Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Robin Hood tax

Introduction
I have copied all the discussion pertaining to this subject from the talk page for Robin Hood tax.

Cosmic Cube (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Blatant political lobbying not permitted on Wikipedia
This article is clearly intended to lobby for a cause. I intend to propose for deletion unless it is significantly cleaned up.Oldtaxguy (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you specify which parts youre not happy with please? All the pro tax and neautral points look okay to me. I've created some sub headings so we can break down what you're not happy with. Or you can just edit the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The entire article is an advertisement. My understanding of Wiki policies is that advertisements are not permitted. See this quote from [Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)]:
 * "Special note: advertising and promotion
 * Advertising is prohibited as an official Wikipedia policy. Advertising should be removed by following these steps, in order:
 * Advertising is prohibited as an official Wikipedia policy. Advertising should be removed by following these steps, in order:


 * "1. Clean up per Wikipedia:neutral point of view
 * "2. Erase remaining advertising content from the article
 * "3. Delete the article, by listing it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if no notable content remains. However, if an article contains only blatant advertising, with no other useful content, it may be tagged per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion instead."
 * I find it difficult to see how the article can be reduced to more than a stub and still avoid being an advertisement. So, let's take it a sentence at a time in the article.
 * "proposed tax" Proposed by who?  A lobbying organization robinhoodtax.org.uk
 * "conceptually similar to [Tobin tax}" It is similar in that it is a tax on transactions.  That's where the similarity ends.  Note that the Tobin suggestion was by an economist at an economics conference, as a topic for discussion among economists.  It has never been adopted by any government.  Following sentence is OK.
 * "The campaign for the Robin Hood Tax was launched on 10 February 2010." The campaign is indeed a lobbying effort, and makes no attempt to say otherwise.  This statement is factually accurate, but is just like saying "Pepsi launched its Drink Pepsi Now campaign on xx date."
 * "is being run by a coalition of over 50 charities and organisations, including xxx" The citation is to the self serving web site of the campaign.  This violates 'unrelaible sources' and 'self published' guidelines.
 * The War on Want reference is to an earlier lobbying effort by what appears to be a small corporation that may or may not be a registered charity (unclear without research)
 * "The campaign" section describes the lobbying and publicity efforts. Campaign here is clearly in the strictest of advertising terms, as in an advertising and publicity campaign.  "The campaign has proposed ..." and it continues to describe the advertising efforts.


 * Do we need to continue? This article violates a very large number of Wiki guidelines.  I think it should be deleted.  Those who favor it should edit it in keeping with guidelines.  I will revisit in a few weeks, and perhaps proposed under AfD.Oldtaxguy (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of Oldtaxguy's points have merit. However, we need to sort the references to see which are news media(generally allowable), that of the sponsoring organization (allowable in part; covering the intent of the tax, not covering possible consequences), and that of fellow travellers (not allowable at all, except for the fact of their support).  Once we get that done, we can see what might be salvaged.  For example, the "argument/counterargument" section seems to qualify as an advertisement, and a copyright violation from an unreliable source.  I may get back to this later, but it would be appreciated if someone more familiar with the concept can try to replace the unreliable sources with reliable ones.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 30 citations broken down as follows:
 * Self published: 9 at website, 1 editorial by founders
 * Quotes from self-published site and press releases: 6
 * Comments about celebrities involved, or other minor references: 4
 * inaccessible: 3
 * Other: 7
 * summary: 7 maybe OK, 23 no good


 * Note: the Tobin tax article underwent massive change during the same 4 weeks this article was being created.  This is a well-funded (they even say so) campaign trying to capture all media space possible.  Wiki is just one more such space.Oldtaxguy (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Although there are references to support by political leaders from various countries, that is buried in the middle of the article. The article should begin with a clear statement of exactly what political unit or units (in other words, which countries) the tax is proposed for. In other words, is it just for the UK, or just Germany, or just some other country or countries? Is the proposal for all countries? Most countries? A few countries? Or have the people proposing this tax even thought about this?

The article mentions that this is proposed to be a "global tax." It's unclear what is meant by this. There is currently no such thing as a "global tax" in a strict sense. A tax generally can be imposed only by a sovereignty (a sovereign country). Even the United Nations Organization is not, in and of itself, a sovereign in the technical legal sense of a political unit having "independent and supreme authority", so there is no sovereignty that could impose a "global tax" in this sense. (Note: The United States imposes a national, federal income tax on all its citizens world-wide, but that is a different concept.) I suppose if all or nearly all countries (i.e., all political units that do have sovereignty) were to enact treaties or other international laws imposing the very same tax for each such country, you might have a "global" tax.

In short, the article appears to be a bit "fuzzy" and imprecise in explaining who is proposing this tax, and for which countries, and what exactly the article's author means by the phrase "global tax." Famspear (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

@ OldTaxGuy, even  excluding  the quality non printed news sources like Reuters, there was in  fact 16 cites to quality newspapers. All of them are broadsheet class, roughly on par with New York Times, except for WSJ and FT, which are even more reliable being the top 2 examples of the worlds daily English language financial press. True the tax has been promoted by a lobbying organisation, but that doesnt  mean we cant cover a topic  which  has received: Of course we still need to write from a neutral point of view, which means the article should not be written as though it agrees with the proposal. I.E we should avoid making contentious statements like “This tax will be a great way to alleviate global poverty”, unless we make clear that we're repeating the views of notable sources and not speaking in the encyclopaedias own voice. Also we should present both sides of any controversy, as is the case with this article.
 * massive global attention - there are hundreds more sources apart the ones used.
 * popular support from over a hundred thousand in Great Britain alone.
 * Support from hundreds of economists
 * Support from several leading world statesmen
 * Support even from heavyweights in the world of business such as Warren Buffet.

@Arthur Rubin. I've removed the pro and con section you didn't like. Also Ive emphasied the fact its the robin hood org speaking when we source to them. There are no 'fellow traveller' sources in this article. The War on Want charity is a member of the current Robin Hood umbrella group.

@Framspear. Ive tried to sharpen the article a little for you. Essentially its been suggested that the tax be implemented by concerted action from the leading world economises, who showed they are still capable of such co-operation in the aftermath of Lehman. In the absence of agreement by the G20, campaigners has pushed for the tax to be implemented regionally or even unilaterally. Theres still some residual fuzziness Im afraid as no one source grapples with the complex and diverse history of the movement supporting this tax or the details of the various specific proposals offered to or drawn up by various finance minsters, economists and other key players. If we try to clarify too much we'll be violating OR and Synth policies, unless a really good summarising sources can be found.

@all, thanks for the feedback which has helped improve the article. Please remove the tags if the changes made have resolved your concerns. If anything Id suggest the article was already biased against the tax due to the criticism section stretching beyond the sources. However no objections from me if you want to add further anti tax analyses. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to publicly apologize to FeydHuxtable if he is not actively connected with Oxfam or the RHT publicity campaign. In such case, my comments were inappropriately directed to him, for which I am genuinely sorry.  Please forgive my over enthusiasm for a cause (Wikipedia integrity) in which I believe.


 * I have no opinion on the RHT or similar taxes. I do have a strong opinion that Wikipedia should not be used as an advertising platform, and believe it has been with respect to this article and others indicated on my talk page.  There surely have been those who, thru their own enthusiasm, have unwittingly participated in this advertising in good faith attempts to enhance Wikipedia as an encyclopedia.  I do not intend to cast aspersions on any of them.


 * Multiple coincidences make me curious. I did some investigation after reading the above, and am further convinced that the RHT article and certain others are publicity at least in part by paid staff and contractors of Oxfam, who is the sponsor of the RHT publicity campaign.  For details, please see my talk page.  The trail begins with an Oxfam intern who wrote original RHT article, and continues with articles linked to the Halifax Initiative in Canada, an organization associated with Oxfam.  A lot of the content for the RHT article is from Oxfam and Halifax sites, verbatim.


 * Please comment here with views on whether this warrants Administrator investigation (realizing that Arthur Rubin is an admin, but may not have focused on the trail. I realize the trail as detailed on my talk page is long and convoluted, so I ask your patience.


 * With respect,Oldtaxguy (talk) 05:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Oldtaxguy for his extensive work on this. I would like to summarize his lengthy findings and add a few points:


 * This page attempts to use Wikipedia for the purpose of advertising, a violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING. It was created by 389melanie who is (or was) an intern for Oxfam. Please note that I am not violating any policies regarding outing as she is the one who willing revealed her own identity by publishing a link to her own blog on her user page (http://melaniesblog.usual.ca). In a post on her blog (Ox Tales, dated October 28, 2009), she indicates that part of her job is to “write articles and edit the Oxfam related pages” on Wikipedia. I am archiving that post here for posterity:


 * "I’ve now been interning for Oxfam for 3 weeks (or 3 sets of 3 days if you’re being pernickety) and it’s fast becoming a lot of fun. I’m doing 3 projects for them, all of which are cool in their own way."


 * "I’m doing the communications with some activists which Oxfam trained at a program called ‘Change’ and the evaluation for the event itself. As well as being really good training for me jobwise, doing this is amazingly encouraging. I’m in prime position to hear about all the awesome things these guys are doing and all the great societies that are campaigning for really worthwhile causes. It’s been proving to me that all the little things do matter – that signing petitions or making small changes in your lifestyle really can make a difference. Love it."


 * "The other completely awesome thing I’m doing is learning to use Wikipedia, so that I can write articles and edit the Oxfam related pages. This pretty much feeds all the ‘things Melanie loves to do channels’ – reading, writing, researching, learning new things, being on the internet etc, so it’s been amazing fun. Now all I need to do is work out how to get paid for doing this and my life will be complete! I’m also doing some venue research for Oxfam Live, which has turned out to be more rewarding than I initially expected it to be. As with anything of this nature it’s a lot of phone calls and checking details. However, during my research I did talk to some really cool people. It made me happy to have conversations with people who were just nice, helpful, friendly and pleased that Oxfam was showing an interest in their venue. Made the whole thing feel more personal and pleasant."


 * "I’m also starting to really enjoy getting to know all the people I’m working with. Today I had lunch with one of the members of my department who I didn’t know very well, but she saw me sitting by myself and asked me to join her and her companions. I had a really pleasant lunch and learned a bit more about her work. There are loads of other people who I chat too in passing. Actually, there’s no one I’ve met so far who I wouldn’t be very happy to chat to or have lunch with. Everyone’s talented, interesting and ethically minded. It’s a great place to work."


 * 389melanie created the article on Wikipedia on March 18, 2010. This was followed by 9 edits on March 22, 2010 by an IP address (193.133.69.201) that belongs to Oxfam UK. Examining the original article clearly indicates that it took all of its source material verbatim from the site for the Robin Hood campaign. Seeing as how Oxfam is one of the organizations behind this campaign, this is clearly a case of a group creating a Wikipedia article for its own promotional reasons and is a violation of policy (for example, “Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so” under WP:NOTADVERTISING).


 * There is not much point in attempting to rewrite this article. The material will fall into one of two categories:


 * 1. Discussion of merits: There is nothing here that has not been or cannot be covered in one of articles Tobin tax, Financial transaction tax, or Currency transaction tax.


 * 2. Promotional material: This is a violation of Wikipedia policy and all such material should be expunged.


 * Since all of the category #1 material is covered in other articles, the only remaining material is from category #2, which is inappropriate for an article. Moreover, Wikipedia editors are not unpaid lackeys for Oxfam. It is not our job to rewrite their articles for them. Therefore, this article is best deleted.

Cosmic Cube (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)