User talk:Ndickinson1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Ndickinson1, it's a good idea to separate your questions or comments on a Talk page from all the other sections. The easiest way to do this is to click on the "New section" link on the left side of the page. Then be sure to include a brief section title. I have already sectionized your question to Ckatz. Once again, welcome to Wikipedia! &mdash;  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.   16:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply
Hi, you can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~. The article could be made viable, and I'll shortly paste the text here for you to work on before reposting. Have a look at the welcome section above for tips on formatting. In particular, there should not be any bare urls in the text, and in references they should be formatted like this [url description] to make them more intelligible. use wikilinks to other wikipedia articles where appropriate.

I think you need to explain where the term originated. You define it, but I get no sense of who first used the term. Also, make it clearer that this seems, as far as I can tell from the text, to be a usage largely restricted to the US. If you need any help with formatting etc, let me know. Good luck  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  11:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Also please give year and isbn for the other books  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  11:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I made these edits, which of course you are free to revert if you're not happy  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  11:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Shared Earning/Shared Parenting Marriage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dominance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Fathers' rights movement, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your additions to this article contained a reference that did not support your contention, nor did it mention father's rights. Your statements are, in general original research and do not seem to represent a neutral point of view.  For these reasons, I have reverted your additions.Ebikeguy (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the law review article I cited? It's all about parental rights, and fathers are parents. How about the article citing the data about divorce rates?

I don't see how citing a well-respected law professor's well-regarded article offering a different perspective to Warren Farrell's uncited viewpoint, a perspective that is actually much less biased and more accurate, is considered "original research" or a Non-"neutral point of view".

It is actually Warren Farrell's assertions that are not a neutral point of view. He is not presenting a children's rights perspective. This whole page contains a number of pieces of "original research" and non-"neutral points of view". It is those you should be focusing on, not the two articles I cited which are well-established. Ndickinson1 (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding. Your citation to the law review article only showed a very short excerpt, containing no language that mentioned father's rights.  From what I could see of the law review article, your suggestion that this review contradicted other ideas in the Father's rights movement article is synthesis, associating your own conclusions with tangentially-related cited material.  This is a form of original research, and not allowed on Wikipedia.  Similarly, the article on divorce rates did not directly support the ideas you expressed in your edits.  Note that I have opened up a discussion on this matter on the associated talk page.  Please participate.  Thanks.  Ebikeguy (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

SPLC Article
Ms. Dickinson,

Your recent addition to the Father's rights article suggested that an article by the Southern Poverty Law Center lableled Father's Rights groups as Hate Groups. In reviewing the article, I noted that it suggested nothing of the sort, so I reverted your edit. I have opened discussion of the matter on the article's talk page. Please join in the discussion if you like. In the future, please refrain from publishing your conclusions about the material in an article as though the article had made such conclusions on its own. Thanks very much. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The "Intelligence Report" published by the SPLC is, by definition, where the "hate groups" are identified. See this quote from Wikipedia's SPLC page: "Since 1981 the SPLC's Intelligence Project has published a quarterly Intelligence Report that monitors what the SPLC considers radical right hate groups and extremists in the United States.[7][8] The Intelligence Report provides information regarding organizational efforts and tactics of these groups, and is cited by scholars as reliable and as the most comprehensive source on U.S. right-wing extremism and hate groups.[9][10][11][12]"  A similar quote appears on the "hate group" Wikipedia page. Ndickinson1 (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but the article you referenced did not use the term "Hate Group." Thus, concluding that SPLC has put any father's rights groups on a list of Hate Groups is synthesis, which is not allowed.  Ebikeguy (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not a "synthesis" I created; it's the definition used by the SPLC and quoted in the Wikipedia SPLC page text I quoted. Not sure why a Wikipedia editor is blocking a statement like this. Perhaps you do not have objectivity on this matter for some reason? Are you identified with the MRAs? I don't get it. Very disappointing and destructive to the credibility of Wikipedia, not to mention the risk this poses to women when the way this group's activities have led to violence against women, simply for being women, does not get accurately identified.Ndickinson1 (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment, above, verges on a personal attack. Please comment on edits, not editors.  Ebikeguy (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack; it's a question. Are you objective about the Father's Rights page? Ndickinson1 (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * YesEbikeguy (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Citations Needed in Lede Section of Shared Earning/Shared Parenting Marriage
I've added citation needed tags to the lede section of Shared Earning/Shared Parenting Marriage, which does not cite any sources for the claims contained therein. If the statements made in the lede are supported by any of the referenced sources from the rest of the article, please include these references in the lede section as well. Thanks very much. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I fixed it. I would like to ask though: is there someone else I can talk to about the editing?  I gather this has become personal for you and you are feeling attacked.  It might work better it if there is an editor who is familiar with the subject matter of these articles, including the significant distinction between shared parenting upon divorce, an issue on which the Father's Rights groups are very active, and shared earning/shared parenting marriage set up prior to the birth of a child, where the Father's Rights groups are not active at all.  Also, I imagine there are editors familiar with the Southern Poverty Law Center "hate group" designation method (although it's also described in the "hate group" article on Wikipedia as I quoted)?  It's well-known among people who have followed the history of the Civil Rights Movement.  It was originally used with the Ku Kux Klan.  There is a standard (of escalating threats in several stages and then a final stage of actual violence against the hated demographic group) that has to be met before they do an article like the one the SPLC did in the Intelligence Report.Ndickinson1 (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is a great idea for you to seek input on your editing from other sources. First of all, I encourage you to follow the links in the welcome message on the top of your talk page.  You will find a great deal of useful information if you follow them.  For expert opinion on article content, you can post questions and suggestions on the talk page of the associated article.  Also, you could follow the links to any WikiProjects with which the article is associated.  For instance, the SPLC article is associated with WikiProject_Alabama, WikiProject Human rights and WikiProject Organizations.  Posting questions or discussion tops related to the SPLC on the talk pages of these WikiProjects might yield some valuable answers for you.  Finally, you could check the article history for the SPLC and see which editors are most active in that article.  Asking them for input might also yield valuable results.


 * I have one request for you at this point. Please start indenting your comments appropriately by using one or more colons at the beginning of each comment.  This will help other editors follow the flow of related discussions.  Thanks very much.  Ebikeguy (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Editing (writing) on WP
Hi Ndickinson1, I just improved your good entry in the article Gender equality. You can find more about me on my User page. I edit about anything and everything on Wikipedia (WP), but currently don't have much time to do it. Both you and Ebikeguy seem to me to be reasonable and well-motivated to help our WP readers. Keep up your good work!

You asked, "I would like to ask though: is there someone else I can talk to about the editing?" And I just happen to have recently learned a good answer to your Q. Just type WP:Teahouse into the WP search box, see what you get and go from there. I think the originator, the User:SarahStierch, had an excellent idea, and of course I like the name Teahouse.

My own quick answer to your Q is "Monkey see, monkey do." I often can learn what I need to know that way (ie, by looking at the Edit page of other articles). I don't think you'll find any other editors listing more than one book in each source reference entry, where your first two source refs in the article Peer Marriage have several books. So now your first source ref, 1, will become maybe 4 source refs, 1 2 3 and 4. And each time you reuse all of them, all 4 will appear again, and that will be just fine –– more impressive if anything. Let me add that I'm pleasantly surprised to learn there are so many books on the topic of Peer marriage, which is a new topic to me. If you look at the article Matriname, you'll see I am similarly the only author for it since I split it off from Matrilineality. One more thing I'll mention: you can go back and re-edit you own entries above (or in any talk page, I believe), apparently that's fine in WP. In particular, I would add 4 tildes (~'s) to each of your entries above –– I suppose then the date will be wrong, but you might be able to then re-edit the date.... And I should mention my surprise (and dismay) that no other editor besides Ebikeguy has answered your Q above, so that he was the only editor giving you inputs. Thus you had no way of judging whether he was just making a personal attack on you (I think he was sincere and well-motivated, and I can be certain from your reasoning that you are sincere and well-motivated.) And to help readers like me you could put in another redirect for "Peer marriage" (in addition to the redirect for "Peer Marriage"). We humans are very complicated, For7thGen (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, For7thGen. It's OK that other people haven't edited it; I have access to other experts on these issues offline.  I was just frustrated because ebikeguy seemed to see simple statements of fact and citations as attacks when I think they were just concepts he didn't understand.  The articles lose objectivity when the editors cannot tolerate this.  I thought another editor might already understand these concepts. Ndickinson1 (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken in your interpretation of my edits. Multiple times, you added language to an article, then cited your language with a reference that did not address the language you inserted.  This is not acceptable.  You have not responded to my multiple requests that you fix the citations in Shared Earning/Shared Parenting Marriage by adding page numbers to book references and eliminating references which include multiple books.  You have put a lot of good effort into that article, and should be commended for the work you've done.  However, you really need to fix the references, or I will have to escalate the matter.  I can fix them to an extent by separating out the different books included in single references into multiple references, but I don't have access to the books, so I cannot find the correct page numbers.  Please insert page numbers ASAP.  Finally, I strongly recommend that you put aside any personal feelings toward me that you may have developed as a result of our interactions on Wikipedia and make your edits based on improving articles while following Wikipedia rules, not attacking my motivations or requesting that I stop editing articles with which you are involved.  Thanks, Ebikeguy (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, ebikeguy, I disagree with your editing. I believe that you have blocked edits on other pages where you didn't understand the concept, not because the source material did not support it.  And I believe you have compromised the objectivity of Wikipedia in doing so.  I don't have "personal" feelings about you, except that you are the one blocking information which adds to the objectivity of the articles and so I believe you are responsible for behavior which reduces the objectivity of Wikipedia.   On the issue of SPLC "hate groups" and the threats of violence that Fathers' Rights activists have made, followed through on, and suggested their followers follow through on, this is a particularly important topic to be objective about. On the issue of the references, I would like to break out the 3 books, but the way you added an ibid-style reference to the Vachon book means that now I can't seem to get a disaggregation to work without messing up the text. There are places, however, where multiple references are relevant because they all support the point. And on the issue of the pincites, these books I cited have general discussions of this material; it is what these books are about.  Pincites don't make any sense when referring to the whole concept of the books.  I have included pincites where relevant. Ndickinson1 (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your attempt to label father's rights groups as hate groups, based on statements made by one individual, was clearly inappropriate, and my removal of such language was supported by other editors. You accuse me of not understanding the subject matter, but that is not the issue at hand.  You need to demonstrate an understanding of Wikipedia rules if you are to continue to edit successfully.  With regards to page numbers, when you make specific, detailed claims in an article, you cannot simply cite it with a book on the general subject.  You need to back up your language with a reliable source reference that supports your specific, detailed claim.  Otherwise, such specific claims are considered original research and should be removed from the article.  If you read Citing_sources, you will see that I am correct.  That article should also be able to provide you help in answering the formatting questions you seem to have.  I am getting quite tired of your personal attacks, and I would ask you to be more civil in future discussions.  Thank you.  Ebikeguy (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Ndickinson1, when I read-again the above entries, I see that you were not asking for editing help. But on behalf of WP readers, I have to agree with Ebikeguy that you do need to separate the first 3 books, and the next 5 books, so that at that point you'll have 8 separate footnotes, the first 3 of which are used multiple times as a group. When I later did read your whole article, I was frustrated and I think any other reader would be too. I can understand why you might think it more reasonable and more helpful to the reader to have the group together, but I have to agree with the rules at that point, it really is easier for readers to see them separated. The readers will still see the first 3 together as a group in the text, multiple times, as 1 2 3, and that will be not only fine but also impressive to the reader. I agree with Ebikeguy and with the rules about this. And I suppose he is right that you should add page numbers to some of your other book references, but only where appropriate. I feel sure that Ebikeguy and I and you would all agree that no page numbers are needed for your first 3 books for the first three of the four times where you now have your footnote 1. Also, it appears that for the book Badalament, John (2010), the weird Special ISBN number includes the longer and the shorter version of the ISBN just thrown together, which I suppose you should either understand or you should just try one of the two versions, online, and then decide how to handle it. But you are responsible, and what you have now is not working, it is inadequate because the reader can't understand it. And I join Ebikeguy in commending you for your good work on this article –– which was sorely needed on WP, considering how long it has been since your source books were published. And a different topic: I'll now add the source footnote that you don't have yet for your paragraph mentioning The Seven Daughters of Eve, since I have a photocopy and thus have access to the page numbers. And I still think you should go back and add your 4 tildes where they are missing, above, on your own Talk page, to help other editors. Still trying to help the WP readers, For7thGen (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the addition of the pincite to Seven Daughters of Eve. Ndickinson1 (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me clarify, Ndickinson1, about helping WP readers. The idea is that many tens of thousands of readers will be reading your Peer Marriage article, which makes a big multiplier effect. Say that a pinpoint citation (pincite) saves each of them even just 1 minute – multiplying this by 10,000 yields a savings of more than 100 hours just due to that one item of careful work you did, multiplying your work by many times.

In addition, you apparently need to apply the golden rule to your readers, by imagining yourself in their position as they read this article in its present form, with a poor job of handling the source references (sorry to say that, I know it’s not pleasant for you to hear). For example, if you had looked at your first two references from the viewpoint of the readers, you would have concluded that your readers needed some help to tell where each source ended and another began, within each group of sources. Thus you might have numbered the sources in bold, such as:

(Imaginary) Group footnote: 1. First source. 2. Next source. 3. Next....

Also you couldn’t help noticing that readers would have trouble with the ISBN for the John Badalament book; you would then have helped the readers by looking at your editing for that source reference and would have seen that WP somehow managed to give you a message (if I recall correctly, WP said the last digit of your ISBN number did not agree with its calculated value) and you would have gone back to the book itself to check whether you had entered the correct ISBN number. So it is clear you did not work hard enough to help the readers. Being a good WP author is more than just creating a great article and then enjoying how well-written it is. Namely, it also includes putting in all the pincites the readers will need and doing everything else you can think of to make it easy-as-possible for the readers. As you can see, my standards go beyond just following the rules, such as Ebikeguy insists that you do (and I agree with him, on behalf of all WP readers). I want you to also help the readers in every way as much as you possibly can, yielding an even-more-useful article.

After all, isn’t that your goal in writing the WP article at all?

Hopefully, on behalf of WP readers, For7thGen (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to wikiFeed
Hello Ndickinson1,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!

Thanks! MarchionessGrey (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * History of women in the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to John Dickinson


 * Human rights in the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to John Dickinson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I will correct the problem. 174.51.93.173 (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jane Eyre, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Scandinavian people and John Dickinson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania
I cannot make heads or tails of what you have added to the article Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania (diff: ). When you write, "Others consider this a profound misreading of Dickinson's views," what do you mean by "this"? Also, what does patriarchy have to do with the Letters, and how does the distinction between "Person" and "Man" relate to the letters? I ask not to attack you, but because I really can find no relation between what you've added to the article and the subject of the article, which is Dickinson's "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania." Maybe you meant to add this material to a different article. Could you please clarify what your edits mean on the talk page? Until then, I am removing the seemingly unrelated content. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Mel Bradford's interpretation of Dickinson's writings is that he was advocating the views of drafters and ratifiers of the Constitution from the Southern States, who called themselves "patriarchs", codified slavery in the Constitution, etc. This is not correct; Dickinson was from a Quaker background and freed any slaves he had prior to 1787; moreover he drafted the Articles of Confederation and first drafts of the Constitution specifically to refer to Persons, not Men, as was consistent with the Quaker view that "in souls there is no sex".  His "Letters from a Farmer" are about regressive taxation for war policies and palaces of the king.  He would have been appalled to have his views linked with Southern patriarch slaveowners.Ndickinson1 (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This issue is only tangentially related to the letters which are the subject of the article, yet it has come to dominate the article. The material you have written belongs in a different article, as it relates only to Mel Bradford's scholarship, and not at all the these specific letters. The material you have added also appears to be entirely original research. This material may be important, but not to this article. I think you should remove it. Perhaps you can find a better article to include it in. Thanks, -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you someone who knows about John Dickinson's writings and Letters from a Farmer? I am curious why you feel qualified to say that this information is irrelevant to the discussion?  I find it difficult to believe that anyone who knows about about Dickinson and the background of Letters from a Farmer, or about Bradford's pro-slavery background, would see this as irrelevant.  As for this being original research, it is not.  I did cite one authority and there are several others I could include.Ndickinson1 (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is not about Mel Bradford. If you object to the inclusion of Bradford's opinion on the letters, you might argue for their removal, but given the scope of the article at present, it is not worth spilling yet more ink over them. Just so you know, I did not add the Bradford material, and my views do not align with those of Bradford in the slightest. However, your edits did not deal with the letters, and had the effect of turning the article into a forum on Mel Bradford. The expanded version of the article that you created spent more than half of its space discussing Mel Bradford and speculating on Dickinson's possible views. One more thing: No_personal_attacks. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up Thucydides411, there were no personal attacks made by Ndickinson1 in the response offered in this discussion. Disagreeing with another editor and discussing the issue is not a personal attack. Remember that intonation is unavailable in the written word, so it is important to assume good faith about your fellow editors. Please review WP:NPA for more information on what actually constitutes a personal attack. If you have questions, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, Cindy  ( talk to me ) 18:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Attacking another editor's credibility or qualifications, rather than their contributions, is a personal attack. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:NPA and assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Please note that "qualifications" have no place in asserting or supporting credibility while editing Wikipedia. There was inquiry here, but no attack. Best regards, Cindy  ( talk to me ) 23:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Precisely. "Qualifications" have no place in asserting or supporting credibility while editing Wikipedia, which is why it was inappropriate for Ndickinson1 to raise the issue of my qualifications. There was inquiry here only in the sense that asking, "When did you stop beating your wife?" is inquiry. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Manumission, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Dickinson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paternal age effect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Crow (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Edits to Fair Tax
I think the material you added needs some sort of reference, to the percentage of household purchases by women and also possibly to the impact of the Fair Tax. This has been in the past a very contentious article, and it would be better to keep everything very much above board. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I will add a couple cites in the next couple days.Ndickinson1 (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ndickinson1, I reviewed the sources added and they are not sufficient for the content and I have not seen any research suggesting this in my studies on taxation / economics. We would need reliable sources that specifically state criticism of the plan for what you describe so we can attribute the opinion to them.  At the least, criticism with regard to sales or consumption taxes shifting a burden based on gender.  Otherwise, the content added amounts to WP:SYN and WP:OR.  Also, there is insufficient WP:WEIGHT to include this in the WP:LEAD.  If sources were found, we could weigh the content as it applies to the section "Distribution of the tax burden".  From a economics standpoint, I don't quite understand the argument as it seems to base the burden on the person that makes the purchase, regardless of who earned the income in the household.  It seems to suggest the consumed income of men is taxed less then women and that burden analysis (of any tax system) are bias against those earning or spending on race / gender grounds (something other than $$).  If a husband earns the income and the wife spends it on household goods, that's not a shifted burden to her, it's just the wife talking on the role of the primary purchaser in the household - she's a proxy to the taxation of his income.  The tax cost to the family is the same if the husband spent his income or his wife - there is no gender bias there.   Morphh   (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)