Talk:United States/Archive 71

Archive 65

←

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

→

Archive 75

Changes in relationship between education and income

Since there are several WP:SUMMARY sub-articles dealing with income, education, government spending, taxation, and fiscal policy, most of which discuss their inter-relationships, I propose including "Why American Workers Without Much Education Are Being Hammered". The Upshot. New York Times. April 21, 2015. Retrieved 25 April 2015., here with the summary, "From 1990 to 2013, workers with high school education or less have lost more wages than those with college degrees have gained." I further propose that we include a discussion of the return on education investment and the impact of declining middle class wages on the affordability of higher education, and the resulting fiscal impact on tax revenue. EllenCT (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Nay. WP:UNDUE. Please do not split the topic of discussion. This "pressing issue", is already in discussion above, just in another form down here. Please, this isn't see how many balls we can kick towards the goal, and see how many get in.

I have suggested a compromise of using See also hat notes in the appropriate section. But even there I am cautious. Let us not overlink, and let us not create paragraph length hatnotes to highlight certain subjects. Perhaps this is better integrated into sub-articles such as Economy of the United States rather than this high level article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It is a related issue, but only partially overlapping with income inequality. If the issue fit in just one or more sub-articles, I would not be proposing it here. EllenCT (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I think your recent inclusion of immigration impact on income inequality was excellent, and I hope you will please reconsider your stance on including the causal links both to and from exemplary education policies, such as Oregon within and Germany and the industrialized nordic internationally. EllenCT (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

When did I say my inclusion of immigration impact was excellent?

IMHO the above suggestion by EllenCT is best left in sub-articles specific to sub-articles whose primary subject is specific to those areas, and not this article. Including my own edit. But since EllenCT has continued to add content here, I might as well do so as well (my one sentence compared to the multitude of sentences added by EllenCT).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you think this article should give equal weight to those who believe income inequality causes growth and those who know it inhibits it? If this article were governed according to WP:UNDUE, right-wing views would properly be sidelined and marginalized because the demographic center of Americans' political preferences is to the left of the Democrats. That is not an opinion, it is a fact about the opinions of Americans on a per-capita instead of a per-dollar basis. Of all the factors influencing and influenced by the economic trends of recent decades, immigration is small potatoes compared to education. If your idea of an excellent encyclopedia article emphasizes topics according to your discredited political preferences, then perhaps your skills would better serve your fellow citizens by editing Conservapedia. EllenCT (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: is there any evidence opposed, in support of your position? EllenCT (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I cannot believe what is being stated here by EllenCT, that neutral is predominantly left-wing views, and that Wikipedia should advance that POV. My political views also have zero relevance to this discussion. So leave those out of it.

Again, As I stated, my addition as well as the additions of EllenCT should be left in appropriate subarticles, with at best, see also links to the articles which have these subjects as primary subjects of those articles. This section is about the Economy of the United States. Unless that article is massively imbalanced as well, this section should not be imbalanced.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who cited UNDUE, and you claim that your politics entitle you to balance statements with which you disagree, apparently even when those opinions are contrary to facts. Do you believe that the mainstream flows between the corporate parties or between the parties and the people? We have discussed Americans' political preferences in detail. If you can not see how the mistake attributing income inequality to the promotion of economic growth caused the current state of affairs, I will be happy to walk you through it step-by-step as many times as is necessary. But for now, please answer the question: Is there any evidence in support of your assertion that immigration has had a greater impact on income inequality than education in the united states? (A different sub-article which doesn't overlap with the economics article.) EllenCT (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@EllenCT: I will no longer enter into discussions with EllenCT seeing as EllenCT showed bad faith with this post. I understand that EllenCT believes that the way they are editing is best for Wikipedia, even if I do not share that view. Without a civil editing environment continuing this discussion only leads to conditions that fly in the face of policy. G'day.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

So instead of answering the question, you make accusations of incivility? On what grounds? If you go around saying 1+1=0 then don't say that people correcting you are unfriendly. You have had ample opportunity to present any evidence that supports your opinions. EllenCT (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@EllenCT: Comment on the edits and not on the editor. Otherwise, editing becomes impossible and WP:BATTLEGROUND ensues. Not the best way to go about it in my experience. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps your comment should be directed at the party making unfounded accusations of incivility instead of addressing the question of whether their opinions are unsupported by facts. Please see Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. EllenCT (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

EllenCT, politically speaking, I am on your side of the aisle. But your approach here is really disturbing when you are not capable to realize that comments from you such as If your idea of an excellent encyclopedia article emphasizes only the topics according to your discredited political preferences, then perhaps your skills would better serve your fellow citizens by editing Conservapedia, are utterly useless in a discussion about how to improve an article. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course such niche, opinionated soapboxing isn't appropriate in this article, and this latest of many pushes flooding this page is just part of a larger crusade to, as another poster aptly put it, kick as many balls as possible toward the goal to see how many she can get in. Ellen's claim that, "...right-wing views would properly be sidelined and marginalized because the demographic center of Americans' political preferences is to the left of the Democrats. That is not an opinion, it is a fact" while suggesting another poster who's concerned about neutrality should be editing "Conservapedia" instead is not only ludicrous and demonstrably false but says more about her editing here than anyone else could. VictorD7 (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the influence of immigration or any other factor on income inequality has been greater, or will be greater, than that described in [1]? EllenCT (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

What, globalization and technology? Arguably immigration is another aspect of globalization, and it certainly at least exacerbates the plight of American workers. Unionization and to a lesser extent the minimum wage also contributed to American workers becoming expensive enough that much of the manufacturing sector transferred overseas. But none of that has anything to do with my point that this debatable stuff is a niche topic, and soapboxing doesn't belong in the article anyway. For perspective, Americans still have one of the highest median incomes in the world (by far the highest of any large nation), even one of the largest manufacturing sectors in the world, and both globalization and the rise of high end technology has enormously benefited people in other ways, especially as consumers. These are very complex issues that don't lend themselves well to brief treatments in a broad summary article like this. VictorD7 (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Any sources comparing the magnitudes? Everyone is affected by the economic effects of education levels, including resulting tax collected, but immigrants and outsourcing represent a much smaller proportion of workers affected. EllenCT (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I added the proposed sentence, and I would like to learn what others think of including a discussion of the return on education investment and the impact of declining middle class wages on the affordability of higher education, and the resulting fiscal impact on tax revenue. EllenCT (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Your recent massive alteration, which was to multiple sections and not just the brief addition mentioned here, was mostly opposed on this page and was reverted in the article by another editor. Please stop using Wikipedia for soapboxing. VictorD7 (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

None of the changes were discussed for less than a week, and the one pertaining to this question has been discussed for more than half a month without any substantive objection. If you object to it, or any of the others, then please state why. And again, do you claim that any other factor has had a larger impact on income inequality than education investment? Do you claim that any other factor has affected tax revenue more? Do you claim that any other factor has affected median wages more? EllenCT (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Every editor who responded has opposed your proposal here, with solid, legitimate reasons. I haven't seen some of your edits, like changing Republicans from "center-right" to "right wing" discussed at all, though it had already been reverted by multiple editors after another editor had unilaterally tried to make it. If you can't grasp that you personally feeling like an issue is important to crusade on doesn't make it legitimate for Wikipedia inclusion, particularly in any article you happen to be in at the time, then I'm not sure how to reason with you. VictorD7 (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

False characterization of tax progressiveness and weasel words

I object to [2] and [3] because they are a false characterization of tax progressiveness, among other things and including WP:WEASEL words. EllenCT (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Your second link has nothing to do with tax progressivity and was simply me revising your recent income inequality addition for neutrality and appropriately broad detail level at this summary article level. We can objectively and neutrally mention that this is a subject of debate, including sources from both sides to support the point, but we shouldn't cherry-pick a hotly disputed partisan talking point and present the opinion unchallenged in Wikipedia's voice. WP:NPOV is policy, not a suggestion. It's also probably not the place to break down every aspect of both sides' arguments in detail. That's better suited for other, more topically specific articles.

Your first link is a botched conflation of several different edits. If you meant to refer to my reversion of your recent Government finance alteration, do you really want to start down this road again after everything that's happened over the past couple of years? Unlike your inequality claims, the progressive nature of US taxation by international standards is not in serious dispute, and indeed the segment is sourced by references from across the ideological spectrum. There is nothing "false" nor weaselly about it. VictorD7 (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Ellen here. The statements and wording are natural and reflect the sourcing.Casprings (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This is an old debate that has been rehashed over and over again. The Federal Income Tax code is progressive. It may not be progressive enough from some quarters, but that's a policy discussion and not a matter of definition. There's some selective obfuscation that happens when medicare and social security are considered. Even though these are also progressive programs (those who pay less get much more per dollar in benefits, per the CBO) they are lumped into the income tax discussion. That's fine for politics, but not really encyclopedic.Mattnad (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

And overall taxation is progressive even when all taxes at all levels are considered, as even the left wing lobbyist outfit Ellen championed for years concedes. As you say, whether it should be even more progressive or not is a subjective debate that doesn't affect the facts given. VictorD7 (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

After transfer payments, the U.S. is one of the least progressive of any of the developed democracies, or the socialist, welfare, or even the totalitarian states in the developed world. If you want to improve the accuracy with which you characterize the level of Americans' economic development, why not start with reporting the proportion of poor with access to their own transportation and laundry facilities and describe the concordant demands on time and effort, instead of harping on how fridges, microwaves, and video games have become so ubiquitous? EllenCT (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Sidestepping your uninformed tangent on poverty, welfare payments are spending, which is covered throughout the article in a number of ways, and America's income/wealth inequality is already given extensive coverage in the Income section (indeed it's been shoehorned in to the point where it's its overarching theme), including international comparisons. The Government finance segment in question by contrast is strictly about taxation, not the impact of fiscal policy on society. VictorD7 (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

So you admit it. You are relying on an arbitrary section topic distinction to push the exact opposite of the truth in furtherance of your political biases. Could there be any stronger evidence that you are WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia, but instead as a POV-pushing propagandist? And my point about transportation and laundry facility ownership stands as a clear improvement over your Heritage Foundation-sourced talking points on microwaves and videogames. EllenCT (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Admit what, that taxing and spending are distinct activities? That's what I've always maintained. Hardly "arbitrary". Your entire post, especially the false personal attacks against me, is babbling nonsense. VictorD7 (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You are trying to insert that "U.S. taxation is generally progressive, especially the federal income taxes, and is among the most progressive in the developed world" and I am trying to claim "U.S. taxation is somewhat progressive, especially federal income taxes, but after transfer payments, US fiscal policy is among the least progressive in the developed world," citing Adler, Ben (April 15, 2010). "Why America's Tax Code Is the Least Progressive in the Industrialized World". Newsweek. because fiscal outlay policy is supposedly not related to government finance? You are trying to claim that "Government finance" is about taxation only, and not fiscal policy for spending on government programs, because you want the article to claim that U.S. fiscal policy is progressive. That is an obvious attempt at deliberate POV-pushing deception. Why would anyone have any reason to think that it isn't? Furthermore, the fact that we've long had "National debt" as a subsection clearly indicates that the "Government finance" section is about fiscal policy in general instead of just taxation. EllenCT (talk) 03:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously finance and spending are linked. But less progressive spending policy is not a simple function of tax policy. The US is very progressive in its taxation, but overall taxes its population less, particularly for middle and lower income households than other industrialized nations. In Quebec Canada, a household with $45K in income hits the 38% marginal income tax rate and there's a 16% VAT on most goods and services. The top marginal tax rate, starting at $138K, is around 50% which is close to some US federal, state, and local taxes combined (New York City for instance). Capital gains tax rates are also lower than what the U.S. has for high income households. Quebec is far less progressive in its taxes than the US, but it also has universal healthcare, highly subsidized day-care, and very inexpensive tuition for higher education.Mattnad (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

No, reread what I said. I spoke of that Government finance segment, which is solely about taxation. Indeed your own original preferred sentence didn't mention anything but taxation, and the national debt paragraphs are separated into a different subsection (which, btw, doesn't cover niche spending topics like military, healthcare, etc., all of which are covered elsewhere). Your latest version is even worse as it does mention "transfer payments" and passes a shaky but overly broad judgment on "fiscal policy", shoehorning in a cherry-picked conflation of two different topics to erase proper coverage of one. Your new opening assertion that US "taxation" is "somewhat progressive" is totally misleading since US taxation is extremely progressive by international standards, with consequences for topics like economic growth and revenue volatility that have nothing to do with income redistribution per se. That's why it's legitimate to separate tax progressivity into a distinct topic. And I'm not trying to insert anything. The segment you're trying to change has been very long standing, in place for years. You're engaging in POV pushing by watering down the verified truth with weasel words based on a cherry-picked apples and oranges juxtaposition the segment isn't about. If you wanted to include a segment about the US have a smaller welfare state than Europe, I might be persuaded to support that (depending on the text neutrality and source quality involved), but it would belong in the Income or Economy sections, which is where it was before it was deleted by someone (not me) during the big article shrinkage a couple of years ago. It doesn't belong in Government finance, which is just an overview of....government finance. VictorD7 (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Religious affiliation in the U.S.

The table & section needs to be updated from the 2007 survey to the 2014 survey.Phospheros (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you happen to have a reliable source that has 2014 survey data? --Chamith (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The current ref is the same, the link is dynamic: http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/ but here is a specific link: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/ --Phospheros (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Source seems reliable to me. Why don't you go ahead and update the data? --Chamith (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

NPOV violation: Source removed under false pretenses.

The Income section sentence "The extent and relevance of income inequality is a matter of debate." is a neutrally worded summary segment followed by a note that supports the "debate" claim by including three sources representing the left wing "inequality is a terrible problem" side and three sources representing the more conservative "no it's not" view. That such a debate exists is not in dispute, and the sources illustrated it well. Except Ellen and Griffin just teamed up to delete one of the conservative sources, one extremely important for supporting the broad claim about the extent of inequality being a subject of debate, under the pretense that it's a "blog" and somehow not "RS" ([4] [5]).

Here's the source. Even if it was merely a blog it would still be RS for its own opinions, but the truth is it's an editor's news blog (which policy--WP:NEWSBLOG--allows even for supporting one sided factual claims, much less simply illustrating the existence of an opinionated disagreement) hosted by the Washington Free Beacon, an online news site that's broken numerous major national stories.

The Free Beacon piece covers, quotes from, and links to an article by Harvard economist Martin Feldstein in the The Wall Street Journal, an article in the Financial Times (part of a long running, widely reported on investigative series), a National Review column by economist Veronique de Rugy that also features opinions from economist Tyler Cowen and four French economists from the l’Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris, and a Cato Institute article by economist Alan Reynolds. All these people are noteworthy experts, in many cases notable enough to already have their own Wikipedia articles, and their publication platforms are all respected and notable. I could just add them (and others) as separate, impeccable sources, but using the Free Beacon piece is useful because the consolidation saves space and because it quotes key elements from the various articles, which in some cases are restricted to subscribed viewers. Most people wouldn't be able to access these articles, so using the Free Beacon lets readers at least see the essential points.

There's no legitimate reason to remove this source and I ask any good faith editors observing this to revert this deletion. VictorD7 (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

No, because saying something is a matter of debate is a waste of readers' valuable time and a perfect example of WP:WEASEL words. If it is a matter of debate, then what do you propose as opposing sources? EllenCT (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it's an accurate summary supported by the sources we've already used. Deleting one side while adding biased sources from the other side of a debate is a clear WP:NPOV violation. The statement is broad because this is a broad summary survey article where any more specific discussions of these very complex arguments isn't merited. If the statement is a waste of time (which it isn't if the sources are all added) then the solution would be to delete it, not replace it with a POV segment on a niche topic you've selected on which to soapbox. VictorD7 (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

And your commentary about the "debate" text doesn't even address the point of this section, which is to discuss the improper removal of a source. The text still stands. VictorD7 (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that any of the cited sources are a matter of debate? Are there some bloggers unhappy about them? Because the MEDRS-grade secondary sources on the topic are not in discord. Note that your weasel words also directly violate the consensus outcome of the closed RFC above, which considered this question specifically. EllenCT (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The economists I listed are credentialed, highly respected experts writing in the world's premier financial newspapers (among other notable outlets), not "bloggers". The text isn't "weasel words". Your RFC, which was unproductively framed from the beginning (with an absurd apples/oranges false dichotomy) yielded a discussion that was all over the place, with the close only concluding that there was support for the material "in some form". That's extremely vague (even my final comments could be construed as supporting that). Certainly there was a lot of resistance to your proposed text. VictorD7 (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The free beacon says itself that it is there to promote a conservative perspective. For these claims there are a number of clear academic work that is peer reviewed and statistical data. We should use that as it is the most reliable and not put in partisan sources simply because they support your POV.Casprings (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you not read the article and miss the part where I point out that it's mostly just links to articles in other publications by respected economists? Address them (Feldstein, WSJ, FT, etc.), not the Free Beacon. That said, who cares if they're conservative? It's scary that you seem to assume that's a disqualifier. It's not. This is a controversial issue, so the sources on both sides are inherently biased. We aren't restricted to using avante garde research, and "peer review" doesn't mean endorsement or anything else too special in this context. Heck, Feldstein and the others cited are peers reviewing material. Piketty and Saez are socialist activists, and Bartels has a clear political bias, though he's so radical he's also been criticized even by some well known liberals (like Ezra Klein). Most of the sources used here and on other pages are biased in some way. That's explicitly allowed by policy. Don't use Wikipedia as a propaganda platform by adding controversial talking points supporting your POV while censoring out any counterpoints. VictorD7 (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think that the policy you linked to allows citing a politically biased blog which in turn cites reliable sources as opposed to directly citing the reliable sources themselves? EllenCT (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

So you acknowledge the sources it links to are reliable? Of course the news site in question is RS here too, but does this mean you'd accept me adding the sources it links to as references? VictorD7 (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you calling [6] a "news site"? It's a political propaganda blog, "dedicated to uncovering the stories that the powers that be hope will never see the light of day," without the necessary separation of management staff from editorial and reporting staff or the reputation for fact checking and accuracy necessary to pass WP:RS. It's currently carrying large ads for [7] and [8] on every page. In answer to your question, the RFC closed 15 April 2015 is clear: "Growing income inequality and wealth concentration have resulted in affluent individuals, powerful business interests and other economic elites gaining increased influence over public policy" is to be included, not weasel words about being subject to debate which were never even proposed in the RFC discussion. EllenCT (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a news organization. It is large and professionally staffed by prominent journalists, albeit ones you apparently don't like. You cherry-picked the "about us" sentence. :The Washington Free Beacon is a privately owned, for-profit online newspaper that began publication on February 7, 2012. Dedicated to uncovering the stories that the powers that be hope will never see the light of day, the Free Beacon produces in-depth investigative reporting on a wide range of issues, including public policy, government affairs, international security, and media. If you have problems with it as a RS take it to WP:RSN. It looks fine. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

it literally says "editor's blog". also, guys, they have a "Hillary Laugh Button" i think we can trust them as a serious news outlet --Golbez (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This literally says "blog" too: WP:NEWSBLOG. There's no policy prohibiting news blogs. In this case you don't need to "trust" them as a "serious" news outlet because essentially all this piece does is quote and link to prominent economists writing in other, more established publications. It's verifiable. You didn't even address the underlying issue of those sources. To address caesar's comment below, the reason for using the Free Beacon article is that at least two of those linked articles, the WSJ and Financial Times pieces, aren't freely accessible to most readers so the quotes in the Free Beacon could at least let them see the essentials. An alternative would be to instead use something like Feldstein's WSJ piece as the source and include the link to the Free Beacon article as a "see also" note for those who can't access the main article. I've seen that done elsewhere in this article. VictorD7 (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I think our readers are better served by direct citations than by going through a blog post of this low quality. --Golbez (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Not if they can't directly access those sources to....you know....read them. You again totally dodged the substance of my post. BTW, I think it's a perfectly fine news site, especially compared to many of the other sources used throughout this article, but I'd be willing to use one or more of the cited, even higher quality sources as the actual reference(s) if we can add the Free Beacon link as a "see also" for those who lack access. VictorD7 (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

VictorD7, you basically said that if a source can't be accessed on the Internet for free, it should not be included. Wikipedia in fact allows offline and paywalled sources. --Golbez (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I just said that if it is closed off then it's better to include a link to a readable version, or one that quotes the essential elements, too. There's no rational reason not to. VictorD7 (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

There's a reason if the article is a poor opinion piece that you're using to lead in to the actual sources. --Golbez (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you read it? What was "poor" about it? It mostly just accurately reports what various prominent critics are saying. As for having a bias, we're supposed to edit neutrally but the sources aren't required to be without bias, especially if covering different POVs in a debate is the point. VictorD7 (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No, actually, the last image told me enough of the quality of the column. It's like discarding people who say "Micro$oft" or "Faux News". You don't see that in quality discourse, nor do you see stupid photoshops of those you disagree with. I mean, it's fine for his blog, but it's beyond the pale to suggest that this is a quality work of journalism worthy of citation on Wikipedia. --Golbez (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, because classy publications like the New Yorker, Time, or major urban newspapers never use cartoons or caricatures. So this far into the discussion you still haven't read it. Fine. What do you think about my proposal to cite the WSJ piece instead, and only use the Free Beacon link as a "see also" sub note for those who can't access it?VictorD7 (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a blog. This is why we should not have allowed news blogs as RS at all in the first place, because the line between reliable and unreliable blogs is so messy. Fully concur with EllenCT's incisive and accurate analysis. There are numerous traditionally published conservative periodicals that have likely published well-written articles that can be cited for the same point. Use those instead. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, and it's a blog piece that is an attack in Piketty's work, which is not the subject of this article. The silly propaganda images contained within of Piketty and Krugman demonstrate that this is a right-wing hit piece, not anything close to a reliable source. Not only that, but the Chris Giles piece this article references has largely been discredited. Ergo, this garbage does not belong in this article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll note that you didn't answer the question, Ellen. As for your RFC, the closer's quote was only "The consensus is to include both in some form", which the current, neutrally worded sentence does, complete with your leftist sources of choice. I'll add that the RFC was barely participated in, and four of the seven respondents either outright rejected your proposed addition, supported it with the qualification that you attribute it (which you didn't do, and which, of course, would only emphasize the need for balancing material), or commented on the absurd apples and oranges false dichotomy of your RFC's construction that limited its clarity and usefulness from the outset. That's probably why the closer felt compelled to leave the "form" of the inclusion vague and undecided by the RFC. VictorD7 (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think there is any more appropriate "some form" than the texts actually proposed in the RFC? EllenCT (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

We should not provide parity between mainstream views on inequality and "conservative" views that are only expressed in opinion pieces. If those writers who are economists have an acceptance for the views they express in editorials, then one would expect them to have prominence in mainstream economics journals, which they do not. TFD (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? All the economists I cited above are very respected and have had all sorts of works published in "mainstream economics journals" and elsewhere. I could have added some (mentioned in the US economy article) who have received the Nobel Prize. But you certainly shouldn't assume that every piece of avante garde (cutting edge) research that comes along represents established mainstream consensus, even if it's published in an economics journal, especially on controversial issues. These articles themselves even typically have disclaimers along the lines of "these results are tentative and more research is needed". There's certainly no basis for drawing a distinction between "mainstream" and "conservative" economists; both liberal and conservative views are established and widespread enough to merit coverage if we decide that such a debate is worth mentioning here. The real question is how much detail should be included, and on which niche topics. VictorD7 (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

We need to be cautious in presenting a false balance. Same as with climate change, and other subjects, we need to rely on academic and mainstream economists views, rather than politicians, lobbyists, left-wing or right-wing media outlets. For the conservative and liberal views on the economy of the US we have the respective articles for that. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Also very importantly, the section "Income, poverty and wealth" needs to be a WP:SUMMARY of Income in the United States, Poverty in the United States, Affluence in the United States, and Income inequality in the United States, an not a section created from scratch, see WP:SYNC. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

We need to be even more cautious about presenting a false consensus in Wikipedia's voice, and I suggest you read the bios of some of the economists I cited above. However, I do think you get at one important point by mentioning subtopic articles. They would be a much better place for detailed presentations of these various political/economic opinions than this broad, summary country article. VictorD7 (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Republican Party center-right

Is the Republican Party center-right? While there may be some members who are more center-leaning, I don't think I usually see the party as a whole described as being center-right, but I can't check the source. This is at United States#Parties and elections. Dustin (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Whatever we say about the Republican Party, it needs to be fully attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and include competing viewpoints ( fully attributed as well), if any. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Also note that what may be considered "left" or "right" in the US, can be considered very different in other countries, thus the need for full attribution. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Then why did you just re-add this new, unsourced description in place of the long standing (and accurate) one, Cwobeel? VictorD7 (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, since it says "Within American political culture", the fact "left" and "right" may have different meanings in other countries is irrelevant. But both parties, particularly at the leadership level, are predominantly at the center of the U.S. spectrum, which is where they have to be to compete at a national level. 00:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the distinction, it needs to be attributed. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I think one might want to state they have become more conservative since the 50s to 70s. I think that can be backed up by peer reveiwed articles. When I get to a computer I will research some cites. Casprings (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

OMG

So I stop watching this page, and I see it has devolved with editors whom would like to SOAPBOX attempting to edit a million views plus a year article into a piece that requires it to be locked due to POV pushing. -sigh- --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep. It's shithouse. I imagine we could vastly improve the quality of discourse here with a couple of well-targeted bans. But that requires going through months of procedure and debate and blaaah blaaah who has time for that. Much easier to hit unwatch and just get on with life; it's not like we have any personal stake in this article. If other people step up, awesome. If they don't, well, I guess Wikipedia was a nice experiment while it lasted. The bureaucracy serves to protect the trolls. --Golbez (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It was locked up due to edit warring, which is not acceptable. If the section "Income, poverty and wealth" can be created as WP:SUMMARY of Income in the United States, Poverty in the United States, Affluence in the United States, and Income inequality in the United States, and not a section created from scratch, this entire saga could be avoided. 17:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep. After a long period of relative stability that finally led to a recovery of the page's "good" status that had been lost in early 2012, a couple of familiar faces returned and tested the waters by trying to blitz the article with sweeping POV changes across multiple sections over opposition from multiple editors. VictorD7 (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Takes two to edit war, champ. In fact, I see sufficient reverts from you to nudge the three revert rule. Protecting the page actually protected you from getting yourself blocked. Do try to be a bit more careful, hm? --Golbez (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I only had three reverts in 24 hours, and in this case it was more than two people "edit warring". The problem was the massive POV pushing attempt the op here is rightly complaining about. Since you've repeatedly shown yourself to be little more than a bad tempered troll whose contributions are almost never productive (latest example: [9]) I bet you and I would disagree over whose banning would benefit this article, chief. VictorD7 (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This is some expert-level word lawyering. Yes, you did three reverts, hence nudging you against the rule. Not passing it. Another revert would have gotten you blocked; three is where the warning hops in. And I'm amused that you take "it takes two to edit war" and then say "more than two were doing it!" as some sort of schoolyard defense. My point was is that you were edit warring as well, not that other people were also doing it. You were edit warring, Victor. You were edit warring. You reverted three times in 24 hours on an article that got locked for edit warring. You were edit warring. And now you're blaming other people of edit warring when you were edit warring. As for our relative qualities, I don't need to engage in that because I know I'm productive and a vast net positive to Wikipedia, except when it comes to dealing with the bullshit that passes for discourse on this talk page, in which case I freely admit to being a troll because that's what it deserves lately. People get way, way too tied up with this article, as if it reflects on them personally. Unlike you and some others here, my politics are opaque because I don't base my entire editing career around them. I'm here to objectively improve the encyclopedia rather than promote or defend my particular politics. --Golbez (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Well at least you admit to being a troll, though I guess you forgot that you have engaged in lengthy political debates before here that have made your left leaning political views quite clear. In fact you gave some dubious speech about how you used to be a libertarian but changed over time. I'll add that you also presided as self appointed steward over this article during the years in which it degenerated to the point of losing its "good" status in early 2012. You later laughably tried to blame me for that even though I didn't create my account until later in 2012 after that had already happened and had never edited Wikipedia before then. By contrast, while I've always been open and honest about my politics, I've edited for neutrality, not to propagandize, and I was one of the posters who put in the hard work to upgrade article quality over the past couple of years to the point where "good" status was restored, a project you mostly just watched and occasionally undermined with your trolling. So I'm glad we're both clear on how we see ourselves and each other. VictorD7 (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

" In fact you gave some dubious speech about how you used to be a libertarian but changed over time. " I don't accuse you of being lying when you indicate what your politics are, so don't do it to me. It's one thing to call me a troll or point out inaccuracies, it's another thing entirely to accuse me of lying about who I am. Also now it's my turn to point out how you ignored the meat of my statement for the low-hanging fruit. Hey, pointless flame wars on Wikipedia are fun, aren't they? I wonder which one of us will give up first! --Golbez (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping to give you the last word since you sound obsessed with it (as I gave it to you in the other section where I wasted time having a lengthy exchange with you about an article you eventually admitted you hadn't even read), but I have to correct you by pointing out that you've ignored the "meat" of this section, which was the POV pushing that was the underlying problem here, not the "edit warring" per se. The latter resulted from the former, and frankly the article would have been worse without editors being willing to revert. VictorD7 (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Bans? I think that is unnecessary Golbez. I may disagree with other editors, but to ban them outright, when they believe they are doing what is best for the article (even if I may oppose that opinion) is IMHO a bridge to far.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

We ban and block people every day who are doing what they believe is best for an article, because their belief is incompatible with everyone else's. I'm not proposing doing it; I'm certainly not going to spend the energy to do it. I'm just the crotchety old uncle in the corner complaining about kids these days. I am so ever this shit, it's mindblowing, and Wikipedia will be left off worse for it. --Golbez (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Golbez, remember that WP:WPDNNY. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It's really upsetting to see something like this happening to one of the most visited pages on Wikipedia.--Chamith (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

And I concur with Golbez and Chamith. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:United States/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Initial statement

I am concerned about the status of this article as GA status. As can be seen in the article's talk page there is SOAPBOXing occurring, leading to the lack of stability. Therefore this article fails criteria 4 and criteria 5 as listed at WP:GACR. Therefore, I am nominating this article for reassessment. I might be one of the top ten content contributors to this article, by amount of data added (not edits), but that doesn't mean I can't be critical of it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

By soapboxing, do you mean the blatant disregard of the outcome of this RFC or something else; if so, then what in particular are you accusing of being soapboxing? EllenCT (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The above editor has been slowly pushing to advance an agenda on the talk page, and making edits on the article to that affect. That makes the article non-neutral, as well as non-stable. Please again see WP:NOTSOAPBOX. See this statement by Cwobeel:

EllenCT, politically speaking, I am on your side of the aisle. But your approach here is really disturbing when you are not capable to realize that comments from you such as: If your idea of an excellent encyclopedia article emphasizes only the topics according to your discredited political preferences, then perhaps your skills would better serve your fellow citizens by editing Conservapedia, are utterly useless in a discussion about how to improve an article.

It is this type of environment on the talk page that has lead to the article being non-neutral and non-stable. I walked away from this article because the civility was gone and the POV pushing was blatant. Seeing how it was listed as a GA, having reviewed GAs in the past, knowing it did not meet the criteria required by GA, it begged to be reassessed.

That being said this reassessment is not about the actions of EllenCT, this reassessment is about the article. It was locked due to edit warring. This is sufficient to show it no longer meets the stability requirement required by GACR. During the edit war the above user changed (by reverting a revert) the description of a major party to right-wing (instead of centre-right), showing a POV push targeting a party the editor appears to not agree with, among other edits.

This means that criteria 4 and 5 are not met, and thus this article should be delisted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Note, I had a vested interest in seeing this article improve, adding 48k worth of references to the article, but the vitriol found on the talk page drove me away from this article :( .--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were offended, but I stand by my statement. After repeatedly accusing me of POV pushing without providing any reasons why, for example, describing economic outcomes by education level is biased, this is clearly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Need I make a list of all your unsubstantiated, uncivil such accusations over the past year so that they can be compared to the statements about which you complain at such length? EllenCT (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been involved with this article for months, and only recently submitted a couple of comments to the talk page. I concur that it has become a hotbed lately of POV pushing, particularly around fashionable discussions relating to income inequality. This has lead to arguments over how much should a high level summary article include, as well efforts to slant the writing. The result is both a battleground and sections that have had large POV additions and charts that are WP:UNDUE to say the least. This had degraded the quality of the article IMHO, and it's clearly not stable.Mattnad (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I helped other editors to bring this article to GA state last time it was nominated. However since then, like RightCowLeftCoast said I too noticed many cases of POV pushings. Most of the time editors involved in the dispute didn't care enough to reach a consensus on talk page first, or they jut didn't want to wait for other editors to reply to their discussions. Some editors just kept reverting others and provided explanations as an edit summary. They headed to the talk page after edit-warring. By then the damage was already done and it lead to full protection of the article. Anyhow this article has changed a lot after the last GA review and I too believe all these POV pushings over time has damaged the integrity of the article. --Chamith (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@ChamithN: I was also part of the group that got this article to GA status, but the constant lengthy political bickering kept me away from the article after that. It is unfortunate that there seem to be a number of editors who solely edit the politically controversial parts of this article to push their POV. These folks are not seen editing other sections of the article nor do they edit much outside of United States political issue articles. While this is not a crime, it has led to significant WP:BATTLEGROUND and un-civil behavior that has culminated in the protection of this article. I'm sure everyone knows who I am talking about. Dispute resolution has failed time and time again for resolving these politically changed editors issues, so perhaps some topic bans are in order. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

If you are going to make such accusations, I would like to see specific diffs supporting what you see as disruptive behavior. I've been editing this article for years, am also in the top ten by text added, within a few tenths of a percent of the other recent top editors, and yes, I certainly do focus on standard of living, health, economics, and related issues. I make a point of discussing all changes for at least a week before actual editing (in stark contrast to the large number of undiscussed edits we've seen here in the past month) and I certainly don't do undiscussed mass reverts such as those which touched off the recent edit war leading to full protection. Should the editor who decided to make that undiscussed mass revert be sanctioned? I am very upset about the blatant attempt to disregard the most recent RFC outcome, and suggest that is the most disruptive behavior that we've seen in this article beyond simple vandalism. I have opened several RFCs here, and never once failed to abide by their outcome. Suggesting that any discussion of controversial topics needs to be avoided isn't just contrary to the first sentence of the WP:WEIGHT policy, it's absurd from an encyclopedist perspective. Can you imagine an article about North Korea which doesn't discuss human rights? How is topic banning editors who follow the discussion and RFC process on the most prominent controversies -- which I repeat WP:LEAD directs should appear in the introduction -- any different? EllenCT (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose delisting and request closing of GA3 The initial reasoning has no bases in GA criteria. There is nothing in the criteria about the talk page demonstrating "soapboxing" etc, and no specific item or concern from the article itself has been questioned. Edit warring on a GA article is also not likely to be a reason to delist. It IS a reason to stop a GA review. Therefore, if this is a review of the article, this must be closed until the edit warring is over...not just until the article is unlocked. If we delisted every time there was edit warring on GA or FA....we wouldn't have any GA or FA articles.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Last I checked neutrality and stability were two criteria of a GA article. This article has neither at the moment. I believe Mattnad, ChamithN, and Winner 42 would agree with me on that.

Furthermore, unless I am unaware, there is not different criteria to base delisting articles. Therefore, we must look at the article based on GACR.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to be hopeful that EllenCT's giant disputes resolution section (props to him for that) will lead to some stability and neutrality in the short term, but the question remains whether such a high-traffic article can remain stable in the long term. I think whether a GA review is required will become apparent in the week following unprotection depending if edit warring resumes or not. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

How can you cherry pick the criteria you want to use when the criteria is clear. You must quick decline a GA nomination if there is edit warring. How can you use that to begin a GA3? If you have no specific concerns how can anything be addressed?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mark Miller:I think you are misunderstanding me, I'm agreeing with you. I think that we should wait to see if "significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks" before considering a GA reassessment. Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry...my fault. I was replying to RightCowLeftCoast and should have stated that.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Our guidelines actually speak directly to this issue and both RightCowLeftCoast and I are correct: "Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate, wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment. If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered.". So, while the lock will run out tomorrow, I urge RightCowLeftCoast to close this now per guidelines for community reassessment and if the problem persists re-open based on that fact.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Mark has a good point. I understand why RightCowLeftCoast listed this page for reassessment and I would have done the same thing given that this article ranks 58 by traffic. And as he pointed out stability and factual accuracy are key points of a GA article, but, like WP:GAR says its not appropriate to reassess the quality until the edit warring is over. Which means whoever is going reassess the article must start his review after the article is stabilized. However, I don't actually think reassessment request should be closed. My opinion is that the reviewer should take a while before jumping into the reassessment. Because, article healing process takes time.--Chamith (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

For me it's not content disputes alone. The article is bloated and it's not just from POV pushing (although there is that problem too).Mattnad (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Would you say there is more bloat in the sports section or in redundant references? Do you think the history section can be further summarized? EllenCT (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Mattnad is correct. The article is heavily bloated, but not in any particular section. I think the article is graphic heavy, needs a major copy edit for brevity, clarity, encyclopedic value, and undue weight issues in general. There is a lot to be said about redundant references and weak references needing strengthening but I think the talk page is getting a general consensus on a number of issues.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

As one of the editors who helped get this article past the GA review, I still notice all of the POV pushing. Sadly, it is not possible to have an article like this stay neutral because of so many different opinions. The article itself is not that bad, and perhaps it would be best to revert to the version before the POV pushing began. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The lock of this article has ended, the edit conflict remains, with more tags having appeared in this article since the last time I edited it (until the recent edits)(in April). Therefore I would say this article does not pass the neutral part of GAR, and a delisting would be appropriate at this time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, I would have to agree so. It's shame since it was promoted so recently. Unfortunately, edit warring simply bloats the article. Still, outside of the fact that it is not a GA by wikipedia standards, I would still say it is a pretty informative article, and I am still happy we were able to improve it. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Prior to all of our involvement, many sentences were uncited, and subject to WP:BURDEN. This is no longer the case. The article was C/E'd to a high degree, and is easier to read. Unfortunately, as it contains controversial sections, it has become a place of conflicting editors, all whom believe they are doing the right thing for the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

A radical proposal to reduce the POV pushing on this article

As you all know the article for The United States has recently become a hotbed for POV pushers to advance their views on the nation. The article on The United States is also a very long, currently at 321,081 bytes. My proposal is that we reduce and get rid of a number of the most POV-pushy sections of the article entirely.

First on the chopping block is Government finance, the second paragraph can be removed entirely. It gives undue weight to the issue of income inequality, which while an important issue in American politics does not deserve its own paragraph.

Secondly, the National Debt is given undue weight as well. We don't need a subsection talking about this, a single sentence with debt as a % of gdp and (possibly) the credit rating would work.

Finally, the Income, poverty and wealth section also can be reduced to a single sentence with a statistic discussing the distribution of wealth.

I understand that this will likely annoy a lot of editors, but that is the point. I believe that these are some of the measures necessary for the article to retain its GA status by reducing the undue weight that is currently being given to these political issues. Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. This article could benefit as a summary article by limiting itself to country descriptions which find their way into reliable scholarly sources published in academic journals or peer reviewed publishing houses -- rather than featuring pressing issues ripped from the headlines based on statistics which are then revised within ninety days. Government finance and National debt should be linked to subsidiary articles, reduced to a single sentence such as Winner 42 suggests. It could slow the volatility of the page. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

An excellent proposal. Fully concur. Obvious violations of WP:UNDUE. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree with this. POV pushing or not, this article has become bloated. The opportunity for expansive discussion of the topics is in the related articles.Mattnad (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Just because you're unhappy with the outcome of an RFC and unwilling to abide by its closure doesn't mean it's an opportunity to scrub all of the largest controversies concerning the economic situation which comprise the clear plurality of headlines on national issues these days. The article has been incrementally and painstakingly negotiated with consensus compromise over more than half a decade for some of the statements in question, and there would be no edit wars if people would abide by the RFC consensus process. The article achieved GA status with the sections you want to delete, and would clearly lack the comprehensiveness required by the GA criteria if the sections you want to delete are deleted. And if you seriously think that "the Income, poverty and wealth section also can be reduced to a single sentence" then what do you propose for that sentence? EllenCT (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"comprise the clear plurality of headlines on national issues these days" Wikipedia is not about shoving in whatever is getting headlines these days. WP:RECENTISM. Reflecting headlines is not what this article is for, in any way. --Golbez (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

By "these days" I mean since the very early 2000s. Per WP:LEAD, the largest controversies shouldn't just be in the article, they should, according to that guideline, be summarized in the introduction. EllenCT (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"As of 2007, the United States had a GINI coefficient of 45.0, the 41st highest in the world" With a citation to the CIA factbook would suffice. As Golbez has pointed out, all these sections are very Recentism focused while providing WP:UNDUE weight. Additionally, previous consensuses can be changed by new consensuses such as the one forming here, in fact that is the point of consensus in the first place. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Less than one out of twenty economics undergrads can correctly state what the Gini (not all caps) coefficient means, let alone the general international readership. Your proposal doesn't say anything about the trends or the vast numbers of GenXers who have had to move back in with their parents. I don't see how you can make a WP:UNDUE argument against text which has been in the article for several years, and for which corresponding detail is in most of the other developed nations' articles. And again, you are trying to remove controversies when the WP:LEAD guideline directs that "prominent controversies" shouldn't just be in the article, they should be in the intro. EllenCT (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

We know where you stand on this proposition. How we capture a summary sentence or two can be worked on. Is there a reason we'd want to add large sections on your topics of choice for a summary article vs. reserving an expansive exploration in articles dedicated to the topic? Coming back to this being an encyclopedia, I do not see anything like what you propose in Encarta or Britannica. Recent-ism or not, there's a level of detail that's out of whack here. We shouldn't have, as you put it, "the vast numbers of GenXers who have had to move back in with their parents" in a summary level article.Mattnad (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Fine, we can link the article on it then, Gini coefficient. If you have a better statistical measure for income inequality please say so (I would not be opposed to something like the Hoover index). The article on the United States is not meant to describe the many political controversies currently going on in the United States and the WP:LEAD guideline specifically has a footnote that says not to give undue weight. How would you determine what is a major controversy in the United States anyway? I could list hundreds of current issues (Gun control, drug crime, relations with Russia) and past issues (Gold standard, tariffs, slavery) that could all be considered major controversies, but have no place in a summery level article. Additionally, a section's duration of stay in an article has no bearing on its neutrality, not does the existence of the section in other articles. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV states that "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 [in those sources.]" Wholesale removal of anything controversial simply violates that requirement. Can you point to anywhere else on Wikipedia where difficulty editing around controversies has been resolved by deleting mention of them? The reason we don't discuss gun control, drug crime, Russian relations, or most of the other issues you mention is because they affect a very much smaller proportion of Americans than the standard of living and economics issues you propose to sweep under the rug. And there is plenty that we do discuss regarding slavery: 23 mentions in 13 sentences across 5 paragraphs. 'Summary' is not spelled with an 'e'. EllenCT (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

While I sympathize with the goal of reducing article bloat, I think your suggestion goes too far too fast, and your proposed single income sentence is way off base. The most legitimate topline income section would probably be the current opening sentence mentioning mean and median income, not a Gini comparison. In fact there was a push a while back (I got sidetracked and tuned out; not sure if it's still going on) to remove Gini as a Wikipedia standard metric since it's calculated with different methodologies in different sources (it's non standardized) and isn't regularly updated on a global level the way more important stats like GDP are. It was proved by editors that Gini comparisons currently used in different prominent country articles are apples and oranges. More importantly, all that aside, you'd be the one elevating "inequality" to an undue emphasis by making it more important than basic, non POV pushing stats like mean and median income. As for Government finance, I'll point out that the facts there aren't really disputed, and the two primary parties disagreeing over the phrasing there just reached a compromise solution. VictorD7 (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of neutrality, perhaps this is best, with see also hat notes in the sections to related articles. Perhaps, on income and income inequality, it is best to not include a sentence at all, but instead providing a hat note to those specific articles. A sentence on the average income, and percent in poverty, might be sufficient.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed compromise on taxation progressivity/ redistributive spending.

The current long standing Government finance segment stays the way it is, and we add a comparative sentence on redistribution to either the Economy or Income sections along the lines of... "The United States has a smaller welfare state and redistributes less income through government action than European nations."...sourced to something generic and relatively non polemical like this OECD paper that mostly just lays out facts: [10] (see especially figure 2 on page 5).

That's similar to a once present segment deleted during article cleanup/reduction a couple of years ago, and should address any concerns about only telling part of the fiscal story, without obliterating the tax progressivity segment which is a legitimate stand alone topic in its own right for reasons that go beyond just income distribution (e.g. economic growth, revenue volatility, and simply accurately describing "taxation"). I'll add that there is already extensive commentary on income inequality per se in the Income section, including international comparisons.

Does that sound reasonable, EllenCT? Mattnad? Anyone else who wants to weigh in? VictorD7 (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm completely okay with that. Going back and forth between "among the most progressive in the developed world" (Federal income tax) and "among the least progressive in the developed world" (overall fiscal policy) isn't working. EllenCT (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll also note that, as the OECD paper makes clear, there's a difference between redistributive impact and progressivity per se. Nation A can have a more progressive tax structure than nation B but if it's much smaller in size (overall tax burden) it can have less redistributive impact than nation B's. That US taxation has one of the biggest redistributive impacts despite being smaller in size than most OECD nations' underscores how extremely progressive it is. US transfer spending is fairly progressive too, but makes a smaller redistributive impact than its taxation does, the opposite of typical European systems. I figure I'll add the proposed sentence to the Economy section since it seems to fit better there. VictorD7 (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

How do you feel about stating both that the federal income tax is among the most progressive in the developed world, but the overall fiscal policy is among the least progressive? How do you want to summarize Figure 2 of that OECD paper? EllenCT (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Well overall US taxation is among the most progressive in the developed world,* and, as I led off this section by saying, I think the progressivity tax segment in Government finance should stay the way it is. The compromise is adding the sentence to the Economy section about the size of the welfare state and overall redistribution. What figure 2 shows is that the US redistributes among the most through taxes (the extreme progressivity makes up for the relatively smaller size of the tax burden here) and among the least through transfer spending (and less overall). The latter doesn't necessarily speak to progressivity per se (which deals with structure) as much as the smaller size of US welfare spending. So I was planning on going with the sentence I suggested above, about how the US has a smaller welfare state and redistributes less income overall than in European nations. That's safe, solid, accurate language.

*A fact underscored repeatedly in this OECD paper. For example: (page 13) "In many high-tax countries, taxes have a relatively low redistributive impact because they embody little progressivity (Figure 7, Panel B) – this is particularly the case in Belgium, Denmark, Iceland and Sweden. And household taxes are more progressive in the United States than in most EU countries.16 However, some countries (including Chile, Korea and Japan) combine a relatively low tax burden with very little progressivity."

(page 27) "Various studies have compared the progressivity of tax systems of European countries with that of the United States (see for instance Prasad and Deng, 2009; Piketty and Saez, 2007; Joumard, 2001). Though they use different definitions, methods and databases, they reach the same conclusion: "the US tax system is more progressive than those of the continental European countries."

Also worth noting: (page 1) "The redistributive impact of taxes and transfers depends on the size, mix and the progressivity of each component." It's not just about progressivity.

(page 4) "Cash transfers reduce income dispersion more than taxes (Figure 2).5 The United States, however, is an outlier with virtually the same redistribution achieved through taxes as cash transfers. It relies heavily on the tax code to provide support to low income groups – the Earned Income Tax Credit is one of the largest US social programmes – while other countries rely more on cash transfers."

(page 7) "For instance, in Portugal and the United States transfers attain about the same reduction in inequality but for different reasons. In the United States, the limited reduction in inequality is due to the smaller size of transfers compared with the OECD average whereas in Portugal it is mainly due to their lower progressivity." Hopefully this helps clarify things. VictorD7 (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It's reassuring to see, editors who appear to be on opposite ends of the political spectrum to reach a consensus, thus bettering the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately Ellen just violated the compromise by completely rewriting the section she had just agreed to leave as is, deleting the international comparison entirely. She apparently wants to disregard inconvenient, undisputed, well sourced facts and cherry-pick her international comparisons. Of course I reverted. VictorD7 (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Why were talk discussions archived in the middle of an investigation?

Why would someone archive discussions involving an editor who is being investigated? Phmoreno (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you be more specific, Phmoreno? The last archive entry was automated and both archived threads had no comments for weeks. Tiderolls 12:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand how threads on other articles can go years with no new comments and not be archived while these were archived after a few weeks.Phmoreno (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Bot-archived pages are usually tied to some time period. The talk pages you've observed with the old threads are probably not set to automatically archive. Tiderolls 13:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2015

61.150.115.249 (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)