Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Jonathan Frid

Prem Rawat






List of Mr. Belvedere episodes

Diet in Sikhism

Paul Gogarty

Ted Cruz

General Joseph Colton

Wikipedia nostradamus

Daniel Tammet

List of vegans


1929 Palestine riots

Kashmiri Pandit

Irvine Welsh's Ecstasy

Occupy Wall Street

Would that work? If so It's even formatted to go.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, that's precisely what I've (we've?) been trying to get across. Equazcion (talk) 20:53, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Is this the consensus then? It certainly makes giving factual statements much easier. I myself have a strict interpretation of policy, so accepted that we could not use the primary sources like the CBO report, even though our secondary sources make it clear that they explain what OWS is concerned about. If we can use those sources, then we have easy sourcing for factual claims. Anyone else? BeCritical 21:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

In looking at this I see two issue and only one real dispute. The issue with using statistical information is a seperate one and if I have not made myself clear in all the prose and the link I left to the policy etc., then I will state outright, that it is a case by case matter and dependent on context and what statistics and how and where they are used. It is a complicated issue and not cut and dry for a single consensus to any and all use. As for the prose and reference dispute, the admin above did indeed suggest better sourcing.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

New version
"Income inequality has increased over the last three decades with economic stagnation and unequal distribution of the wealth undermining the goals of working people."[5]

Give me a while I want to integrate the full section and sources here. Looking good (: BeCritical 13:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

At the minimum, I suggest changing 'working people' to 'most Americans'. --regentspark (comment) 13:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I think the prose is original enough to use that.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I have made that change to the agreed on prose with wikilinks above as cited in a compromise for my dispute. I feel this is resolved and leave it up to DR/N facilitator as to whether a seperate DR/N should be opened to address Becriticals use of multiple refernces for multiple claims and use of statistical data or if we should simply continue here. I asssumed there was something else with statistics but I didn't assume he meant ALL of the material. If that is his dispute I would recommend a seperate filing. While I saw this as two issues I saw only one dispute from what the original discussion was involving and that was over information another editor reverted. HOWEVER I also gave a window to more discussion here by stupidly thinking this was going to actually be done on a case by case basis...but that can be done here as well. I would rather do it little by little on the talk page where at least one other editor has shown interest in engaging there, but if DR/N is determised to leave this open I will continue here and ask the other editor to join this discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you think of this version?

During the 1990s, economists began to release studies which showed the increasing income inequality in the United States. Although these were cited by liberals and Democrats, this information did not fully penetrate the public sphere till it was used as one of the ideas behind the OWS movement. OWS protests were particularly concerned with wealth and income inequality, in addition to greed and the corrupting power of banks and multinational corporations.[6] Inequality in wealth and income has increased over the last three decades with economic stagnation and unequal distribution of the wealth undermining the goals of most Americans."[7][8][9]

A 2010 poll found that an overwhelming majority of Americans across the political spectrum, including the wealthiest, want more equitable distribution of wealth.[10] According to news editor Simon Rogers writing for The Guardian Data Blog, Americans, including 90% of Republicans, believe that the top 20% of Americans should own as much as 40% of the wealth of the nation, and that the poorest 120 million Americans should own about 10% of the wealth of the nation. However, in reality the top 20% of people in the Unites States own 85% of the wealth, the 120 million poorest own .3% (about 1/333rd or one third of one percent), and the richest 1% own about 33%.[9][11] According to 2007 statistics, financial inequality (total net worth minus the value of one's home[12]) is greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[8]

However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[8][13][14] Tax rates paid by the wealthy are less than those paid by Americans making $100,000 to $200,000 per year: incomes of $100,000 to $200,000 are taxed at an effective rate of 25%, but the wealthy, whose income comes mostly from investments, pay less than 20%.[9] Since 1979, federal taxation has become less progressive, shifting away from progressive income taxes and toward payroll taxes.[7][6] In the United States, about 15% of households are "food insecure," meaning that they have difficulty buying enough food. About 50 million Americans have no health insurance and at least 42 million —about 1/7th of the population— live below the poverty line.[9] Executive pay in the largest US companies has quadrupled since the 1970s, but the average non-supervisory employee is paid 10% less.[9][15][16][17][18]

BeCritical 03:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Technical comment. It is not the case that the wealthy pay less taxes than those who make $100,000 to $200,000. Rather, they pay (in general) at a lower rate. --regentspark (comment) 13:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Corrected. BeCritical 21:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b Takhar, Opinderjit Kaur (2005). "2 Guru Nanak Nishkam Sewak Jatha". Sikh identity: an exploration of groups among Sikhs. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 51. ISBN 9780754652021. Retrieved 26 November 2010. 
  2. ^ Gabriel Cousens. Conscious Eating. Retrieved 2009-08-09. 
  3. ^ "Presidential campaign needs to get real on salvaging middle class". Los Angeles Times. December 31, 2011. Retrieved 25 April 2012. 
  4. ^ ael Hiltzik (December 31, 2011). "Presidential campaign needs to get real on salvaging middle class". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 25 April 2012. 
  5. ^ ael Hiltzik (December 31, 2011). "Presidential campaign needs to get real on salvaging middle class". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 25 April 2012. 
  6. ^ a b Income Inequality The New York Times March 22, 2012
  7. ^ a b ael Hiltzik (December 31, 2011). "Presidential campaign needs to get real on salvaging middle class". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 25 April 2012. 
  8. ^ a b c Occupy Wall Street And The Rhetoric of Equality Forbes November 1, 2011 by Deborah L. Jacobs
  9. ^ a b c d e Occupy protestors say it is 99% v 1%. Are they right? The Guardian Data Blog, by Simon Rogers, Wednesday 16 November
  10. ^ Occupy Wall Street: More popular than you think By Brian Montopoli October 13, 2011 "the vast majority [of Americans] seem to share the protesters' sense that the economic deck is stacked"
  11. ^ United in Our Delusion By David Cay Johnston October 11, 2010, as cited by The Guardian Data Blog
  12. ^ "Financial wealth" is defined by economists as "total net worth minus the value of one's home," including investments and other liquid assets.
  13. ^ Recent Trends in Household Wealth in the United States: Rising Debt and the Middle-Class Squeeze—an Update to 2007 by Edward N. Wolff, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, March 2010
  14. ^ Wealth, Income, and Power by G. William Domhoff of the UC-Santa Barbara Sociology Department
  15. ^ Cozy relationships and ‘peer benchmarking’ send CEOs’ pay soaring The Washington Post with Bloomberg, special report on Breakaway Wealth, By Peter Whoriskey, October 3, 2011
  16. ^ Ratcheting up pay with peer comparison The Washington Post with Bloomberg, October 3, 2011.
  17. ^ Who are the 1 percent?, CNN, October 29, 2011
  18. ^ "Tax Data Show Richest 1 Percent Took a Hit in 2008, But Income Remained Highly Concentrated at the Top." Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Accessed October 2011.
This isn't exactly a case by case discussion but now asks to gain consensus on a whole bunch of stuff. I suggest taking this portion back to talk page as my actual dispute has been resolved at this time. I don't dispute that the CBO information cannot be used in some form as detailed on the talkpage (and here) and feel if you wish to dispute the actual exclusion of the above material it should be made as a seperate DR/N. Or we can continue to discuss each case there and not take up sapce on what I see as a resovled dispute. The issue of statistics individually is a different issue. I will participate if you wish to return with your own DR over statistical data but I feel sure that it is better to discuss this on the talk page and see and resolution to this filing.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
No, the dispute is not resolved. There hasn't been any agreement. Seemingly, you see it as resolved because you edited the article and put in your preferred version without discussion [21] [22] [23], along with User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous . But the removal of most of the section is what we're mainly talking about here, not just one sentence. No need for a separate section. Can you give feedback on the above? BeCritical 22:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
But if you don't want to engage more here, I don't think another thread here will do anything. What do you think about formal mediation? BeCritical 22:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I will leave this up to the DR/N facilitators to decide if the intitial dispute I brought: "A question has arisen in regards to how to use references to support a claim. (with a quote of the text) It is disputed that this can be used as fact and is believed it should be attributed as opinion and not used to claim a straight fact." has been resolved.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, if that was the only problem with the section, then let's restore the former section, or the one above, with your lead sentence. Then we can discuss further edits, such as the draft above on the talk page. But I don't think that's what you want to do. I was under the impression that we were here to get a draft of the section written, since much of the section has been blanked or changed without consensus. Seems silly just to work on one sentence. On the other hand if you're saying to just insert the text above in the article and you don't have a problem with it, then that's fine... we don't need to be here. BeCritical 01:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Why use it as fact? Just explain that its an opinion of the author. Like, "according to John Doe" or "writes John Doe" or "in staff writer John Doe's opinion". As long as its phrased so that the opinion is clearly that of the author, not Wikipedia than its fine, though a balance should be maintained. — GabeMc (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That is, in fact how the section is right now with a good portion that was from the older version, but is now attributed correctly as opinion to it's source the Guardian UK. It seems that the other editor wishes to use a number of sources that turn out to be opinion including the Guardian, that he had made sure to ask me directly about some time ago and then linked me to the consensus discussion on the issue of the Guardian as a RS. He still used the reference against his own recomendations to me. He has stated that the author means nothing and only the source itself does and believes that we need not distinquish between expertise of the authors themselves in such opinion. The editor wishes Income inequality as the first main section of the article and wishes for us as editors to proclaim that the CBO report is undisputed fact, and that all mention of it be done without having to reference the information to a secondary, published source.
The section was edited a number of times by a number of editors, as has the entire article, but this section has been a question of a number of editors for some time and the issue never really went away. I removed the information, began a detailed explanation of my actions per policy for and gave examples of how to use facts from relliable sources that have direct context to the report, but it appears the other editor is more interested in getting the statistical information included without proper context or secondary referencing for claims. Is the CBO Report undistputed fact? Can its statistical information be used in the artticle in prose without secondary, published referense? I actually think if the other editor wants to encompass all disputes than we should make this the mother of all Occupy DR/Ns. This should be the one where we hash it all out from top to bottom, including the criticism section and how that relates to assessment, the Security and Crime section, the timeline section that was deleted and the split between pages. We can post at every project that the page is under and post something Signpost and the Wiki project Council and the Village Pump. Perhaps we need to take a straw poll and gauge the overall community temperture for a full community wide "Occupy" discussion? There are a lot of different ways we can handle this, not just If not....Becritical...just start with one claim and one refernce and we can deal with it that way...or go back to the talk page and just discuss this. We are only here because you wanted to be here. My dispute is resolved unless you would like to renege on your part. I see no reason for me to renege on mine. I am willing to discuss one case with you further here as I stated clearly "case by case" if this is not satisfactory you have every right to lodge or file and action to any part of the dispute process. We can take it from there sir. Tank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Both versions including the above use appropriate attribution. That is not much of an an issue. If you don't want to discuss any problems you see with the former section, which was removed in a disruptive manner, or with the draft above, I'll ask for formal mediation. I don't just start from a version which is the result of disruptive editing and act as if that is correct: if you do that, then it only encourages disruption, which is bad both for any editors who try not to be disruptive and aggressive, like me, and for Wikipedia as a whole- not to mention the content of the page. As I've said before, there are sufficient sources to state things as fact in some cases. But that is not the main issue. In fact, I'm not sure what the issues were/are which caused the section to be blanked and edit warred into its current state. BeCritical 17:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
What I percieve, is that you have posted a chunk of an article with several claims and references that were boldly removed with proper summarizing of the policy and guideline, immediately discussed on the talk page...yet are not offering any reasoning, explanation, argument, justification or defense to include and are relying on me to contiunue to denounce the material over and over. I then see you accuse others of the very thing you, yourself are doing...not discussing. Ultimatums like: "If you don't... I'll...?" are too controling for my tastes. Your behavior seems to be very inclined towards directing editors behavior to suit a very narrow interpretation of conduct guidelines and in some cases just essays. This is becoming disruptive in my opinion. Good luck. I'm done. My dispute is resolved. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm asking if you see a problem with it. If you don't then I'll use it in the article. As to how you and AKA removed the former material and inserted your preferred version over the reverts and objections of myself and Equaz, and over the policy explanations of how you were wrong by other editors as well, that was disruption. If you want to dismiss our concerns here, and refuse to continue the discussion, then please do not revert at the article. BeCritical 19:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I am asking that you show good faith in the discussion and please explain your position for inclusion. As part of being bold I summarized my action, created a section on the talkpage and explained in full my edit. You have yet to do so. You have argued against policy and guideline but not actually discussed why the claims you are making should be included and I do mean EACH claim and EACH reference.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
There are no problems with the above draft. That is my position. If you disagree, let's hear why. I can't respond to nothing. BeCritical 06:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
There are problems with the above draft. That is my position. I have disgreed. You have heard it. Is there some reasoning you have that this is acceptable for inclusion?--Amadscientist (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Stonewalling and not giving reasons for your assertions just means we have to have a mediator. BeCritical 18:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

A different approach

We need a different approach. I won't call for closing of the DR when there is still a dispute, regardless that the compromise of my original dispute seems to be working. I won't use "My version" versus "Their version". That is not a discussion as much as it is requesting a vote between versions that differ greatly. I am however, going to be straight forward here as I am in this dispute.

The subject of income inequality

We know that income inequality is an issue for OWS. It does not require citation as it is considered undisputed fact. How this fact is applied is a matter of consensus. But...there are other issues. What about greed, corruption and the undue influence of corporations on government? Why do we have an entire section with a header entitled "Income inequality"? and not a section with headers entitled with the other issues? IS income inequality so important to the subject that it is due weight to include a seperate section entitled "Income Inequality" and no other sections relating in the same manner each issue with due weight? If we use only a single header, shouldn't that header be more neutral to the subjects of issues and simply use the header "Issues". But then there is the fact that it is a protest and they have goals. It is reasonable to suggest that issues are a part of the protest goals. Why not a section entitled "Issues and Goals"?

I see a section entitled as "Income inequality" and being devoted to the subject alone to be wandering into original research. As far as your version. I have stated you should be bold and add it a little at a time and see what happens. You could always add all of it and see what happens, but then you must be able to allow other editors involved to edit it, question it and remove it if they follow proper procedure. Removal of content is acceptable even as stated by essay, WP:BRD. Having content removed is not a disruption. It happens all the time. You, yourself have removed content. Is there a compromise you might consider? Perhaps drafting out a merging of some content into an issues section along with some additonal content cited to RS about the other issues and the protestor goals?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What? Why did you blank the section then instead of editing collaboratively? Why didn't you change the section title? The section title has been changed multiple times because of people's objections to the lack of agreement between the content and the title. At one point, this was a section title, inserted by me also this, and content could have been merged into that catchall section. But was that done? No, the section was blanked instead. Why would you blank content because you don't like a section title? The above is the third or 4th time I have rewritten the section to please objections which I consider mostly baseless, and which are aggressively or disruptively asserted on the article. I don't trust the process at the article anymore, and feel that only mediation has any chance of gaining a definite enough consensus that future disruptive editing can be resisted. BeCritical 18:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, on April 16 you did indeed add a similar title to the header as I had suggested on April 10 and got no reaction or discussion from you.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
And blanking a section is not "bold" its disruptive. (olive (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC))

It does seem to me that the terms of the dispute are shifting. We started with a dispute over the wording of a sentence in the text. That dispute seems to have been resolved. Now, the entire section is being disputed? --regentspark (comment) 20:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Blanking of content is another way of stating "removal of content" and should always be accompanied with a full explanation in the edit summary (which was done) and a discussion with a more detailed explanation of the edits (which was done) but, in and of itself, is a bold edit and alone is not disruptive. Bold editing is encouraged where articles have stalled or discussion only methods of collaboration are not working. But yes, I believe the terms have shifted, but the editor who began the DR/N (me) is being asked to dispute the entirety of a section. I have not disputed a section in this DR, but believe the other editor diputes my removal of content and the discussion that followed.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
No. Blanking content does not only equal removal of content. It strips an article, and in this case a highly contentious article. Sadly, such actions disrespect other editors working on an article, and I consider both stripping an article and that kind of aggressive stepping over other editors to be disruptive especially given the reason. We can of course agree to disagree.(olive (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC))
I suppose you can agree to what you feel is true, but I go by what the Five pillars of Wikipedia: "all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed" and what WP:BOLD states, which is: "Don't get upset if your bold edits get deleted" and "It is important not to be insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further" as well as ""For if absurdity be the subject of laughter, doubt you not but great boldness is seldom without some absurdity." from Francis Bacon.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
regentspark, I actually thought that a DR/N started after the blanking of a section was about getting the section unblanked. My mistake. I'm always willing to discuss whatever needs to be discussed. I do not recall any real explanation for blanking the section; rather, it seemed MadSci thought it was a kind of punishment for not having discussed to his satisfaction [24] "I feel it is best to remove this section again as the last revert failed to discuss in detail what their reasoning was for returning the information." This seems to me another misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works: detailed explanations in the absence of specific objections are not required. Is there any reason not to request mediation? I've been pretty busy or I would have. BeCritical 01:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I assume this is the blanking in question? The section is there in the article now and we've been discussing one sentence from it. Could the two sides (briefly, please!) clarify what the dispute is regarding this section? No need to explain things at length as yet. Let's just get a handle on the problem first. --regentspark (comment) 01:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
No idea. Can't get him to say. And no this is the section now and this is the section before it was blanked. BeCritical 03:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is the diff of the edit I made that removed the material with the summary: "OR with no direct support from references for context". That was the original content removed and I edited a good portion back in attributed properly as opinion of the Guardian UK as Becrititcal and I discussed when I tried to address this here, where Becritical states that the general consensus of the community is to use the Gaurdian as an opinion.[25]. We were collaborating and we made some agreements but they never transpired and even attributing of the Guardian as opinion seemed to also disolve as important to the other editor. I decided to be bold and make an edit that I believed was within the consensus that Becritical and I had agreed on. I then began another discussion here. (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist, on reading your diffs I'm not sure I see what your issues are. Generally, in the diffs, you express the concern that highlighting income inequality as the main issue underlying OWS is not directly supported by reliable sources and therefore either the entire section should be removed or 'income inequality' be moved into a broadly titled 'main issues' section where other issues are also discussed. Is that a fair assessment? --regentspark (comment) 12:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"[C]oncern that highlighting income inequality as the main issue underlying OWS is not directly supported by reliable sources" is one concern yes, but not the basis of the entire section being removed. Not quite a fair assemsment only in that, it assumes these are all the arguments I used or concerns i had when i did make the edit that removed content. These are simply some concerns and ways to move the article and section past JUST highlighting ONE portion, which I do not see any source as stating as fact. I have concerns that the highlighting with use of a section gives greater importance to all the information within and makes it a more important issue to collaborate on and discuss if it is the ONLY section dealing with protester concerns. But my main dispute with the content I removed at that point was simply that the other editor was clearly going against his own previous arguments and collaborative effort with me in what I percieved was a punitive removal of content by the editor in the past in an aggressive manner while attributing such behavior to others. (Not to bring a conduct problem here, just mentioning as part of what I percieved)--Amadscientist (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I admit I'm foxed and cannot really see a dispute here. You're saying you blanked the page as a sort of reaction to the behavior of another editor. Not a good idea but let's just put your reaction as well as the behavior that caused that reaction aside and move on from there. I suggest that if highlighting one issue is your principal concern, then perhaps the way out is that you seek sources for other issues and bring them to the attention of editors on the talk page. If there are multiple, equally important, issues, and if the issues as well as their importance are well sourced, then there is no reason why income inequality cannot be included as a subsection of a broader section. As a general rule, proposing specific means of moving forward makes dispute resolution much easier than does expressing general dissatisfaction with content or behavior. --regentspark (comment) 20:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
For my part I have to admit I held back from discussion feeling a bit manipulated, so it is less about their actual behavior and more about my perception...but then I don't have the dispute about adding content to the section...the other editor does. So far the stall in discussion seems his wanting to have an up or down vote on his version and my wanting to talk about all of the changes as needed. The long term dispute is about the section as Income ineqiality and the inclusion of the material in it. But the short term dipute of content or section header is my argument in collaborating on this section. The section title has gone back and forth as part of the long term dispute of what context to use information and references, statistics and the like. The immediate dispute of the other editor was part of a long term discussion I think needs to continue on the talk page. But, to clarify it was not my reaction to his behavior or any perception I had of his conduct, (that's flying at me a lot too) that inspired me to make the edit, it was the breaching of the agreements and settled consensus he was arguing in the discussion that was in the form of opinion content not attributed to the source he began to place in the section. I didn't understand why he was adding information with references against the very things he was seeking me to agree with (use of the Gaurdian references as attriputed opinion only). The removal of content or "blanking" itself was part of a bold edit to discuss the specific issues I had with content and references at that time.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't pretend to understand all of that, but historically, this editor has not been specific enough in his objections to allow them to be addressed, has made up his own policy, has edited aggressively and has generally made progress difficult. But no need to discuss it here further, I'm planning to ask for mediation. BeCritical 22:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree mediation is the best next step. Let's call this one closed and done with. --regentspark (comment) 23:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreed.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.