Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Mostlyharmless and User:Granite07 and related IPs
Mediator(s)	Slartibartfast1992 22:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment	One of the parties left the discussion, closed after making sure the other party is aware of Wikipedia policies that were being broken.

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning]]

User:Mostlyharmless, User:Granite07 and related IPs.

Original research - and subsequent verifiability problems.

Editor insists only one of several definitions for a term is correct. May be a fundamental difference in cultural background, resulting in extreme denial of facts.

I'm just trying to get this article to conform to V, N, RS and other standards you have no idea about. What the **** do you know about my cultural background? My dad worked in jobs in the steel, forestry and auto industries, and I've worked as a rigger. Extreme denial of facts? Go and have your way with this article with your original research. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To see the disputed content properly supported by references.

Stop pointless edit warring.

What page is involved Seddon69 (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC) ? Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning[reply]

What is the section that is disputed? Seddon69 (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the whole article should focus on. See this section of talk for a summary of the disupte. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can the scope of a terms meaning be narrowed to exclude citable material since the greater body of citable literature uses the term in a narrow way within the scope of another topic, e.g. multiple page journal article on topic X could have one line or footnote directly concerning the term. There is no citable research directly relating to the term only indirect use in reference to other topics. Granite07 (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The prominent issue here is that the propensity for migrant labor to occupy 3D occupations is a manifestation of culturalism in Economic anthropology. How to convey this meaning in common terminology and from what philosophical doctrine is the true objective of this entire discussion. Granite07 (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To my understanding, the dispute is whether DDD jobs apply mostly to immigrants or actually have no correlation as to whether the worker in said job is an immigrant or not. Is this correct? --Slartibartfast1992 23:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the subject of the case is not who does dirty, dangerous and demeaning jobs, but; whether the article should be about "dirty, dangerous and demeaning" (3D) - which is a transliteration of 3K, and is used (almost without exception, in both academic and general literature) to describe jobs taken by foreigners, or whether it should just be about hard, tedious or dangerous jobs (which describes a very large fraction of work today, and an even larger fraction of work in the past). Currently there is almost no use of the term to refer to the latter idea. Obviously, I'm stating my position here, but those are the two positions. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So the dispute is whether the term itself should be covered in the article or whether 3D jobs should be covered. To my understanding, there is no 3K article though. Well, a logical answer to this would be to have a section dedicated to the term (origin etc.) and have the rest of the article dedicated to 3D jobs themselves. Does anybody not agree with this in the discussion? --Slartibartfast1992 22:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree with that decision. It makes no sense at all. There is already manual labor and other articles that describe these jobs. Merge the content that talks about those things there. That's a genuine suggestion from me.

The term (dirty, dangerous, and demeaning) however is a neologism, and refers to one thing only - migrant labor in low status jobs, and is almost never used to refer to anything else. I made good faith efforts to find other uses, and asked Granite07 repeatedly to show where it had been used in other ways, and nothing of substance was found. Mostlyharmless (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you say that there is a difference between manual labor and DDD labor. Do any of the references in the article certify that? (I ask you since you know the article better than I do). --Slartibartfast1992 22:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying DDD labour is []defined as dirty dangerous and demeaning[no quote marks] labour done by migrants I suggest you have a look at how the term is used Google, Google books, scholar etc. as that will demonstrate what the term actually refers to, rather than you just taking my explanations. Also sorry I'm busy at the moment and can't answer many questions. Cheers. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if Google Books defines it that way (I assume that this book in Google Books is a reliable source) then it's sourced, which means that, as far as we're concerned, it's true. --Slartibartfast1992 23:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This "book" cited by Mostlyharmless does not exist and there are no Journal articles, Magazine articles, government publications, nonprofit publications or even online blogs that support what Mostlyharmless claims.

It is true that almost all reference to the term is made in articles written about foreign labor. What is not as obvious is that these articles are not specifically about 3D jobs and usually only contain a few sentences or less relating to the term 3D. The term is merely most often used in foreign labor articles but this does not exclude its use outside of the context of foreign labor. There are three sources that are cited in the Wikipedia page that use 3D not in relation to migrant labor.

The best "acid test" for this term is this, "what percentage of three D jobs are occupied by migrant labor" and determine this from an article written about foreign labor. With this test it becomes obvious that the authors are using the term non-exclusively and use the term in relation to workers other than just foreigners. Most all of the articles using the term also speak of non foreign labor that occupies 3D jobs. It is likely that only a vary small fraction of the workforce occupying 3D jobs are foreign workers, possibly less than 1%. Limiting the article scope excludes most everyone who bears the same hardships and makes the term political in connotation, not an argument made by Mostlyharmless.

Two points:

"just be about hard, tedious or dangerous jobs", it is Dirty, Dangerous and Demanding (alternatively demeaning and difficult), all three are required to be 3D, there is no "or" used in any article.

"(which describes a very large fraction of work today, and an even larger fraction of work in the past)", I can not find and no source has been offered to support this. The occupations listed with references on the page are the only occupations cited in any article, whether about foreign or domestic labor. Granite07 (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like being called a liar, so I'll quote from the 3D talk page research I did earlier which demonstrates my point

Compare a search for ("dirty dangerous and demeaning" OR "dirty dangerous and demanding") -hong -kong -malaysia -singapore -asia -migrants -migrant -immigrant -visa -philippine -wiki -indonesia -japan -thailand -china with "dirty dangerous and demeaning" OR "dirty dangerous and demanding" 18 results vs 349, and of the 18 some are translations and refer to migrants, others talk about the oppression of blacks, one is a homoerotic site etc. etc. None suggest that the term is used the way you've tried to claim. It is used occasionally by Americans, but overwhelmingly to refer to migrants and Asia. In Google scholar, 2 results vs 111. Google is not the be all and end all... [continues]

. So, just from that one search alone, we find 109 scholarly articles that use it in connection with Asian migrant labour, and 2 that don't. Does that sound like "no Journal articles" as Granite alleges? I didn't mention any book, but Google Book Search. I'm not trying to base this RfC on a scholarly interpretation, but to present accurately what 3D means, using all available sources. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• your search means nothing and will never hold up to anything considered academic. No one would use a google serch term count to infer anything, you know this. Can you show that the 109 scholarly articles are not the same one counted 109 times.Granite07 (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• To match your google search I searched google trends and found neither "dirty dangerous and demeaning" or "dirty dangerous and demanding" "have enough search volume to show graphs", so does this mean the term is not used notably in either sense? I have shown that the term is used in citable text outside the scope you define for the term.Granite07 (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google graphs is interesting, but quite irrelevant. It shows the relationship between the number of searches of two different terms. If not many people are searching for something on the internet through google, it won't create a graph (although this is most likely to protect their search algorithms from reverse engineering). Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• just my point exactly.128.12.170.194 (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reindent)OK, look, I think you're both going off topic. Mostlyharmless, is there a reference that directly states that all DDD jobs are occupied by migrants? And Granite, is there any that states that some DDD jobs aren't occupied by migrants? --Slartibartfast1992 19:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. There is not, and is unlikely to be, any reference saying all 3D jobs are occupied by migrants. I'm not making that claim. Nor am I saying that most work of that nature is done by migrants. I'm saying 3D should be about what the term is used to describe - manual labor and similar work that regular people won't do in developed or high-level developing countries (such as Malaysia). The term is a neologism (perhaps all of this would have been avoided had I left the article at the previous location) and should talk about the neologism. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so you're saying that the article should be about what the term describes and about the neologism itself (the term 3D). Is that right? --Slartibartfast1992 23:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's right. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are three (references) listed on the page, reference 25, 26, and 27. These three examples prove not all use of term is in relation to migrant labor.Granite07 (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in the whole migrant labor business, I have to agree with you, Granite. If you disproved that all uses for the term DDD are for migrant labor with reliable references, there should be no argument about it. However, about what the whole article should focus about, the reasonable option is Mostlyharmless's proposal (having the article be about both the term and about what the term describes, which would be dirty, dangerous and demeaning jobs). --Slartibartfast1992 23:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slartibartfast, please take a look at the links - for two of the three, their mention of 3D is extremely tenuous. A Barnes and Noble product catalogue? For goodness sake - that's the most useless reference I have ever in 3 1/2 years of editing Wikipedia. Seriously. Reliable sources! I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall. My proposal is not about dirty, dangerous and demeaning jobs. I don't claim that it is never used to describe anything other than Asian migrants, just overwhelmingly so. My proposal is - the large majority about how it is and has been used, and a short mention of how it is now sometimes used in the general lexicon. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, let me see if I get this right, Granite disagrees with the proposal to write a bit about how the term is used in general language? And to write about how it's used? I don't see any problem with doing that. After all, it is the DDD article. What else would you write about? --Slartibartfast1992 00:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a single thing to say that I haven't said already. Please read my statements again, and consult the references. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing I disagree about. Mostlyharmless is completely correct about the migrant labor issues. The contested issue is Mostlyharmless's insistance the article not describe anything other than Asian migrants. The term is very clearly used to describe eastern European migrants in addition to indigenous workers. I am taking the inclusive stand here while Mostlyharmless has taken the exclusive stand.

If the topic of Asian migrants is so important then why has Mostlyharmless not written anything outside the scope of the dirty, dangerous and demeaning term on the migrant labor page? Mostlyharmless has not demonstrated that he will follow up with anything to compliment a narrowed definition of the term. All of the edits to the page made by Wikipedia users has been in the essence of a wider scope of meaning (Asian migrants, European migrants and indigenous workers).

What is your objection to including a wider scope of the terms demonstrated use? Granite07 (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All you did is delete entire sections of the article and rewrite one sentence that now makes no sense. "However, where there significant numbers of workers unable to attract other kinds of work, or willing to perform these jobs for low wages, as with high unemployment or poverty driven labour migration, these jobs are not well paid." What is other kinds of work if everything a migrant Asian does is 3D and how does this effect 3D job wages? How is high unemployement different than poverty driven labor migration? In what scenario other than high unemployment would anyone be willing to occupy a 3D job for "not well paid"? What is not well paid? Why not be constructive with your time and write something instead of taking credit for others work? You have done nothing for this page other than demand every conceivable concept be referenced. There is no other page containing so few concepts, some very obvious, and have so many sources. If I said the sky was blue you would demand a source and then say you only have x sources the sky is blue and they are not good enough.Granite07 (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granite, as you know, you need references to make sure that this is true (DDD referring not only to migrants). Reference #26 seems OK at asserting that. Even though it looks like a slightly rough web page, the mention of U.S. soldiers doing a dirty, dangerous, and demanding job (while they're definitely not migrants) has to confirm what you're stating. #27, I wouldn't consider a reliable reference (a DVD page?) and #25, while mentioning moisture-fixing as a 3D job, makes no mention as to who is performing it. But I think a conclusion can be made, out of the one reference supporting your claim, that sometimes 3D jobs are taken by non-migrants. --Slartibartfast1992 14:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I have tried to do is remove references to such things as lean manufacturing, Winslow Taylor, high wages, it being a 'United States concept' and other original research completely unsupported by refs to reliable sources.

Can I say it again? I am not trying to make this article only about migrants. Stop making that claim. I'm trying, for goodness sake, to write a article that isn't complete nonsense, as every contribution Granite has made has been.

"No, the subject of the case is not who does dirty, dangerous and demeaning jobs, but...to describe jobs taken by foreigners", appears your argument is evolving a bit to suit your current state of mind. Granite07 (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's quote something written by Granite, just to show how stupid what s/he is trying to include in the article is

There is some mystique around 3D jobs and those who perform them. As shown by the entertainment industry's depiction of blue-collar workers in Dirty Jobs and The Worst Jobs in History many Americans today feel detached from this type of work. Frederick Winslow Taylor laid the foundation of lean manufacturing, of which 3D's is a common term [12] . He perceived the worker as a component of a larger system. He dictated a mechanical way of performing labor movements in an attempt to increase productivity. His theories resulted in a management mentality of disposable workers and entitlement. The stereotypical 3D job often is envisioned as demoralized workers functioning as mindless machine components in a dangerous environment. Today this management philosophy is replaced by power to the edge developed by John Boyd [13]

Supported by the refs? Not even slightly. Does it even make sense? No. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have bothered to read the article then you know it is Frederick Winslow Taylor not Winslow Taylor. Additionally if you read the article on Frederick Taylor then you know the terms lean manufacturing and 3D are synonymous. Additionally, if you had even a very basic knowledge of modern management theory then you would be aware, as most everyone is, that Frederick Taylor's 19th century management theories have been replaced by power-to-the-edge type management theories, having a very real noteworthiness in an article relating to 3D occupations. And this is obvious nonsense, "complete nonsense, as every contribution Granite has made has been". Resorting to statements employing all and every is not going to help your arguments. The level of deception you are employing to defend your obviously biased statements has become impressive.Granite07 (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. You're making shit up again. Where does it say that Fred Taylor has anything to do with 3D? ORIGINAL RESEARCH! Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there are thousands of directions this discussion could go in. I can see the dispute is whether text Granite has contributed with are verefiable or not. The only solution to this is WP:V. Only what is supported by a reliable reference may be added into the article (unless it should be something obvious, such as the sky being blue). If you need a guide as to what sources are reliable and what sources are not, here you go at WP:SOURCES. --Slartibartfast1992 21:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granite, from the very beginning you've ascribed motives to me. See the talk for an impressive history of claims about what I supposedly want. All I want is an article where things are backed up by the research. I'm tired of dealing with an idiot, and don't feel I can work with you any more. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for Frederick Winslow Taylor this is obvious. Frederick Winslow Taylor -> "Shigeo Shingo, the best-known exponent of single-minute exchange of die (SMED) and error-proofing or poka-yoke, cites Principles of Scientific Management as his inspiration (Andrew Dillon, translator, 1987. The Sayings of Shigeo Shingo: Key Strategies for Plant Improvement)." (copied from Lean manufacturing page) -> Lean Manufacturing Vocabulary and Terms [1]. Granite07 (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• just incase it is not obvious, Frederick Winslow Taylor wrote Principles of Scientific Management Granite07 (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Shigeo Shingo is an important figure in lean manufacturing, lean mfg. -> Shingo link.
• "…after a workman has had the price per piece of the work he is doing lowered two or three times as a result of his having worked harder and increased his output, he is likely entirely to lose sight of his employer's side of the case and become imbued with a grim determination to have no more cuts if soldiering [marking time, just doing what he is told] can prevent it." (Frederick Winslow Taylor) This is now a foundation of lean manufacturing, because it is obvious that workers will not drive improvements they think will put them out of work. (lean manufacturing Wikipedia article) this is a better example of what Taylor has to do with 3DGranite07 (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]