| Revision as of 11:05, 20 January 2014 editEllenCT (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,831 edits →Replacement of "progressive" with "redistributive": explain← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:02, 20 January 2014 edit undoMorphh (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers18,366 editsm →Replacement of "progressive" with "redistributive": wikilinkNext edit → | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 272: | Line 272: | ||
| If I remember correctly, at least two times and likely more in the past week or two you have replaced text and links referring to "progressive" and similar terms with other terms referring to "redistributive", after having asked for the original terms to be included because, as you pointed out, progressive taxes don't increase income equality unless they are accompanied by progressive transfer payments. However, transfer payment redistributions can and do also occur from the poor to the rich, both through government fiscal policy, government monetary policy and private sector ]. Since "redistributive" policies can be regressive instead of progressive, would you please undo those edits? ] (]) 11:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC) | If I remember correctly, at least two times and likely more in the past week or two you have replaced text and links referring to "progressive" and similar terms with other terms referring to "redistributive", after having asked for the original terms to be included because, as you pointed out, progressive taxes don't increase income equality unless they are accompanied by progressive transfer payments. However, transfer payment redistributions can and do also occur from the poor to the rich, both through government fiscal policy, government monetary policy and private sector ]. Since "redistributive" policies can be regressive instead of progressive, would you please undo those edits? ] (]) 11:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :I think you mistaking me with someone else, as I don't recall saying that "progressive taxes don't increase income equality unless they are accompanied by progressive transfer payments". Ignoring dynamic effects, even if the government just burned the money, the taxation itself would reduce income inequality. No transfer payments are necessary, but I probably asked for inclusion of mentioning progressive spending because it's what is done. Since many people might not be aware of what "progressive spending" is (it's sort of a neologism and not a common term to the general public) and perhaps confuse it with spending tied to a ] and not a distribution method, I thought the term redistributive spending was a more familiar for readers that said essentially the same thing. I agree that the term redistribution could go both ways, but given the context of the section and sentence "and social safety nets result" along with the common use of the term to the general public, rich to poor is implied/assumed. It doesn't matter much to me though and I'll undo it on Progressive tax (not sure which other article you're thinking), I was just trying to clarify it for the average reader following ], which says "Every reasonable attempt should be made to ensure that material is presented in the most widely understandable manner possible. If an article is written in a highly technical manner, but the material permits a more understandable explanation, then editors are strongly encouraged to rewrite it." Perhaps we could find a better wording like the phrasing we use on the income inequality article "in a more equal distribution of income across the board." ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>13:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)</i></small> | |||
Revision as of 14:02, 20 January 2014
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
 Archives |
|---|
Proposal to delete Federal taxation in the United States
I have tagged the article Federal taxation in the United States as proposed for deletion, as previously noted. Your prior discussions with User:Int21h indicate that most of the article was copied by him from Taxation in the United States. While I agree that the topic is of sufficient length and notability that it could be a separate article, I believe the needs of the community are better served with a single article. Further, trying to maintain two high level articles, one of which is merely a subset of the other, will impose too great an editing burden and lead to many errors and contradictions. I believe the Federal taxation article should be no more than a redirect to Taxation in the United States. Comments welcome on my talk page or the Federal tax article talk page. Thanks. Oldtaxguy (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Invitation to join WikiProject United States
 |
Hello, Morphh! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Misplaced Pages, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!! |
--Kumioko (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
...only 4 years late......cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Much appreciated! Oldtaxguy (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Linder pic caption suggestion
The Linder picture on the FairTax page, I believe, is from 2007 and shows Linder with the FairTax and the 2007 tax code, yet the caption says "current" tax code, ("Rep John Linder holding the 133 page Fair Tax Act in contrast to the current U.S. tax code.") making it dated and inaccurate.
I would suggest perhaps adjusting it to something like this: "Rep John Linder holding the 133 page Fair Tax Act in contrast to the then-current 2007 U.S. tax code." or "Rep John Linder in 2007 holding the 133 page Fair Tax Act in contrast to the annually growing U.S. tax code."
As you are someone so knowledgable on the article, I thought I'd throw that out to you because this is something that strikes me every time I look at it. Thanks! Pbgiv (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I updated taking a bit from each suggestion. I used then-current and added 2007 to the bill version Fair Tax Act of 2007, since I'm not sure if it is still 133 pages (they made a few tweaks in 2009 & 2011). Morphh 02:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Linder picture is very deceptive. The "then-current tax code" is the two maroon volumes on which Mr. Linder is resting the pages he's holding. I don't know what the blue volumes beside him are, other than maybe an attempt to make the reader believe they are the current state of the law. I strongly favor removing this photo as inherently very biased. Oldtaxguy (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- That would be the complete set of Title 26 of the US Code of Federal Regulations (that's the part written by the IRS), which make up twenty volumes. I'll adjust the caption. Morphh 23:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- The Linder picture is very deceptive. The "then-current tax code" is the two maroon volumes on which Mr. Linder is resting the pages he's holding. I don't know what the blue volumes beside him are, other than maybe an attempt to make the reader believe they are the current state of the law. I strongly favor removing this photo as inherently very biased. Oldtaxguy (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:TaxFoundation.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:TaxFoundation.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Nomination as a United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month candidate
The Hope Diamond has been nominated to be a future United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month. All editors interested in improving this article are encouraged to participate. You can vote for this or other articles article of the Month here. --Kumioko (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Article feedback
You might want to chime in at WP:VPP#Disable Article Feedback Tool and Discuss but I'm pessimistic about any chances of slowing this down until things start to go wrong, and even then who knows? Dougweller (talk) 06:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Citation Barnstar |
| Nirmal95 (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC) |
- Thanks, always nice to get a barnstar. :) Morphh 03:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Revenuereform.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Revenuereform.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly 06:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
18:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Nomination as a United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month candidate
Greetings, as someone who has signed up to be a member of the United States Wikipedians' collaboration of the Month, I wanted to let you know that several articles have been nominated to be a future Collaboration of the Month article. All editors interested in voting for or improving these article are encouraged to participate. You can cast your vote here. --Kumioko (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
--Kumioko (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
January 2012 USCOTM - The Star-Spangled Banner
 |
Hello, Morphh! The Star-Spangled Banner has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month article for January 2012 and we are looking for editors to help improve the article. You were identified as an editor or WikiProject with an interest in the article and we thought you might be interested in helping out. Thanks!!! |
--Kumioko (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Leon Panetta as a United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month candidate
Greetings, as a member of the United States Wikipedians' collaboration of the Month, this notice was sent to let you know that the article, Leon Panetta, has been nominated to be a future Collaboration of the Month article. All editors interested in voting for or improving these article are encouraged to participate. You can cast your vote here. --Kumioko (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
MOTDs (This space for rent)
You may have noticed over the past few days that the MOTD that you link to on your user page has simply displayed a red link. This is due to the fact that not enough people are reviewing pending MOTDs here. Please help us keep the MOTD template alive and simply go and review a few of the MOTDs in the list. That way we can have a real MOTD in the future rather than re-using (This space for rent). Any help would be appreciated! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM - Forward!
You are, of course, quite correct. As a historian in Wisconsin (birthplace of the actual Republican Party (R.I.P.) I am simply amazed and annoyed at the pathetic efforts by the paid liars of the chattering classes to taint my state's motto as evidence of communism, as part of their effort to brand the mealy-mouthed Eisenhower Republicanism of the Obama administration as the work of Stalin's minions (with a side order of guilt-by-association with the Hitler Youth). Sadly, my annoyance leads me to attempt to actually teach them some history, undoubtedly a futile gesture. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, it's certainly easy to get side tracked on such issues. I find the back and forth quite annoying and pathetic as well, but it is what it is I guess - politics as usual. Morphh 20:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Obama Controversies Not Mentioned
If you want some points that have been getting kept out of the Obama article for years, controversies they don't want mentioned no matter how prominent, here are some examples.
- Opposed medical care for newborn infants, was a major issue in both the 2004 and 2008 elections and brought up by Alan Keyes, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain. Newt Gingrich brought it up in 2012. I've written this page covering it, which includes 50 prominent sources. Some major sources include:
- Disqualified all four opponents in first election, in 1996, so he could run unopposed. He used a team of lawyers to disqualify the petition signatures of opponents on technicalities after the filing deadline. I've written this section covering it. Some major sources include:
- Struck a deal with Illinois Senate leader to get all legislation from other Illinois Senators directed to his desk in 2003, building his entire legislative record in one year, in preparation for the 2004 elections so he could become a U.S. Senator. I've written this page covering it. Some major sources include:
--98.220.198.49 (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I can't say that I'm interested in getting involved with inserting contentious material into hot topic articles. I'm not looking to target inserting criticism. I evaluate each piece of content on its own merits based on the encyclopedia's policy. So I could just as easily argue against inserting such content depending on the arguments and sources presented in discussion. It looks like you've done some work though, so I encourage you to create an account and present this on the appropriate article's talk page if you think it necessary content for an encyclopedia article. Morphh 12:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Morphh. It may be stretching things to call those edits 'good faith', but your point is well taken.JoelWhy (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
RE
I replied to your comment on my talk page. I don't know how this works, whether you get a notification of my reply or not, therefore I am leaving this message. - 173.74.164.212 (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "War on Women". Thank you. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
War on Women: "redefining rape"
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Morphh. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
This is a courtesy heads-up for you. I'm adding everybody who worked on the article since I have. Belchfire-TALK 02:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Re: Tax chart
Moving this back to the other talk page to keep the discussion in one place...
- I've replied further at User talk:Cupco#Tax chart. —Cupco 21:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Re: Graphs
Which specific graphs do you think don't improve the articles? And what pattern are you talking about? I've been adding graphs in several different topics, none of which I have any COI or work interest in. —Cupco 19:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Replied on User talk:Cupco's talk. Morphh 21:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Freedom of speech = New WikiProject
Hi there, I'm notifying you as I noticed your impressive work on the GA Quality article, Tax protester constitutional arguments. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:
- List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
- Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
- Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
- Join in discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
- Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.
Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Reynolds American
Hello. I have some basic factual edit suggestions for the Reynolds American article I posted on the article’s talk page. I am an employee of the company and I am therefore just suggesting edits due to my WP:COI. I saw you are a member of the North Carolina WikiProject and so I was wondering if you could take a look at the proposed edits and implement them if you deem them appropriate? Thanks. Velinflo (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Please disregard; already handled by another editor. Thanks. Velinflo (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages Loves Libraries Seattle
| Decemmber 8 - Misplaced Pages Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited | |
|---|---|
 |
|
question about dynamic scoring edits
Hi Morphh,
You contend that my edits to the dynamic scoring page present an incorrect premise. Can you please clarify? The premise I added (lower taxes increase economic growth and subsequently tax receipts) is exactly what conservative leaders are arguing for to restore the economy. Are they wrong?
I feel that this article lacks balance and is skewed to promote conservative fiscal ideology. I was attempting to add a little balance by providing historical and factual data refuting that philosophy.
best wishes,
trappem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trappem (talk • contribs) 20:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- This article is not the article to debate supply-side economics and the effects of a particular policy choice. Dynamic scoring is simply considering the economic effects of policy when scoring the plan, be it good, bad, or otherwise. Taxation has economic disturbance - dynamic scoring attempts to measure that disturbance. The article states that conservatives promote dynamic scoring as common methodologies factor lower taxes return higher benefits in terms of GDP growth and provide revenue increases over static scoring - this is a true statement. There is no need to include the premise, which is WP:OR as opinions differ depending on what conservative your talking about or liberal for that matter (as they too argue that tax increases hurt economic growth) and what income or policy your discussing (tax increases on the middle class, business owners, "the rich"?). The second portion is also vague - increased revenue over what... static scoring or prior revenues? And of course the rebuttal conclusion is extreme and very weakly supported by the sources. All things equal, 75% marginal tax rates will not boost GDP - there is no causality in these historical figures and it goes against all empirical evidence (U.S. and Global). I'm fine with trying to add balance, but let's not turn this article into a debate on tax policy and the vast opinions regarding it's effects. Morphh 21:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation...t — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trappem (talk • contribs) 22:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:TaxationCOTM
Template:TaxationCOTM has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Kumioko (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Help with Sales taxes in the United States article
Hi Morphh, I'm an employee of The Heritage Foundation and I'm looking for help with a request I posted a little while ago on the Sales taxes in the United States talk page. I'm looking to add a new section to this article about sales taxes on the Internet, but I would like other editors to review what I have written because I've mentioned some criticism from The Heritage Foundation (about the recent Marketplace Fairness Act) in the section. I see that you are a member of WikiProject Taxation and thought you might be interested in looking at this. If you'd like to help out, the request is on the article's talk page here. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sales taxes in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Off-topic
"99.9%" of people supporting criminalization of homosexuality in 1990 isn't quite on. By that point, states which still had sodomy laws on the books were in a minority. The USA is backward, but not apparently that backward. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ya, I was being facetious in making a point. I don't have any statistic on it. Morphh 20:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't know what the opinion statistic would be either. I don't think the "lots of people supported criminalization back then" is relevant either way, since it's Card's support that is controversial, not anyone else's; I just took the off-topic discussion here since I wasn't sure you knew that most states had actually already repealed their sodomy laws before Lawrence. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Genealogy and Family History merger
Hi, this merger has been spotlighted on FamilySearch Blog: https://familysearch.org/blog/en/difference-genealogy-family-history/ . Hope I did OK explaining it to the public. Murphynw (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with your comments. I don't understand the purpose of trying to parce differences between "genealogy" and "family history." It looks like picking one over the other is largely a regional difference in English. It looks like each country has it's own bizarre history of bouncing back between one or the other. If I've understand the comments correctly, in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, “family history” is the preferred verbiage. In the United States, Mormons (members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) also prefer to call the endeavor “family history,” but people who are not Mormons prefer “genealogy.” But overall, it's clearly "genealogy" that is most recognizable according to the studies I've seen. LOL Murphynw (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks!
For the barnstar. I also really appreciate your efforts to meet me halfway and find solutions we can both agree on. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
| I don't think you get enough credit for your attempts at following WP core principles on the War on Women article. Good job for a thankless task. Arzel (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC) |
Advice
Walter Brooke in the movie The Graduate had one word of advice: "Plastics". – S. Rich (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks :) I needed that. Morphh 18:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Nrcprm2026 SPI
I think you need to revert your recent archival of this case. You do not appeared to have considered or evaluated the behavioural evidence at play, which I think needs to happen before the investigation can be closed (notwithstanding that I declined to provide technical evidence). This is unless you actually have looked at the behaviour of the two accounts, in which case you need to state this fact on the investigation, or unless I have missed something, in which case you need to WP:TROUT me :-). Thanks, AGK 22:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Progressive tax
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
January 2014
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Progressivism & education & taxes
While what you say has merit, I think omitting remarks about editor behavior is the best course of action. Perhaps an WP:RFC/U is in order. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Srich32977: You're probably right - just frustrating. And yes, RFC/U or ANI (recommend topic ban as related to economic inequality) would be a good next step. I'm not really familiar with starting either one though. Morphh 20:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we should have an RFC/U on editors who plan actions against others without informing them they are being discussed. EllenCT (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- I recall that you actually did file an ANI without notifying me. Me responding to a post on my talk page about another editor's behavior is not something that I think requires notification. Morphh 23:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Morph, I appreciate your attempts on the article talk pages, but I don't think EllenCT is misunderstanding what's logically required. My suspicion is that she see this as her mission to provide a counterpoint to conservative perspectives and wants to push certain conclusions she has, even if there's no direct support for it. You've laid out the logical gap, but she ignores simple direct requests and refers to irrelevant sources as her justification. I'm at my end trying to reason with her tendentious editing.Mattnad (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Mattnad: I agree that she should be fully aware of the issues and policy by now - it's a reoccurring theme. She's tried to create several straw men, so I just wanted to lay it out directly, maybe more for anyone else that reads the discussion later. I didn't want others falling for the logical fallacy. Morphh 18:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Replacement of "progressive" with "redistributive"
If I remember correctly, at least two times and likely more in the past week or two you have replaced text and links referring to "progressive" and similar terms with other terms referring to "redistributive", after having asked for the original terms to be included because, as you pointed out, progressive taxes don't increase income equality unless they are accompanied by progressive transfer payments. However, transfer payment redistributions can and do also occur from the poor to the rich, both through government fiscal policy, government monetary policy and private sector rent-seeking. Since "redistributive" policies can be regressive instead of progressive, would you please undo those edits? EllenCT (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think you mistaking me with someone else, as I don't recall saying that "progressive taxes don't increase income equality unless they are accompanied by progressive transfer payments". Ignoring dynamic effects, even if the government just burned the money, the taxation itself would reduce income inequality. No transfer payments are necessary, but I probably asked for inclusion of mentioning progressive spending because it's what is done. Since many people might not be aware of what "progressive spending" is (it's sort of a neologism and not a common term to the general public) and perhaps confuse it with spending tied to a political philosophy and not a distribution method, I thought the term redistributive spending was a more familiar for readers that said essentially the same thing. I agree that the term redistribution could go both ways, but given the context of the section and sentence "and social safety nets result" along with the common use of the term to the general public, rich to poor is implied/assumed. It doesn't matter much to me though and I'll undo it on Progressive tax (not sure which other article you're thinking), I was just trying to clarify it for the average reader following WP:TECHNICAL, which says "Every reasonable attempt should be made to ensure that material is presented in the most widely understandable manner possible. If an article is written in a highly technical manner, but the material permits a more understandable explanation, then editors are strongly encouraged to rewrite it." Perhaps we could find a better wording like the phrasing we use on the income inequality article "in a more equal distribution of income across the board." Morphh 13:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)