Jump to content

Talk:United States/Archive 76

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70←Archive 74Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77Archive 78→Archive 80

Specific individual disputes

Since the controversial edits leading to the recent full protection were rolled up into a series of massive reverts spanning several sections, originally by an editor who does not seem to have been working on this article previously, and exemplified most recently by this diff, I thought I would pull them out into eight individual questions that I hope we can work out separately while editing is suspended. Can we try to reach compromises on all eight questions before the full protection expires? EllenCT (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Republican Party description

1. What are the sources supporting that Republicans are "center-right" and what sources say they are "right-wing"? Which is the more prominent description in the peer reviewed WP:SECONDARY sources? I happen to believe that since the Democratic Party leaders' preferences are well documented as being to the right of the demographic center's preferences[1][2][3][4] that calling Republicans "center-right" is entirely inaccurate. Are there reliable sources in opposition? I am not okay with simply calling Republicans "conservative" because they've been radically redefining the status quo over the past several decades. Eisenhower was conservative when he took post-WWII marginal tax rates down to pre-WWII levels. Reagan was not when he returned capital gains rates down to Gilded Age historical lows.

It might be better to separate these into different sections. On 1, I completely reject your premise that the population is to the left of Democrats (if anything it's to the right of where people usually vote, which is why Democrats have to run further from their base rhetorically in general campaigns to be competitive than Republicans do; e.g. - [5] Pew poll showing by 58% to 35% Americans prefer "freedom to pursue life’s goals without state interference" over the state playing "an active role in society to ensure that nobody is in need", the opposite of the Europeans' responses; [6] In Gallup polling self identified conservatives have typically outnumbered self identified liberals roughly 40%-20% over the years, and currently outnumber liberals in all but three states; [7] more Americans have consistently seen Republicans as "too liberal" than the Democrats as "too conservative"; [8] a strong majority--most recently 59%--favor abortion being "under stricter limits than it is now" or not permissible at all; [9] Americans consistently favor spending cuts over tax hikes to tackle the deficit; [10] when asked for actual ideal numbers instead of just "should they pay more or less" most people prefer "the rich" pay a lower tax rate than they actually do; [11] super majorities have always supported prayer in school; I could go on and on), but regardless Republicans have always been identified as "center-right" in serious political science textbooks, even ones that transparently lean left:
Understanding American Government By Susan Welch, John Gruhl, Susan Rigdon, Sue Thomas (2011, page 185) "The Democrats tend to be a center-left party, and the Republicans tend to be a center-right party." That's without getting into the fact that, as TFD pointed out, the text says "Within American political culture...". In fact the Republicans and Democrats have traditionally been viewed as center-right and center-left in a global context too. The two major US parties have bigger tents and more across the aisle voting on particular issues, and are therefore more moderate than typical parties in parliamentary systems. VictorD7 (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Let us remember there are extremist in both parties: William J. Chambliss (3 May 2011). Crime and Criminal Behavior. SAGE Publications. pp. 229–230. ISBN 978-1-4522-6644-2. Therefore, to label one party to "right-wing" but the other "centre-left" is IMHO WP:UNDUE, The source provided by VictorD7: ( Susan Welch; John Gruhl; Susan Rigdon (18 January 2011). Understanding American Government. Cengage Learning. p. 185. ISBN 0-495-91050-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) ) does a good job at neutrality and presenting both parties. We can go into this book ( Byron York (January 2006). The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of the Democrats' Desperate Fight to Reclaim Power. Three Rivers Press. ISBN 978-1-4000-8239-1. ), but IMHO the Cengage book is sufficient.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
re the party issue, let's look at their respective articles. The GOP article doesn't definitely state its direction, but the Democrat article says "center-left", presumably far better sourced than we can manage here. The GOP does state that their philosophy is conservatism. So why not use those terms? The Republicans are conservative, whereas the Democrats represent the center-left? The work has been done for you. If you disagree with that characterization then I think the best place to discuss this is at the appropriate party discussion page, rather than here; this is a summary article, and the argument over how to define the parties should take place on the party pages, with that filtering down to here. To do it here is both a duplication of efforts as well as a usurpation of encyclopedic responsibility. It'd be like, oh, saying on this article that Puerto Rico is part of the United States but Puerto Rico disagreed. That kind of hypothetical situation. --Golbez (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Hypothetical indeed, the intro sentence at Puerto Rico says it is a U.S. territory. The work of including how Puerto Rico as a part of the U.S. in a geographical sense is done for you, sourced by U.S.G. and scholarship. I think that the hypothetical argument that U.S. territories are external to the US may be sourced to Iran, North Korea and Cuba. In the case of political parties, Communists and some Socialists claim Democrats are not “left” anything, but fascist captives of Wall Street, — however WP discounts WP:fringe, so some hypothetical disputes can be laid to rest. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
@Golbez:: Please re-read my comment. That section is not about GOP or Democratic parties' economic positions or distinctions. That section needs to be a summary of the main articles on the subject. The problem is that editors here are trying to write that section from scratch, including the impossible task of defining the GOP and Democrat parties in one sentence and without context. - - Cwobeel (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Well that's just it, I'm with you on being against writing it from scratch, we should be pulling purely from the subsidiary articles. I don't think we need *any* description of the parties here, but if we do, it's best to pull the description [and sourcing, if necessary] from the main article rather than go through the entire discovery process here. --Golbez (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
It is important to identify which party leans left and which leans right for foreign readers who don't know. Such brief, almost universally understandable qualifiers are far from "impossible", and are reflected in the linked party articles. VictorD7 (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
A non-U.S. audience would find the term "center right" explanatory - the Republicans are similar to UK Conservatives, German Christian Democrats and Australian Liberals. But the lesser used term "center left" would be confusing. "Center left", if the term is used at all would refer to Social Democrats as opposed to Left parties and Communists. The Democrats would lie between center left and center right. TFD (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
That is the problem... I'd say, leave these generalizations outside of this article, just mention the two main parties with wikilinks to their respective article and leave it at that. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Or we could just stick with the very long standing "center-right"/"center-left" description in the political science textbook I quoted from above, especially since "center-left" would be a lot clearer to many foreign readers than "liberal" would be, given the qualitatively different meaning of "liberal" in a modern American context compared to how it's used throughout much of the world (e.g. Brits calling conservatives like Reagan and Thatcher "neoliberals"; the Australian conservative party being called "Liberals", even US politicians on both sides using "liberal" to mean free market/individual liberty oriented when speaking in an international context, almost the opposite of the political domestic usage, etc.) Calling Democrats "centrists" would be even more absurd. They're no more "centrist" in a global context than the Republicans are, and their base liberal ideology is less so in a domestic context as the material I posted above shows.
Basically "far right" refers to Nazis/fascists while "far left" refers to communists/socialists. Pretty much every major party in between is "center-(one way or the other)". This isn't complicated. In fact the Democrats have more in common with socialists than the Republicans do with Nazis/fascists. Senator Bernie Sanders, a self described "socialist" independent, caucuses with the Democrats. By contrast I don't know any Nazis/fascists who hold American office, and if they did the Republicans wouldn't caucus with them. US conservatives, heavily libertarian, and Nazis/fascists are qualitatively different, whereas US liberals differ from socialists by matter of degree, with some overlap. But there's no need to get that precise here. In the rough one dimensional spectrum widely used around the world, the Democrats are still center-left overall, and the Republicans are center-right. This is basic stuff. VictorD7 (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
In fact, the term "far left" is never used to refer to socialists anywhere other than in the U.S. Socialists form the government or main opposition party in most countries outside the U.S. Even in the U.S., I do not remember the news media referring to Tony Blair as far left. TFD (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The Labour party, led by Blair himself, moved away from socialism toward a position of relatively free market, "New Labour"/"third way" type politics, as did a lot of the world's left leaning parties in the wake of the Cold War's decisive empirical verdict. But above I wasn't referring to those who embrace various aspects of qualified socialism so much as the parties that are hardline enough to call themselves "Socialist", as opposed to the social democrats that typically make up the European center-left. But this tangent is unnecessary. Whether one considers parties like the French Socialists to be center-left or far left on the global spectrum (as opposed to the French one), certainly "center-left" is broad enough to include US Democrats, the party trying to pull the US to the left, as the textbook I quoted above states. VictorD7 (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Tony Blair used the terms socialism and social democracy interchangeably. Ironically, Sanders has presented as his model of socialism the Scandinavian social democrats. You are using the "no true Scotsman" argument: I like Blair therefore he is not a socialist. TFD (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
No, I suggest you read up on the Third Way movement Blair helped lead (with Clinton) in the 1990s. Blair used these terms with qualification, and tried to redefine what he meant by "socialism", contrasting it with traditional socialism. He also embraced "capitalism" (again, with qualifications), and dropped the clause committed to nationalizing industry from the Labour Party Constitution as part of what he called "New Labour". In office he left most of Thatcher/Major's economic reforms in place. Here's a BBC piece crediting him with completely remaking his party. Even recently he's advised the defeated Labour Party to move more toward the center and become more "pro business". You can't just ignore all this if you want to talk about Blair and modern Labour ideology. Bernie Sanders is to the left of Tony Blair...and he caucuses with the Democrats. VictorD7 (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

On "how the GOP is decribed, I think that we also need to look at how the Democratic Party is described. Global standards are the ones to look at. As such, I think one could describe the dems as center right. They are to the right of most conservative parties in Europe.Casprings (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll note that so far RightCowLeftCoast and I are the only ones in this discussion to actually provide sources pertinent to the question. In any context the Democrats are a left leaning party. Some much smaller European countries being more left wing on average than the US doesn't change that. In addition to the textbook I cited above, here are some other sourced notes from the Democratic Party (United States) article:
Arnold, N. Scott (2009). Imposing values: an essay on liberalism and regulation. Florence: Oxford University Press. p. 3. ISBN 0-495-50112-3. "Modern liberalism occupies the left-of-center in the traditional political spectrum and is represented by the Democratic Party in the United States."
Levy, Jonah (2006). The state after statism: new state activities in the age of liberalization. Florence: Harvard University Press. p. 198. ISBN 0-495-50112-3. "In the corporate governance area, the center-left repositioned itself to press for reform. The Democratic Party in the United States used the postbubble scandals and the collapse of share prices to attack the Republican Party ... Corporate governance reform fit surprisingly well within the contours of the center-left ideology. The Democratic Party and the SPD have both been committed to the development of the regulatory state as a counterweight to managerial authority, corporate power, and market failure."
Here's Michael Barone, coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics and one of America's most prominent political scientists over the past several decades, referring to the Democrats as "center-left" and Republicans as "center-right", roughly comparable to the British Conservatives and modern Labour Party: "British politics has a familiar look to Americans, with a center-right Conservative party and a center-left Labour party resembling America’s Republicans and Democrats.
The Democratic party is staunchly Keynesian, with widespread socialist elements in its base, and generally favors higher taxes, more government regulation, more social welfare spending, and liberal social policies. In rhetoric it favors "equality" themes over "freedom" ones. All of these elements entrench it firmly within the global left as described by Wikipedia's own articles (e.g. Left-wing politics). This is really clear cut. VictorD7 (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
If dropping the descriptor for both major parties is necessary to relieve this from becoming a contentious point of a possible edit war, I am OK with that. But if not, I agree with the statement by VictorD7 above.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, of the two sources Victor has provided above, neither are actually describing the Democratic party but liberalism.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
False, not that it would matter since the Democrats are the "liberal" party. And I've provided four sources, not two, all of which explicitly speak about the "Democrats" or "the Democratic Party" in the context of being on the "center-left". I suggest you reread my posts. VictorD7 (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Right now the line in the article reads: "Within American political culture, the Republican Party is considered conservative and the Democratic Party is considered liberal.[269]". We should try to have more book sources of course but why are we trying to define the parties. Even trying to say one party is conservative and the other liberal is time sensitive and does not reflect all of history. At one time Republicans were the liberals and Democrats the conservatives. I have a Time magazine from the period describing the parties that way as well as other sources. We need to be far more neutral here and I think brevity may be the answer.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
"Brevity" shouldn't mean we simply name the two major parties without any description whatsoever. In country articles the major parties typically have some ideological description. It's useful to retain the "conservative"/"liberal" labels since those terms are so ubiquitous "within American culture", and to restore the brief "center-right"/"center-left" labels to clarify for foreign readers who don't already understand those issues. For the record the notion that the two parties "swapped" ideologies is an erroneous myth, though it's not worth getting into that tangent here (the Democrats certainly changed ideologies when modern liberalism arose from the socialist and progressive movements of the late 19th Century, but that's not a swap). It's true that "conservative" and "liberal" mean entirely different things in different historical/national contexts (though, labels aside, a speech from Coolidge reads like it could have been delivered at a Tea Party rally), which is all the more reason why we should just restore the very few words needed to clarify what they currently mean in US political culture. VictorD7 (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
VictorD7, far from being "staunchly Keynesian", the Democrats rejected Keynsianism when Jimmy Carter became president and appointed Paul Volker chairman of the Fed. He remained chairman under Ronald Reagan. Nixon OTOH had said, "We are all Keynesians now." The "Socialists" in the U.K. had already accepted monetarism under the government of Labour prime minister Jim Callaghan. Your basic misunderstanding of these issues probably explains your conclusions that the Democrats are socialist (and the self-described Socialists in the U.K. are not). TFD (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
No, TFD, Carter only reluctantly nominated Volcker near the end of his presidency under heavy pressure from Wall Street, Republicans, and others due to the soaring double digit inflation wrecking the country, and only after he had earlier appointed the disastrous George Miller, who was one in a long line of Keynesian Fed chiefs (Carter then made the failed Miller Secretary of the Treasury!). Even then Carter actively undermined Volcker's attempts to reign in inflation with threats to strip his post of power, causing Volcker to temper his actions until Reagan came into office and (with Milton Friedman himself as an adviser) gave his agenda unqualified support. Nixon was one of the most liberal Republican presidents ever, instituting wage and price controls among other things, though he never actually said "We are all Keynesians now" (that misattribution is a terrible bastardization of something Friedman actually said). I'm not sure what your point is there. Democrats have been staunchly Keynesian before and since, while Republicans have favored alternatives like supply side economics. I almost mentioned widespread support for monetarism among European central bankers myself earlier to illustrate that Europe is to the right of America on certain issues (this is also true on tort law, immigration, current abortion law, and the public childhood education systems). I never said "Democrats are socialist", only that there's overlap in their base among liberals and socialists. I was just providing yet another piece of evidence that the Democrats lean left rather than right. You have no idea what you're talking about on any of these issues (including our Blair discussion above), and your failure to read for comprehension or grasp any nuanced point is rendering this discussion unproductive. Fortunately you don't have to understand politics or history, TFD. Just acknowledge the several sources I've provided here explicitly saying the Democrats are "center-left". VictorD7 (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is a pretty short rundown on a U.S. Political parties versus UK political parties. http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/08/how-conservative-would-uk-conservatives-be-us/67930/ . Both dems and the GOP should be placed in the proper global context for political parties. Will provide more sources as I get the time, but I think we will find that the Dems are similar in position to most conservative parties in Europe and the GOP is further to the right.Casprings (talk)

[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
Basically, being conservative or liberal within a party is not what defines the party and is looking at them through a political filter. I strongly support dropping any description of either party in this manner, using Wikipedia's voice of authority. Trying to define the Republican party as left, center left, center, center right or right, is a perception and opinion and should be only be written as a quote from a reputable political science expert, most notable in the field and highly cited.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I would agree with that. But if we are going to describe them, it should be in a global context.Casprings (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Mark and Casprings, you posted a blog by some guy named "Bump" that can charitably be described as moronic, especially since it it ignored the fact that Democratic operatives acting as free lance hired guns served on both sides of the recent British election (and more tellingly, because it was at Obama's direction, on the side of the leftists in the recent Israeli election, while a Republican operative helped Netanyahu), with David Axelrod himself helping Labour and Messina catching heat from American liberals for helping the Conservatives, and a short magazine piece that didn't really have a point except that current UK policy is more left wing on healthcare than the US (yes; so?). The books you linked to appear to have nothing to do with this discussion, which may be why you didn't quote anything from them.
You say we should cite expert opinion. Well I quoted from several such sources, including a political science textbook, scholarly works, and a column by the smartest and most respected political scientist in the country. It's not controversial to describe the Democrats as "center-left" or the Republicans as "center-right". That's widespread and accurate on the global spectrum. You can't honestly believe that there's no way to describe the parties' ideology in a fashion as neutral and well sourced as the rest of the article is. The United Kingdom, France, and most other country articles I've seen describe their major parties' ideologies. All we need to do here is restore the long standing, brief, non controversial labels. It's easy and harmless. VictorD7 (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
First, I posted a Time Article. Second, one has to understand it is a moving target and plenty of peer reviewed articles show that the Republican Party has moved to the right.

Both peer reviewed and show the latest in how the field views the Ideological position of the republican party. What you posted earlier were general despriptions from work that did not directly deal with the issue of the political positions of the parties. Casprings (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

You posted a terrible blog piece from "the wire" that I easily debunked (it would show good faith for you to acknowledge that, btw) and a short Time article that didn't address the question at hand. Your two new articles don't address it either. Even if one accepts their premise that Republicans have moved to the right, what's your point? They can move to the right and still be center-right. Are you trying to argue that Republicans are no longer center-right in a global context? Your papers' abstracts didn't make that claim or even mention the term "center-right". Are you trying to imply that Republicans are now Nazis/fascists? Because no, libertarians wanting tax/spending cuts are quite different from Nazis/fascists. Both American parties are near the global spectrum center. It helps to think through what your point is before posting, Casprings. Also, for the record since many Wikipedia editors don't understand how scholarship works, having an article "peer reviewed" isn't an infallible process even in the hard sciences, and being "peer reviewed" means almost nothing on humanities topics (apart from it generally being good for writers to get a little feedback). Here's a recent example where a study designed to promote gay marriage was retracted for falsifying data after it was published in the highly touted peer reviewed journal Science, and the falsifications may not have been noticed if it hadn't attracted so much attention by being eagerly trumpeted throughout the media. In your case you posted articles mostly written by students who come across as extremely biased leftist activists and their work doesn't directly address this discussion anyway. By contrast I quoted from a political science textbook (which undergoes much more review than typical journal articles do) and established, prominent experts all stating that Democrats are "center-left" and Republicans are "center-right". Can you find a single real source even disputing that by directly saying these people are wrong, and that the Republicans aren't "center-right" on the global spectrum? VictorD7 (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest to WP:DROPTHESTICK and leave the descriptions of the parties to their respective articles. Here we can just mention the two main parties by name and leave it at that. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Except the debate hasn't come to an end, since only one side has posted pertinent sources. Unless you're acknowledging that's the only side with pertinent sources to post. Why should the United States article contain absolutely no description of the political parties when the UK, France, Spain and most other country articles I've seen do, and when reliable sources have been produced attaching non-controversial labels to the US parties? VictorD7 (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Except...no, but maybe "accept" as in...consensus. Look, this is contentious and always will be. I think Cwobeel is correct and we should not try to define the parties in this article. I think there is a rough consensus for that.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
There certainly isn't a consensus for that, with at least five editors disagreeing with you (counting the ones who reverted the attempt to alter or remove the long standing labels). Besides, consensus isn't dictated by people simply driving by and voting. It's based on argument weight, and you haven't presented a rationale for removing the material, much less a sound, compelling one. I assume the intent wasn't to spam a bunch of links that don't address the question here in hopes of ending the debate in manufactured dissonance. How about actually responding to the points made, acknowledging source evidence posted, and explaining why you don't think the labels belong (apart from vague, unsupported assertions that "this is contentious"), backing your argument up with evidence? VictorD7 (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
In a consensus discussion, the only thing that counts are the arguments and consensus of those involved. A closer doesn't count edit warring which got us to the discussion to begin with. If you are finished accusing me of drive by voting I might remind you I am a major contributor to this article and helped raise it to GA. If you are having problems with consensus and wish to filibuster, this thread may need admin closing.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Spare me the threats. I wasn't even referring to you with that comment, but I will note that you dodged my request to provide an actual argument. Contrary to your false "filibuster" accusation, I'm practically begging you to speak (substantively). There clearly is no consensus yet and I don't think the discussion has reached an end. Even if it does peter out I and others would have the option of initiating an RFC over it to bring in the broader community. BTW, I spent far more hours elevating this article back to good status over the past couple of years than you did, not that such posturing has anything at all to do with this particular discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
That wasn't a threat. That's what I recommend for this section; administrative closing. You are being highly aggressive and an bit disruptive however, if there are other arguments then the discussion will continue, but at this point you do seem to be the lone hold out with the least persuasive argument. At this point, the rough consensus is not for defining the parties. I don't care if you the major contributor. We have identified those parties that have major interested editors with time and input in both the article and discussion. it isn't a contest, but a defense against your continued personal attacks.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
You're threatening to run to admin and shut down a conversation that only really began a few days ago. Ridiculous. And aggressive on your part. You also failed again to actually present an argument, much less a "persuasive" one. Maybe in your next response....VictorD7 (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I think you can read what I wrote, where I made it clear if there were others that had arguments the discussion should continue but the article was recently locked and this thread created to gain consensus not soap box or attempt to steamroll content for whatever reason. Right now, one editor has told you to drop the stick and another simply mentioning there is a rough consensus. Since you made it clear you don't believe there is a consensus, no other consideration will probably be trusted by you. An admin closing isn't to shut down the discussion...it is to determine the consensus when the discussion is closed. I believe this discussion may qualify for admin closing as a highly contentious subject on a highly visible article that had just returned from full lock. A request now, is not for a request to close the discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
You still didn't post a rationale for your position. Let me know if you come up with one that's not "....just because." If I think this material was steamrolled out without an intellectually honest hearing I'll initiate an RFC, though we're not quite there yet since this conversation is just starting. VictorD7 (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I posted my reasoning for my concern and opinion. This can be an RFC if you choose once this discussion ends. But if you act the same there as you are here, I doubt the outcome will change.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
But you didn't post an argument, just more personal attacks. It's unclear what the results here even are (some editors weren't firm one way or the other while others gave answers that partially support both sides and are difficult to categorize), but if there is an RFC and you fail to post a rationale there the closer should disregard your commentary. VictorD7 (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
For those accusing VictorD7 of tedious editing, may I humbly remind others of WP:BOOMERANG & WP:KETTLE. That being said, if we remove spectrum descriptors as suggested, would that improve the stability of this section on the article page?
That being said, if we are to keep descriptors, just as different reliable sources describe the Republican Party in different ways, surely the Democrat Party has been described in different ways as well: Lane Kenworthy (3 December 2013). Social Democratic America. Oxford University Press. p. 158. ISBN 978-0-19-932253-4. (describing the party as centrist), David Mosler; Robert Catley (1 January 1998). America and Americans in Australia. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 83. ISBN 978-0-275-96252-4. (describing the party as centre-left), Sidney Verba (1987). Elites and the Idea of Equality: A Comparison of Japan, Sweden, and the United States. Harvard University Press. p. 73. ISBN 978-0-674-24685-0. (describing the party as "On the left"). Therefore, perhaps, it is best to drop the descriptor if it will help reduce edit warring?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Those seeking to drop the ideological qualifiers also need to clarify whether they're advocating we delete the "conservative" and "liberal" labels still in the article. VictorD7 (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not see any non-U.S. sources categorizing the Democrats as center-left. Comparative Democratic Politics (p. 169) for example categorizes Republicans as "conservative" and Democrats as "center."[16] The footnotes qualify center to include center-right (but not center-left), It does not include social democratic parties, which are described as left. I do not however object to using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in the article, because it is clear that are used as defined in the U.S. A European conservative can be in U.S. terms socially and economically liberal, yet still a conservative, while a social democrat can be in U.S. terms socially and economically conservative, yet still left-wing. TFD (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Since this discussion seems to have petered out without a clear consensus for anything, I added a caveat to the "liberal"/"conservative" labels to address concerns raised about those terms having different meanings than they do in much of the rest of the world, summarized from the linked articles. I'd also recommend deleting the frivolous "red state"/"blue state" qualifiers. It seems absurd for there to be so much hand wringing over "center-left" and "center-right" when a couple of lines down we have a completely arbitrary, colloquial color dichotomy only popularized since the 2000 election because a few networks used them in election coverage (arguably because the left leaning networks wanted to depict the Republicans with the color most associated with hostility, stopping, or the enemy in gaming; though it's since been defiantly embraced by some-not all-conservative bloggers), with other long established sources reversing the colors or using different ones. Also, for the record, one of RightCowLeftCoast's books above calling Republicans "center-right" and Democrats "center-left" and equating them with the Australian Liberal and Labor parties respectively was co-written by a Brit who immigrated to Australia and became a Labor Party politician/political science academic and an American who has lived in Australia for a long time. I've seen many foreign writers describe Democrats as "left" or "center-left", not that the American perspective is exactly irrelevant to English Wikipedia. VictorD7 (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Are you serious? red states and blue states is a common way to describe states' politics in the US.- Cwobeel (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Nowhere near as common as "left" and "right" are in describing politics generally, including in the US. VictorD7 (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The Australian source says it is trying to simplify things for readers. It says Democrats and Labor are social democrats, while Liberals and Republicans are conservatives. While there has been some convergence as modern parties have moved toward the center, it ignores the standard classification of parties according to how they arose and the sources of their on-going support. Liberal parties were established to defend liberal values, conservative parties were formed by traditional elites in reaction, while social democratic parties were formed to establish socialism. The reality is that neither mainstream Democrats or Republicans have moved away from liberalism, while UK Conservatives and Australia's Labor have increasingly but not exclusively become more liberal. But we should not imply that they are exact equivalents. Note too the book does not say "center-right", but "center/right", i.e., a mix of centrist and right-wing, rather than lying between center and right. In reality, the centrists in UK Conservatives and Australian Liberals, such as Cameron and Turnbull, are closer to Clinton and Obama than they are to the Republican party today. TFD (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
No, Cameron has much more in common with US Republicans than with US Democrats and Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were allies on both domestic and foreign policy while Blair and Bush were only aligned on foreign policy. The Australian source is also correct to roughly equate (no one claimed or needs to claim precision) Aussie Liberals with Republicans and Labor with Democrats. Your historical description totally ignores the dramatically changing meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" in different national/historical contexts. The truth is that many US "liberals" would call themselves "socialists" if they lived in Europe, where the word is less taboo, and basically advocate for the same things. At least one of the sources I cited below even makes that point. VictorD7 (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
What has happened is that the ahistorical U.S. usage has crept into other countries. But the historic usage remains, so conservatives such as Ian Gilmour could accuse Thatcher of being a liberal. Even Blair accused the Conservative leadership of being liberal. I doubt that many Democrats would call themselves socialists. Where the Socialists were the major party, they might vote for them, but would probably be uneasy with much of their ethos and certainly their history. And certainly no one applies current U.S. usage to before the modern period. Otherwise we would call Bismarck and Disraeli liberals, while their Liberal opponents would be called conservatives.
But how would you compare the two major U.S. parties to the three major parties in Canada? Certainly the closest match would be Liberals and Conservatives. Even then, 58% of Canadian Conservative voters said they would vote for Obama if they could.[17] But the Liberal party has close ties to the Democrats and the UK Liberal Democrats, while Canada's socialist party has close ties to UK Labour.
The point is that while it is possible to provide rough equivalents between parties in the U.S. and other two party states, it becomes problematic when compared with multi-party states. But liberalism is wide enough to include both parties. See for example the Liberal International's "Hall of Freedom."[18] Bastiat, Hayek and Mises are honored along with Eleanor Roosevelt, Keynes and Martin Luther King.
TFD (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem with the various meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" is exactly why I proposed the caveat below. You'd be surprised at how socialistic big chunks of the Democratic party base is, and it's not just a recent development. FDR's administration in particular included some admirers (and in some cases agents, but that's a different topic) of the Soviet Union in very prominent positions, and sought to establish government control over the economy and society in general in a number of big, bold ways. Much of Eugene Debs' Socialist Party platform in the early 20th Century became central to what ultimately became known as the "liberal" agenda, and was largely co-opted by the Democrats and to a lesser extent even the Republicans. As for results like the Canadian poll you cite, that has less to do with ideological affinity than with the fact that most of those people know little about the United States or its parties except what they're presented with through their local media filter, and left leaning outfits like the CBC and similar operations in Europe tend to demonize and caricature Republicans (and US conservatives, Christians, and often America in general) in sometimes comically biased ways (Hollywood does too for that matter). The converse helps explain why a liberal Democrat like Obama got the immediate and totally irrational enthusiastic response he did in Europe after his election, with the Nobel Prize committee even awarding him the Peace Prize....just 'cause.... driving the final nail into the coffin of that once meaningful award's credibility. But I will point out that when it comes to people more knowledgeable on these topics, like politicians themselves, center-right leaders like Harper, Thatcher, Kohl, Cameron, Sarkozy, Netanyahu, Berlusconi, John Howard, etc. tend to get along better with Republican politicians than with Democrats, and vice versa with center-left leaders. VictorD7 (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Seeing the New Deal as socialist is a typical position of the U.S. Right, but has no support in reliable sources. Debs`s successor said, "Roosevelt did not carry out the Socialist platform, unless he carried it out on a stretcher."[19] Certainly there were and are some socialists in the Democratic Party, and had been in the Republican Party too, but played only a minor role. Ironically Roosevelt called his opponents conservatives, trying to link them to the traditional European Right. The reality is that European conservatives and socialists have moved closer to the center where the two U.S. parties have always been. TFD (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I mostly agree with your last sentence (all the more reason to use "center-left" and "center-right"), with the caveat that the US parties have moved at least some back and forth at certain points in history, with their respective bases losing and gaining strength at various times. Thomas was running against FDR for president in that pamphlet you linked to, so that has to be viewed in the context of trying to draw contrasts between himself and his rival. Besides, he basically just criticized Roosevelt for not managing to completely destroy the capitalist system. The truth is Thomas wouldn't have either if he had won. Even western European socialist parties don't eliminate the mostly capitalist system in their countries when they take power, instead typically operating at the margins by raising taxes or increasing spending and regulation. The US system has even more built in moderation than European nations do; lots of checks and balances. That doesn't mean the party bases wouldn't prefer to do more. I didn't say the New Deal was "socialist" but it's accurate to call many of its salient features socialistic, and that has plenty of support from reliable sources (which does include U.S. conservatives), including certain of its own members. That Thomas felt the need to distance FDR from supposedly "true socialism", because both Republicans and Democrats were associating the two, is telling in and of itself. More telling than Thomas's face value campaign rhetoric is the fact that the Socialist Party withered to the point where it stopped bothering to run presidential candidates in the 1950s. This was due to a combination of both recent events strengthening Americans' traditional aversion to socialism and the major parties, particularly the Democrats, successfully co-opting so many of the old Socialist Party's goals that voters who once favored the SP increasingly voted Democrat instead. The Socialist Party's successor groups, led by men like Michael Harrington, started working from within the Democratic Party and endorsing Democratic candidates for president, especially from McGovern's 1972 campaign onward. I'd argue that in the 19th Century the US political spectrum didn't have a "left"/"right" divide in the way those terms are commonly meant today, but it developed one in the 20th Century with the ideological transition of the Democrats. VictorD7 (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
The European Parliament has 7 recognized parties: Left, Socialist, Green, Liberal, Christian Democrat, Conservative and right-wing populist, and the far right is not recognized any more but is seated as non-escrits on the far right. In U.S. terms, the Left, Socialists, Greens, left-wing Liberals, traditional Conservatives, and left-wing Christian Democrats are liberals, while right-wing liberals, right-wing Christian Democrats, free market Conservatives, right-wing populists and the far right are conservatives. You are trying to shoehorn 8 parties into the U.S. two party system.
And certainly the left-right spectrum existed in 19th century U.S., even though the terms had not been invented. They were federalist/republican, liberal/radical, conservative/liberal, whig/democrat, liberal/republican. While there is disagreement on terminology, there is agreement on which was left or right.
TFD (talk) 06:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually those terms had been invented, mostly for use in Europe, and no there isn't universal agreement on how to retroactively apply them. When someone does occasionally try to apply them they involving twisting definitions. My argument is that they didn't apply in the way most modern commentators use them today. It's not like there was a pro monarchy party or a socialist/progressive/modern liberal party in the US. All major sides back then adhered staunchly to republicanism, individual liberty, free market economics, and constitutional process. The disagreements were mostly over functional issues like foreign policy, tariffs, and monetary policy (not to be confused with fiscal policy, especially since there was no income tax or welfare state; the disagreement was over whether to have a central bank, and later what metal to base the currency on), with the exception of slavery being the high arching moral issue. I suppose if you had to apply the modern spectrum to that era then one really could say both US parties were on the center-right, but that certainly hasn't been the case from the early 20th Century onward, and "left"/"right" terminology is ubiquitous in America today.
And I'm not trying to shoehorn anything into the US system, so I'm not sure what your point is with the 7/8 European Parliament parties. I'm simply recognizing, as most expert commentators do, that the US Democrats lean left while the Republicans lean right. That doesn't need to mean that all the same niche ideological flavors currently identified in Europe are present in the exact same proportions and ways in America, though many are present within the much broader tents of the US parties. VictorD7 (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The terms left and right were not used in the 19th century to describe ideology. See Marcel Gauchet, "Right and Left", 1996.[20] Notice for example Marx and Engels never used the terms. And yes historians do see ideological differences in 18th and 19th century America, even if none of them went beyond liberalism and radicalism. As Schlesinger wrote, "When a laissez-faire policy seemed best calculated to achieve the liberal objective of equality of opportunity for all -- as it did in the time of Jefferson -- liberals believed, in the Jeffersonian phrase, that that government is best which governs least. But, when the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state."[21] You may believe that Roosevelt transformed the Democrats into a social democratic party, but no one writing in mainstream sources agrees. TFD (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Your own source talks extensively about the use of "right"/"left" terminology in 19th Century politics, but that's an irrelevant tangent. I didn't say FDR turned the Democrats into a social democratic party. I didn't even call the Democrats a social democratic party, though there's heavy overlap (arguably more than not). The notion that only hard core socialists or self described "social democrats" can be considered "left wing" is wrong anyway and rejected by countless sources. Whatever labels you want to put on it, the Democrats' ideology undeniably shifted in a dramatic way around the turn of the 20th Century (long before FDR; I just cited his administration earlier because he took things to another level) to something that certainly wasn't classically liberal (or liberal in the modern European sense of the word) and that altered the US political dynamic. You quote one source as if it's definitive. Schlesinger was an extremely partisan liberal Democrat trying to tie the current politicians he supported to founding fathers like Jefferson who, in actuality, would have recoiled in horror at the big government liberalism of Schlesinger and his friends. That said, even he in your own link says this just before your quote: "Enough should have been said by now to indicate that liberalism in the American usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any European country, save possibly Britain." I also cited four more objective, much higher quality sources below further establishing that the word "liberal" has changed meaning in the US to something different from its common European usage. For example:
([22]; page 572; a cross cultural encyclopedic dictionary of complex concepts; Princeton University Press) "In the exemplary case of the United States, where the three political families (conservatism, liberalism, radicalism) are different from those in Europe, and can only really be defined through their relations to each other, liberalism clearly occupies more or less the ground of the political left as it is understood in Europe."
([23]; page xi; a topical political science book; Routledge) "In the United States, and to a lesser extent in Britain, the term ‘liberal’ has come to refer only to the revisionist or social democratic wing of the liberal tradition. Moreover, because of the stigma which attaches to the term ‘socialist’ in that country, many Americans pass under the name of ‘liberal’ who would be described as socialists in any other country. In Europe outside Britain the word ‘liberal’ retains its old meaning and refers primarily to what political scientists call ‘classical liberalism’. Consequently the word ‘conservative’ has taken on a portmanteau quality in America and now refers both to people who would be described as conservatives in any language and to others who would in any European country other than Britain be labelled as liberals."
([24]; page 22; a political science textbook; Cengage Publishing) "The Difficulty of Defining Liberalism and Conservatism...While political candidates and commentators are quick to label candidates and voters as “liberals” and “conservatives”, the meanings of these words have evolved over time. Moreover, each term may represent a different set of ideas to the person or group that uses it.....Liberalism. The word liberal has an odd history. It comes from the same root as liberty, and originally it simply meant “free”. In that broad sense, the United States as a whole is a liberal country, and all popular American ideologies are variants of liberalism. In a more restricted definition, a liberal was a person who believed in limited government and who opposed religion in politics. A hundred years ago, liberalism referred to a philosophy that in some ways resembled modern-day libertarianism. For that reason, many libertarians today refer to themselves as classical liberals....How did the meaning of the word liberal change? In the 1800s, the Democratic party was seen as the more liberal of the two parties. The Democrats of that time stood for limited government and opposition to moralism in politics. Democrats opposed Republican projects such as building roads, freeing the slaves, and prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages. Beginning with Democratic president Woodrow Wilson (served 1913-1921), however, the party’s economic policies began to change……By the end of Roosevelt’s presidency in 1945, the Democratic Party had established itself as standing for positive government action to help the economy. Although Roosevelt stood for new policies, he kept the old language—as Democrats had long done, he called himself a liberal....Outside of the United States and Canada, the meaning of the world liberal never changed. For this reason, you might hear a left-of-center European denounce U.S. president Ronald Reagan…or British prime minister Margaret Thatcher…for their “liberalism,” meaning that these two leaders were enthusiastic advocates of laissez-faire capitalism and limited government."
([25]: page 252; book by notable political scientist/sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset; W. W. Norton & Company);"The meaning of “conservatism,” of course, is quite different in the two societies. In America, it involves support of laissez-faire, anti-statist doctrines, which correspond to bourgeois-linked classical liberalism. In Jefferson’s words, “that government governs best which governs least.”"
Per its root, classical liberalism was always more about freedom than equality. Despite his reaching attempt to tie the modern US usage to the classic term, even your Schlesinger quote acknowledges a significant shift away from limited government and laissez-faire economics, more or less underscoring the other sources in the essentials. All that said, I'm wondering what your point is. You just seemed to have helped further establish the need for a caveat along the lines of what I proposed below. Since the "conservative"/"liberal" labels are already in the article, do you support adding such a caveat? VictorD7 (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
No, most Republicans are not classical liberals, they are generally plutocrats. EllenCT (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The reliable sources and most Republicans would disagree with you. VictorD7 (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed caveat to "conservative" and "liberal" labels

<UPDATE>: Clarification - the proposal here is only to add the bolded portion of the quote below and scare quotes. The regular italics portion is already in the article. This subsection isn't about whether we should add or retain the "conservative" and "liberal" labels, which are already in the article, but whether to leave them as is or add the caveat. If people want to comment on both issues that's fine, but please comment specifically on the caveat assuming the labels are retained.

As linked above, to address valid concerns over the labels "conservative" and "liberals" meaning often completely different things in America versus Europe (and some other parts of the world), I put both terms in quotes and added a caveat summarized from the linked articles (which both make the same point): Within American political culture, the Republican Party is considered "conservative" and the Democratic Party is considered "liberal", though those terms have come to have different meanings than they do in much of the rest of the world.

Mark Miller reverted saying we should use sourcing for such a segment, so I offer these as potential sources:

[26] (page 22; political science textbook); American Government and Politics Today, 2015-2016 edition, Lynne Ford, Barbara Bardes, Steffen Schmidt, Mack Shelley, Cengage Publishing

[27] (page 252; book by notable political scientist/sociologist); American Exceptionalism: A Double-edged Sword, 1997, Seymour Martin Lipset, W. W. Norton & Company

[28] (page 572; a cross cultural encyclopedic dictionary of complex concepts); Dictionary of Untranslatables: A Philosophical Lexicon, 2014, Barbara Cassin, Emily Apter, Jacques Lezra, Michael Wood, Princeton University Press

[29] (page xi; topical political science book); A Dictionary of Conservative and Libertarian Thought, 2012 edition, Nigel Ashford, Stephen Davies, Routledge

Is this acceptable? It's not like this is controversial. That's why Europeans call Reagan and Thatcher "neoliberals", and why the conservative Australian party is called the "Liberal Party". VictorD7 (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose Calling the Democratic party liberal is silly.Casprings (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
    The article already does that. This subsection is about adding the caveat assuming the conservative/liberal labels remain. It sounds like maybe you should support the caveat if you feel just calling them "liberal" is silly. VictorD7 (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
    Liberal/Conservative doesn't seem likely to solve it. We need easily understood labels that don't need to be further explained. I was fine with center-right/left labels, which, though clumsy, gave an, I thought, easily understandable thumbnail sketch of where the parties stood, without labeling either as extreme (calling the Republicans "right-wing", as was done, when the party now commands absolute majorities in both houses of Congress is ludicrous; as is using extreme labels for either party). One question on sources: I reverted "right-wing" because it replaced part of a sourced statement; were "center-right/left" sourced by the reference to that description, and is that source included above? Dhtwiki (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
    Agreed completely, though use of "conservative" and "liberal" is so ubiquitous within American culture that I don't mind keeping them too. If they do remain as the only ideological labels I think we need some sort of caveat like that proposed above lest readers having much different ideas of "liberal" and "conservative" in mind than modern Americans do be misled. Do you agree? I added an update to the op clarifying that this proposal only deals with the bolded portion quoted above, and not whether to keep or remove the "conservative"/"liberal" labels, which are still currently in the article. As for your question, I didn't add the source in the article, I don't recall having read it, and I'm not sure if the pertinent page is available online. No, I supplied four new sources above, all of which have the pertinent pages freely accessible online. VictorD7 (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the Republicans have been right-wing on both social and economic issues while the Democrats have been center-right on economic issues and left-wing on social issues. How about just putting it that way? EllenCT (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the bolded portion is redundant to what is implied by "Within American political culture...". People can follow the links if they want to know what "conservative" and "liberal" mean. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
    But millions of people think they know what liberal and conservative mean, and they don't know that those words have completely different meanings within US culture, as all the academic sources I cited above make clear, so why would they bother clicking on the links? They'd just go away misled. The caveat is just enough to give them a reason to click on the links for more information. It's not redundant because only saying "within American political culture" doesn't mention anything about those words being different from..say..European culture. Readers might assume the culture qualification just means those are popular terms to use, not that they have totally different meanings from what they're used to. VictorD7 (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
    How do you know how many people have this different interpretation, or that they'll somehow be enlightened by a the warning you propose? If we have terms that have to be explained in such a manner, then we have the wrong terms. I think what's important to note is that both parties govern by majorities, and not by coalition building, as may happen in other countries, so that neither is a small or extreme party. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
    Did you look at the sources I cited at the top of this subsection or read where I quoted from them extensively in a post near the bottom of the above subsection? They all say the terms "liberal" and "conservative" mean totally different things on different sides of the Atlantic, which is how I know so many people think different things when they see the words (actually I already knew through extensive experience and research, but it's why you don't have to take my word for it). They'll only be enlightened to the extent that they'll be warned not to assume this. If they want further info they can look it up themselves, but at least with the caveat they aren't being misled. . Of course if you think the terms should be removed altogether that's fine, but that's a different discussion. This caveat would only apply so long as the segment remains in; it doesn't preclude "conservative"/"liberal" from being removed at some point later. VictorD7 (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
    I was able to look at three of the four just now. The first, in order that you gave them, is rather schematic, positing, left-to-right, socialism-liberalism-conservativism-libertarianism, and oddly delays the Democratic party's change to statist, nationalist policies (witness Jackson during the first South Carolina secession crisis). The second compares Europe and Japan to America, but in saying conservatives in the former areas differ by respecting elitist values, or by relying on government, does not necessarily make the strongest case for why their conservatives are different from ours. The page of third reference wasn't available to me. The fourth seems to make the point that liberalism can mean both left (social democracy) and right (libertarianism), but that's not a huge distinction, since the former is what Americans usually mean by "liberal". In any case, I don't think your added wording is going to make the case better than what's already there. And, yes, I've said that "conservative" and "liberal" are not my choice, but they're better than trying to label the Republicans as "far right". Dhtwiki (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
    Fortunately labeling Republicans "far right" (that won't happen) and leaving the deeply flawed "conservative"/"liberal" labels in without caveat aren't the only two options. I'll drop my opposition to them if we add this brief caveat. That's how we can reach a consensus. We shouldn't want readers to come away thinking that modern liberals (and therefore modern Democrats) are the champions of laissez-faire free market economics and limited government, while American conservatives (and therefore Republicans) support the monarchy or some similar type of authoritarian form of government and maybe even champion the welfare state (especially since they're being juxtaposed against "liberals" instead of "labour" or "socialists"). That's not much better than calling Republicans "far right". Would it really be so bad to add the caveat even if you don't think it's necessary? The third source (starting at page 572) is available to me. Did you read my quotes from the sources in the above sections? They all make the point that these terms have totally different meanings than they do abroad. I'll help by reposting some of the quotes here and adding some new stuff. From the third source: "In the exemplary case of the United States, where the three political families (conservatism, liberalism, radicalism) are different from those in Europe, and can only really be defined through their relations to each other, liberalism clearly occupies more or less the ground of the political left as it is understood in Europe....Conservatives or, more recently, neo-Conservatives, correspond roughly to the European right wing, but with nuances that have to do with particularities of American history. There is no place in the imaginative world of this history for the ancient regime". It goes on into more detail.
From TFD's Schlesinger source: "Enough should have been said by now to indicate that liberalism in the American usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any European country, save possibly Britain."
From the first textbook listed: "Outside of the United States and Canada, the meaning of the world liberal never changed. For this reason, you might hear a left-of-center European denounce U.S. president Ronald Reagan…or British prime minister Margaret Thatcher…for their “liberalism,” meaning that these two leaders were enthusiastic advocates of laissez-faire capitalism and limited government."
From the Routledge published book on conservatism (which includes a lot of British scholars among its authors): "Moreover, because of the stigma which attaches to the term ‘socialist’ in that country, many Americans pass under the name of ‘liberal’ who would be described as socialists in any other country. In Europe outside Britain the word ‘liberal’ retains its old meaning and refers primarily to what political scientists call ‘classical liberalism’. Consequently the word ‘conservative’ has taken on a portmanteau quality in America and now refers both to people who would be described as conservatives in any language and to others who would in any European country other than Britain be labelled as liberals."
From Lipset's political science book: "The meaning of “conservatism,” of course, is quite different in the two societies. In America, it involves support of laissez-faire, anti-statist doctrines, which correspond to bourgeois-linked classical liberalism. In Jefferson’s words, “that government governs best which governs least.”...In Japan, as in postfeudal Europe, conservatives have been associated with the defense of the alliance between state and religion (i.e., throne and altar), the maintenance of elitist values, and extensive reliance on government to further economic and social purposes. Aristocratic monarchical conservatives (Tories) have favored a strong state. From Meiji onwards, this meant a powerful state bureaucracy and politicians who consciously planned the use of national resources to enhance growth and, in prewar times, military power. The business community, insofar as it took independent stances, as more classically liberal, more supportive of laissez-faire, and less militaristic than the aristocracy, but it was weak politically. In Europe, aristocratic, agrarian-based conservatism, which favored a strong state, fostered the nobles oblige communitarian values of the nobility, disliked the competitive, materialistic values and behavior of the capitalists, and introduced the welfare state into Germany and Britain."
The reliable sources are extremely clear cut, and we're supposed to follow the sources. BTW, not that it matters here but Jackson was a unionist, not a statist. He opposed secessionist tendencies but also opposed a central bank and supported laissez-faire economics. VictorD7 (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the quotes, but I think that all this says is that the new labels, "conservative" and "liberal" are the wrong ones. I tried to make that point in my response to the first "oppose" by Casprings, which only seemed to cause you to limit debate to the adding of the new explanatory wording, which I oppose because I don't think it helps, and I still don't. I heard ex-French-president Giscard d'Estaing on TV ("Charlie Rose") expounding on politics, using "left" and "right" in ways I though clear. I think it's time to discard the labels we have. We were cribbing from the main party articles, if I recall correctly, to avoid the "center-right" versus "right-wing" (or "far right") choice. We need to back it up to that, I think. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I understand your position, but I tried to steer discussion back to the proposed caveat because that's the purpose of this subsection. The section on the broader section is still there above for people to post in, and new sections or subsections can be created if someone wants to propose getting rid of the "conservative"/"liberal" language. My concern here is that those terms are currently in the article misleading readers, so I was hoping to add this quick fix as at least a stopgap measure until a broader consensus on terminology is reached (if that happens). That said, I do appreciate you being one of the three respondents here to at least address the proposal.VictorD7 (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. VictorD7 is correct about how the liberal/conservative terminology is used in American political discourse and how different are these meanings from other parts of the world. "Left" and "right" don't mean the same things either, and carry more inappropriate weight in world terms. (While the Democrats may be "center right" on some issues by world standards, you won't find consensus for that description among Republicans, at least; characterizing the current GOP as "center right" is equally prone to dispute.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I see not reason to add the bolded phrase, because we already say "Within American political culture" and put both conservative and liberal in "scare quotes." I would also add that unlike other countries, the U.S. does not have ideological parties. In fact the parties themselves bear little resemblance to parties elsewhere. TFD (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The reason is that those same words are used in other parts of the world, especially Europe, to mean completely different things. Saying "within American culture" doesn't signal this huge difference to readers. Their current use is misleading. Also, I had added the scare quotes as part of the proposal so they were reverted too. They aren't currently in the article. I've updated the op to clarify that. VictorD7 (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll add that events since this discussion left off, like Bernie Sanders doing so well with the Democratic base and the head of the Democratic Party herself, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, being unable to articulate a difference between Democrats and socialists in two interviews days apart with extremely friendly hosts, further underscore the absurdity of anyone pretending the Democrats aren't a left leaning party. This issue will have to be revisited at some point since modern American liberalism is completely different from what Europe and most of the rest of the world mean by the term "liberal", as the scholarly sources I provided above make clear. The current article version is misleading. VictorD7 (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Bernie Sanders is not running as a socialist and the fact that Wasserman-Schultz does not know what Sanders means by socialist is not evidence that she is secretly one herself. There are btw Liberal parties outside the U.S. similar in political orientation to the Democratic Party for example in Canada and the UK and they are distinct from and antagonistic to their Socialist parties. TFD (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Sanders is a socialist running for the Democratic Party nomination, and Wasserman Schultz wasn't asked what Sanders means by socialist. She was asked what the difference is between a socialist and a Democrat. She refused to answer because she didn't want to alienate the large elements of her base who are favorably disposed toward socialism. "Democrat" and "socialist" aren't synonymous, but the base's affinity for socialism of various stripes underscores that it is definitely a left leaning party, which is what's actually pertinent to my previous post. None of this is "secret" (that's your wording, not mine). There are some other countries where "liberals" are associated more with the left than the right (and the existence of more than two major parties in some countries means multiple left leaning parties can be at odds with each other), but generally speaking it's the other way around (e.g. the Australian Liberal Party being their equivalent of the US Republican Party, while their Labour Party is the equivalent of the US Democratic Party; Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher being called "neoliberals" by Europeans; US politicians using "liberal" to refer to pro free market sentiment and limited government when speaking in an international context, essentially the opposite of the domestic context usage; etc.).
That "liberal" and "conservative" have different meanings in different national contexts is indisputable and proven conclusively by the sources I've posted. No rational reason has been provided for opposing some type of caveat to the current misleading article version, or for that matter for continuing to oppose the restoration of the original "left"/"right" designations in some form now that the complaint used to delete the long standing qualifiers (a lack of sourcing) has been more than answered by several quality sources above. VictorD7 (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
She was asked what a socialist was during a conversation about Bernie Sanders. In any case, you make great leaps of logic which reliable sources do not. TFD (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure she was, but she was asked what I said she was asked, not what you said she was. The leaps here are all yours. I've quoted verbatim where the sources support my position on every level. VictorD7 (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Dropping any label to each political party

I think there is general consensus at the top of this discussion to simply drop the labels and name the political parities. I am starting this section to formally see who supports this option or opposes it. Please indicate by saying support or oppose and give your rational. Casprings (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

  • To clarify - this logically includes removing the totally unsourced "red"/"blue" state mentions in the following line since those are party based political labels too (that sentence also repeats "conservative" and "liberal"). In fact that's the most egregious item here, since "red"/"blue" is recentist, colloquial, shallow, and not universally embraced. It's also frivolous. The sentence on geographical party strength can stand on its own without those expressions. VictorD7 (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose because I think that some labeling is helpful. I've just reread what's in the article, and I can live with what's there now, in the second paragraph under "Parties and elections", although the labeling of "conservative" and "liberal" isn't entirely clear, and the paragraph becomes painful as it goes on to discuss red states versus blue states. But, the first paragraph makes the two-party system abundantly clear, and that's what I think is important to convey. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose proposal per se because most other country articles I've seen include some description of party ideology. Support deleting what's currently there if there are no changes. Based on the numerous sources provided above, I support restoring the long standing "center-left"/"center-right" labels and keeping "conservative"/"liberal" while adding the brief caveat proposed in the above section letting readers know the most common terminology and that they shouldn't assume the words necessarily mean what they might otherwise assume they do (or some other wording; I'm open to alternative suggestions). That would go a long way toward educating readers on the basics of the American political divide without misleading them, while providing links for further education if they desired it. I do support removal of the "red state"/"blue state" phrases though for reasons given above, and I oppose leaving the "conservative"/"liberal" labels in without any caveat indicating to Europeans and others that these words likely have completely different meanings from what they're used to. Deletion would be preferable to that .VictorD7 (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Progressiveness of taxes and fiscal policy

2. I agree with VictorD7's compromise proposal on taxes being somewhat/generally/most/least progressive above. We shouldn't be getting hung up on adjectives for numerical facts which can be described with quantitative rankings.

Well the word is what is important. As Ellen points out, the US tax system is somewhat progressive with many regressive aspects (sales tax, for example).Casprings (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
As currently worded it shows plenty of POV on something that is properly factually wrong and is, at the very least, highly disputed.Casprings (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
No, the current section accurately describes the taxation issue, including the regressive aspects (like sales/consumption taxes) and overall progressivity, and is well sourced by outfits from across the political spectrum. The facts aren't in dispute. See also [30]. VictorD7 (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The suggestion that there is no room for improvement is contrary to established facts. All of my recently proposed improvements would improve the article. We need not miss the opportunity to make further improvements because we were too busy trying to figure out how to sweep things under the rug. Including the Wall Street Journal's recent graphic or an adaption of it would be beneficial. EllenCT (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
No one said there isn't room for improvement, but clearly many editors disagree with you on whether your proposals would be improvements, as even a majority of uninvolved editors in your RFC below currently oppose that graphic's inclusion in this article. VictorD7 (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Private prisons

3. Is the [31] additional reference for "The privatization of prisons and prison services which began in the 1980s" does not seem to be the subject of an actual controversy here on the talk page. Is it actually controversial? I don't think "has been a subject of debate" is appropriate, but that hasn't been part of the edit warring. Can we say something quantitative about the prison population instead?

We can say that privatization of prisons is controversial (as per Incarceration in the United States#Privatization)
Do we need to go into the prisoner population size? Comparatively U.S. prisons are more humane than other nations (while not as nice as say Nordic prisons). Perhaps a link to Incarceration in the United States article is sufficient.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Not occurring to most human rights groups. For example:https://www.hrw.org/united-states/us-program/prison-and-detention-conditions Casprings (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The page you linked to doesn't appear to contain international comparisons so it doesn't dispute what RightCowlLeftCoast said. That's leaving aside the fact that HRW is a mostly George Soros funded, left wing propaganda outfit with an anti-American bent.
Back to the actual topic here, Ellen is right to observe that the source in question hasn't been the subject of controversy here. It's simply there to illustrate one side of the debate and no legitimate rationale was presented by the editor attempting to single it out for removal. It should remain if the rest of the segment does. VictorD7 (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Is it notable enough for mention here is there is little to no context? The subject itself is controversial, but is it notable enough for mention in this article?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I would delete the entire sentence, but if it remains there's no reason to start deleting sources covering one side's opinion on a complex, controversial issue while leaving all the other side's. VictorD7 (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the key thing you have to mention is that the U.S. Has the largest per capital population and actual number of prisoners in the World. I think that is the unique and important fact here.Casprings (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
A function of the US being the third most populous country in the world, and one with the combination of extremely effective law enforcement and the somewhat higher crime rate that often comes with having a freer society (as opposed to Saudi Arabia, totalitarian China, or even states like Singapore that are mostly libertarian but deter crime by punishing it very harshly), particularly one with massive immigration (legal and illegal) from third world sources. Of course that is mentioned in the article. Does that mean you'd support deleting the "privatization" sentence? VictorD7 (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
What is the point of the private prison statement in the section and what balance does it provide. I am unclear of that.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I support placing the most important facts in the article with regard to []WP:Weight]]. The fact I mentioned seems more important than prisoners becoming private. The actual facts on the subject or very significant when looking at an article on the United States.Casprings (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/americas/23iht-23prison.12253738.html?mwrsm=Email

So are we all agreed that the prison privatization sentence should be deleted? VictorD7 (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Is someone adding input without signing? I can't tell from the last comment above yours what that direction that goes to be honest.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. If the article was made much shorter, I would support getting ride of it. With the articles current size, this is a relevant enough fact to include. The privatization of prisons are unique and have produced a number of human rights violations.http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5466166 . Casprings (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Casprings above. I would also like to note that while the sources I have added on this subject are peer-reviewed and academic, which are the most qualified for Wikipedia, at least two of the citations added in a pathetic attempt to defend prison privatization are blatant propaganda from right-wing sources that are NOT peer-reviewed or academic (I'm referring to the Reason Foundation, "an American libertarian research organization" and something called "The Commonwealth Foundation," a corporate-funded, libertarian "think tank" pushing "free market" policies - one of many spawned by the Powell Memorandum). These should be removed as they do not qualify as WP:RS.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
My only concern with this content, is that it have proper context and not appear to just be dropped in to add controversial content. Also, if added there needs to be some expansion on the information to give some reasoning to why it is an issue important enough to be mentioned in this article. Other than that, I also fully agree that the partisan sources are being used innappropriatly and are certainly replaceable with academic sources from experts in the fields.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
In terms of context, prison privatization is largely (but not solely) unique to the United States, especially to the extent that we've privatized not only prisons but also outsourced prison functions such as healthcare and food services to private corporations such as Corizon and Aramark respectively, with sometimes fatal results. In addition, the prison industry, according to scholars such as Marie Gottschalk, professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, is playing a role in sustaining America's obscenely high incarceration rates. But adding such content could be problematic as some would argue it would be giving too much weight to the issue.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Griffin, you added three books by liberal activists with colorful polemical titles like "Punishment for sale: Private Prisons, Big Business, and the Incarceration Binge", "The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order", and "Caught: the Prison State and the Lockdown of American Politics". Your one peer reviewed journal article, also by a liberal activist, has the sensationalistic title "Neoliberalism's Penal and Debtor States". Fortunately we aren't restricted to only using peer reviewed sources (the vast majority of sources in the article, especially the ones added by you, aren't), and we certainly aren't prohibited from using biased sources (every source you've added is extremely biased), especially if we're merely representing the different points of view in a debate.
"Criticism", no matter how scholarly, is still opinion, as is praise. You can't say in Wikipedia's voice that prison privatization has come under "criticism" while excluding any mention of those who praise or support it when it's the status quo, most people support it, and many prominent politicians and noteworthy commentators support it. What I did was take your extreme WP:NPOV violating sentence and make it one that neutrally acknowledges the debate with sources representing both points of view. I added two peer reviewed articles with less polemical, more scholarly sounding titles than yours: "Cost Effectiveness Comparisons of Private Versus Public Prisons in Louisiana: A Comprehensive Analysis of Allen, Avoyelles, and Winn Correctional Centers" and "A Tale of Two Prisons: Cost, Quality, and Accountability in Private Prisons", and yes, I added two fact heavy think tank pieces to fully flesh out the other POV. I used these in part because they brought together a lot of different arguments and sub topics and because I only wanted to use four sources to balance your four sources, rather than piling on with many more. Those think tank pieces are certainly RS for their own opinions, which is what they're being used for here, as are your sources. VictorD7 (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
"You can't say in Wikipedia's voice that prison privatization has come under "criticism" while excluding any mention of those who praise or support it when it's the status quo, most people support it, and many prominent politicians and noteworthy commentators support it." This sort of thing almost always has a due amount of balance in academic circles and opinion but we can't just toss in any support. The balance should come from whatever weight the arguments have in real life. Prison overcrowding may have supporters, but just adding their mention may not be within guidelines if they are not in reliable sources. Generally the balance will be in the sources. If there is no balance, I would wonder a bit about that sources or the subject. In this case, what exactly do "supporters" of private prisons have to add to the over all subject from sources. That might be interesting to look at, but it is a little like arguing for the sake of arguing if the is no real need for the balance. Not that there isn't in this case...but we do need to consider it.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The sources I added have far more balance than the stridently polemical ones Griffin added. Frankly including this sentence at all is niche soapboxing inappropriate for this broad summary article, but if it's to remain it must conform with neutrality policy. VictorD7 (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I believe the point being made is, that the subject is notable enough for mention in this summary article of the overall importance or notability of prison over-population and the government allowing prisons to be run by private companies in some instances. This seems reasonable but right now I wouldn't call it soapboxing. However, this illustrates the problems of using weak sources and then trying to balance the sources with other sources. That isn't balance that is just more soapboxing. I think these issues are far deeper than just the topics. The sources being used appear to be veiled partisan bickering within the article. Is there a way to get past this? Wouldn't further research for stronger sources and more accurate overview of the issue be better than just debating what is there so far if the sources are being questioned?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I reject your premise that the subject is "notable" enough (presumably you meant "noteworthy"; notability in a Wikipedia context only pertains to a subject having its own article) to get its own segment here when countless other arguably more important topics (school choice, the USA's extreme tort abuse compared to other countries, fueled by the powerful trial lawyer lobby, late term abortions, the breakdown of the family and rise of single parent homes, etc.) are ignored. The USA's high incarceration rate is already mentioned in the section in its own segment so I can only surmise that Casprings emphasized that above because he was initially confused (he may have originally indicated opposition to including a private prison segment because he thought I was supporting it, and then when he finally realized what was going on switched sides). I also reject your premise that the sources used are necessarily "weak" for the task at hand. If you're going to cover opinion (which is what "criticism" is) on an emerging (but still little discussed) controversial topic, then these are the type of sources you're going to have. All I'm saying is that if there's a dispute, which is what "criticism" implies, then we cover it in a neutral manner, and without taking sides in Wikipedia's voice. Even if the sources are low quality, it's better to have low quality sources from both sides than only one side. VictorD7 (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
You can reject anything you want, but the premise isn't mine. Notability for an article and notability for mention in an article are different standards but are still a part of how we determine content's encyclopedic value and worthiness for inclusion or exclusion. At this point I think most of this content is politically motivated and the sources misused. I support exclusion based on the questionable manner in which the information is being added and sourced.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


      • So? They're clearly polemical. I think my two more scholarly, neutrally toned articles (from the Harvard Law Review and Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Journal) and even the two think tank analyses are better than your sources, but fortunately we don't have to choose. We can retain both. VictorD7 (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Let us drop the privatization sentence all together, and just state the raw data of per capita incarcerated, total population, and total number on death row, and leave it at that. To give context, we can provide crime rate, and number of homicides, with details being left to the article Crime in the United States. That should be able to be stated neutrally, with good sources, and then the rest of the details can be expanded upon in the specific article about this topic: Incarceration in the United States.
No need to state adjectives like "most", "greatest", "fewest". No need to compare to other nations. Just give the raw data. Does this sound like a fair compromise?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
@RightCowLeftCoast: are you proposing a specific edit? Otherwise, I believe the consensus above is that the sentence should stand. EllenCT (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
As stated above, I agree with RCLC's suggestion of removing the sentence, though if it stands I oppose deleting the current sources in one sided fashion. VictorD7 (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Living space

4. I don't think we need to say "According to a 2011 report by The Heritage Foundation" before "Americans on average have over twice as much living space per dwelling and per person as European Union residents" because I don't think the underlying statistic is in dispute, so it's fine to say it in Wikipedia's voice. I would prefer that we find a more centrist source to cite, but I don't feel strongly enough about that to go looking for one. I do wonder whether we should be reporting highly skewed mean living space as "average," instead of the median. Therefore I propose to replace the mean with the median living space size. Does anyone have a source for that? EllenCT (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Not RS for that claim in my opinion. As a conservative think-tank I don't know why they would be cited for this fact.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
But you have no problem with EPI (a liberal think tank) or countless other leftist sources used throughout the article? Unlike the EPI based chart/sentence, which is based on EPI's unverifiable (in fact disputed) original calculations and yet shoves a striking visual image on alleged "productivity" into readers' faces, Heritage simply relays publicly available government information. The source is definitely RS and the facts aren't in dispute. As to Ellen's question, I'm fine with adding median stats if one can find them (I don't recall off the top of my head if I've seen them or not), but mean is a legitimate stat too, and in this case the gap is so large that it wouldn't fundamentally alter the international comparison anyway. Even on income using median instead of mean doesn't radically alter international rankings. VictorD7 (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I have a problem with certain sources that are far weaker for the claims than those publications from experts in the fields...Yes. Not wanting one does not mean I want any of the others. This was brought up and this is my opinion and input for the subject of this thread.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Your refusal to answer the question about the leftist think tank EPI and the much more prominent visual and text segment it serves as the sole source for in the same section is noted. Consistency is vital to neutrality and good faith editing. The Heritage piece was written and reviewed by experts in the field. Again, the stats come directly from publicly available data that I had posted as a second source at one point so any skeptics could verify it for themselves, but I guess may have been removed when there was a big push to reduce article space (including frivolous sources) a while back. The facts presented are undisputed. VictorD7 (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
If left-leaning think tanks which fall under WP:BIASED, are accepted, and right-leaning think tanks are not accepted. This is a HUGE problem, not just for this article but for all of Wikipedia. That's like saying only sources from country X are only acceptable, while sources from country Y are never acceptable.
That being said, why not just give a the raw data?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Good question. The raw data is publicly available from different government sources (one American and one European) but combined in a comparison by Heritage. It would be OR for us to only use the government sources without including the source that made the comparison. VictorD7 (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Victor was the one that accused me of having no problem with the left leaning sources when I already said I have a problem with any source being used that is weaker than an academic source that should be used. I am against using left or right leaning political sources and again, why are we using such sources?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
But I provided a salient actual example from the same section and you refused to specifically comment on it, rendering your vague disclaimer hollow. While there are real problems with the EPI graph/segment (for one thing it's disputed) not shared by the perfectly fine Heritage segment, I will say that we aren't restricted to only using "academic sources", nor are we prohibited from using "political sources". You just endorsed an OECD chart on inequality below, and of course most sources used here aren't academic. Academic sources can be very political anyway. VictorD7 (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

5. This was discussed and revised at great length, and I thought I addressed all of the objections; if any objections remain, please state them so we can work out a compromise: "According to Pavlina Tcherneva at Bard College's Levy Economics Institute, the lack of income increases commensurate with productivity, the gender pay gap, and the erosion of unemployment safety net welfare at living wages have led to the increases in income inequality.[1][2][3]"

References

  1. ^ Tcherneva, Pavlina R. (April 2015). "When a rising tide sinks most boats: trends in US income inequality" (PDF). levyinstitute.org. Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
  2. ^ Casselman, Ben (September 22, 2014). "The American Middle Class Hasn't Gotten A Raise In 15 Years". FiveThirtyEightEconomics. Retrieved 23 April 2015.
  3. ^ Parlapiano, Alicia; Gebeloff, Robert; Carter, Shan (January 26, 2013). "The Shrinking American Middle Class". The Upshot. New York Times. Retrieved 23 April 2015.
I have said this before and I will say it again. That section needs to be a summary per WP:SUMMARY of Income in the United States, Poverty in the United States, Affluence in the United States, and Income inequality in the United States, and not a section created from scratch. I will strongly oppose any new litigation about what to include, what to exclude, and how it needs to be framed, of any material that is not a good faith attempt to summarize these articles here. The leads of these articles may be a good starting point, as leads are supposed to be an abstract of these articles. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Why not United States counties by per capita income which is also a linked "further information" header? In practice at least portions of virtually all Wikipedia articles are written from scratch, in part because all of these articles are in constant flux. Material is sometimes taken from subarticles and added to pages like this, and vice versa, but other times fresh material is added. As for doing nothing but summarizing other articles here, low traffic articles are often lower quality (sometimes extremely messed up) and the question of how to summarize four or five subarticles covering different topics into one, different section in a way that's appropriate for this article is more complicated than it may seem at first glance. Also, if editors want to improve encyclopedic coverage, should they start editing from scratch at the linked subarticles, the subarticles linked to on those pages, or the ones linked to from there, etc..? Should editors just let problems sit on very high traffic articles while all this is taking place? If you feel the section doesn't properly summarize the linked "further information" articles, and this really bothers you, it may be a more efficient solution to simply change or delete those header links. I'm not sure we need five for Income anyway. There likely would have been far more resistance to them being added at the time if editors had thought they would be rigidly dictating the sections' permissible shapes. VictorD7 (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Can you tell whether Tcherneva thinks that increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit forms a legitimate unemployment safety net? At first glance, it might not, because it doesn't apply to the unemployed, but in reality is the incentive and consumer spending demand sufficient for growth? EllenCT (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Everything in this section needs to be ironed out there is a huge ugly template and a tag in the section. That needs to go away and to do that a consensus here is important. The sentence makes no sense to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Which question makes no sense and why doesn't it? EllenCT (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. No question, the sentence in debate from the article: "According to Pavlina Tcherneva at Bard College's Levy Economics Institute, the lack of income increases commensurate with productivity, the gender pay gap, and the erosion of unemployment safety net welfare at living wages have led to the increases in income inequality". That's an awful lot to take in. I'm not sure what it's saying. As an opinion, is it possible to use a direct quote? Would that not be more to guidelines or would that make this more complicated?--Mark Miller (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
My concern here is that we have the opinion of someone (I assume is notable enough to use in the article) however, I only see the primary source work that the opinion is derived from and no source making the claim itself. In other words, we need a source that says that Pavlina Tcherneva has this opinion in order to use the opinion here. I scanned the other two sources and they appear to be supporting references for Pavlina Tcherneva's opinion but don't seem to mention the author. Or did I miss it?--Mark Miller (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
All of the secondary peer reviewed literature reviews which weigh in on the subject support the statement. I am happy to add those, too. EllenCT (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Some information that was removed from Economic inequality that may be of interest to this article:

There is statistical evidence that shows strong links between single-parent families and lower income.[1][2] In spite of the statistical evidence about the economic advantages enjoyed by married couples and also by their children, evidence that is at odds with ideological positions of many influential voices, Maranto and Crouch point out that "in the current discussions about increased inequality, few researchers... directly address what seems to be the strongest statistical correlate of inequality in the United States: the rise of single-parent families during the past half century." [3]WSJ article

Economic growth has also had issues with undue weight and POV, primarily by someone who is also causing problems with this article. My recommendation is that we have this person blocked.Phmoreno (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

OK but...any such block discussion would take place at ANI and I am not sure how to respond other than to ask....who do you want blocked?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to name anyone here, especially because I do not have much experience with this article; however, I did observe the same pattern with this person here as on other articles I actively edit. The person was notified a few days ago. After some checking of that editor's various articles/talk pages I had enough evidence to turn in a complaint to the administrators notice board, which I just did. I think its better to eliminate editors who won't abide by the rules than to let them be a constant drain on resources.Phmoreno (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Good post, Phmoreno. I mentioned the impact of single parent homes elsewhere on this page earlier as one of the countless examples of niche topics we'll have to consider to be fair game for inclusion now if this current POV blitz is allowed to gain ground. VictorD7 (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Note that Phmoreno's complaint about this at ANI resulted in a WP:BOOMERANG where the experienced administrators overwhelmingly !voted to topic-ban VictorD7. EllenCT (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
False. Phmoreno was unfamiliar with how ANI worked, and there was no ruling there on the substance of what he brought up here one way or the other. The ludicrous attempt to get me sanctioned was opposed by a majority of respondents (including admin) who saw the effort as clearly partisan in nature, with at least as many indicating you merited banning. It properly ended in a no consensus for action against anyone. I strongly suggest you refrain from derailing discussion with ad hominem diversions, especially ones based on false claims. VictorD7 (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I invite those who still have good faith in Victor's assertions to count the !votes. Victor's supporters are overwhelmingly non-admins with WP:COMPETENCE issues, most of whom weigh in against me at every opportunity, no matter the subject. The experienced administrators overwhelmingly supported the topic ban. I invite those who are tired of Victor's POV pushing to request a formal closure. EllenCT (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The only admin I noticed voting there was Jayron32, and he opposed sanctions. I admittedly skimmed fast, but I don't see anyone else identifying themselves as an admin on their user page or showing up as one on this page. Everything I've said has been true and people can simply read this talk page to see who possesses the competence issues and POV pushing agenda. Regardless, attempting to draw me into a personal feud here isn't conducive to a productive collaboration. I advise you to stick to substance. VictorD7 (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Protonk is an admin, but I see now that many of the users I thought were admins are merely very long term editors. The proposal needs a formal close by an admin. EllenCT (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Neither his user page nor that search page I linked to shows Protonk as an administrator, and I noticed at least as much experience if not more on the oppose side, in addition to the only confirmed admin to vote. I'm not sure why you feel it needs to be closed since a majority disagreed with you, or why you believe it would be anything other than a no consensus for sanctions. I think admin showed how they felt about that effort by letting it fall off the page and into the archives. VictorD7 (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll add that an apology would be nice since you explicitly attacked my "good faith" above when I challenged your claim that "the experienced administrators overwhelmingly" voted to ban me, something you now concede isn't true. VictorD7 (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Good thing I didn't hold my breath waiting for that apology. VictorD7 (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

EllenCT: As you were posting your last comment you sneakily removed a quote from the conclusion of one of your favorite sources because it discredited your POV claims. You also failed to disclose that another one of your favorite sources stated that the magnitude of the relationship between income inequality and economic growth was "relatively minor" and then had the nerve to continually repeat that income inequality had a major effect on growth. Despite the fact that your own sources cast doubt on your POV, you left edits that other editors called "crap" and "a disorganized mess" and left sections of a couple of articles tagged with undue weight, you never took any action to go in and correct any of the biased editing and other complaints. You waited until the discussions got archived and then showed up with your same old tricks.Phmoreno (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Influence of the wealthy / RFC outcome

6. This is the one which pisses me off the most, because it was an attempt to blatantly disregard the outcome of this closed RFC:

RFC-approved passage Post-RFC text inserted without discussion
Growing income inequality and wealth concentration have resulted in affluent individuals, powerful business interests and other economic elites gaining increased influence over public policy.[4][5][6] The extent and relevance of income inequality is a matter of debate.[4][5][6][disputed – discuss][7]

References

  1. ^ Martin, Molly A. (2006) “Family Structure and Income Inequality in Families with Children: 1976 to 2000.” Demography 43: 421-445
  2. ^ W. Bradford Wilcox. Family Studies
  3. ^ Robert Maranto and Michael Crouch. Ignoring an Inequality Culprit: Single-Parent Families Intellectuals fretting about income disparity are oddly silent regarding the decline of the two-parent family. April 20, 2014, Wall Street Journal
  4. ^ a b Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page (2014). "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens". Perspectives on Politics. 12 (3): 564–581. doi:10.1017/S1537592714001595. {{cite journal}}: External link in |title= (help)
  5. ^ a b Larry Bartels (2009). "Economic Inequality and Political Representation". The Unsustainable American State. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195392135.003.0007. {{cite journal}}: External link in |title= (help)
  6. ^ a b Thomas J. Hayes (2012). "Responsiveness in an Era of Inequality: The Case of the U.S. Senate". Political Research Quarterly. 66 (3): 585–599. doi:10.1177/1065912912459567.
  7. ^ Winship, Scott (Spring 2013). "Overstating the Costs of Inequality" (PDF). National Affairs (15). Retrieved April 29, 2015.
    "Income Inequality in America: Fact and Fiction" (PDF). Manhattan Institute. May 2014. Retrieved April 29, 2015.
On 6, the RFC (which was barely participated in and featured significant opposition and qualified support) close only said "The consensus is to include both in some form." The closer went out of his way to word it that way and it wasn't a rubber stamp of approval for your specific text. There should have been more discussion of the precise form of inclusion before it was added. In my opinion at this summary detail level the best way to neutrally include your proposed material is with the statement acknowledging a broad debate on the topic of equality, backed up by sources illustrating the views on each side. Since neutrality is policy I suppose the alternative would be to allow your longer, more detailed exposition and others laying out alternative points of view, though that would bloat the article even more and skew it with undue emphasis on selected topics. VictorD7 (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
There were no other proposals made during the RFC period, and your subsequent proposal violates WP:WEASEL. EllenCT (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
My "proposal" was made during the RFC discussion, and may have influenced the closer to go out of his way to use the language "included in some form" rather than just "included". The debate over the causes, extent, and impact of inequality is much broader than a couple of cutting edge research papers on very niche subtopics. I strongly reject the assertion that the current language is weasel. It's accurate, neutral, and appropriately broad for this detail level. We can't just censor out the fact that many reject the premises and opinions of the leftists bemoaning "inequality" as if it's the biggest problem we face, and as if it's the purpose of the government to guarantee equality of result. VictorD7 (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Do you think that the indeterminate nature of "some form" referred to the economic statistics which were being proposed to be updated from 2010 to the present, for which a textual proposal had not been made, or to the text which had been proposed? EllenCT (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
At face value it clearly referred to all the material. VictorD7 (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
In general that's also the problem with 8, 7, 5, and adding more specifics on 3: too much niche detail for this summary country article. All of these also represent POVs on controversial issues. They'd be better suited for more topically focused articles where there would be more room for laying out details and for neutrally covering alternative views as well. Not including them here would also let us avoid the logical question, "Well why not cover issues x, y, and z too?" Different editors have different pet interests they'd like to include if it became a free for all. VictorD7 (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I tried to respond to these concerns regarding 7 and 8, and ask that you address points that might not have been yet on 3 and 5. EllenCT (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Support the RFC version. The degree of income inequality in the US is unique and its effects should be covered. In my opinion, this as to little WP:WEIGHT.Casprings (talk)

Thank you. Please sign your statements with four tildes here on the talk page. EllenCT (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Inequality already has about six full lines of text in the Income section alone, and receives by far more coverage than any other topic there. Just how much weight do you feel it should have? VictorD7 (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Support the RFC version. It is interesting to note that a new report by the OECD warns that global inequality continues to climb, and the United States, along with Mexico, Chile (thank you Pinochet), and Turkey, rank highest on the spectrum (social democratic Denmark ranks as having the lowest levels of inequality). Casprings is right, this issue does carry significant weight and the effects deserve mention in the article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

While there is a disparity in income, it's because the United States doesn't operate on a state-owned property, communism model. As the RfC stated, there should be elements from both POVs present in the article. Furthermore, as VictorD7, rightfully stated, there is more content on income inequality than any other part of content in that section. And while income inequality might grow, it can be argued based on reliable sources that, during the recent history, the rich trend to be Democrats: NYT "“The paradox is that, while these rich states have become more strongly Democratic over time, rich voters have remained consistently more Republican than voters on the lower end of the income scale,”", New American Gazette "An analysis of the Top 20 Richest People in America (from Forbes Top 100) reveals that a full 60% are actually Democrats.", Associated Press "But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen.", and Forbes "Of the ten richest zip codes in the U.S. eight gave more money to Democrats than Republicans in the last two presidential cycles.". Therefore, the growing income inequality, is due to the Democratic Party. However, I doubt that this will be reflected in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You are confusing communism with taxation. Do you ever intend to explain why you think the education statement is biased? EllenCT (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

7. I am not sure this passage was discussed on the talk page before being inserted, but I certainly support its inclusion: "Academics claim that since the 1980s, new and extreme forms of poverty have emerged in the U.S. as a result of neoliberal policies and globalization.[1][2]"

References

  1. ^ Stephen Haymes, Maria Vidal de Haymes and Reuben Miller (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Poverty in the United States, (London: Routledge, 2015), ISBN 0415673445, pp. 2, 3 & 346.
  2. ^ Loïc Wacquant, Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity, (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 2009), ISBN 082234422X, pp. 53-54.
This kind of wording can be problematic, because it is possible to cherry-pick academic sources to make such a sweeping statement (or WP:WEASEL). You can collect several sources by Chicago School right-wing academics or leftist academics to make contradicting "Academics claim..." statements. --Pudeo' 00:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Correct. It's usually problematic to get into selective correlations and assertions about causality in this article, especially if it's potentially controversial, as this certainly is. There may be a place for neutrally laying out various significant views on a controversial issue, but this isn't the right article for such opinions, and one view on a disputed issue should never be cherry-picked for unchallenged presentation. VictorD7 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree because "new and extreme forms of poverty" emerge when the median real income falls. It is sufficient to describe the trends in the underlying statistics than to harp on their resulting misery or gloat at their blessings. Instead, we should accentuate our best proposals for further improvement. EllenCT (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I have changed my mind and support inclusion. EllenCT (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

8. This was extensively discussed without actual objections to the text as was included, as far as I can tell, just unsupported claims that it is somehow POV pushing, which I think is absurd because it's such a plain non-political and hugely economically significant fact: "From 1990 to 2013, workers with high school education or less have lost more wages than those with college degrees have gained.[1]"

References

  1. ^ Irwin, Neil (April 21, 2015). "Why American Workers Without Much Education Are Being Hammered". The Upshot. New York Times. Retrieved 25 April 2015.
This is in line with the wealth inequality argument, except that the statement "workers with high school education or less have lost more wages than those with college degrees have gained" actually seems nonsensical to me. The Times article implies that the answer is a higher minimum wage and unionization. But a higher minimum wage will only work if it does actually increase worker productivity, when the arguments tend to center on workers not being able to lead the good life. What's likely to happen is that stores will close (already lost my favorite McDonald's) or the $9/hr people will be replaced by $15/hr people. The eventually corrupting power of unionization is well-known (see Levinson's _The Box_, which makes containerization, and thus globalization, seem worthy if only because it undercut the pilfering, featherbedding Longshoreman's Union). And there isn't any comment on the havoc that the lousy school systems have wrought (ever see a native-born American worker with a worse grasp of English than someone for whom English is a second language, the number of years of schooling being equivalent?).
And where are the articles on this issue from the Wall Street Journal, National Review, Weekly Standard, Washington Times, etc.?
But I digress. Your point of view pushing is demonstrable. You labeled me as "uninvolved with this article" when my name is on the diff referenced by the closing statement of the RfC you were recently purporting to be implementing. In other words, I hope that, on the verge of the article being reopened, you will stay your hand at making further changes. We should set up a section on wealth inequality, assuming that it's not thought too contentious to include, where the actual text of what is to be included in the article will be cobbled together, voted on, and then placed by someone less passionate on the issue, referenced easily by a link in the form of talk page name-section name, and not have vague claims of consensus stand in for that. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Please forgive me if I mischaracterized your involvement. How would you phrase the essential statistic? Do you think the revenue implications are more or less as important as the underlying fact? EllenCT (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I believe I objected? If memory serves me?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you objected, claiming bias, but never described how or why the statement is biased. EllenCT (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@RightCowLeftCoast: would you please state your rationale for why you think the statement is biased, or withdraw your objection? EllenCT (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Should "From 1990 to 2013, workers with high school education or less have lost more wages than those with college degrees have gained.[1]" be included in this article? 15:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Irwin, Neil (April 21, 2015). "Why American Workers Without Much Education Are Being Hammered". The Upshot. New York Times. Retrieved 25 April 2015.
  • Support inclusion, as proposer. EllenCT (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a convoluted factoid from an opinion piece arguing for certain policy changes. It might be acceptable with attribution and accompanying material from diverse sources resulting in full, neutral coverage of the issue in an article more topically dedicated to wages, the economy, and/or inequality, but it's inappropriate for this broad, summary country article, just as your previous attempts to insert material for your inequality soapbox were. Fortunately they were soundly rejected ([32], [33]), but is your plan to keep starting new RFCs along this same general topic line every couple of weeks in an attempt to wear down opposing editors? Because that's extremely disruptive and not conducive to collaborative editing. As for this latest attempt, I'll note that every editor to respond to your proposal in the discussion above opposed it, and I'll add to their criticisms that it's unclear from your text whether the big increase in benefits in recent decades is being considered, that the population itself has changed (these aren't the same people in the labor force as two and a half decades ago, especially with the huge increase in immigration), and that the strangely cherry-picked 1990-2013 time frame is heavily skewed by the recent economic downturn. You also made no attempt here to say where you would insert the material or explain why it belongs in this particular article or how it should be integrated into it. It's just presented as a random assertion. There are countless similar facts involving Americans we could fill millions of pages with, but that's not the purpose of this article. VictorD7 (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    • None of the numerical facts on which the statement is based are opinion. The only convolutions are those suffered from realizing that you will never get the time you spent reading Victor's attempts to misdirect with irrlevant references to other discussions back. EllenCT (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I said your source is an opinion piece, which is relevant to the choice, omission, and construction of the "facts". VictorD7 (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
        • The Upshot is a news column, Neil Irwin is supposedly not an op-ed columnist, and the column in question is entirely news and factual commentary devoid of opinion. EllenCT (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Irwin is a columnist and this particular column is full of his personal opinion, which is pretty much what a column is. I'm not saying that alone is enough to disqualify a source, but that you're simply using this one opinionated source and only this source does further weaken the essentially non-existent case for including this. VictorD7 (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
            • Irwin is hired for reporting facts, not opinions. The statement depends only on undisputed numerical facts. EllenCT (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
              • Words like "terrible", "shocking", "interesting", and "good" underscore the column's opinionated nature. BTW, the "facts" come from the Hamilton Project, a part of the left leaning Brookings Institute (a think tank within a think tank) launched in 2006. Barack Obama spoke at the group's launch and most of its leaders have worked for the Obama administration and/or his campaigns at some point. Again, however, the problem isn't so much with the source as it is the proposal's overly detailed nature in a cherry-picked niche. VictorD7 (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
                • Brookings is most widely accepted as centrist, at least relative to the two major parties, and of course the President is likely to speak at the most oft-cited think tank in the world. Your edits are as far out of touch with reality as the establishment GOP candidates are with their base. EllenCT (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
                  • Obama wasn't president in 2006 for starters, EllenCT (you were saying something about being in touch with reality?). He was just a really liberal US Senator. And no, you cited one paper from 2005, before the Hamilton Project subgroup was even founded, and failed to address the info I linked to above about the leadership's close association with the Clinton and Obama administrations. It was founded by long time Democrats like Robert Rubin and Roger Altman, and the website's "about us" page features pictures of Bill Clinton, Obama Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, Obama FCC appointee Tom Wheeler, Joe Biden, Obama policy adviser Melody Barnes, Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), former Democratic Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm, former Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana), former Clinton Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and others. The only Republican I noticed was Warner of Virginia, but that was in a picture that also featured Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Washington). The study you linked to was a valuable but blunt instrument designed to gauge the media's aggregate bias. The methodology was too rough to precisely categorize any specific outlet or think tank. It classified Brookings as "moderate" simply because so many Republicans were citing it at the time, not because of any examination of the organization's ideology. Republicans often cite useful facts developed from their opponents' own camp in debates. That said, even that study classified Brookings as more liberal than conservative. Other, more recent media has classified it as liberal. For example, US News and World Report classifies Brookings as "liberal" and found that between 2003 and 2010 97.60% of its members' campaign donations went to Democrats. That's a dose of reality for you, and none of it is surprising if you actually read their policy papers and know something about them as I do. That said, again, the main problem isn't sourcing, but the proposed inclusion itself. VictorD7 (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose- This topic is not directly related to the United States as a political or geographic entity. Wage trends by education level belongs in a more appropriate article.Phmoreno (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Explain how the wages and education structure has anything to do with the United States. Is there anything written about it in the Constitution? How about in histories of the United States, including economic histories?Phmoreno (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
What is the difference in amortized income tax receipts of a high school dropout compared to that of an M.D. or engineering Ph.D. over a lifetime? Based on that information, what is the expected value to the taxpayer of each dollar spent to subsidize education via loan guarantees based on ability to pay through higher education with student-teacher ratio and teacher salary controls? Why do you say the relationship is not direct? EllenCT (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
None of what you said has any reason to be in this article. It is completely off topic. You mentioned six topics: tax policy, expected returns on education specific professions, the return on investment of subsidized education, student-teacher ratios and teacher salary controls. I didn't see how any of these are even remotely related to this article.Phmoreno (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Answer the questions, if you can. Your inability to see how they are directly on topic is not interesting to me. EllenCT (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - WP:UNDUE in this article. Put it in Economics of the United States. NickCT (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Undue why? EllenCT (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
      • For the same reason Phmoreno brought up. It's not directly related to the United States. It's directly related to the Economics of the United States or Income in the United States. Not to be mean Ellen, but you're pretty clearly trying to use WP to make a point. Now I think it's an important factoid, but not here. Not in this article. NickCT (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
        • @NickCT: what point do you think I am trying to make? Is this article trying to make a point? Are these data? How can the information be included without trying to make a point? EllenCT (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
          • @EllenCT: - Including the information is making a point, b/c including the information is WP:UNDUE. Imagine if I added, "Yesterday Nick won a debating trophy" to History of the United States. Even if I source that factoid, clearly the fact that I took a walk isn't relevant within the grand scheme of US History. If I pushed for including that information, I'd clearly be trying make a point about my debating skills. NickCT (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
            • What relevance would your winning a trophy have to describing the aggregate population member's situation? EllenCT (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
              • Well that's exactly the point EllenCT. How much of US population are workers with a high school education or less? NickCT (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
                • About 20%. So? The quality of your argument is shameful, no better than the usual tag team. How disappointing! EllenCT (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
                  • @EllenCT: - I'm confused. You realize you're supporting my point, right? The US economy is just one part of the US (which is why it only gets a small subsection). Salaries are just one part of the economy. Salaries of 1/5th of the population is just one part of aggregate salaries. So at the end of the day, we really should be dedicating much or any time to discussing a factoid which bares little relevance to the "aggregate" subject. NickCT (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
                    • No, describing the economy isn't the same as describing the experience of the typical person within that economy, which is what any general national article should be doing for demographics. I sincerely believe that the statement in question conveys more such information per word than the vast majority of demographic statements that we already have. But I also believe that there is a similar statement which can convey even more such information per word based on this article that I will propose instead. I am thoroughly unconvinced by any of these arguments in this RFC. EllenCT (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
                      • Look. Let's start from something we agree on. You'd agree that describing the salary of a single person in the US economy would be WP:UNDUE right? For instance, we shouldn't describe Trump's salary, because Trump's salary ultimately bares little relevance to the United States as a whole. So if not one person's salary, how about two people? Three people? 0.5% of the population? 10% of the population? 20%? 50%? I think I'd put the number of 100%. If you were describing the median salary for the whole population, that might be relevant and due. But for 20% of the population, it's simply undue. NickCT (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
                      • You're proposing the same flawed NY Times article you suggested to me. And you already want to start a new RfC, when you've garnered so little support for this very similar one? If only for the sake of not having us use up our quota of free Times articles (5 or 10 a month), you should think about desisting for awhile. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The statistic seems vague, and a convoluted way of saying that wages have been stagnant. Does the statistic mean that employers aren't paying educated people what they're worth, or that education isn't worth what it costs? Also, as others have noted, it's an undue amount of detail. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/17/business/racial-wealth-gap-persists-despite-degree-study-says.html for further detail, which I support including, by the way. EllenCT (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
That article addresses racial economic inequality, but doesn't explain why the education level statistic is particularly meaningful. And it is flawed. If minorities are subject to discrimination manifested by the fact that someone with a "white-sounding name receives more callbacks", then why are Asians doing the best of all, and blacks, who are apt to have very white-sounding names, doing so poorly? Dhtwiki (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - too specific for a broad summary article like this one. Some general information on wage trends would be worthwhile, but this statistic is too narrow and too convoluted to be worth adding. Rwenonah (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
General information on wage trends, such as? EllenCT (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - similar to last set, it doesn't seem phrased to fit into an article nor topic for this article and seems just a loose factoid. The bounded phrasing also make it sound not worth saying. It being a specific 12 year period ending 2 years ago, being unspecified how much, and being high-school makes it sound like it's only a small amount and just a past statistical quirk. Markbassett (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
If an effect that large was affecting the top fifth of the population instead of the bottom, would you still call it a quirk? Why is a reader of a general demographic summary better off not knowing? EllenCT (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States/Archive_76&oldid=791790780"