This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
Two long term editors (myself and User:Trackinfo) are not able to work constructively with a recent contributor User:Anmccaff even after very very long discussions on talk. Since backing off from the article he has made changes which he is convinced are accurate and which we believe to be lacking balance. Further discussion on talk has only convinced us of the need to seek outside help.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Extensive discussion on the article talk page. Conversations on his talk page. Backing off from the article for a number of weeks to give him space to develop it in peace.
How do you think we can help?
Anmccaff is certainly very knowledgeable and committed, I respect him for that, however I am coming to the view that he is unable to work constructively with others to create a balanced article.
I would like you to first provide an outsiders perspective on the situation and then make recommendations to the individuals concerned as to how to proceed based on experience with similar situations elsewhere.
I have been editing WP since 2007, and using this username since 2009. I became aware of this article back in 2010 following a visit to Detroit which led to me adding a comprehensive history section in the Transportation in metropolitan Detroit article. The General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy article at that time claimed that Detroit was one of the affected cities (which is wasn't). The more I looked into this article and the subject generally, the more confusing it seemed. The article was poorly written, poorly source and subject to frequent POV arguments, however virtually everyone else who wrote on the subject in books and on the web also seemed to be pushing one POV or other or unawarely peddling a myth as fact. It became a bit of a mad mission of mine in late 2010 to create a definitive document in WP which would get as close to the truth was was possible. Given that not everything could be discovered so far after events that were not well publicised at the time, I did what I could and created a 'myths and mysteries' section to itemise those claims that could not be substantiated. My clear conclusion, was the simplistic stories on both sides are too simplistic.
As a transport profession and academic I am well aware of all the other reasons for the changes towards the car and was pleased with the article which seemed to tell the story in balanced way by early 2011. Over the years since then I have kept an eye on it, while taking care to not dominate, and had a principle, that whenever the article was changed, even where this was clearly in a negative direction, that I would try to create better content rather than simply revert. The article is very well used, with some 100,000 page views a year and was not majorly challenged in those years.
In the 7 years I have edited WP I have never had to resort to this sort of dispute process. I have my scars for sure, battling with Defacto on issues relating to road safety was tough, and he has subsequently been permanently banned from WP, but I learnt from him that some of the best WP work is done when working within the rules with people we opposing views. That worked well until recently.
Regrettably, with Anmccaff I concluded that it was impossible to get to a conclusion on anything. His use of talk pages, his abrasiveness and obtuseness, his habit of dropping discussions half-way through and starting another one was too difficult. In parallel I noted a reduction in the number of people engaging with the article, and indeed other articles on WP, to an extent that I find concerning. Anyway.. on 17 November I concluded that for my sanity and to ensure that I was not part of the problem, that I should disengage from the article and see what happened. Until Trackinfo made his post on talk on the 24 Jan I didn't once even look at the article or what was being done to it.
I am not sure how we move forward. I realise that this board is a place to discuss content and not individuals, but I feel that it is important to have put the above on the table and say that the most serious issue is that communication between the parties interested in this article has broken down and I am not confident that it can be repaired. From here on though I will discuss only content and take advice on how to deal with personality issues separately if necessary.
My concerns with the article are very much the same as those of Trackinfo. I note the inclusion of phrases such as 'Conspiracy theorists emphasize ...', 'While conspiracy theorists focus on ...', 'While Quinby's instrumentality is a keystone of many conspiracy theories...' and 'Tellingly, conspiracy minded authors do not discuss...' which Anmccaff added and would no doubt defend but which I oppose.
There are then the unprovable generalisations such as 'Most transit scholars say that..'.
However I am as concerned about the addition for a huge amount of detail in the Background and Early Years section which is a distraction and will turn people off of article which should be about the 'conspiracy', and not the history of streetcars more generally. A great way to neutralise an article is to add irrelevant content, and I am concerned that that has happened here.
Conversely, having provide a lot of relevant new and very pertinent information on talk here, he has chosen not to add it to the article in the past 2 months.
For the record, you can see a summary of changes made, mainly by Anmccaff between 17 Nov and 24 Jan here.
-- PeterEastern ( talk) 17:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
This article has suffered from lack of broad attention, even I have failed to monitor it daily. Since Peter Eastern's one man defense of the content of the article was put on hold, Anmccaff has taken full control of the article, rewriting the article with his POV. Going back to his initial contact here he has started off with what seems like a prejudicial tone toward the original content of the article; Everything you know is wrong. What concerns me is the subtle writing in wikipedia's voice, to push his POV wishing to refer to this as an urban legend, essentially making this a lecture as to how what was the previous version of this article is discredited. Each interaction in Talk has been confusing at best, with his demand to call things matching his opinion as "facts" while existing knowledge is debunked by these "facts."
After writing my disgust at the direction of the article, I started off trying to fix the article, to make it more neutral at least in wikipedia's voice, removing "as well as to urban legends and other folklore inspired by these events" and peacock phrase like "popular" that are intended to hype credibility. I couldn't even get past the lede when [1] [2] these were reverted in less than 10 minutes. So essentially this foretells that Anmccaff is taking ownership of this content.
I expressed my concern that the conspirators have a commercial interest in making this negative publicity go away. I'm not the only one to bring this up, going back to the first talk archive, there are clear efforts to push POV dating back years; the Cato Institute, non-credible, Koch brothers funded corporate shill, is identified as leading this cause, which would be consistent with the various corporations wish to rewrite history. They can't make the actual conviction go away. That was made by people who were involved at the time. This is historical. Nobody here was involved in 1949. We all are dealing with third hand accounts. We shouldn't just examine this from our recent perspective.
The lede is quoting Guy Span (c.2003) saying Bradford C. Snell (c.1974) "fell into simplistic conspiracy theory thinking, bordering on paranoid delusions" which certainly serves to discredit him. An accusation like that in a WP:BLP would have to be much better sourced.
So I had to ask; who is Guy Span? Anmccaff's response, like so much of his communication in talk, is less than coherent, but it does not mount anything positive to say about this non-notable individual's credibility to be the authority on this subject. Span's own claim is that he was the editor of the blog where this was posted, so its a self-source. Looking down the references, Span is quoted and sourced some 15 times in the article. Removing the peacock term calling Span "noted" is one of two clean ups I have successfully made. The other one was a spurious (empty) heading "Cracks in the Facade" which is about as POV oriented a title as can be created.
I also called out a factual error regarding San Francisco's continued use of ground level streetcars, which I personally documented as recently as 2010, again my edits were reverted. So it is clear we do not have a collegial attitude happening here. This is a clear effort to push this POV. Trackinfo ( talk) 11:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
There are fairly deep divides here not merely on matters of opinion, but of matters of fact as well; it would be useful if any volunteers had decent access to a library in a major US or possibly Canadian city, or an academic library focused on ground transportation. I think the article is loaded with weak references -several self-published- selected to fit a pre-existing narrative, and edits made to "balance" whenever the factual underpinning of the selected story was weak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff ( talk • contribs) 22:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Coordinator's note: Hi PeterEastern. I am not taking this case, but there are a couple of things that need to be fixed. First, could you specify exactly what the disputed changes are? It's rather difficult to have an orderly case if no one is sure what exactly is being disputed. Second, please notify all parties by putting {{subst:DRN-notice}} on their talk page. Thanks. -- Biblio worm 02:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer comment: This case appears to have stalled. No one, including the moderator User:Bejnar has not commented for 5 days. Unless there is further moderated discussion soon, this case will need to be closed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Please list the five facts in the article (or recently in the article, Oct. 2014 to date) that are most contentious. -- Bejnar ( talk) 02:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Please list up to five of the most unreliable sources in recent use (Oct. 2014 to date) in the article, together with one sentence for each as to why it is unreliable. If any source has been discussed at the Reliable sources noticeboard please so note and provide a link. -- Bejnar ( talk) 02:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
---
Please list up to three of the most important reliable sources for the article. If you can narrow it to one that would be best. -- Bejnar ( talk) 02:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Editor Anmccaff stated: There isn't a single, reliable source that will cover a wide enough sweep here. Given, for the purposes of this inquiry, that no single reliable source covers all the territory, what are the most important reliable sources for the article? Editor PeterEastern has already answered this question above. -- Bejnar ( talk) 19:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Are there any objections to Bianco, Martha (1998) or Slater, Cliff (1997) as reliable sources? If so please state the basis in one sentence.
No objections. One could quibble that the source we use for Slater, Cliff (1997), including the claim that it was published in Transportation Quarterly, is a self-published. There is however ample separate evidence from good sources that it was. Transportation Quarterly is again a bit elusive, but it's publisher, the Eno Center for Transportation, appears to be very solid indeed. PeterEastern ( talk) 03:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Anmccaff answered above that they were acceptable. -- Bejnar ( talk) 11:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
In almost any context within this article a cite to Bianco or Slater that supports the point at hand is acceptable. -- Bejnar ( talk) 06:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Are there any objections to the works of Snell as reliable sources for the fact that Snell made certain statements? Keep in mind WP:RSOPINION and WP:INTEXT. If so please state the basis in one sentence. -- Bejnar ( talk) 19:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
No objections. PeterEastern ( talk) 03:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be agreement that Snell may be cited for his opinions, but not for the truth of the matter asserted. Wikipedia does not follow the best evidence rule, but prefers secondary sources to primary ones, WP:Reliable sources. However, primary sources are allowed. -- Bejnar ( talk) 06:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No original research provides The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged ... and The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research;.
Is each contentious conclusion in the article supported by a reliable source? Please list any (up to five) that are not.-- Bejnar ( talk) 19:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
--
Bear with me on this response, which although not exactly answering the question is I think is a useful observation to make at this point.
I have just read Bianco, Martha (1998) from top to bottom for the first time and I think it is an excellent and very well presented explanation of why streetcars declined and why GM keep getting the blame. Slightly embarrassed that I have not read it before, but there was a lot to read and it was only referenced at one point, in the Roger Rabbit sentence, and appeared to an article about Roger Rabbit and popular cinema and not the serious academic paper on the subject that it is. I wish I had read it a lot earlier, and I would now put it forward as the single anchor source that we could use as the basis of a review of the article that you asked for above.
To be clear, it doesn't refute the allegation that GM was heavy handed - to quote: "for GM and other bus manufacturers and suppliers to be successful in developing a market for diesel buses, they had to carry out an aggressive campaign to do so. Such a campaign required working together to foreclose competitive technologies – i.e., electric vehicles." But does suggest that GM keeps getting blamed for reasons more to do a desire for a neat simplistic story with good guys and bad guys than reality: "As this paper has suggested, the emergence and reemergence of the GM conspiracy myth has coincided with periods of urban transportation policy crisis, as were evidenced during the urban strife of the 1960s and the Arab oil embargo in the 1970s. The retrenchment of the federal government toward urban transportation policy during the 1980s only served to fuel the agenda of citizen activists, particularly among environmental groups (page 20)."" PeterEastern ( talk) 21:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
It closes with the observation: "In this regard, the compelling nature of the myth’s villain – the General Motors Corporation – speaks volumes. If we cannot cast GM, the producer and supplier of automobiles, as the ultimate enemy, then we end up with a shocking and nearly unfathomable alternative: What if the enemy is not the supplier, but rather the consumer? What if, to paraphrase Oliver Perry, we have met the enemy, and the enemy is us?" Not 100% happy with the word consumer, rather than the more nebulous 'citizen' or 'policy-maker', but this is a great single resource packed with referenced materials that have not made their way into the article.
My view is that this article, which has not been reviewed substantially since I did the major makeover in 2010 could do with another major review. I do also think that the balance should be adjusted more towards the idea that GM is a convenient scapegoat for a policy failure with major and long term consequences to this day, We should however avoiding whitewashing GM's aggressive motorisation policies. Ideally it should be a medium to tell the middle more complex story about a failure of policy during a period of rapid technologic transformation. Bianca (1998) would be the anchor for this. I would also like it to include more about the 'traction interests' and other additional content highlighted on talk by Anmccaff recently.
-- PeterEastern ( talk) 21:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
In direct response to the question, there is nothing that screams out at me as OR, other than possibly the unsupported generalisations referring to 'conspiracy theorists' that I mentioned 'Summary of dispute by PeterEastern'. PeterEastern ( talk) 03:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
@ PeterEastern:, you say that to object to unsupported conclusions, but when asked for same, replied possibly the unsupported generalisations referring to 'conspiracy theorists' that I mentioned . Could you be specific? List specific ones that are unsupported. @ Anmccaff: One problem seems to be that there is more objection to behaviour than to content. Please do not comment on the behaviour of other editors. This is not the forum for that. -- Bejnar ( talk) 10:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Objections to Guy Span as a source? -- Bejnar ( talk) 11:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Does the use of the term "conspiracy theorists" in this article constitute a violation of WP:NPOV? -- Bejnar ( talk) 00:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
"Conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" can be used in a pejorative way. Any contested use should be supported by a reliable source, and pejoritive uses should be avoided per Wikipedia's guideline at WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch: There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view. -- Bejnar ( talk) 05:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Is there enough reliable source material for a "urban legends and other folklore" section? -- Bejnar ( talk) 06:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
What is the relationship between the information currently in the "Myths" section and "urban legends and other folklore"? Wikipedia guidelines suggest proper context be provided. See, for example the essay Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Provide context for the reader. Keeping in mind who, what, why, where, when and how can help an editor provide context. -- Bejnar ( talk) 06:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Please don't read more into this that I am saying. What I am saying is that the term 'conspiracy theorist' should not be used without very strong evidence, and strong enough evidence to wave the term conspiracy theorist around in the article is thin on the ground. The only people Bianco names as 'conspiracy theorists' are Snell, Glenn Yago, and possibly St Clair.No, twice. The idea that evidence here is "thin on the ground" permeates the discussion here and on the article talk page, but I just don't see that at all, and I think I've given practical demonstration of that several times, to the point that you are mentioning here that I've presented sources and not incorporated them in the article. What's thin on the ground, sometimes, is readily available, free , easily citable material. Next, Ms Bianco was a pretty prolific writer, once, and reviewed books and films. If memory serves, she also used the term about Jane Holtz Kay, and the producers of "Taken for a ride." That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there's more out there. Anmccaff ( talk) 16:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Slater names Tom Hayden and journalists Jonathan Kwitny and Nicholas Von Hoffman.in the article cited. From personal experience, I might guess that Mr. Slater would be willing to add a name or three hundred, while struggling to contain colorful descriptions of their ancestry, progeny, and general personal habits. The mendacious economic arguments for heavy rail in Honolulu might do that to a fellow. Anmccaff ( talk) 16:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Personally I would like to see evidence that these people continued to push the conspiracy theory, in an almost obsessive way, before we used the term conspiracy theorist in relation to their activities. Snell is the only one for whom I am aware of enough evidence to use the term. Have the journalists written about this over and over again? What about Glenn Yago, I am not familiar with his writing? Other than those people, are there any other named candidates? This has nothing to do with the wide issue of conspiracy theories and the way they keep popping up.I think you are narrowing the term too much. What do you think is a workable term for someone who believes and spreads -even if he does not originate it- a conspiracy theory? Anmccaff ( talk) 16:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
"over the 40 years we have been talking about this that General Motors has carried on a deliberate concerted action with the oil companies and the tire companies ... for the purpose of destroying a vital form of competition; namely, electric rapid transit."
— Joseph Alioto 1973 Senate hearing, exact quote contained in Bianco]]
You asked for proof that another point of view exists. That proves this is not WP:OR and is not coming from a single source media unless you consider the congressional record an unreliable source. Now you, as is done throughout the article, want to discredit what he says. That is something you can argue in a POV section, but not in the wikipedia voice. This was the prevailing opinion that was expressed not just by politicians who were in a position to know what was going on, but by subsequent documentary journalists and bloggers alike. They were in the existing article on public view for more than a decade until you got involved and did a one man rewrite of the article into your opposing point of view. You are welcome to your opinion, spend a section to coherently present your case for that POV. But don't litter the existing, well sourced article to constantly say everybody else is wrong and I am right. We are dealing with opinions and guesses as to what might have occurred without the existence of the conspiracy. There is no one correct answer because we cannot change the history, we only know what happened and can run hypothetical models of what would have happened without it. Trackinfo (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
You asked for proof that another point of view exists; No. That is simply untrue. I asked for a "decent cite," and, later "a "good cite." You think a party to a law suit is a credible cite? Anmccaff ( talk) 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
That proves this is not WP:OR; Who said that was? What I pointed out was "original research," in the wikipedian sense, was the notion that GM's involvement in what are now the larger metropolitan areas meant anything. At the time, they weren't all the largest metropolises, and GM's influence in one of them, New York, was obviously not the cause of an anti-traction movement older than GM itself. So...where's your cite? Anmccaff ( talk) 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
and is not coming from a single source media unless you consider the congressional record an unreliable sourceYou fail to understand the difference between "reliable" and "credible."
Now you, as is done throughout the article, want to discredit what he says. That is something you can argue in a POV section, but not in the wikipedia voice. This was the prevailing opinion that was expressed not just by politicians who were in a position to know what was going on; Nonsense. What special expertise do you think Alioto (or Bradley) had here? Anmccaff ( talk) 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
but by subsequent documentary journalists and bloggers alike.; Bloggers? Heh. And surely you can't claim something like "Taken for a Ride" is a credible documentary? Anmccaff ( talk) 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
They were in the existing article on public view for more than a decade until you got involved and did a one man rewrite of the article into your opposing point of view. You are welcome to your opinion, spend a section to coherently present your case for that POV. But don't litter the existing, well sourced article to constantly say everybody else is wrong and I am right.There was nothing "well sourced" about the article before, and it still isn't "well sourced" yet. It included self-published works which could be refuted trivially on so many points of fact as to be completely non-credible- Snell, Guilbault, Szoboszlay, etc. Anmccaff ( talk) 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
We are dealing with opinions and guesses as to what might have occurred without the existence of the conspiracy. There is no one correct answer because we cannot change the history, we only know what happened and can run hypothetical models of what would have happened without it.Again, no. We can know, from trivially easy research, that the story of electric transit in Los Angeles was very different from how Bradley painted it. Some have, in turn, tried to explain that as a coverup, but the same story played out the same, more or less, in St. Louis, Baltimore, and Philadelphia. NCL ran trolley and trackless trolleys quite cheerfully, where they could make money on it. In LA, they retained electric traction well beyond LARy's earlier plans. (The Huntington operation had already gotten permission to abandon all but three lines; only the war stopped them.) Anmccaff ( talk) 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Please refrain from comments on the behaviour of other editors and avoid ad hominem arguments. Remarking that a claim in the article is unsupported is about content, who placed that unsupported content in the article is not relevant in this discussion. Wikipedia's verification policy indicates that an unsupported claim which is disputed should be removed. -- Bejnar ( talk) 05:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Do not use "conspiracy theory" or variants in the article unless parties agree to each specific use. -- Bejnar ( talk) 21:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Do not discuss far-out theories and other conspiracies until after the basic story has been told. -- Bejnar ( talk) 21:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
For the descriptor "Conspiracy theorists?" "Pro-conspiracy theorists rely on Snell and look like idiots." Span, pt.1) "Like Snell and other conspiracy theorists, Kay blames GM and its subsidiary, National City Lines (NCL), for the replacement of popular streetcars with unpopular motor buses." Bianco [6]
According to James Howard Kunstler, in 1925, with the acquisition of the Yellow Coach company, the General Motors Corporation undertook a systematic campaign to put streetcar lines out of business all over America. GM would have erected a byzantine network of subsidiaries and holding companies to carry out its mission, using its financial muscle to buy up streetcar lines, scrap the tracks, and convert the routes for buses. [1]
Kunstler's cites stovepipe back to assertions of Bradford Snell which were refuted in the 1970's.
This is the reason why a term for "conspiracy theorists" as a group is needed; it's a school of thought, with shared ideas and characteristics. Anmccaff ( talk) 17:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Finally, Spearmind's own claim above, were it true, would justify removing it from the article, were it Kunstler's "own work." Anmccaff ( talk) 23:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The most extreme statement of the case that the automobile's ascendancy over mass rail transit in cities was not primarily the result of consumer choice in a competitive market was made in 1974 by Bradford C. Snell, assistant counsel to Senator Philip A. Hart's antitrust subcommittee investigating the restructuring of the automobile and ground transportation industries. Snell alleged that General Motors had played a dominant role in a "conspiracy" that had destroyed a hundred electric surface rail systems in forty-five cities between 1932 and 1956. This was part of a far larger attack on GM, which included allegations that the corporation had collaborated in the Nazi war effort during World War II and that it had pressured the railroads into adopting diesel locomotives that Snell claimed were less efficient than electric-powered ones. GM refuted all of Snell's charges. 1
In short, Kunstler is citing as proof something that refutes his position. This, Spearmind, is why footnotes are important. Anmccaff ( talk) 02:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Does anyone else have any questions why we should treat Kunstler as unreliable? Anmccaff ( talk)
PS: More Flink:
GM responded in detail to Snell's "false and damaging claims." As we have seen in an earlier chapter, the company made a strong rebuttal to
the allegation of collaboration with the Axis in World War II. GM similarly presented convincing evidence that Snell's other charges were untrue and that the corporation had not had "a destructive impact on mass transportation in this country." It was pointed out, for instance, that an exhaustive investigation by the U.S. Department ofJustice had exonerated GM completely on charges that the corporation had used its power as the nation's largest shipper to pressure railroads into switching over to diesel locomotives. Evidence was also cited that the diesel locomotive was a progressive new product that had revolutionized the railroad industry. As for electric traction in cities, GM claimed that it had been in decline long before NCL was formed, and that flexible buses were a substantial improvement over less efficient streetcars running on fixed rails. Pacific Electric, for example, had begun to curtail rail passenger service as early as 1917. It "steadily expanded its motor bus operations in the 1920s and 1930s," and "by 1939, the year before it is claimed that GM had any role in acquiring the system, over 35 percent of the total passenger miles were on buses." Rail passenger losses over the system except for 1923 and the war years 1943 and 1944 "were a financial catastrophe." Documentation was found in "the literature of the time" that demonstrated "why the public favored the bus." Contrary to Snell's contentions, the motor bus "provided greater cost efficiency and operating flexibility." It was estimated that the average motor bus in New York City could operate at about four fifths the cost of a streetcar. In 1936 Mayor Fiorello La Guardia had welcomed "modern buses replacing antiquated trolleys" and "removal of the remaining obsolete traffic-obstructing trolley lines."
Whatever problems the Key System may have had in the 1950s under NCL control were not GM's responsibility, for GM had terminated all of its supply contracts with and investment in NCL in 1949. Furthermore, prior to the acquisition of the Key System by NCL in 1946 a number of contracts for the removal of tracks and the repaving of city streets had been approved by the Oakland City Council, and the decision to remove the tracks from the lower deck of the Bay Bridge was made by the state government, not NCL. "General Motors did not generate the winds of change which doomed the streetcar systems," the corporation claimed in its defense. "It did, however, through its buses, help to alleviate the destruction left in their wake. Times were hard and transportation systems were collapsing [in the 1930s]. GM was able to help with technology, with enterprise and, in some cases, with capital. The buses it sold helped give mass transportation a new lease on life which lasted into the postwar years."
That the demise of electric traction had begun more than a decade before the formation of NCL is incontrovertible. Still, the streetcar remained a more important carrier of passenger than the motor bus until World War II. The trolley coach became a contender only in the vastly reduced public transit market of the mid-1950s. In 1937 some 7.161 billion passengers rode streetcars in the United States, versus 3.489 billion motor bus passengers and a mere 289 million trolley coach passengers. By 1942 streetcar passengers barely exceeded motor bus passengers, 7.290 billion to 7.245 billion, and trolley coach ridership had tripled to 898 million. Motor bus riders exceeded streetcar riders in 1947, 10.2 billion to 8.1 billion, and trolley coach ridership had quadrupled to 1.3 billion. By 1955 all modes of public transit were in decline. Streetcars experienced the sharpest drop in patronage, while trolley coaches were affected the least. In 1955 some 7.250 billion passengers were carried by motor buses, versus only 1.207 billion by streetcars and 1.202 billion by trolley coaches. Clearly it was not the shifting of passengers from the streetcar to the comparatively cost-efficient motor bus that killed off public transit. Neither was it the failure to shift them to the still more cost-efficient trolley coach. The culprit was the costwise highly inefficient private passenger car, which in the 1950s began making dramatic inroads into ridership on all modes of public transit. From this perspective the conversion of transit systems to motor buses was, as GM claimed, a stopgap measure that
permitted them to survive during a period of transition to almost complete auto dependence.
Futile. No response by opposing editor in 5 days. May be refiled if other editor becomes active again and dispute continues. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Moot. Filing editor indefinitely blocked per check-user. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Stale: listed 6 days and no volunteer has chosen to take the case. Consider copying the discussion, below, to the article talk page and continuing it there. If no resolution can be achieved, consider a request for comments. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance and Limit-theorem has only one posting there. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 22:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Conduct dispute. DRN does not handle disputes which are primarily conduct disputes (see instructions at top of page). Use ANI for conduct disputes. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 04:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Premature. Since this appears to be purely a sourcing dispute and since a request has just been filed at RSN on this, that request needs to run for several days so as to allow for third party opinions to come in there before seeking help from dispute resolution. This case may be refiled if the RSN discussion does not bear fruit. There is no hurry. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Named parties did not show up. Please see WP:DR and WP:DRR to evaluate further dispute resolution options. — Keithbob • Talk • 20:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Conduct dispute. POV-pushing is a conduct matter, not a content matter. ANI is for conduct issues. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
GauchoDude agreed in this edit to not restore the information and has not edited Carol W. Greider since February 20. If the material is restored again, then you may refile here, where we can discuss whether or not the material is appropriate, or if you wish to complain about someone's conduct you may file at ANI since we do not deal with conduct matters here at DRN. The part of our policies dealing with the kind of issues you have raised is set out here. Let me caution you to be very careful about making statements about libel; any discussion of legal matters such as libel can cause you to be blocked from editing under the legal threats policy. If you feel that you have a legal claim against Wikipedia or any editor, click on that link and follow the instructions there. Finally, "appropriately verifying the truth" does not include contacting you personally; proper verification for Wikipedia articles is set out in the verifiability policy, as modified in the case of living persons by the biographies of living persons policy. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
The Loma Linda University Medical Center Wikipedia page has, since 2008 or before, had an entire section dedicated to "Medicare Fraud." That equates to approximately 20% of the total content on the page. After reviewing the Wikipedia pages of several other notable healthcare institutions, including the Mayo Clinic, Kaiser Permanente, and Johns Hopkins, not one of these institutions had any reference to their Medicare-fraud-related issues, and their Wikipedia pages are much, much longer than the page of Loma Linda University Medical Center. Meanwhile, the Hospital Corporation of America, an institution that has had extensive quarrels with Medicare and significant fines levied against it as a result, has a section about twice as long as that of Loma Linda University Medical Center's.
The unquestionable consensus, then, is that healthcare organizations that have relatively minor fines levied against it do not have any mention of fraud on their pages, while organizations that have had very significant fines levied against it may, as in the case of the Hospital Corporation of America, have a small section detailing the relevant issues.
Given that the "Medicare Fraud" section has been under dispute since 2008, it should be taken down until the consensus is otherwise, and, in which case, a precedent will be set if the section is allow to remain. For the time being, however, the section should not stand against consensus and the established precedent, according to Wikipedia's own established standards.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Making the necessary edits and discussing on the Talk page.
How do you think we can help?
The "Medicare Fraud" section should be taken down until the broader consensus, as established by the countless hours of content creation and editing already done to the Wikipedia pages of similar institutions referenced before (e.g., Mayo Clinic, Kaiser Permanente), has changed.
I do not agree with the contention that the Fraud section was "under dispute since 2008" as the only evidence of any dispute that I have seen was one talk page post in 2008 which was unreplied to and did not result in removal of the passage.
I have requested that the IP user link to discussions where a consensus about not discussing fines (I don't consider 2.2 million a "minor" fine) like this in articles was established, but have not gotten a reply. A fine regarding activities with a large government program seems notable and the lack of such mentions on other articles about large medical facilities or organizations doesn't seem relevant to me without a policy or documented consensus saying so.
I have not examined the sources in detail so I take TransporterMan at his word regarding his discussion of them on the talk page, but that is a different issue.
If further statements are needed from me, please ask. 331dot ( talk) 22:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
So as to clarify my position in this matter, I stand by the statements which I made at the article talk page (in brief, (a) that I don't think that the material is inappropriate or that there is any policy or guideline or consensus made at this article which excludes this material because of its nature, but (b) that the first paragraph of the section in question is unsourced and the the third paragraph has sources but that they are not reliable, so the first and third paragraphs should be removed unless reliable sources can be found for them), but I will not be participating further in this discussion, here or at the article talk page, and will not be editing the article in connection with the matter in dispute (or otherwise, more than likely, but at least that much) and I am willing to accept whatever resolution may be worked out here between the principal parties. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Administrative note to DRN volunteers - I've pinged the other participant. Someone please take this case when he/she arrives. Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
This case is now open for discussion. Attn: User:76.174.65.156 and User:331dot.... Comparisons to other articles is not a valid argument for change. Instead it would be better to frame the discussion in terms of WP guidelines such as WP:UNDUE which says: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The Medicare Fraud section has three citations:
Let's assume that TAF.org is a reliable source. What would be a concise, neutral summary of the information contained in these sources?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
Two long term editors (myself and User:Trackinfo) are not able to work constructively with a recent contributor User:Anmccaff even after very very long discussions on talk. Since backing off from the article he has made changes which he is convinced are accurate and which we believe to be lacking balance. Further discussion on talk has only convinced us of the need to seek outside help.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Extensive discussion on the article talk page. Conversations on his talk page. Backing off from the article for a number of weeks to give him space to develop it in peace.
How do you think we can help?
Anmccaff is certainly very knowledgeable and committed, I respect him for that, however I am coming to the view that he is unable to work constructively with others to create a balanced article.
I would like you to first provide an outsiders perspective on the situation and then make recommendations to the individuals concerned as to how to proceed based on experience with similar situations elsewhere.
I have been editing WP since 2007, and using this username since 2009. I became aware of this article back in 2010 following a visit to Detroit which led to me adding a comprehensive history section in the Transportation in metropolitan Detroit article. The General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy article at that time claimed that Detroit was one of the affected cities (which is wasn't). The more I looked into this article and the subject generally, the more confusing it seemed. The article was poorly written, poorly source and subject to frequent POV arguments, however virtually everyone else who wrote on the subject in books and on the web also seemed to be pushing one POV or other or unawarely peddling a myth as fact. It became a bit of a mad mission of mine in late 2010 to create a definitive document in WP which would get as close to the truth was was possible. Given that not everything could be discovered so far after events that were not well publicised at the time, I did what I could and created a 'myths and mysteries' section to itemise those claims that could not be substantiated. My clear conclusion, was the simplistic stories on both sides are too simplistic.
As a transport profession and academic I am well aware of all the other reasons for the changes towards the car and was pleased with the article which seemed to tell the story in balanced way by early 2011. Over the years since then I have kept an eye on it, while taking care to not dominate, and had a principle, that whenever the article was changed, even where this was clearly in a negative direction, that I would try to create better content rather than simply revert. The article is very well used, with some 100,000 page views a year and was not majorly challenged in those years.
In the 7 years I have edited WP I have never had to resort to this sort of dispute process. I have my scars for sure, battling with Defacto on issues relating to road safety was tough, and he has subsequently been permanently banned from WP, but I learnt from him that some of the best WP work is done when working within the rules with people we opposing views. That worked well until recently.
Regrettably, with Anmccaff I concluded that it was impossible to get to a conclusion on anything. His use of talk pages, his abrasiveness and obtuseness, his habit of dropping discussions half-way through and starting another one was too difficult. In parallel I noted a reduction in the number of people engaging with the article, and indeed other articles on WP, to an extent that I find concerning. Anyway.. on 17 November I concluded that for my sanity and to ensure that I was not part of the problem, that I should disengage from the article and see what happened. Until Trackinfo made his post on talk on the 24 Jan I didn't once even look at the article or what was being done to it.
I am not sure how we move forward. I realise that this board is a place to discuss content and not individuals, but I feel that it is important to have put the above on the table and say that the most serious issue is that communication between the parties interested in this article has broken down and I am not confident that it can be repaired. From here on though I will discuss only content and take advice on how to deal with personality issues separately if necessary.
My concerns with the article are very much the same as those of Trackinfo. I note the inclusion of phrases such as 'Conspiracy theorists emphasize ...', 'While conspiracy theorists focus on ...', 'While Quinby's instrumentality is a keystone of many conspiracy theories...' and 'Tellingly, conspiracy minded authors do not discuss...' which Anmccaff added and would no doubt defend but which I oppose.
There are then the unprovable generalisations such as 'Most transit scholars say that..'.
However I am as concerned about the addition for a huge amount of detail in the Background and Early Years section which is a distraction and will turn people off of article which should be about the 'conspiracy', and not the history of streetcars more generally. A great way to neutralise an article is to add irrelevant content, and I am concerned that that has happened here.
Conversely, having provide a lot of relevant new and very pertinent information on talk here, he has chosen not to add it to the article in the past 2 months.
For the record, you can see a summary of changes made, mainly by Anmccaff between 17 Nov and 24 Jan here.
-- PeterEastern ( talk) 17:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
This article has suffered from lack of broad attention, even I have failed to monitor it daily. Since Peter Eastern's one man defense of the content of the article was put on hold, Anmccaff has taken full control of the article, rewriting the article with his POV. Going back to his initial contact here he has started off with what seems like a prejudicial tone toward the original content of the article; Everything you know is wrong. What concerns me is the subtle writing in wikipedia's voice, to push his POV wishing to refer to this as an urban legend, essentially making this a lecture as to how what was the previous version of this article is discredited. Each interaction in Talk has been confusing at best, with his demand to call things matching his opinion as "facts" while existing knowledge is debunked by these "facts."
After writing my disgust at the direction of the article, I started off trying to fix the article, to make it more neutral at least in wikipedia's voice, removing "as well as to urban legends and other folklore inspired by these events" and peacock phrase like "popular" that are intended to hype credibility. I couldn't even get past the lede when [1] [2] these were reverted in less than 10 minutes. So essentially this foretells that Anmccaff is taking ownership of this content.
I expressed my concern that the conspirators have a commercial interest in making this negative publicity go away. I'm not the only one to bring this up, going back to the first talk archive, there are clear efforts to push POV dating back years; the Cato Institute, non-credible, Koch brothers funded corporate shill, is identified as leading this cause, which would be consistent with the various corporations wish to rewrite history. They can't make the actual conviction go away. That was made by people who were involved at the time. This is historical. Nobody here was involved in 1949. We all are dealing with third hand accounts. We shouldn't just examine this from our recent perspective.
The lede is quoting Guy Span (c.2003) saying Bradford C. Snell (c.1974) "fell into simplistic conspiracy theory thinking, bordering on paranoid delusions" which certainly serves to discredit him. An accusation like that in a WP:BLP would have to be much better sourced.
So I had to ask; who is Guy Span? Anmccaff's response, like so much of his communication in talk, is less than coherent, but it does not mount anything positive to say about this non-notable individual's credibility to be the authority on this subject. Span's own claim is that he was the editor of the blog where this was posted, so its a self-source. Looking down the references, Span is quoted and sourced some 15 times in the article. Removing the peacock term calling Span "noted" is one of two clean ups I have successfully made. The other one was a spurious (empty) heading "Cracks in the Facade" which is about as POV oriented a title as can be created.
I also called out a factual error regarding San Francisco's continued use of ground level streetcars, which I personally documented as recently as 2010, again my edits were reverted. So it is clear we do not have a collegial attitude happening here. This is a clear effort to push this POV. Trackinfo ( talk) 11:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
There are fairly deep divides here not merely on matters of opinion, but of matters of fact as well; it would be useful if any volunteers had decent access to a library in a major US or possibly Canadian city, or an academic library focused on ground transportation. I think the article is loaded with weak references -several self-published- selected to fit a pre-existing narrative, and edits made to "balance" whenever the factual underpinning of the selected story was weak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff ( talk • contribs) 22:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Coordinator's note: Hi PeterEastern. I am not taking this case, but there are a couple of things that need to be fixed. First, could you specify exactly what the disputed changes are? It's rather difficult to have an orderly case if no one is sure what exactly is being disputed. Second, please notify all parties by putting {{subst:DRN-notice}} on their talk page. Thanks. -- Biblio worm 02:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer comment: This case appears to have stalled. No one, including the moderator User:Bejnar has not commented for 5 days. Unless there is further moderated discussion soon, this case will need to be closed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Please list the five facts in the article (or recently in the article, Oct. 2014 to date) that are most contentious. -- Bejnar ( talk) 02:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Please list up to five of the most unreliable sources in recent use (Oct. 2014 to date) in the article, together with one sentence for each as to why it is unreliable. If any source has been discussed at the Reliable sources noticeboard please so note and provide a link. -- Bejnar ( talk) 02:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
---
Please list up to three of the most important reliable sources for the article. If you can narrow it to one that would be best. -- Bejnar ( talk) 02:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Editor Anmccaff stated: There isn't a single, reliable source that will cover a wide enough sweep here. Given, for the purposes of this inquiry, that no single reliable source covers all the territory, what are the most important reliable sources for the article? Editor PeterEastern has already answered this question above. -- Bejnar ( talk) 19:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Are there any objections to Bianco, Martha (1998) or Slater, Cliff (1997) as reliable sources? If so please state the basis in one sentence.
No objections. One could quibble that the source we use for Slater, Cliff (1997), including the claim that it was published in Transportation Quarterly, is a self-published. There is however ample separate evidence from good sources that it was. Transportation Quarterly is again a bit elusive, but it's publisher, the Eno Center for Transportation, appears to be very solid indeed. PeterEastern ( talk) 03:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Anmccaff answered above that they were acceptable. -- Bejnar ( talk) 11:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
In almost any context within this article a cite to Bianco or Slater that supports the point at hand is acceptable. -- Bejnar ( talk) 06:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Are there any objections to the works of Snell as reliable sources for the fact that Snell made certain statements? Keep in mind WP:RSOPINION and WP:INTEXT. If so please state the basis in one sentence. -- Bejnar ( talk) 19:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
No objections. PeterEastern ( talk) 03:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be agreement that Snell may be cited for his opinions, but not for the truth of the matter asserted. Wikipedia does not follow the best evidence rule, but prefers secondary sources to primary ones, WP:Reliable sources. However, primary sources are allowed. -- Bejnar ( talk) 06:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No original research provides The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged ... and The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research;.
Is each contentious conclusion in the article supported by a reliable source? Please list any (up to five) that are not.-- Bejnar ( talk) 19:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
--
Bear with me on this response, which although not exactly answering the question is I think is a useful observation to make at this point.
I have just read Bianco, Martha (1998) from top to bottom for the first time and I think it is an excellent and very well presented explanation of why streetcars declined and why GM keep getting the blame. Slightly embarrassed that I have not read it before, but there was a lot to read and it was only referenced at one point, in the Roger Rabbit sentence, and appeared to an article about Roger Rabbit and popular cinema and not the serious academic paper on the subject that it is. I wish I had read it a lot earlier, and I would now put it forward as the single anchor source that we could use as the basis of a review of the article that you asked for above.
To be clear, it doesn't refute the allegation that GM was heavy handed - to quote: "for GM and other bus manufacturers and suppliers to be successful in developing a market for diesel buses, they had to carry out an aggressive campaign to do so. Such a campaign required working together to foreclose competitive technologies – i.e., electric vehicles." But does suggest that GM keeps getting blamed for reasons more to do a desire for a neat simplistic story with good guys and bad guys than reality: "As this paper has suggested, the emergence and reemergence of the GM conspiracy myth has coincided with periods of urban transportation policy crisis, as were evidenced during the urban strife of the 1960s and the Arab oil embargo in the 1970s. The retrenchment of the federal government toward urban transportation policy during the 1980s only served to fuel the agenda of citizen activists, particularly among environmental groups (page 20)."" PeterEastern ( talk) 21:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
It closes with the observation: "In this regard, the compelling nature of the myth’s villain – the General Motors Corporation – speaks volumes. If we cannot cast GM, the producer and supplier of automobiles, as the ultimate enemy, then we end up with a shocking and nearly unfathomable alternative: What if the enemy is not the supplier, but rather the consumer? What if, to paraphrase Oliver Perry, we have met the enemy, and the enemy is us?" Not 100% happy with the word consumer, rather than the more nebulous 'citizen' or 'policy-maker', but this is a great single resource packed with referenced materials that have not made their way into the article.
My view is that this article, which has not been reviewed substantially since I did the major makeover in 2010 could do with another major review. I do also think that the balance should be adjusted more towards the idea that GM is a convenient scapegoat for a policy failure with major and long term consequences to this day, We should however avoiding whitewashing GM's aggressive motorisation policies. Ideally it should be a medium to tell the middle more complex story about a failure of policy during a period of rapid technologic transformation. Bianca (1998) would be the anchor for this. I would also like it to include more about the 'traction interests' and other additional content highlighted on talk by Anmccaff recently.
-- PeterEastern ( talk) 21:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
In direct response to the question, there is nothing that screams out at me as OR, other than possibly the unsupported generalisations referring to 'conspiracy theorists' that I mentioned 'Summary of dispute by PeterEastern'. PeterEastern ( talk) 03:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
@ PeterEastern:, you say that to object to unsupported conclusions, but when asked for same, replied possibly the unsupported generalisations referring to 'conspiracy theorists' that I mentioned . Could you be specific? List specific ones that are unsupported. @ Anmccaff: One problem seems to be that there is more objection to behaviour than to content. Please do not comment on the behaviour of other editors. This is not the forum for that. -- Bejnar ( talk) 10:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Objections to Guy Span as a source? -- Bejnar ( talk) 11:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Does the use of the term "conspiracy theorists" in this article constitute a violation of WP:NPOV? -- Bejnar ( talk) 00:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
"Conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" can be used in a pejorative way. Any contested use should be supported by a reliable source, and pejoritive uses should be avoided per Wikipedia's guideline at WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch: There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view. -- Bejnar ( talk) 05:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Is there enough reliable source material for a "urban legends and other folklore" section? -- Bejnar ( talk) 06:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
What is the relationship between the information currently in the "Myths" section and "urban legends and other folklore"? Wikipedia guidelines suggest proper context be provided. See, for example the essay Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Provide context for the reader. Keeping in mind who, what, why, where, when and how can help an editor provide context. -- Bejnar ( talk) 06:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Please don't read more into this that I am saying. What I am saying is that the term 'conspiracy theorist' should not be used without very strong evidence, and strong enough evidence to wave the term conspiracy theorist around in the article is thin on the ground. The only people Bianco names as 'conspiracy theorists' are Snell, Glenn Yago, and possibly St Clair.No, twice. The idea that evidence here is "thin on the ground" permeates the discussion here and on the article talk page, but I just don't see that at all, and I think I've given practical demonstration of that several times, to the point that you are mentioning here that I've presented sources and not incorporated them in the article. What's thin on the ground, sometimes, is readily available, free , easily citable material. Next, Ms Bianco was a pretty prolific writer, once, and reviewed books and films. If memory serves, she also used the term about Jane Holtz Kay, and the producers of "Taken for a ride." That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there's more out there. Anmccaff ( talk) 16:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Slater names Tom Hayden and journalists Jonathan Kwitny and Nicholas Von Hoffman.in the article cited. From personal experience, I might guess that Mr. Slater would be willing to add a name or three hundred, while struggling to contain colorful descriptions of their ancestry, progeny, and general personal habits. The mendacious economic arguments for heavy rail in Honolulu might do that to a fellow. Anmccaff ( talk) 16:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Personally I would like to see evidence that these people continued to push the conspiracy theory, in an almost obsessive way, before we used the term conspiracy theorist in relation to their activities. Snell is the only one for whom I am aware of enough evidence to use the term. Have the journalists written about this over and over again? What about Glenn Yago, I am not familiar with his writing? Other than those people, are there any other named candidates? This has nothing to do with the wide issue of conspiracy theories and the way they keep popping up.I think you are narrowing the term too much. What do you think is a workable term for someone who believes and spreads -even if he does not originate it- a conspiracy theory? Anmccaff ( talk) 16:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
"over the 40 years we have been talking about this that General Motors has carried on a deliberate concerted action with the oil companies and the tire companies ... for the purpose of destroying a vital form of competition; namely, electric rapid transit."
— Joseph Alioto 1973 Senate hearing, exact quote contained in Bianco]]
You asked for proof that another point of view exists. That proves this is not WP:OR and is not coming from a single source media unless you consider the congressional record an unreliable source. Now you, as is done throughout the article, want to discredit what he says. That is something you can argue in a POV section, but not in the wikipedia voice. This was the prevailing opinion that was expressed not just by politicians who were in a position to know what was going on, but by subsequent documentary journalists and bloggers alike. They were in the existing article on public view for more than a decade until you got involved and did a one man rewrite of the article into your opposing point of view. You are welcome to your opinion, spend a section to coherently present your case for that POV. But don't litter the existing, well sourced article to constantly say everybody else is wrong and I am right. We are dealing with opinions and guesses as to what might have occurred without the existence of the conspiracy. There is no one correct answer because we cannot change the history, we only know what happened and can run hypothetical models of what would have happened without it. Trackinfo (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
You asked for proof that another point of view exists; No. That is simply untrue. I asked for a "decent cite," and, later "a "good cite." You think a party to a law suit is a credible cite? Anmccaff ( talk) 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
That proves this is not WP:OR; Who said that was? What I pointed out was "original research," in the wikipedian sense, was the notion that GM's involvement in what are now the larger metropolitan areas meant anything. At the time, they weren't all the largest metropolises, and GM's influence in one of them, New York, was obviously not the cause of an anti-traction movement older than GM itself. So...where's your cite? Anmccaff ( talk) 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
and is not coming from a single source media unless you consider the congressional record an unreliable sourceYou fail to understand the difference between "reliable" and "credible."
Now you, as is done throughout the article, want to discredit what he says. That is something you can argue in a POV section, but not in the wikipedia voice. This was the prevailing opinion that was expressed not just by politicians who were in a position to know what was going on; Nonsense. What special expertise do you think Alioto (or Bradley) had here? Anmccaff ( talk) 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
but by subsequent documentary journalists and bloggers alike.; Bloggers? Heh. And surely you can't claim something like "Taken for a Ride" is a credible documentary? Anmccaff ( talk) 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
They were in the existing article on public view for more than a decade until you got involved and did a one man rewrite of the article into your opposing point of view. You are welcome to your opinion, spend a section to coherently present your case for that POV. But don't litter the existing, well sourced article to constantly say everybody else is wrong and I am right.There was nothing "well sourced" about the article before, and it still isn't "well sourced" yet. It included self-published works which could be refuted trivially on so many points of fact as to be completely non-credible- Snell, Guilbault, Szoboszlay, etc. Anmccaff ( talk) 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
We are dealing with opinions and guesses as to what might have occurred without the existence of the conspiracy. There is no one correct answer because we cannot change the history, we only know what happened and can run hypothetical models of what would have happened without it.Again, no. We can know, from trivially easy research, that the story of electric transit in Los Angeles was very different from how Bradley painted it. Some have, in turn, tried to explain that as a coverup, but the same story played out the same, more or less, in St. Louis, Baltimore, and Philadelphia. NCL ran trolley and trackless trolleys quite cheerfully, where they could make money on it. In LA, they retained electric traction well beyond LARy's earlier plans. (The Huntington operation had already gotten permission to abandon all but three lines; only the war stopped them.) Anmccaff ( talk) 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Please refrain from comments on the behaviour of other editors and avoid ad hominem arguments. Remarking that a claim in the article is unsupported is about content, who placed that unsupported content in the article is not relevant in this discussion. Wikipedia's verification policy indicates that an unsupported claim which is disputed should be removed. -- Bejnar ( talk) 05:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Do not use "conspiracy theory" or variants in the article unless parties agree to each specific use. -- Bejnar ( talk) 21:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Do not discuss far-out theories and other conspiracies until after the basic story has been told. -- Bejnar ( talk) 21:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
For the descriptor "Conspiracy theorists?" "Pro-conspiracy theorists rely on Snell and look like idiots." Span, pt.1) "Like Snell and other conspiracy theorists, Kay blames GM and its subsidiary, National City Lines (NCL), for the replacement of popular streetcars with unpopular motor buses." Bianco [6]
According to James Howard Kunstler, in 1925, with the acquisition of the Yellow Coach company, the General Motors Corporation undertook a systematic campaign to put streetcar lines out of business all over America. GM would have erected a byzantine network of subsidiaries and holding companies to carry out its mission, using its financial muscle to buy up streetcar lines, scrap the tracks, and convert the routes for buses. [1]
Kunstler's cites stovepipe back to assertions of Bradford Snell which were refuted in the 1970's.
This is the reason why a term for "conspiracy theorists" as a group is needed; it's a school of thought, with shared ideas and characteristics. Anmccaff ( talk) 17:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Finally, Spearmind's own claim above, were it true, would justify removing it from the article, were it Kunstler's "own work." Anmccaff ( talk) 23:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The most extreme statement of the case that the automobile's ascendancy over mass rail transit in cities was not primarily the result of consumer choice in a competitive market was made in 1974 by Bradford C. Snell, assistant counsel to Senator Philip A. Hart's antitrust subcommittee investigating the restructuring of the automobile and ground transportation industries. Snell alleged that General Motors had played a dominant role in a "conspiracy" that had destroyed a hundred electric surface rail systems in forty-five cities between 1932 and 1956. This was part of a far larger attack on GM, which included allegations that the corporation had collaborated in the Nazi war effort during World War II and that it had pressured the railroads into adopting diesel locomotives that Snell claimed were less efficient than electric-powered ones. GM refuted all of Snell's charges. 1
In short, Kunstler is citing as proof something that refutes his position. This, Spearmind, is why footnotes are important. Anmccaff ( talk) 02:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Does anyone else have any questions why we should treat Kunstler as unreliable? Anmccaff ( talk)
PS: More Flink:
GM responded in detail to Snell's "false and damaging claims." As we have seen in an earlier chapter, the company made a strong rebuttal to
the allegation of collaboration with the Axis in World War II. GM similarly presented convincing evidence that Snell's other charges were untrue and that the corporation had not had "a destructive impact on mass transportation in this country." It was pointed out, for instance, that an exhaustive investigation by the U.S. Department ofJustice had exonerated GM completely on charges that the corporation had used its power as the nation's largest shipper to pressure railroads into switching over to diesel locomotives. Evidence was also cited that the diesel locomotive was a progressive new product that had revolutionized the railroad industry. As for electric traction in cities, GM claimed that it had been in decline long before NCL was formed, and that flexible buses were a substantial improvement over less efficient streetcars running on fixed rails. Pacific Electric, for example, had begun to curtail rail passenger service as early as 1917. It "steadily expanded its motor bus operations in the 1920s and 1930s," and "by 1939, the year before it is claimed that GM had any role in acquiring the system, over 35 percent of the total passenger miles were on buses." Rail passenger losses over the system except for 1923 and the war years 1943 and 1944 "were a financial catastrophe." Documentation was found in "the literature of the time" that demonstrated "why the public favored the bus." Contrary to Snell's contentions, the motor bus "provided greater cost efficiency and operating flexibility." It was estimated that the average motor bus in New York City could operate at about four fifths the cost of a streetcar. In 1936 Mayor Fiorello La Guardia had welcomed "modern buses replacing antiquated trolleys" and "removal of the remaining obsolete traffic-obstructing trolley lines."
Whatever problems the Key System may have had in the 1950s under NCL control were not GM's responsibility, for GM had terminated all of its supply contracts with and investment in NCL in 1949. Furthermore, prior to the acquisition of the Key System by NCL in 1946 a number of contracts for the removal of tracks and the repaving of city streets had been approved by the Oakland City Council, and the decision to remove the tracks from the lower deck of the Bay Bridge was made by the state government, not NCL. "General Motors did not generate the winds of change which doomed the streetcar systems," the corporation claimed in its defense. "It did, however, through its buses, help to alleviate the destruction left in their wake. Times were hard and transportation systems were collapsing [in the 1930s]. GM was able to help with technology, with enterprise and, in some cases, with capital. The buses it sold helped give mass transportation a new lease on life which lasted into the postwar years."
That the demise of electric traction had begun more than a decade before the formation of NCL is incontrovertible. Still, the streetcar remained a more important carrier of passenger than the motor bus until World War II. The trolley coach became a contender only in the vastly reduced public transit market of the mid-1950s. In 1937 some 7.161 billion passengers rode streetcars in the United States, versus 3.489 billion motor bus passengers and a mere 289 million trolley coach passengers. By 1942 streetcar passengers barely exceeded motor bus passengers, 7.290 billion to 7.245 billion, and trolley coach ridership had tripled to 898 million. Motor bus riders exceeded streetcar riders in 1947, 10.2 billion to 8.1 billion, and trolley coach ridership had quadrupled to 1.3 billion. By 1955 all modes of public transit were in decline. Streetcars experienced the sharpest drop in patronage, while trolley coaches were affected the least. In 1955 some 7.250 billion passengers were carried by motor buses, versus only 1.207 billion by streetcars and 1.202 billion by trolley coaches. Clearly it was not the shifting of passengers from the streetcar to the comparatively cost-efficient motor bus that killed off public transit. Neither was it the failure to shift them to the still more cost-efficient trolley coach. The culprit was the costwise highly inefficient private passenger car, which in the 1950s began making dramatic inroads into ridership on all modes of public transit. From this perspective the conversion of transit systems to motor buses was, as GM claimed, a stopgap measure that
permitted them to survive during a period of transition to almost complete auto dependence.
Futile. No response by opposing editor in 5 days. May be refiled if other editor becomes active again and dispute continues. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Moot. Filing editor indefinitely blocked per check-user. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Stale: listed 6 days and no volunteer has chosen to take the case. Consider copying the discussion, below, to the article talk page and continuing it there. If no resolution can be achieved, consider a request for comments. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance and Limit-theorem has only one posting there. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 22:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Conduct dispute. DRN does not handle disputes which are primarily conduct disputes (see instructions at top of page). Use ANI for conduct disputes. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 04:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Premature. Since this appears to be purely a sourcing dispute and since a request has just been filed at RSN on this, that request needs to run for several days so as to allow for third party opinions to come in there before seeking help from dispute resolution. This case may be refiled if the RSN discussion does not bear fruit. There is no hurry. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Named parties did not show up. Please see WP:DR and WP:DRR to evaluate further dispute resolution options. — Keithbob • Talk • 20:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Conduct dispute. POV-pushing is a conduct matter, not a content matter. ANI is for conduct issues. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
GauchoDude agreed in this edit to not restore the information and has not edited Carol W. Greider since February 20. If the material is restored again, then you may refile here, where we can discuss whether or not the material is appropriate, or if you wish to complain about someone's conduct you may file at ANI since we do not deal with conduct matters here at DRN. The part of our policies dealing with the kind of issues you have raised is set out here. Let me caution you to be very careful about making statements about libel; any discussion of legal matters such as libel can cause you to be blocked from editing under the legal threats policy. If you feel that you have a legal claim against Wikipedia or any editor, click on that link and follow the instructions there. Finally, "appropriately verifying the truth" does not include contacting you personally; proper verification for Wikipedia articles is set out in the verifiability policy, as modified in the case of living persons by the biographies of living persons policy. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
The Loma Linda University Medical Center Wikipedia page has, since 2008 or before, had an entire section dedicated to "Medicare Fraud." That equates to approximately 20% of the total content on the page. After reviewing the Wikipedia pages of several other notable healthcare institutions, including the Mayo Clinic, Kaiser Permanente, and Johns Hopkins, not one of these institutions had any reference to their Medicare-fraud-related issues, and their Wikipedia pages are much, much longer than the page of Loma Linda University Medical Center. Meanwhile, the Hospital Corporation of America, an institution that has had extensive quarrels with Medicare and significant fines levied against it as a result, has a section about twice as long as that of Loma Linda University Medical Center's.
The unquestionable consensus, then, is that healthcare organizations that have relatively minor fines levied against it do not have any mention of fraud on their pages, while organizations that have had very significant fines levied against it may, as in the case of the Hospital Corporation of America, have a small section detailing the relevant issues.
Given that the "Medicare Fraud" section has been under dispute since 2008, it should be taken down until the consensus is otherwise, and, in which case, a precedent will be set if the section is allow to remain. For the time being, however, the section should not stand against consensus and the established precedent, according to Wikipedia's own established standards.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Making the necessary edits and discussing on the Talk page.
How do you think we can help?
The "Medicare Fraud" section should be taken down until the broader consensus, as established by the countless hours of content creation and editing already done to the Wikipedia pages of similar institutions referenced before (e.g., Mayo Clinic, Kaiser Permanente), has changed.
I do not agree with the contention that the Fraud section was "under dispute since 2008" as the only evidence of any dispute that I have seen was one talk page post in 2008 which was unreplied to and did not result in removal of the passage.
I have requested that the IP user link to discussions where a consensus about not discussing fines (I don't consider 2.2 million a "minor" fine) like this in articles was established, but have not gotten a reply. A fine regarding activities with a large government program seems notable and the lack of such mentions on other articles about large medical facilities or organizations doesn't seem relevant to me without a policy or documented consensus saying so.
I have not examined the sources in detail so I take TransporterMan at his word regarding his discussion of them on the talk page, but that is a different issue.
If further statements are needed from me, please ask. 331dot ( talk) 22:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
So as to clarify my position in this matter, I stand by the statements which I made at the article talk page (in brief, (a) that I don't think that the material is inappropriate or that there is any policy or guideline or consensus made at this article which excludes this material because of its nature, but (b) that the first paragraph of the section in question is unsourced and the the third paragraph has sources but that they are not reliable, so the first and third paragraphs should be removed unless reliable sources can be found for them), but I will not be participating further in this discussion, here or at the article talk page, and will not be editing the article in connection with the matter in dispute (or otherwise, more than likely, but at least that much) and I am willing to accept whatever resolution may be worked out here between the principal parties. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Administrative note to DRN volunteers - I've pinged the other participant. Someone please take this case when he/she arrives. Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
This case is now open for discussion. Attn: User:76.174.65.156 and User:331dot.... Comparisons to other articles is not a valid argument for change. Instead it would be better to frame the discussion in terms of WP guidelines such as WP:UNDUE which says: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The Medicare Fraud section has three citations:
Let's assume that TAF.org is a reliable source. What would be a concise, neutral summary of the information contained in these sources?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)