Talk:Wealth/Archives/2015

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I want to resume the NPOV discussion because the "Sociological Treatment" section suspiciously resembles a leftist POV. If the POV is false, then it should be elimiated; whereas if it is true, then its origin should be acknowledged. Below is some evidence for my perception:

• The section uses just one source--"Sherraden, Michael. Assets and the Poor: A New American Welfare Policy."--for the descriptions of all three classes; we should corroborate this information with other sources lest the descriptions merely be that source's opinion, which, according to its title, seems leftist.
• In the "Middle Class" section is the sentence, "They have been socialized to accumulate wealth through structured, institutionalized arrangements." By whom have they been socialized? This argument sounds almost exactly like Marx's argument that 'By society and for the benefit of the owners, the workers have been culturally-conditioned to operate the means of production, exploitation compensated by consumption'; the only differences are the historical accidents of income and occupation.
• The entire rest of the "Lower class" description, like the Original Research tag indicates, is unsourced and again seems leftist or at least emotionally-laden. Consider these two choice quotations: "...the Class Structure Hypothesis," and "some poor people become alienated and lose hope. They felt that they have been beaten by the vicious cycle of poverty.". The "Class Structure Hypothesis" is not cited, Wiki-linked, or even explained: whatever it is, it seems leftist because the first link yielded by a Google search for "Class Structure Hypothesis" is the Wikipedian article on "Marxian Class Theory". The other quote is an un-Wikipedialy-passionate description of impoverished plight, "hope," "beaten," and "vicious" being among its most-pointed words.

Should we therefore change this section, and, if we should, how?

Duxwing (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the entire "class" section is problematic and mostly incorrect as well. Also-does this income/asset-based definition of "class" belong in an article on wealth? I'd like to delete the whole mess, isn't social-class covered elsewhere (and hopefully better)? If there must be a hierarchy of wealth section to the article, for example-the "low class" sub-section s/b at the least changed to "low-income", and/or "fixed-income", (even using "poors" would be less offensive in my opinion), "middle-class" to everyone else, and "upper-class'"-to wealthy or 1% or whatever is meant there. And I know that the sections as they are now are or were intended to portray American-centric wealth-classifications, but again, in an article titled "Wealth", is what appears to be a (non-classy as far as I can tell), listing of what some Americans view as a wealth/income-based social hierarchy, appropriate for Wikipedia and a global readership?24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad anyone has replied! :) The article should neutrally reflect wealth's affecting social class in some societies because this effect is well-known and relevant; the [class] article should be linked. How could we neutralize and globalize this writing? Duxwing (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the entire "class" section needs to be removed. It is biased and not relevant to "wealth." slshell 1-28-2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.154.38.145 (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Add File:Nested sustainability-v2.gif

Euler diagram encompassing all wealth.

99.181.155.158 (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? Any reference for the connection? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And it's not a "Venn diagram". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

How about change "Economy" to "The Economy" or "World economy"? 99.181.152.134 (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Or "An Economy" (on Earth is implied)? 99.181.152.134 (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Is Environment (biophysical) more specific? 99.190.86.115 (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You can do what you want with the diagram, it's not a Venn diagram and it's not related (at least with a source yet established) to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

How is it not a Venn diagram? An Euler diagram instead? 99.181.133.22 (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, but that term hasn't been used much since the 18th century. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There has still been no source provided which relates the (Euler) diagram to "wealth". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

So, Art, are you agreeing it is an Euler diagram? 99.181.135.87 (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It still doesn't belong in this article, for at least 2 reasons:

1. The diagram doesn't mention "wealth". (Your caption mentions "wealth", but it's yours, not sourced.)
2. There is no source for a relationship between the concepts in the diagram and "wealth".

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(od) See Set theory. 99.109.126.73 (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

??? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd guess this implication is everything, totality, the world, ... in that general vein. 99.19.45.187 (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

1. You should know. You're the same person.
2. Are you attempting to imply that environment is everything. If so, I would disagree.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Instead of a disambiguation page, maybe Environment (systems) would be more precise? 99.181.141.143 (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"Cat" got your tongue Arthur Rubin? 99.181.137.180 (talk) 09:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Still nonsense. Since you seem to believe that silence gives consent, and that you will add the diagram unless I object to each and every "reason" you give, even if already refuted, .... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Rubin, the wp article Refuted redirects to Objection (currently) which is more accurate to what your history shows that being wp:IDON'TLIKE instead of logic. 108.195.138.167 (talk) 07:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Try using Wiktionary, rather than Wikipedia. (Or, better yet, talk to someone who actually speaks English with some competency.) Frequently, if A redirects (in Wikipedia) to B, it means that A is an example of B, supposedly discussed somewhere in the article on B. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary? 99.181.137.3 (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Cat-got-your-tongue, Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin? 99.181.137.83 (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You have proven that you don't understand English. Since it's the only language I know well, it follows that there is little point in my trying to explain things to you. However, you have also demonstrated that the diagram does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(od) See usage example in Sustainability#Definition. 108.73.113.91 (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

As I asked before, what does the diagram or the concept have to do with "wealth". — Arthur Rubin (talk)

Fossil fuels are listed as an example of wealth as natural capital and this comes from a popular, dominant, ignorant and dangerous Point of View instead of a neutral and informed POV. Given the science about CO2 in the earth's atmosphere and extreme climate disruption caused by the earth retaining way too much solar energy, I think it is very dangerous to actively perpetuate the delusion that fossil fuels represent wealth in any way. We now know them to be a huge liability that threatens mankind, especially the young and unborn. People can be stubborn and might prefer not to acknowledge science, but it is an encyclopedia's job to stick to the facts. Fossil fuels are not a true asset, right?, regardless of the value that markets may presently place on them. 67.142.182.22 (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)David Haaren