- The following discussion 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.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
I call to your attention a discussion of a reverted edit that is occurring at [1]
The edit in question was reverted [2] "... The trillion dollar coin is a joke (albeit with a serious point). Not suitable for inclusion."
Un-revered [3] with the reason "Krugman's not joking -- He describes the coin issuance as part of "most important fiscal policy debate of our lifetimes". Shouldn't we take him at his word?"
And again reverted [4] with the reason "oh for chrissake, he is too joking. He's using a joke to make a serious point. A point which has nothing to do with the existence of a trill $ coin but with the stupidity of the current budget process."
Much subsequent discussion occurred on whether Dr. Krugman was "joking".
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Extensive discussion at Talk:Paul Krugman, added supporting citation.
How do you think we can help?
Would you(s) have a look at the talk page discussion [1] and assess whether the "joking" claim has/has not been sustained?
You know, whether or not Krugman is actually "joking" or "half-joking" or "using a joke to make a serious point" or "being serious about something that is absurd" or whatever, is completely beside the point and irrelevant. What matters is that:
1. Putting in "Krugman supports the trillion dollar coin" into the article without explaining that this "support" is meant to highlight a problem with how fiscal policy is conducted in US completely misses the point, misinforms the reader and is... I'm not sure how to put it politely, but it's someone basically unable to understand the actual gist of something beyond it's very literal meaning. It's as if I said "I'm feeling blue today" and someone responded with a straight face "Of course you do not feel blue, it is impossible to feel like a color and besides you are your usual pinkish color". At that point you start wondering about the person's competence.
2. Krugman has written more than 750 columns for NY Times. Let's generously assume that half of them are throw away columns or repetitive. That means that in 375 of them Krugman has supported some position or other, made some point or other, commented on one policy issue or another. And since he writes about the top economic issues of the day, pretty much all of these 375 supports or columns are going to be on something "notable". The deficit, the fed, taxes, trade, etc. And because is he is one of the most widely read columnists, there will be a lot of secondary sources in blogs and other venues about "what Krugman said about X". Still, that doesn't mean we need to include all 375 comments or columns in his article. That would be ridiculous. So what is needed here is a demonstration that THIS particular column is somehow unique, way way more important than others, will be talked about for years to come, and is thus especially worthy of inclusion. That has not been done.
More generally, arguing over this seems like a total waste of time, though unfortunately "wasting other people's time until they give up" is a standard POV pushing tactic on Wikipedia. So: yawn.Volunteer Marek 02:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- While the case has already opened, we limit opening comments to 2000.
Please trim by 97 characters.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I fully endorse this reading of the situation. Insomesia (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Revised remarks: As I said in my original (slightly too long) response, the bias issues in this article go well beyond this one issue, and they cannot be solved by picking at the inclusion of any specific issue. The needs to make evident that criticism of Krugman is largely intradisciplinary rivalry between competing schools of economics, and the pretense that there is a consensus position against which his views can be judged needs to be abandoned. Therefore I don't think there is much point to participation in this DRV, because whatever we fix about this isn't really going to help the article much. Mangoe (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
That Krugman was 'joking' is clearly the opinion of editors and not backed up by any sources. The issue itself has garnered press and the topic has its own article as well. I don't see how Krugman's view on the issue is irrelevant to his article and consider the 'joking' argument to be somewhat spurious. Arzel (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose inclusion here I don't think Krugman's commentary on the coin belongs in the article. While there is enough coverage in RS to justify existence of Trillion dollar coin, and editors may or may not decide that Krugman's comments belong there, this "issue" is too minor for inclusion in the Krugman article. As someone else noted, we wouldn't list every single item that Krugman discusses in his regular column, and this one is far less significant than many items he discusses.
- Support coverage elsewhere Wikipedia's coverage of serious economic and financial issues is woefully bad. To the extent that coverage exists, it is stronger on populist claptrap, such as Trillion dollar coin. I do not argue against coverage of populist claptrap, for the same reason I don't try to fight the tides. But we don't have to let that inevitability pollute articles about serious economists, just because those serious economists sometimes venture into partisan rantings. By all means, there should be acknowledgement of that role, but that doesn't require discussion of every single utterance. There's a place for Krugman's commentary on the coin, it is Trillion dollar coin. Let's keep the article about the individual as a comprehensive biography, but not a play-by-play. Krugman's recent column on Japanese Policy is a perfect example. 100 years from now, historians will look at Japanese fiscal policy as far more important than the coin. In addition, this is Krugman's strength. His knowledge of this issue is why he has a Nobel prize. Yet Wikipedia barely covers Japanese fiscal policy at all, and I see no coverage of Krugman's latest thoughts on the subject. I grant that is a large hill to climb, but we don't have to make it worse by cluttering his article with discussion of his ruminations on the coin.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
talk:Paul Krugman discussion
Hello, I'm Amadscientist, a volunteer here at DR/N. I will review the dispute and see if there is anthing new I can add. While I am reading through the dispute, if anyone feels they have a compromise, that everyone can live with please feel free to post it here.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- I am the editor who initiated this dispute resolution. I have not participated in the dispute resolution process before, so I hope my unfamiliarty does not cause me the act improperly. The questions I ask below aren't, in a strict sense a suggested "compromise", but are clarifying questions.
- To what extent is this a discussion of a specific edit, [2] and the edit's removal claiming that Dr. Krugman is "joking"? This the specific issue that I had in mind when I filed the RfC.
- To what extent is this discussion, as asserted by User:Mangoe, above, "[t]he scope of conflict is wider than this single issue"? I infer, from User:Mangoe statements above, that he is making an unstated claim of [[Wikipedia:NPOV. True? If that is true I ask that he explicitly make the claim. Deicas (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- If this discussion touches on POV claims on an article-level there are other editors that should be invited to participate. And, in any case, I am not statisfied that I invited all potentially interested parties when I entered the RfC for this discussion. How should I proceed.? 11:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deicas (talk • contribs)
- Per my questions, just above, WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THIS DISCUSSION? Is there someone authoritative involved with this RfC that can answer that question? Who? Or are we participants going to just go off arguing in multiple direction like we were back at [[Talk::Krugman]]? Is there an administrator to whom I should to directly via their talk page? Deicas (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
At the risk of oversimplifying I think the dispute here is that Krugman's call to mint a trillion dollar coin looks outrageously gimmicky in the eyes of the general public but in the eyes of monetary economists his position on this issue isn't especially surprising or unsound. A decision based purely on the content dispute would support the side just concerned with the latter but arguably that wouldn't really answer those who are more concerned about the former, since they are concerned about the immediate takeaway for the typical reader. To be judged is whose responsibility it is to provide any necessary nuance. In my opinion those concerned about the optics of appearing unserious should be the ones to supply an adjustment since they are the ones who believe an adjustment is necessary but this is largely based on my view at least one of these editors is overly inclined to delete instead of adjust generally. Since a pure conflict dispute is typically beyond the scope of the dispute resolution process, I suggest the person adjudicating may wish to review the general Wikipedia behaviour of the disputants and first make a statement about that behaviour (if neither side is conducting themselves badly then an admonishment of the party who brought to dispute resolution something that shouldn't be expanded beyond RfC may be in order). A statement about how that would apply to the specific example would then follow.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at what the dispute here involves exactly, but I'm a regular reader of Krugman's columns. My understanding of what he's written in the NYT is that while he considers the 'trillion dollar coin' option to be highly unusual and silly, he thinks that it would be worth pursuing if if a better solution doesn't eventuate given that a silly but effective option is better than what he sees as the disastrous alternative of defaulting on the national debt or the harmful alternative of further cutbacks to spending while the economy remains depressed (especially as he argues that its irresponsible/ethically dubious for Congress to not authorize raising the debt ceiling given that it's previously approved the levels of taxation and expenditure which will make increasing the debt ceiling necessary). My impression from the columns is that he's not joking, and regards the coin option as being legally, ethically and economically sensible if its necessary to avoid these alternatives. As such, it would be reasonable to say that he supports the option as one of the possible solutions, but such a statement would also need to explain his view (eg, that he sees it as a 'least worst' type option in certain circumstances rather than a good idea in its own right). This column sets out his views on the topic (the key passage appears to be "But wouldn’t the coin trick be undignified? Yes, it would — but better to look slightly silly than to let a financial and Constitutional crisis explode", and he then notes several other viable solutions). Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
At the moment there is overlapping discussion on "Endorsement of the potential issuance of a trillion dollar coin" occuring both, here, at the RfC[2] and at [3]. Is there a way to persuade/compel all parties to confine the discussions to the RfC until the RfC is closed? Deicas (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Joking as a revision reason: I'm not clear if anyone is *still* citing "...joking..." as a legitimate reversion reason for removing Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin. If so, please *briefly* assert that claim below and I will attempt to address it. Deicas (talk) 06:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- If you read the responses here, you will see that there are indeed editors citing "joking" or at least facetiousness on Krugman's part for disagreeing with the original edit. See my "'Krugman column is a WP:PRIMARY source" comment below for discussion on why the very fact that there is disagreement on what Krugman's real point is, and how he is making it, makes the original edit unacceptable.
Zad68 20:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I assert that it is the consensus of, all participants in this RfC, that
- 1) All discussion bearing on or related to the "... joking ..." reversion reason is to henceforth occur in the "Krugman's column is a WP:PRIMARY source" thread below and;
- 2) No further comments are to be inserted here. Deicas (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please stop trying to control this DRN case and let the volunteers do their job.
Zad68 21:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Can we *please* have the "joking" discussion in *one* location? Please?
- It is my assessment that the claim of "joking" has been entirely subsumed by the WP:PRIMARY source claim, see below, and further discussion of "joking" here only serves create noise and confusion. Deicas (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin isn't significant: some of the discussion, above, suggests that Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin is insignificant and does not merit inclusion in the article. If that is your assessment the please say it *explicitly* and cite the applicable Wikipedia guideline for non-inclusion. Deicas (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- When Krugman writes a column(s), and then that column's contents/ideas receive many mentions, in many news sources, then that idea is significant in describing Krugman's actions as public intellectual. Deicas (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I'd say that most - hell, let's say ALL - of Krugman's columns are "significant". Wait, make that significant. Because, you know, they're in New York Times and all, and he writes about most important economic issues of the day. So... do we include all 750 of them in the Paul Krugman article? If no, then define "significant".Volunteer Marek 01:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note that the issue under discussion is Krugman's on-going endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin, which has run in at least 3 of Krugman's columns, and the response to same. We are not talking about a single column.
- Look at the results of this Google news search: [4] -- there are >1,000 hits on *news* sites. Please look at the number of news site related hits and then tell me that you are seriously asserting that Krugman's endorsement of the idea does not rise to the level of significance of inclusion in Paul Krugman. Are you confusing you personal assessment of WP:IDONTLIKEIT with your stated claim that's it's not significant? Deicas (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Extend text describing Krugman's endorsement: Some of the discussion, above seems to be *not* related to removing Krugman's coin endorsement but instead addresses extending the text that describes Krugman's endorsement. Eg.: Note User:Volunteer_Marek above: "Putting in "Krugman supports the trillion dollar coin" into the article without explaining that this "support" is meant to highlight a problem with how fiscal policy is conducted in US completely misses the point ..."
If my reading of this part of the issue is correct, then the consensus solution would be: "1) Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin stays and; 2) The text describing Krugman's endorsement will be extended and edited until everyone is satisfied with the results. True? Deicas (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree that any such consensus has been reached. Volunteer Marek and I have both argued strongly against inclusion. Arzel's position isn't perfectly clear, but I'm guessing support for inclusion. Mangoe supports inclusion, but I suggest the argument is flawed. If we do raw counts, which is not the way to judge consensus, it is two versus two, hardly consensus. If we judge strength of argument, well, I'm biased, because I'm one of the participants, so I like to see someone experienced in judging consensus to make the call. I'll be stunned if such a person concludes consensus in favor of inclusion in the Krugman article at this time. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, what Sphilbrick said. My comment was conditional. IF we include the column THEN it should be described accurately. That doesn't mean that, at this point, I support including the column.Volunteer Marek 01:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- User:Sphilbrick: Your comment, just above, largely bears on "inclusion" of the Krugman quote. Would you please move those sections of your comment to the "Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin isn't significant" thread above? Deicas (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Article-level POV problem: Some of the issues discussed above seem to address POV claims. Per User:Mangoe: "The scope of conflict is wider than this single issue. The root problem is that there are rival schools of economics ...". This issue would bear on not just the endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin but also the Robert Barro and Edward Prescott quotes, the Enron sector, and other items. If someone wants to make a POV claim then please make it *specifically*, cite the specific offending items, and justify why the inclusion/removal of these items has an POV effect on the article. Note that an individual edit can't be POV, in and of itself, but must have a POV effect on the entire article. Deicas (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't want anyone to think I haven't been reading and looking at all this, but we are not pressed for time. I wanted to ask if the article might not have a few issues? Why is there a controversy section grouping POV bits altogether on a BLP? The Trillion dollar coin issue deserves a mention in my view as encyclopedic and having enough notability to mention but how it is mentioned needs to be reliably sourced and neutrally worded.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, it doesn't follow that Krugman's views on the coin belong in the article simply because some reliable sources are talking about the coin. That's an argument in support of the existence of the Trillion dollar coin. It doesn't follow that every Tom, Dick and Harry who shares a thought about the issue should have it mentioned in the article about Tom, Dick or Harry. If someone wants to add Krugman's thoughts to that article, go for it. The subject under discussion is whether his views about the coin belong in the article about Krugman.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- User:Sphilbrick: If you are make an assertion that Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion dollar coin does not rise to a level of signifigance sufficent to merit inclusion in Paul Krugman then why are you not saying that in the 'Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin isn't significant' thread just above? This thread addresses "Article-level POV problem". Deicas (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Krugman's column is a WP:PRIMARY source: This dispute was started over the proposed addition to the article "U.S. economic policies" section the following content: Krugman endorsed, in his New York Times column, the potential issuance of a trillion dollar platinum coin, by the US Treasury via a "legal loophole", as a means to "sidestep" the US debt ceiling.
Using Krugman's own statements from his own column is the use of a WP:PRIMARY source. The Wikipedia policy on the use primary sources is: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. ... Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself
The placement of this quote in the article in the "U.S. economic policies" and especially the proposed interpretive summary of the column content ("Krugman endorsed ... the potential issuance of a trillion dollar platinum coin...") is clearly disallowed by Wikipedia policy. The very fact that this DRN discussion exists is proof that the real meaning and intent of the primary source is too unclear on its face for it to be used this way. The solution is to instead use reliable secondary sources that interpret the meaning of the primary source. Note: I am not convinced either way that the mention of this subject in the BLP article is WP:UNDUE and I'm not commenting on that here, but it would be up to those arguing for its inclusion to come up with some way of assessing due weight, and that is usually done by examining the amount of coverage of this topic found in the reliable sources that cover the subject in general, and secondary or tertiary sources are usually used for this. Zad68 17:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- WP-PRIMARY#1: To what degree, above, is the assertion of WP-PRIMARY, a claim that Krugman's NY Times columns, and other writings, can't be cited in Paul Krugman. Is, indeed, User:Zad68, making this claim? Please expand.
- WP-PRIMARY#2: To what degree, above, is User:Zad68 making the claim that the text of the edit in dispute "Krugman endorsed ... the potential issuance of a trillion dollar platinum coin..." does not clearly and correctly follow from the plain text of the cited Krugman columns? True?
- WP-PRIMARY#3:To what degree, above is User:Zad68 making the claim that the text of the edit in dispute, "Krugman endorsed ... the potential issuance of a trillion dollar platinum coin...", is include-able only if a secondary source(s) confirming this interpretation?Deicas (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I believe all three of these questions were addressed in my original comment. It is now time for us to hear the outside opinions from others at the DRN.
Zad68 21:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
This issue is generating a good deal of coverage as can be seen by a simple search. I think the important aspect to note is that Krugman is the most notable economist to support such a measure. If anything, this issue is growing, and to say that it is undue weight or excessively minor to be included is somewhat hard to accept. It would appear that the major reasons for not including is the view that this is a stupid stunt or perhaps that it makes Krugman look like a wacko if he really believes it is a good idea. Regardless, it is something that Krugman is supporting (even if it is in response to something else he thinks is stupid). To not include a notible issue which, unlike most of Krugman's political rants over the past four years, is actually an economic issue for which he is supposed to be an expert about. To summarize the main reason against appears to be a simple case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Arzel (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- User:Arzel: as your comment, just above addresses "Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin isn't significant" -- would you please move or add the comment to that section? Deicas (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is the correct location. There really is no difference between the two. Krugman is the main notable pushing the TDC (joke or not). It should be mentioned in his article along with a link to the TDC article. Arzel (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- You are making arguments which support the inclusion of Krugman's comments at trillion dollar coin not in Krugman's biography. I don't think anyone is arguing against that.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- In case that distinction isn't understood, look at the Krugman article itself. It contains an observation by Martin Wolf about Krugman. Someone obviously decided that such commentary was worthy of inclusion in the Krugman article. Yet it is not mentioned in the Martin Wolf article. There is a comment by Krugman about Wolf, but the Wolf comment was deemed to be relevant to the biography of Krugman, but not relevant to the biography of Wolf. In the same way, Krugman's comments about the coin are relevant to that article, but not to his biography. It isn't(yet) that big a deal. It would not be hard to list a dozen observation by Krugman that are more important to his bio, yet not mentioned. I've mentioned one, I'm sure there are more.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Here's another example. Michael Tomasky is quoted in the Krugman article, offering an opinion about Krugman. Yet that comment isn't in the Michael Tomasky biography. This is correct. It is a relevant observation about Krugman, and helps provide an understanding of the punditry's view of Krugman, but it isn't an important aspect of Tomasky's life.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I am sure there is a bunch of other crap that is not in there either, what does any of that have to do with this? I am sure you have read up on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. What, exactly, is your problem with including this information, which Krugman seems to have no problem talking about at length, and which has been a pretty big economic story. Seems that the one actual interesting economic policy that Krugman wishes to discuss over the past few years is to be ignored. Why is that? Arzel (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I am very familiar with OTHERCRAP... but that isn't my point, so I'll assume I didn't make my point clearly. I gave two examples where I think the handling was correct, not examples of mishandling. To say it more generically. Suppose we have an article on notable PersonX and notable SubjectY. If PersonX comments on SubjectY, we don't in general, conclude that the commentary belongs in both articles. In some cases we will have it in both, but in many cases, the comment by PersonX may be a relevant addition to the article about the subject, while not rising to the level that it is an important aspect of the life of PersonX. That is the most common case, and the case that, IMO, applies here.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Deicas. You have been making a number of requests to editors that make them (and me) feel you are attempting to direct the discussion. First, this is not a good way to get your point across. Second, this is not an RFC, this is a DR/N filing. Anyone may help resolve the dispute but we ask that we limit the mediation and administration of the filing to one of the listed volunteers. You can help by collaborating with the editors to find common ground.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Scope of discussion
The scope of the discussion is limited to the issues related to the dispute and all normal policies and guidelines, with an emphasis on BLP policy. Right now we have a locked article: Paul Krugman and will remain locked until, either the disputes are settled or the time runs out of the clock. But its a long lock. January 20, 2013.
The issues are collaboration, communication and acceptance. To collaborate, the involved editors have to go in to this knowing that everyone may have to accept some amount of the other participants ideas to find some common ground and move forward. If content is the main issue, we should use communication in a way that is brief and informative. Don't talk past each other or at each other.
The main issue is whether or not to include information about the coin. First, lets remember a few unquestionable fact. This is a concept, not an actual coin. It would be a huge coin if it was. This is polictical, economic theory, that simply states the President of the United States could fund the government around the approval of congress using this particular "loophole". This has notability to be in the Krugman article and is neutral information in regards to the figure. The context to Krugman is firm and it can be verified that he made comments on the concept. I believe an issue is editors being able to live with that and how does it get added in prose. But the overall issue is NPOV and discussion problems with centering too much on each other and picking apart each argument back and forth. Stop discussing eacj other. Discuss the content.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- There have been a number of NPOV/POV claims, bearing on an article-level Paul Krugman issue, asserted above and on [Talk:Krugman]. These NPOV/POV claims effect not just inclusion/removal of the the Trillion Dollar Coin edit but also the inclusion/removal of other items (e.g. the Enron section, the Gary Becker quote, statements by Barro and Prescott, and the comments of the President of Estonia[5]).
- If the violation of POV claim is sustained, then most of the issues, above, go away. If the violation of POV claim is rejected, then disposition of individual edit issues can be resolved quicker, quieter, faster, with less dispute.
- Resolving the NPOV/POV claims, and the correct treatment of same, is a prerequisite to arriving at a specific disposition of the Trillion Dollar Coin edit and a number of other active disputes. These are disputes that should/must be resolved prior to the scheduled un-protecting of Paul Krugman on 20 January.
- I remind all participants, in this discussion, per WP:NPOV, "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased". Deicas (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Should I have recommended, just above, that the current RfC be put in a hold state and a new RfC - "Resolve claims that Paul Krugman has a POV/NPOV problem" be created, and resolved, prior to continuing with the current RfC? Deicas (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- You should be brief in you comments. Brevity is more important in disputes than at any other time. What can you live with Deicas? The information itself and its inclusion is a matter a simple straw poll consensus can decide. What do editors think? Is basic information about Paul Krugman commenting on the Trillion Dollar Coin notable enough for inclusion?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- If NPOV/POV disputes aren't within the scope of this RfC, then would someone (who) please make an authoritative statement to that effect? Deicas (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Content disputes are resolved here and all findings are informal. Conduct disputes can be submitted to AN/I.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I am unclear as to User:Amadscientist's meaning just above. Are POV claims *within*, or *not within*, the scope of this RfC? Is a claim of POV a "[c]onduct disputes" issue? Would he please make clear declarative sentences resolving these questions, eg. "POV claims are not within scope of this RfC.", "POV claims are conduct disputes can be submitted to AN/I". Deicas (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please direct all questions regarding RFC policy to the RFC talkpage or Dispute Resolution talkpage. If you have questions about the DR/N process they can be asked on our talkpage. Please keep this discussion to the dispute at hand. If you continue to disrupt this DR/N case you will be asked to refrain from further comment.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The information itself and its inclusion is a matter a simple straw poll consensus can decide. What do editors think? Is basic information about Paul Krugman commenting on the Trillion Dollar Coin notable enough for inclusion?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Editors may add an oppose or support !Vote.
- Oppose inclusion in Paul Krugman, support inclusion in Trillion dollar coin. It's surprising that although the heart of this dispute seems to be WP:UNDUE nobody has brought forward any numbers to argue it, so I did my own Google Scholar searching and did not find the numbers support the mention of it in this biography, 530 mentions out of 40,700. At Trillion dollar coin, there does seem enough support for a listing of Krugman's name as one of those who has commented on the idea (and it's already in the article). It's possible that the coin idea, which appears to me to be nothing more than a thought experiment, could catch on, and then we'd have to revisit this decision at that time.
Zad68 05:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support inclusion of Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin in Paul Krugman. It's *so* prominent Google News search produces >1,300 hits including, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and a report from ABC[6]: "Paul Krugman Scolds Jon Stewart for Platinum Trillion Dollar Coin Coverage". Support inclusion of Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin in Trillion Dollar Coin. What difference that support makes I'm not sure, Krugman's endorsement of the trillion dollar coin is *already in* Trillion Dollar Coin Deicas (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose inclusion in Paul Krugman, support inclusion in Trillion dollar coin. Reserve the right to change my mind if situation changes or more information becomes available, per User:JMKeynes. Volunteer Marek 07:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose inclusion in Paul Krugman, Support inclusion in Trillion dollar coin. (same Keynes reservation as Volunteer Marek, which I had to remove from my opening statement for space limitations)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose inclusion in Paul Krugman, Support inclusion in Trillion dollar coin, with the reservation that this can change depending on what happens in this next couple of months. FurrySings (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support inclusion in both. This odd whitewash of information is quite strange since Krugman himself has made quite the big deal of it as of late. I am still not sure I understand the objection. Arzel (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you're describing the questioning of the inclusion of this on WP:UNDUE grounds as "whitewashing" because it is in no way negative material about Krugman. You yourself have almost repeated the concerns the "oppose" !voters have been raising when you say "has made quite the big deal of it as of late" (emphasis mine)--remember that this article Paul Krugman is a very general and broad biography spanning his whole life and career. Krugman has said lots of things about lots of different economic concepts over his career and there's nothing here to make us think his recent thoughts about the trillion-dollar coin idea are any more notable relative to anything else he's said or written.
Zad68 15:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- That is exactly why I am very curious to the strong attempt to keep it out of the article. From an economic theory policy, this is a very interesting aspect of thought. Much has already been written about it. Why is it unsuitable for his article? How is it undue to mention something that is probably one of the things that should be mentioned about Krugmas views on economic policy? The only conclusion I can determine is that some think it is a stupid joke and therefore unworthy of the Krugman, thus the whitewash. Arzel (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- You're still not demonstrating a perspective that is in line with arguing for inclusion in Paul Krugman and instead are arguing for inclusion at Trillion dollar coin (where it already is). See WP:UNDUE for guidance on how to determine whether something like this should be included, and keep in mind that this article is a general biography about Paul Krugman the person, and it is not an article about the trillion dollar coin specifically or even just Krugman's economic ideas.
Zad68 15:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- User:Zad68, just above, asserts that Paul Krugman is a "... general biography about Paul Krugman the person, and it is not an article about the trillion dollar coin specifically or even just Krugman's economic ideas".
- 1) The notion that Paul Krugman isn't about and, by implication, shouldn't include "Krugman's economic ideas" is risible. And silly.
- 1a) Absent his economic idea, Paul Krugman probably wouldn't meet the WP:NOTE criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.
- 2) If "Krugman's economic ideas" aren't proper to include in Paul Krugman then is User:Zad68 suggesting that we remove mention of "Krugman's economic ideas" from the article? E.g. are sections "New trade theory", "New economic geography", "International finance", "Macroeconomics and fiscal policy", "Free trade") to be removed?
- 3) I'm not aware that anyone has suggested, as implied above, that an extensive discussion of the trillion dollar coin should be added to Paul Krugman. Could someone please point to this suggestion, if it exists?
- 4) The proposed addition is: mention of Krugman's endorsement of the idea and; a brief description of his reason for same. Deicas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Good grief, Zad68 never said "Krugman's economic ideas" aren't proper to include in Paul Krugman. Of course they are. Please read more carefully, so you can contribute to the signal, not the noise.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- User:Sphilbrick : I take strong exception to your admonition to "Please read more carefully": User:Zad68 wrote: "... this article is a general biography about Paul Krugman the person, and it is not an article about the trillion dollar coin specifically or even just Krugman's economic ideas". How does a *careful* reading correctly interpret this statement? Do tell? Deicas (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- In ordinary use of English, "it is not about just X" is a statement supporting material in addition to X, but in no way connotes exclusion of X. Your response inferred that the editor was arguing for exclusion of X. Not at all. Perhaps you missed the word "just". --SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Would [[User:Sphilbrick be so kind as to re-write or parse, User:Zad68's statement from above, that is under dispute: "You're still not demonstrating a perspective that is in line with arguing for inclusion in Paul Krugman and instead are arguing for inclusion at Trillion dollar coin (where it already is). See WP:UNDUE for guidance on how to determine whether something like this should be included, and keep in mind that this article is a general biography about Paul Krugman the person, and it is not an article about the trillion dollar coin specifically or even just Krugman's economic ideas." in a manner acceptable to to User:Zad68?
- After that rewrite/parsing, please explain what saliency "... or even just Krugman's economic ideas" has on the claim User:Zad68's is asserting? Deicas (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not about to tell you what Zad68 meant, but I will tell you that I thought the statement made sense, and I'll go on to give more detail on how I read it. The article on Krugman is a general biography, so will or can cover his upbringing, and aspects of his professional life. That professional life includes an academic career, which has both teaching aspects and research. In addition, he has served in many capacities on many notable organizations. More recently, he is best know for being a New York Times columnist, writing on political issues, sometime with economic aspects.
- The article is not narrowly an article on the economic theories of Krugman. The distinction is that we would expect more depth and breadth of economic issues in the second article. A more general article would hit the high points, but might not go into any detail, or as much detail on some issues.
- To use an analogy, if I am contributing to Connecticut Huskies women's basketball and add details about the recent game against Georgetown, it is likely to be removed, even though extensively discussed in sources, because in the context of the entire team history, it wasn't much of an event. In contrast, if I am contributing to 2012–13_Connecticut_Huskies_women's_basketball_team, the game result is very relevant. The exact same game, the exact same extensive references, yet appropriate in one article, but not the other.
- An additional complication, which I anticipate will not be universally accepted, is whether the TDC is even an economic issue. The broader issue is economic; issues such as whether the US ought to go further into debt, by how much, and when. But that's not the central issue of the TDC, which is a political ploy to avoid congressional restraint on debt creation. One can have responsible positions on both sides of this issue, but it is a political issue. The creation of additional debt is an economic issue, but whether it is accomplished via congressional agreement or the TDC route is a political choice. I mention this last point, because too many participants are acting as if it is an economic issue. I'll note that calling it a political issue is not an argument that it doesn't belong in Krugman (although it might be an argument for exclusion of an article on the economic theories of Krugman.) The general biography of Krugman properly contains his political views. The question again, is whether this political view is of sufficient import to be recorded in his life's history, or if wp:recentism gives it more importance now than it ultimately deserves. I'll lay odds, and back it up with money if anyone cares, that if the TDC is not carried out, that ten years form now, this issue will not make the top ten of Krugman's ideas. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 Dead on, thank you for doing what I was unwilling to spend the time doing. Zad68 16:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- It might help if you had a good analogy. This is nothing like an individual sporting event. This is a relatively new conceptual and theoretical economic idea being discussed by an economist. If you are going to compare apples to apples it is best to use apples, not oranges. Arzel (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Just to expand on point (2), where is Wikipedia most likely to have a puffed up, slanted bio? Answer: for someone who has a large fan club. How does the subject's popularity penetrate into the article? By polling the general editing population, in which Krugman enthusiasts are even more overrepresented than the general population by virtue of the number of liberal yuppies around here. Anytime someone cannot come up with a substantive reason for excluding something, there's the reach for Wikipedia:UNDUE weight. That policy says that views should be identified "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" but that of course allows for all sorts of stalling by either changing the scope of what constitutes "published, reliable sources" to whatever serves one's purposes or, even more commonly, combining it with the burden of proof on the party supporting inclusion argument to create a near impossible evidentiary burden for inclusion, since one can't just point to the reliable sources but has to chronicle the entire inventory of reliably sourced material about the subject on all topics and then sort all of that by topic so that one gets comparative weights. If we apply this tactic to the attention the article currently places on Krugman's opinion about the GOP and the "Southern Strategy" (something that has nothing to do with economics, Krugman's area of expertise) would we have Republicans and race relations discussed not just once but twice, with the second time getting its own section? Allowing this sort of relative weighting within the article argument to support the inclusion of something ought to be worth something since the idealized relative weighting within all the external sources standard is extremely impractical in the context of a dispute. Abuse of the "burden of proof for inclusion" principle could be minimized by requiring the party claiming "two wrongs don't make a right" to correct one of the two wrongs before making an issue out of the second.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support inclusion in Paul Krugman. Besides the fact that Google Scholar is going to be light on 2013 topics since it takes time for work to go from writing to publication in the sources caught by Google Scholar, we'd be deleting the bios for most of the Congressmen if Google Scholar is the standard since few politicians are references for "scholars." The appropriate criterion for notability is reliable sources more generally, and on that point this has not just come up in the tabloids. While I have no particular objection to including a mention of Krugman's views in Trillion dollar coin, the topic of that article is not Krugman's views but the legal, political, and economic consequences of minting that coin. Minting the coin would be very similar to quantitative easing which rightly or wrongly is supported by a great many credentialed economists, not just Krugman. SPhilbrick's claim that the coin is "populist claptrap" is simply false, and it's a classic example of what's wrong with Wikipedia that this falsehood should make its way into this encyclopedia because popular opinion votes it in. The people who have been dismissing the coin as so much claptrap have almost entirely been journalists and bloggers talking about the politics and optics of the coin as opposed anyone who has come up with a serious argument about the economic consequences. You don't have to read very far between the lines of SPhilbrick's claims to see that SPhilbrick wants Krugman's endorsement of the coin excluded from his bio because it makes him look less than "serious." In fact Krugman would look less serious if he failed to endorse the coin on economic grounds since it would amount to flip flopping on a lot of the policy prescriptions he's advocated previously. Editor Marek went and deleted the discussion of the economics of the coin I wrote at Trillion_dollar_coin#Inflation_Risks instead of contributing to that discussion so I have since rewritten it in as indisputable fashion that I can. I challenge Marek, SPhilbrick, and the rest claiming the coin is just a "joke" to identify what's wrong with that paragraph in Trillion Dollar Coin because that paragraph is fundamentally incompatible with the claim that the coin is a gimmick not to be taken seriously. The Federal Reserve is adding more than a trillion to its balance sheet in 2013 ANYWAY. It could substitute those plans with the coin and realize the objective of stimulating spending in the economy even more directly than through its current plan which relies on the indirect mechanism of incentivizing lending.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I understand your point, but it would have been nice if you had made your argument by only referring to Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, and without assuming bad faith of your fellow editors, making personal attacks, and engaging in original research.
Zad68 21:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- As a start, please read more carefully. You said, in part SPhilbrick, and the rest claiming the coin is just a "joke" . I have not said it is a joke. I have said more than once that debating that point is a distraction.
- As for ... to see that SPhilbrick wants Krugman's endorsement of the coin excluded from his bio because... I urge you to avoid assigning motives. Please address issues, not motivations. Especially as you aren't very good at it. (My personal hope is that it is included, but I think that would be bad policy.)
- This: SPhilbrick's claim that the coin is "populist claptrap" is simply false, and it's a classic example of what's wrong with Wikipedia is way off-topic. If you want to have a debate about what's wrong with Wikipedia, I'm there, but not here.
- You said The appropriate criterion for notability is reliable sources. In a word, no. Reliable sources are necessary but not sufficient.
- That doesn't leave much of a policy reason for inclusion. Can you reiterate, using policy, why we should cover it twice? Are you seriously arguing this minor incident is one of the more important aspects of Krugman's career? That would be sad if true, but it isn't true.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- What I said was the "appropriate criterion for notability is reliable sources more generally." This is not just splitting semantic hairs because truncating your quote of me turns my relative, contrasting statement into an absolute, isolated one. An entirely different thing. Neither did I say that you've claimed "it is a joke" but I did lump you together with those who did because "joke" versus "partisan rant" really is just the same point, which if it's germane must be that Krugman on the coin is not "serious". If that's not the point then just what is the point? What else are we to make of your use of "serious" if not to draw a contrast? The "motive" for claiming undue weight is, in fact, the very issue at hand, because nobody who believes it isn't undue is going to be convinced it is undue just because someone else keeps restating that it's undue. The argument will just go around in circles until the motivation is spelled out. There isn't "much of a policy reason for inclusion" of "Krugman reports that he is a distant relative of conservative journalist David Frum" in the article yet you aren't disputing that, you are disputing this. Why are you not demanding that Krugman's "distant" relation to Frum be deleted on the grounds that it does not constitute "one of the more important aspects of Krugman's career?" The answer to that goes to the heart of this issue, which is whether to mention the coin (once, not "twice"). Last I checked, Krugman's relationship to Frum was not headline news. Meanwhile, ABC News finds noteworthy not just Krugman's position on the coin, but that he criticized Jon Stewart for not taking it seriously: ""Obviously neither he nor his staff did even five minutes of looking at the financial blogs. Lots of people think it’s a bad idea. Lots of people think it’s a good idea. But it’s not just, ‘Oh, those idiots.’"--Brian Dell (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Brian, regarding your statement, "The 'motive' for claiming undue weight is, in fact, the very issue..." No. Or at least, not here at DRN. Look at the top of this page, it says DRN is for content disputes, and here we are to discuss content and not speculate about other editors' motivations. Wikipedia policy is very clear on this: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Please make your best case for what you feel is the content change that will best improve the article along Wikipedia policy and guideline, and that's it. If you really feel that there are long-term behavior problems with a particular editor, start a WP:RFCU on that editor.
Zad68 02:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- "Motive" here refers to the rationale for claiming WP:UNDUE here, not to what gets somebody out of bed any given morning. I rejected the WP:UNDUE claim by rejecting the justification behind it and instead of being told, "that's not, in fact, my reason, this is my reason" the "motive" language was introduced in a warning to not speculate about motives. In other words, one side here is advancing an argument and the other side is complaining that the argument is being advanced instead of pointing out what's wrong with it.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- For as much as someone *might* want to agree with User:Bdell555's comments, above, regarding "motive", the constrains of WP:GOODFAITH would constrain any right-thinking Wikipedia editor from *ever* expressing such a thought.
- Given the constrains of WP:GOODFAITH, I ask that User:Bdell555 abjure his comments regarding "motive" and focus, instead, on the absurd lack of evidence and reasoning provided, to-date, in support the vociferously asserted WP:UNDUE claim. Deicas (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- The root of all DRN are actually editor disputes or arguments regarding editor motivations. Content issues in general are covered by exisitng WP policies. Since policy in this case clearly shows that this is something that can be sufficiently added to this article the real dispute is if it should be added. As already stated, there is much in the article that would fail WP:Undue long before this particular issue. With no clearly stated reason for exclusion regarding policy there is little left to wonder. Arzel (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agree that so far the argument has been around whether it should be added. (I've pointed out WP:PRIMARY problems with the actual proposed content but we haven't gotten that far yet.) And yes I agree there is clearly WP:OTHERCRAP in the article already, and honestly because of the current poor state of the article, adding more suboptimal content isn't going to make it noticeably worse. However, I'd prefer to see this BLP not have yet another problem added to it, and one possible good result of this DRN could be that it will be used as some sort of standard for content inclusion that gets applied to the article and so the article will get improved. I'm puzzled by "With no clearly stated reason for exclusion regarding policy..." because clearly you've seen arguments based on WP:UNDUE which is indeed policy.
Zad68 04:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if, just above, Zad68 is claiming WP:UNDUE or he referencing other claims of same, but certainly, above, there have been plenty of claims of WP:UNDUE.
- With a view toward efficiently addressing WP:UNDUE claim(s): I propose that a new section be added to the RfC in which we can make and dispute WP:UNDUE only.
- At the moment we're in a section that started for "Scope of discussion",then became a place for voting, and then became a place for argumentation. This vast block of text is getting confusing. Deicas (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- DR/N is an organic process and allows for discussion by editors, even in a straw poll. The poll does not limit discussion but attempts to help move it. It has successfully achieved its goal of determining if there is a consensus for inclusion of the material. There is not. Per Wikipedia:Consensus - No consensus(Bolding by this editor):
No consensus
Some discussions result in no consensus to take or not take an action. What happens next depends on the context:
- In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept.
- In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.
- When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted.
- In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.
Preceding unsigned comment added by Amadscientist - January 14, 2013
I note the No Consensus text block above, added by, [User:Amadscientist]], and his comment "... successfully achieved its goal of determining if there is a consensus for inclusion of the material. There is not. Per Wikipedia:Consensus".
Does this mean that this RfC is done/finished/completed with a big stamp of "No Consensus"? I note that at [7] this RfC shows a status of "Open".
Or does the No Consensus text block mean that, if we disputants can't come to an agreement, *then* the RfC gets the big stamp of "No Consensus"?
I apologize for my confusion, this is the first DRN RfC I've been a part of. 09:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deicas (talk • contribs)
- I am going to try one last time to explain this Deicas. This is not an RFC. An RFC is a "Request for comment". There is a specific process to create an RFC and close it. They are not done on the DR/N venue. They are seperate venues and cannot be done simultaneously. A straw poll is simply a manner to see the consensus of a certain issues within the dispute. It does not mean the dispute is over or closed. When the dispute has run its course and the volunteer believes all available routes have been exhuausted they may then close the filing if they wish. I ahve not closed the DR/N.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Amadscientist, that was me who refactored the "No consensus" quote, not Deicas. I'm really sorry, honestly, you found it disruptive. The original formatting ended up breaking the threaded flow of the conversation and left the top part of your message looking like it was unsigned, and it took me a minute to figure out who had posted what and in reply to what, and I thought I was helping by "improving the clarity and readability of a page." If it had the opposite effect, again, I apologize and will simply ask next time.
Zad68 21:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Consensus for inclusion or exclusion
If the final outcome of a consensus discussion is "No consensus" (as it apears the above is showing} then the material stays. If this holds, we must then determine how the material is to be presented in the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC).
- Whoa, wait a minute... This is a discussion of a proposal to add new content to the article. Right now the proposed content is not in the article, and this DRN discussion is regarding whether (and, if so, how) to include the proposed content "Krugman endorsed, in his New York Times column, the potential issuance..." sourced as described above. My reading of the straw poll is that there is no clear consensus to include, and per WP:CONSENSUS the proposed content won't be added to the article.
Zad68 13:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is not a continuation of the talk page discussion of the proposal. The content was added then reverted and discussion began and edit warring insued. BRD has been exceeded. This is a deletion dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I fear that *whatever* the abigously stated conclusion is, above, about the disposition (ie. include or exclude) of the *specific* edit in dispute, the constant disputes about the editing of the Krugman article will not be *resolvable* without of first resolving the POV/NPOV issues/claims.
- If my understanding of the process of resolving POV/NPOV disputes is correct, the next step in this process is entering an RfC at the Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard true? Deicas (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- As Paul Krugman is scheduled to be un-writelocked on 20 January, I admit bafflement on how all the items in dispute can be resolved by that time. Can someone more familiar with the Wikipedia dispute resolution process cast some light on this matter? Deicas (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- There is no specific DR path one MUST take. In fact, you could have used the NPOV/N before you came here or made an ACTUAL RFC on the article talkpage. I am afraid this article is on a path to article probation.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- What we are supposed to do is, after the article is unlocked, we do not add the content, and instead we continue to discuss it like adults until there is clear consensus to include, or it is obvious that there is no consensus to include. We then either add the content or we don't, and then we go work on other things.
Zad68 16:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm with Zad68. The boilerplate isn't exactly a model of clarity, but the phrase:retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit sounds clear. This isn't long-standing material that was boldly removed, in which case a No Consensus might imply restoration, this is recent material, with a proposal to add it. There is no way the boilerplate can be construed to mean material should be added. Note that the boilerplate offers no advice on how to determine which wording should be added. It doesn't need to. If the material was long-standing, and removed, a No Consensus determination and restoration doesn't need to identify the wording, it has been there for along time. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- The prior version was inclusion. The DRN is because you don't have a policy reason for non-inclusion, which is why it was brought here. More simply, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason. Arzel (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- The article is locked and one can clearly see that it was locked due to edit warring. The last edit removed the content[8]. THAT was the bold edit. The proposal was already made on the article talkpage. This dispute is over the edit warring of the content in and out. Wikipedia:Consensus is clear. The strawpoll simply determined whether or not there is a consensus for its inclusion or its exclusion. --Amadscientist (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, the pre-dispute version was not inclusion as stated above. The perspective that this is a deletion discussion does not seem to be in agreement with the actual article history. The mention of the trillion dollar coin was never in the article until it was first added 23:14, 9 January 2013 by Deicas here, and then it was immediately removed, put back, removed, and then the whole article was rolled back to "25 Dec before all this started" by the full-protecting admin while an argument about the coin content was ongoing on the Talk page. The initial adding of the content on 23:14, 9 January 2013 was the "bold edit" which never had consensus and was reverted and discussed, so the previous status quo was with the proposed content excluded. That is why this should be a DRN discussion about adding the proposed new content. Zad68 00:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Let me try to make you understand. This filing was made AFTER the content became disputed with edit warring. Again, BRD has been exceeded and you now have a deletion Dispute. IF this filing had been made when the proposal was still being discussed before edit warring, THEN you would have had a discussion about the proposal. It is far too late for that now. There is no consensus for the deletion that was made when this case was filed. If editors refuse to accept that much of what has been discussed I am inclined to close this dispute as "failed" and recommend formal mediation, however the fact is, the BLP article is sufferring greatly from editor behavior and edit warring so, if this DR/N fails I will also be recommending Arbitration for conduct issues.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Amadscientist, if this is indeed how DRN works even for BLP content disputes, this is very surprising to me, so I hope you'll forgive me for not getting it before. In this case, the process as you're describing it appears to go directly against this part of WP:CONSENSUS#No_consensus that unfortunately wasn't highlighted earlier: "However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it."
Zad68 05:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is how DR/N works. I open the discussion and introduce myself. I then make a suggstion to engage the editors to begin discussion. If the editors begin discussion, I step back and let the participants engage each other with civil discussion. If nothing moves forward I step in, give my opinion on the issue and attempt to move the discussion towards a resolution to the filed case, regardless of how serious other problems are, while attempting to adress other similar issues that may be a part of the dispute. We can't move past the filed case, so we can't resolve, or attempt to resolve any other issue. I know this has the potential to be a bad situation. If this can't be resolved here I recommend the next step. My recomendations are as informal as the noticeboard, but after seeing a number of disputes like this bounce back and forth amung AN/I, AN, RS/N, NPOV/N and back, sometimes it is best to simply tell the editors that this may be more than everyone can achieve at this venue and that a more formal approach may be needed. Doesn't mean anyone will listen, but that is our job. This is the central access to the DR process. If everything were falling apart and the discussion was out of hand and the article was opened and edit warring was continuing I would start a Community Santions discussion on AN/I, list the issues on the article, the edit warring and the editors involved etc. But it isn't that serious, so if I close I will recommend that the content dispute continue to the next appropriate venue which, in this case, seems to be formal mediation to make whatever decision is decided on stick, and suggest arbitration is the next route for conduct disputes. I would then also recommend Article probation, all written in my closing.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
To reiterate what Zad said above "Whoa". The text above clearly states: In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. The bold edit was the addition of the info on the coin. Hence, if there's no consensus then the result defaults to the no-coin version (prior to the bold edit, or prior to the proposal). I have no idea how you're getting exactly the opposite conclusion Amadscientist. I seriously doubt that "this is how DR/N" works, since it clearly contradicts the text above.Volunteer Marek 19:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
And the contention that this is a "deletion" discussion is ... silly. Note that the word "deletion" above links to Wikipedia:Deletion policy which deals with how pages are deleted (The Wikipedia deletion policy describes how pages that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed from Wikipedia. ). It does not link to or discuss how a tid bit of text is "deleted". In fact that's not a "deletion", it's a simple removal. And the text above clearly includes that: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles". The idea that this has become a deletion discussion is a bizarre one.Volunteer Marek 20:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Since you feel the DR/N decision is silly you may state this to the next mediator. You edit warred and want the goal post moved to allow the outcome you want. Closing this filing as "failed".--Amadscientist (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
If all editors are in agreement that, at the very least, we have no consensus and can include the material in some manner, we can discuss how to present it in a neutral manner. After that we can move on to other issues. However, if editors are still in disagreement as to what this dispute entails, what it is that we are discussing or whether or not the content can be included, then we are stuck.
If there are no further posts, comments or replies, specific to the dispute itself I will close this filing as "failed" in 24 hrs with the recommendations I have covered. I will also be advising Administration that the article should be edited by experianced admin during the remaining lock period to bring it in line with BLP policy and suggest article probation.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- As I mentioned in the section just above I'm having a hard time resolving the "no consensus" outcome of restoring the content with the bit of WP:CONSENSUS policy I discussed. But, I agree with the idea of keeping the article locked and having a BLP-savvy admin watch the Talk page. I went through the article history and this trillion dollar coin dispute isn't the only one or even the one most edit-warred over. I count 16 add or revert edits plus two Talk page discussions for the "Becker" quote alone, plus further edit-warring over a "relentless partisanship" quote and a {{criticism}} template, and I only looked back over four days worth of the article's history.
Zad68 05:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The article has major issues. I doubt it was locked over just this dispute. This is a Biography of a Living Person. We have bightline rules on these issues (whether they say "brightline" or not) and WMF has even come forward with direction on how to treat these articles.
I want to mention the outcome of "no consensus" here. The argument that this was a proposal, and therefore the outcome should be to leave it out is not accurate. It means any attempt to, "add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Time is standing still because the article is locked and it is easy to see that the last bold edit was to remove the trillion dollar content. We do not see this as an extension of the original proposal discussion. This is no longer about "Do we agree with this proposal". It simply went the way of reverting. While editors seemed to be smart enough not to have crossed the 3RR brightline rule, the administrator felt that these edits were not in the spirit of our policy on edit warring, which can be as little as a single edit.
Using BRD as an example, Deicas makes a bold edit that added the content. That was reverted by Volunteer Marek. A discussion insued resulting in no consensus. What followed were further bold edits and reverts of the same content. No consensus was formed but the content was still edit warred back in. As I said, had you come to DR/N at that time it would have been a "proposal dispute" and the last bold edit would have been the "warring" edit that put the content back against consensus. But Volunteer Marek made an edit that reverted the re-addition of the content. Both were edit warring and wrong, but the last "Bold edit" was Volunteer Marek. Since this was an edit war over content (albeit short- since the article was locked) this is no longer a discussion looking for consensus of the original proposed content. Now it is simply a deletion dispute with two editors warring. In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept (this is regardless of the last edit). There's a reason its called BRD. Its a repeating cycle, designed to go in a circle. Once both parties have deviated from the normal cycle and reverted each other they are engaging in an edit war over content, and that is a deletion dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I understand and accept this explanation, and don't doubt at all that you with your experience here WP:DRN know how this process works far better than I do. I think this is the first BLP WP:DRN discussion I've ever been involved in that actually got going. All I'm saying is that based on my reading of WP:CONSENSUS, I find this process very surprising, and can think of some pretty troublesome unintended consequences for contentious material at BLPs because of it. I know, I know, 'so go fix it but not now, not here...'
Zad68 14:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I won't ask you to revisit the no consensus conclusion, but I think your suggestion that it should be closed as failed, with a recommendation for mediation makes sense.
The concept that a no consensus decision should result in a reversion to the pre-dispute version (with appropriate caveats for BLP) is a sound one. I grant that determining when a dispute started can be a tricky issue on occasion, however, the clear intent is that material implicitly accepted, by being in an article for some time, shouldn't get removed if a DRN can't reach a consensus on inclusion.
That doesn't remotely cover this case.
The material was added at 23:14 on 9 January
and removed 17 minutes later at
23:31 on 9 January
The dispute was precipitated by the addition of new material, not the removal of long-standing material.
If I am reading your conlcusion correctly, and I may not be, your position is that the addition of the material wasn't the bold edit, but the removal. That stands BRD on its head. Deicas was perfectly within convention to add the material, Marek was perfectly within convention to remove it, and if Deicas still wants to include it,t hen we go to the discussion phase.
The addition by Deicas is clearly the Bold addition, the removal by Marek is clearly the Revert, then ideally Discussion occurs, although it was sidetracked by a bit of warring.
This position is reinforced by admin KTC, who protected the page, and restored to the pre-dispute version. (Because Deicas was also trying to add some contentious material about Becker, the reversion goes tot he version before the first contentious addition)
(I actually wrote most of this before seeing you agree that the first addition by Deicas was the bold addition, so I am not following how you then go on to conclude the the removal by Marek is the key Bold edit.)
I'll also note that five opposed inclusion while only three supported. I fully understand that we don't simply do this by the numbers. It is my belief that the supports had better arguments, but of course, I may be biased on that point. However, I'll draw your attention to this plea. Deicas is new, and unaware that we don't encourage this sort of thing, but I wonder if your conclusion would have been No Consensus had it been 5 to 2, with the original editor joined by only a single other editor?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:49, 16 January 2013 (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.
|
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.