Talk:Trickle-down economics/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

More OR, continued yet again.

The line The political campaign group, Tax Justice Network has used the term referring broadly to wealth inequality in its criticisms of tax havens. is sourced to a guardian article. While the article itself mentions TD twice, once in the title and once in a quote. The research they are citing, the 'tax justice report' does not. Here are archived copies of this report:

tax justice report main

tax justice main report 2

Tax justice main page for report

Bonewah (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily matter. If the secondary sources uses TD that is sufficient even if the primary source does not. It's not OR because we're using the secondary source which is reliable. Andre🚐 19:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The OR policy specifically states Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them and Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Just to be clear, are you aiming to subtract "More OR", or to add it? The mantra's been bandied around so much on this page, and so wildly incorrectly, that I feel I'm starting to reach semantic satiation. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Did someone forget that “trickle down” is a journalistic expression, and as such, entirely appropriate in a Guardian article? Please stop debating “trickle down” as if it were some kind of economic theory; it isn’t. DOR (HK) (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

But there's no consensus that trickle down shouldn't be considered both an economic and a political term. A Guardian article entitled, "Wealth doesn't trickle down – it just floods offshore, research reveals," actually does belong here. "Inequality is much, much worse than official statistics show, but politicians are still relying on trickle-down to transfer wealth to poorer people. from the article. Super relevant, and shouldn't be removed at all. Andre🚐 17:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

So, we agree. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

"Wealth doesn't trickle down – it just floods offshore, research reveals," They needed research for that? It is standard practice for decades. Dimadick (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

So you guys want to keep this material because it contains the phrase 'Trickle-down' twice? Thats the standard for inclusion? Bonewah (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It not only contains the phrase but the concept. I don't understand the argument to remove it. Andre🚐 17:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

My argument is the same as it has been throughout. That this article is a middens of material that includes only the most passing of mentioning of TD or articles that are related to TD only by way of what some editor somewhere thinks TD means. Bonewah (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Neither of which applies here. Andre🚐 19:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Can we please stop obsessing over sources? If this was the “Don’t have a cow, man” talk page, one or two references in a source would be fine. But, some folks seem to think “trickle down” is somehow important enough to require academic-type citations. It isn’t. DOR (HK) (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

That would be fine if we didnt act like it was some kind of academic-type subject. Just above Andrevan claims that it is really an economic term. If it is, it needs academic-type sources. Bonewah (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It is both a term in economics, which is written about in economic work, it is a term in politics and public policy in law, and journalism. All of the above. Andre🚐 19:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok, i will not stop obsessing over sources then. Bonewah (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The misunderstanding seems to be the idea that SYNTH/OR policy somehow prohibits using economic sources in an article about topics that include more than just economics. It does not. Andre🚐 22:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

"Voodoo economics"

I've attempted to raise this several times, but it's been caught up in the usual "revert, don't discuss, ignore anyone else seeking to discuss" cycle. Should the term voodoo economics be discussed here? It's clearly related, whether as a term (or "slur", etc) or as a description of the "theory", but with obvious imprecision, deliberate pejoration, and (dis)similarity-of-scope issues. At present it points to Reaganomics, which I don't think is ideal, especially as it doesn't get either a hatnote or an alt-title there. It merits at least one of those somewhere, and another context to indicate both its specific original usage and its general sense (likely mainly linking one way or the other). Constructive suggestions welcome. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

It is an alternative name for supply side economic theory, or the ‘trickle-down’ journalistic phrase, but quite limited in scope (1979-80 US Presidential campaign, and follow-up references). Perhaps we should “See also” ? DOR (HK) (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

It might be slightly different in scope -- if TDE/SSE = 85% similar, as suggested above, perhaps VE = "SSE and we'll borrow until it 'pays for itself'"? -- but closely enough relatedly that I think it needs at least some cross-reference. And obviously the historical context is somewhat specific to GHWB's being against it, until he was for it. However, someone might easily be looking for either that (and hence be confused if they got an WP:ASTONISHing redirect here with no landing ground), or they might have heard the term used in the context of some other country or period entirely (and hence confused by the present state). I'm OK with either, as long as it gets at least a hatnote. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that it warrants some inclusion. I like the "see also" idea as it has similar origins and usages as a term. I'd be wary talking about it too much as a theory because, like trickle-down, it is primarily meant as a caricature used in political criticism. Squatch347 (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

A somewhat accurate caricature, as is the nature of satire. The suggested policies involved reducing the federal government's revenue, while actually increasing its spending. The advocates of the policy argued (based on the Laffer curve) that the policy would actually maximize the revenue. The predicted maximization never occurred. One of the sources we use on the unsound thinking behind the policy points out something fundamentally wrong about the vision of these advocates: : "[T]he whole California gang had taken [the Laffer curve] literally (and primitively). The way they talked, they seemed to expect that once the supply-side tax cut was in effect, additional revenue would start to fall, manna-like, from the heavens." Basically, they never explained the sources for the expected increased revenue. Dimadick (talk) 09:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree. There were indeed advocates of the policy and the theory of trickle-down economics, and there still are people like Grover Norquist or Sam Brownback that advocate cutting tax on the rich to stimulate the economy. Andre🚐 03:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Do either of those references call their policies "Trickle-Down Economics" or have they said that effects will "trickle-down?" Because if not, I think you all know this is WP:OR Squatch347 (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It only matters if RS call it that, not if they self-describe it as that. And they do, so it's not OR. Andre🚐 14:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Self-descriptions are useless, since we can only use unaffiliated sources. Dimadick (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Dimadick I don't disagree with your assessment of those specific economic policies or analyses. But I'm not really here to discuss their validity or lack thereof per WP:FORUM. The page is about the term "Trickle-Down Economics" (and probably should be broadened to just trickle-down) and its usage a la all of our other term discussion pages, including parody terms. On those pages we don't go into detail about the policies being parodied and their merits or lack thereof, we simply reference these are the ones that are being referenced. As I noted above, we don't add all the medical journal papers related to homosexual action on the page for the "Gay Agenda" we simply note that is what is being referenced with a wiki link and let the larger discussion happen on the parent article. The question that still hasn't been answered is, why aren't we doing that here? Squatch347 (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Because it's a false and bad analogy. Andre🚐 15:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The reference is to Reaganomics in general, and is used to explain why they were mocked as "voodoo economics". The quotation is taken directly from the text on the Laffer curve. The page may be about trickle-down, but this discussion is specifically about the meaning of voodoo economics. Dimadick (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course it's not a stand-alone "theory" of its own; it's some fuzzy mashup of TDE/SSE, deficit spending, and the Laffer napkin-hypothesis. Or a fuzzy critique of those, if you prefer. If the thinking is this should be essentially a 'terminology' article, then discussing this as term I think also makes sense, as it's clearly a related one. I'm inclined to have the material here with the cross-ref internally to Reaganomics, as I think it's more awkward to do so the other way around, but either is doable. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I certainly was astonished to see voodoo economics link to Reaganomics. I would think political smears are typically left in the blockquotes that hold them. They shouldn't be linked to something at all. It implies that they are synonyms. Heavy Chaos (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's not really a smear at this point. Andre🚐 00:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It should be clearly noted that there's no such economic theory called "Trickle-down economics"

While the article itself mentions that this concept was the creation of some humorist, not an economist, the article stills makes it unclear that this is not an actual economic theory that could be found in any economy text book, framework or theory as such. The article heavily relies on political expressions to articulate what "Trickle-down economics" is while making insignificant and superficial references to actual economic theories . It should be noted that this is a political device, not some articulated economic theory or principle. Mentions alone of "Trickle-down economics" elsewhere from reliable sources won't change this fact. The claims made by supply-side economics, an actual theory created by economists, have nothing to do whatsoever with the claims made by the humorist who invented "Trickle-down economics". If Wikipedia incorrectly decides that these two notions are the same, then there's no point in having two separate articles, this should redirected to the supply-side economics article. Alsamuef (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm actively trying to work on this now, so if you'd like to weigh in and lend a current voice toward this end, that would help. Check out Talk:Trickle-down economics/Archive 4#Need better clarity: Real theory or shorthand term? Thanks. Heavy Chaos (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Need better clarity: Real theory or shorthand term?

I'm new to editing WP. I made some typo edits once about 10 years ago, so thank you for your patience if I don't understand the specifics or edit this talk page incorrectly.

I was going to clean up the article a bit and make it more clear that there's apparently disagreement whether this is a legitimate theory, or just a shorthand term frequently used. I was going to make that more clear at the top, with the Thomas Sowell quote (or a different one because he's said it elsewhere). Then I was going to reorganize the existing content to highlight what things have been called "trickle down", and then maybe add any rebuttals that might exist. Then have a section on research, since researches use the term apparently.

But what we need here first is admitting that this challenge hasn't been met: no one has called any economic theory they advocate for "trickle down". It is not a name that anyone self-describes.

Meet this challenge, or leave the edits that point this out and focus the article to this end.

Heavy Chaos (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose proposed reorganization. Let's discuss each change one by one and go incrementally and iteratively. In general I oppose your logic and your claim though. Andre🚐 00:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I would support something of this nature. That we treat this as if it were being used as a serious economic theory is beyond ridiculous. As I've mentioned before, this is clearly a short hand term that has a wide variety of conflicting meanings. We should treat it as a term label rather than a group of coherent theories/policy proposals. No one out there is advocating or a subscriber to "trickle-down" economic theory. There are only those who label their opponents as having done so. Squatch347 (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. What’s wrong with an article describing a shorthand phrase used by lazy journalists? With all the arguments here, it is clearly needed! DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think we should start by removing the last sentence of the first paragraph:

Trickle-down economics is a term used in critical references to economic policies that favor the upper income brackets, corporations, and individuals with substantial wealth or capital. In recent history, the term has been used by critics of supply-side economics. Whereas general supply-side theory favors lowering taxes overall, trickle-down theory more specifically advocates for a lower tax burden on the upper end of the economic spectrum.

"Trickle-down theory" doesn't exist, but the last sentence compares it to an actual espoused theory. The "whereas sentence makes no sense. I was going to delete it now, but I'm not sure how to handle the references. I'm just not sure of the correct editing tools and formats to use at this point. This is a feature heavy platform. I'm overwhelmed. Anyway, I think one of you should do that; or I'm going to eventually give it a go.

Heavy Chaos (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

We had a lengthy WP:RFC on this and I don't know if it was ever formally closed but I believe it was roughly split at no consensus - in other words trickle-down economics is both an economic term, and a political one. But I recommend you do not simply delete things per WP:PRESERVE, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, etc. Andre🚐 23:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not privy to the gravity of an "RFC", but I did read through it before writing my comment above. My impression of it is maintained here, and contradicts your stated impression. I saw mostly two views espoused, one which largely coincides with mine and another which asks what that RFC is actually trying to determine. I saw very little actual action, however. Going back several years are people saying we should make these changes on this article, but no one really pulling the trigger. I'll be your Huckleberry. I'm more stating what I intend to do, and a lot less asking for comment. Heavy Chaos (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead with a medium-sized edit. Primarily, I moved a clear example of usage from the lead in to the usage section. I left the "Whereas" sentence alone. If there's a cleaner way to make the edit I've made, I'd appreciate the administrative/style direction. Heavy Chaos (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, in case you didn't understand, you'll need to discuss and gain consensus for your changes. Let's talk about the change you made since it was unrelated to anything you've said so far. Andre🚐 00:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand much discussion has already occurred. My participation in it is irrelevant, since I can read it and have read much of it. I moved some content in the article. I didn't delete anything. Surely we want it organized appropriately? Content just smattered here and there makes a bad article. Can you make a case that it is not a usage example, and that it is appropriately lead in content? You'll have to make this case effectively or I'm going to make the edit again.

Apart from that, a "bold" edit, it was not. Nothing was deleted or added. Just organized. Besides, the encouragement is to edit, not talk over and over again. I do not believe I need to discuss what's already been said on this talk page for years. Also, my original impetus to edit this article is because it is so disorganized and sloppy. I even say above, "reorganize the existing content to highlight what things have been called "trickle down"". Heavy Chaos (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

You actually changed the text and the meaning, so let's discuss it. For one thing you removed "US republicans" it looks like in the first sentence. Andre🚐 00:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I do remember doing that. Small potatoes, so let's sidebar it. Leave it if you want it in there.

How is moving that paragraph to the usage section changing the meaning? First, you should make your argument as asked before. Can you make a case that it is not a usage example, and that it is appropriately lead in content? Heavy Chaos (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, the way this works isn't that you make a bunch of edits and then I have to tell you why which one should or shouldn't be kept. You have to make the case for what you want to change and then we can discuss it. There are also other people besides myself and you, and I just posted on the noticeboard about it so why don't we pump the brakes for a few hours. This isn't going to get solved tonight. You've started several threads of discussion including the statement about "political smears" in the "voodoo economics" section as well as the comments here where you claimed you were simply reorganizing with no change to content. So let's take some time to hear from others and consider whether any change at all is needed before I have to be interrogated on each one of your changes. Andre🚐 01:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I want to assume you have your bona fides here, but not answering direct questions is something I've seen you do on this talk page a number of times already. If "why is my edit no good" an interrogation to you, I suggest you have the wrong outlook. I made my edit and then explained why. You reverted it. You should explain why. And I don't mean more pointing to WP conventions of this or that. I mean on this article about Trickle down economics. Why was my edit bad for the article? Or, in what way did the edit harm the article, and does that warrant a revert instead of a subsequent edit? I'm cool with the no deadline ethic. I'm not in a hurry. But when edit time is clear, it's time to edit. I'm signing off for the night, so take your time to work out a reply and make the case that your revert version is better than my edit version. Make a new heading on the talk page if you want. Heavy Chaos (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, as stated, I reverted you because you removed content and did not simply reorganize. I'm also unsure as to the merits of your organizational proposal. All in all I would state your edit was "not an improvement." You also threatened to make it again anyway. So let's consider what exactly you want to do - basically move a big chunk of the lead into the body. I think the lead as-is is fine. Andre🚐 01:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andre🚐 00:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. So many excellent points - beyond my imagination - for me to improve my arguments towards.

The concept is widely used in politics nowadays so it will be up the economists and scientists who can really influence the decisions that will be made by the policy makers. Thanks again. Kartasto (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The 2017 Tax Cuts did NOT favor the rich

In the intro of this article, the 2017 Tax act is listed as an example of a tax break that favored the rich. This is untrue. The article used as a source is giving a misrepresentation of the numbers.

You can see the graph in this article which shows the change in income tax rate per bracket: https://www.thebalancemoney.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968

The highest bracket saw the second smallest reduction, after the non change of the second highest bracket. The largest reductions in rate are for the working and middle classes.

Articles disingenuously use the total dollar amounts saved rather than the change in rate, which is a proper way to measure a tax cut. 2601:581:4504:8BF0:E414:3FAC:27C5:5A8F (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

That link isn't a WP:RS. Andre🚐 20:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

thebalancemoney is source no. 2 at the moment. https://www.thebalancemoney.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-effect-does-it-work-3305572 If that's not wp:rs, then we should do something about it. I looked at that source earlier and was skeptical at first. It claims to have some sort of review process, so is it a journal? I don't think it is a journal, as in, peer reviewed. They don't seem to have any particular motive except to publish quality content on the subject, and they do have a simple review process, which is more than we can say for other sources. Heavy Chaos (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

You are right. I was mistaken back 3 months ago when I wrote that. It is an expert source by a credentialed expert which makes it an exception to the outlet itself not being an RS on the basis of the outlet. See WP:SELFPUBLISHED. It's also reviewed by another expert with a Phd. Andre🚐 01:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

They claim all their article are experts in their fields, and are then reviewed by the respective board member also in that field. How does that make it a wp:selfpublished problem? Or rather, what's wrong with the source broadly that's not wrong with that particular article? Heavy Chaos (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

There's a presumption that a WP:NEWSORG is reliable, and this outlet is owned by Dotdash Meredith, and they have editorial guidelines. So actually, while I didn't recognize the website and thought it was just a self-published blog site or editorial site, there's an argument to be made that it is actually reliable full stop, even without getting into the expert reliability of the author. So I withdraw any objection I may have made 3months ago or just now to the balancemoney source. Andre🚐 01:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

This is discussed in a section below. It was pointed out that Dotdash is WP:MREL and other editors have concern about using a personal finance site for this, which I will acquiesce to. Andre🚐 17:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It's the same source mentioned in another location as problematic, which I have currently criticized on my user page. Like the other criticism states, it links to https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/trickle-economics-flood-drip/ to support its definition, but fails to recognize that the wharton source gives no single definition, and notes what we all note here. It is not a specific economic policy. That wharton source should find a place in this article. Heavy Chaos (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm OK with the Wharton source but that is neither here nor there. The article shouldn't heavily rely on a single source or single cherry-picked group of sources. Andre🚐 01:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Start with the understanding that poor people don’t pay income taxes. They pay many other taxes, and above a certain threshold, people who are poor do pay taxes. But, below the minimum income level, they don’t. Now, reduce any part of the income tax rate by any amount, leaving all those state and local taxes untouched. Notice that whatever portion of the population gets a tax break, that portion does not include those too poor to qualify for FEDERAL income taxation. Finally, reconsider you statement. DOR (HK) (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Change to lead

Let's start a new discussion on a new change to lead per @Kerrni. How about something like this: Economists such as X, Y, and Z have taken the position that there is no coherent economic theory by the name of trickle-down, while others have equated it with the Laffer curve, supply-side economics and tax cuts for the wealthiest. There is conflicting evidence that tax cuts for the rich promote economic growth, with studies such as the A, B, and C showing that tax cuts for the rich may hurt growth or have no effect. Andre🚐 19:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, this article is not about the details of an economic theory. It is about the usage of a term. Why are we adding text to the lead that is off topic? If anything we need to be removing text from the lead that references this as if it were a theory that anyone actually holds rather than a strawman term used by others. Squatch347 (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  It's about both. Andre🚐 14:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Kerrni, Bonewah can you please chime in? My take is that you've both been pretty active and this topic involves things you've both opined on in the past. I'd like to get your input here. Squatch347 (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The first proposed sentence should be edited to something like: "Economists such as X, Y, and Z have taken the position that there is no coherent economic theory by the name of trickle-down, while others have equated it with the Laffer curve, supply-side economics and tax cuts for the wealthiest in their arguments criticizing these theories and policies." The second sentence doesn't logically follow from the first, because as @Squatch347 and others have noted, there are no economists or policy makers who have put their names behind any "trickle-down theory" arguing for tax cuts for the rich to promote economic growth. I've seen no one here cite any source where someone is on the record saying, "My policy of trickle-down economics will spur growth through tax cuts for the rich." All the references to trickle-down economics as defined as tax cuts for the rich by the person using the term have been backward looking and as far as I can tell, the policy that they are examining included across-the-board tax cuts covering most wage brackets. In other words, there have been no instances where economists or policy makers argued that a policy of exclusively tax cuts for the rich (that critics call trickle down economics) will spur growth. The policy makers have implemented a broad set of policies, which incidentally include tax cuts for higher income brackets along with others. It makes no logical sense here to discuss evidence about tax cuts for the rich that is critical of a policy that no one is advocating for. Kerrni (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely how the "SSE as a euphemism for TDE" rhetoric goes. Are you suggesting that the scope of this page should be entirely about how how anyone that uses the term TDE is just employing (as one Trussian talking-head put it, shortly before these very policies tanked the UK economy) a "slur" on SSE, which article please see for how great that objectively is? I'm not sure what the best solution to the article-scope question, but I think it's very clear that a) it's not that, and b) we're really going to resolve that before we make any actual progress in a way that materially improves the quality of the article. Otherwise it's just going to be indefinite trench warfare over inches of "exclude that material, it disagrees with my POV" ground, result in an equally (or indeed increasingly) bad article, just with a slightly different political slant depending on which set of editors is the more dogged. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, we aren't really going to resolve this until we resolve the scope, which I've been trying to do for about a month at this point. The question is, do we confine this article to an NPOV discussion of the term's origins and usage or do we make this a POV warfare of primary source documents about any particular economic policy we want? (Fully recognizing that I wrote that in a very biased manner, but that is the kinda no BS view of the alternatives imo). Honestly, keeping this to a narrative of the term's usage short cuts all the nonsensical debates going on because we don't have to weigh in on them, we just report what reputable sources have used the term to mean, and thats it. Squatch347 (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Obviously, as you say, not a fair description. It is not POV to attribute all the usages of the term and its possible meanings to reliable sources. There is WP:NODEADLINE. Presumably the RFC can be closed by an impartial 3rd party since nobody seems to be adding to it, though. Andre🚐 17:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

And I don't think I've seen any objection to using all the possible meanings of the term. The objection is us dumping primary sources that any random person finds as if that were an accurate, WP:DUE representation of any particular topic. And to do so without a single source clearly defining what the term means to professional economists. And to do that in contradiction to the format and usage of every single terminology page on Wiki. Analysis of policy and economic proposals belong on the host pages for those policies and proposals. Squatch347 (talk) 06:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Let's continue removing sources that don't belong while preserving those that do. Andre🚐 15:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

My proposal for the lede is below: The phrase "trickle-down" was originally a term used by politicians and pundits in critical references to economic policies they viewed as favoring upper income brackets, corporations, and individuals with substantial wealth or capital. Over time, the term broadened to be a more general criticism of broad economic policies generally related to supply side economics. It has also expanded in use amongst some economists as a colloquial reference to positive externalities. Squatch347 (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Externalities? What? SPECIFICO talk 01:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Lol, yeah probably could use some jargon removal. That is the economic term for what those economists are talking about. Benefits accruing to parties other than those involved in the transaction, and that is how they are referring to them in the linked papers, but maybe something like "spill over economic benefits" with a link to externalities? Squatch347 (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It obfuscates the actual meaning. Andre🚐 17:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

What actual meaning? Clearly some (if not most) of the primary sources we are referencing are using this term in a broad colloquial manner, not specifically referring to tax breaks or anything related to that specific policy set. We literally just changed the language on two entries based on that last week. Those uses of the term were about how people who aren't involved are benefited by trade or technological development. Pretending that those are related to the same usage as the political examples isn't faithful to the sources. Squatch347 (talk) 06:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with the changes and progress we are making on improving the article. But I think that we need to use clearer and more plain language rather than so jargon-heavy. Andre🚐 15:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

If we are going to change the lede, id like it to be based on what reliable sources say, not what users here feel is true. On that note, i checked The New Palgrave Economic dictionary and there is no entry for Trickle-down. Bonewah (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

That fact is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion. Various RS do define it. Andre🚐 20:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Where? Which ones? You keep getting asked this and never actually answer the question. Can you list a single RS that defines "Trickle-Down Economics" in an encyclopedic NPOV manner? Every source you referenced in the RFC said that it was a term used as a pejorative. Squatch347 (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I've already answered this question multiple times. There are many reliable sources that define it. It's defined here [1] and here [2] and here [3], as I've said multiple times, but you keep disregarding WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH and moving the goalposts for reasons why those sources don't apply. It is not pejorative. That is not what a pejorative is: a term that is used for critical analysis. How about this one: [4] or this one [5] Trickle-down economics is the notion that all you need to do is make sure that the economy grows, and if it grows, everybody benefits. Trickle down simply allows the rich to get richer, Andre🚐 15:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

You've offered sources, but none of them define trickle down economics, as the responses to you pointed out. The same is true here.

Your first link calls two policy proposals examples, but doesn't define what it is.

Your second is about mental competency requirements within neoliberal economic models. Did you include the right link?

Stiglitz (your only source for the last three) doesn't define it here. He references a couple of examples, but examples aren't a definition. He doesn't say offer a definition in this work.

This is probably the closest to defining trickle-down economics, but fails for two reasons. It doesn't actually provide a definition, it just calls a set of policies "trickle down" not defining what that term actually means. AND, it is in an overtly critical work. It wouldn't be NPOV to only use a single, critical reference as our source material for a definition; especially when it requires us to infer a definition based on examples.

This is just a reference back to your last author, it is another quoting his work, it doesn't count as an independent source.

So, again, you've offered a couple of sources, with no quotes to what text you are referring that all turn out to not offer a definition. What's more notable, every single source (except for the random, unrelated one) only uses the term in a normal, pejorative manner, not in the technical manner you are attempting to use it as on the main page. Unless we have an actual source offering a clear definition of the term as an economic theory, we are just Synthing ourselves into a topic here. Squatch347 (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Once again you are incorrect and moving the goalposts, I have quoted the specific text from these sources on multiple occasions. You can read the sources themselves as they do in fact define trickle-down. Once again, the sources being critical is NOT a reason to not use them, nor is a critical description PEJORATIVE. Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 and in the Tax Reform Act of 1986. These two acts instituted clas- sic, trickle-down economics , by largely replacing the principle of pro- gressive taxes with the principle of proportional taxes - Duggar neoliberal policies such as trickle-down economics , tax breaks for upper-income brackets or the removal of social safety nets - Wrenn In the ensuing economic and political debate, this ‘rising tide hypothesis’ evolved into a much more specific idea, according to which regressive economic policies – policies that favour the richer classes – would end up benefiting everyone. Resources given to the rich would inevitably ‘trickle down’ to the rest. It is important to clarify that this version of old-fashioned ‘trickle-down economics’ did not follow from the post-war evidence.[6] -Stiglitz. You are just incorrect. I've met the burden of offering definitions. It does not need to be used in a "technical manner." It is WP:SYNTHNOT. Andre🚐 14:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Go back a reread my objection and your quotes. You'll notice that they all take the form of:"trickle down economics as exemplified by policy x." Those quotes would be a great addition to a statement that some economists label policies such as x and y as trickle down economics. None of those are statements of theory. IE "trickle down economics is the theory that..." none of them describe mechanics or systematic relations, the definition of a theory.

Let me as a question (and please take this in good faith, I'm legitimately asking). Do you think there are economists that subscribe to a theory called trickle down? Or do you think that there is a systematic theory some economists hold that is trickle down but maybe they call it something else? Squatch347 (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require "mechanics or systematic relations, the definition of a theory." Wikipedia just needs sources that describe things and we write what the sources say. As mentioned, I believe that most economists or policymakers probably call what they subscribe to "supply-side economics" but there are certainly right-wing economists and lawmakers that believe that if they cut taxes on the rich, it will trickle down. It's not relevant because our article simply should cover what the sources say. Andre🚐 17:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

While I have noticed this discussion over the last few days, I think it misses the point. The lead is not supposed to define the term and its scope, it is supposed to summarize the key points of the article. Varying definitions and changes in definition over time should be covered in the body of the article. I doubt that anyone should change the lead, before making substantial changes to the article's contents. Dimadick (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

That's true, I agree. Andre🚐 15:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to define the term and make the scope of the article clear: that's the entire point of summary style. Now obviously that's not to say one whimsically writes a lead and the rest of the article slavishly follows in some top-down command-economy manner. But nor do we simply throw random material into the body then summarise them later. Whatever the ramshackle nature of the process, ultimately scoping is an editorial decision, within the constraints of what the balance of the sources supports. And that's especially so when we have articles of obviously overlapping scopes, otherwise we really do risk ending up with a POVFORK, if we simply try to do some crude 'preferred terminology' partition of the sources, even if that's not an explicit editorial intention. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

For the amount of text in total, the lead is much too long. But trying to cut anything out just gets reverted. Trying to move it gets reverted. This particular thread has me wondering if a Definitions heading would help organize things. I've collected a few examples of definitions from economists, but they do vary slightly, with a some being very different, plus I've actually found an advocates use, but his particular quote might be better understood as a misspeak. He said "more money in worker's pockets means they spend it and that trickles down through the economy". "Workers" aren't usually considers "the wealthy". Heavy Chaos (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

You will note that this is a) an old thread, from November, and b)I agreed with the statement made by Dimadick and by IP 109 here. This was a productive tack where we were discussing agreement. Which is what you are supposed to do: WP:BRD bold, revert, and now discuss. So, if we both agree that the lead isn't supposed to define the term, but can go into a definition section, why don't you please start a new talk page section called "Definitions" and talk about what that text should say. It can incorporate part of the lead as well as new text based on the sources you refer to. I would also say that the example you gave about someone advocating for a policy trickling down is fair game to include here. However it all depends on the context and the proposed text. So feel free to propose along this vein. Or if you really think you can improve the article by editing it in this vein I am not going to revert it unless I find something revertable. Your earlier change 1) removed content, 2) did not create a sourced "definition" section but actually moved the lead into the "history" section. Andre🚐 00:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll attempt such an edit, which I believe what I was doing before, but then you told me not to do it.

Will you suggest your own improvements? I see lots of rejection on your part in the talk page here, but I don't think I've seen you suggest anything yourself. I see a lot of insistence on not deleting anything, which will be a problem eventually, because some of it should be deleted/replaced. Like I said on the notice board, if you suggested your own improvements, rather than simply taking the easy position of opposing them, it would go a long way. Heavy Chaos (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Well please do not make edits if you are going to make controversial edits that remove material. Those should be discussed and agreed to first. WP:PRESERVE. Maybe it's best that you don't make any new edits tonight while we get a consensus agreement first on what should be done and how. Andre🚐 01:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It won't be for at least 12 hours before I make another edit. Heavy Chaos (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

NPOV noticeboard discussion

Too long to summarize here but at NPOV noticeboard I offered to blaze through and makes some tweaks and folks can then decide to keep or revert. I'll give that a try. They are solely to treat it more as a term and not to deal with any "balance" issues beyond that. In essence following the concept at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#When a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject Sincerely North8000 (talk) 12:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I offered to do the same, then Andrevan flipped over it, "edit war" and "battleground". I support any action that starts with actually editing. Heavy Chaos (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Hey, we have to discuss the individual changes individually and not delete huge portions of the article. Or start a new RFC. Thanks. Andre🚐 15:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

My recent reverts/edits

I apologize for WP:BATHWATERing some reasonable edits while major removals took place concerning the matter at issue. I have tried to put them back but please do so if I missed any copyedits or improvements or additions. Andre🚐 18:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Can we take this as a commitment to improve edits, rather than revert? Heavy Chaos (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Please don't remove sourced material and I won't revert those removals. Andre🚐 21:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose IMF 2017 paper removal

I oppose the removal of this 2017 IMF working paper; it's far from gibberish, and is written by credentialed IMF economists. It must of course be attributed to them, not to the IMF, since it is a working paper. The paper isn't a viewpoint article; it's an analysis based on a heterogeneous-agents model, which is pretty solid stuff, since it does not require any of the usual assumptions (DSGE, EMH) of other modelling methods. Purely-empirical (comparative) models have IMO far more issues. DFlhb (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @SPECIFICO. DFlhb (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi DFlhb, setting aside any professional criticisms we could have with the paper's models and assumptions (not our role as editors here, though I would love to personally discuss them), the paper, even if it were peer reviewed would be tough to meet WP:PRIMARY since the claims we are asserting are not straight forward facts and do require some expertise to verify and parse through. Since it isn't peer-reviewed, I don't think it meets that policy's requirements. Squatch347 (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea how many tens of thousands of economics graduates are installed at various institutions, but this is just one exercise of no particular significance. It's also pretty much unintelligible for our lay readers, wrt the subject of this page. It would be good to search for high quality studies - and I do think empirical studies are to be preferred over self-validating models following the latest untested thinking of econ grads. So I continue to oppose this content. SPECIFICO talk 14:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and restored the consensus status quo version of the article. Andre🚐 15:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  Status quo is right, but I dispute that there was a consensus on the contents. This blanket revert also undid my removal of an unreliable source, and my correction of a misattributed statement. Could you only revert the changes you oppose, rather than all of them? DFlhb (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, you can fix that part again. If there's no consensus we should start a new RFC. Is the question "should material about trickle down as an economic theory be removed"? Andre🚐 15:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding "The Balance Money" site @DFlhb, there was some discussion about it in a different section. It seems like it might actually be reliable since it was written by an expert, reviewed by an expert and they have editorial guidelines by Dotdash Meredith. It seems more like an informative magazine outlet and 2 expert credentialed authors. Andre🚐 16:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  I can't find the other discussion. Regardless, one of the experts is a crypto guru and self-described "financial therapist", and the other is someone with an MBA, about whom I can't find much info except a biography she wrote herself. Wouldn't trust them much further than I can chuck them. Dotdash is WP:MREL, and some of its sub-sites are even on the spam blacklist. DFlhb (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I concur with DFlhb, this is a personal finance site and does not meet WP:RS standards for such an expansive statement as the one it was trying to support. Squatch347 (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright then. Andre🚐 17:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Back to the IMF paper. Sorry for thread hijacking. Is there any IMF study or similar model we could talk about that would be not a working paper? Andre🚐 17:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

That particular paper doesn't seem to have been republished in a journal. As for whether there are equivalent studies: it would take me at least half a day of research to end up with a source survey I'm confident in, and I'd rather get some sunlight instead.

We can just leave this discussion here, and someone who has more free time can take care of it at some later point. DFlhb (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

new RFC

Should material on trickle-down as an economic theory or economic critical concept be removed and refocusing the article on the political term alone? Andre🚐 17:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is quite right. I would suggest the RFC be: "The material on this page should be focused on the usage of the term "Trickle-Down" including politically, economically, and in other RS, but should not extend to discussion of the impacts of the parent policies being labelled as such; which should be discussed on the policies' parent page. Squatch347 (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, let me close the RFC and let's decide what it should be first, because I don't think your framing is quite right either. Andre🚐 17:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• How about this: Should the article be refocused only on the usage of the term "trickle-down" including politically and economically, but exclude coverage of of the empirical impacts of policies so labelled as described in reliable technical and economic sources? Andre🚐 17:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

You mean remove any reference to studies about th effects of policies described as trickle-down and so called in th study? I don't think I could agree with that. NadVolum (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course, I don't agree with that either, but that is I believe what Squatch347 and several others have been advocating for. My point is to establish that there is NOT a consensus to do that. Andre🚐 18:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn't get after what I'm proposing either (see above for an example). I don't think we should remove references to WP:RS. I'm proposing that a) we reference how the term is used here, linking back to the host policy being referenced and b) the impacts are discussed on the parent pages for the polices being critiqued. Squatch347 (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm opposing that, the impacts should be discussed here. Andre🚐 21:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It is used pejoratively, no doubt about that. That's usage as a term, mostly politically I would say. OTOH, one could almost argue that it is a term of art with a very specific meaning in the field of economics that can be applied to a range of different policies intended to produce a certain outcome (regardless of whether that in fact occurs). Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Could we ping WikiProject Economics, and get some experts' opinions? DFlhb (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Broader usage

While I disagree with Aquillion's reading as I mention on the NPOV discussion, his reference has a lot of good material that could be referenced here. What is most interesting is how the term has become a sort of catchall label for "economic policies I don't like" even by traditionally supply side economists. Maybe a few references from here noting that the term has broadened to include traditionally demand-side policy proposals when being criticized? https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=%22trickle-down+economics%22&btnG= Squatch347 (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It is not a catchall for any policy we don't like. It describes policies that favor the rich and corporations. They aren't all tax cuts but mostly they are tax cuts. That should be the major weight and emphasis. Andre🚐 22:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Ahh, careful, you can't just discard your argument when you don't like it. The term is being used by professional economists in a professional, peer-reviewed setting. If you want to argue that they are wrong and you are right, its going to take more than just a "well I want the definition to be X." If we are going to include any and all evaluations of empirical data that someone has labelled as "trickle-down" its going to be a flood of random information as we an see above. Squatch347 (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

What? It is neither. The article is about trickle-down economics, most of the policy ideas and theories in that field by experts pertain to tax policy and the impacts thereof. Some aren't. But those are minority compared to the majority. Andre🚐 23:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Good job! Edits make progress.

I know I came in with a splash, but the current version, especially on the lead in, is soooo much better than the version that I first saw. When an editing effort is hamstrung in some talk page loop, a volley of edits will say a lot more than anything here. Often, it will say what has already been said so many times. Heavy Chaos (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The lead is indeed surprisingly good now. DFlhb (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, this was fun. I'll be back another time. This was a good two day distraction. I tell you what, I was about to rage quit last night, saying, "Why should I water a dead tree?" Heavy Chaos (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes they only look dead and just need a little water :) Selfstudier (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, the changes stemmed from the active discussion at WP:NPOV/N. That is how we got the article to broader attention. I generally think the changes are productive and positive, but we still have some issues to work out and disagreements that aren't resolved, it would seem. Andre🚐 22:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Cites in lead and RS in wikivoice

1) we don't need cites in the lead if they are in the body. I moved one to the body and it was moved back to the lead. 2) If RS say something and it is unrebutted it is a fact in Wikivoice - e.g. Detroit News and Washington Post. Those are RS and they shouldn't be removed or attributed. Andre🚐 21:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Squatch347: regarding your recent reverting. Why not discuss instead of edit warring. Andre🚐 23:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The horse and sparrow concept is claimed to exist. I can't find it.

I just added to the history section, taking from the economics section:

In 1982 John Kenneth Galbraith claimed that "trickle-down economics" was known in the 1890s under the name "horse-and-sparrow theory".

That's great, but where is that actually from? He said this in 1982, a hundred years after it was supposedly a known term. I'd like to track this down and quote that for the history section. Heavy Chaos (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not necessary to find the cite from 1890s and probably tough to do without access to a university library and a skilled archivist. Galbraith is who the 1890s story is credited to in my search. Andre🚐 23:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm just putting out what I think would be ideal. I understand the difficulty in actually quoting a 100 year old source that's probably not digitized. I definitely am not advocating removing it, though I think the frame that this is Galbraith's claim is correct and should remain. Heavy Chaos (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Removals

[7] [8] These removals are not necessary @Squatch347. This is well-supported and valid. This can be what the RFC is about. You're excising sourced material for no reason. Andre🚐 23:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

31 is just a statement, it isn't cited and it is far, far too broad. You can't make a statement like "there is no evidence that X" and just have it there without a RS saying literally that. Otherwise it screams Synth to me, that we are evaluating all of our links and saying that we find that there is no evidence.

32 was removed because it is a working paper. Squatch347 (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

32 was published [9] https://doi.org/10.2202/1935-1682.2617

31 is an attempt at summarizing the material that are you removing. It is not synthesis. But I am open to another phrasing if you do not like the language - the conclusion though is valid and should be included. Andre🚐 23:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

And see thread above that the lead doesn't need cites if supported by the body. Nor do we need to attribute "Washington Post." You are misreading the policy. Andre🚐 23:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Ahh, that does appear to be a different reference than what was included, but gotcha thanks. Looking through the source, he only uses trickle-down three times, all three are in the form of questions. I'm not sure we can make the broad conclusion you are offering from data (setting aside whether we even should be). The problem with primary sources is that if we are using them, we are pretty much restricted to exact quotes, so unless he says that X policy is trickle down and it resulted in Y, we are doing OR. :::Summarizing a variety of primary sources together is, by definition synthesis. It is literally what the term means and the policy reads as. I don't think we should include any kind of editor analyzed conclusion into an article.

Sorry man, read WP:PRIMARY it is absolutely crystal clear on this. You absolutely should never prefer a primary source over a secondary source.

Squatch347 (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

You just don't understand what you are quoting, then. You do not have to attribute a secondary source. If we have a primary source and secondary sources all saying the same thing, we make the same statement in wikivoice as it is fully supported. A primary source being a study can still be quoted for facts, as well, and should not be excised. That is a misreading. We are not doing analysis since we are taking the analysis from the secondary sources. Andre🚐 00:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

If the Secondary and Primary source are saying the same thing, we use the secondary source. I'm not sure what to tell you when the policy says that the page should be based primarily on secondary sources and then later that you should never analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source and specifically:

Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source.

~~

You're still reading it wrong. The secondary sources such as CBS, Washington Post, and Bloomberg all interpret the primary source. We write what those 3 say, it's RS, unattributed. The primary source analysis is being filtered by those secondary media. Andre🚐 00:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean they all reference the primary source? Of course they do, that's the definition of a secondary source. Yes! You are exactly right, the secondary source is filtering what the primary source says, that is exactly what Wiki wants us to do, so we don't rely on our own interpretations. Squatch347 (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes so that's why we don't need to attribute the statement of the Washington Post. It is supported by 3 high-quality secondary sources as well as the text of the primary source. It says what it says, they say what it said, and we say what they say, so we don't need to say "According to X from the Washington Post." WP:YESPOV it's a wiki-voice fact. Same thing with the leadsection. WP:LEADSECTION doesn't need references if the body says it and we summarized the body. Andre🚐 00:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Let me ask it this way, why would we want to remove the attribution? What value does it have to the reader for us to remove this? Squatch347 (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The attribution SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR FACTS PER WIKIPEDIA POLICY. What reason should it be there? Andre🚐 00:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Returning to the Jenks-Harvard-Kennedy paper, I added this source with an accompanying WSJ secondary source. It is not a working paper, I apologize for the older citation from 2010 of the working paper, the paper of the same text was published in 2011. OK to restore this as it is accompanied by a secondary source and it has been published or is there another objection? Andre🚐 00:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Even if lots of sources aren't saying something, it isn't a fact. A fact is something like "1+1=2", not an ongoing policy debate. Per you, trickle-down is an actual economic policy that someone somewhere supports, so it can't be a fact, but a matter of debate. Likewise, we want to be crystal clear that we are not the ones writing those findings, but are relying on RS.

That might be ok, the link looks apparently like it is leading to an opinion blog. I'm not as familiar with WSJ's opinion editorial policy a la WP:NEWSBLOG. It probably shouldn't be in the economics section given he is a social scientist and if the blog meets criteria, it would need to be cited as the language given the primary source doesn't make that claim directly. I'd also rewrite it to simply mention that it was used as a link between the trickle-down term and connection with top quintile income growth. Squatch347 (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually, if a lot of reliable sources say something, it is a fact. That's Wikipedia policy. We do not attribute reliable sources - that is called turning a fact into an opinion. The WSJ blog is reliable, it's a known Reuters journalist and it's not an op-ed. Furthermore, you're at WP:3RR by reverting @NadVolum. Andre🚐 00:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I definitely oppose the "empirical data" remark that was inserted in the lead. This article is not here to discuss nuance of tax effects. Heavy Chaos (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

That is an issue to discuss. I would say tax effects and studies thereof are key to what the article is about. Andre🚐 00:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

And there are significant editors that disagree with you and, given the sources we've added here, I don't think it is a tenable position for us to discuss the empirical outcomes of all the policies; tax and otherwise, that have been labelled trickle-down. Squatch347 (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, so what is the RFC question. "Should the article exclude empirical outcomes of trickle-down-labelled policies, yes or no?" Andre🚐 01:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm willing to see an RFC on this for the sake of avoiding an edit war but if it is restricted any such restriction needs to be noted in the lead so readers are warned and edit wars over it avoided. It would be a deviation from the standard Wikipedia content policies. NadVolum (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

NadVolum, I think your edit was fine; I am not aware of any restrictions on this article, so if it is well-referenced and if it is supported by the material, relevant, and encyclopedic, it should be included. We can start an RFC when Squatch347 gets back from the 48 hour edit-warring block and we can decide what the RFC should be about. Andre🚐 01:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Have put it back again. They can argue their reasons for removal when they come back but what they said abpout including all the economics articles is not true. NadVolum (talk) 09:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

About the argument that 'trickle down' is a pejorative term and the article should not cover whether policies described as that are in general successful or not. That would be fine for a persons own paper but this is Wikipedia. Here one of the major policies is WP:Original research and if a paper talks about trickle-down in general then it would not be eligeable for inclusion in any article about specific policies. It would be possible to put in a header like 'For studies of policies called Trickle down see Trickle-down assessments' if they were not allowed here but the article is not so large I can see a split like that would be reasonable. NadVolum (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Editing this talk page on mobile is not easy, so this is more a reply to Andrevan's question, "Should the article exclude empirical outcomes of trickle-down-labelled policies, yes or no?"

Well, I can't answer yes or no, because the answer is yes and no.

In the sense that trickle down is broadly used to refer to tax cuts for the wealthy, which does seem to get referenced in some research, yes certainly we should make that clear that the research does exist. However, I don't want to get into arguments and edit wars over scientific validity.

But no, I don't think we need to note every specific policy called trickle down and then all the research on it. That seems very silly and an unreasonable position for a given article. These specific pages and presumably a criticism section already.

So what I think would work well is a new section on research, noting that researchers usage tends to focus almost exclusively on what happens to untaxed money in wealthy hands. After such a section is made and polished, then we can add a one or two sentence summary in the lead in.

At the moment, the usage section should be there to point out the nuanced ways the term has been used. Since it has been used so broadly and for so long, we may discover all kinds of different ways it's been applied, but we seem to all well agree the target is taxes on the wealthy (hence, our lead says this). Heavy Chaos (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with NadVolum that the research belongs here. I don't think it needs a special section for research, I think the usage in economics section IS the right place for economic research. I don't think we should sequester the research from the rest of the article. Andre🚐 17:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I would love a section on artistic depictions.

Political comics are a great study. I'm not well versed in how WP handles copyrights, but being able to show some really interesting comics would be pretty cool. Samples [10] [11] [12]. The importance of these comics that I can't seem to find in words is the bawdy nature of being shit and pissed on. Heavy Chaos (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

They would need to be in the public domain and uploaded to the commons. Squatch347 (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I figured as much. Too bad. There's so much to say with only 5 images. Heavy Chaos (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I had a quick look and there actually is one on commons and a couple more I saw on the web but I really didn't think much of them. Afraid the paid cartoonists do a much better job :-) NadVolum (talk)

[13] is the Commons images I got. NadVolum (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The cartoon of Reagan up top is pretty funny. More like that? SPECIFICO talk 15:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)