Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:48, 8 December 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116Auto-archiving period: 7 days

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1. How did the article get the way it is? Archives: Article Name, Article Introduction, Human Rights, Culture This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. Detailed discussions which led to the current consensus can be found in the archives of Talk:United States. Several topical talk archives are identified in the infobox to the right. A complete list of talk archives can be found at the top of the Talk:United States page. Q2. Why is the article's name "United States" and not "United States of America"? Isn't United States of America the official name of the U.S.? I would think that United States should redirect to United States of America, not vice versa as is the current case. This has been discussed many times. Please review the summary points below and the discussion archived at the Talk:United States/Name page. The most major discussion showed a lack of consensus to either change the name or leave it as the same, so the name was kept as "United States". If, after reading the following summary points and all the discussion, you wish to ask a question or contribute your opinion to the discussion, then please do so at Talk:United States. The only way that we can be sure of ongoing consensus is if people contribute. Reasons and counterpoints for the article title of "United States": "United States" is in compliance with the Misplaced Pages "Naming conventions (common names)" guideline portion of the Misplaced Pages naming conventions policy. The guideline expresses a preference for the most commonly used name, and "United States" is the most commonly used name for the country in television programs (particularly news), newspapers, magazines, books, and legal documents, including the Constitution of the United States. Exceptions to guidelines are allowed. If we used "United States of America", then to be consistent we would have to rename all similar articles. For example, by renaming "United Kingdom" to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or Mexico to "United Mexican States". Exceptions to guidelines are allowed. Articles are independent from one another. No rule says articles have to copy each other. This argument would be valid only if "United States of America" was a particularly uncommon name for the country. Well-established encyclopedias in the English language appear to generally use a "common name" policy for article titles. More specifically, the following use "United States" for the title of the corresponding article: MSN Encarta, World Book, Encyclopedia Americana, Columbia, Grolier, and the Micropaedia and online versions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. In our effort to make Misplaced Pages an "encyclopedia of the highest possible quality," (Jimmy Wales, "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia", March 8, 2005, <wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org>) we would do well to emulate what these well-established encyclopedias do. The Macropaedia version of Britannica uses "United States of America" for its article title. With the reliability, legitimacy, and reputation of all Wikimedia Foundation projects under constant attack, Misplaced Pages should not hand a weapon to its critics by deviating from the "common name" policy traditionally used by encyclopedias in the English-speaking world. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be more than just another encyclopedia. Reasons and counterpoints for the article title of "United States of America": It is the country's official name. The country's name is not explicitly defined as such in the Constitution or in the law. The words "United States of America" only appear three times in the Constitution. "United States" appears 51 times by itself, including in the presidential oath or affirmation. The phrase "of America" is arguably just a prepositional phrase that describes the location of the United States and is not actually part of the country's name. The Articles of Confederation explicitly name the country "The United States of America" in article one. While this is no longer binding law, the articles provide clear intent of the founders of the nation to use the name "The United States of America." The whole purpose of the common naming convention is to ease access to the articles through search engines. For this purpose the article name "United States of America" is advantageous over "United States" because it contains the strings "United States of America" and "United States." In this regard, "The United States of America" would be even better as it contains the strings "United States," The United States," "United States of America," and "The United States of America." The purpose of containing more strings is to increase exposure to Misplaced Pages articles by increasing search rank for more terms. Although "The United States of America" would give you four times more commonly used terms for the United States, the United States article on Misplaced Pages is already the first result in queries for United States of America, The United States of America, The United States, and of course United States. Q3. Is the United States really the oldest constitutional republic in the world? 1. Isn't San Marino older? Yes. San Marino was founded before the United States and did adopt its basic law on 8 October 1600. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sm.html) Full democracy was attained there with various new electoral laws in the 20th century which augmented rather than amended the existing constitution. 2. How about Switzerland? Yes, but not continuously. The first "constitution" within Switzerland is believed to be the Federal Charter of 1291 and most of modern Switzerland was republican by 1600. After Napoleon and a later civil war, the current constitution was adopted in 1848. Many people in the United States are told it is the oldest republic and has the oldest constitution, however one must use a narrow definition of constitution. Within Misplaced Pages articles it may be appropriate to add a modifier such as "oldest continuous, federal ..." however it is more useful to explain the strength and influence of the US constitution and political system both domestically and globally. One must also be careful using the word "democratic" due to the limited franchise in early US history and better explain the pioneering expansion of the democratic system and subsequent influence. The component states of the Swiss confederation were mostly oligarchies in the eighteenth century, however, being much more oligarchical than most of the United States, with the exceptions of Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Connecticut. Q4. Why are the Speaker of the House and Chief Justice listed as leaders in the infobox? Shouldn't it just be the President and Vice President? The President, Vice President, Speaker of The House of Representatives, and Chief Justice are stated within the United States Constitution as leaders of their respective branches of government. As the three branches of government are equal, all four leaders get mentioned under the "Government" heading in the infobox. Q5. What is the motto of the United States? There was no de jure motto of the United States until 1956, when "In God We Trust" was made such. Various other unofficial mottos existed before that, most notably "E Pluribus Unum". The debate continues on what "E Pluribus Unum"'s current status is (de facto motto, traditional motto, etc.) but it has been determined that it never was an official motto of the United States. Q6. Is the U.S. really the world's largest economy? The United States was the world's largest national economy from about 1880 and largest by nominal GDP from about 2014, when it surpassed the European Union. China has been larger by Purchasing Power Parity, since about 2016. Q7. Isn't it incorrect to refer to it as "America" or its people as "American"? In English, America (when not preceded by "North", "Central", or "South") almost always refers to the United States. The large super-continent is called the Americas. Q8. Why isn't the treatment of Native Americans given more weight? The article is written in summary style and the sections "Indigenous peoples" and "European colonization" summarize the situation.

United States was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result December 15, 2005 Good article nominee Listed May 7, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 8, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 18, 2006 Peer review Reviewed July 3, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 21, 2006 Peer review Reviewed June 19, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 9, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept June 27, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 6, 2009 Peer review Reviewed January 19, 2011 Peer review Reviewed March 18, 2012 Good article reassessment Delisted August 10, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 4, 2008. Current status: Delisted good article

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was a past U.S. Collaboration of the Month. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. North America Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. United States: Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government. Template:WP1.0

Template:Maintained

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. August 17, 2009. "Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. July 18, 2013. Retrieved July 18, 2013.

This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following sources: Surhone, L. M., Timpledon, M. T., & Marseken, S. F. (2010), Orson Scott Card: United States, author, critic, public speaking, activism, genre, Betascript Publishing{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2009), Biosphere 2: Biosphere 2, closed ecological system, Oracle, Arizona, Arizona, United States, Biome, space colonization, Biosphere, rainforest, Ed Bass, BIOS-3, Eden project, Alphascript{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2010), Military journalism: Combatant commander, psychological warfare, United States, public affairs (military), propaganda, journalist, Civil-military operations, Alphascript Publishing{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Additional comments OCLC 636651797, ISBN 9786130336431.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116Auto-archiving period: 7 days

RfC: Is the Income, Poverty, and Wealth section too long?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Economy, trade, and companies Politics, government, and law History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Is the Income, Poverty, and Wealth section too long, and should it be significantly shortened? Cadiomals (talk) 05:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Survey for RFC

• Support reducing the section by at least half and removing all details that are by consensus deemed excessive for a general summary article. Cadiomals (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - The deletions proposed at #Income, poverty, and wealth above all involve objective statistical facts about economic conditions, unemployment, wealth and income distribution, poverty, homelessness, and nutrition which have been central to campaign debate themes in the election cycles since the 2008 economic crisis, and in many cases since the 2000 dot com collapse. It is very likely that readers will be seeking that information. Removing them would introduce bias, because low information voters skew in a uniform direction politically. EllenCT (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support This article should be more general than any of the supporting articles called out for further reference to those details. Chart-level details can be found at Main articles: Income in the United States, Poverty in the United States, and Wealth in the United States and, See also: Income inequality in the United States and Affluence in the United States. --- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I would support removing some things from this subsection. However, I definitely oppose taking a meat cleaver to it and cutting it in half. There has already been a consensus to remove tons of stuff from this article, but essentially a single editor has been allowed to ignore consensus. For example in this subsection, multiple editors have called for dubious/controversial material from the rabidly partisan Heritage Foundation to be deleted. If you want to make this subsection smaller go ahead and delete the Heritage Foundation material. Multiple editors will support you and it is likely that only one editor will have a huge hissy fit.Lance Friedman (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Lance, I know you are referring to VictorD7, but the only person I think seems to be making a real "hissy fit" is EllenCT, who is opposed to the trimming of all the sections here. Based on her above opposed statement she isn't even being subtle about the fact that she wants to use this article and this section in particular as her WP:SOAPBOX, whereas Victor has accepted the removal of a lot of the info he added. The more details are added, the more objective statistics can be deliberately manipulated to promote a certain perspective (soapbox), and the only way to prevent this is to significantly cut back on the details in this summary article. Cadiomals (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Victor didn't accept anything, anyone who looks at the history can see that Victor immediately began adding back in his info right after you made your deletions. If you make the same deletions you made last time, I bet he will put his skewed controversial stuff right back in againLance Friedman (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

And if he does, he and anyone else who goes against consensus will be blocked for edit-warring. It's really as simple as that. It's not like people will stop watching this article. He's already been blocked before and next time it could be much longer or even permanent. Since we already have broad support for shortening the section, we'll now need to gather a neutral third party to help decide what info to remove. Cadiomals (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, Friedman. I only put back in the living space line because Cadiomals had said right before he implemented his edit that he'd have no problem with me putting it back in if I added other sources. Otherwise I would have left it out too, like I did the other (perfectly fine) material I had contributed that was deleted when I supported his edit. VictorD7 (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support shorten or delete. Been seeing this article pop up on my watch list but never looked to see what all the "editing" was about. It all looks a bit WP:SOAPBOX to me. Lots can be said and referenced about "Income, Poverty, and Wealth" in the US but should a summary section say it at all? Linked articles have all the detail and some refs can be turned into ELs if someone thinks something is missed. Readers can look it all up and think for themselves. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support major streamlining. The section should feature a few basic facts, especially topline ones describing the whole population. The current version has been stuffed with an absurd level of skewed detail, and even features personal, one sided opinions, including from Warren Buffet (only man mentioned by name) and an obscure liberal blog spouting off about the "myth" of the "self-made man" supposedly being "destructive". This article shouldn't be politically slanted. VictorD7 (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Victor, the quote and most of the rest of what you are referring to comes from Psychology Today not some liberal blog and considering Warren Buffet is the 2nd wealthiest person in the country I don't think it is out of line to have a quote from him in section that has wealth as one of its topics. The Columbia Review of Journalism & yes one liberal web site are secondary sources.Lance Friedman (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It's slanted to cherry-pick a single guy's political opinion in a section that should be restricted to basic facts regardless of source (though that Psych. Today piece was an opinion column written by a guy who also blogs for the liberal site Salon.com), and the CJR blog was a partisan opinion piece, though even it describes United for a Fair Economy, which provides the other aforementioned subjective quote currently featured in the paragraph, as a "liberal group" (it's a blog/activist outfit). A blog by Alternet (the very name boasts about its fringe status) attacking the alleged "deep black heart of the entire right-wing worldview" rounds out your sources for that segment. VictorD7 (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The article from Psychology Today is not not one mans opinion. It quotes multiple American billionaires and sources. It isn't labeled an opinion piece and it certainly isn't anymore opinionated than various Forbes & Advisor 1 articles that you have inserted into multiple sections. Also, are you actually trying to say that Heritage isn't an activist, partisan organization with their own agenda. It was founded by a couple of fringe billionaires and its current leader is a former Republican Senator. Lance Friedman (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The partisan Psych. blog is irrelevant. I'm talking text inclusion. Neither the subjective opinion of Buffet or the liberal activist blog (United for a Fair Economy) belongs in this section, which should be restricted to facts. I haven't put personal opinions from sources like Heritage in the article. VictorD7 (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support both a shortening of the section and breaking the section into subsections. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support The information may be useful at Misplaced Pages, but just not in this article. This is supposed to be a very general overview, and it would be good to move this into other articles rather than here. --Jayron32 03:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support shortening. The section is far too long and detailed for an overview article, as Jayron noted. Hot Stop talk-contribs 23:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Support shortening but not deletion. The rise of inequality is a significant development in the US economy and should be mentioned. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Support shortening. Readers will frequently come here for this information, to the United States article. Any shortening should be modest, leaving the wikilinks to the full articles on the sub-subjects. Full removal would tend to discourage the average reader, as most people I'm aware of dislike having to go to five different articles, when a section could cover the "mile high view".Wzrd1 (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks BoogaLouie and Wzrd1 for your additional contributions. This issue has been generally settled. We have decided on cutting the section by about half by removing only the most nonessential details, not removing the section altogether. The section is long enough to cover the main points appropriate in a summary article while not delving too deep, and readers will be able to find further details in the respective articles. Thank you to the people who contributed their thoughts and helped those opposed see the broad support for overall shortening. Cadiomals (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I was randomly selected to be invited here to take part in this survey and have not been part of any earlier discussions on this page. I don't think the section is too long; the topics listed in this section affect the health and happiness of all of the citizens of any country. There are a few places where the information should be more time-specific - for example, "Americans have the highest average household ..." would be better if the time period for which this has been true were mentioned. The word "currently" becomes less accurate with time - maybe "In 2013" or "beginning in 20__" would be less likely to get out of date. The section about the number of children in "food-insecure" homes it seems to me should be left out or be replaced by information about the number of households instead, since the following statistics about children who don't get enough food make it clear that it's not children in particular who are affected by the food insecurity, and this makes it seem as though children are being used to push a POV. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly Opposed. Randomly selected. Generally the motto "more information is better than less" springs instantly to mind, and unless information that is provided muddies the text or bogs it down in to irrelevancy, such information should be retained. Remember, Misplaced Pages attempts to be encyclopedic and readers looking for information always have the ability to skip forward however readers specifically looking for intimate details have that option only if said information is provided. It's "not too long" and should be retained. Damotclese (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I'll admit, I thought I could just take this article off my watch list and walk away from it forever, but despite having said I'm done I simply could never have peace of mind leaving what was once a perfectly decent article while knowing of its current state, this section above all. It would be unethical. Income, poverty, and wealth is now the single longest subsection in the whole article. How was it allowed to be saturated with so much specific information while other sections are short in comparison? That's why I want to bring more people into this, because the regulars around here are far too partisan to bring about change on their own. Even though a few other sections have gotten excessive too, if I can convince others to at the very least reduce just this one by a third or even half I could finally walk away from this with peace of mind and go back to casually editing elsewhere. Cadiomals (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I recognize where this RFC is going, so I have removed 10 KB of extraneous material from the "Income, poverty, and wealth" section (and rearranged the remainder so that it discusses those topics in that order.) I invite others to compare my deletions to Cadiomals's 17 KB of deletions which eviscerated many basic economic statistics central to national and local political debates over the past dozen years. EllenCT (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You should have sought input from others before doing that on your own first, but no matter, this isn't totally over yet and we will get further input from others on remaining issues. As it stands, a significant trimming is widely supported anyway, so a major objection from multiple users shouldn't be expected. But I feel there are still problems with a few remaining details in terms of overall usefulness to the reader, and I have pointed out those details below. Since you were bold enough to remove significant information on your own without seeking input or having the courtesy to outline your exact changes, I'm also going ahead with them as they are not as major. After this, the issue with this section's excessive length should be largely resolved. Cadiomals (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Further I, P, and W changes

The U.S. economy is currently embroiled in the economic downturn which followed the financial crisis of 2007–2008, with output still below potential according to the CBO and unemployment still above historic trends. From 1983 to 2008, U.S. real compounded annual GDP growth was 3.3%, compared to a 2.3% weighted average for the rest of the G7. In 2013 the United Nations Development Programme ranked the United States 16th among 132 countries on its inequality-adjusted human development index (IHDI), 13 places lower than in the standard HDI. For the year 2012, the United States ranks 12th on the Legatum Prosperity Index. This is another random index from a random think tank that contributes little to nothing to actually educating the reader. I think it is best we just stick with HDI and IHDI rankings which are the most widely recognized.

In February 2013, the unemployment rate was 7.7%, or 12.0 million people, while the government's broader U-6 unemployment rate, which includes the part-time underemployed, was 14.3%, or 22.2 million. With a record proportion of long-term unemployed, continued decreasing household income, tax rises, and new federal budget cuts, the U.S. economy remained in a jobless recovery. Half of the U.S. population lives in poverty or has a low income, according to U.S. census data. According to a survey by the Associated Press, four out of five U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives. I question the overall usefulness of this statement. It's one of those statistics that confirms the obvious. In other words, for most people life isn't a breeze and almost all of us hit snags throughout our lives? That could be said of the entire world. Also, it is such a broad and vague statement and is not helpful in actually educating the reader about the US economic state. Does 80% of the US struggle with poverty, joblessness, and reliance on welfare all at the same time, or is it either/or and at different times? This is not clarified, at least not here, so it isn't helpful. After being higher in the postwar period, the U.S. unemployment rate fell below the rising eurozone unemployment rate in the mid-1980s and has remained significantly lower almost continuously since. This is also unnecessary because it is more of the details comparing the US to Europe like it's a competition, which is another bad habit in this article, having the biased underlying message of "the American vs. European system and which is superior". Why don't we compare the US to other continents for once? It is not particularly helpful to the reader. The rise in the share of total annual income received by the top 1 percent, which has more than doubled from 9 percent in 1976 to 20 percent in 2011, has had a significant impact on income inequality, leaving the United States with one of the widest income distributions among OECD nations. The post-recession income gains have been very uneven, with the top 1 percent capturing 95 percent of the income gains from 2009 to 2012. Over the last two decades income inequality has been increasing to the point of becoming permanent, reducing social mobility in the US.

Poverty in the U.S. has been increasing as median incomes have declined. Median income has now fallen for five consecutive years. The population in extreme-poverty neighborhoods rose by one-third from 2000 to 2009."Extreme" is a loaded word that overstates the conditions of the underclass in the US, especially since it does not match up with international definitions of "extreme" poverty, which is those earning less than $1 a day, almost unheard of in this country. I would instead just change it to "very low-income" Cadiomals (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Needs way more deletions than that, especially since removing the government stats laying out actual living standards for the "poor" via things like household appliances and home ownership rate leaves the section even more skewed than it was before. It's essentially the "Extreme poverty and inequality compared to Europe" section. How about something closer to the order of your original proposal, now that we have more editors paying attention? There's no reason the section should be more than two or three paragraphs. VictorD7 (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Remember this is a subsection, and yet it's still larger than the primary Economy section. Here's some more we should lose: The post-recession income gains have been very uneven, with the top 1 percent capturing 95 percent of the income gains from 2009 to 2012. Over the last two decades income inequality has been increasing to the point of becoming permanent, reducing social mobility in the US. According to a survey by the Associated Press, four out of five U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives. Opinionated and speculative; unnecessary level of detail. There has been a widening gap between productivity and median incomes since the 1970s. POV cherry-picking and verifiability issues since it's based entirely on a liberal think tank's extensive original calculations. The sentence was added as a flimsy ex post facto excuse for changing the chart from one of median income over the past decade to one featuring the "productivity" and income comparison, the section previously not even mentioning the word "productivity" (a topic covered more appropriately in the main Economy section, unless someone's trying to push a POV angle by making an assumptive comparison with income, of course). The chart should also be deleted or replaced by the previous, more topically straightforward and up to date median income one. The population in very low-income neighborhoods rose by one-third from 2000 to 2009. So? We already talk elsewhere about poverty increasing, so this is frivolous detail and dead horse beating. People living in such neighborhoods tend to suffer from inadequate access to quality education; higher crime rates; higher rates of physical and psychological ailment; limited access to credit and wealth accumulation; higher prices for goods and services; and constrained access to job opportunities. If this remains then the Heritage inclusion (based on easily verifiable government stats) covering living standards for the vast majority of US "poor" in a far more comprehensive and relatable way to readers will have to be put back in. There's no legitimate, rational justification for deleting the latter (which is more important and worthy of inclusion) while retaining the former. The segment is even opinionated, using words like "inadequate" and "quality", and conveniently vague "constrained" job opportunities and "limited" credit. By contrast the Heritage inclusion was straight up facts (especially as originally added with actual percentages, though even the watered down version featuring the word "most" was mathematically factual).

Also, this sentence should be rewritten in a less POV fashion: The rise in the share of total annual income received by the top 1 percent, which has more than doubled from 9 percent in 1976 to 20 percent in 2011, has had a significant impact on income inequality, leaving the United States with one of the widest income distributions among OECD nations. Aside from the cherry-picked nature of that starting point, the top 1%'s income share fluctuates heavily, typically rising when the economy is good (for the general population) and falling during recessions (per the CBO it was down to 13.4% in 2009, though different data sets can yield different results). That the US has a wider income distribution than most other developed nations is legitimate info, but how about eliminating the false, agenda driven implication of precision, and just shortening the sentence to say The U.S has one of the widest income distributions among OECD nations. ? There's also still the wealth inequality comparison later (retrieved in 2006 and sourced by Marxist professor/activist's personal blog entry), so it's not like the theme is being ignored. And, I'm not necessarily saying we shouldn't have any lines on homelessness, but do we really need three whole sentences...There were about 643,000 sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons in the U.S. in January 2009. Almost two-thirds stayed in an emergency shelter or transitional housing program and the other third were living on the street, in an abandoned building, or another place not meant for human habitation. About 1.56 million people, or about 0.5% of the U.S. population, used an emergency shelter or a transitional housing program between October 1, 2008, and September 30, 2009.....when homelessness represents a tiny fraction of one percent of the US population, and basic material covering tens of millions of "poor" has been deleted, along with the notable info about America having more millionaires and billionaires than any other country? Why is homelessness so much more notable than any of that stuff? Maybe we could reduce it to a sentence.

There are other potential deletions, but the items I outlined should be low hanging fruit, among the most deserving of deletion. If those changes are implemented the subsection will still talk plenty about poverty and inequality, but it will be less skewed than it currently is. VictorD7 (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

This sentence should also go: Half of the U.S. population lives in poverty or has a low income, according to U.S. census data. That's like saying "half the population either suffered from a cold or tuberculosis last year". Lumping those categories together is a textbook example of almost comically POV wording.

The Income subsection currently has 4049 characters versus 3639 for the main Economy section. Implementing the above changes (keeping the first homeless sentence) would take it to 2652, moving it from 111% the length of its parent section to 73%. Still probably too big, but well on the way to improvement. VictorD7 (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Barring compelling, rational objections, I'll implement these changes soon. VictorD7 (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Private retirement savings crisis

How much, if any, do others think should be included from ? I would be inclined to include at least the last two sentences of that paragraph, with minor abridgements. EllenCT (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You want to add more detail? And skewed at that, considering that the article currently doesn't mention the fact that social security's own trustees have been declaring the program "unsustainable" for years. BTW, as this 100 year Dow chart shows, the primary problem with people's private savings is that they didn't invest enough (some not at all) over 40 years or so, in part because potential savings were displaced over the decades by a coercive SS program, sold as insurance but legally operated as welfare (or, some argue, a Ponzi-like scheme), an anachronistic program enacted around the world during the height of misguided faith in government central planning and a skewed age demographic, that citizens don't own and can't pass to their children, delivering a vastly smaller return than even something as conservative as a Dow index fund. Since the chart isn't drawn to scale, I'll point out that the Dow's value is around 15 times higher than in 1973 (1500% increase). VictorD7 (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You mean this chart? It is drawn to scale, and shows the inflation-adjusted stock market prices. EllenCT (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually that's the S&P 500, a completely different index, but it also shows a dramatic increase in value even adjusted for inflation. VictorD7 (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Most of it during the Clinton administration. Since then, it's down 21%. EllenCT (talk) 07:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Also grew during the Reagan administration and mid 2000s, but the Dow has a lot longer sample set and potential 40 year investment periods to examine. Compare that growth to the measly return (even unadjusted for inflation) the current system theoretically gets from investment in Treasury securities. VictorD7 (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

This section is comprehensive enough for a general country article the way it now is. Remember, little things accumulate over time, and adding extra sentences of unnecessary detail after another in successive drive-by edits will bring this section back to how it used to be. If readers want to know about retirement savings, they can visit precisely that article. It has no place in this one. Cadiomals (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Which section do you think I was proposing adding it to? EllenCT (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

In any case, Forbes says it's the biggest crisis in American financial history, and I'm not usually inclined to agree with Forbes, but in this case I do, and so unless there are any other objections I will add it. EllenCT (talk) 07:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

How many other "important" issues are you going to bring up and justify re-adding little by little until certain sections, esp. the financial ones, become lengthy again? I would say any mention of retirement savings is unfit for this general country article as no other country article makes any mention about how much or how little their citizens have saved in retirement. It doesn't really matter what some business magazine thinks, what matters is adhering to established WP guidelines by not soapboxing and not overloading it with statistics such as this. You must know that I am not opposed to this information, I am just opposed to it being added here. I won't revert if you add it, but this article is still on my watchlist so I can make sure certain sections don't become any more saturated with excessive statistics and details than they already are. Cadiomals (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If she adds this frivolous, out of context talking point I'll likely add some type of balancing material, depending on precisely what she says. VictorD7 (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

What do you think would balance the proposed inclusions? EllenCT (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Reread the second half of my sentence. VictorD7 (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Since you added your edit without even making a precise proposal here, despite two editors opposing your idea and none supporting it, when the presumed impending article editing block is lifted I'll likely add a segment about the Social Security/Medicare crisis outlined above. One of the opinion pieces you used as sources (the one by the Media Matters blogger in the USA Today oped) went against the mainstream grain and outright demanded that SS benefits be significantly raised, despite the programs' own trustees declaring that even the current programs are "unsustainable". VictorD7 (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think there is mainstream support for lowering benefits? EllenCT (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Necessity. Not saying it's going to happen any time soon, but that's the general thrust of reform talk by members of both parties, and by the trustees themselves. No serious person is talking benefit expansion when even the current programs are unsustainable. VictorD7 (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There should be a welfare section, explaining what programs the government provides. I would not use the Forbes article, though. TFD (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Graphic of the Top 1%

Given that the United States has the highest income inequality of any western country, I don't see a problem with adding some type of graphic demonstrating this. Have a look at this material in The New York Times. ---- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There is only one graphic which seems to be about economics, so doing so would give undue emphasis to income inequality, which is only one of many issues.Rwenonah (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not about "one of many issues", it's about the weight carried by the subject matter, which is significant regarding income inequality. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I agree with Rwenonah. In fact that subsection (which already has two images already, probably one too many) gives more than enough coverage to inequality. It includes several sentences about it, two of which focus on the top 1%. That said, I do appreciate you sharing a chart that illustrates what I said elsewhere on this page about the late 1970s being the trough in terms the top 1%'s income share, a fact currently omitted in the section's segment about the growth since then. VictorD7 (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Where would you propose adding this? Income, poverty, and wealth seems the only viable section. I don't think this graph would be biased or add undue weight, but if you put it in, it would have to replace the "Productivity and Real Median Family Income" graph as we can only accommodate two images in that section; any more would be cramming too much in. Cadiomals (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This graphic is already present in Income inequality in the United States. I see no reason to add it here, as it would serve to bloat an already large section that was the subject of a recent RfC.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Isn't there a better graph showing the histograms of each quintile? EllenCT (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Is the Income, poverty, and wealth subsection too biased?

There's currently an extreme slant toward leftist sources and focus on poverty which can be quantified in a variety of ways. Misplaced Pages should not be a platform for soapbox crusading or slanted partisan talking points.

Source list by ideology; 12 leftist, 1 conservative, 10 relatively neutral

Leftist sources are bolded while conservative ones are italicized. References not notably ideological in this context are left plain. Complete source list, in chronological order:

• OECD
• OECD
• US Census
• The Economist (liberal leaning by US standards; endorsed Obama twice; supports gun control and carbon tax)
• Heritage (conservative, one of the USA's most prominent think tanks)
• CBPP (major leftist think tank)
• BLS
• Hoover (conservative think tank affiliated with Stanford University)
• UN (these technocrats are generally left leaning, and even the standard HDI is explicitly ideologically rigged in a manner I'd be happy to explain in detail if anyone's interested)
• New York Times (one of the most left wing papers in the country)
• WSJ (conservative editorial page, slight liberal leaning news section; this is the latter simply covering a report by the Tax Policy Center, a liberal group)
• Huffington Post (a liberal blog)
• Saez study (leftist researcher focusing on income inequality and arguing for leftist policies)
• Smeeding study (same as above)
• Saez study
• Saez blog
• EPI (low level leftist think tank; currently serves as source for the subsection's chart)
• Michael Scherer opinion piece in Time (liberal magazine; Scherer has previously written for Salon.com and other liberal blogs)
• Huffington Post (liberal blog)
• USDA
• Domhoff blog (leftist sociology professor arguing against "wealth concentration"; site titled "Who Rules America?")
• Roger Altman opinion piece (Democrat who served in Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton administrations, resigned amid the Whitewater scandal, and later advised John Kerry and Hillary Clinton)
• CNN (liberal leaning news outfit)
• Reuters (left leaning news wire)

There are only two real conservative sources is only one real conservative source to 12 leftist ones (not counting CNN, Reuters, the WSJ, Economist, UN, or government sources for either side). There's currently an effort to delete one of the two remaining conservative sources. One of the remaining conservative sources was just deleted after less than 24 hours of discussion. Am I the only one who thinks that would reflects misplaced priorities, and would takes this subsection even further in the wrong direction?

Sentence count by topic; "Extreme poverty and inequality" section?

Topic sentence count:

Total - 22 21

Poverty/"low income" - 5

Economic downturn - 9 (includes unemployment, falling incomes, household debt, and productivity/income divergence sentence)

Inequality - 4

Above combined - 18

Other - | 4 | 3

The | 4 | 3 "other" sentences consist of the topline international comparisons describing the entire population (income, food, living space), and the GDP sentence that probably better belongs in the Economy section (though no more than the downturn stuff does). The subsection is titled "Income, poverty, wealth", but, while there's great emphasis on extreme poverty, there's nothing on wealthy people except for the share breakdowns pounding the "inequality" theme. The segment about the US having the most millionaires and billionaires in the world (one would think a key, notable fact) offered some balance, but was recently deleted. What scant little remains about general population American affluence (the nation's most distinctive economic trait) is being threatened with further reduction above has just been further reduced.

Downturn aside, poverty and inequality combine for 9 sentences (not counting the productivity/income divergence sentence). It currently reads more like the "Poverty and inequality" section. Potential courses of action to correct this obvious skewing range from further deletions of frivolous poverty/inequality material to adding items about affluence. I'm open to ideas, but that the skewing exists is undeniable. VictorD7 (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Victor, this is not a good tactic to get your way. If you have a problem with a specific source and the material it represents, start a new section dealing with the specific source and the material it represents and we can all discuss it to see what the general consensus is. If you're actually interested in constructive discussion, you need to deal with one issue at a time. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Update: Actually the leftist editor who just posted above with "advice", Somedifferentstuff, has already removed the long standing, sourced living space sentence, unilaterally reverting my reasonable, temporary revert of his first attempt, declaring an unassailable "consensus" after less than 24 hours(!) of discussion. That leaves only one remaining conservative source, and only three sentences out of 21 that aren't about poverty, inequality, or the downturn, worsening the problem. Thoughts?VictorD7 (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Your constant efforts to make literally everything in this article and every editor's motives political is irritating, as are your constant insults. There is, strange as this may sound, such a thing as an editor who doesn't edit with politics in mind. Also, there is such a thing as a source that is not politically leaning. Can you provide sources or compelling, rational evidence that all of those sources and the many editors you've accused are "leftist"? Your own political views are clear (to say the least) and seem to be becoming an impediment to rational discussion. Rwenonah (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Your hypocritical post is amusing, but failed to demonstrate that you had actually read the op. I listed several sources in plain font that I didn't count as biased one way or the other. The others clearly are, but feel free to try to dispute some of my specific characterizations (I provided concrete evidence in obscure cases; which ones do you disagree with?). Unfortunately, the current Income section is overwhelming proof that not enough people edit without politics in mind (you sure as hell don't, as your environmental soapboxing/edit warring on this page and elsewhere shows). Politics aside, how about the pure topical argument? Do you deny that the section spends far more space on poverty and inequality than affluence? VictorD7 (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Apart from politics, editors should have scholarship in mind. We see at WP:SCHOLARSHIP (excerpted),

• Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes.
• A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution. Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.

A WP article should not be a virtual rehash of current social media postings. Articles should rely on secondary, reliable, scholarly, peer reviewed sources whenever possible. -- however passionately editors may "lean forward", "all into" the whirlwind. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Would you consider Huffington Post blogs and opinion pieces by guys like Altman and Scherer to be scholarly?VictorD7 (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7, you keep throwing around the terms "conservative" and "leftist." What you call "conservative" is actually an extremist view, while what you call "leftist" is actually the mainstream view. We are not supposed to provide parity to extremist and mainstream views. The same is true in climate change articles. Extremists deny climate change, although it is accepted in mainstream science. We do not provide parity between them. TFD (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

As Jojhutton colorfully observed below, your comment highlights your own hopelessly skewed, delusional bias. Needless to say, conservative =/= "extremist" and leftist =/= "mainstream", but I appreciate your participation and find your honesty here helpful in casting a flashlight on what's going on with this article. VictorD7 (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, all of your "unbiased sources", according to you, are the OECD (formed to support high-income nations) and subsidiaries of the U.S. government. In fact, according to you, even the UN is left-leaning. If your standards of "liberal bias" extend that far, it's no surprise the section looks biased to you. These sources are only "leftist" in your highly biased view ; you have provided no evidence other then your assertions to show that these many week-known, neutral organizations (like Reuters or the Economist) are "leftist". Rwenonah (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You misread again. I counted the UN, Reuters, and The Economist as "neutral" for the purposes of this discussion, only adding brief descriptions lest someone try to come along and ludicrously argue that they're "right wing". Try reading again. And another time to be on the safe side. If you disagree with one or more of the sources I actually counted as leftist, feel free to specifically name them and explain why you disagree. VictorD7 (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh and, Rwenonah, you didn't answer my question above. The political bias question aside, on the pure topical front, do you deny that the section spends far more space on poverty and inequality than affluence? I'm not even asking if you support such a skewing or not, but simply that you acknowledge it exists. Establishing agreement on such basic premises is vital for gauging whether the editors participating here are capable of having a rational discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Holy Shit, an editor did not just call conservatives "extremists" and refer to leftists as the main stream. When people complain about bias on Misplaced Pages, thats the kind of comment that confirms it.--JOJ 12:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I did not say that. I said that VictorD7 calls extremist sources "conservative" and mainstream sources "left-wing." That allows him to ask for parity between views such as the world was created in 6 days and the universe is 15 billion years old, by calling them conservative and left-wing views. Obviously I am not calling left-wing views mainstream, and no one has presented for example Maoist thinktanks as sources. VictorD7, Communist countries are not "liberal", although the countries they fled to were. TFD (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The number of "conservative" or "liberal" sources used should be irrelevant, as Misplaced Pages policy is simply to represent mainstream views according to how widely they are accepted, not to cover all views equally. However, the Heritage Foundation and Hoover Institute do not endorse cigarette smoking as healthy or claim the world was created in 6 days, and both are more scholarly than the Huffington Post. That Americans have big houses is a salient fact backed by solid RS, regardless of if it "proves" any political point or not.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD, you're still spouting straw man arguments. The facts in this case are undisputed, and covered by a variety of sources. As for the subsection's political skew, while I pretty much agree with what Times says above, articles are supposed to be neutral, avoiding a slant or soapboxing (particularly on controversial partisan political topics), and listing sources as I did above can be useful in helping to illustrate an unwarranted slant when the ratio is so overwhelming, especially when much of the rationale for deleting segments recently (to the extent it's even been coherent) has been a hypocritical concern over the conservative outlook of the Heritage Foundation, one of the most prominent, cited, and influential think tanks in the nation. VictorD7 (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

And no, TFD, in this context the modern American word "liberal" is effectively synonymous with leftist, and I listed a broad range of items illustrating failed leftist assumptions, particularly regarding the role of economic central planning. See my comments on communism above. VictorD7 (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the word "leftist" you keep throwing around means something somewhat different from the way you use it. By international standards, the American left is a centrist party (centre-left would be stretching it). Referring to these sources as "leftist" is false; liberal-leaning would be much more accurate. Equally, equating American liberals with North Korea, East Germany or Cuba demonstrates appalling ignorance of political truths. I agree that the section spends somewhat more space on poverty than affluence, but it doesn't seem as extreme as you say. And lastly, I would like to apologize for assuming that, when you call something "left-leaning", you mean that it isn't neutral. It seems a reasonable assumption. Rwenonah (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. Leftist is a vague word that in this context certainly includes American liberals (do I have to repost the dictionary link I provided earlier?), though are you at least acknowledging that I accurately labeled the split (substituting "liberal" for "leftist" if you prefer)? The Democrats are almost universally considered to be a center-left party and Republicans center-right (and the American perspective is more relevant anyway in the context of an American debate in the US article), many of the sources used here are on the liberal fringe or beyond of the Democratic party, and your Cold War comments betray both an appalling ignorance of history and poor reading comprehension. Leftists vary by degree, and my satire was nuanced, not "equating" members of a broad group but highlighting failures in their assumptions, as demonstrated above with yet more proof. VictorD7 (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Back on topic, since I quantified the poverty/inequality skewing by sentence count, what's your basis for claiming it doesn't "seem as extreme" as I say? Do you have an alternative analysis you can share, or are you simply endorsing the current level of skew? With so much on the extreme poor, shouldn't there be at least one sentence about the rich? Maybe something like...The US has the most millionaires and billionaires in the world. tacked back onto the end? VictorD7 (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe something like, if all of the millionaires and billionaires in the US were tacked end to end, they'd reach to...? Or perhaps, provide a reliable citation. I do find it interesting that out of 47 edits to this talk page today, 25 belong to VictorD7. That seems to be rather decidedly one sided, especially when looking at the history and seeing multiple edits to the same section of the talk page. Unless he's correcting typos. A lot of typos. But then, I didn't review the diffs.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't review the diffs, but I did read the wall of text. He isn't correcting typos. He's stating opinions, and categorizing the opinions of sources. I agree with anyone who is saying that User:VictorD7's opinions are becoming tendentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

A few little typos and some little tweaks or additions, Wzrd1. Your comment is also irrelevant to this discussion. If you have nothing to say then don't say it. A reliable citation? The material was already included in this section with multiple sources until recently. It's not disputed. The question was about whether such a fact merits inclusion, not whether it's true. VictorD7 (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7. "leftist" is a word you use for views that disagree with your own. Policy does not require us to balance what VictorD7 believes and what mainstream sources report. TFD (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

True. That is why VictorD7 is determined to have the content of this talk page in balance with what he thinks it should be, to balance what the article is, when he thinks it should be otherwise. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD has already been called out for defining "mainstream" as sources that he happens to agree with, while everything else is supposedly "extreme" without offering a shred of evidence. Instead of disruptive, false, ad hominem diversions, how about Robert McClenon and TFD actually cite something specific I said that they disagree with? Which sources do they deny are left wing? The Huffington Post? EPI? The Roger Altman opinion piece? VictorD7 (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Since you failed to comprehend what I wrote and misrepresent it, I will explain again. Policy requires we use mainstream sources - peer reviewed academic books and articles and mainstream media - in preference to extremist sources. You call these mainstream sources "left-wing" and extremist sources "conservative," which is an abuse of both those terms. Your objective is that we treat the advocacy websites as equivalent to the "left wing" The Economist. So you think we should provide parity to sources that say the Earth is 6,000 years old, smoking is good for you, junk found doesn't make you fat, etc. While your views may be correct, policy provides that we provide little weight to them, and you should take your case to the policy pages. It is not that I necessarily "agree with" mainstream sources, just that policy requires us to provide greater weight to them. TFD (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Neither I or any sources in question here have said any of that red herring crap about smoking, junk food, 6k years, etc., and it has nothing to do with this discussion. You failed to comprehend what I've been saying or to justify your abuse of the terms "mainstream" and "extremist". As multiple editors have already pointed out, liberal blogs and opinion pieces aren't scholarly works. The ideological skewing matters because these sources are involved in a dispute over the American political issues of the day; actually agitating for particular policies, in this case mostly regarding taxation and the welfare state. Misplaced Pages policy (WP:NPOV) calls for us to maintain a neutral presentation, and avoid things like bias through excessive, unbalanced detail more important to a particular party in the dispute. That a source is leftist doesn't disqualify it, and the text wording is more important than the sourcing, but that the skew is so overwhelming, with virtually all the opinionated section sources on one side of the political divide, should be a red flag to any editor sincerely concerned with neutrality, and cause them to at least favor further examination of the issue. VictorD7 (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD, for someone who keeps going on about VictorD7's supposed inability to comprehend your rather straightforward remarks, it is worth noting that he actually defined The Economist as a source that is "not notably ideological". You're now the second editor to skim through snippets of his comment looking for "gotcha!" points. The Huffington Post and assorted left-wing blogs are neither scholarly nor peer-reviewed, and while your general point may be true, it is also of little relevance to this conversation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

What is relevant here is WP:ORS and WP:RS. I was holding off a bit on the section above, but blogs, even Huffington Post are not WP:RS. We need to have objective sources and reliable sources. News media organizations, educational bodies (not blogs on their web presence), scholarly articles and government reports are reliable sources. That is Misplaced Pages policy. Note that I've not said anything about leftist, rightist, centrist, shootist, bullshitist. Reliable sources, WP:NPOV. I don't fully agree with VictorD7, but to be blunt, I don't agree with anyone who thinks that blogs are reliable sources and worthy of inclusion in the article. The only article that blogs may be relevant to would be either an article about that blog or an article about blogs in general. OpEd pieces in major media outlets are not the most reliable as well, it's an opinion piece. I've literally read OpEd pieces talking about the reality of flying saucers, that does not make them real and the OpEd most certainly should not be used to support such an outlandish proposition. Please, all. Find your objectivity and use it. We need to shorten a section, not add to it, we need to balance the tone slightly (in my opinion) and blogs and OpEd pieces need to be replaced with WP:RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wzrd1 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 21 November 2013

Agreed. Quoting directly from WP:ORS, Further, in recent times the Internet has become a major source of information about current events. These includes blogs, and sites like The Drudge Report and the Huffington Post. According to WP:RS blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. However blogs that also collect news information present a unique challenge to the Misplaced Pages Editor. For example the Huffington Post blog also contains an extensive repository of news articles from around the country. The Misplaced Pages editor should be aware of quoting information directly from websites like this. In these cases, it is best to simply source to the newspaper article and not to the blog. If the article can only be accessed through the blog, perhaps the editor should explain in the citations where the article is from and state that the Post is only hosting it. Cadiomals (talk) 09:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned "tone shift", since this isn't just about hiding the bias by replacing references with better ones. The skew's silver lining is that it stands as proof of a pattern of POV editing. Countless facts could be sourced. The current ones were selected in accordance with the priorities of a particular political camp. VictorD7 (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful that talk page discussion has returned to it's usual stagnant political bickering after I finally brought major improvements. I wish there was a way to keep an article on your watchlist while keeping its talk page off it, because I don't want to be updated on the arguing here but I'm now obligated to keep an eye out for edits (and editors) that will gradually revert this article to the atrocious state it was in just a few weeks ago. As long as that doesn't happen y'all are free to waste your lives arguing over one little sentence the vast majority of readers will never run into or think anything of, while treating this talk page as your political forum/boxing ring for lobbing personal attacks; as long as you aren't simultaneously wreaking havoc on the article itself. The next time I or anyone else wishes to see actual changes, I know to recruit input and consensus from outside non-regulars. But in the long run, unfortunately, this article has little chance of seeing a Good or Featured title (again) until the most disruptive and counterproductive users here finally get bored and go away.

It's worthwhile to keep in mind that this used to be a Good article from its last reassessment in 2008, until it was finally delisted in 2012. That means from 2008 to 2012 and beyond significant changes were made to this article that degraded its quality, neutrality and conciseness. Unless good article criteria has been drastically changed since that time, I think this is sad. It also shows there is actually such a thing as this article being neutral and stable enough to attain such a title, without the overt soapboxing and pointless bickering we see now. Cadiomals (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly guilty of this, and I apologize to everyone around save Victor. The simple fact of the matter is, while I was the #1 contributor to this article for years (by number of edits) Victor's influence has made me basically abandon it. The bickering over his conservative/libertarian desires has totally sapped any energy I had for trying to improve the article. Which is why I resort to political bickering - I still care about the article, but I can't do anything, so I might as well take out my frustrations on him. His presence here is a poison and someone with more knowledge of the arbitration procedures than I (translation: I'm a touch lazy) should look in to if we can do anything about it. Simply put, his presence has not only lowered the quality of the article, but lowered the quality of the editors working on it. --Golbez (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7 has argued that the conclusions of the Heritage Foundation and similar organizations should be include to "balance" "left-wing sources." But the Heritage Foundation publishes with conclusions outside the mainstream on intelligent design, climate change, obesity and all the other major political and social issues. That creates a false sense of parity, that mainstream views on evolution are as valid as creation science. TFD (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

None of those topics have anything to do with what's being discussed here. The first link wasn't even to a Heritage "conclusion", but just a video of a guest speaker they hosted. The other two links simply surveyed the current state of science, the last one just opposing a proposed ban on Happy Meals by pointing out that lack of exercise is as or more important in obesity than what's on fast food menus. VictorD7 (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even create an account until months after this article had been delisted in 2012. Golbez is the poison here who presided over that quality decline. He's a leftist hack prone to erratic and disruptive behavior, as his insipid "reality has a well-known bias" comment that derailed the above discussion illustrates (admittedly I took the bait). How does a troll become an admin here? Is that common or is he an aberration? All I did is lay out a legitimate case on the Talk Page that people are free to agree or disagree with, preferably in a civil, rational manner. If I've had some measure of influence over the past year that Golbez doesn't like, it's because my arguments have. Indeed, recent strife aside, most of my interactions and editing experience here in that span have been positive. As bad as the article is now, it's better than it was when I was compelled by its atrocious quality to pitch in and help improve it a year ago. VictorD7 (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize Golbez was an admin, and I sure hope he is an aberration. For him to threaten you with sanctions after trolling with message board-style political commentary and personal attacks like "You are just adorable, I want to pinch your ignorant little dishonest cheeks" is truly an embarrassment.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I made no threat. I suggested someone look into arbitration. My administrator status has zero to do with this, and I have not once threatened to use my administrator powers against Victor or anyone else here I might disagree with. That said, I want to bring particular emphasis to this passage:

"Golbez is the poison here who presided over that quality decline. He's a leftist hack prone to erratic and disruptive behavior..."

I only became a "leftist hack" last year. For the fifteen years prior to that, I was an arch-libertarian that would make Victor look like Marx himself. So this lack of knowledge and perspective brings me more joy than you can imagine. When confronted with such myopia, how can one resist a bit of trolling? My behavior is hardly erratic, and its disruption is only in proportion to your own. --Golbez (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

By your own admission you were heavily active here in the article's declining years (see "presided over"). I don't know whether you really had a different ideology until it allegedly flipped 180 a year ago, but am relaying my observations of you since I've been here (present tense; reading comprehension). Your admin status has given you influence, and you're trying to use that influence to get me banned (or something, it was a vague threat). Tacking on a disclaimer that you've switched from "admin" to "editor" mode doesn't cut it. You can't separate the two like that. An admin should still set a positive example even when not directly using his powers. Admin status aside, your behavior here has been reprehensible. If anyone should be banned it's you. Your above trolling isn't an aberration. You almost never contribute substance. You mostly just indulge in personal attacks and disruptive behavior, and have done so to various posters over the past year. VictorD7 (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we actually stick to discussing the article, rather then specific editors' behaviour? This is useless and a waste of talk page space. To get back to the article;TFD has a good point about the Heritage Foundation source; even discarding obesity and intelligent design, it hosts an article that calls global warming precautions "antiscientific" and saying that "the human influence on climate change is small". These are unscientific, and, most importantly, definitely not mainstream views. Saying, then, that Heritage is mainstream is clearly difficult. Rwenonah (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not being used to source anything remotely close to global warming so that's irrelevant. It's being used to source an undisputed fact on living space, verifiably referenced with government sources. Besides, you didn't demonstrate anything the piece said that's allegedly "unscientific" (you'd need specifics, unless you're insisting that all "global warming precautions" are "scientific"). Even if we were discussing the AGW debate, whatever they said would likely be a legitimate inclusion as long as it was labeled a minority position (if that was the case). Numerous scientists (including meteorologists) are skeptical of the AGW political movement to varying degrees, and polls show a growing majority of Americans, Brits, and other people are too, so it's not "fringe". Minority views are allowed on Misplaced Pages and, at times, even fringe ones. You don't really have a point here. VictorD7 (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

No, but don't go calling Heritage a mainstream group, like you have in the past, as the group clearly holds many non-mainstream views. WHile global warming in particular is irrelevant to this discussion, I would like to point out for the record that the vast majority of scientists, as well as a majority of Americans, support it.Rwenonah (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Heritage is mainstream because it's one of the most prominent and influential think tanks in the world. Such a determination isn't contingent on a single issue stance, and, while some source types are more ideal than others, even low quality Facebook posts aren't necessarily banned from use as references if they were written by an expert. Whether an outfit is deemed "reliable" should be assessed on a case by case basis, depending on what it's being used to source. Otherwise it would be very easy to downgrade and disqualify sources like the NY Times, CNN, NBC, and the BBC that have been caught in actual fraud scandals. Not to mention minority positions taken by leftist think tanks like the CBPP or EPI, especially on taxation, where their opinions conflict with all mainstream economic theories (including Keynesianism). Like other large, mainstream organizations, Heritage's members have espoused opinions on a wide array of issues over the years. AGW (now dubbed "climate change") is an extremely complex topic with a broad spectrum of opinions on its scientific, policy, and economic aspects. Different polling shows different results. For example, recent (2013) Rasmussen and Pew polling show less than 50% of Americans think global warming is primarily caused by human activity (44% and 42%, respectively), while fewer see it as a "very serious problem" (30% and 33%, respectively), and in most polls it ranks around the bottom in priority . A 2010 British poll found that only 26% of Brits saw "climate change...now established as largely man-made". While it's true most scientists see it as at least partially man-made, polling varies substantially by source, and positions are wide ranging and nuanced. VictorD7 (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Being influential does not make a group's views mainstream. Richard Nixon and other conservatives thought that the Jews controlled the media, but surely you do not advocate we present that view in the article. TFD (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't support including your views on the alleged positions of "conservatives" and "Richard Nixon" on "the Jews", or even that a guy who enacted wage and price controls and initiated large scale race based affirmative action was necessarily "conservative". Heritage's influence and prominence does make it mainstream, as the BBC is still mainstream after its fraud scandal in the Andrew Gilligan affair led to a man's suicide and multiple high level firings, and CNN is still mainstream despite former news chief Eason Jordan confessing in 2003 that the network had cut a deal with Saddam Hussein in the 90s to give favorable coverage and bury atrocities in exchange for greater access. I moved the rest of my reply below, since that's where this discussion is continuing. VictorD7 (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Request to Cite Disagreement

VictorD7 wrote: 'TFD has already been called out for defining "mainstream" as sources that he happens to agree with, while everything else is supposedly "extreme" without offering a shred of evidence. Instead of disruptive, false, ad hominem diversions, how about Robert McClenon and TFD actually cite something specific I said that they disagree with? Which sources do they deny are left wing? The Huffington Post? EPI? The Roger Altman opinion piece? '. I wasn't getting into the name-game of labeling sources as "left-wing" and "right-wing" in order to demand balance. VictorD7 says that instead of "disruptive, false, ad hominem diversions", I and other editors should be specific as to disagreement. I challenge VictorD7 to cite a single false or ad hominem argument that I have offered. Sarcasm is not ad hominem argument, and I acknowledge the sarcasm of my comments. I agree that there have been too many ad hominem arguments, including by VictorD7. My primary issue is the excessive length of the wall of text offered by VictorD7. Because it is too long, difficult to read, I haven't read it in enough detail to disagree in particular. The length of his argument has the character of a filibuster, preventing informative discussion (and making sarcasm the best concise response). Take a lesson from a few other conservatives today and don't abuse the privilege of going on and on. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a bullet point list with very brief commentary at the end. How hard can it be to read? To answer your question, apart from posting at least twice to comment on me rather than substance (now three times), you said "true" in response to a false claim by TFD that "leftist" is merely a word I use for views that disagree with my own. Productive discussion would be enhanced by adherence to substance rather than space filling, ad hominem diversions like this subsection. Let me know if you find anything specific I said that you actually disagree with. VictorD7 (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yesterday MSNBC's 'morning joe' reminded us again that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has a feature first envisioned by Heritage. Public exchanges for private health care insurance coverage. The centerpiece of Obamacare was once a Republican plan.

• In this case and in others, the point is that Heritage and Brookings are the two most influential think tanks on U.S. legislation. In the current events section of this article they should be sourced. But they often diverge in data and interpretation. So they ought to be included as sources in tandem on each topic when one is cited. --
• and generally sources in the modern section ought to be upgraded a) towards scholarship for the general international reader, and b) away from a news clipping service for "the informed voter", as EllenCT once put it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course both the Heritage Foundation is influential in shaping public policy, that is their objective. That does not mean that their research is respected. The criterion for whether views are mainstream is not that they coincide with what the average American believes. The average American questions climate change, and also believes that the world was created in 6 days, Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, social mobility is higher in the U.S. than elsewhere, the 9/11 terrorists came through Canada, etc. TFD (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

More disruptive non-sequiturs from TFD. A group is not influential merely because they intend so, or the marxists would have more influence. A think tank has influence because it is respected and its ideas adopted by policy makers, and legislators take action on them. Think tanks do not have influence when they are dismissed as a Kennedy conspiracy theory should be -- effecting no action taken by anyone. Scholars in public policy do not believe what the average American believes, but generally think through creative and innovative takes on current issues based on study and research. Goes for both Heritage and Brookings. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

You are right that scholars do not believe what the average American believes. But legislators frequently do and the Heritage Foundation has been successful in influencing both average Americans and legislators. That does not make it a reliable source or even mean that the opinions it promotes should be included in this article. TFD (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

A democracy relies on persuasion. Over time, Heritage Foundation and Brookings Institute have advanced reliable evidence, cogent arguments and achieved trust by persuasion among Americans and their legislators. When an editor can explain a topic on current American affairs referencing both Heritage and Brookings, they ought to be admitted as reliable sources for this article.

That’s what happens in a democracy in an article about a democracy. That U.S. legislators pass a law influenced by Heritage or other, makes it, in some degree, relevant to this article, --- whether TFD sees its intent as useful or not. The article is about the U.S. as it exists, not TFDs imaginary America. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Your argument has been made eloquently across numerous articles where it has been used to justify the introduction of fringe theories. The consensus however is that it does not overrule weight. Hence in articles about climate change, we do not say that there is a dispute in the scientific community, although that is the view presented by the Heritage Foundation. People reading this article want to know about the U.S., not a fantasy created for political advocacy. Otherwise they would be watching Leave it to Beaver. TFD (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The Germans sent an ice breaker and three freighters through the Arctic Ocean to Japan about five years ago. Climate change is a fact recognized universally and demonstrated by commercial transit. The academic dispute is what percent is contributed by human pollutions, apart from carbon emissions from volcanoes, for instance, like Etna last week, which was more than a few Volkswagons for this year's net increase.

It happens that I am not persuaded by Heritage on this point. And as the older brother in my family, I can assure you Leave it to Beaver was a travesty (a joke) of American family life. This article should be related to what happens in the U.S. today. That is not a fringe position. Heritage and Brookings are reliable sources when used in tandem. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

One policy implication for climate change is to never rebuild in the flood plain where structures are destroyed by flood or coastal storm surge, instead, compensate for loss to build or buy elsewhere. No corrective measures of improved gas mileage, etc. will bring about the old coastlines anytime soon, and sea levels are rising. But the U.S. collectively has decided it is rich enough to afford a culture of denial for some time to come. Regardless of the advisability of that fiscal policy, the article should still report the reality of the U.S. today, not what TFD and I believe might be wisdom for U.S. policy makers. That policy today reflects the input of Heritage and Brookings, and so they are reliable sources for our purposes, the U.S. today. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no academic dispute about "what percent is contributed by human pollutions." Instead there is a scientific consensus that global warming is manmade. And carbon dioxide (not carbon) is not a pollutant. That the Heritage Foundation pushes fringe views invalidates them as a reliable source, although obviously they have been effective in influencing an uninformed public. TFD (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Your comment didn't cite anything from Heritage, you tried to oversimplify an extremely complex issue, and the think tank's consumers are among the world's most informed. VictorD7 (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

In addition to TVH's arguments above, Heritage is a reliable source because it's so high profile that the facts it relays can generally be trusted as accurate, even by its political opposition. That may not be the case with some random guy's fringe blog, which might be pulling facts out of thin air. Heritage pieces are also very well referenced and verifiable. If we're including their opinion about something, we should appropriately qualify it as we should with any similar source's opinion. But when it's simply being used to support facts, especially easily verifiable ones, it's a reliable source for Misplaced Pages's voice, like other think tanks and the news sites mentioned above. VictorD7 (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I previously provided sources on the types of positions they advocate. Anyway your argument that although they assemble data to support fringe views, public scrutiny of their website means they must present accurate data is not persuasive. Further more, it means that relevant data is omitted while extraneous data is included. You need to explain why we should look for data there rather than mainstream sources.

Also, the main issue has not been the accuracy of the data but the way it is assembled, which is a weight issue. For example whatever their conclusions on poverty in America, the fact that poor people in American own Pacman games or whatever is only relevant to the argument they present, not to mainstream views on poverty in America.

TFD (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Your three link post (which was devoid of specifics) was refuted and you failed to establish that Heritage isn't mainstream. As for the weight issue, that's the point of the skew topic I raised above. When the article delves into the political battlefield, as the subsection clearly does, it's important to maintain neutrality, which means citing facts considered key for each of the various significant parties to the dispute (in this case the American right and left), and not just listing a bunch of stuff considered worth noting by one side. However, regarding the living space line itself, I've already pointed out that it's important enough for both the US and EU governments to track it, and for the issue to be commented on by sources as diverse as a Swedish think tank, the BBC, and leading topical blogs (e.g. the widely consumed Apartment Therapy), and for the major left wing British paper The Guardian to describe it as a notable component of living standard. I've just done more to establish weight meriting at least a sentence inclusion in this case than anyone has for anything else in the section. VictorD7 (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Timbro is a think tank run by the Swedish Employers Association. The purpose of the pamphlet is advocacy by selectively using data. One could compare the wealth and safety of Toronto to Detroit and say that the U.S. is poor and violent. TFD (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

One could level similar charges against almost anything in the section (though your hypothetical in no way represents what they did), and you ignored the other sources I cited. Ideological diversity was the point. VictorD7 (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Heritage Foundation is listed in the Harvard Kennedy School, Library & Knowledge Services, “supporting excellence in teaching, scholarship, and learning.” What source do we have impeaching Harvard's Kennedy School? or Heritage Foundation?, only TFD and his, as usual unsourced, "mainstream". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It is included in a list of "U.S. Think Tanks & Research Centers." Such a list is probably helpful for people studying public policy. It is not an endorsement of the think tanks listed. As I explained to you, the Heritage Foundation promotes views that Misplaced Pages has determined to be "fringe", such as on climate change and intelligent design. You believe that climate change skepticism is a mainstream view, but it is not a mainstream view in reliable sources. Check out the articles on climate change and you will see that people with your opinion have been unsuccessful in treating it that way. TFD (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Not only have you failed to establish that with specifics, but even if you did it would be irrelevant to this discussion since Heritage comments on a huge array of issues and you're cherry-picking one (global warming; I'm not even counting the ID thing since all you did was link to a video of a guest speaker who to my knowledge isn't part of Heritage) that has nothing to do with this discussion, while ignoring all observations about the far less defensible leftist sources currently used. Heritage mostly focuses on fiscal issues and is very mainstream. More importantly, it's a reliable source for facts due to its prominence and excellent referencing, regardless of whether you agree with its opinions. VictorD7 (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Global warming is not cherry-picking, it is one of the major controversies in U.S. politics. When these issues involve a dispute between mainstream scientific views and irrational ones, and a group comes down consistently against science, it invalidates it as a reliable source. You cannot claim that science is left-wing and faith is right-wing and therefore ask for parity. I brought up other examples too but you happen to believe that it is lack of exercise rather than a super-high calorie diet that causes obesity. TFD (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You making up stuff and mischaracterizing what I've said does far more to invalidate your commentary here than anything Heritage has said does to invalidate itself. Global warming is cherry-picking because it has nothing to with the inclusion, section, or really even the entire article (save for a quick mention in the Env. section), and isn't the primary focus in Heritage's voluminous output. That's apart from the fact that you've failed to substantiate your claims even on that narrow front with specifics. However, it's certainly true that science isn't "left wing", and "faith" is exercised to some degree by virtually all parties in any given dispute, not that any of that is relevant here. VictorD7 (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

That Americans have big houses is backed by several solid RS, only two of which TFD challenged. Discussion of whether Heritage is fringe belongs at RSN. It is, however, true that the majority of mainstream academic RS are left-wing by US standards.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Your argument is that a "poor" person in the U.S. can buy a 720 sq ft 2 bedroom trailer for $2,500 and pay $150 per month rent, while it costs 3 thousand pounds a month to rent a 720 sq ft 2 bedroom flat in Mayfair, therefore there is no poverty in America, and the standard of living of a trailer park resident in the U.S. is equivalent to a resident of Mayfair, and mainstream sources are wrong. TFD (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Statements like "there is no poverty in America" and "mainstream sources are wrong" indicate you aren't interested in rational discussion. You're the one attacking mainstream sources here, and the living space fact is undisputed. No one suggested there's no poverty in America. Acknowledging the salient home size trait is no more implying that's the only pertinent variable than including income inequality implies that's the only pertinent variable. Unless you believe that North Korea, Egypt, and Poland have less poverty than the US because they're more economically equal. VictorD7 (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I used freighters passing through the Arctic Ocean as proof of climate change and TFD further disrupts by misrepresenting me, "You believe that climate change skepticism is a mainstream view". That is beyond his usual non-sequiturs. As usual he has no sources that observe Heritage policy recommendations deny climate change, since they have recommended changes in federal flood insurance. It’s time for admin intervention for TFD disruption as he is not acting in good faith.

Mainstream geology reports there has been earthly climate change warming and cooling cycles without human contribution throughout geological ages, and human contribution has a net warming effect, which I endorse. And I observe we are in a period of global warming, U.S. policy is in a state of denial, and I suggested an improvement, as residences are demolished, relocate the residents away from the natural forces of climate change and stop denying it is going to continue happening for some tens of years to come. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Just as Heritage should be paired with Brookings, so New Republic should be paired with National Review. But a recent piece in New Republic noted the 'Heritage Action' under Jim DeMitt is generally discredited even among conservatives on the Hill -- advocating government shutdown, while the Heritage Foundation remains authoritative. --- the Heritage Lectures #218 "Assuring Affordable Health Care for all Americans" by Stuart M. Butler, PhD., is the model for the Affordable Care Act. It includes a public exchange for private insurances, and an individual insurance mandate for all households. I will join TFD in objecting to citations from 'Heritage Action', while admitting those from Heritage Foundation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not think we have a disagreement on facts. The Heritage Foundation presents a view of global warming, poverty, evolution, and many other issues where they feel the mainstream is wrong. It is of course possible that social scientists misrepresent poverty in America, global warming is caused by sunspots and the Earth is 6,000 years old. However, we need to pursue this argument on the policy pages, rather than across dozens of articles about the U.S. TFD (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay. please set a section here at Talk, along with the link, and I'll be there. Please bring sources to counter the Huffington Post.

From the , “The Brookings Institution ranked once again as the world's top think tank in an annual survey out today… in the fifth Global Go-To Think Tanks Rankings report. … Rounding out the top five on the U.S. list are the Council on Foreign Relations, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Center for Strategic and International Studies and RAND Corp. Other Washington mainstays also ranked high on the domestic list. The conservative Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation made it in the top 10, and the liberal Center for American Progress came in 11th place."

"The report also ranks think tanks by category. Cato and Heritage placed in the top five for economic policy. They joined CAP in the top five for social policy. McGann said he did not consider institutions that engage primarily in advocacy work."

And you will want a source to discredit the Harvard Kennedy School which lists Heritage Foundation in its Library & Knowledge Services, “supporting excellence in teaching, scholarship, and learning.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you are discrediting the Kennedy School by suggesting they are endorsing the reliability of right-wing think tanks. The rating btw way is influence on public policy. Brookings is number one both in the U.S. and world-wide, while THF ranks ninth and eighteenth respectively. Even if we changed the neutrality policy so that articles represented what thinktanks say, rather than what reliable sources say, Brookings would still be well ahead. Notice too that the Huffington Post describes THF as "conservative", but does not describe Brookings as "liberal", negating the ideological parity theory. TFD (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The Huffington Post is a liberal blog. This conversation is insane. That the Heritage Foundation is one of the nation's more prominent think tanks, especially well regarded in economic policy, is beside the point. Sourcing evaluations should be made on a case by case basis, and the line in question is verifiable and undisputed. Legitimate discussion over. If you're sincere about section source quality, it's time to start scrutinizing items like the sentence and chart from the leftist think tank EPI, which produced the productivity claim with extensive original research of what it called "unpublished" government reports. Can you verify their claims, TFD? If not, we have a problem. VictorD7 (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I have verified that the Heritage Foundation publishes papers that support views not supported by mainstream scholarship. TFD (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope, but does that mean you can't verify the claim by EPI? Or do you just not care? VictorD7 (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

No, TFD does not provide sources for his original research. Or, alternately, he gets his ideas from somewhere, but they are an embarrassment, not to say fringe. The Huffington Post proudly proclaims liberal CAP joins Heritage in the top five think tanks in social policy, but not economic policy. Since the top five think tanks in each category have influence as TFD agrees, they are reliable sources for the kinds of information used to make current U.S. economic and social policy.

My unwavering point is that Heritage Foundation sources on a topic are of significance in policy questions --- and they can be collaterally referenced with cites from Brookings if there is a question about their reliability. TFD is almost half way there to understanding my point, but he needs to read more Brookings reports, and less of the sources that he will not name on a Talk page when requested. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You are both missing the point. When sources promote theories not supported by mainstream sources, such as support of intelligent design and global warming denial, they are not mainstream sources. Mainstream sources say they are influential but that does not mean they endorse their views. It could be their ideas are correct and standard textbooks are wrong. But WP:WEIGHT does not allow us to correct the errors in mainstream thought. BTW it is not that I believe what is written in textbooks is necessarily correct, just that that is the standard policy requires us to accept. Instead of arguing your point across dozens of articles, just go to RS and persuade other editors to change it. TFD (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

As usual, you have no sources to attribute your one-man "mainstream", nor have you connected "intelligent design" of species with Heritage economic or social policy recommendations. Your non-sequiturs are not germane to the topic, -- which is data relevant to U.S. economic and social policy. Is there a source which says Heritage Foundation is not influential in current U.S. economic and social policy? There is no reliable source you care to share on a Talk page.

Informed study requires encompassing the Heritage data, if only to refute its conclusions, hence Heritage Foundation is listed by Harvard Kennedy School in its Library & Knowledge Services, “supporting excellence in teaching, scholarship, and learning.” You must find a source other than your own clever non-sequiturs. Find a source to support your opposition relative to Heritage Foundation economic and social policy, and we can evaluate it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

See for example Eric Haas's article on U.S. conservative think tanks in Marketing Fear in America's Public Schools: The Real War on Literacy, (Psychology Press). "Heritage Foundation "experts" have been described as some of the least qualified of all Washington, D.C. think tanks, and their lack of expertise is so pronounced that a Time magazine report once suggested that they should be dubbed "advocacy" tank, not think tank. As is discussed later, that description aptly describes the Heritage Foundation's current crop of education experts." (p. 136) TFD (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

So you're really trying to disqualify all "conservative" think tanks? A partisan polemic by a guy who blogs for sites like Alternet and the Huffington Post, and who used to be a member of the "progressive" Rockridge Institute think tank (closed down since that article was written; couldn't have been too mainstream), isn't definitive for what's "mainstream", especially since his article actually complains about the fact that mainstream media outlets commonly refer to the people in question as "experts" (undermining your point, and he cherry-picked examples to begin with; Heritage and the other groups have many scholars with impressive credentials, particularly in economics and history). And no, you're the one missing the point. You're cherry-picking a single issue stance, unrelated to anything on this page, to try and disqualify across the board a source with countless issue stances whose politics you dislike, and indeed now an entire ideology, while being just fine with allowing leftist think tanks and low quality blogs as sources. I dispute your interpretation of Wiki sourcing rules (it's clear that a source can be considered "expert" on one topic but not another; not much about purging sources across the board regardless of topic because of their ideology; and simple factual reliability is a different issue), and even if I didn't you've so far failed to even establish your claim on your own terms with specifics. We're going in circles here. VictorD7 (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Mainstream is what appears in peer-review articles in the academic press. The peer-review process, which the Heritage Foundation does not use btw, involves fact-checking. In this case the fact is not what Haas thinks about the Heritage Foundation but what he reports is the general view in mainstream sources. Can you please provide a similar source that backs up your opinion of the Heritage Foundation. It seems that you continue to insist it is mainstream and reliable and accuse any source saying otherwise of being left-wing. TFD (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Heritage fact checks and transparently references, and your own leftist blogger you just quoted acknowledged that the few Heritage members he cherry-picked in his brief commentary on the think tank are identified as "experts" by mainstream media outlets, undermining your own point, as I just observed. You have no case. If you're trying to imply that only "peer reviewed" sources should be used (not a rule, btw), then you'd have to purge most of the article's sources, probably starting with some of those low quality leftist blogs currently employed in the section. VictorD7 (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

IOW you see a parity between academic sources and sources that conflict with them. TFD (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

No, but you apparently see liberal blogs as "academic sources" and you've failed to show that the pertinent Heritage inclusion conflicts with any sources, academic or otherwise. VictorD7 (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Still no sourced connection from TFD between the age of the earth and economic policy recommendations at Heritage Foundation. Still no link to his WP policy discussion. Non-sequitur and ad hominem flow. He should read his own source. From the TFD source above, “Both the New York Times and the Washington Post cited as an expert commentator on .” p.135, then something about a U.K. self-published journal now out of business, and never listed by Harvard's Kennedy School as a scholarly source for U.S. policy? Perhaps I misunderstand.

Current "Mainstream" sources as used in this article related to modern policy, distinctly lacking and apart from scholarly sources as Victor points out, --- is properly made up of assessments by the NYT and the WP for U.S. related data and analysis, especially when they are in agreement. What reports for the mainstream sources is that --- Heritage Foundation scholars are expert commentators. --- "Mainstream" for U.S. is not a defunct advocacy group in the U.K., not listed in the top 300 think tanks worldwide of today. Still no source is offered by TFD to back up his asserted connection between a guest lecturer on "origin of species by 'intelligent design'", and any published Heritage Foundation social policy. Just the non-sequitur by TFD. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

National language

While the U.S. has no official language, there is also a field for "national language." I changed "American English" to "English", since "American English" is not a language, but a group of dialects of North American English, which is a variety of the English language. However another editor reversed my edit. TFD (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Were the field “language” the answer would be simply ‘English’. There is no official U.S. language, -- but for personal mobility across the continent and among the islands, English allows for the widest job opportunities. Spanish is the second mother-tongue, variously called 'Puerto Rican', 'Cuban' and 'Mexican' in American English dialects of NYC, Miami and the Southwest. The French spoken in Maine and Florida and Louisiana, or the Portuguese in Massachusetts and Hawaii, or Algonquin dialects east of the Mississippi River, etc., are not germane to this discussion as they do not meet a threshold of say, 15% of the total U.S. native population.

As the field is “national language” it seems to admit dialects in national usage, (‘American English’) or secondary language (‘English, Spanish’) or ('English dialects, Spanish dialects'). On the other hand, there does seem a bias towards conciseness in WP editing, and that would suggest the answer would simply be ‘English’ as TFD proposes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with TFD. The term "American English" is used to distinguish from "British English" for purposes of usage, not to denote national language. The language of America is English. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Government finance header link

The Gov. finance section currently lacks any header links to other articles, so would anyone object if we added this one?

Taxation in the United States

Since this should be non-controversial, I'll add it in a couple of days if there's no objection. VictorD7 (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Victor, it might be best if you refrained from editing economic topics until you resolve your issues with corporate tax incidence. Harboring a contradiction makes inferences less accurate, and I find myself in agreement with those who say that your inaccuracy and the resulting lack of editorial WP:COMPETENCE which constantly degrades article quality has been so disruptive that you are driving away good editors. EllenCT (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Since you failed to cite anything inaccurate about my comments and find yourself in agreement with a troll and a barely literate partisan hack who caused repeated disruptions and found himself in the minority, neither having even been here for a while, and since I've had to explain corporate incidence to you from the beginning while you were unable to answer my basic and vital questions about your own source, you appear to be the incompetent one. Your massive, undiscussed edit was just reverted by me and another poster. Please refrain from edit warring, soapboxing (insert appropriate link here, if that would impress you), and wrecking this article again. If you insist on participating, it should be in Talk Page discussions, with future changes discussed one at a time. VictorD7 (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Inequality, tax incidence, and AP survey

• Ellen's replacement of the very long-standing (by several years) housing development image with yet another politically-motivated inequality graph needs to be discussed first. The image is long-standing because it is neutral and cannot be disputed, and this graph does nothing but continue to over-emphasize inequality issues in the country.
• The removal of both graphs in Government finance (including the ITEP one) as a compromise has gone uncontested for weeks. The re-addition of just one of the graphs threatens to stir the pot once again on an issue that had been settled.
• "Four out of five U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives." This has already been described as a frivolous, highly vague statement that is not elaborated on at all, and does not add anything valuable to the other details in the section. Its removal weeks ago was not contested by anyone, except now EllenCT.

In Ellen's 2-3 week-long absence this article has remained relatively stable, and changes made weeks ago had been agreed on or uncontested, and it shows that there are only a couple of users here that catalyze edit disputes and article instability. Cadiomals (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your deletions:

• The housing image is not an image of housing development, just suburban subdivision-style ranch housing which is neither unique to or particularly illustrative of the United States, given that such style of housing exists on every continent except Antarctica, nor illustrative of the section it is in. The article is filled with uninformative photographs. Replacing a photo of suburban housing with an image showing the rise of the top 1% of incomes, as was specifically requested in other comments above, objectively improves the article and the section. There is no evidence that inequality issues are over-emphasized in the article. There is abundant evidence that inequality issues are not given the weight due their importance in economics.
• The Heritage Foundation income tax incidence graph is objectively and mathematically incorrect, and was rightly removed. Even VictorD7 admits that corporate taxes are borne in large part by low income consumers. The ITEP graph is supported by the many sources which correctly attribute corporate tax incidence, even if a few recent think tank sources do not do so correctly. Pretending that there is no objective mathematical truth is the worst kind of abuse of the NPOV policy, tantamount to "he-said-she-said" journalism in the face of obvious factual accuracy of one side and inaccuracy of the other, or the view from nowhere which is rejected by reputable editors with reputations for fact checking and accuracy. I will continue to replace the accurate graph in accordance with the comments about it from the majority of respondents concerning it in the sections above.
• I will not be bullied because I turned my attention to other work for half a month. The AP poll indicating that 80% of Americans must deal with joblessness, low income, or welfare is not reflected in any other statements in the section or the article. There is no evidence that it is either frivolous or vague, and the assertion that it is not elaborated in the source cited is objectively false as anyone reading the source can see. I strongly object to such falsehoods being used to try to bully editors.

The comments above indicate that the article has been losing editors because they are exhausted dealing with an editor who chooses to draw inferences from what he admits are contradictory premises. Who wants to read an encyclopedia by those who know they are harboring falsehoods, but allow their ideology to guide them down mathematically incorrect paths anyway? Not me, and I refuse to turn my back on this article just because one such person willingly edits with an admitted competence deficit. EllenCT (talk) 11:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• When a long-standing image or piece of info is removed and subsequently disputed, it should be discussed first based on WP:BRD. The image is illustrative and follows relevant guidelines and recommendations, and no one has disputed it until now. You think there are a lot of "uninformative photographs" in this article because they are not all conveying the message you want them to.

• If your proposed replacement image is added there will then be two graphs portraying growing economic divides in the country. That is placing too much emphasis and weight to inequality in this summary section and article. And if you add your proposed graph, the graph showing the growing divide between "productivity and median incomes" ought to then be removed. Drilling it into the readers' heads that the US has inequality problems through multiple paragraphs and two graphs is placing undue weight and is a form of soapboxing and advocacy when there are many other aspects of the economy that are only brushed upon. Your argument that it is "crucial to current political debates" has absolutely no relevance in this summary article. Go nuts in Income inequality in the United States.

• I don't know as much about the ITEP tax graph. I just know that both graphs that used to be in the Government finance section were disputed, the section was trimmed and they were both removed as a compromise, and that this change had gone uncontested for weeks despite continued activity and discussion by many editors on the talk page, which also refutes your claim that it was uncontested because editors were driven away. Nevertheless, this will be put to a definitive vote and I of course will respect consensus if many really want it re-added.

• That statement is vague. It's the same as saying 95% of people have had either a headache or breast cancer at some point in their lives, or that 90% of Americans own either a car or an airplane. 80% of Americans deal with joblessness and low-income at some point in their lives? I'm surprised it isn't 95% percent. It is no surprise that most Americans have likely been jobless at some point if they are laid off or look for a new one; that is typical of almost every country. And who hasn't been low-income at some point in early adulthood, when one is still in an internship or entry-level job? Very few readers are going to check the source for clarification. The statement conveys nothing of educational value to the reader, except for furthering the biased tone in the section you wish to convey: that Americans somehow experience undue hardship relative to other countries.

The best way to resolve this of course is to bring in other editors' opinions for the survey below. Cadiomals (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

EllenCT just told multiple outright lies. I already corrected her mischaracterization of my views on corporate taxation here (diffs , , , , ) so she has no excuse for invoking my name and repeating that falsehood here. I've always consistently said that corporate tax incidence should be attributed to owners since they're the ones most directly paying them, that they're only borne by others (not just consumers) in the same way all taxes are borne by others, and that we shouldn't cherry-pick a single tax type for political reasons and treat it differently when determining tax incidence. And what "Heritage Foundation income tax incidence graph" is she referring to? The graph was drawn by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation based on Tax Policy Center numbers, not the Heritage Foundation, and she hasn't shown it's "inaccurate" in any way. The Tax Policy Center is far more widely cited and mainstream than ITEP (and its liberal lobbying arm, CTJ), and, as my link to the archived discussion shows, she was unable to answer my basic questions about how her graph even got its numbers, how it attributes corporate incidence (or anything else), or why its internal federal rates are such an outlier compared to the TPC and CBO, both of which corroborate each other and contradict ITEP over time. A single editor bent on soapboxing should not be allowed to destroy this article's fragile stability with loads of massive, undiscussed, contentious edits, or get away with outright lies about other editors and content. We can't let this article be hijacked into becoming a platform for one sided partisan propaganda. Even her flimsy edit summary justifications betray her partisan POV agenda, repeatedly citing things like "material central to recent political debates" or "campaigns". She's a disruptive talking point spammer with no regard for the Talk Page process or encyclopedic quality. VictorD7 (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You have not exactly been helpful in the progress of this article either, Victor, so I would advise you be more mellow this time and also keep your responses more concise. In my opinion your full revert of Ellen's changes as opposed to my partial revert was uncalled for and catalyzes edit wars. Both you and Ellen's insistence on fully getting your way has been a roadblock in achieving a balanced and stable article and frustrating for the majority of editors who are less politically motivated and more willing to compromise. Both of you will need to respect consensus no matter which way it goes. Cadiomals (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually I'm one of the primary reasons this article has improved over the past year and in particular in recent weeks, and I have a right to correct outright falsehoods, especially when my name is invoked. I didn't fully revert Ellen's changes as I left the one proposal that had been specifically discussed. The other changes are controversial and opposed. I obviously haven't gotten my way on many things, but one difference between me and Ellen is that I respect the Talk Page process and have shown that I'm willing to participate in it. Significant changes should be discussed here before implementation, especially to the politically sensitive sections. A return to mass, unilateral, undiscussed edits will undo everything that's been accomplished in recent weeks, sparking off new waves of continuous counter editing, bloating, and likely edit warring. VictorD7 (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Economy, trade, and companies Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There is currently a dispute (and a discussion above) about whether a few pieces of information are fit to be added to the Government finance and Income, poverty, and wealth sections. Please see the arguments in the thread above and indicate with "support adding" or "oppose adding" as well as your opinion:

Income inequality

Should EllenCT's proposed image to the right be added to Income, poverty, and wealth, replacing the long-standing (by several years) housing development image and alongside a similar image also showing growing economic divides? Or should it be traded out with the other graph while keeping the housing image? What do you think of the emphasis the section currently places on income inequality?

Oppose adding based on my arguments above. Cadiomals (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, for reasons given. Also the graph is intentionally skewed in appearance by 1% of the pop. which was disproportionately boosted by the bull stock market of much of the period. Ellen's own past inclusion observes that real median income rose over most of that period, but the skewed graph hides the increase by featuring an infinitesimal portion of the country. VictorD7 (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Support per the ability to reason correctly when contradictions are eliminated. The proposed graph is more informative than the graph proposed above which only shows one variable (proportion of incomes in top 1%) instead of three (the middle 60% and lower 20%) -- who speaks for the lower 20% on Misplaced Pages? EllenCT (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ellen is referring to the "graph proposed above" that was rejected by most respondents, so to be clear this isn't a choice between those two options. VictorD7 (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support, per ellen. Pass a Method talk 20:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose A graph showing this might be useful, but this graph is not satisfactory. TIt tries to show three different line with widely varying magnitude on the same linear axis, which means the actual values of the two lower ones cannot be determined. It would probably be better to use a single line for the top 1%, but if all 3 are really wanted a log scale would be needed or separate graphs--these would, though, be less dramatic. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Why not have a graph that shows the change in incomes for the population as a whole, rather than choosing certain sections of the population? Its just confusing this way. Rwenonah (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

So do you support or oppose adding this particular graph? This is the specific issue right now; we can discuss possible alternative graphs afterwards/separately. Cadiomals (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• OpposePer objections above.Rwenonah (talk) 12:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Graph needs adjusting. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Tax incidence

Should the ITEP tax graph to the right be re-added to the Government finance section or should the section remain without an image?

Oppose adding based on my arguments above. Cadiomals (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, for reasons laid out above. Graph is from a partisan lobbyist and its accuracy is disputed by multiple reliable sources. VictorD7 (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Support per Ostry and Berg (2011). EllenCT (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

That link doesn't appear to mention the graph (unless I missed it) or be pertinent to this topic. VictorD7 (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you think of the reason that I think it supports it? EllenCT (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd hate to presume. VictorD7 (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Your best guess? EllenCT (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support per reasoning cited by ellen Pass a Method talk 20:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support until an alternative source is found for the same information. The graph shows an important reality of local and state taxes for education including property taxes and sales taxes, for instance. Nearly a flat tax ideal by income distribution, with breaks in the aggregate for the most disadvantaged? The reality of American economic life-as-taxes is perhaps a conservative ideal? Where's the beef? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Virginia, where were you when I removed both of the graphs from Gov't finance weeks ago as a way to finally stop the bickering over it? If you really wanted to include this graph, why didn't you raise an objection on the talk page? Cadiomals (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• The beef is it's inaccurate. It was cooked up by a far left lobbyist group and it's internal federal component is massively contradicted by the far more prominent Tax Policy Center (a joint Brookings and Urban Institute project), especially (but not only) for the top 1%, where there's around a 10 point difference. The CBO also tracks closely with the TPC over time, with the federal only top 1% tax rate around 30%, not around 20% (where ITEP has it), from year to year. By contrast the ITEP chart has no corroboration whatsoever, and an opaque methodology we can't examine. The differences aren't a one year fluke, but are consistent over time, as the link in my above post lays out. Doesn't any of that bother you? Shouldn't we hold off on making such a controversial chart the section image in a country summary article? The graph is disputed, unverifiable partisan propaganda. VictorD7 (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Here's a Tax Foundation piece criticizing the ITEP chart and showing a very different one for total taxation, with a bottom quintile rate of 13% and the entire top quintile (not just the top 1%) averaging 35.6%. VictorD7 (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That "piece" is neither accurate or in agreement with the peer reviewed literature. EllenCT (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hogwash. So far I'm the only one between us actually backing up what I say. Whether you agree with it or not, it's just one more prominent source disputing your chart. VictorD7 (talk) 04:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose The CBO and Tax Policy Center are far more mainstream and reliable sources for this kind of information. It's absurd to include such a heavily disputed partisan graph in a country summary.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and as a solution and compromise we opted not to add any graphs to that section at all, including the one added by VictorD7. That was fine for everyone, but now EllenCT wants to stir the pot again, insisting we re-add just this one and drawing our attention back to a tired debate that had already been settled. Cadiomals (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Your characterization of the issue which has played very if not most prominently in recent election cycles as settled lacks accuracy. Deleting both graphs was obviously not "fine for everyone". EllenCT (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I meant everyone except you, because both graphs were removed three weeks ago and no one said a word about it despite continuous discussion on the talk page, mostly because people wanted to finally move on from that issue and the bickering over those graphs that had been occurring weeks prior. As such, the issue of including those graphs was settled, and it showed that you were really the only one insistent on advancing your political agenda. I couldn't care less about your babble regarding "election cycles". Cadiomals (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Settled it may be, but the editor opening this string sought multiple editor input regarding adding information to the encyclopedia. Could someone repost Victor's chart? (Is there really a question as to whether corporations are people too? I thought I was the only one in the country who disagreed with the Supreme Court at Citizens United.)

It seems to me that Ellen might agree to Victor's chart now for the sake of presenting something on total effective tax rates, as the information conveyed is a relatively flat tax rate compared to national income tax, and that is informative to the general international reader unfamiliar with how federal regimes tax their populations in actuality. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Heritage Foundation's chart which doesn't apportion corporate taxes to consumers? Are you aware of how few sources agree with that? Victor frequently cites all three. Meanwhile in reality.... EllenCT (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, does it show a relatively flat tax for total effective tax? If so it is of much the same utility to the general international reader, the difference in sources is a wash. ITEP, Heritage, CBO and Tax Policy Center were alternate sources mentioned above. To date in this string, I only see ITEP which generally corresponds to my earlier study, a relatively flat tax for total effective tax in the U.S. -- which is why I support ITEP until another source can be agreed to... which Cadiomals informs me cannot be done... for now ?? Might you allow something from CBO or Tax Policy Center, are their charts readily available at commons? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no "Heritage Foundation" chart. Ellen's confused (or lying again) and apparently referring to this PGPF chart of TPC numbers for federal tax rates. Note how its top 1% rate is a few points higher than ITEP's purported total rate. There are no good overall tax incidence charts, because it's notoriously difficult to study local/state taxes with precision. The only one I know of is the ITEP chart, but we know that's problematic because its internal federal component is contradicted so dramatically by the CBO and TPC, the two most prominent and widely cited outfits that do tax incidence. It was also lambasted by the Tax Foundation, which actually produced its own using TPC federal and ITEP state/local numbers, not that ITEP's state/local figures are necessarily credible either. It would be better to have no chart than to post misinformation cooked up by a partisan lobbyist. The relative flattening you mention (still nowhere near a flat tax) is already described in the text, which is a perfectly fair way to handle it. This also isn't about corporate taxation. That's a dishonest smokescreen tossed out by Ellen as a diversion. She has no idea how ITEP even attributes corporate taxes. Unlike the CBO and TPC, they don't provide component breakdowns and their methodology is opaque. Their chart says they count it, but even if they attributed zero to the top 1%, which would be ludicrous and would contradict a statement I found and posted by their spokesman, it still wouldn't account for the discrepancy. BTW, while Ellen's link has absolutely nothing to do with this topic, I have to say I'm shocked, shocked I tell you that liberals' predictions scored better in a cycle where Democrats won. It's a shame the "study" only looked at one election, and didn't examine if conservatives' predictions were better in a year Republicans won. VictorD7 (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

AP survey

Ref.: Yen, Hope (28 July 2013). 80 Percent Of U.S. Adults Face Near-Poverty, Unemployment: Survey. Associated Press and Huffington Post Retrieved July 28, 2013. EllenCT (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Should the statement "Four out of five U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives" be added to the Income, poverty, and wealth section? Is it adequately precise or too vague of a statement?

Oppose adding based on my arguments above. Cadiomals (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose as a hopelessly vague and pointless lumping together of categories that's solely designed for emotive impact and mood setting. VictorD7 (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Support per the original Associated Press sources. EllenCT (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Pass a Method talk 20:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose until a scholarly source is found to put the information into a larger context...good argument for a safety-net society, though. And the U.S. practice obviously more nearly approaches the European welfare state model than many suspect, even in the midst of a fierce national cult of individualism and reliance on family first. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Corporate tax incidence text

Is "U.S. taxation is generally progressive, especially the federal income taxes, but the incidence of corporate income tax has been a matter of considerable ongoing controversy for decades." preferable to "U.S. taxation is generally progressive, especially the federal income taxes, and is among the most progressive in the developed world."? EllenCT (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The former is preferable because it is more accurate and compliant with the WP:NPOV policy, in that order. The latter is cherrypicked puffery unsupported by the most reliable sources. EllenCT (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually the latter, long standing version you've altered without prior discussion is undisputed and less poorly written than your new sentence. We might be able to reach an agreement on including corporate incidence material, but shoving it into the first sentence renders it confusing at best and gives undue emphasis to a small portion of taxation that has no bearing on overall US tax progressivity vis a vis other developed nations, or on whether overall US taxation is progressive (even your own outlier far left CTJ source concedes it's "progressive"). You haven't even bothered to construct an argument for your misleading edit's legitimacy. VictorD7 (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This element of the discussion relates to the tax incidence chart above which shows a nearly flat tax rate if state and localities property and sales taxes are included for income segments. National policy is progressive, local and state are regressive, by and large. Comparisons across central governments and federal governments are difficult without aggregating national and local taxes together. Also, when something does go to narrative, limit reference notes to two, and expand the notes to include multiple sources, as a matter of WP style. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Look closer. Even the inaccurate, far left lobbyist graph you're referring to doesn't show anything close to a "flat tax". The entire right half only covers the top 10%. As proved above, its federal component also dramatically understates rates for high earners compared to the TPC and CBO. Here's yet another critique of the ITEP chart by the Tax Foundation. They give a far different overall tax incidence chart at the bottom. None of that directly relates to this discussion though, because Ellen hasn't shown that the discrepancy is due to corporate tax differences, and even if it was, the findings about the US having a more progressive overall tax system (not just federal) are extremely robust. Europe has an outright regressive tax system that relies heavily on consumption taxes. As the Northwestern U. study and media sources explain, even their income tax structure is more regressive than America's, and their consumption taxes are more regressive than our sales taxes (which feature various exemptions). Of course other countries have corporate taxes too, rendering the corporate incidence question pointless to this issue, and they're only a small percentage of taxation anyway. Please read the sources. They're actually quite clear and decisive. The partial flattening caused by state/local taxes is already described in the text. There's no reason to overstate it with a hotly disputed, unverifiable chart from a partisan lobbyist. VictorD7 (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7, could you please explain the terminology you use. If non-partisan groups like ITEP are "far left", what superlatives do you use for social democrats, democratic socialists, communists, trotskyists, maoists and anarchists? Are anarchists "far far far far far far far left?" TFD (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not "non-partisan". It even has a liberal lobbying arm called Citizens for Tax Justice. Forget the labels though. The pertinent issue is that its numbers are dramatically contradicted by multiple reliable sources. Isn't that supposed to matter? VictorD7 (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree the contradiction is dramatic. But you have already admitted that corporate tax is borne by consumers, so by your own definition the sources which do not attribute corporate tax incidence to anyone but the owners and corporate employees are not reliable. And while you have found "multiple" such sources, they are not peer reviewed, because the peer reviewed literature attributes corporate tax incidence in the way you said it should be attributed. Until you resolve this contradiction, you have no path to competent editing on the topic. EllenCT (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Your lies are tedious, Ellen. I said no such thing. You're conflating tax incidence with economic ripple effects. Even your own ITEP/CTJ spokesman said investors pay corporate taxes. I posted the quote for you from the ITEP website. Maybe they also attribute some to consumers (what about labor?), and maybe they don't (you don't know and haven't been able to find anything concrete), but corporate taxation wouldn't account for the large contradiction anyway. You haven't cited anything from "peer reviewed literature" because the links in question don't help your case and have nothing to do with this discussion. The TPC and CBO are far more mainstream, cited, and reliable than an uncorroborated, outlier ITEP chart. VictorD7 (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

So now you are saying corporations don't pass on tax increases to their customers? EllenCT (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Those are economic ripple effects (and to labor, and to other businesses, just like income and all taxes; we shouldn't cherry-pick), not tax incidence. VictorD7 (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you please answer the question: What proportion of corporate taxes do you believe are borne by consumers? EllenCT (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

If one defines "borne" as tax incidence, then 0%. Of course what matters is what the sources do. Now stop dodging and finally answer my question: Precisely how much, if any, corporate tax does ITEP attribute to the top 1%? The CBO and TPC both provide that answer. Can you? If not, then your whole fixation on corporate incidence is a red herring. VictorD7 (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

That isn't what tax incidence means at all, and you know it. I am asking in the sense that you meant when you said, "I tend to agree with you that corporate income taxes are passed on to consumers." Musgrave et al. (1951) derived 45.5% by observing which parameters of economic models best fit actual outcomes, which is the same method the ITEP uses today, as does the U.S. Treasury's Office of Tax Analysis, which says:

"A naïve view of the incidence of the corporate tax is that shareholders bear the burden of the tax through lower after-tax rates of return. This naïve view ignores the possibility that the tax will be shifted onto consumers through higher prices, workers through lower wages ... or other types of capital as capital shifts out of the corporate sector in response to the lower after-tax return offered by corporations. To move beyond this naïve view, a model of economic behavior is necessary to guide predictions about how the burden of the corporate income tax will be distributed. Much of the literature on corporate tax incidence has focused on building such models and, depending on the assumptions, these models have generated a wide range of predictions."

Modern simulations and empirical derivations (see Table 1 on page 17 here) say that consumers bear from 57% to 75% of corporations' tax. The only sources which claim 0% are the few which you've cherry-picked. So what do you really believe, Victor? How much corporate tax is passed on to consumers? I've answered your question, now you answer mine. EllenCT (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

We should wait at least a couple of days at least until several opinions pile-up before deciding whether or not to add the specific pieces of information, and there ought to be an over two-thirds majority. Any consensus gathered should be and will be respected. Cadiomals (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Why not a week? EllenCT (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I said at least a couple of days so a week is fine.

Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I have submitted a request for full page protection of the article for a few days until this issue is resolved in a civil manner to prevent further edit warring. Cadiomals (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't consider accusations of edit warring civil. I am happy to wait a week, as long as other editors understand that you tried to revert more than you included in your RFC. EllenCT (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"Accusations" of edit-warring when there have been several reverts over the past 24 hours, including ones made by you? The concept of an RFC for consensus also seems to have completely gone past your head as you still chose to restore your changes anyway. That's not how it works. Keep in mind that you are the one who sparked all this by making many sudden changes after two weeks of article stability, and the article's edit history testifies to this, so there can be no disputing that fact. I will admit I inadvertently reverted more than I intended and VictorD7 was of no help, but SomeDifferentStuff's restoration should more than suffice for now. No more changes ought to be made to the article until we have several other users contributing their opinion on the above issues, it's as simple as that. Have some patience, and if others agree with you, it will manifest itself here. Cadiomals (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No significant, undiscussed changes should have been allowed. The remaining ones have lowered article quality and consensus should have been sought for them one at a time. Flooding the page with multiple simultaneous edits renders meaningful Talk Page discussion difficult at best and tends to dissuade most observers from participating. VictorD7 (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Query.

on income-inequality. The housing image should stay and a graph should be displayed, --- as is allotted to other sections. Can the "Dual image" convention be used to pair both graphs side by side -- right justified iaw WP:ACCESS for visually impaired? The general reader will know to click on the image to enlarge it were they concerned to read each graph in greater detail than the format allows, supporting narrative provides the context. The two graphs together show two distinct aspects of the same reality, and the two graphs together I would support. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

At this point it would be a lot of images to cram into that significantly shortened section. If the two graphs were to be placed side by side, both would have to be small enough not to squeeze the text next to it, basically forcing the reader to click the image to clearly see it. Another problem is that the 1% graph is significantly taller than the median income graph. I believe we should keep the housing image and choose one of the two graphs; any more seems like cramming too much into one section. And don't you think illustrating the same phenomena with two images is redundant? Cadiomals (talk) 10:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

They do not illustrate the same phenomenon, although they are related. Which is more than one can say for the photograph of a ranch house subdivision and anything unique to the U.S. EllenCT (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I took the liberty of making a trial run of the two images above. I am surprised at how poor the resolution is, but I thought it was worth a try. Other editor reaction? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I like it, but I would prefer the data plotted on the same x-axis with different y-axes. What program can produce .svg charts directly? EllenCT (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• RfC comment Don't know about how good the graphs are, but I can say the tract house picture is so bland and uninformative that one might as well link to a random picture. victor falk 10:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Is that not the point, the blandness of a majority of the population which is in suburbia tract housing, large square footage for the common man, better constructed than Latin American shanty towns, but nevertheless built with balloon framing, plywood and drywall instead of better European materials of stone, lathe and plaster, --- roofs that last only 20 years, not the 200 years of thatch or slate? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You might think it's bland but it isn't uninformative because it is a fairly good representation of how the majority of suburban middle-class Americans live and a portrayal of the average standard of living in the country. The sprawling, uniform suburban style shown here is also fairly unique to Northern America, as Europe is more densely packed. More important than this though is that it is a long standing image that not everyone agrees on removing, and that Ellen had planned on replacing with yet another redundant graph which gives undue weight to representing inequality. The dual graph above might be more tolerable. Cadiomals (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do you say that inequality is over-weighted in the article, given ? EllenCT (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

As it currently is, I think inequality has just enough weight in the article and in this section in particular. You were planning on replacing a long-standing photo with yet another graph, which some obviously did not agree with. Like I said, the dual image above might be a compromise, though many still disagree with how the info in the 1% graph is presented. Also, the article you linked to, while interesting and informative, ultimately has no relevance when determining what is sufficient for a summary article which is meant to have a limit on details. I don't know how many more times you have to be reminded this article is not and will never be your soapbox. Cadiomals (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a way that all three graphs can be combined, because the categories are shared along with the y-axes. There is no support for trying to trick people in to believing that taxes are more progressive than they are or that the top 1% of income earners have gained less than they have. Elucidating those points in the face of an active effort to obscure them is hardly soapboxing. And it's right to show how the difference is offset by incomes failing to keep pace with productivity. Why aren't you going after the source of inaccuracy instead of the people who want to improve the article? EllenCT (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This picture does not represent the characteristics of sprawling American suburbia particularly well. At first glance, it could be from anywhere in the western world. Also, the habitat of a particular segment of the population is not illustrative of "Income, poverty, and wealth" in the US in general. victor falk 05:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Housing is an indicator of income, poverty and wealth. The image is typical of where a majority of the population resides in every region of the country in the U.S. And while there may be such places somewhere else in the western world such as France or Belgium, I did not see any such places in my brief visits there observing by plane, train, bus or taxi. Is it true that a majority of French now live in tract housing in suburban Paris, Cherbourg and Marseille, or is tract housing in fact distinctively American for a majority in every region only in the U.S. in their millions? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on all points; this image is an accurate indicator of the general standard of living of the majority of the population and fairly unique to North America, though the bottom line remains that it is long standing by years and there are people against its removal. No one ever argued over it until Ellen proposed its replacement with an even more contentious image. If people really thought it was a useless image I imagine it would have been replaced long ago. Cadiomals (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

"It's been there for years" sounds like a rather weak argument. If people can't agree upon an image of certain minimum quality, then there should be no image. And saying "it would have been replaced long ago", after first saying "it can't be replaced for it's been there for so long" strikes as a... rather circular argument. victor falk 12:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Insert @ victor falk. Okay, the image of tract housing in suburbia is uniquely typical of where a majority of the population live for the U.S. as a whole and for a majority within every region of the U.S., -- it is typical in a way distributed in the millions, which is found in few other countries, though perhaps some provinces of Canada? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The arguments for why the image is effective and ought to stay (beyond just being long standing) are already here, so don't just ignore them. And an image that is long-standing in a highly visible article that is always evolving could be interpreted as implicit approval of its value to the article. Ellen has been the only one raising hell about issues that have already been settled. We should actually be sticking to the subject of whether the image she wants to replace it with is agreed on, and so far it doesn't have widespread approval. Cadiomals (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I still object to the graph on the right, since its use of data for only parts of the American population is both confusing and seems to be clearly trying to present a POV.Rwenonah (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I like the housing picture but object to both the above charts as inappropriate POV and shoddy construction in the income breakdown case. The current graph erroneously implies that income should necessarily correlate precisely with productivity (apples and oranges), cherry-picks a potentially aberrational starting place where this is depicted as having been the case for a few years, and makes no mention of the impact of technological progress or globalization, the obvious factors likely driving the recent divergence if it in fact exists (I haven't seen anyone verify EPI's claims). It's based on a single section sentence that was only added ex post facto as a flimsy excuse for adding the graph by an editor who had spent weeks trying to add the graph first back when the section didn't even mention the word "productivity". As bad as that is, the new proposed income breakdown chart is even worse for reasons I and others have already laid out. Adding both of them would be abysmal. Both graphs are essentially niche, political talking points. Why not something more neutral, like showing a breakdown of income by age over the course of an average individual American's life? Not that the SUBsection needs more than a single image anyway. Of course amid all the "inequality" increase talk, there's currently no mention of the nation's changing labor force demographics, due to things like the influx of millions of low skilled illegal immigrants in recent decades or women entering the work force in huge numbers from the 1980s onward. The historical comparison omits the fact that the top 1%'s share was at its record low point in the 1970s it chose to start its comparison in, that said share is largely driven by the stock market, and that the top 1%'s share more often than not increases during economic growth periods while sharply declining during economic downturns, raising questions about its significance. VictorD7 (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Protection

The page will be locked up till all you guys can solve the problem. On a side note ....the article keeps getting bigger despite the many many many many concerns raised. Perhaps best to ask for some help form experienced editors.-- Moxy (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

But the most vocal of these new folk believe the experienced editors were "the poison here who presided over that quality decline". I very much doubt he's interested in what we have to say. --Golbez (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Golbez, people just haven't been paying attention and/or have been complacent as this article was gradually bloated over time. As a matter of fact, I was one of those people who wasn't even aware of the article's issues until a short time ago. The blame lies on no one except the people who actively bloated the article, making it imbalanced and turning sections into their political soapboxes. While a lot of that has been greatly reduced in recent weeks, we need more editors who will stand for cooperation and civil discussion and against continued selfishness and disruption from people like Ellen. Even Victor has not been making any disruptive, controversial edits for the past 2 weeks. Then we could move on to other issues for once, like how the first three History sections also need a trimming; maybe then the article could gradually move back towards Good status. Cadiomals (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You say history needs to be trimmed, but it's a vast improvement from the quagmire that used to exist. I'm sure it could still be improved but I'm not sure that's the part of the article that needs the most work. For example, there's *way* too many charts and lists here. We don't need a list of the 20 largest metro areas; we don't need a list of the 16(!) largest languages, we don't need that diagram of the federal government. But then we got caught up in dealing with left wing and right wing bullshit, because there's nothing more important than arguing over which person's interpretation of the progressivity of the American taxation system is correct. And, speaking just for me, but this "poison" lost all interest. I've been on Misplaced Pages for nearly a decade, and it takes a lot for me to simply give up with civil communication on a talk page (Shit, I still put up with Armenians and Azeris, and Caucasians are the worst), yet it happened in very rapid fashion here. I'm of course speaking from my own perspective but I'd like to think that means the problem lies without, rather than within. I don't really know about Ellen, etc., because I think I had generally stopped caring once they came around, but Victor has been a poison to discourse here for months (and a very obsessive few months; going back 500 edits, I can count less than a dozen that didn't involve this page or a user talk page). You claim he's improved in the last few weeks, and I'll try to take your word at that, and I'll take a view of possibly reinserting myself into the discourse. But I don't have high hopes. --Golbez (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I say Victor has improved because while he has been very frustrating on the Talk page with his long-winded ranting responses to everything, he has not made any controversial edits to the actual article in weeks, and he has been more willing than people like Ellen to sacrifice information he added to bring back a sense of balance to the article. Allowing Ellen to gradually begin reinserting info that had already been removed for the greater good of the article will undo all the work that has been done in recent weeks to return balance to the article. If you don't agree with her edits please contribute your opinion to the above survey. If we can weather this debacle with her and discourage her from continuing to be disruptive we can move on to other, non-political issues for once. Not every problem this article has needs to be politicized. Cadiomals (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record, my posts, while occasionally long, weren't "rants", but rational, fact supported responses to the wrecking of the article with undiscussed, low quality, partisan edits. I don't think any honest person who paid close attention would be describe me as the "poison" wrecking discourse, and I certainly can't be blamed for this article losing its "good" status since that happened months before I even created an account. I stand by all my article edits and have always been willing to civilly defend any of them in detail. I do think it's naive at best to pretend that the "right"/"left" thing either isn't the primary issue driving this ongoing display or is a recent development, but I agree that it'd be great if it was something we didn't need to discuss, and that the article does have non-political issues as well. VictorD7 (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you think that your admitted inability to reconcile your desire to portray US taxes as progressive as possible with your desire to correctly attribute corporate taxes to consumers might have something to do with the fact that editors say you have driven them away? EllenCT (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Since I've expressed no desire to portray taxes as anything but what they are, and I've repeatedly said it would be incorrect to attribute corporate taxes to consumers, I'd have to say no. Of course we've established that you have no idea how your ITEP chart attributes corporate taxation, and it wouldn't account for the discrepancy between it and the reliable sources anyway, so your whole "corporate incidence" thing is a red herring. One would suspect you'd get tired of making stuff up, but apparently you don't. VictorD7 (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Moxy, Ellen just covertly slipped in article edits for which there's no consensus, which were reverted yesterday, and which are currently being discussed in the above RFC survey (so far more oppose than support), despite agreeing yesterday with Cadiomals to let the Talk Page consensus process play out. In fact she's the one who asked for a longer time frame. It would be nice if someone other than me or Cadiomals reverted her. Experience aside, the only way this article gets brought back into some kind of sanity is if more editors are willing to take an active role against stuff like that. VictorD7 (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Moxy, please look at the article's history and you will see content has been relatively stable for the past few weeks until Ellen's return just a couple of days ago. She insists on getting her way until she is definitively proven wrong (Until the last RFC a few weeks ago, she opposed any trimming of bloated sections). Changes made weeks ago were agreed on and went uncontested without her despite continued activity by many other editors. Then she started re-adding a bunch of information, wreaking havoc once again while deliberately ignoring the civil discussion process and playing childish games. Look at what she did most recently: She thought she was being clever by giving an inaccurate edit summary (just "Rv fringe Nazi edits") while slipping in her content. We need more editors who will cooperate in further refining and balancing the article and moving it closer to Good Article status while standing against selfish, disruptive, politically-motivated editors who bloat sections and make them imbalanced.

You say the article will be locked for a time, but we're still waiting as I submitted a request yesterday. Cadiomals (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It's possible Hanlon's razor applies: is it possible Ellen was just trying to revert the bit about the white nationalist groups (hence the 'nazi' in the summary), and the rest was conveniently accidentally included? It wouldn't be the first time someone has reverted to the wrong version. --Golbez (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

That is extremely doubtful, as it would require her to move back several versions, well past Pass a Method's recent edits. She failed at trying to be clever and circumventing the civil consensus process. I think she was trying to clandestinely lock in her edits before the article is (potentially) protected. Cadiomals (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You are upset that when I deleted the implication that more contemporary Nazi groups were active during the civil rights era, I reverted to the version that I consider more accurate and you consider too verbose? EllenCT (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The pathetic, childish move on your part is that you made no mention of re-inserting your content (somehow thinking that 912 bytes added wouldn't be noticed?). The process isn't "let's add this in for now and then decide whether or not to keep it"; it's the other way around. It's truly a shame that innocent editors cannot make constructive edits for a whole week now because of your insistence on circumventing a civil discussion process to have your way no matter what, and it'll keep happening as long as you retain that attitude. Remember that a month ago you opposed all removals of content, and it took overwhelming consensus that sections needed to be shortened before you finally caved and "recognized where this is going", and even then you removed information on your terms only. That shouldn't and won't be tolerated anymore. The improvement of this article is a cooperative process, not a unilateral one. The information you keep trying to re-add was settled weeks ago; it's not our fault you left and we shouldn't have to submit when you try stirring the pot again. Most editors here want to move on from the political crap you and Victor are keeping us on to try to improve other parts of the article. Cadiomals (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered refraining from personal attacks when complaining about civility? Or had a look at WP:CCC? EllenCT (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course consensus can change, that's precisely why I took it upon myself to set up the surveys above so the issues can be discussed and we can see the general sentiment about each of your proposed additions before adding them. Your impatient attempts at trying to circumvent that was a childish move that resulted in the article being locked. Sorry but it's quite difficult not to veer towards personal attacks with that kind of behavior; and you're still trying to portray yourself as some goody-two-shoes who knows and follows all the guidelines? I can see you partially getting your way, but not unilaterally. Cadiomals (talk) 11:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

And, Moxy, there's an opportunity for you or any other editors floating around to weigh in on the bloat issue right now in the survey above. If you don't, the problem might get worse. VictorD7 (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

full protection for a week

I protected the article as requested at RFPP in lieu of warnings/blocks as people do not appear to be stopping the warring (and the letter of the law is, apparently, a beautiful thing). I hope you all can come to an agreement. Also, as I am disinterested in the result of this discussion, please don't use the fact that a particular version is the protected version as an argument. It's simply what was there when I got to this article in the list at RFPP. Thingg 00:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Teen declines in reading, math and science

PISA scores released today are very disappointing. U.S. 15 year-olds dropped from 25th to 31st internationally in math, 20th to 24th in science, and 11th to 21st in reading since 2009. How should the article reflect this? EllenCT (talk) 10:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Why should it? We have subsidiary articles for minutiae like this. I'm not aware (I could be wrong) of any other country article that touts how smart or dumb its students are. We don't need to include every possible thing about the U.S. in this. --Golbez (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's minutiae, I think it's central to the future economic and social viability of the nation. EllenCT (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

At the absolute most, I suppose the article could note the rankings as they are, and not make any note of the shift. That's how you could do it - simply say "According to one study, students in the U.S. rank 31st in math etc etc". No further commentary is needed unless it can be conclusively tied to a particular policy. --Golbez (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hard to gauge comparisons. Many nations split student populations to study Algebra at age 14, tracking college bound for Algebra classes, and dropping those destined for trade school, whereas many U.S. states require Algebra for an unmodified high school diploma for all students, regardless of academic potential. Poor states are included in U.S. statistics, poor Chinese provinces in the west and north are not formally included in official "national" tallies. U.S. engineers used to score lower than British right out of college, then higher five years later because of the continuing education from an "education for life" work ethic to stay current in their field. I'd like to see something of academic scholarship in a controlled study, rather than merely reposting AP headlines. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

After the sentence in the Education section "The US spends more on education per student than any nation in the world" we could add "Despite this, American students tend to lag behind other OECD countries on international measures of mathematics, science and reading proficiency" and attach the sources. That is the absolute most I would be willing to support in mentioning this. International comparisons of educational achievements are already debatable topics, as TheVirginiaHistorian articulated. Cadiomals (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to the report. I think we should mention how U.S. students rank internationally. However, I think that any commentary should be left to other articles. This is not a new story btw. Educational achievement in other countries has been improving since WW2 to the extent that they are catching up with or exceeding the U.S. TFD (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I agree with the replies above and ask that the recommended edit be made. EllenCT (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The template asks for a complete and specific description. Please state the specific phrase you want added to the article. --Golbez (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: Agreed - we need the exact text you want included, complete with references, and the exact text you want it replaced with. Please reactivate the {{edit protected}} template when you have an agreement on the exact wording to be used. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 01:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Golbez, why do you think the change in ranking is less noteworthy than the absolute rank? The absolute rank will change over time, but the drop from 11th to 21st in reading among OECD countries from 2009 to 2013 will remain true without needing to be updated to maintain accuracy. EllenCT (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Because it says nothing as to whether or not it was because the U.S. got worse, or the rest of the world simply got better. --Golbez (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Which facts from do you think are most appropriate to include? EllenCT (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

And to add to my previous comment, it also doesn't include the degree. Let's say the U.S. dropped ten spots, but the distance between the top and bottom of those ten spots was smaller than the distance to the next spot down. In other words, a very tiny improvement could cause a massive change in ranking. I'm not saying that's the case here; I'm saying, it's a potential interpretation without all the data, and we aren't going to give all the data here. --Golbez (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

"Which facts ... do you think are most appropriate to include?" – Read my response above. That is the absolute most I think is appropriate to add to the Education section. Also read Virginia's response. We cannot go too deeply into a single set of data by a single organization, especially since there are factors involved that make it debatable. Cadiomals (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we should state the basic facts. "According to ............. in 2012, U.S. 15 year-olds ranked 31st in math, 24th in science, etc. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 December 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to fix some typos in the US article 65.175.134.44 (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Then tell us what they are. This isn't asking for an edit to be made to a protected article, this is making a statement of intent. --Golbez (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Kenworthy, L. (August 20, 2010) "The best inequality graph, updated" Consider the Evidence
2. "Who Pays Taxes in America?" (PDF). Citizens for Tax Justice. April 12, 2012.
3. Prasad, M. (April 2, 2009). "Taxation and the worlds of welfare". Socio-Economic Review. 7 (3): 431–457. doi:10.1093/ser/mwp005. Retrieved May 5, 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
4. Crook, Clive (February 10, 2012). "U.S. Taxes Really Are Unusually Progressive". The Atlantic. Washington DC. Retrieved April 3, 2013.
5. ^ Matthews, Dylan (September 19, 2012). "Other countries don't have a "47%"". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 29, 2013.
6. "How Much Do People Pay in Federal Taxes?". Peter G. Peterson Foundation. Retrieved April 3, 2013.
7. ^ Cite error: The named reference CBO, Distribution was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
8. "Table T12-0178 Baseline Distribution of Cash Income and Federal Taxes Under Current Law" (PDF). The Tax Policy Center. Retrieved October 29, 2013.
9. Harris, Benjamin H. (November 2009). "Corporate Tax Incidence and Its Implications for Progressivity" (PDF). Tax Policy Center. Retrieved October 9, 2013.
10. Gentry, William M. (December 2007). "A Review of the Evidence on the Incidence of the Corporate Income Tax" (PDF). OTA Paper 101. Office of Tax Analysis, US Department of the Treasury. Retrieved October 9, 2013.
11. Fullerton, Don (2002). "Tax Incidence". In A.J. Auerbach and M. Feldstein (ed.). Handbook of Public Economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V. pp. 1788–1839. Retrieved October 9, 2013. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
12. Musgrave, R.A. (March 1951). "Distribution of Tax Payments by Income Groups: A Case Study for 1948" (PDF). National Tax Journal. 4 (1): 1–53. Retrieved October 9, 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
13. Prasad, M. (April 2, 2009). "Taxation and the worlds of welfare". Socio-Economic Review. 7 (3): 431–457. doi:10.1093/ser/mwp005. Retrieved May 5, 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
14. Crook, Clive (February 10, 2012). "U.S. Taxes Really Are Unusually Progressive". The Atlantic. Washington DC. Retrieved April 3, 2013.
15. "How Much Do People Pay in Federal Taxes?". Peter G. Peterson Foundation. Retrieved April 3, 2013.
16. "Table T12-0178 Baseline Distribution of Cash Income and Federal Taxes Under Current Law" (PDF). The Tax Policy Center. Retrieved October 29, 2013.

• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• B-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• Past U.S. collaborations of the Month
• WikiProject United States articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• B-Class North America articles
• Top-importance North America articles
• WikiProject North America articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed United States Government articles
• Unknown-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• United States Government articles with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment