was in response to your accusation of my "threatening" behavior, which took me completely aback. To counsel caution and advise that we need to be careful to avoid a revert war is hardly threatening. I wrote you on your personal talk page for the precise reasons for the existence of a personal talk page--to try and work out problems experienced elsewhere (in this case, here). Your reaction has been extremely surprising because I've never encountered anything like it before on Wikipedia. Even when I once accused another editor of ownership (one of the toughest charges in Wikipedia editing) I did not get a response close to yours. What makes it more surprising is that a cursory examination of your talk page demonstrates that you have had such discussions there before. As have I on mine, by the way. So why assume a talk page is just for sending cookies and barn-stars?
- Finally, to point out that the use of the word "reporting" is indicative of journalistic thinking is not an attack--it is a statement of my opinion. Short of "attack," it is not even an insult. There's nothing inherently wrong with journalistic thinking. But when we are in journalism mode, we need to think more carefully about encyclopedic style before we edit on Wikipedia.
- Please assume good faith, Iss246. I have nothing against you and have no reason to attack you. As I initially said on your talk page, I am glad to have more interested editors on this page. I just wish we could spend more time discussing the actual entry rather than my good faith or yours.
You can read my talk page because I leave the talk there. Although "a cursory examination of your talk page demonstrates that you have had such discussions there before," I don't shuffle people's comments around even if criticism is leveled at me. I leave the page intact (although at some point I would like to make the page shorter, but not yet).
Let's review. What did I do wrong? First, there was a date, March 2012. I made the date March 27, 2012. Second, there was a meeting that was unprecedented. I wanted to explain in a sentence why the meeting was unprecedented (an exceptionally large turnout that required the meeting to be moved to a different venue). That is the cause of revert war! It is as if I am adding something absurd like invaders from Mars took over the Coop. Then I'm "defensive" because I wanted to make the entry more accurate. I add that I interpret the journalism comment was a dig.Iss246 (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
This is what I propose the second paragraph on the potential boycott should look like the following:
For three years members of the Coop expressed their opinions in the Gazette regarding a potential boycott of products made in Israel, and the July 26, 2011 General Meeting discussed holding a Coop-wide referendum on joining the BDS movement, with no action taken. The March 27, 2012 General Meeting at which the referendum would be considered was held at the auditorium of Brooklyn Technical High School due to an unprecedented turnout; almost 1,700 members attended the meeting when the typical General Meeting has had fewer than 300 attendees. After a heated discussion, the members voted to reject the proposal to hold a referendum.
- First, Iss246, let me again thank you for talking this out here, rather than making the change on your own. At the risk of seeming condescending, let me say that your most recent post here is excellent and very much in the spirit of good faith. Thanks.
- Second, to again address the issue of defensiveness: I do not find you defensive when you are advocating your position on the Coop entry. Indeed, I have encouraged that sort of advocacy in both your talk page and this talk page. I find your language defensive when you accuse me of attacking you, threatening you, and attempting to boss you around, because I have done nothing of the sort. I have advocated my position (frankly, ad nauseum) on the merits; I have expressed concern that you and I (together) were entering the dangerous territory of a revert war, likely to hurt us both; and I have reverted edits you have made that were not based on consensus. The language I used was neither attacking, threatening, nor bossy. Your assertion that it was those things was therefore defensive. I am sorry that my words made you feel attacked, threatened, and bossed around, although it was never my intent to make you feel that way.
- Third, I concede your point on the dates for the sake of again demonstrating good faith. In other words, I still disagree that the dates are necessary and still feel that they evince a journalistic writing style, but I have concluded that this point is too minor to keep arguing. Sometimes one has to exercise the better part of valor (referring to a dictum you might be wise to employ yourself). However, I find your latest version still too wordy, so I will simply add the two dates to the existing, more concise version.
- Please note: my concession on the dates is temporary because I still maintain that after the passions of the moment have faded they will be unnecessary and will stick out in the entry like a sore thumb. So I reserve the right to remove them at some point in the future. Probably in 2013 I will take out the day and month, as well as reference to the July meeting altogether, and leave it simply as "In 2012 the GM rejected a proposal to hold a referendum..." etc.
- I hope you are satisfied with this compromise and that it settles the issue for now.
Alleged unfair labor practices
I have removed original research that does not comply with the NPOV policy regarding the General Coordinator's response to the alleged unfair labor practices. If an editor would like to add it, I would recommend providing citations and maintaining an NPOV. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)