Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-04-03/Social Credit

Where's the dispute?
Social Credit, main article, primarily economics section, but also overall article.

[]

What's the dispute?
My viewpoint is that the article does not meet NPOV standards, in several specific ways.

Social Credit, the economic theory was popular in the early 1930s, had a short run, and then was abandoned by virtually all mainstream economists.

My specific NPOV objections are as follows:

1. Undue weight

"In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the views are allowed to receive more attention and space; however, on such pages, though the minority view may (and usually should) be described, possibly at length, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view (and that it is, in fact the minority view). The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail so the reader understands how the minority view differs from the widely-accepted one, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should clearly be identified and explained."

The article utterly fails to make appropriate reference to majority views, it is not at all made clear that social credit is in fact a minority view, and does not explain the majority view in any detail whatsoever, or address any specific controversies or points of difference between the views.

2. Article forking

Specifically, there is an entire article here

[]

Devoted to critisicm of fractional reserve banking and related monetary theories... note, social credit doesn't appear in this article, nor should it... because it is a marginal, non-mainstream theory.

Additionally, there is a full article on schools of economic thought, in which Social Credit is not even mentioned.... due to its status as a fringe, obsolete viewpoint.

[]

Article fork.

3. Admission of guilt.

I realize that in an ideal world, I should write an article that conforms to the proper standards. Unfortunately, I do not have time to do so, still, my lack of time doesn't excuse the various partisans who seem to control the page from following basic NPOV standards.

4. Further comments based on authors response:

-authors attempts to "work with me" have been perfunctory, not germaine to my objections, and included removal of NPOV tag with no resolution whatsoever.

-I have no objection to an article discussing a non-mainstream viewpoint. My objection is that the article is written in such a way as to make it not clear that the viewpoint is not mainstream.

- The fact that the author of the article doesn't understand why this is related to fractional reserve banking shows in fact that the author doesn't know what he/she is talking about. While not a professional economist, I do have a significant post-bachelor educational background economics... my point of view is not random or baseless.

- While this is only an emerging issue, I have started to realise that the reason for such a "fierce" defense of the article is that I am wondering if author and others are associated with some of the active fringe political parties with ties to this theory. I am not a citizen of Canada or NZ, and am not affiliated in any way with any political party. Disclosure, Author?


 * (reply) I never removed the NPOV tag. The article has been written in such a way as to objectively put Douglas' ideas in a short encyclopedia article.  The article always points to the fact that "Douglas believed" or "in this view".  It does not attempt to state that any view is correct or incorrect, but merely is an attempt to elucidate the theory, and history of Social Credit.  The critic has made no attempt to point to specific instances of a biased point of view, but has merely attempted to label the entire article as biased.


 * The fact that the critic thinks that Social Credit is related to criticisms of fractional reserve banking demonstrates that the critic does not know what he is talking about. Social Credit is not opposed to fractional reserve banking, and if the critic can find any statement by Douglas opposed to the use of fractional reserve banking, I will retract that statement.


 * Although I am not a professional economist, I have a degree in economics and mathematics. The Chairman of the Social Credit Secretariat, Frances Hutchinson, has a Phd in Economics. Richard Cook an outspoken advocate of Social Credit, is a former policy analyst with the US government.  The person who wrote in response to the neutrality of the article in section 12.1 of the talk page is professional economist.


 * My fierce defense of the article is related to the fact that I spent many hours researching the article, finding references and writing it. The previous article was obviously written by people who were not familiar with the subject, and it was full of errors.  I spent a great deal of time researching and writing an article that is thoroughly referenced, because as the critic has demostrated, there is a great deal of misinformation regarding Douglas' thoughts.  Chdouglas (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The subject is on an economic school of thought, and there are many minority views in this regard, because economics is not a science where all economists are in agreement. There is a comment on the talk page by a Phd in economics on minority views and the scope of the article. If Wikipedia is to take this view in regards to all economic schools of thought, there will be no articles on these schools, because they are all a "minority view".


 * Social Credit is not against fractional reserve banking, so I don't know what the author of this complaint is talking about when he references another article in regards to this subject. This only goes to demonstrate the author's complete lack of knowledge on the subject.


 * The article was written to give an accrurate description of the subject and is thoroughly referenced. The opening line of the article describes that Social Credit theory derives from its philosophy.


 * I am the primary author of the article, and have attempted to work with this person. However, there seems to be a slanted bias against Social Credit by this person. There is no attempt by this person to want to present the subject in a fair manner. The article itself is thorougly referenced, and the statements in regard to any Social Credit theory is "Douglas believed", or "in this view".


 * If all articles on schools of thought in economics are to reference the only one position, then there might as well not be any articles on schools of economic thought, because they will all be the same article. The author of this complaint has never given any constructive criticism of the article, which was requested.  All he has done is try to find a way to censor the article, because he does not agree with its content. Chdouglas (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Rather than disputing neutral-point-of-view issues according to Wikipedia guidelines, the critic(s) of this article seem to vehemently oppose many of the views related to Social Credit. But a difference of opinion on one or more issues does not justify placement of an NPOV template across an entire article. So I removed the template for inappropriate application on March 20, 2009.


 * Moreover, the views of C.H. Douglas regarding Social Credit are clearly presented as the views of C.H. Douglas throughout this article. The fact that C.H. Douglas was the originator of "Social Credit" along with historical disputes against his theories seem to be well represented throughout several sections of this article.


 * To dispute Social Credit as a "minority" or "obsolete" theory, contemporary critics should provide additional documentation for their disputes within the body of the article supported by citation of reliable sources in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines -- not arbitrarily place an NPOV template at the top of the article. David Kendall (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)