Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:55, 29 October 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:VA

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

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

Template:Maintained

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

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

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

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

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

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

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

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

Why does the "Democracy Index" warrant inclusion?

Other country articles I've checked don't mention the "Democracy Index". All indices are subjectively constructed, but this one (registration required) has a particularly vague title that doesn't convey any useful information to readers. It was created by a British outfit and, when one reads the report, it's clear that it merely reflects what this one British outfit deems is important in their view to having a "proper" democracy. The report didn't provide reasoning for each country (except to say that the US and UK have both been dinged for "polarization", as if that's somehow undemocratic), but it did list the 60 questions used to determine the score, with the subjective judgments on most questions apparently given by anonymous "experts" chosen and/or employed by the group (an ironically undemocratic process). The questions are eclectic, sometimes hitting obscure areas while ignoring arguably more important ones, are frequently difficult to judge with any pretense of objective honesty, and often have a dubious relationship to actual democracy. For example, it asks its secret judges questions like "34. Extent to which adult population shows an interest in and follows politics in the news. 1: High 0.5: Moderate 0: Low", "There is formal freedom, but high degree of conformity of opinion, including through self-censorship, or discouragement of minority or marginal views?", "47. Is media coverage robust? Is there open and free discussion of public issues, with a reasonable diversity of opinions?", and "31. Citizens’ engagement with politics 1: High 0.5: Moderate 0: Low", the last one having a follow up for those countries where there's public polling on "who's very or somewhat interested in politics" (it's unclear how they reconcile the apples and oranges scoring here).

It scores higher for higher membership in political parties, as though party membership is necessary to participate in a democracy (and more fundamentally assumes consistent, active participation is necessary to have a democracy). It penalizes for a higher proportion of the population believing that "democracies are not good at maintaining public order" (as though that necessarily makes one undemocratic, or necessarily reflects on the system actually in place), and it also docks points for believing that "punishing criminals is an essential characteristic of democracy" (left unexplained is why it's not). It asks about "Adult literacy" (important, but inherently democratic?). It asks about ease of unionization, but doesn't mention gun rights or much about economic freedom apart from a single token question I noticed lumping business freedom and private property protections together (obviously going for a minimal score weighting). It explicitly tells its judges not to lower a nation's score for prohibiting members of its armed forces from voting (as with most of this stuff, no explanation is given). It rewards nations for having high confidence in both government and political parties, without explaining why that's inherently democratic. It gives higher scores for having a higher percentage of the population willing to engage in "lawful demonstrations", despite protesting arguably being undemocratic since it typically involves a minority trying to shout down a quiet majority, and frequently spins into lawlessness at some point. It rewards nations for having a "legislature (as) the supreme political body, with a clear supremacy over other branches of government", but doesn't even ask about whether the chief executive is elected by the nation directly or by said legislature (clear Parliamentary system bias). It closes with a somewhat loaded question: "60. Extent to which the government invokes new risks and threats as an excuse for curbing civil liberties", a clear sign of the times question and agenda. There's no question about invoking economic excuses to curb civil liberties or curbing them to ostensibly combat discrimination or "hate".

It doesn't ask about the constitutional depth of liberty protections, and apparently its secret "experts" don't ding nations much if at all for their tendency to restrict free speech through things like criminalizing unpopular views (e.g. holocaust denial) or the internet censorship that nations like the UK and Australia have engaged in. Canada somehow has an extremely high civil liberties and overall score despite that nation's media being heavily dominated by a state controlled entity, "hate speech" laws, and a quasi-judicial "human rights commission" that has prosecuted political pundits.

The point of all this isn't that you should agree with me or disagree with the British outfit, but that we should recognize their opinion is just that: an opinion. What's the compelling, rational argument for elevating the group's subjective and opaquely constructed opinion on the broad subject of "democracy" to a singular importance by including it in what's supposed to be a fact based country summary article, much less forcing it into a Government section that's dedicated to merely describing the basic structure of US government, where the index looks out of place? Why cherry-pick a subjective, ideological opinion? Should we include other opinions so Misplaced Pages doesn't take sides? If so, can they be quotes or must they be indices? Does an opinion necessarily become more worthy when presented in the form of a number?

I propose that we delete the index as frivolous, selective POV, and off point. VictorD7 (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. In order to maintain the rating we would have to show that it is significant. I think what is important with these reports is the band that a country falls into, rather than relative ranking. The report says that the U.S. is a "full democracy", but then that is the general viewpoint, so inline citation is not required. The article already says the U.S. is a democracy, which appears to adequate. TFD (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. People who want detail on just such issues as described will benefit tremendously by even a flawed ranking. Concerns should be addressed by expanding the article about the index, not by omitting it. EllenCT (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That's just it; simply reporting the topline "ranking" provides no detail. And it's not about whether it's "flawed" or not. That's opinion, as the index itself is, which is the even bigger point. VictorD7 (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

So, you object to a few components in a multi-component ranking. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. EllenCT (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Ellen, you're somehow still missing the point. I object to the notion of treating an extremely subjective construction (whether I agree with it or not) as objective or somehow singularly worthy of inclusion in what's otherwise a mundane section merely describing the structure of US government. VictorD7 (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

How do you get to "I have quibbles with a few of the components of the ranking" to "extremely subjective"? It is documented, it is supported by sources, it is widely reported, it is interesting to readers, and it is encyclopedic, so it is included. EllenCT (talk) 03:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I never said "I have quibbles with a few of the components of the ranking". Ellen, did you even the read the op? Did you miss this sentence: The point of all this isn't that you should agree with me or disagree with the British outfit, but that we should recognize their opinion is just that: an opinion.? I systematically showed the index's subjectivity on numerous items, and pointed out its opaque judging system, all in addition to the inherent subjectivity involved in any index. The report itself admits that there's no precise definition of "democracy" that can be used as an objective standard against which the index can judge. I'm not even sure what you mean when you say "it's documented" and "supported by sources". In what way? It is reported on by some news outfits, but so are Ann Coulter's opinions. So? Doesn't mean either is encyclopedic or appropriate for a section that's not about subjective tastes. VictorD7 (talk) 03:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course I read your "op." The Index is designed to be a ranking based on several objective measures. You pointed out some potential issues with a few of those many measures. You have not shown any hint of subjectivity or anything more than slight flaws. It is not an opinion, it is a measurement. EllenCT (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Temporarily setting aside the multi-layered absurdity of that reply, what is it a "measurement" of? I'll also restate my request below: Please summarize what info the Democracy Index ranking (and only the ranking, because that's all that's in the text) conveys to a reader.VictorD7 (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Why doesn't Democracy Index provide a sufficient answer to these questions? EllenCT (talk) 05:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying it measures "democracy"? What does that even mean? The index authors themselves admit that "There is no consensus on how to measure democracy, definitions of democracy are contested and there is an ongoing lively debate on the subject." While a broad definition of "democracy" as concept exists, there's no consensus way to quantify it objectively or make precise measurements between democracies, hence the scattershot and highly debatable scoring system employed. It's essentially a list of things the authors like or don't like, and the scoring itself (done by secret judges) is entirely subjective on most points.

Again, what actual information does the "ranking" convey to readers? Someone insisting that it conveys enough useful info to warrant inclusion in a country summary article with length concerns should be able to answer that question. VictorD7 (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Suppose the index were corrected in a manner that you found acceptable. How much do you think that would change the average rankings? Do you have similar objections to the Corruption Perception Index, mention of which you have also tried to delete? EllenCT (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Does "Prison population" really need its own section?

An editor recently split off a single, short paragraph from the Law Enforcement section and made it a subsection titled "Prison population". Aren't we getting into some cherry-picked, niche topics at the section and subsection level? Seems like this short paragraph would be just fine folded back into the Law Enforcement section doesn't it? Thoughts? VictorD7 (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Considering the US has the largest prison population and highest incarceration rates on earth I believe it deserves its own subsection.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The U.S. is an outlier in many areas, no reason to provide undue emphasis on this. TFD (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Not even close to important enough to deserve its own section. Rwenonah (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Any time you are NUMBER ONE in the world I believe that you deserve your own section. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

As TFD pointed out, the US is #1 in many categories, most of which don't have their sections.VictorD7 (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

So far three editors oppose this topic having a separate section while two support. The only argument presented in favor of the section is that the US ranks #1, but, as multiple editors have pointed out, the US ranks #1 in many categories (e.g. Nobel Prizes, Olympic Medals, abortions, mean income among OECD nations, food security, litigiousness, cancer survival rates, corporate tax rates, car ownership per capita, etc.) that don't have their own sections and sometimes aren't even mentioned in the article, so that's not a valid argument. Does anyone have a rational, compelling argument for "Prison population" having its own subsection when such a short paragraph could easily be folded back into the Law enforcement section proper?VictorD7 (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I continue to support the "Own section" perspective, but would not object to finding the information in another relevant (ie, Law enforcement) section. On the other hand it might be fun to turn some of the other firsts you mention into sections too. Sort of balkanize the whole article. Carptrash (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

So you wouldn't oppose returning the material to the Law enforcement section where it originally was? VictorD7 (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't just support keeping America's prison population as its own section, I think it needs to be expanded. We are talking about 2.3million people living under lock & key at great expense. And it is highly significant that we are not just #1 in prison population, we are actually exponentially higher than many other economically advanced countries that have much lower rates of violent crime.Lance Friedman (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

50 million abortions have been committed over the past few decades (well over a million each year), and the US has more Nobel Prizes than the rest of the world combined in all three hard science categories over the past several decades. "Highly significant" doesn't necessarily mean "warrants own section". The article is filled with significant distinguishing characteristics that are lumped together under appropriate section headers. Even having the worlds' largest GDP only appears as a mention in the broader "Economy" section. The space program, where the US has had a longstanding dramatic salience, is only briefly mentioned as well. Why is PP so much more important than all those other categories? Unlike the Nobel Prize thing (which isn't mentioned in totality anywhere), the incarceration ranking was already mentioned in the LE section. It's too narrow a topic to warrant its own section. Creating a new header is frivolous, selective, and indicates POV agenda pushing.

On a side note the LE section does need some reworking, but the first order of business (after eliminating the frivolous subsection) should be either deleting the racial incarceration breakdown as misleadingly implying people are being jailed because of their race, or adding salient facts on the racial crime rate breakdown (e.g. blacks commit murder at more than 7 times the rate of non-blacks; BTW, racial differences are one of many reasons why US and "rest of developed world" comparisons are often misleading apples and oranges comparisons designed to push ideological agendas).VictorD7 (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

That is correct, Victor, I have no problem with your moving the info. Carptrash (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Victor and Cartrash can go on and on with dubious statements that other developed countries don't have "blacks" The reality is that the United States article should not be some publicity-stunt/commercial for the USA and should not attempt to hide or downplay controversial issues.Lance Friedman (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Straw man city. Abortion is a highly controversial issue, far more so than prison population, and one could argue that US litigiousness, at insanely high levels compared to other nations (the rest of the western world having loser pay tort laws), impacts everything from the food industry to medicine to whether or not school kids are allowed to play ball sports at recess unsupervised or sing Christmas carols, and yet abortion doesn't have its own section and AFAIK the unusual tort structure isn't even mentioned. Neither do things setting the US apart that most see as positive like the space program, Nobel Prize dominance, or other items I mentioned. It's not about "controversial" or "commercial", but having a consistent, coherent, rational heading format that doesn't get absurdly specific in a skewed, POV way. Besides, frankly, outside of some fringe special interest activism, prison population is not a huge controversy in the US, as most people generally support tough sentences for criminals. By giving it an entire section you're elevating this "controversy" in importance. No one's saying the prison population stuff shouldn't be included. It just doesn't warrant its own section. There's no need for it when it's a single, short paragraph that fits just fine in the Law enforcement section. Different editors personally believe different areas are important, but section headers are supposed to be broad, neutral, and things that are typically replicated on other country pages. They aren't for you to push pet political agendas on niche topics. If every editor did that we'd have 1,000 sections. The overarching criticism of this article over the past year has been that it's already too long. Oh, and no one said "other developed countries don't have blacks". VictorD7 (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Victor, U can introduce as many red herrings as U want into the conversation. Do other economically have as exponentially higher number of abortions compared to our prison population? Stop trying to turn this Wiki article into some kind public relations for the USA.Lance Friedman (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Lance, please reread what's been written here and try again, this time replying with coherent sentences. If I correctly discern what you tried to say, the gap between the US and the rest of the world is even bigger on the space program issue and some others. And I'm not trying to turn the page into "public relations for the USA", which is why I've listed positive and negative items at least as notable as prison population that don't have and shouldn't get their own sections. However, your insistence on spewing that "public relations" straw man indicates that you're obsessed with turning the page into the opposite, a POV agenda that's inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. This isn't a venue for you to wage political crusades, even if you really care about a particular niche issue and want to draw attention to it, or if you just feel the US should be taken down a peg or two. VictorD7 (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from ad hominem attacks, Victor. Pot. Kettle. Black. EllenCT (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Just explaining what Misplaced Pages is for and what's not for, and you're the last one who should be making statements like that, Ellen. VictorD7 (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It's for accurate summarization of accurate information, which means including differing points of view, not trying to censor the vastly more popular one you don't like. EllenCT (talk) 03:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Ellen, please summarize what info the Democracy Index ranking (and only the ranking, because that's all that's in the text) conveys to a reader. Use as many sentences as you like for the summary. Besides, I'm not sure how popular the "Democracy Index" is. Most people haven't heard of it and it's not mentioned on other country pages. Regardless, Ann Coulter (for example) is an extremely popular, multiple best selling author, but popularity doesn't mean an opinion warrants inclusion in a section that's not about subjective opinions, does it? Or if you actually had in mind this section's topic, please explain why you feel the topic of Prison population is more notable (popular?) than the others I've mentioned, including abortion, the space program, car ownership, etc.. VictorD7 (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This section is about prison populations, where the U.S. is not only the first per capita, but has nearly twice as many people incarcerated per capita than any other country of comparable population: List of countries by incarceration rate. If you think that's not noteworthy enough to include, then I don't know what to say. In my opinion, omitting it is sadly trying to sweep a serious problem under the rug. EllenCT (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The US incarceration rate is a major issue. Not sure if it needs its own section, but agree with EllenCT that it deserves more prominent treatment and could be woven into issues like the war on drugs, impacts on minority groups, and voting rights.Mattnad (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Ellen, nakedly mischaracterizing what we've said is a sad debating tactic. As any honest person can verify, I explicitly said it's fine to include it. It already was included long before this recent change. This section isn't about inclusion, but whether this niche topic deserves its own section. Please struggle to stay honest and on topic. And the US has more than twice the space program accomplishments than other countries, and is an extreme outlier in other areas as well that don't have their own sections. That's not enough. VictorD7 (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely worth including as its own section. The fact that the "country of freedom" has the highest per capita prison population in the world is notable and deserves attention. The section itself (which is actually a sub-section) is quite small, but I don't think it should be expanded by much, if any, so as not to give it too much weight and because it currently links to the main article, Incarceration in the United States. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Being notable doesn't mean such a narrowly focused, niche topic should have its own subsection, especially given what you acknowledge is its brevity and your opinion that it shouldn't be expanded (sections are expansion magnets over time). I'm not sure what you think the US being "the country of freedom" has to do with this. It seems like you're trying to make an ironic, opinionated political observation (POV), the relevance of which rests on highly debatable assumptions. For example, one could argue that the US having a higher incarceration rate simply reflects a higher crime rate, itself possibly a symptom of a freer society. Or it may also reflect that victim's rights are taken more seriously. Neither possibility is incompatible with freedom.VictorD7 (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Using small subsections to introduce main articles is very common on Misplaced Pages and is what this section does. America's prison population is notable because it's such an outlier. The fact that per capita, the US has over 250% more people locked up than Iran, and over 500% more than Australia, another "western" country, is notable, whether you agree with it or not. The prison problem in the US has been reported on widely which gives it substantial weight. You need to watch your POV pushing when trying to minimize America's downsides, it hurts the overall content and trustworthiness of the article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm the one saying that both things like prison population and the fact that Americans (per capita) have more than twice the living space as Europeans are notable, but that neither salient trait merits its own section header or the undue weight that would accompany it. I'm being consistent, "positive" or "negative". You need to watch your POV agenda pushing when trying to advance pet leftist crusades, especially if you're simultaneously trying to completely purge the article of at least equally notable info that you've indicated you feel challenges your political worldview. Heck, while you're misguidedly attacking the Heritage Foundation below, multiple portions of the Prison population paragraph are sourced by the Sentencing Project, an activist/lobbyist group with an aggressively pursued, openly expressed agenda on the topic. VictorD7 (talk) 04:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The main thing you're consistent in is pushing your right-wing POV. Trying to compare things like how many citizens are locked up by their government to the size of someone's house not only doesn't make sense but shows me clear intention of trying to mask the seriousness of the prison problem in the United States. I attacked the Heritage Foundation because they are a propaganda machine, as I explained in the section below. Since you think the Sentencing Project source is unreliable then you need to take it to RSN and get their thoughts. I've added more sources to the section to shore it up. Since our discussion is becoming somewhat circular, I will wait to respond until someone other than yourself chimes in. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Except I'm the one treating niche issues like prison population and living space the same, while you're the one consistently pushing a one sided, left-wing POV, underscored by the fact that you just called the prison population a "problem". I didn't say the Sentencing Project is unreliable, but just used it to illustrate your over the top hypocrisy. In the below section I listed numerous other leftist propaganda outfits that you haven't "shored up" or started sections to attack. BTW, the other editors who expressed opposition to a Prison population section are left leaning, underscoring the absurdity of your posturing. I'll add that with the even more recent changes the Law Enforcement section is laughably POV and skewed with undue weight inappropriate for a brief summary in a country article, reading like a DNC pamphlet on gun control, and will need major reworking to approach any semblance of neutrality, probably with counterpoints about privately owned guns being used more to thwart crimes than commit them, analyses failing to demonstrate a causal empirical relationship between lack of gun control laws and higher crime, and certainly with racial breakdowns of murder/crime stats, the last already being warranted given the misleading racial incarceration breakdown and made even more necessary with the "south was the most violent region" crap (also devoid of any mention of the urban/rural breakdown). Such is the way sections blow up to huge size when editors (especially driveby ones) seek to turn an article into a vehicle for political propaganda and POV pushing rather than a neutrality worded, quality encyclopedia. VictorD7 (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Do your stats on poor people with large homes take into account poor people living in prison cells? Do they include homeless people? TFD (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

No. What percentage of the US population is currently incarcerated or homeless? Regardless, the article currently mentions all three topics as it should, though it spends the least amount of time on living space (despite that being the one describing the vast majority of the population), and none of the three topics should be given the skewed elevation of an entire section. VictorD7 (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a non-POV rationale for giving "Prison population" (or "Incarceration") its own section?

So far its supporters have described the issue as a "problem", and indicated that they're attempting to raise awareness of this alleged "problem" in hopes of sparking political changes. Of course that's not supposed to be what Misplaced Pages's about. Does anyone have a non-POV argument in favor of a niche topic like incarceration having its own section, while arguably even more notable topics like crime rate, abortion, the space program, child abuse, drug use, living space, car ownership, Nobel Prizes, frivolous lawsuits (only western nation without loser pay tort rules), school choice, Olympic medals, constitutionalism, and countless others don't? VictorD7 (talk) 03:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

If crime rate doesn't have its own section, then a section on incarceration will be out of context. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, can you imagine a serious encyclopedia which didn't report on the crime rates of various regions, especially in famous places with outlying statistics? EllenCT (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Boneyard90, you're comparing apples to oranges. There are millions of crimes committed every year (crime rate) that don't lead to incarceration. It's like saying why does this article have a Sports section (which it does) but not a Recreation section (which it doesn't); because crime rate is only one aspect that can potentially lead to incarceration. But our opinions are irrelevant. What is relevant is the weight carried by the material. The prison issue in the United States has been reported on widely because it is so unusual for a western country. ----- VictorD7, who in general has continually pushed his right-wing POV agenda, wants to remove anything that casts a negative light on the U.S., which not only violates Misplaced Pages's policy on neutrality, but misinforms millions of people looking for accurate information pertaining to the United States. At the end of the day, intentionally introducing non-neutral sources into the article from Mercatus and Cato ultimately harms the Misplaced Pages project..... which is not a good thing. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

When we write about any country we tend to mention those things that make that country distinctly different from others, particularly if that characteristic for that country is at or near an extreme when compared with others. For the US, "Prison population" (or "Incarceration") is clearly one of those. HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Well said HiLo48. I agree with both you and EllenCT in that the Incarceration section belongs in the article. --- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

But we report on a lot of stuff that doesn't get its own section. The space program, crime rate, living space, abortion rate, Nobel prizes, lawsuit structure, and a host of other things are equally or more distinctive US traits. Do they all deserve their own subsections too? If not, why not? VictorD7 (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Crime rate has been reported on far more widely than incarceration rate, so that's not a valid argument. And the think tank sources you listed were to improve issue coverage and the neutrality of a section (which the neutrality policy actually applies to, not sources; I've already educated you on that with policy quotes) using leftist sources like CBPP and liberal blogs, so your one sided ideological complaining marks you as a hypocrite, and, since I've just listed loads of "negative" topics more deserving of their own sections than incarceration (e.g. lawsuit abuse, abortion, lack of school choice, etc.), you're undeniably lying about my motives, projecting your own partisan POV agenda in the process. Between the two of us I'm the one who actually does sincerely care about not misinforming people. PS - You're overdoing the bolding. It comes across as angry shouting. VictorD7 (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Ellen you do understand that no has said the incarceration rate shouldn't be reported on in the article, don't you? The crime rate doesn't have its own section, and yet it's reported on just fine. We should do the same with incarceration. VictorD7 (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Unjustified revert on living space.

An editor recently deleted a properly sourced sentence from the Income, wealth, and poverty section claiming it was "repetition", and that "the same assertion and exact same source is just 6 paragraphs in this same section". But he's wrong. Here are the two segments:

the one he deleted

1. Americans on average have over twice as much living space per dwelling and per person as Europeans, and more than every European nation.

and a few paragraphs down

2. ...and the average poor American has more living space than the general population average in every European nation except Luxembourg and Denmark.

Those are two different points with explicitly different results. One is a topline stat about the entire population average while the other is specifically about poor Americans. Both are notable, and the combination isn't any more repetitive than breakdowns of other metrics and international comparisons for the poor and other subsets throughout the section and article. They do share a source but that's irrelevant since references can obviously source more than one thing.

When I reverted him and politely informed him that they were in fact different points conveying different information to readers, he reverted the material again and simply repeated his earlier, false claim, calling it "repetitious", and saying "You are making the same assertion".

Perhaps it's possible that he simply honestly misread my edit summary and the article text in question twice, but either way his error should be corrected. I'll do so if he fails to rationally defend his actions here.

PS - In my revert I did accidentally double post the restored section, but that obviously wasn't the "repetition" he was referring to, since he deleted the topline stat entirely. VictorD7 (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Not only is it repetitious, I also think it is rather dubious to even throw this into this section at all. Someone can live in a gigantic dilapidated home and still be poor and have a lousy quality of life. Just as someone with a smaller home that is in good condition can be wealthier and have a better quality of life. All of this silly heritage foundation propaganda that weirdly asserts more square footage somehow means people are better off should be deleted from the income/poverty/wealth section due to its questionable relevance to the topic.Lance Friedman (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

In other words, Lance Friedman's original research has convinced him that reliable sources espousing a conservative viewpoint must be purged from the article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it it necessarily conservative or liberal. All that I am asking is does home size have any serious relevance to the topic of poverty/income/wealth? There is no original research involved. I can find lots of sources stating people are better off in smaller homes: http://realestate.msn.com/5-reasons-you-should-buy-a-small-houseLance Friedman (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

We are supposed to include facts that are normally presented in mainstream sources. Adding facts in order to add a conservative view is against WP:WEIGHT. Similarly we should not present facts to bolster an anti-American viewpoint. TFD (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course not--we should add facts because they're notable. LF wants to delete this sourced material not because it lacks notability, but because it's "silly heritage foundation propaganda".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that was a sarcastic way of saying it was only notable to people who think like the Heritage Foundation writers. TFD (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted because it lacks relevance to the topics of the section, income/poverty/wealthLance Friedman (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hogwash. One can add qualifications to every fact in the article.* Food and shelter are basic components of living standard, and a living space advantage of more than 2 to 1 over Europeans is highly notable. Indeed whether one sees it as positive or not, it's a salient, distinguishing characteristic of America. In an above section you've been arguing that a prison population of more than twice most other developed countries (but still a tiny percentage of the population) is enough to justify "Prison population" having its own section, and now you're trying to purge a mere sentence mention of something basic and notable that affects the population as a whole? Your stated reasoning for deletion was that it was "repetitious", but the segment about the overall country and the one about the poor are two undeniably different stats, as I've demonstrated. Regardless, the topline stat covering the whole population in the intro paragraph would be the more important one to leave in anyway. Since it's long established text deleted under the false pretense of "repetition" I'm going to go ahead and restore it. If you still believe it should be deleted for some reason, you can continue to argue for that change here.

-*For example, "relative" poverty and social mobility are extremely dubious metrics for international comparison, since a nation like Poland or North Korea can rank "higher" than a much more prosperous nation. Yet the article still dwells on those topics and general "inequality" extensively, complete with sourcing from an array of leftist references that includes dated fringe blogs and angry student editorials in some cases. VictorD7 (talk) 04:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The source for the material is the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank which is not a reliable secondary source. See WP:RS. There are some places they can be used as a primary, but definitely not when it's regarding anything to do with welfare or poverty. If the material you want to re-insert is applicable, you will be able to find it in a major news outlet or scholarly journal. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff, nothing in the guidelines says think tanks aren't reliable sources, and there's certainly no ideological prohibition on sources. In fact as your own linked page states, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." The non-POV rule applies to how we edit the article,* not (necessarily) the sources we use, which is good since it's easy to demonstrate bias with virtually every source used, most of them on this page probably left wing. Bias can be taken into account when accuracy is in dispute, but in this case the data comes from government sources and isn't in dispute. Furthermore, the segment in question (the one previously deleted) isn't about poverty, but the population as a whole. VictorD7 (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

-*An example of ridiculous, neutrality violating, POV pushing is this article text in the Income section's last paragraph, replete with skewed opinion: Between June 2007 and November 2008 the global recession led to falling asset prices around the world. Assets owned by Americans lost about a quarter of their value. Since peaking in the second quarter of 2007, household wealth is down $14 trillion. At the end of 2008, household debt amounted to $13.8 trillion. By some measures, the U.S. has more millionaires per capita than any other nation, ranks in the top 14 in billionaires per capita, and has more billionaires and millionaires than any other nation and all of Europe, most described as self-made, though there's dispute to what degree. Some consider the entire idea of a self-made man to be largely a myth. The second wealthiest man in the United States, Warren Buffet has been quoted as saying: “I personally think that society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I’ve earned.” According to the 2013 Forbes Magazine ranking of American billionaires, six of the ten wealthiest billionaires came from just two families and the source of their fortunes is inherited wealth. According to United for a Fair Economy, 35% of 2011's 400 wealthiest Americans came from poor or middle-class backgrounds. They also say the myth of “self-made wealth is potentially destructive to the very infrastructure that enables wealth creation.”

VictorD7, your point is that mainstream academics and media ignore facts and use incorrect comparisons, which has been pointed out by right-wing think tanks. However adding info from them skews the article away from the mainstream and is therefore undue weight. TFD (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

But surely POV from angry student editorials can be excised to bring a more neutral point of view to the article. I sort of like think tanks like Heritage, Brookings and Wilson for background information -- I like to read all three before forming a personal opinion -- sorry to see them preemptively excluded generically as reliable sources for an article aimed at a general international readership. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of partisan thinktanks is to present views that they believe are not adequately presented in mainstream sources. However our task is to present views in proportion with how they are presented in mainstream sources. If you think the project should provide more weight to right-wing, left-wing or any other views than the mainstream does, then you need to change policy. What btw are these sources written by angry students? TFD (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I had in mind this piece off the top of my head (), but after closer inspection it's an angry editorial by a paid employee of a university affiliated journalism trade magazine, though it reads like it was written by a student and gets torn apart in the comments section. Here's an angrier editorial (and current section source) that lambasts "the black heart of the entire right-wing worldview". This source is an opinion piece from 2004 ("Social Security Isn't Broken: So Why the Rush to 'Fix' It?") written by someone I've never heard of that's apparently arguing against social security reform, though it's unclear if it's available for online viewing. That last one is used to support the matter of fact claim in Misplaced Pages's voice that "the American welfare state effectively reduces poverty among the elderly". There's currently no mention in the article of social security's own trustees declaring in recent years that the entitlement program is "unsustainable" (). I could go on and on. VictorD7 (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

TFD, I reject your implied premise that conservative sources and/or think tanks of any stripe (and there are plenty of leftist ones in the article) can't be "mainstream". Misplaced Pages guidelines say that even Facebook posts can be legitimate sources, if the author can be verified as an expert in the pertinent field. The Heritage Foundation is one of the nation's most prominent think tanks, and is therefore pretty mainstream. More importantly, the piece in question is well referenced and the facts come from government sources. VictorD7 (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

IOW the views expressed in Heritage Foundation studies are the same as those expressed by the vast majority of news and academic sources. Then why not just use mainstream media and academic views? TFD (talk) 04:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

First, I strongly reject the premise that conservative sources should be replaced for some reason when the numerous leftist sources peppering the article are just fine (and I just disputed your premise that Heritage isn't "mainstream"; indeed it's far more prominent than many of the obscure academic and other fringe sources on the page). Second, Heritage isn't being used to support "views", but facts, facts it took the lead in bringing to light for mass popular consumption (and their work has been roundly copied and commented on, with the various liberal outfits attacking it, at least one of which is currently also used as a source, not disputing the facts presented, but just engaging in whiny spin), so it's fitting that it serves as a source. That said, I have since added the government sources too (for the poverty appliance inclusion), though they aren't ideal alone since Heritage performs the basic (and easily verifiable) arithmetic to convert the listed data into article text friendly percentages.VictorD7 (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You are using it to present facts that they consider important and are ignored by the mainstream in brief descriptions of the U.S. That is the same as having a section on prison populations because someone thinks it is important to provide extensive coverage of the facts about that topic. Just because there is left-wing content in the article that should not be there, does not mean right-wing content should be added. I do not see any left-wing sources btw, so perhaps you could identify them. BTW you need to distinguish between rs and weight. Just because something is true does not mean it should be put in. TFD (talk) 05:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

To what "mainstream in brief descriptions of the U.S." sources do you refer? There is no external country article template. This article has a unique combination of size and scope. Editors decide what to include based on notability, hopefully with good faith and fair judgement. Both prison population and living space are salient, distinguishing characteristics of the US, and are therefore notable, though neither deserves or requires its own section based on standard page layout practice on other Misplaced Pages country articles and a reasonable desire to avoid skewing with logically undue weight (I'm familiar with both concepts, btw, and haven't conflated them in any way). The living space inclusion only consists of a sentence and a half, so it can hardly be claimed it's receiving too much emphasis given all the far more obscure, niche details peppering the article. You may not want to acknowledge the rest of the article, but it can't be ignored in a page layout discussion. Context matters. Deleting something as basic and relevant as living space (a concept discussed frequently in every type of media) should only come after a massive pruning that sees many less relevant segments removed first, especially if there's an ideological agenda motivating the one sided deletion that leaves a skewed, POV article. As for leftist sources, for a small sample in the section see my above reply to your reply to TVH. VictorD7 (talk) 06:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Ryan Chittum is the deputy editor at the Columbia Journalism Review and previously was a staff reporter at the Wall Street Journal. Sara Robinson is an editor at AlterNet and has a degree in journalism and a graduate degree. Doug Orr is a professor of economics at Eastern Washington University. None of them are "angry students." Whether or not their writings should be used is another issue, but please do not misrepresent their qualifications. You say "there is no external country article template", but policy says we can use tertiary sources in order to determine weight. Do you think that a standard reference book of countries of the world would cover your talking points? I think there was agreement that we should say that Americans have larger living spaces, but no reason to say that poor people have larger living spaces than poor people in other countries (presumably so do rich and middle income people), except to present the view that mainstream sources wrongly overstate U.S. poverty, i.e., to balance mainstream views with your partisan views of one side. TFD (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Alternet is a low brow leftist propaganda outfit whose very name (a play on "alternative" media) is a boast about its non-mainstream status. Ryan Chittum has a degree from the University of Oklahoma (presumably in journalism, though I'm not sure), and it's unclear why he should even be considered an expert on economics, though I didn't mention qualifications much less misrepresent them (I already self corrected the "student" part earlier, but the "angry editorial" description is completely apt). The topic was ideology, and I clearly illustrated the leftist agenda being pushed hard by the sources cited above. I could follow it up with many, many more examples. You provided no examples of an external country template that should serve as an overarching guide for what we should include in this article. "Standard reference book" isn't good enough. You still seem to be defining "mainstream" as that which agrees with your own partisan views, a circular argument. Misplaced Pages must not be a vehicle for one sided propaganda. VictorD7 (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Try typing in "countries of the world" in Google books. BTW facts are not "angry" or "left-wing", they are true or false. But the relevant policy is not rs but WP:WEIGHT, i.e., which facts to include. TFD (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm familiar with a diverse array of books about "countries of the world". You didn't cite an example we should use as template. I never said "facts" are angry or left-wing, but editorials certainly can be. I agree with you that accuracy is relevant regarding facts. Nothing in the undue weight section you linked to (which primarily deals with allowing all significant viewpoints in proper proportions when facts are in dispute) indicates that a mere sentence and a half, factually undisputed comparative living space inclusion is somehow undue, especially in a section featuring such obscure and pointless segments as the "Legatum Prosperity Index" sentence, a sentence dedicated to a one time study on children's "well being" based on highly subjective and misleading factors, an opinion in Misplaced Pages's voice about the "effectiveness" of the US welfare state, etc.. VictorD7 (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Justification needed for usage of Heritage Foundation source

As I stated before, the source for the material is the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank which is not a reliable secondary source (they can be used in certain instances as long as attribution is given). Heritage's primary purpose is to influence public policy using right-wing ideological based "research". They form conclusions from this "research" and then use it to try and sway politicians/public opinion. They are the ULTIMATE pov pushers. To make this clear, I'll discuss this source which VictorD7 recently stuck back in the article. First, the material doesn't even hold up to scrutiny. Their argument is that standard of living is better with more living space, but it's completely devoid of context. According to this line of reasoning, living in a 2000 sq. ft. home in high-crime Compton would be better than living in a 1000 sq. ft. home in low-crime Reykjavik. That isn't an argument, it's nonsense. They also fail to mention that Europe is much older than the US and living in smaller quarters is not unusual. There are thousands of articles, books, research papers, etc. that can be used in this article. Relying on the knowingly biased Heritage Foundation is not only unnecessary but harmful. If the material you want in the article is worthy of including, then find a reliable secondary source verifying the claims. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you take it to RSN?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

First, your false claim that "right-wing" sources can't be used without attribution has already been corrected. I even quoted the guideline line from your own link (WP:RS in a reply that you failed to directly respond to: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Since they're only being used to source undisputed government stats, and not their own opinions, simply calling them "pov pushers" isn't a valid argument against the source.

Second, no conclusions are expressed in the segments, though, all things being equal, more living space is generally seen as better than less living space, as demonstrated by property values in apples to apples comparisons (especially within the same region). No variable tells the whole story, which is why so many different ones are mentioned, including crime rates, income, etc.. You've offered no reason to exclude living space while retaining others. In your hypothetical, it would be one area where the Compton dweller would have a leg up on the Iceland dweller. If that offends one's prejudices then perhaps one should reexamine them with an open mind.

Third, regardless of our opinions of how "positive" or "negative" large living space is, the fact that Americans have more than twice the living space per person as Europeans is a major distinguishing characteristic, just as the high prison population is (which many can argue is a good thing to the extent it means criminals are being locked up), and is important for people to know if they're looking for info on what sets the US apart. Big homes. The half sentence spent on the living space of poor Americans is necessary lest people falsely believe that the average is skewed by some very large houses on top rather than being a general population phenomenon.

Fourth, do you plan to start sections demanding defenses of leftist sources, including think tanks like the CBPP, Brookings Institute, Economic Policy Institute, and Urban Institute, lobbyists like Citizens for Tax Justice, activist professors on crusades like Smeeding or Saez, partisan bloggers on sites like Alternet, The New Republic, and the Huffington Post, or partisan editorial columns on sites like CJR and Psychology Today (and all of those come from just the Income section! And, unlike Heritage, many are being used to source their own opinions and/or original, unverifiable research.), or is your effort here entirely one sided and partisan? VictorD7 (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

First, user:VictorD7 conveniently left out some material from WP:RS. It states, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are good sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Biased sources are, however, more likely to be unreliable than neutral sources." A little further down it states, "Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs."

Second, I've already explained why living space is a somewhat meaningless term regarding quality of life. Another user discussed this previously. So the question remains; if this material carries enough weight to be included in the article, then why haven't you provided any other source which supports it ??? When discussing issues like poverty, taxes, homelessness, etc., there are usually multiple sources discussing it. Yet for some unknown reason, the material presented by The Heritage Foundation appears nowhere else; but it's worthy, because user:VictorD7 says it is. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff didn't answer my question about whether his focus on political sources is entirely one sided (given the numerous leftist sources used to support even originally developed material, only some of which I just cited in a long list), or explain why living space (the general concept of which is discussed all the time in a variety of sources; check home listings some time) isn't notable when (as I already explained) your argument about it not necessarily telling the whole living standard story is true of every metric in the article (why we don't just cite one fact). Your expanded quote from the RS page isn't relevant unless you're disputing the accuracy of the claim. As has already been noted, the facts supported by the transparently referenced Heritage piece in question come from government sources, and some direct government sources have already been added to the article. The piece and its material have been widely commented on in conservative and liberal circles, with the latter trying to put a predictable spin on it but not challenging the info's accuracy. VictorD7 (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

EXACTLY. You've been asked to provide ONE SOURCE backing up the material from The Heritage Foundation and YOU CAN'T DO IT, proving that it doesn't carry significant weight to be included in the article. ---- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually I don't think you directly asked me to, but just asked why I hadn't, so I was busy rejecting your premise that I needed to. That said, here are several sources discussing the US/European living space contrast, including a Swedish study and a British government agency survey: , , , , , , And it's common to see discussion of living space generally as important to living standard, like in this Guardian piece. VictorD7 (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Education compared to Finland

The Smithsonian has published a comparitive review of the education systems of top-performing Finland and the US. How much of it is appropriate to include in this article? EllenCT (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

According to the article, the Finns are said to educate at 30% less per student than the U.S. Teachers are paid for graduate work qualifying them for state-paid salaries on a par with doctors and lawyers. Classroom sizes are limited to 23, with a qualified teacher and three assistants pursuing advanced education at state expense for each class equipped with smart boards and the computers and software to drive them to meet the national curriculum standards.

Finland supplies the employer’s salary of each woman for three years of maternity leave at the birth of each child -- and guarantees the position on her return? Each family has direct subsidy of $2,000 a year a child until they turn 17. Finland provides nation-wide childcare and preschool to 90% of the children. The state commits finances to ensure no child arrives for school hungry.

There are no "high stakes" tests, but the principle of each school selects on average 43% of the 9th graders to become the nation’s restaurant help, hospital and construction workers -- they attend the less expensive (?) vocational high schools. And the Finns are said to educate at 30% less per student than the U.S. How are the metrics to be comparable to what could go on in the U.S., a federal republic? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ellen, have a look at the section here. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I like the Education in the United States international comparison. On the other hand, Ellen and I might agree after all on one comparison -- a school metric for physical education. My favorite soccer/futbol is less expensive per student than American football, and many more can participate at all ages -- without the debilitating injuries, either physically or neurologically, that American football incurs. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I do, too. I have another source that says Finland's average class size and average student-teacher ratio is very low, less than half of the US's, although their teacher salaries and per-pupil spending appear to be very much in line with the European average. I don't see how that is possible, so I am looking for more sources. EllenCT (talk) 07:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It is true that the U.S. spends more per capita than other OECD countries on educating students, yet has larger classroom sizes, lower teacher pay and lower outcomes. American taxpayers also spend more per capita on public health care, yet it is only provided to poor and old people. They are less efficient in providing services, except for prison services, whether the cost of each prisoner is much lower than other countries. TFD (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No sources for those remarkably dramatic TFD claims; probably too broadly condemning to find any references to back them up -- no public health care for military veterans or for disabilities in the US by TFD sources? The issue under discussion relates to comparable national data bases.

In Finland, each child has a national grant of $2000 a year from birth to age 17, noted in the Smithsonian article as contributing to Finland's education. The Finns nationally fund graduate study required for both the regular and special education classroom teacher in every classroom. How can we be sure that the OECD comparisons wrap in the Finn national child grants and teacher education for comparison to US per capita expenditure per child? There must be sources, which TFD is reluctant to provide in any discussion. TFD and I may be agreed that American football is an inefficient use of educational resources compared to soccer-futbol. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Child benefits are not educational spending. In any case, the U.S. also has child benefits. The Guardian says "The US has the highest health spending in the world.... And it's not all private - government spending is at $4,437 per person, only behind Luxembourg, Monaco and Norway." And you are right, it is not just on poor and old people, but on some other classes of people as well. TFD (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Historian, could you please say a little more about which of TFD's claims you found particularly questionable? After finding I dug a little deeper on that site, and if it is as accurate as it seems to agree with other sources, they have other stories e.g. , , , , , , etc. that solidly support TFD's characterization. Perhaps describing how the public school teacher to administrator ratio has changed over the past century would be helpful? EllenCT (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you have a suggested language to contribute to the article? I note you provided some interesting clippings on classroom cheating, but no scholarship. Links are a start, and very superior to TFD output. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I plan to try to update, expand, and otherwise improve Education in the United States with this first, and then with luck I will have a sentence at least or a paragraph at most to try here. EllenCT (talk) 05:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I look forward to your effort. Though generally, I'm always suspicious of data bases for systems comparisons in education. For example, of those attending on state test days, my 11th grade students scored their career highest for social studies consistently over my last decade teaching. Some few, and all gang members did not show on the day. Some attended one day in thirteen so as to qualify the family for food stamps, -- which I consider responsible at one level, playing by the rules as such--food stamps as a pro-family policy.

a) no-show zero scores were averaged into my aggregate performance rating for each class, b) if they are not in the seats, I can't teach. But school teachers strive to educate children of illiterate parents to read by direct instruction and subject courses for the sake of the children's future individual opportunity and mobility. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Page size

• File size: 1022 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 208 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 33 kB
• Wiki text: 289 kB
• Prose size (text only): 96 kB (15453 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 2586 B

This article has gotten huge. Looks like we are trying to talk about everything here. Need to do lots of trimming. Could start by simply incorporating with much less details the sub section like "Prison population" and "Comic books" - not sure this has any real value to our readers in this overall topic. What do others think of the size and sub sections like food that could easily be handled in the culture article? -- Moxy (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, particularly about the Prison population and Comic books sections being frivolous, not to mention creating an undue weight skewing. VictorD7 (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I would rather cut sports and comic books than lose focus on the incarcerated proportion. EllenCT (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ellen about not losing focus re: incarceration. Subsections are a common way to introduce main articles on wikipedia. The sports section is the largest but isn't an issue in my opinion. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Sports is a very broad category that consumes a major portion of cultural energy across the population and appears in other country articles. By contrast, only a tiny percentage of Americans are incarcerated, and they're incarcerated for criminal activity. Clearly Prison population and Comic books are overly niche topics that should have their headers removed, with the key material (a line or two) folded back into the appropriate sections. Two editors here, Ellen and Somedifferentstuff, have described US incarceration as a "problem", indicating a POV agenda. Misplaced Pages isn't the right place for pet issue crusading. VictorD7 (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Incarceration sub-section (under Law enforcement)

Both the Sports sub-section and Comic books sub-sub section fall under the Culture heading and neither are an issue in my opinion (Comic books is a tiny section and the mention of Superman (1938) is culturally relevant.) The Incarceration sub-section, which falls under Law enforcement, is also quite small. The fact that the United States leads the world in per capita incarceration is notable, both because it's been well documented in numerous sources and because it's highly unusual for a western country to have such a high incarceration rate. Comparing its weight to Sports or Comic books is like comparing horses to microphones, they are completely different subjects in different parts of the article. --------- VictorD7's best argument so far amounts to "I don't like it", which of course isn't an argument. The truth of the matter is that all 3 sections combined contribute very little to the overall length of the article and they all have merit. If you really think it's necessary to remove Comic books then you should start another section discussing that specifically, but I'll continue to be in agreement with EllenCT regarding the Incarceration section. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

To be honest the whole section "Law enforcement" is a bit odd on a main country article. Comic books and incarceration should be no more then one sentence each at best. When it comes to the food section (that should be called cuisine)... I also think its way to much for this overview article (why is there a need to name companies at al) . If there is any hope of reaching GA or FA level the size point will have to be dealt with..... that said the other problems that I have seen you guys talking about here on this page (like verifiability) are much more pressing. -- Moxy (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Not exceptionally unusual. See these sections for the United Kingdom....... Italy....... Norway....... Sweden. ---- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

None of those examples have an "Incarceration" subsection, btw. And no, actually the argument by me and several other editors disagreeing with you on this is that countless equally or more notable facts don't get their own section. This isn't about notability, but undue, cherry-picked, skewed emphasis being given to a niche issue you've singled out. In an article that's already widely seen as too long, this sets a very bad precedent and will logically lead to a proliferation of subsections like the hypothetical examples I listed elsewhere on this page. VictorD7 (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No other country has a prison population sub-section because no other country has imprisoned such a large amount of their population per capita. The fact that the United States has such a large amount of it population imprisoned compared to other countries is highly notable and needs a sub-section because of that notability.Lance Friedman (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Well said Lance. More "I don't like it" from VictorD7. This material has significant weight because it has been widely reported on. Our opinions are irrelevant (yes, that includes everyone's). The reason none of the articles I listed above touch on incarceration is because the United States is an outlier, as discussed by another editor here. --- I agree with EllenCT, HiLo48, and Lance Friedman in that the Incarceration section belongs in the article. There is definitely not consensus to remove it. --- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

People should look at GA and FA articles for examples of what we are looking for when it come to size of main country articles and the topics they should cover under separate sections (we try to reduce them as much as possible see Canada and Nauru for FA examples. This article has had lots of additions lately that are simply undue weight to the main topic. I would say there is lots of over kill and much can be incorporated into other sections. @ Somedifferentstuff can we get you to read over WP:SHOUT - as your points are valid and should not be dismissed because of a shouting presentation. -- Moxy (talk) 03:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There wasn't consensus to create the recent addition in the first place, since I, TFD, Moxy, Boneyard90, and Rwenonah disagree with you. Instead of continuing to lie about the arguments we've presented, I wish you'd answer the question about whether other widely reported on, niche topics, some of equal or greater distinctive salience, like the crime rate, space program, abortion rate, unique tort setup, constitutionalism, living space, Nobel Prizes, etc. merit their own subsections too, and if not why not? Until you do, it would be more accurate to describe your position as "I just like it!". VictorD7 (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

According to this source 0.6% of the adult US population is incarcerated. With all this talk about percentages, I figured it'd be useful for someone to actually give the percentage, just to keep things in perspective. Many of the topics I just listed significantly impact a much vaster percentage of the population. VictorD7 (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Serious concerns with the CTJ/ITEP chart, which is uncorroborated and dramatically disputed by CBO and Tax Policy numbers

The chart to the right, recently added to the Government finance section, was produced by a lobbying outfit called Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ), which contains a research arm called The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP). ITEP is listed as CTJ's "partner organization" under the "About" category, and CTJ/ITEP publishes a "newsletter". The group's agenda is clear from the chart's source, which is dedicated to downplaying US tax progressivity. The mission statement (linked to earlier) states that "CTJ fights for" "Requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share", "Closing corporate tax loopholes", and "Adequately funding important government services", meaning that they advocate higher taxes on high earners. To further this goal, they've produced the chart purporting to show that the top 1% of earners pay a lower total effective tax rate (including state/local) than the previous 10%, and the equal bar arrangement for increasingly smaller percentages of the population (which one has to read the fine print to notice) exacerbates the visual impact of this.

The problem is that their internal figures, which (for example) consistently show the top 1% with a federal tax rate of 21-22%(, ), are dramatically contradicted by both Congressional Budget Office (, scroll down halfway for historical chart) and Tax Policy Center (, , ) which consistently place the top effective federal tax rate at around 30%, give or take a couple of points (more often higher than lower). CTJ's total rate for the top 1% is lower than the TPC's federal rate alone!

CTJ/ITEP has a clear motive for portraying US taxation as less progressive than it actually is, which is what this chart does. However, the symmetrical accusation can't be made about the CBO or TPC. The Tax Policy Center is a joint project of the Brookings Institute and Urban Institute, two left leaning think tanks. From 2003-20010 97.6% of political donations from Brookings Institute employees and 100% of donations from Urban Institute employees went to Democrats. The TPC's tax incidence numbers have enhanced credibility because they generally track closely with independently derived CBO figures.

By contrast, the CTJ/ITEP numbers have absolutely zero corroboration. I don't know of any other outfit that regularly produces state/local effective tax rates, due to the difficulty caused by extreme variations, but the federal portion (which accounts for most taxes) isn't credible. CTJ/ITEP also has a more opaque methodology than the other sources, so it's unclear even what factors could explain the sharp dispute. A high ranking CTJ official indicated that corporate taxes are paid by owners, which would mean they fall heavily on high earners (which both the CBO and TPC agree with):

"All taxes have to be paid by somebody at some point," says Steve Wamhoff, legislative director at Citizens for Tax Justice, the liberal lobbying arm of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a research group. "The corporate tax is paid by the owners of corporate stock and business assets."

Yet the group's 21-22% figure for the top 1%'s total federal tax rate seems more line with the personal income tax alone portion cited by the CBO () and TPC than it does with total federal taxes. The CTJ figures have also been criticized by the Tax Foundation, perhaps the most prominent conservative leaning tax think tank.

Given that the chart is an original production of a lobbying outfit whose independently invented numbers are totally uncorroborated and are sharply disputed by more reliable sources like the CBO and TPC (which have less motive to fudge facts), not to mention directly criticized by the Tax Foundation, I propose that we delete it rather than risk spreading propagandistic misinformation. It may be acceptable as one voice among many in other, more topically narrow articles, but it's unfit for inclusion in this country summary article, much less for being elevated in prominence as an image.

Also, the previous discussion on this topic occurred under the umbrella of a larger section, and saw the leftist poster who pushed this chart onto the page make false claims and repeatedly dodge pertinent questions, almost entirely avoiding substantive conversation. I would prefer to settle things here in a civil manner, but if this issue doesn't get a full, sober hearing, including an intellectually honest discussion that sees questions answered, facts acknowledged, and arguments addressed, I will take this to arbitration. VictorD7 (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Why are they less credible than The Heritage Foundation? Because their numbers contradict the CBO?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Heritage Foundation wouldn't be any more credible if we were talking about including numbers they had developed through extensive original research with an opaque, proprietary methodology (as opposed to simply relaying basic government stats) that was explicitly, dramatically disputed by sources like the Tax Policy Center and CBO, especially if we were discussing turning said numbers into a big chart. Such visual aids on the page are rare per section (usually one), and shouldn't be the subject of extreme controversy like this. VictorD7 (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

ITEP's chart shows a tax rate for the top 1% of 29.0%, which is "at around 30%", not "dramatically contradicted." The CTJ figure of 21-22% is the percentage of all tax revenues received from the top 1%, not their effective tax rate. ITEP is separate from CTJ and receives funding from the Ford Foundation and other corporate foundations. Its sources are widely used by publications across the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

ITEP's "29%" is for total taxation, not just federal taxation. The CBO and TPC calculate federal taxation, and their top 1% rate for federal taxation alone is consistently around 30%. Clearly adding state/local taxes to the CBO or TPC rates would dramatically increase those numbers. And no, CTJ's 2011 chart gives a rate 21.1% for the top 1% in the "Federal taxes" column under "TAXES AS A % OF INCOME" (aka effective tax rates) on the right side of the page, and 7.9% for state/local taxes (21.1 + 7.9 = 29). ITEP and CTJ advertise their linkage on their own sites, as I showed. In fact the quote where CTJ was identified as the "liberal lobbying arm of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy" came form a WSJ story featured on the ITEP site, as I linked. It's not uncommon for an outfit to brand different parts of itself with different names, and they don't exactly try to hide the connection. The Ford Foundation (not connected to the auto company for several decades) is known for funding radical leftist causes, so its support isn't surprising. CTJ/ITEP isn't cited anywhere near as often as the far more prominent Tax Policy Center and CBO, and that it's been occasionally cited by non leftists doesn't mean anything since it's common for good political debaters to use their opponents' own sources to undermine their arguments, enhancing the robustness of their own arguments. VictorD7 (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Victor, am I to understand that you are supporting the chart which shows the incidence of corporate income tax on the wealthy instead of about half on lower income consumers? EllenCT (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The chart based on TPC numbers is a separate issue, and if you want to raise questions about it you're free to start a section doing so, but since you raised the issue I'll ask again: How does your CTJ chart attribute corporate tax? Did you read the quote from the CTJ official in this section's op saying that "The corporate tax is paid by the owners of corporate stock and business assets"? Also, the CTJ is dedicated to raising, not lowering corporate taxes (per its own mission statement page). If it believed corporate taxes were regressive one would think the group would be lobbying hard to eliminate them, and yet not a peep on that front. Are you implying that CTJ secretly counts corporate taxes more on lower income earners even while publicly advocating that "corporate loopholes" be closed? Regardless, even if they attributed ZERO corporate taxes to the top 1% (which would be insane), that wouldn't account for all the difference between CTJ and the more reliable sources. Something is seriously wrong here. VictorD7 (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

According to the NYT, the effective federal tax rate for the top 1% is 20.6. The incidence of corporate taxation is disputed and there is no reason why we should spin it to favor your viewpoint. In any case, you appear to be disputing what information is presented rather than the accuracy of the underlying data. So please stop this "left-wing propaganda" malarkey. TFD (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

No, that "20.65" figure is only the "income and payroll tax rate" (their wording), and it's labeled 2007 data. It's not sold as total federal tax rates. Furthermore, it says it's sourced by CBO data, which I already linked to multiple times above (CBO's top 1% total federal rate for 2007 was 28.3%, its second lowest mark of the century, and was rising again by 2009). Please stop deciding that you're going to argue with me for political reasons before you even investigate the matter, and read your own sources carefully. So far it's unclear precisely how the CTJ even attributes corporate taxation, or what proportion of the discrepancy that would account for, though it couldn't possibly explain the entire gap. I'm definitely disputing its accuracy.

To demonstrate that productive, rational exchange here is possible, I would like you to acknowledge that your earlier statement about CTJ's "21-22%" figure not being their federal tax rate was incorrect (as I spelled out, complete with page directions and arithmetic), rather than throwing demonstrably false claims out and simply moving on to new angles of predisposed attack when they're debunked. It would show we're at least now on the same page on that narrow but vital point. VictorD7 (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If you continue to make long postings trashing sources and accuse everyone of being leftists, talk, about "propaganda", and present highly partisan sources, then you will probably find little cooperation. I have checked your links, which is time-consuming, and my patience is running out too. TFD (talk) 03:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

With one exception, the "partisan" sources I've provided have all been liberal leaning, and my ideological descriptions are all easily supportable (the key ones are already supported by linked evidence). I do appreciate that this is a time consuming issue involving careful reading and I don't mean to rush your replies. Take your time. But at some point I would like you to clarify whether you now agree that the 21-22% figures discussed above are CTJ's total federal tax rates for the top 1%, since you did make a certain sounding claim. VictorD7 (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Long postings

I agree with TFD regarding long postings pertaining to user: VictorD7. Some people would call that disruptive. I'll explain. In general, this talk page is used to discuss specific components of the article. If we were discussing the whole article, then a long posting would make sense; but we are talking about specifics. If your argument is sound, you should be able to make it in a couple of paragraphs. If you have to go on and on about something then you probably haven't spent enough time formulating your thoughts to create a concise/tight argument. What this can do is cause other editors to "give up" due to frustration. This doesn't mean you have consensus or that you have won the argument.

Take your time to form a concise argument; this talk page will be here tomorrow, and the next day, and the day after that. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sympathetic towards VictorD7, and hope we can work together. I think the tension pertaining to progressive taxation in general is central to the political issues of the US and has been for decades, and the incidence of the corporate income tax may very well hold the key to resolving the entire conflict. I urge patience and thought on these topics. There may be a way that Misplaced Pages itself can support greater understanding in the populations affected. EllenCT (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you said that and I look forward to you answering my questions above about precisely how CTJ/ITEP attributes corporate taxes, and what else is in play since even a corporate tax rate of zero for the top 1% wouldn't explain the entire difference with other sources. The bottom line is that in a country article summary there's no reason for the image chosen for a section to be the subject of hot dispute and controversy, given the enhanced prominence involved with such a selection. VictorD7 (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Just because I am sympathetic to your plight does not mean I believe that your right-wing viewpoint leaves you with even a tiny fraction of the accuracy necessary to help compose an encyclopedia to which society would benefit from having access. Competence is required to edit, and your political views require you to harbor falsehoods which interfere with your ability to identify reliable sources and summarize truthfully. EllenCT (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by personal attacks??? VictorD7 has in general continually pushed his right-wing POV agenda. Using a flashlight is not a personal attack; IT'S USEFUL INFORMATION. ---- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7 asked Ellen a question. She refused to respond, instead expressing her personal "sympathy" for his supposed cognitive dissonance. Outside of the implication that the Left is the objective Truth according to the holy Consensus, her personal attack added nothing of substantive value to this discussion. Comment on content, not contributors. This talk page is not the place for discussing another editor.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I wasn't referring to the accuracy of Victor's contributed content? EllenCT (talk) 05:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

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