User talk:Dan Ratan

Formerly an IP editor trying out image uploads. Hello! Dan Ratan (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Policy Institute

I am curious why you would rely on the publications of this institute for article content? It is not a particularly prominent or respected voice within contemporary economic policy analysis. At any rate, you should not be relying on self-published sources such as working papers from this or any other institution or university. SPECIFICO talk 12:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: based on what I have observed in Wikipedia content, and what I hope has been clear in my edits since I registered, I believe EPI is the most widely known and well-respected exemplar of that portion of mainstream economic thought which is most obviously either missing or suppressed in Wikipedia.

They say, "In a typical year, EPI is cited in the media more than 20,000 times and is mentioned and/or our staff are seen or heard by over 300 million people on television and radio." Why do you say they are not respected or prominent? As they say at that link:

"We are recognized as national leaders on breakthrough liberal economic policies. EPI research associate and Yale university professor Jacob Hacker developed the concept of the public option—the idea that the government would provide health insurance and compete with private insurers to assure robust competition. EPI’s analysis has also shaped the way the economy is viewed. For instance, EPI researchers were the first ones to profile the emerging gap between growing productivity and the wages and compensation of typical workers. An EPI economist was the first to compute the ratio of unemployed workers to job openings—the job-seekers-to-job-openings ratio—a commonsense way to help the public understand the difficulty of finding a job. EPI has long profiled the stagnation of workers’ wages, the deterioration of job quality, and rising inequalities. EPI also oversaw the formation of the Economic Analysis and Research Network (EARN) of state and regional multi-issue research, policy, and advocacy organizations. Finally, EPI is beholden to no one: we say what we think is true regardless of who might not want to hear it."

At your direction weeks ago, I have been careful to supplement their sources with the sections of the Mankiw textbook and peer-reviewed review articles in agreement with the inserted facts.

I have no personal or organizational connection to EPI or anyone associated with it, whether financial, familial, or otherwise, if that is what you are getting at. I only know them through their work that comes to me in my news and current events sources I read exclusively in my leisure time.

Could you please recommend one or two better respected or more prominent institutions sharing their general perspective? Dan Ratan (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of sourcing, editors don't select think tanks and then present their self-published views and editors don't decide what content is significant. We don't deem a source significant in order to include its "perspective". Significance is measured by the frequency of views in RS publications. We publish what the mainstream publishes. You also need to be careful not to take source statements out of context and use them to make WP:SYNTH or WP:UNDUE article text edits. Neither an institution's self-promoting description nor its objective prominence are relevant to our content and sourcing decisions. And it's a good thing or we would be using sources that would curdle your blood. SPECIFICO talk 14:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: could you please show me an example of how editors measure the frequency of views in reliable sources to determine significance? I am certain that the effects of consolidation on downward price inelasticity and the effects of inequality on growth will both score highly by any such means. For example the discussion of the former takes a large part of several chapters in the Mankiw textbook, and the latter already takes dozens of paragraphs in the articles from which you reverted the sentence I inserted. Dan Ratan (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I do not have time to tutor you on WP editing. The former, if properly paraphrased and stated in the appropriate topic is likely OK. The latter is UNDUE and the articles you cite are not RS. Please give a deep read into our Policies and Guidelines, following links and subtopics and related WP help pages. SPECIFICO talk 14:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: I am surprised that pointing me to a single example, such as a talk page discussion perhaps, of the sort of measurements you are insisting on but which do not seem to be described anywhere in WP:NPOV, would require a heavy time commitment. The closest such measurements I've seen, which I see quite often, are based on these two sentences from that page, "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts; if a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents...." I believe I have done both. Dan Ratan (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]