Jump to content

Talk:United States/Archive 58

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60→Archive 65

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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, thats the kind of comment that confirms it.--JOJ Hutton 12:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Way off topic bickering consisting mostly of personal attacks and irrelevant discussion of other countries
    • Reality has a well-known liberal bias. --Golbez (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Sure, that's why West Germans fled east, South Koreans flee north, Americans risk their lives to escape across the ocean to Cuba, Keynesianism was a such a smashing success in the 70s and now, Obamacare is working so wonderfully, and New Orleans and Detroit are such utopias. Oh wait.... VictorD7 (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
        • You are just adorable, I want to pinch your ignorant little dishonest cheeks. --Golbez (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
          • Rhetoric sans substance indicates the ignorance is yours. At least you can absorb and repeat trite cliches though. That's something I guess. VictorD7 (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
            • Well, we all know that socialist hellhole Norway is the worst place on earth, whereas the conservative paradises of Uganda, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia are veritable paradises for all humans. (Speaking of trite cliches; really, liberalism = Stalin? With a straight face, even?) --Golbez (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
              • See? Norway's a tiny country and a major oil exporter, skewing its stats. Saudi Arabia, like most Middle Eastern nations, has a heavily socialist economy (not "conservative"). The UAE is somewhat less socialist and has one of the third world's highest per capita GDPs. Uganda's politics has been dominated by socialists for most of its post independence history, whether the UPC party that ruled for years or the radical dictator Idi Amin who, amid mass killings, nationalized much of the business sector and became a Soviet ally ("conservative"?). I didn't mention Stalin, but it's fair to include him and the USSR generally in a broad indictment of the left (or good humored ridicule of your predicted cliche; seriously, I was literally waiting for someone to toss that line out), especially since US liberals from the New Deal era Stuart Chase to Paul Samuelson were often effusive in praising the Soviet system, Samuelson as late as 1989 declaring in his famous textbook Economics that the "Soviet economy is proof that, contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed, a socialist command economy can function and even thrive".([1]; [2]). I wasn't just listing "liberals" and equating them with "bad", but was underscoring the repeated failure of their ideas and world view, including their predictions and assumptions that crashed and burned against reality. VictorD7 (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
                • "The UAE is somewhat less socialist and has one of the third world's highest per capita GDPs." And one of the world's highest, perhaps the highest, proportion of the population as slave labor. But hey, bottom line uber alles, right, who cares about the people whose backs the golden palace is built upon? Not doing much to discourage the trite, cliched view that capitalists need underpaid or slave labor to survive. And conservative/liberal is not just about economics, but about social policy. I am learning that it is very difficult to divorce them. Hence why I included Uganda and its anti-gay policies, and the Saudi theocracy. But it's amusing how you seem to think liberalism "crashed and burned against reality", despite, well, "reality" getting in the way of that statement. --Golbez (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
                  • Neither the UAE or Saudi Arabia are "conservative" in the American sense of the word. It's a qualitative difference, not merely a matter of degree like the US liberal/socialist dynamic. Good luck finding US conservatives praising Muslim theocrats and sharia social policies the way many prominent liberals have praised foreign socialist regimes over the past century (including Michael Moore slobbering over Cuba recently). That Muslim nations are invariably socialist leaning makes your retort even more thoughtless (though as predictable and trite as the "reality...bias" line). Sharia supporters are more likely to protest alongside and (if elected) caucus with Democrats than Republicans, just as Vermont Socialist Bernie Sanders does (see actual reality). VictorD7 (talk) 22:46, 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.[1] However blogs that also collect news information present a unique challenge to the Wikipedia Editor. For example the Huffington Post blog also contains an extensive repository of news articles from around the country. The Wikipedia 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,[3] climate change,[4] obesity[5] 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 Wikipedia 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 [6]. 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.[7] 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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,[8] while it costs 3 thousand pounds a month to rent a 720 sq ft 2 bedroom flat in Mayfair,[9] 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 [Hufington Post], “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)[10] 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 [the Heritage Foundation scholar] as an expert commentator on [education legislation].” 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 [TFD source] 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)

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)

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)

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 Wikipedia 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 [in]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)

Private retirement savings crisis

How much, if any, do others think should be included from [11]? 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)

Edit request on 4 December 2013

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)

It's time to call these issues settled and move on

On the three issues that have been discussed over this past week, these are the conclusions that have been drawn based on looking at the votes and arguments in the surveys:

  • The line graph displaying income growth for the 1% has majority disapproval, so it will not be added. Anyone could add it to Income inequality in the United States if they want as it is more directly relevant there. Otherwise, it is not of utmost importance to this article, as salient summary information regarding growing inequality is already covered in several sentences in the Income, poverty and wealth section, along with a graph showing the growing divide between productivity and income. If someone wants to instead replace the productivity/income graph with the 1% graph, that's another discussion; otherwise the section has reached its peak in terms of appropriate detail and no more images should be crammed in there.
  • 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" has majority disapproval and will not be re-added. Also, no one supporting it has actually provided a rationale for why the statement is of critical importance, neither has anyone refuted opposing claims that it is frivolous, vague, and poorly worded, especially in a section that already dedicates most of its information to issues of unemployment, poverty, and inequality. As User:TheVirginiaHistorian said, until more scholarly sources with specific, clarifying data can be found, this statement is of little educational value to the reader other than trying to get a biased point across.
  • The taxation graph is more of a draw, but if we can't all agree on an accurate and non-controversial graph, why add one at all? How big of an impact will this really have if it is left out? May I remind you all that for three weeks before Ellen returned, no one complained about the graph's removal. The fact of the matter is almost no one visits this specific article to get detailed information on how taxation works in the country. If they were looking for just that info they would either do a Google search or visit Taxation in the United States. Speaking of which, anyone who wants to is free to add the graph to that article. The graph really shouldn't be added here as long as we can't all agree on it.

In conclusion, it's high time for us to call these issues settled and move on to other, preferably non-political, issues so the article can gradually improve instead of being in a constant deadlock. Maybe then this article will have a chance to become Good again. We should not allow certain people to keep us in the same rut, as it is counter-productive; neither should any editors selfishly turn to childish methods of edit-warring and creating deadlock to try and get their way. Unfortunately I don't expect certain people (...) to just be mature, concede, and move on; and it would be a huge shame if this article is constantly being locked, as there are many innocent editors who actually want to make constructive, non-politically motivated contributions to it. Anyone who tries to add this information without/despite consensus and cause another edit war is only being selfish and immature. Cadiomals (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I would like the opportunity to produce a combined graph in line with what TheVirginiaHistorian has proposed before there is a "final" decision on whether the information should be included in general. Furthermore, since this is a wiki, I will take as much time as I like to try to make one, whether that be three days, three weeks, three months, or three years. Silence is not consent. EllenCT (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The taxation-graph is important data, methinks. I have often wanted to know whether overall the USA has a regressive tax per Ellen, a progressive tax per Victor, or effectively a flat tax per VirginiaHistorian. But due to all the variables involved the question is devilishly complex, and of course political dynamite, so I doubt we can get something with a single chart-line that everyone agrees to. Point in fact, the Reliable Sources disagree! Wikipedians cannot decide that conflict amongst the RS's, but we can describe it. Perhaps a unified graph, which superimposes the admittedly-POV datasets published by the various places, and pushed as WP:The_Truth by various groups, would be most useful? The readership would then know 1) that the total tax burden apportioned to various social-classes-by-income is important, and 2) that the mere calculation itself is controversial/politicized, plus finally 3) have a pretty good idea of which political camps push which kind of message. Does that sound reasonable?
  If so... we can have at least one line on the combo-chart which reflects the "data story" preferred by democrat-leaning-RS's, plus another line on the combo-chart which reflects the "data story" preferred by republican-leaning-RS's... though ideally I would like to see at least four lines, the green-party-leaning-dem, economic-centrist-dem, economic-centrist-repub, and libertarian-party-leaning-repub. Such a chart would give readers a clear idea of which groups are pushing what story, and in the prose-caption (or footnote or something) we can briefly explain why, then refer the readership to Tax policy in the United States and Taxation in the United States and 16th Amendment#Repeal Efforts and VAT#United States and similar things. Hope this helps; please drop a note on my talkpage, if somebody would like to work on such a combo-chart, I'll be glad to help. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  p.s. Forgot to explicitly mention... my suggested combo-chart would *not* be for the wealth-subsection, but rather, for this other section which currently has no chart: United_States#Government_finance. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
No, I like where you're coming from, but in practice even Ellen's outlier source calls overall taxation "progressive", and most of my sources are liberal leaning too or government agencies, so it doesn't fall neatly into ideological boxes. This particular dispute was over the degree of progressivity, and the fitness of a chart that was contradicted by multiple other sources (the others closely tracking each other). I suppose we could add a bunch of different charts as you suggest, fully explaining the disputed data, but that seems more appropriate to a different, more topically focused article than one already widely seen as too bloated. VictorD7 (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Obviously I mostly agree. There is still the issue of political bias, but I raised that so editors would have it mind over the long term going forward, maybe not worsen the problem through blind, piecemeal editing, and maybe help pull it back some toward neutrality over time. There's also the problem of low quality sources (e.g. Huffington Post), which isn't necessarily strictly political. And there's the problem of skewed emphasis on certain details, like private savings when far more notable items like the Social Security crisis aren't mentioned, but those don't have to be political either, regardless of the initial poster's agenda. VictorD7 (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

English, national language?

I don't think you can call English the national language of the US. Does English represent the ethnically diverse national identity of the US? Also, surely English is the de facto official language of the US, as it is used officially by the government of the US? How else is "official language" defined? And why is it stated that English is only the official language of at least 28 states? Do the federal[state] bodies in other states exclusively use Spanish instead? This article appears to use a odd definition of "official language". Rob (talk/edits) 17:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

An "official language" on a national level would require a piece of law, such as a passed congressional bill or part of the US Constitution, that established English as the official language. Otherwise, it is not "official," which is a legal definition. There has not been any law and there is not any part of the Constitution designating any language as the official language of the United States, so we do not have an official language. Other countries often do have laws specifying official languages, such as Canada's Official Language Act, which legally specified English and Friend as the official languages of Canada. English is the "de facto" language in the United States due to the portion of the population speaking it as their first language and language of every day use. English is only the official language in 28 states as only those 28 states have passed laws designating it as their official language. Other states likely have not passed any law at all regarding an official language, and thus do not have one. Federal bodies act according to federal laws, not state laws (generally), and the lack of designating English as the official language in 22 states does not in any way make Spanish their official language. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Apologies, I meant "state bodies", not "federal bodies". Your definition of "official language", that it requires legislation, is different to that in Europe. Proclamation is enough to designate something as official here. I guess "official" has a different meaning here. Also, that English is the de facto language of the US, doesn't make it the national language. Unless again we have an alternative definition, "national language" is the language that represents the national identity, and not necessarily the majority, such as in Luxembourg, Wales, and the Irish Republic. English would be a national language of Britain; where it was formed; not the US. Regards, Rob (talk/edits) 18:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Official language is always de jure, not de facto. That's what "official" means. --Golbez (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
So, English is official in 28 states and five territories in the U.S. along with Spanish in Puerto Rico, Samoan in American Samoa, and Chamorro in Guam and Northern Marianas? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
English is considered the de facto national language because it is spoken as a first language by over 80% of the population and as a 2nd (or higher) by the rest of the population, and is the form of communication used almost the entire time by the government and media. Also "national" language does not have to mean the country where the language originated, it can refer to the language either spoken by the vast majority of the population and/or the common language used to unify the country. English is not considered de jure or "official" on the federal level because the federal government has never made a legal proclamation, on paper, that English is the official language. It would be ridiculous to proclaim that the US has no national language, de facto or otherwise, when English is spoken by almost everyone here. I hope that cleared things up for you. Cadiomals (talk) 10:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
In Europe, "national language" refers almost exclusively to the language of the national identity, and thus, English wouldn't be described as the national language of the US. Even though 80% of the US population speak English, 80% of the US population are not ethnically British. Similarly in the Irish Republic, English, the most spoken language, would not be described as a national language here, as it was adopted by the country's people fairly recently (last 500 years), whereas the original language, Irish Gaelic, that represents the Irish identity, is often described as the national language of the state. There's quite a few states in Europe with minority national languages, which probably explains the alternative definition. I should probably check the US definitions before commenting on terminology in a US English article. Thank you, Rob (talk/edits) 10:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
So it turns out my query was answered in good order, and we all understand why WP uses "national language" as English for the U.S. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
It would be fairly difficult to determine the national language of the US using the so-called "European definition" considering the United States is a relatively young colonial nation whose main language originated some place else, and without the lengthy history needed to develop a new language of its own, while the natives who once lived here (along with whatever languages they spoke) have almost all been wiped out. The article for National language provides for varied definitions. Cadiomals (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
If the articles, written in European English, then the European definitions would be used. That's why at Britain's article, English is stated as an official language, even though there is no legislation determining the official language. Rob (talk/edits) 21:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I might have misread your comment. Apologies if I was patronising you, Rob (talk/edits) 21:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
No problem. 'No harm, no foul. play on.' TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Usefulness of US languages treemap

Treemap of languages spoken in the US by number of speakers.[1]

I do not agree with the addition of this U.S. languages treemap but wanted to make sure others agreed before removing it myself. 1) The "English" portion of the treemap takes up 80% of the graph and the rest of the languages are just little colored rectangles with unreadable text unless they are clicked on and most importantly 2) it is essentially a graphical repetition of data already found in the table to its left and as such it is redundant. This image reminds me of the product exports tree map except there is already a table showing the same information. So I don't think the graphic actually adds anything useful and just saturates the article with even more diagrams. Does anyone disagree? Cadiomals (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It communicates the tabular information graphically. That's why graphs exist. And it fills a big white space next to the table that would otherwise be empty. Could certainly make the fonts larger if that would help. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
This would work better as a bar chart. As it is, or as a more traditional pie chart for this kind of data, it can not convey the extent of multilingualism. EllenCT (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Ellen on pie chart, and related languages should have related colors on the spectrum and be placed adjacent, such as the Romance Languages, or at least related dialects such as French-French-creole, etc. The present chart does not provide space for labeling French, which is a larger block that Vietnamese. Bar chart might allow for uniform fonts labeling all languages on the chart (English inside its bar) in a way which would be difficult in a pie chart at article scale. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Pie chart of languages spoken in the US by number of speakers.[1]
Bar chart of languages spoken in the US by number of speakers.[1]
I'll add a label to French.

Pie charts are misleading, for many reasons explained in pie chart and other sources[12][13]. And The tiny slivers you'd get would not solve any labeling problems; they'd make it worse. You'd use up white space around the graph in order to make room for labels, which would make the graph even harder to see. I understand how attractive pie charts are, because they look pretty and they're familiar. But when you have more than two data items, pie charts create a false impression, which undermines the whole point of the graph. You want your audience to get a grasp of the proportions between the items, and pies do that poorly.

A bar chart isn't misleading like a pie; people generally will interpret the proportions correctly, as with the tree map. But it wastes large amounts of space, so that in order to make room for all the dead space above the bars, the smaller values are reduced to even harder to see slivers. The point of the the tree map here is to enlarge the marks to fill all the available space, so that you can see as much of them as possible, while retaining correct size ratios between the marks.

I wouldn't want make the colors related because this chart is about the number of speakers of each language in the US, not linguistics. It's true that some languages share common roots, but to use color imply a special relationship between US speakers languages would be original research. Here are the alternate versions, using a pie and bars, if those are preferred. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow. thank you. Tree map really does convey the information more clearly graphically at scale. Impressive. Thanks for your patient and courteous reply. I still wonder if an additional layer of geographical origins might be conveyed by use of the spectrum, maybe by major world regions as denominated in the U.S. Census. Perhaps the percentages could be listed alongside each language in the Tree map key. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I still don't see how it conveys information any more effectively when a data table that gives exact numbers already exists, because English alongside Spanish basically dominates the diagram with a few little squares in the corner. I therefore continue to see it as redundant and superfluous. There isn't an inherent necessity to represent all the data graphically when tables do it just fine. At least it's taking up white space and not squeezing aside any text. Cadiomals (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree the table is superior to even a log-scale bar chart. EllenCT (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

A bar chart with a semilog y-axis scale would be more informative than any of these, and again, would not misrepresent multilingual speakers. EllenCT (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Quality of sources on corporate tax incidence

I object that my statements were hidden/collapsed above: The peer reviewed literature review summarized in Table 1 on page 17 here clearly indicates that corporations pass from 57% to 75% of their taxes on to their consumer customers. VictorD7, who is on record as saying and never denying that corporations pass some of their taxes on to customers, refuses to say in what proportion, and insists on including five non-peer reviewed sources which say 0%, because that makes taxes appear more progressive than they are, which supports the false assertion that U.S. taxes are progressive for the top 1%, an admitted editing goal stemming from VictorD7's self-described political position.

That clear contradiction is the source of the disagreement on these topics, and has been for the better part of a year.

Could we please have other editors survey the peer reviewed literature to provide a greater range of estimates for the figure? Because some editors, who claim to share my perspective, have been insinuating that I am the one being dishonest here, and I take offense to that. I expect it from editors who admit they proceed while harboring contradictions, but other supposedly neutral observers should have no illusions about exactly what is happening. EllenCT (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Falsehoods on multiple levels, as anyone can see by reading the collapsed discussion or just this post. Corporate incidence was a red herring all along. Ellen's failed to demonstrate that it has anything to do with the various topics being discussed. Since the source of the graph she's pushing even contradicts her on this, it's not clear what she's even proposing (opposing ITEP now?). Looks like it's just Talk Page disruption. VictorD7 (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Again, VictorD7 doesn't deny any of my specific assertions, while claiming that they are false in general. I am proposing that a third party survey the peer reviewed literature to answer whether VictorD7 or I have been producing the higher quality sources on the proportion of corporate tax incidence borne by consumers. I am also considering proposing a general topic ban as a trial for this specific instance, e.g., anyone who admits to harboring a contradiction is prohibited from editing on topics related to that contradiction. EllenCT (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Everything you said was false, as people can read through my link. That's more efficient than repeating myself every time you lie. You really should be banned for trolling, bad faith editing, and disruption. You didn't even bother to say what precisely you're proposing, since your own old graph source joins the CBO and TPC in attributing corporate incidence to shareholders. Talk about a contradiction. You have no point. VictorD7 (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
"Everything"? Let's take this one by one.
  1. Have you claimed that corporations pass some taxes on to consumers, yes or no?
  2. Have you refused to state what proportion of their taxes corporations pass on to consumers?
  3. Have you been inserting multiple non-peer reviewed sources which claim that corporations pass 0% of their taxes on to their customers?
  4. Have you been inserting graphs which make it look like taxes are progressive for the top 1% because they assume that corporations pass 0% of their taxes on to their customers?
  5. Are you politically opposed to more steeply progressive taxation?
  6. Have you found any peer reviewed sources which agree with the sources on corporate tax incidence you have been inserting?
  7. What does Wikipedia policy say about editors who knowingly insert statements which they know are not supported by the most reliable sources to advance a political point of view?
  8. Which specific statements do you believe I have not been entirely honest about?
  9. Do you believe that a contradiction indicates that one of the contradicted statements is false?
  10. How do you intend to correct the mistakes inherent in using less reliable sources which disagree with more reliable sources?
EllenCT (talk) 07:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
First answer the question about what your article related goal here is, and whether you now oppose the ITEP chart you formerly supported. VictorD7 (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I asked for third parties' opinions on which of us has been including the more reliable sources on the crux of our disagreement. I still support including the ITEP chart and have no idea why anyone would think otherwise. Your turn. EllenCT (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Since ITEP agrees with sources like the CBO and TPC about attributing corporate taxes to shareholders, it's unclear why you're attacking my sources on this point, why you consider this corporate incidence tangent "the crux of our disagreement", or how this is relevant to the article. VictorD7 (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
You probably see my attempt to help you reconcile a logical contradiction as an attack on "your" sources. I am trying to help, not attack. The ITEP, CBO, TPC, TF, HF, OMB, Treasury, CEA, World Bank, IMF, and university economics departments all publish series, some papers of which are peer reviewed and some of which are not. Would you please answer the questions? EllenCT (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
You still haven't answered mine. Why do you feel corporate incidence is "the crux of our disagreement"? And why do you support the ITEP chart when it attributes corporate taxation to shareholders too? VictorD7 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
It's my best guess of the crux. The ITEP attributes a proportion within the peer-reviewed range given above. 11. What do you think is the crux of our disagreement? Please answer the other ten first. EllenCT (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Guess? Just to clarify, is it your position that the discrepancy between ITEP and the other sources is due to differences in attributing corporate incidence, and that the former allegedly doesn't attribute to owners (shareholders/investors/capital), attributing to consumers and/or labor instead, or at least attributes such a smaller proportion to owners than the other sources that it causes the huge gap, resulting in a less progressive looking structure with relatively higher low income rates and lower high income rates than other sources? VictorD7 (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a smaller portion, but I'm not sure about what you mean by income rates. Attributing 0% of corporate tax incidence to consumers makes it look like the top 1% pay more taxes than the top 20%. Attributing a peer reviewed amount makes it look like the top 1% pay less taxes as a percentage of their income. EllenCT (talk) 05:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Do you have proof of that? Leaving aside the fact that the gap between TPC's and ITEP's top 1% rate is larger than TPC's entire corporate component of that rate, ITEP itself contradicts you on attribution.
  • ITEP (pages 44-45): "Of course, while a corporation may be treated as a single legal person, it exists in reality as a collection of individuals—the shareholders that own it; the executives and staff that work for it; and the consumers that buy its products. As a result, any tax levied on a corporation ultimately falls on one of these groups. Economic research generally indicates that for the most part, it tends to be borne by corporate shareholders. The owners of corporate stocks and business assets — which are concentrated among the rich — ultimately pay corporate income taxes...the corporate income tax is one of the most progressive taxes a state can levy. Since stock ownership is concentrated among the very wealthiest taxpayers, the corporate income tax falls primarily on the most affluent residents of a state. As the chart on this page shows, the wealthiest one percent of Americans held just over half of all corporate stock in 2007, while the poorest ninety percent of Americans owned just 10 percent of the total".
  • While I haven't seen ITEP's actual federal component breakdown (you certainly haven't provided it), their state by state breakdown reiterates that, and their total state average attributes no corporate taxes to the lowest 95% of income earners, a rate of 0.3% to the top 1%, and 0.1% to the next lowest 4% (page 118).
  • This is from a WSJ story hosted on ITEP's site: "Yet wealthy people bear a bigger share of corporate income taxes, which are ultimately borne by individuals. "All taxes have to be paid by somebody at some point," says Steve Wamhoff, legislative director at Citizens for Tax Justice, the liberal lobbying arm of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a research group. "The corporate tax is paid by the owners of corporate stock and business assets.""
  • When one searches on the ITEP site for "corporate taxes", near the top this piece pops up by CTJ (your chart source), ITEP's "sister" group and "lobbying arm": "... the corporate income tax is ultimately borne by shareholders and therefore is a very progressive tax, which means any attempt to replace it with another tax would likely result in a less progressive tax system....The Corporate Income Tax Is Borne by Shareholders and Thus Very Progressive....Taken as a whole, America’s tax system is just barely progressive.[4] It would be considerably less progressive if the corporate income tax was repealed. Most, if not all, of the corporate income tax is borne by shareholders in the form of reduced stock dividends, and high-income Americans receive the lion’s share of these dividends. Corporate leaders sometimes assert that corporate income taxes are really borne by workers or consumers. But virtually all tax experts, including those at the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service and the Treasury Department, have concluded that the owners of stock and other capital ultimately pay most corporate taxes.[5] Further, corporate leaders would not lobby Congress to lower these taxes if they did not believe their shareholders (the owners of corporations) ultimately paid them. (In contrast, corporations do not lobby for lower payroll taxes, which are borne by workers)."
  • CTJ reiterates that view in this testimony before the Congressional Progressive Caucus (page 7): "The owners of corporate stocks and business assets — which are concentrated among the rich — ultimately pay corporate income taxes. Corporate leaders and their lobbyists argue that corporate taxes are ultimately paid by workers who suffer when corporations leave the U.S. to find lower taxes. This cannot be true. Corporations would not spend so much time lobbying you to lower their taxes if they did not think their shareholders were the ones ultimately paying them. Several non-partisan analysts have also concluded that the corporate income tax is mostly borne by the owners of corporate stocks and business assets."
  • Clearly a rational person must accept that your hypothesis is refuted. There is no contrary evidence, much less proof of your claims. There's overwhelming proof of the opposite. Do you accept this? If so, we can move forward and I'll address your "peer review" comments. VictorD7 (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I absolutely do not accept your continued cherry picking of non-peer reviewed sources. The peer reviewed evidence is clear and contrary to your verbose attempt at obfuscation. Please answer the eleven questions above. EllenCT (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Since you refuse to address or even acknowledge the overwhelming proof I just posted that ITEP (your cherry-picked source, not mine), attributes corp. taxation to owners (and even explicitly argues against attributing it to consumers or labor!), the total opposite of your entire premise for this section, then it should be clear to anyone reading this that you aren't interested in having an honest, rational conversation, and that your other wild, ignorant claims merit no response. VictorD7 (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Non-peer reviewed, cherry-picked sources aren't proof of anything. See below. EllenCT (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
That's your description for ITEP now? You're the one who cherry-picked it; you're trying to add its chart to the article. It may be a garbage source, but it can be used to prove its own views. Indeed, see below. VictorD7 (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This really isn't the place to argue over corporate tax incidence. If people want detailed information, they can go to the relevant article. Rwenonah (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you proposing Corporate tax incidence? I have had that on my to-do list for a while, but if we can't work this out, it will be born controversial, and I would very much like to prevent that. EllenCT (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Since the incidence of corporate tax is debatable, we cannot use it to prove the U.S. tax system is inherently progressive. If it were progressive then one would expect that U.S. stock markets would consistently underperform foreign stock markets because the higher corporate tax would lead to lower equity accumulation. TFD (talk) 09:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
True, all things being equal, but rule of law, independent judiciary, intellectual property rights, fiscal stability and physical security, for example, also factor in equity accumulation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
It would not affect profit as a percentage of share value, because share value takes those factors into account. TFD (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
All the presented sources say it is progressive, but the entire premise of this section was Ellen's belief that ITEP's tax incidence numbers differed so dramatically from other tax incidence sources because it allegedly attributed corporate taxes to consumers or labor rather than owners, an assumption I just showed is absolutely false. Despite her claim, corporate taxation is not "the crux of our disagreement". This entire tangent was pointless. VictorD7 (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Did you read her report from the Brookings Institute? TFD (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
You mean the Tax Policy Center? Yes. It didn't say what she claimed it did either. But this isn't about whether you think corporate taxes are progressive. This is about whether Ellen's ITEP source thinks they are. VictorD7 (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
It most certainly does say that the peer reviewed literature agrees with your original statement that corporations pass most of their taxes on to consumers. Perhaps you can find dozens of non-peer reviewed sources that say they do not, to support your disinformation campaign that US taxation is supposedly progressive for the top 1%. But you have not found a single peer reviewed source supporting your revised view which you adopted for the purpose of supporting that disinformation, and your refusal to answer any of my questions while I have answered all of yours proves it. You have provided the clearest evidence of willful POV-pushing editing behavior I have ever seen, here on one of Wikipedia's most popular articles. Do you really think you are convincing anyone of your position? You have sealed your fate. EllenCT (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Prove that with quotes. While you're busy not doing that, and lying about my statement, explain why you still believe ITEP (the point of this whole discussion; the graph you wanted to add) attributes corporate taxation to consumers or labor rather than owners, given all the proof I posted above from ITEP itself contradicting you (including from their actual numbers), while you haven't supported your claim with a shred of evidence. VictorD7 (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
A single paper by independent authors in ITEP's or anyone else's series is not the collective judgement of that organization. As requested: "a $1.00 increase in corporate tax revenue decreases wages by approximately $0.60" in the United States (that is a WP:SECONDARY source because it is based on many other curated data set publications, and it is peer reviewed) and "an exogenous rise of $1 in tax would reduce the wage bill by 49 cents" in Europe (also a peer reviewed WP:SECONDARY source.) Answer the 11 questions above. EllenCT (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
You still haven't answered why you believe ITEP attributes corp. taxes to consumers when all the evidence I posted from them states the opposite, that they attribute to owners like the TPC and CBO do. Answer that and I'll debunk your "peer review" claims, though, if you can't answer the ITEP question, the other tangent is irrelevant to the article. Cooperate and I'll even answer your 11 questions as a courtesy, but I want to wait until after we clear up the most important part of this discussion (the ITEP thing). However, I will point out that neither of your quotes come from the TPC meta-analysis you linked to and have been making claims about (meta-analyses are superior to single studies for our purposes), and, like that piece, they both focus on labor, not "consumers" as you've been claiming. Neither of your quotes even mentioned "consumers". VictorD7 (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Because the evidence you posted isn't the official ITEP position reflected in their summary graph, it's just unreviewed individuals writing papers in their series. Please do me the courtesy of answering the 11 questions above, whether or not I am able to meet your moving goalpost criteria for whatever the "ITEP thing" is. The quotes didn't come from the TPC meta-analysis, they came from a citation search on the intersection of the most highly favorably cited of its sources. "Labor" includes consumers and employees, as opposed to capital ownership, which also includes consumers through e.g. pension funds, which have become vanishingly small these days. EllenCT (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
So you have absolutely no evidence to support your claim that ITEP attributes corporate taxes to consumers? And no, I did post their official (and only) position, including testimony to Congressmen. I even linked to the official report with their actual state by state tax incidence numbers, in which they call income and corporate taxes the "main progressive element of state and local tax systems" (page 5), and assign all measurable corporate taxes to the top 5% in the combined average (page 118), with the top 1% paying by far the highest corporate tax rate. How do you reconcile your position with this fact? I'm not the one here with the moving goalpost. This is the crux of this entire section, and we need to settle it. It's ok to admit you were mistaken, Ellen. You won't melt and the world won't end. If you do, I'll answer your 11 questions and post in depth on the tangential "peer review" element. And no, "labor" refers to employees. Of course people are typically both, but employees and consumers are often investors too, so that's beside the point. Your sources invariably speak of the labor/capital split and the impact on "wages", not "consumers". VictorD7 (talk) 07:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Your attempt to dodge the source quality issue is a complete waste of everyone's time. I have answered every one of your questions, but I will not answer any more until you answer all eleven of mine. You also ought to check an economics glossary to avoid making yourself look any more foolish than you already have. EllenCT (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you regarding dodging and making yourself look foolish with your basic ignorance. Since your 11 questions are largely ad hominem drivel that aren't relevant to the article, while my question that you continue to dodge is vital to the premise of this entire section and much of your posting in recent weeks (including some of your article editing), it's far more incumbent on you to answer. I just posted direct proof showing that ITEP's tax incidence attributes corporate taxation to owners in a very progressive fashion, just like the TPC and CBO, the opposite of what you've been claiming about ITEP. Clearly you have absolutely no counter evidence, but your failure to even address the posted proof demonstrates bad faith on your part. If your dodging continues, you'll be exposed as a troll. VictorD7 (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Questions about your behavior aren't ad hominem unless you have been misbehaving. Are you going back on your promise to answer them? EllenCT (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I said I'd answer your ridiculous ad hominem questions as a courtesy if you cooperated by addressing the actual substance of how ITEP attributes corporate taxes, the whole reason you've been subjecting this Talk Page and article to "corporate incidence" talk in recent months. What do you think about the section below, where I quote ITEP's own FAQ stating that they attribute taxes progressively to corporate owners? Feel free to comment on it down there. VictorD7 (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The only reason you see the questions as ad hominem is because you know honest answers will expose the extent of your abuse of wikipedia rules and low quality sources to push your political viewpoint. They are nothing more than query reiterations of the statements you called all lies. You said you would answer them, so answer them. EllenCT (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Do you think ITEP is lying when it claims to attribute corporate taxes to capital owners, yielding progressive results? VictorD7 (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I will not answer any more of your questions until you answer mine. I will point out that the question at the top of page three of the document you link to only discusses corporate income tax, not property, sales, or excise taxes or tariffs, and doesn't say whether "primarily" means more or less than 54.5%, which is the figure I understand that they use, and a far cry from the 100% implied by your cherry basket of non-peer reviewed sources. EllenCT (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Your entire discussion has been about corporate taxes, not other types. And here's what ITEP says on corporate taxes (note the sentence after the "primarily" one): "It is generally agreed that corporate income taxes, at both the state and federal level, fall primarily on owners of capital. In accordance with this theory, ITEP’s incidence analyses of state corporate income taxes typically distribute the incidence of the tax according to nationwide ownership of capital assets such as stocks and bonds....The incidence of the tax in ITEP’s analyses is generally quite progressive, because the vast majority of capital income nationwide is held by the very best-off Americans." I'm not sure what you mean by the "54.5%" number (capital, labor, or consumers? Did you find that in an ITEP source somewhere or just make it up?), but it says it attributes corporate taxes according to ownership of capital assets. Is ITEP a "cherry basket of non-peer reviewed sources", Ellen? VictorD7 (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I was referring to the same use of the word "primarily" that you quoted. Answer my questions. EllenCT (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I know. That's why I pointed out that the following sentence is the one that explains how ITEP actually attributes corporate taxes. Only "ownership of capital assets such as stocks and bonds" is mentioned. Do you have a verifiable source for your "54.5%"/"consumers" claim? And you didn't answer, do you feel that ITEP is a cherry-picked, "non-peer reviewed source"? Or do you just mean the CBO and TPC when you apply that label? VictorD7 (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I will not answer any more of your questions until you answer mine. You said you would do so, but you have not. People can see how true you are to your own word, let alone to the reliable sources. EllenCT (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can see that I said I'd answer your off topic questions after we settled the ITEP attribution matter, since the latter is vastly more important to the article. Is ITEP a reliable source for its own views, Ellen? You have an obligation to answer that, since you are trying to push ITEP's tax chart into the article. That is the basis for this entire discussion you've started. VictorD7 (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

This whole section is about the quality of sources used by ITEP, and I answered all your specific questions about them. The 54.5% figure comes from a source I cited months ago because I picked up the phone and called someone who used to work for the ITEP and asked them what they used, just like I suggested that you call them weeks ago. This isn't article space so I don't need you to be able to verify what you ought to be able to do for yourself. You clearly have no intention of keeping your word and answering my questions. EllenCT (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll answer below, since this split conversation is silly. VictorD7 (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

ITEP attributes corporate taxes to owners, just like the TPC and CBO.

This is important because Ellen's entire premise has been that ITEP attributes corporate taxes "regressively" to consumers rather than owners, explaining (trying to excuse) the difference between its tax incidence numbers and the other sources. She's posted no evidence of this, but that premise is why she's created all these discussions about corporate incidence, and it's even led to her adding a segment that's still in the article. But the premise was wrong. From ITEP's own FAQ:

"It is generally agreed that corporate income taxes, at both the state and federal level, fall primarily on owners of capital. In accordance with this theory, ITEP’s incidence analyses of state corporate income taxes typically distribute the incidence of the tax according to nationwide ownership of capital assets such as stocks and bonds....The incidence of the tax in ITEP’s analyses is generally quite progressive, because the vast majority of capital income nationwide is held by the very best-off Americans."

This supports the overwhelming evidence I've already posted from ITEP above. The discrepancy between ITEP and other sources must be caused by other factors. A reasonable person would consider this issue settled. Does anyone have any rational counter argument or counter evidence? Or can we agree that Ellen is wrong and move on from there? VictorD7 (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you, other sources disagree. Furthermore, since you have already dismissed ITEP as a rs, claiming it is "left wing", then you cannot use it as a reliable source. Reliability does not mean the source says what you happen to believe. TFD (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
No, you completely missed the point. This isn't about whether corporate taxes are progressive. This is about whether Ellen was correct in claiming ITEP treats them as regressive. She's the one pushing the ITEP chart as a source. She claims they attribute corp. taxes to consumers. I found all this evidence showing they attribute it to owners. Which of us do you think is right on this point? I'd like your feedback. VictorD7 (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Where'd you run off to, TFD? Does ITEP attribute corporate taxes to consumers (regressive) or capital owners (progressive)? This isn't a trick question. I'm essentially asking you what 2+2 equals and making it an open book test. Feel free to read the above quote containing the answer, any of the other evidence posted here saying the same thing, or anything else about ITEP you want to if you can find it. VictorD7 (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Are you now claiming that ITEP is rs? Otherwise what they say is mute. TFD (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding. Let me try this again. I'm not asking you to comment on corporate taxes. This discussion isn't about whether corporate taxes really are progressive or not. I think ITEP is garbage, but it is a reliable source for its own views, and Ellen's still pushing its chart for article inclusion. Let's make this test multiple choice: Please read the ITEP quote I posted above, and answer whether it means....
A. ITEP attributes corporate taxes to capital owners, producing progressive results (my position)
or
B. ITEP attributes corporate taxes to consumers, producing regressive results (Ellen's position)
And I'm guessing you meant "moot", not "mute", and no, it's not because Ellen is still basing her entire position on the answer being "B". Again, the only reason we're discussing corporate incidence is because Ellen wants to include the ITEP chart, and she's still insisting that its discrepancy with other sources can be dismissed as differences in corporate attribution. VictorD7 (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The correct answer to VictorD7's false multiple choice question is none of the above. ITEP attributes 54.5% of corporate taxes to capital owners and the remainder to consumers, in accordance with the ranges given in the most reliable of the peer reviewed WP:SECONDARY sources, which I know from a personal communication unsuitable for inclusion as a source in articles. That is why they show the top 1% paying less total tax as a percentage of their income than the top 20%, and why VictorD7 despises them even though he is willing to quote vague passages from them to try to support his POV-pushing. EllenCT (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a verifiable source to support your anecdotal claim allegedly delivered via secret communication? One that mentions this "54.5%" figure, or even the word "consumers"? Because publicly ITEP just speaks of attributing to capital ownership, and even explicitly argues against "corporate leaders" who support attributing to consumers or labor. VictorD7 (talk) 05:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but it's unpublished, as I said above. Call them and ask them. But first answer my questions. EllenCT (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
You said you called someone who "used to work for" ITEP. That means they don't work for them now? Did you personally know this person or what? Is his or her name a secret? I'm not interested in contacting ITEP when they clearly spell out their methodology all over their website and publications, only stating that they attribute corporate taxes to owners and arguing against the notion of attributing to consumers or labor, even attacking the motives of those who do argue in favor of consumer attribution. The burden of producing source proof otherwise is on you. Even if your mystery source was telling the truth, that would just mean that ITEP is saying one thing publicly and quietly doing something very contradictory, totally destroying the group's credibility. It would mean that they support and publicly lobby for corporate taxes as a "very progressive" tax on "owners of capital" (their words), while silently scoring them in a far more regressive fashion just to make overall taxation look less progressive than it really is, hoping to fuel popular support for tax hikes on "the rich" regardless of type. It's telling that you'd have no problem with that. VictorD7 (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
And if ITEP attributes half to consumers, how do you explain them attributing zero state corporate taxes to the bottom 95% in their combined state average (page 118), and by far the highest corporate tax rate to the top 1%? Is it possible your alleged secret source who "used" to work for ITEP was mistaken? VictorD7 (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Answer my questions and I'll answer yours. EllenCT (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
You're the one trying to get something added to the article. VictorD7 (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Article size (load time is long)

So I am sure most will agree this article is bloated with details that can be better served in the main articles. Having people Skipp the article because its to big and tedious does not help anyone. Will make a section below soon with a break down of the article and things that can be moved. Would love others to get in this conversation as I can see from above lots of editors have raised this concern yet more still being added to section many find not all that relevant. A section like "Income, poverty, and wealth" should be trimmed...way to much details for the average reader who is coming here to learn about the USA as an overall topic. -- Moxy (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You should have been here two months ago when the Income, poverty and wealth section and a few other sections were about twice their current sizes. It was an arduous month-long process just to get those sections shortened. The sections I think could use significant trimming are History, Crime and law enforcement and maybe a little in Culture; otherwise the rest of the sections look of adequate length. Even though I still think I, P, and W can be further trimmed, it was exhausting enough just to get it cut down to its current size and there are definitely users here who will object to further shortening it. It would be another arduous process that should be taken one section at a time. Cadiomals (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree there will be a few that think the article is not to long or think what they added is so important that sizes does not matter. But what we have to look at its readability...simply not good if people leave the page because its simply full of details (stats) that have no meaning or context to a NON American. -- Moxy (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I would be happy to see the History and Culture sections trimmed down very substantially, but not the current events-related parts where low-information voters are likely to look when making political decisions, especially in the face of such a strenuous disinformation campaign based on cherry-picked low quality sources. EllenCT (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with trimming Income, poverty, and wealth, but if you're serious then hang around and participate, Moxy. Don't fire off a driveby shot and take off. VictorD7 (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Would love to help - but have not recently because i am not interested in the edit wars that have been happening here. I will even bring this to GA level if we can agree on trimming at least 1/3 of the article. As most know I specialize in references ...over the next week or two will make bibliography that we can work from. Canada - Bibliography of Canada this way we can all agree what sources are the best.There is way to many web-links here should look like Military history of Canada as in real books should be used. -- Moxy (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Wunderbar -- the article, IMHO, is too long by far more than you can imagine, contains material which, at best, belongs in su-articles, and I suggest substantial trimming of some of the er "lesser references" should be possible. For my approach see [14] (my edited version) vis-a-vis the starting point for my edits at [15] <g>. I also would like readability to improve -- right now it is at 50, which makes it "Wiki-average" which, IMHO, not that much to boast about - let's aim for 55 at least. Collect (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The longest sections in history are the first few. I've taken a shot at just trimming below, but reading into Gordon S. Wood's The idea of America -- another approach might be to treat the history topically, concerning constitutionalism, democracy, party politics, judicial review --- directly relating to the current U.S. -- much as JimWae proposed something is missing in an article on the United States without treatment of the growth of democracy. The first few sections have been hijacked from a year or so ago and seem to be metastasizing into a chronological narrative. This whole issue of length can be sidestepped in large part with a link to History of the United States, and choosing a topical treatment. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I will say that length can't be the only concern. If we're going to fix the History section then let's fix it. Quality and accuracy matter too. We certainly can't just deal with the first two sections. The worst section is the last one, and the others need work as well. VictorD7 (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Why can't we make the US cities template more like this?

 
Largest populated areas in Australia
Rank Name State Pop. Rank Name State Pop.
1 Sydney NSW 5,259,764 11 Geelong Vic 289,400
2 Melbourne Vic 4,976,157 12 Hobart Tas 251,047
3 Brisbane Qld 2,568,927 13 Townsville Qld 181,665
4 Perth WA 2,192,229 14 Cairns Qld 155,638
5 Adelaide SA 1,402,393 15 Darwin NT 148,801
6 Gold Coast–Tweed Heads Qld/NSW 706,673 16 Toowoomba Qld 143,994
7 Newcastle–Maitland NSW 509,894 17 Ballarat Vic 111,702
8 Canberra–Queanbeyan ACT/NSW 482,250 18 Bendigo Vic 102,899
9 Sunshine Coast Qld 355,631 19 Albury-Wodonga NSW/Vic 97,676
10 Wollongong NSW 305,880 20 Launceston Tas 93,332

This is the conventional template used for almost all countries. We simply use the populations of the city propers instead of their metro areas, which shouldn't make a huge difference. The current table, in my opinion, lists information unnecessary and uninteresting to most readers, like what regions the cities lie in and the MSAs used by the Census Bureau. This template is not only simpler and more straightforward, but it's smaller and allows 20 cities to be fit into less space. That's why it's the conventional template used in most articles. We should seriously consider using this instead. Cadiomals (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I like your proposal’s economy of graphic presentation. But I’d like the regions reported to be the SMSAs. Their description could be in subsidiary articles, linked in the chart. Instead of "Gold Coast-Tweed Heads QLD/NSW", use the convention, Greater New York SMSA. versus "New York–New Jersey–Connecticut–Pennsylvania, NY–NJ–CT–PA MSA", or Greater Philadelphia SMSA versus "Philadelphia–Camden–Wilmington, PA–NJ–DE–MD MSA."
SMSAs reflect how Americans live, work and commute to entertainment, in banking, marketing and trade. So the Rand-McNallly Commercial Atlas uses SMSAs. Using core cities alone is simply 19th century anachronism which does not reflect current reality or usage. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't a solution be to simply name this table "Largest metropolitan areas in the U.S." and then use the populations of the Census' MSAs instead of the city cores? Cadiomals (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Though the links take some research. New York's SMSA is treated at New York metropolitan area, Philadelphia is at Delaware Valley, so the chart will have to be coded [[New York metropolitan area|New York MSA]], [[Delaware Valley|Philadelphia MSA]] to read New York MSA, and Philadelphia MSA, respectively, so we can sidestep any "turf" wars at Wikipedia to be waged over regional naming conventions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Native American and European contact

The following proposed section edit is for conciseness and encyclopedic style. The final paragraph concerning a few Indian wars was so unrepresentative as to be distracting, the subject matter belongs in Settlement.

People from Asia migrated to the North American continent approximately 15,000 or more years ago.[45][46] Some, such as the pre-Columbian Mississippian culture, developed advanced agriculture, grand architecture, and state-level societies. After European explorers and traders made the first contacts, it is estimated that their population declined due to various reasons, including diseases such as smallpox and measles to which indigenous Americans had no natural immunities,[47][48] intermarriage,[49] and violence.[50][51][52]

In the early days of colonization many settlers were subject to shortages of food, disease and attacks from Native Americans. Native Americans were also often at war with neighboring tribes and allied with Europeans in their colonial wars.[53] At the same time many natives and settlers came to depend on each other. Settlers traded for food and animal pelts, natives for guns, ammunition and other European wares. In the process "Native American influenced colonist, and colonist influenced Native American".[54] Natives taught many settlers where, when and how to hunt and fish and cultivate corn, beans and squash in the frontier. European missionaries and others felt it was important to "civilize" the Indians and urged them to concentrate on farming and ranching and not depend primarily on hunting and gathering.[55][56]

end proposal. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Weren't you the one who once pointed out that the source actually said violence was not a significant factor in Amerindian depopulation? This might be a good opportunity to fix that. VictorD7 (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
insert. Disease was overwhelmingly the cause of Amerindian depopulation. Another myth-buster, most fatalities along the Oregon Trail were first snake bites, second self-inflicted gunshot wounds -- not attacks by Amerindian raiders. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Not sure, but it really does read like an eighth grade textbook. I'm not happy with how the section has been hijacked from about a year ago. Rather than refighting American historiography here, I wonder if we could turn to a topical organization on constitutionalism, democracy, judicial reiview and political parties as U.S. historical contribution to world political life, and leave the rest to History of the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I never really saw a need for a separate Native American section to begin with, since this is a national and not continental history, but some others disagreed. The bigger problem was that the process went off the rails for a while due to unilateral, piecemeal editing with little or no thought given to the big picture, until at least some order and stability was restored. I'd have to see what you're proposing before endorsing a topical approach, but I do generally support the notion of editing coherently with the big picture in mind. VictorD7 (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

DAB pages

this edit does not follow the guideline in WP:DAB, regarding the connection of a primary use for a term with a corresponding disambiguation page. Further, the previous edit-summary was inaccurate, misleading at best (see https://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/rdcheck.py?page=United_States for a clue). TEDickey (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Relative wealth

The paragraph on wealth tries to puff up symptoms of income inequality. What could be included from the CreditSuisse Global Wealth Databook to help balance it? I'm thinking rank by median wealth. EllenCT (talk) 07:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if you meant to word your first sentence like that, and your link is busted, but, as I posted before when you raised this issue, Credit Suisse, a private, Swiss based finance outfit, is a dubious source for an article at this level and the report is more of a brand exposure ad campaign than anything else. Among other methodological flaws, the results aren't PPP adjusted (the norm for international comparisons). For example, their report says France's wealth per adult tripled(!) in value between 2000 and 2007, but acknowledges that "much of the pre-2007 rise was due to the appreciation of the Euro against the dollar." In other words, it's a distortion with very little impact on actual living standards (mostly a mirage). There are similar descriptions for many other countries. Unless you really believe that French people saw their wealth triple in a few years, this report is worthless. If we were to add new stuff to an already bloated article, there are countless more deserving items. VictorD7 (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I fixed the link. What do you propose as a more authoritative source on wealth? The number of billionaires per hollowed-out shell of formerly vibrant cities? Just because you found a typo or glitch doesn't mean you should throw the baby out with the bathwater. EllenCT (talk) 11:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your goal is here, but I know that this summary article has more than enough economic statistics and even some other country articles don't have. If you desire more balance in certain sections, you should consider what things should be excluded rather than included. Based on discussions above most people would not support the addition of further statistics as we agreed this article could use fewer details, not more. It has already surpassed the 90KB limit, suggesting that a lot of info can be condensed or spun off into separate articles. You went as far as to add retirement savings statistics which is completely irrelevant to most readers and which no other country article includes. We've all heard your arguments before about "crucial" info for "low-information voters" which is important to current "election cycles", but it has no place in this summary article as has been repeated many times before by so many different people. In short, no more new economic statistics ought to be added; if anything we should be considering which ones can be cut out. Many people still think the I, P and W section can be cut down one or two paragraphs further, but in not wanting to dwell on the same issues we've decided to move on to other sections for now. Cadiomals (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I am just saying that it would be better to describe wealth by ranking countries by median wealth, since it is a relative measure, than ranking _illionares per capita, or _illionares per anything else for that matter. That's a replacement, not an addition. EllenCT (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
No, the section hasn't mentioned that for quite some time. I guess you haven't read it lately either. VictorD7 (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Not a "typo or glitch" but fundamental flaws. VictorD7 (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Assumes facts not in evidence. Why do you think the France issue wasn't a one-time thing? EllenCT (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Because I actually read the report. Apparently you didn't. I just cited a salient example to illustrate the absurdity of the report's methodology. VictorD7 (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Why do you believe that they don't adjust for PPP? EllenCT (talk) 05:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Did you miss where I just said they've got the French population tripling its wealth in a few years due to their currency's appreciation against the dollar? That's the type of distortion PPP adjustment is designed to prevent. Plus the report's intro says they don't use PPP but rather nominal US dollars, despite admitting that in international comparisons it's common to use PPP conversions. Their given reason for bucking standard practice is that the top few percentiles account for a large chunk of every nation's wealth, and that elite group travels internationally a lot, arguably making exchange rates more important than normal cost of living calculations. Of course that analysis sacrifices meaningful measurement for the vast majority of the population (certainly at the mean and median) to cover a small minority at the top. VictorD7 (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
If they used PPP, would that make the U.S. ranking go up or down? EllenCT (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

edit. Settlement

proposed section edited for conciseness and encyclopedic style.

After Columbus' discovery of the New World in 1492 other explorers followed.[62] The first Spanish explorers set up settlements in parts of Florida and the American southwest that were eventually merged into the United States.[63] There were also some French attempts to colonize the east coast, and later more successful settlements along the Mississippi River. Successful English settlement on the eastern coast of North America began with the Virginia Colony in 1607 at Jamestown and the Pilgrims' Plymouth Colony in 1620.[64] Early experiments in communal living failed until the introduction of privately held farms. The continent's first elected legislative assembly, Virginia's House of Burgesses of 1619, and the Mayflower Compact at the Pilgrims disembarking, established precedents for the pattern of representative self-government and constitutionalism that would develop throughout the American colonies.[65][66]

Most settlers in every colony were small farmers, but other industries developed. Cash crops included tobacco, rice and wheat. Extraction industries grew up in furs, fishing and lumber. Manufacturers produced rum, ships and by the late colonial period Americans were producing one-seventh of the world's iron supply.[70] Cities eventually dotted the coast to support local economies and serve as trade hubs. English colonists were supplemented by waves of Scotch-Irish and other groups. As coastal land grew more expensive freed indentured servants pushed west.[71] Slave cultivation of cash crops began with the Spanish in the 1500s, and was adopted by the English, but life expectancy was much higher in North America because of less disease and better food and treatment, so the numbers of slaves grew rapidly.[75][76] Colonial society was largely divided over the religious and moral implications of slavery and colonies passed acts for and against the practice.[77][78] But by the turn of the 18th century, African slaves were replacing indentured servants for cash crop labor in southern regions.[79]

With the 1732 colonization of Georgia, the 13 colonies that would become the United States of America were established.[81] All had local governments with elections open to most free men, with a growing devotion to the ancient rights of Englishmen and a sense of self-government stimulating support for republicanism.[82] With extremely high birth rates, low death rates, and steady settlement, the colonial population grew rapidly. Relatively small Native American populations were eclipsed.[83] The Christian revivalist movement of the 1730s and 1740s known as the Great Awakening fueled interest in religious liberty and congregational self government.

In the French and Indian War, British forces seized Canada from the French, but the francophone population remained politically isolated from the southern colonies. Excluding the Native Americans, who were being conquered and displaced, those 13 colonies had a population of over 2.1 million in 1770, about one-third that of Britain. Despite continuing new arrivals, the rate of natural increase was such that by the 1770s only a small minority of Americans had been born overseas.[84] The colonies' distance from Britain had allowed the development of self-government, but their success motivated monarchs to periodically seek to reassert Royal authority.

end proposal. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It'd be more encyclopedic to add the word "successful" to the cited English colonies somewhere, since they weren't the first English attempts. I'm also not sure about the "bonded labor" sentence. Doesn't "bonded labor" refer to people who lose their freedom over debts? VictorD7 (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. And the focus can be enlarged to other "successful" colonies to incorporate those Dutch, Spanish, French and Russian colonies which are eventually incorporated into the U.S. This is way to much English colonies, exclusively original-thirteen. Moxy has proposed using a Canadian bibliography of sources in the discussion above, I wonder if they treat all Europeans more evenhandedly.
But, also, another approach might be to treat the history topically, concerning constitutionalism, democracy, party politics, judicial review --- directly relating to the current U.S. -- much as JimWae proposed something is missing in an article on the United States without treatment of the growth of democracy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if your first paragraph was sarcastic, but adding a single word qualifier (or slight rewording) for the sake of accuracy is hardly tantamount to enlarging the section's scope to issues of tangential importance. An inadequately qualified "began" is the problem. Maybe just saying "Permanent English settlement on the eastern coast of North America began ...." would suffice, though that might be murkier than "successful" since Roanoke was an attempt at permanent settlement. VictorD7 (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Your recommendation is incorporated above in the narrative without italicization.
I'm not sarcastic. To stay with the original thirteen is fine for now, as most U.S. current day constitutional procedure is English-derived. However, today Spanish colonial law influences the Ninth, Tenth and Fifth Circuit Courts in California, Arizona and Texas and Code Napoleon the Fifth Circuit in Louisiana. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I tweaked the sentence closer to what I actually had in mind. As for scope, the Spanish and French are appropriately mentioned, but a rational history of the US would primarily focus on the English colonies. I'm not sure there's much room for more on other colonial influences when you're reducing centuries of settlement to just four short paragraphs that don't even describe English growth with specifics apart from naming the first two colonies and Georgia. More important to American development than foreign influence or even slavery was the early shift from a communal arrangement to a capitalistic one in both Jamestown and Plymouth, as it both enabled those colonies' survival/success and set the tone for an American ideology that persists to this day and is even distinctive compared to the UK, and yet you're proposing dropping that brief sentence, along with any mention of early hardships faced (though the latter are at least mentioned vaguely in the prior section). VictorD7 (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Lest I come off more argumentative than I intend, for the most part I think your proposals are fine. I'm just making a couple of observations. VictorD7 (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The economic system is not properly called capitalism after the experiment in communalism, but I used the term 'private farm holdings' above as our next redraft. The communalism was derivative from primitive Christian church under persecution as described in New Testament book of Acts. It was ended famously at Jamestown when John Smith imposed martial law and declared to the rich who had paid for their passage as adventurers (versus indentures to the company), "He who shall not work, shall not eat." That was again, in context of the starving community at the time, a scriptural reference, not economic capitalism. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with that wording, and it's close to the sentence currently in the article ("personal property"). I'll just sidestep the issue of whether it'd be appropriate to equate early church sharing with the authoritarian communal operations in the early English colonies (though I agree that was an inspiration), and whether "capitalistic" is appropriate to describe the direction they proceeded on, since I just used the word for convenience. It's arguably not optimal to use the word "capitalism" at all since it was largely coined (at least made famous) by socialists to have a negative connotation, but sometimes it's handy.
We should still do something about the incoherent "bonded labor" sentence. Might be easiest just to delete it. VictorD7 (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
If there are no further objections from anyone else these changes should probably be applied as soon as possible. Cadiomals (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I have no problems with calling bonded labor what it was, but what does "eclipsed" mean and is it too euphemistic for the realities involved with the exchange of exogenous diseases? EllenCT (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
That sentence can either be deleted because it is reiterated quite a few times already throughout the History section or clarified with "surpassing Native American populations, which were greatly reduced by violence, displacement and exposure to exogenous diseases" attached to the preceding sentence. I would prefer deleting it to prevent redundancy. Cadiomals (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually the "eclipsed" line is important because it deftly captures what happened: regional tribes numbering in the thousands even before the depopulation were dwarfed in size by a massive colonist population surging into the millions, a phenomenon I don't think is captured elsewhere in the article but is detailed in the sourcing. As for the Amerindian depopulation (which had only marginal impact on the eclipsing), Cadiomals is correct about it being discussed elsewhere in the article. It has its own problems, as noted earlier, since the sourcing actually says violence was not a significant factor in the depopulation (which was overwhelmingly caused by disease); another old misleading segment no one has gotten around to fixing yet. VictorD7 (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with making the changes, since the "bonded labor" sentence is already present anyway, but that sentence should still be deleted since it's incoherent, unless someone can explain what it means. Our focus should be on quality and accuracy too, not just length reduction, and if we're ever going to fix the History section this is the time to do it. VictorD7 (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
What if that sentence was changed to "Nevertheless, slavery became a crucial component of the Southern economy" or something along those lines? It is straightforward and clearly accurate. Cadiomals (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Something along those lines would be better, though I probably wouldn't go with "crucial" in the colonial period. Whether it's a clause or a sentence, it should probably say something like "especially in the south", since northern colonies had thousands of slaves too (fewer, but a lot), and we shouldn't imply it was a strictly southern phenomenon. Remember that later sections go more into depth about slavery, the north/south divide, and the Civil War. VictorD7 (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so we can use "Nevertheless, slavery continued to be an important part of the American economy." Since there seems to be nothing else, implementing these much needed changes should be delayed no longer (including "Native American and European contact" above). It wouldn't hurt to make any other small tweaks afterward. I don't want to do it myself because I don't know precisely where all the sources need to be placed, so Virginia should do it. Cadiomals (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

"Bonded labor" is used in the literature to differentiate among a) free labor for those who paid their own passage, b) bonded labor of indentures, whether 3-5 years for artisans or 7 years for unskilled field laborers and c) enslaved labor which does not equal bonded labor in numbers until the end of the late colonial period in the Chesapeake Bay region (VA-MD).

Any reference to the importance of slavery in field labor in the South is a reference to the last 50 years of a one hundred and fifty year span. Early Colonial is roundly 1600 to 1700, Late Colonial 1675-1776 depending on the treatment. For the first fifty-years in Virginia 1607-1657, enslaved laborers who were Christian such as the Angolan-African and African-Spanish slaves were freed at seven years (Muslims were not, just as Christians slaves were not freed in Islam in the 1600s). For Virginia, the largest colony by far -- four times that of Massachusetts in Early Colonial period--, importation of slaves does not measurably increase as a percent of the total labor force until after Bacon's Rebellion in 1675.

For a first draft, I'll try to incorporate stated concerns as best I can. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference MLA Data was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Regional Population, 2021". Australian Bureau of Statistics. 11 February 2022.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States/Archive_58&oldid=1065958690"