923:
by someone with a connection to Oxfam, but that isnt a COI issue unless the creator tried to take ownership of the article, especially if they also also tried to hide their COI. Neither is the case, almost no trace of the creators original work remains and in fact she welcomed others to editor the article, and hasnt objected to any of the changes. If it werent for the fact that CC and OTG are new editors the suggestions of collusion and untoward editing from obviously very honest, collaborative and talented contributors such as
Melanie and Boyd would be highly objectionable. If possible please can the closing admin confirm that the arguments of Pit-Yacker and Boyd are policy based and that there is no credible case for the tags added to the article?
630:
amazing fun. Now all I need to do is work out how to get paid for doing this and my life will be complete! Iām 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 itās 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.
990:
secondly whether any faults it has can reasonably be rectified. The present version is somewhat promotional in tone, but nowhere near enough to justify a G11 speedy deletion, as the nomination suggests. The concept has received plenty of coverage in reliable sources, so it warrants an article. If the article it warrants is not the present article then the constructive approach is to rewrite it to give a more balanced coverage, rather than to delete it. It was I that declined the speedy deletion request, and nothing I have read above gives me any reason to change my mind.
1307:
I had partly agreed with. As a wiki otter I dont like to see new editors being discouraged, and for a similar reason I posted my advice on oldtaxGuys page in a respectful and hopefully encouraging tone. My personal opinion about this tax is that a lot of the criticism is valid. Im the editor who has added most of the strongest sources against the tax! So while I support taxing the wealthy in general its not really correct to say I support this particular tax, though I am interested in it and want us to have a good, reliable and encyclopedic article.
1487:
revenues obtained be used to fund various social justice projects (as opposed to being used as a form of general revenue). To my knowledge, no government has explicitly implemented a transaction tax for this purpose. However, as I mentioned above, calls for this arenāt new. Moreover, there is nothing stopping any government with such a tax already in place from using the revenue for funding social causes (or from implementing any sort of tax, financial transaction or otherwise, explicitly for the purpose of funding social causes).
1195:
robin hood site itself rather than secondary sources like independent news papers. The campaign has lost much of its high level support for now, and it looks like opinion among decision makers has generally swung in a deflationary direction. But this cannot possibly last for more than 3 ā 4 years considering the massive levels of public debt and the increasing ineffectiveness of anti progressive propaganda. When events swing back in a pleasing direction they'll move with some force. Keep the faith!
1011:
if they cant increase tax revenues this means cutting public spending that hundreds of millions of low income families rely on. Together with the current popular mood against banks, its hardly suprising that most of the quality sources have adopted a positive tone when covering this campaign. Some of us may feel its undesireable for the wealthy to have to forfeit wealth to help the poor, but as editors our job is not to push our own POVs but to neautrally reflect whats being said in the sources.
1450:. Whoever started the article, and for what reason, really doesn't matter now. This topic is clearly notable on its own merits, is deserving of an article, has masses of coverage from reliable sources. The COI issues have been addressed by simple editing, which is how they should be fixed - COI isn't a reason for deletion on its own, it merely warns us that a)the subject might not be notable and b)to be alert to any bias in the article. Neither of these apply in this case. Definite keep for me.
1394:.I'm sure people will be able to think of other examples. Nothing here so far appears to gives any well reasoned argument as to why we should have one article on the financial transaction tax but no article about one of the social phenomenons to arise from it. Rather it is just the same old rhetoric repeated over and over in different ways. (If anyone wants to look for articles that are really worth taking to AfD one needs to look no further than the north American eating places. E.g.,
271:. I believe the article is advertising for a political cause, tied in with a high budget publicity campaign involving a big-budget video. I also believe the article was written by a staff member of Oxfam, which is behind the publicity campaign. For a chronology, see my talk page, which cites specific users involved, including the original author who admits to interning at Oxfam and learning to use Knowledge to promote their causes. Also, I believe the articles
1472:: This is not a question of support vs. opposition for a Robin Hood Tax. It is a question of whether or not Knowledge should be allowed to be used as part of a marketing campaign (the original article had links to the campaign website, Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, and Youtube!). I believe strongly that Knowledge should be a neutral place for the compilation of human knowledge and I donāt like to see it used in the fashion that Oxfam has done.
1264:: The speedy deletion comment is not relevant any longer. As I stated on your talk page, I believe that I might have used the incorrect process for deletion. I am not familiar with how it is supposed to work so I simply went with the instructions that were easiest to understand which just happened to be the speedy deletion process (since it only involves inserting a single tag, versus the various hoops required for the process here).
847:. Whether or not these are recycled press releases (very common for the press these days) is probably irrelevant as a number of high profile titles have decided that this organisation is notable and of enough interest to run the story. It doesn't even particularly appear that titles running the stories are isolated to those you would expect to be sympathetic to the cause (such as the Left of Centre
428:. Nevertheless it is a legitimate topic for an encyclopedia. Just because it is unclear, doesn't mean that society doesn't treat it as a phenomenon. The fact that it is a societal phenomenon means that it deserves a place in an encyclopedia which records societal phenomenon. Here are other examples of unclear phenomena which are unclear, but which deserve an entry in an encyclopedia:
1366:
now appears nothing to lead me to believe that there was any attempt to mislead. So, now that we know, there is no longer any need for the COI tag. Also, now that we know, interested editors can bring the article towards WP standards. WP articles are always considered to be āwork in progressā even when locked, so it would also be wrong to judge it as it is now.
659:
Seeing as how Oxfam is one of the organizations behind this campaign, this is clearly a case of a group creating a
Knowledge article for its own promotional reasons and is a violation of policy (for example, āThose promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Knowledge to do soā under
300:
unreliable as to this item, even though the overall newspaper may remain reliable. Most of the other secondary sources use wording taken directly from the RHT website and press releases. That's hardly reliable either, just data laundering. Note that my vote is strongly DELETE (in spite of what the statistics are saying).
212:. No clear rationale for deletion given. Whilst the article may have issues these can be cleared up by editing. Certainly I dont see that an article with a section on unintended consequences, can qualify as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I assume the duplication of an existing topic refers to
1531:
outright insults into sarcasm. I don't want to drag this out any longer with you so I am dropping the matter. I will conclude simply by pointing out that it doesn't hurt to apologize when you have caused someone else offense and even to err on the side of caution if in doubt, particularly in a medium
1515:
This is not my preferred approach as I donāt like being forced to clean up Oxfamās mess and it sets a bad example for
Knowledge. In particular, there is nothing to stop any other group from creating an article for whatever political reason, knowing that as long as they can keep the article alive long
1486:
As for implementation, there has been a mixture of motivations. Some governments have implemented it for the purpose of generating revenue; others for the purpose of managing the volatility of their currency. What could be seen as different about a Robin Hood type tax is the explicit requirement that
1365:
to remember that it is an error of reasoning to judge the virtue of something by its source (which I think belongs to the class of
General Fallacies). As has been repeated here and in past years -many useful/informative/etc articles were started off by knowledgeable insiders . In this case, there
1155:
Now, it may so happen that there is sufficient press coverage to warrant some mention somewhere on
Knowledge. However, the proper place for this is in a subsection of the financial transactions tax article. The analogous situation in my silly thought experiment would be making note of my Really Small
1010:
Totaly agree. I'd hope most who can spare a few hours reading the sources would agree that if anything the article is unbalanced in having too much criticism. The global context for this tax is a world where G20 goverments have just agreed on ambitous medium term targets for deficit reduction, and
643:
Iām also starting to really enjoy getting to know all the people Iām working with. Today I had lunch with one of the members of my department who I didnāt 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
299:
Note: if you spend millions of Ā£, you can create a "social phenomenon", as Oxfam has done. That does NOT make it notable. The secondary sources on the RHT article are tainted: one (McQuaig article) appeared in the
Toronto online paper BEFORE the news being covered happened. That makes the source
1340:
Furthermore, why do you feel the need to label my efforts mindless? I began by writing up some comments with my concerns (under
Original Comments above). I then took the time to write summary versions of these comments to place on the talk pages of some of the original responders, one of whom posted
1306:
I didnt say you specifically accused Boyd and
Melanie of colluding, sorry if it came across like that. I didnt even think the specific allegation of collusion against myself needed refuting. My post on Melanies page was just in case shed feel discouraged by the criticism of her original work, which
922:
Having read scores of whole sources on this if anything our article is biased against the tax. We'd arguably being doing the campaign a favour if we deleted the article, as we have far more criticism than the vast majority of soruces, most of which are very favourable. True the article was started
629:
The other completely awesome thing Iām doing is learning to use
Knowledge, so that I can write articles and edit the Oxfam related pages. This pretty much feeds all the āthings Melanie loves to do channelsā ā reading, writing, researching, learning new things, being on the internet etc, so itās been
1194:
Hi, just wanted to apologise in case youre still watching the Robin Hood Tax article you created and feel Ive gone overboard in compromising with the objectors. Your original article was very well written and informative, but it didnt meet all our guidelines, mainly as it was sourced largely to the
1074:
What this means is that the present version of the article should not exist at all. It should not have been allowed to come this far and should have been deleted immediately upon creation. I feel it is an abuse of
Knowledge to allow any group (Oxfam or otherwise) to create a promotional article and
989:
There is no doubt whatever that the original version of the article was written with the intention of being promotional. However, we are not here to assess either the original version of the article or the motives of its authors. We are here to assess firstly the present version of the article, and
658:
created the article on Knowledge 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.
615:
Iām doing the communications with some activists which Oxfam trained at a program called āChangeā and the evaluation for the event itself. As well as being really good training for me jobwise, doing this is amazingly encouraging. Iām in prime position to hear about all the awesome things these guys
1492:
I thus believe the best approach here, particularly when it comes to maintaining Knowledge integrity, is to fold the material from this article into the financial transaction tax article. However, having said all this, if everyone is hell-bent on keeping this article, then I can offer a compromise
1132:
Let's consider a facetious thought experiment. Imagine I run a group aimed at promoting physics education in high schools. I start a new campaign called "Really Small Things" with the aim of establishing programs to teach subatomic physics to high school students. I then create a Knowledge article
711:
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, Knowledge editors are not unpaid lackeys for Oxfam. It is not our job to rewrite their articles for them. Therefore, this article is
1501:
If a Robin Hood tax (i.e. a FTT explicitly meant to fund social programs) is to be considered as a proper subset of financial transaction taxes, then this article must be rewritten at a greater level of generality and cannot focus on the efforts of any one particular campaign or group. That means
1312:
While this has been a high quality debate, it would be good to see some sources to support the anti RHT position. If for example the campaign has somehow coerced almost every single British quality newspaper to write an advertisement in the guise of regular journalism, surely some investigative
384:
But if it is deleted as an independent article, then what frightens me now is the prospect of being obligated to somehow incorporate it into the Tobin tax article which is already too long. That "obligation" would come from the fact that it has received enough press to qualify to be in Knowledge
1559:
The solution you propose is one that can be introduced by simple editing. As to the idea of other groups being able to start a campaign om wikipedia, this would only bear fruit if that topic had a notability. The Robin Hood Tax has clearly generated enough coverage on its ow merit to warrant an
1283:
CosmicCube, as per quality sources in the article, RHT has been supported by around 350 economists including several from the first rank like Joseph Stiglitz and Jeffery Sachs. Leading politicians supporting the tax include Angela Merkel , Nicolas Sarkozy and Katsuya Okada, Japan's foreign
1506:
and others), replacing references to āthe campaignā with āa campaignā, etc. This will put the article on the same status level as other special kinds of financial transaction taxes such as the Tobin tax (anti-speculation/volatility reduction tax) and Spahn tax (protection against currency
1289:
By analogy to your "Really Small Things" campaign , if RST had received backing from top physicists, eductors and Industrialists from sectors which apply sub atomic physics then yes wed likely have an article on it. Beacause like RHT the campaign would have massive coverage in quality
940:
Now that I have read through it, the original article does just seem like inexperienced article creation ā so I will take my COI tag back off. A point that no one appears to have made yet, is that deleting this up-dated article as it now stands by wiki- lawyering would increase
399:
That lack of consensus is even more reason for me to want to keep as much material as possible separate from the Tobin tax article. That way I don't have to face another huge discussion on how to subdivide the Tobin tax article.... (...nor a discussion on how to subdivide the
1075:
then expect the rest of us to work as unpaid labor on their article by bringing it up to encyclopedic standards, particularly when the substantive material is already covered by other articles. That merely relegates us to the role of doing their promotional work for them.
1481:, for example). Actually, even the name isnāt new as it dates back to a report prepared by War on Want in 2001. What might be new now is the level of press coverage. However, the sources of support that you cite are actually already covered in the Tobin tax article.
1300:
primarily to raise revenue like RHT. Another difference is most of the other taxes have been decided on behind close doors and not campaigned for by a vast coalition of civil society actors. A 3rd is most transaction taxes have never been intended for global
876::4. You state that these issues can be cleaned up by editing. However, I feel it is inappropriate for Oxfam to put up a promotional article on Knowledge and then expect the editors here to serve as unpaid labor for their marketing campaign by "cleaning it up".
644:
about her work. There are loads of other people who I chat too in passing. Actually, thereās no one Iāve met so far who I wouldnāt be very happy to chat to or have lunch with. Everyoneās talented, interesting and ethically minded. Itās a great place to work.
616:
are doing and all the great societies that are campaigning for really worthwhile causes. Itās been proving to me that all the little things do matter ā that signing petitions or making small changes in your lifestyle really can make a difference. Love it.
1069:: Let me clear up a misunderstanding. My purpose in showing what the article looked like originally was only to demonstrate that this piece was unambiguously created as promotional material by Oxfam. I donāt think that is in dispute now by anyone here.
341:
If there is bias, then I suggest marking it with tags (specific to the section in which the bias occurs). But the existence of bias is no reason to delete an entire article which is receiving the necessary coverage from reliable secondary sources.
1043:: Your response is just rude. My contributions here are in good faith. I see no reason for you to insult me or anyone else in this discussion. If you can't abide by Knowledge's standards of civility, then don't participate in the discussion. See
1516:
enough, the Knowledge community will step in as unpaid labor for them and clean up their articles. However, if everyone else is determined to keep the article, I think this is a compromise that addresses the concerns expressed by the others.
901:
Long comment for the benefit of Cosmic Cube and OldTaxGuy, both fairly new editors who seem to have misunderstood how our guidelines apply to this sort of article, allbeit they have good motivations in wanting to protect the encylopedia.
881:
If the article was irredeemably marketing material, and there was no prospect of writing an article without it, then deletion would be appropriate. However, as previously noted, the article is no longer unambiguous marketing material.
1295:
The RHT tax is very much a special type of transaction tax. Many other types of transaction tax, both theorectical and those that have actually been implemented have been designed to reduce volatility or throughput of transactions and
338:"Robin Hood tax" (RHT) has received, and is receiving, significant amounts of that type of coverage. Therefore it is a phenomenon of society. Therefore it qualifies to be in an encyclopedia which records societal phenomenon.
1284:
minister. From the financial sector, support has been forthcoming by prominent figures including George Soros, Warren Buffett and Lord Turner. There are many more equally impressive A listers that could be mentioned.
1185:'s page demonstrating your political support for her efforts. That is a form of activism on Knowledge and support for Oxfam. I don't think there is anything objectionable about pointing out your published statements:
735:
The nomination and subsequent discussion are incoherent and we have better things to do than make sense of this gibberish. In so far as there seems to be a problem, it can be addressed by normal editing and so, per
586:
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
163:
808:). You can see here that the material is unambiguously promotional. The material was directly copied from the Robin Hood tax website. Even the "Arguments against the tax" material comes directly from their FAQ.
591:). In a post on her blog (Ox Tales, dated October 28, 2009), she indicates that part of her job is to āwrite articles and edit the Oxfam related pagesā on Knowledge. I am archiving that post here for posterity:
602:
Iāve now been interning for Oxfam for 3 weeks (or 3 sets of 3 days if youāre being pernickety) and itās fast becoming a lot of fun. Iām doing 3 projects for them, all of which are cool in their own way.
368:
However when Robin Hood tax (RHT) appeared as a separate article, I did not object because this satisfied my desire to keep the Tobin tax article under the maximum size required by Knowledge policy.
1335:: An intern for an advocacy group starts up a promotional article as part of her duties. That is a pretty clear case of conflict of interest. I don't know what else I can say to make that clearer.
1058:: I am not entirely sure what this comment means. If you are referring to the fact that this issue is a social phenomenon of some note, then this has some merit. I will say more about that below.
233:
Certainly not unambiguously promotional: in fact the article discusses possible disadvantages at some length. Previously Cosmic Cube tagged the article for speedy deletion, citing similarity to
1341:
that summary here. I then proceeded to reply to the comments of each person who gave me feedback. In short, I have treated everyone here with respect. I would expect the same courtesy from you.
516:
1. "Robin Hood tax" is just a marketing name for a call for a financial transactions tax by various organizations (such as Oxfam, the group responsible for writing the original version of the
254:. My apologies for any confusion. I am unfamiliar with how this process is supposed to work. Please read my detailed comments on the Discussion page (not the project page) for the reasoning.
813:
What a page looked like in the past can't be an argument to delete. If we deleted articles on what their first edit looked like, 90% of the articles on Knowledge would disappear overnight.
392:
I have had extensive discussion with the editors of Tobin tax on how subdivide it to reduce its size. But these discussions ended without a clear consensus (so far). See those discussions
1537:
At any rate, I don't know why most other editors don't seem to be bothered by issues of Knowledge integrity. Whatever the reason, I have suggested a compromise above in the response to
1218:: The article may have been written by an inexperienced editor but the fact remains that she did this as part of her duties for Oxfam. That is definitely a form of conflict of interest.
1477:
There is nothing new about calls for a Robin Hood tax besides the marketing name and glossy campaigning. There have been proposals going back over 10 years for such taxes (such as by
945:
by which North American marketing campaigns alone appear to be immune from AfD's on WP. At least I can't remember one that's been deleted. IMHO this should never have been AfD'ed.--
859:). In fact, the article contains references from all of Britain's national broadsheets, which is much better than the typical pile of populist rantings from the tabloids like
1426:: Thanks for your comment regarding the collusion. I accept your statement as an apology. Sorry if I was a bit prickly. I donāt like being accused of things I havenāt done.
1084:'s efforts. However, that shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing now and acting to preserve the integrity of Knowledge. An example should be set to demonstrate to
157:
118:
914:. There are tens of thousands of sources for RHT, many complete articles in top newspapers entirely dedicated to this tax, 81 hits for "Robin Hood Tax" in the
527:
2. In the interim, I have thought about the issue of dividing the Tobin tax article and I think we could split it into two sections: economic and political.
1150:: "Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Knowledge to do so.").
389:
But if that "somewhere" ends up being the Tobin tax article then I will strongly object on the grounds that the Tobin tax article is already too long.
1590:: I felt it was polite to write individual comments to anyone who responded directly to me. I apologize if it came across as needless repetition.
371:
My desire for clarity in the Tobin tax article was still satisfied because the RHT article was independent and outside the Tobin tax article.
123:
56:
520:
article). As such, there is no need for it to have an independent article. Any material that is non-promotional fits into the scope of the
1346:
If you have nothing further to contribute to this discussion other than insults, then please refrain from any further participation. See
1249:: I would agree with this. Any material that is not covered in other articles (i.e. press coverage) can be put into a subsection of the
1034:: I would like to begin by thanking all editors for their opinions (with one exception). I will address everyone who responded in order.
91:
86:
1615:, and while the article could use a bit of further polishing, it's not so irredeemably bad that only deletion will solve the issue.
95:
1146:. Oxfam should not be allowed to create a separate article for that and, in fact, is not allowed to according to Knowledge policy (
381:
In the last four and a half months RHT has received a lot of press coverage, and therefore deserves to be a encyclopedia article.
843:
Whilst there may be duplication with other articles, it does seem that there is a good degree of publicity in the media of the
358:
page, there was a suggestion that there be a new section of the Tobin tax article which would deal with the "Robin Hood tax."
216:. Given that the article discusses the difference between the two, I don't see this being a valid reason for deletion either.
78:
17:
178:
1225:
This non sequitur has already been addressed -why parrot on mindlessly? Why do you think mere repetition adds weight.--
145:
361:
As you can see in that discussion, for reasons of clarity, and for reasons of article length, I objected to an unclear
1569:
1455:
283:
are related parts of the same campaign. Note: not all editors of these articles are necessarily part of the "cause".
1502:
getting rid of any remaining promotional material. It also means including material on previous such campaigns (by
768:
521:
401:
331:
states that "In general, notability is measured by whether the topic has received significant coverage in reliable
547:
1635:
1250:
1143:
967:
835:
823:
686:
672:
There is not much point in attempting to rewrite this article. The material will fall into one of two categories:
425:
280:
36:
139:
1634:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1147:
827:
749:
690:
660:
579:
421:
351:
276:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1133:
called āReally Small Thingsā where I proceed to discuss exactly the same material covered in the article on
942:
856:
328:
1619:
1599:
1573:
1550:
1459:
1440:
1411:
1322:
1277:
1234:
1020:
999:
981:
954:
932:
891:
771:
753:
726:
536:
500:
461:
309:
292:
263:
246:
225:
203:
135:
60:
1586:
1565:
1451:
1318:
1200:
1016:
995:
978:
928:
702:
2. Promotional material: This is a violation of Knowledge policy and all such material should be expunged.
486:
242:
1532:
such as this where all the usual cues of social interaction, such as tone and body language, are missing.
681:
1. Discussion of merits: There is nothing here that has not been or cannot be covered in one of articles
1595:
1546:
1436:
1273:
1054:
838:. Therefore, the substantive material is covered elsewhere, leaving only promotional material remaining.
722:
532:
496:
457:
259:
199:
966:
of the material on Oxfam's "Robin Hood tax" should be removed as advertising, and the rest merged into
1591:
1542:
1432:
1269:
782:
718:
528:
492:
255:
195:
185:
1182:
906:
while there is some overlap with other articles, this is in the same way that say our article on the
887:
474:
221:
50:
569:
for his extensive work on this. I would like to summarize his lengthy findings and add a few points:
1351:
1174:
1134:
1039:
868:
745:
305:
288:
171:
82:
1527:: A simple apology would have sufficed. Rewording "mindless" as "a little thoughtfulness" is just
1127:, etc. What should not be present, however, is a second article about general subatomic particles.
346:
2. Addressing the rationale of "A10 - Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic":
1112:
911:
1080:
Of course, this is only clear in hindsight since all of this only came to light recently due to
1399:
408:
3. Robin Hood tax as an unclear but nevertheless legitimate societal phenomenon (as a proposal)
1666:
1561:
1538:
1468:
1422:
1387:
1314:
1260:
1245:
1196:
1103:
1012:
991:
975:
924:
481:
444:, etc. Yet the topic of "religion" is not merely a subsection of the encyclopedia entries for
429:
319:(from Boyd Reimer) - Below I address the two rationale provided for this request for deletion:
238:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1654:"Authority and Authorship in a 21st-Century Encyclopaedia and a 'Very Mysterious Foundation'"
804::2. Check the earliest version of the article when the editors were Oxfam personnel (such as
1661:
1166:
737:
508:
453:
332:
151:
742:
If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD
404:
article, which, incidentally may soon grow to be just as large as the Tobin tax article.)
1407:
1347:
1230:
1170:
1065:
1044:
950:
915:
883:
852:
655:
583:
469:
217:
818::3. All the material covered here that is not promotional is covered in other articles:
1616:
1081:
566:
551:
517:
301:
284:
74:
66:
1173:. It is inappropriate for you to claim that I did so. What I did was to highlight (on
1156:
Things campaign in a subsection of an article on groups involved in science education.
1142:
That is what is happening here. The Robin Hood tax is just a marketing synonym for a
796:
378:
to readers, I was satisfied. (Notice how I did not do much work on the RHT article.)
1564:. Repetition of your side of the debate ad infinitum doesn't make it more correct.
1395:
1379:
1096:
issue that Knowledge should not be considered as part of their marketing campaigns.
860:
848:
578:
This page attempts to use Knowledge for the purpose of advertising, a violation of
445:
437:
1375:
As for the efforts to use rhetorical shifting to class it as blatant adversing.
112:
1653:
1612:
1391:
1611:. The lengthy discussion aside, it's not G11 and it's also not A10. It meets
1523:
1431:
I appreciate your feedback and will follow up on your other comments shortly.
1403:
1331:
1226:
1214:
946:
864:
393:
1669:
831:
819:
682:
417:
355:
324:
1. Addressing the rationale of "G11 - Unambiguous advertising or promotion":
272:
234:
213:
548:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Robin_Hood_tax
1124:
546:
For ease of reference I am posting my comments from the Discussion page (
433:
855:
for example, is firmly in the right of centre camp (often nicknamed the
806:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Robin_Hood_tax&oldid=351390397
237:
as one reason, but the two, although related, are by no means the same.
449:
441:
374:
As long as it was not me who was facing the task of explaining another
1116:
1108:
907:
436:, etc. Notice how religion relates partly to an individual quest for
375:
362:
1560:
article. Its notable, it should stay, regardless of other concerns
1503:
1478:
1268:
Thanks again to those editors who offered constructive responses.
1115:
so it deserves to have its own article. The same is true for the
365:
being introduced into the already long article of the Tobin tax.
1628:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1120:
830:. In particular, the material on unintended consequences is in
588:
834:. Moreover, the Robin Hood tax is just a marketing name for a
790:
1. This article was created by Oxfam as a means of promotion.
1161:
One last point of clarification that requires mention: I
805:
108:
104:
100:
1665:(12: Technology and Humanity). University of Glasgow.
170:
799:, I don't see this as a reason to delete the article.
1378:We have an article on Hamburgers and an article on
1361:OK I'll rephrase it. It should only take a little
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1638:). No further edits should be made to this page.
416:societal phenomenon: It relates partly to the
974:a "Robin Hood tax" should have some uses. ā
184:
8:
554:'s user page for further material on this.
1541:which should meet the objections raised.
1107:: Your analogy does not apply here. The
1313:journalist will have picked up on it?
1644:
1562:that can be fixed by anyone very easily
412:The Robin Hood tax is, in my eyes, an
7:
335:that are independent of the topic.
24:
1382:; an article on sweet corn and
970:. However, the multiple taxes
763:the article... since we cannot
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1386:two on that big green fellow
962:as disambiguation page only.
452:. Each has its own article. -
1:
795:Although this may come under
767:this left wing lunacy in RL.
269:Delete, but first investigate
1177:'s user page a message that
589:http://melaniesblog.usual.ca
1203:) 16:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
1690:
522:Financial transactions tax
402:Financial transactions tax
1600:01:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
1574:11:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
1551:17:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
1460:16:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
1441:03:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
1412:08:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
1323:19:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1278:18:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1251:financial transaction tax
1235:22:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1144:financial transaction tax
1021:19:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1000:16:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
982:14:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
968:financial transaction tax
955:14:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
933:13:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
892:12:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
836:Financial transaction tax
824:Financial transaction tax
772:10:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
754:08:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
727:01:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
687:Financial transaction tax
537:01:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
501:00:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
462:00:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
426:financial transaction tax
310:02:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
293:00:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
281:Financial transaction tax
264:23:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
247:22:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
226:21:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
204:20:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
1631:Please do not modify it.
1620:08:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
828:Currency transaction tax
785:'s post on my talk page:
691:Currency transaction tax
440:, partly to traditional
422:currency transaction tax
277:Currency transaction tax
61:05:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
1402:and so on and so on).--
943:Knowledge:Systemic bias
1510:
1350:. The same applies to
1205:
1169:was in collusion with
646:
632:
618:
604:
1529:rhetorically shifting
1498:
1192:
1111:is a special kind of
845:organisation/movement
641:
627:
613:
600:
329:This Knowledge policy
1047:for further reading.
582:. It was created by
350:On Feb 11, 2010, in
1135:subatomic particles
550:). Please also see
1385:
1113:subatomic particle
912:Subatomic particle
424:, and partly to a
44:The result was
1587:Dylanfromthenorth
1566:Dylanfromthenorth
1452:Dylanfromthenorth
1388:Jolly Green Giant
1383:
1148:WP:NOTADVERTISING
661:WP:NOTADVERTISING
580:WP:NOTADVERTISING
558:Original Comments
430:Quantum mechanics
333:secondary sources
1681:
1674:
1673:
1658:
1649:
1633:
1400:Tom's Restaurant
1055:East of Borschov
769:East of Borschov
189:
188:
174:
126:
116:
98:
34:
1689:
1688:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1656:
1651:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1636:deletion review
1629:
1165:suggested that
920:On G11 concern:
916:Financial Times
904:On A10 concern:
853:Daily Telegraph
560:
544:
352:this discussion
131:
122:
89:
73:
70:
59:
51:NativeForeigner
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1687:
1685:
1676:
1675:
1652:Kathryn Tabb.
1643:
1641:
1640:
1624:
1623:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1554:
1553:
1534:
1533:
1518:
1517:
1512:
1511:
1495:
1494:
1489:
1488:
1483:
1482:
1474:
1473:
1463:
1462:
1444:
1443:
1428:
1427:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1376:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1363:thoughtfulness
1356:
1355:
1352:Colonel Warden
1343:
1342:
1337:
1336:
1326:
1325:
1309:
1308:
1303:
1302:
1292:
1291:
1286:
1285:
1266:
1265:
1255:
1254:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1220:
1219:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1187:
1186:
1158:
1157:
1152:
1151:
1139:
1138:
1129:
1128:
1098:
1097:
1077:
1076:
1071:
1070:
1060:
1059:
1049:
1048:
1040:Colonel Warden
1035:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1003:
1002:
984:
957:
935:
910:overlaps with
895:
894:
873:
872:
815:
814:
801:
800:
787:
786:
775:
774:
757:
756:
746:Colonel Warden
716:
715:
714:
713:
706:
705:
704:
703:
697:
696:
695:
694:
676:
675:
674:
673:
667:
666:
665:
664:
650:
649:
648:
647:
636:
635:
634:
633:
622:
621:
620:
619:
608:
607:
606:
605:
595:
594:
593:
592:
573:
572:
571:
570:
559:
556:
543:
540:
518:Robin Hood tax
514:
513:
512:: Some points:
490:
489:
477:
420:, partly to a
321:
320:
313:
312:
296:
295:
266:
249:
228:
192:
191:
128:
124:AfD statistics
75:Robin Hood tax
69:
67:Robin Hood tax
64:
55:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1686:
1671:
1668:
1664:
1663:
1655:
1648:
1645:
1639:
1637:
1632:
1626:
1625:
1621:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1607:
1606:
1601:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1588:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1535:
1530:
1526:
1525:
1520:
1519:
1514:
1513:
1509:
1508:
1505:
1497:
1496:
1491:
1490:
1485:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1475:
1471:
1470:
1465:
1464:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1446:
1445:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1429:
1425:
1424:
1419:
1418:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1381:
1377:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1364:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1344:
1339:
1338:
1334:
1333:
1328:
1327:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1311:
1310:
1305:
1304:
1299:
1294:
1293:
1288:
1287:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1263:
1262:
1257:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1247:
1242:
1241:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1217:
1216:
1211:
1210:
1204:
1202:
1198:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1159:
1154:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1140:
1136:
1131:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1105:
1100:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1078:
1073:
1072:
1068:
1067:
1062:
1061:
1057:
1056:
1051:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1041:
1036:
1033:
1030:
1029:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1001:
997:
993:
988:
985:
983:
980:
977:
973:
969:
965:
961:
958:
956:
952:
948:
944:
939:
936:
934:
930:
926:
921:
917:
913:
909:
905:
900:
899:Snowball Keep
897:
896:
893:
889:
885:
880:
879:
878:
877:
870:
866:
862:
858:
854:
850:
846:
842:
841:
840:
839:
837:
833:
829:
825:
821:
812:
811:
810:
809:
807:
798:
794:
793:
792:
791:
784:
780:
777:
776:
773:
770:
766:
762:
759:
758:
755:
751:
747:
743:
739:
734:
731:
730:
729:
728:
724:
720:
712:best deleted.
710:
709:
708:
707:
701:
700:
699:
698:
692:
688:
684:
680:
679:
678:
677:
671:
670:
669:
668:
662:
657:
654:
653:
652:
651:
645:
640:
639:
638:
637:
631:
626:
625:
624:
623:
617:
612:
611:
610:
609:
603:
599:
598:
597:
596:
590:
585:
581:
577:
576:
575:
574:
568:
564:
563:
562:
561:
557:
555:
553:
549:
541:
539:
538:
534:
530:
525:
523:
519:
511:
510:
505:
504:
503:
502:
498:
494:
488:
484:
483:
478:
476:
472:
471:
466:
465:
464:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
410:
409:
405:
403:
397:
395:
390:
388:
382:
379:
377:
372:
369:
366:
364:
359:
357:
353:
348:
347:
343:
339:
336:
334:
330:
326:
325:
318:
315:
314:
311:
307:
303:
298:
297:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
267:
265:
261:
257:
253:
250:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
229:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
208:
207:
206:
205:
201:
197:
187:
183:
180:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
137:
134:
133:Find sources:
129:
125:
120:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
58:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1660:
1647:
1630:
1627:
1608:
1585:
1539:FeydHuxtable
1528:
1521:
1500:
1499:
1469:FeydHuxtable
1466:
1447:
1423:FeydHuxtable
1420:
1396:Roscoe Diner
1380:McDonaldland
1362:
1329:
1315:FeydHuxtable
1301:application.
1297:
1267:
1261:JamesBWatson
1259:
1246:Arthur Rubin
1244:
1213:
1197:FeydHuxtable
1193:
1178:
1162:
1104:FeydHuxtable
1101:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1063:
1052:
1037:
1031:
1013:FeydHuxtable
992:JamesBWatson
986:
976:Arthur Rubin
971:
963:
959:
937:
925:FeydHuxtable
919:
903:
898:
875:
874:
844:
817:
816:
803:
802:
789:
788:
778:
764:
760:
741:
732:
717:
642:
628:
614:
601:
545:
542:Introduction
526:
515:
506:
491:
482:JamesBWatson
479:
467:
446:spirituality
438:spirituality
413:
411:
407:
406:
398:
391:
386:
383:
380:
373:
370:
367:
360:
349:
345:
344:
340:
337:
327:
323:
322:
316:
268:
251:
239:JamesBWatson
230:
209:
193:
181:
175:
167:
160:
154:
148:
142:
132:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1592:Cosmic Cube
1543:Cosmic Cube
1433:Cosmic Cube
1392:Green Giant
1270:Cosmic Cube
1167:Boyd Reimer
938:Strong Keep
783:Cosmic Cube
733:Speedy Keep
719:Cosmic Cube
529:Cosmic Cube
509:Boyd Reimer
493:Cosmic Cube
454:Boyd Reimer
256:Cosmic Cube
196:Cosmic Cube
158:free images
1183:389melanie
1181:placed on
1171:389melanie
1066:Pit-yacker
884:Pit-yacker
861:The Mirror
656:389melanie
584:389melanie
565:Thanks to
470:Pit-yacker
387:somewhere.
218:Pit-yacker
1670:1742-4542
1617:Lankiveil
1493:proposal:
1175:Oldtaxguy
1088:group on
1082:Oldtaxguy
857:Torygraph
832:Tobin tax
820:Tobin tax
738:WP:BEFORE
683:Tobin tax
567:Oldtaxguy
552:Oldtaxguy
524:article.
418:Tobin tax
356:Tobin Tax
302:Oldtaxguy
285:Oldtaxguy
273:Tobin tax
235:Tobin Tax
214:Tobin Tax
194:G11, A10
1507:attack).
1348:WP:CIVIL
1290:sources.
1253:article.
1125:electron
1092:side of
1045:WP:CIVIL
851:). The
849:Guardian
779:Response
487:Response
475:Response
434:religion
119:View log
57:Contribs
1032:Comment
987:Comment
918:alone.
450:culture
442:culture
414:unclear
354:in the
164:WPĀ refs
152:scholar
92:protect
87:history
1662:eSharp
1117:photon
1109:proton
979:(talk)
972:called
908:Proton
871:, etc.
797:WP:COI
765:delete
448:, nor
376:eponym
363:eponym
279:, and
252:Delete
136:Google
96:delete
1657:(PDF)
1524:Aspro
1504:ATTAC
1479:ATTAC
1404:Aspro
1332:Aspro
1227:Aspro
1215:Aspro
1163:never
947:Aspro
826:, or
689:, or
179:JSTOR
140:books
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
1667:ISSN
1613:WP:N
1609:Keep
1596:talk
1570:talk
1547:talk
1456:talk
1448:Keep
1437:talk
1408:talk
1319:talk
1274:talk
1231:talk
1201:talk
1121:muon
1017:talk
996:talk
964:Most
960:Keep
951:talk
929:talk
888:talk
865:Wail
761:Keep
750:talk
723:talk
533:talk
497:talk
458:talk
394:here
317:Keep
306:talk
289:talk
260:talk
243:talk
231:Keep
222:talk
210:Keep
200:talk
172:FENS
146:news
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
46:keep
1384:one
1298:not
1179:you
1094:any
1090:any
1086:any
869:Sun
781:to
744:.
396:.
186:TWL
121:ā¢
117:ā (
1659:.
1598:)
1572:)
1549:)
1458:)
1439:)
1410:)
1398:,
1390:;
1321:)
1276:)
1233:)
1123:,
1119:,
1019:)
998:)
953:)
931:)
890:)
867:,
863:,
822:,
752:)
740:,
725:)
685:,
663:).
535:)
507:@
499:)
485::
480:@
473::
468:@
460:)
432:,
308:)
291:)
275:,
262:)
245:)
224:)
202:)
166:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
48:.
1672:.
1622:.
1594:(
1584:@
1568:(
1545:(
1522:@
1467:@
1454:(
1435:(
1421:@
1406:(
1354:.
1330:@
1317:(
1272:(
1258:@
1243:@
1229:(
1212:@
1199:(
1137:.
1102:@
1064:@
1053:@
1038:@
1015:(
994:(
949:(
927:(
886:(
748:(
721:(
693:.
587:(
531:(
495:(
456:(
304:(
287:(
258:(
241:(
220:(
198:(
190:)
182:Ā·
176:Ā·
168:Ā·
161:Ā·
155:Ā·
149:Ā·
143:Ā·
138:(
130:(
127:)
115:)
77:(
54:/
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.