This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dhtwiki (talk | contribs) at 23:28, 1 September 2015 (→Parties and elections edit: reply - great map). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:28, 1 September 2015 by Dhtwiki (talk | contribs) (→Parties and elections edit: reply - great map)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This page is not a forum for general discussion about United States. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about United States at the Reference desk. |
| 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. |
|
| 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: 14 days  |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q1. How did the article get the way it is?
2. How about Switzerland?
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.
| |||||||
 | 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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
| 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:
|
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. |
|
| 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: 14 days |
Specific individual disputes
Since the controversial edits leading to the recent full protection were rolled up into a series of massive reverts spanning several sections, originally by an editor who does not seem to have been working on this article previously, and exemplified most recently by this diff, I thought I would pull them out into eight individual questions that I hope we can work out separately while editing is suspended. Can we try to reach compromises on all eight questions before the full protection expires? EllenCT (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Republican Party description
1. What are the sources supporting that Republicans are "center-right" and what sources say they are "right-wing"? Which is the more prominent description in the peer reviewed WP:SECONDARY sources? I happen to believe that since the Democratic Party leaders' preferences are well documented as being to the right of the demographic center's preferences that calling Republicans "center-right" is entirely inaccurate. Are there reliable sources in opposition? I am not okay with simply calling Republicans "conservative" because they've been radically redefining the status quo over the past several decades. Eisenhower was conservative when he took post-WWII marginal tax rates down to pre-WWII levels. Reagan was not when he returned capital gains rates down to Gilded Age historical lows.
- It might be better to separate these into different sections. On 1, I completely reject your premise that the population is to the left of Democrats (if anything it's to the right of where people usually vote, which is why Democrats have to run further from their base rhetorically in general campaigns to be competitive than Republicans do; e.g. - Pew poll showing by 58% to 35% Americans prefer "freedom to pursue life’s goals without state interference" over the state playing "an active role in society to ensure that nobody is in need", the opposite of the Europeans' responses; In Gallup polling self identified conservatives have typically outnumbered self identified liberals roughly 40%-20% over the years, and currently outnumber liberals in all but three states; more Americans have consistently seen Republicans as "too liberal" than the Democrats as "too conservative"; a strong majority--most recently 59%--favor abortion being "under stricter limits than it is now" or not permissible at all; Americans consistently favor spending cuts over tax hikes to tackle the deficit; when asked for actual ideal numbers instead of just "should they pay more or less" most people prefer "the rich" pay a lower tax rate than they actually do; super majorities have always supported prayer in school; I could go on and on), but regardless Republicans have always been identified as "center-right" in serious political science textbooks, even ones that transparently lean left:
- Understanding American Government By Susan Welch, John Gruhl, Susan Rigdon, Sue Thomas (2011, page 185) "The Democrats tend to be a center-left party, and the Republicans tend to be a center-right party." That's without getting into the fact that, as TFD pointed out, the text says "Within American political culture...". In fact the Republicans and Democrats have traditionally been viewed as center-right and center-left in a global context too. The two major US parties have bigger tents and more across the aisle voting on particular issues, and are therefore more moderate than typical parties in parliamentary systems. VictorD7 (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Let us remember there are extremist in both parties: William J. Chambliss (3 May 2011). Crime and Criminal Behavior. SAGE Publications. pp. 229–230. ISBN 978-1-4522-6644-2. Therefore, to label one party to "right-wing" but the other "centre-left" is IMHO WP:UNDUE, The source provided by VictorD7: ( Susan Welch; John Gruhl; Susan Rigdon (18 January 2011). Understanding American Government. Cengage Learning. p. 185. ISBN 0-495-91050-3.
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) ) does a good job at neutrality and presenting both parties. We can go into this book ( Byron York (January 2006). The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of the Democrats' Desperate Fight to Reclaim Power. Three Rivers Press. ISBN 978-1-4000-8239-1. ), but IMHO the Cengage book is sufficient.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Let us remember there are extremist in both parties: William J. Chambliss (3 May 2011). Crime and Criminal Behavior. SAGE Publications. pp. 229–230. ISBN 978-1-4522-6644-2. Therefore, to label one party to "right-wing" but the other "centre-left" is IMHO WP:UNDUE, The source provided by VictorD7: ( Susan Welch; John Gruhl; Susan Rigdon (18 January 2011). Understanding American Government. Cengage Learning. p. 185. ISBN 0-495-91050-3.
- re the party issue, let's look at their respective articles. The GOP article doesn't definitely state its direction, but the Democrat article says "center-left", presumably far better sourced than we can manage here. The GOP does state that their philosophy is conservatism. So why not use those terms? The Republicans are conservative, whereas the Democrats represent the center-left? The work has been done for you. If you disagree with that characterization then I think the best place to discuss this is at the appropriate party discussion page, rather than here; this is a summary article, and the argument over how to define the parties should take place on the party pages, with that filtering down to here. To do it here is both a duplication of efforts as well as a usurpation of encyclopedic responsibility. It'd be like, oh, saying on this article that Puerto Rico is part of the United States but Puerto Rico disagreed. That kind of hypothetical situation. --Golbez (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hypothetical indeed, the intro sentence at Puerto Rico says it is a U.S. territory. The work of including how Puerto Rico as a part of the U.S. in a geographical sense is done for you, sourced by U.S.G. and scholarship. I think that the hypothetical argument that U.S. territories are external to the US may be sourced to Iran, North Korea and Cuba. In the case of political parties, Communists and some Socialists claim Democrats are not “left” anything, but fascist captives of Wall Street, — however WP discounts WP:fringe, so some hypothetical disputes can be laid to rest. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Golbez:: Please re-read my comment. That section is not about GOP or Democratic parties' economic positions or distinctions. That section needs to be a summary of the main articles on the subject. The problem is that editors here are trying to write that section from scratch, including the impossible task of defining the GOP and Democrat parties in one sentence and without context. - - Cwobeel (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well that's just it, I'm with you on being against writing it from scratch, we should be pulling purely from the subsidiary articles. I don't think we need *any* description of the parties here, but if we do, it's best to pull the description from the main article rather than go through the entire discovery process here. --Golbez (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Golbez:: Please re-read my comment. That section is not about GOP or Democratic parties' economic positions or distinctions. That section needs to be a summary of the main articles on the subject. The problem is that editors here are trying to write that section from scratch, including the impossible task of defining the GOP and Democrat parties in one sentence and without context. - - Cwobeel (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- It is important to identify which party leans left and which leans right for foreign readers who don't know. Such brief, almost universally understandable qualifiers are far from "impossible", and are reflected in the linked party articles. VictorD7 (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- A non-U.S. audience would find the term "center right" explanatory - the Republicans are similar to UK Conservatives, German Christian Democrats and Australian Liberals. But the lesser used term "center left" would be confusing. "Center left", if the term is used at all would refer to Social Democrats as opposed to Left parties and Communists. The Democrats would lie between center left and center right. TFD (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- That is the problem... I'd say, leave these generalizations outside of this article, just mention the two main parties with wikilinks to their respective article and leave it at that. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Or we could just stick with the very long standing "center-right"/"center-left" description in the political science textbook I quoted from above, especially since "center-left" would be a lot clearer to many foreign readers than "liberal" would be, given the qualitatively different meaning of "liberal" in a modern American context compared to how it's used throughout much of the world (e.g. Brits calling conservatives like Reagan and Thatcher "neoliberals"; the Australian conservative party being called "Liberals", even US politicians on both sides using "liberal" to mean free market/individual liberty oriented when speaking in an international context, almost the opposite of the political domestic usage, etc.) Calling Democrats "centrists" would be even more absurd. They're no more "centrist" in a global context than the Republicans are, and their base liberal ideology is less so in a domestic context as the material I posted above shows.
- Basically "far right" refers to Nazis/fascists while "far left" refers to communists/socialists. Pretty much every major party in between is "center-(one way or the other)". This isn't complicated. In fact the Democrats have more in common with socialists than the Republicans do with Nazis/fascists. Senator Bernie Sanders, a self described "socialist" independent, caucuses with the Democrats. By contrast I don't know any Nazis/fascists who hold American office, and if they did the Republicans wouldn't caucus with them. US conservatives, heavily libertarian, and Nazis/fascists are qualitatively different, whereas US liberals differ from socialists by matter of degree, with some overlap. But there's no need to get that precise here. In the rough one dimensional spectrum widely used around the world, the Democrats are still center-left overall, and the Republicans are center-right. This is basic stuff. VictorD7 (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- In fact, the term "far left" is never used to refer to socialists anywhere other than in the U.S. Socialists form the government or main opposition party in most countries outside the U.S. Even in the U.S., I do not remember the news media referring to Tony Blair as far left. TFD (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- The Labour party, led by Blair himself, moved away from socialism toward a position of relatively free market, "New Labour"/"third way" type politics, as did a lot of the world's left leaning parties in the wake of the Cold War's decisive empirical verdict. But above I wasn't referring to those who embrace various aspects of qualified socialism so much as the parties that are hardline enough to call themselves "Socialist", as opposed to the social democrats that typically make up the European center-left. But this tangent is unnecessary. Whether one considers parties like the French Socialists to be center-left or far left on the global spectrum (as opposed to the French one), certainly "center-left" is broad enough to include US Democrats, the party trying to pull the US to the left, as the textbook I quoted above states. VictorD7 (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Tony Blair used the terms socialism and social democracy interchangeably. Ironically, Sanders has presented as his model of socialism the Scandinavian social democrats. You are using the "no true Scotsman" argument: I like Blair therefore he is not a socialist. TFD (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, I suggest you read up on the Third Way movement Blair helped lead (with Clinton) in the 1990s. Blair used these terms with qualification, and tried to redefine what he meant by "socialism", contrasting it with traditional socialism. He also embraced "capitalism" (again, with qualifications), and dropped the clause committed to nationalizing industry from the Labour Party Constitution as part of what he called "New Labour". In office he left most of Thatcher/Major's economic reforms in place. Here's a BBC piece crediting him with completely remaking his party. Even recently he's advised the defeated Labour Party to move more toward the center and become more "pro business". You can't just ignore all this if you want to talk about Blair and modern Labour ideology. Bernie Sanders is to the left of Tony Blair...and he caucuses with the Democrats. VictorD7 (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Tony Blair used the terms socialism and social democracy interchangeably. Ironically, Sanders has presented as his model of socialism the Scandinavian social democrats. You are using the "no true Scotsman" argument: I like Blair therefore he is not a socialist. TFD (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- The Labour party, led by Blair himself, moved away from socialism toward a position of relatively free market, "New Labour"/"third way" type politics, as did a lot of the world's left leaning parties in the wake of the Cold War's decisive empirical verdict. But above I wasn't referring to those who embrace various aspects of qualified socialism so much as the parties that are hardline enough to call themselves "Socialist", as opposed to the social democrats that typically make up the European center-left. But this tangent is unnecessary. Whether one considers parties like the French Socialists to be center-left or far left on the global spectrum (as opposed to the French one), certainly "center-left" is broad enough to include US Democrats, the party trying to pull the US to the left, as the textbook I quoted above states. VictorD7 (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- In fact, the term "far left" is never used to refer to socialists anywhere other than in the U.S. Socialists form the government or main opposition party in most countries outside the U.S. Even in the U.S., I do not remember the news media referring to Tony Blair as far left. TFD (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Basically "far right" refers to Nazis/fascists while "far left" refers to communists/socialists. Pretty much every major party in between is "center-(one way or the other)". This isn't complicated. In fact the Democrats have more in common with socialists than the Republicans do with Nazis/fascists. Senator Bernie Sanders, a self described "socialist" independent, caucuses with the Democrats. By contrast I don't know any Nazis/fascists who hold American office, and if they did the Republicans wouldn't caucus with them. US conservatives, heavily libertarian, and Nazis/fascists are qualitatively different, whereas US liberals differ from socialists by matter of degree, with some overlap. But there's no need to get that precise here. In the rough one dimensional spectrum widely used around the world, the Democrats are still center-left overall, and the Republicans are center-right. This is basic stuff. VictorD7 (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
On "how the GOP is decribed, I think that we also need to look at how the Democratic Party is described. Global standards are the ones to look at. As such, I think one could describe the dems as center right. They are to the right of most conservative parties in Europe.Casprings (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'll note that so far RightCowLeftCoast and I are the only ones in this discussion to actually provide sources pertinent to the question. In any context the Democrats are a left leaning party. Some much smaller European countries being more left wing on average than the US doesn't change that. In addition to the textbook I cited above, here are some other sourced notes from the Democratic Party (United States) article:
- Arnold, N. Scott (2009). Imposing values: an essay on liberalism and regulation. Florence: Oxford University Press. p. 3. ISBN 0-495-50112-3. "Modern liberalism occupies the left-of-center in the traditional political spectrum and is represented by the Democratic Party in the United States."
- Levy, Jonah (2006). The state after statism: new state activities in the age of liberalization. Florence: Harvard University Press. p. 198. ISBN 0-495-50112-3. "In the corporate governance area, the center-left repositioned itself to press for reform. The Democratic Party in the United States used the postbubble scandals and the collapse of share prices to attack the Republican Party ... Corporate governance reform fit surprisingly well within the contours of the center-left ideology. The Democratic Party and the SPD have both been committed to the development of the regulatory state as a counterweight to managerial authority, corporate power, and market failure."
- Here's Michael Barone, coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics and one of America's most prominent political scientists over the past several decades, referring to the Democrats as "center-left" and Republicans as "center-right", roughly comparable to the British Conservatives and modern Labour Party: "British politics has a familiar look to Americans, with a center-right Conservative party and a center-left Labour party resembling America’s Republicans and Democrats.
- The Democratic party is staunchly Keynesian, with widespread socialist elements in its base, and generally favors higher taxes, more government regulation, more social welfare spending, and liberal social policies. In rhetoric it favors "equality" themes over "freedom" ones. All of these elements entrench it firmly within the global left as described by Misplaced Pages's own articles (e.g. Left-wing politics). This is really clear cut. VictorD7 (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- If dropping the descriptor for both major parties is necessary to relieve this from becoming a contentious point of a possible edit war, I am OK with that. But if not, I agree with the statement by VictorD7 above.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well, of the two sources Victor has provided above, neither are actually describing the Democratic party but liberalism.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- False, not that it would matter since the Democrats are the "liberal" party. And I've provided four sources, not two, all of which explicitly speak about the "Democrats" or "the Democratic Party" in the context of being on the "center-left". I suggest you reread my posts. VictorD7 (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Right now the line in the article reads: "Within American political culture, the Republican Party is considered conservative and the Democratic Party is considered liberal.". We should try to have more book sources of course but why are we trying to define the parties. Even trying to say one party is conservative and the other liberal is time sensitive and does not reflect all of history. At one time Republicans were the liberals and Democrats the conservatives. I have a Time magazine from the period describing the parties that way as well as other sources. We need to be far more neutral here and I think brevity may be the answer.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- "Brevity" shouldn't mean we simply name the two major parties without any description whatsoever. In country articles the major parties typically have some ideological description. It's useful to retain the "conservative"/"liberal" labels since those terms are so ubiquitous "within American culture", and to restore the brief "center-right"/"center-left" labels to clarify for foreign readers who don't already understand those issues. For the record the notion that the two parties "swapped" ideologies is an erroneous myth, though it's not worth getting into that tangent here (the Democrats certainly changed ideologies when modern liberalism arose from the socialist and progressive movements of the late 19th Century, but that's not a swap). It's true that "conservative" and "liberal" mean entirely different things in different historical/national contexts (though, labels aside, a speech from Coolidge reads like it could have been delivered at a Tea Party rally), which is all the more reason why we should just restore the very few words needed to clarify what they currently mean in US political culture. VictorD7 (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well, of the two sources Victor has provided above, neither are actually describing the Democratic party but liberalism.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- VictorD7, far from being "staunchly Keynesian", the Democrats rejected Keynsianism when Jimmy Carter became president and appointed Paul Volker chairman of the Fed. He remained chairman under Ronald Reagan. Nixon OTOH had said, "We are all Keynesians now." The "Socialists" in the U.K. had already accepted monetarism under the government of Labour prime minister Jim Callaghan. Your basic misunderstanding of these issues probably explains your conclusions that the Democrats are socialist (and the self-described Socialists in the U.K. are not). TFD (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, TFD, Carter only reluctantly nominated Volcker near the end of his presidency under heavy pressure from Wall Street, Republicans, and others due to the soaring double digit inflation wrecking the country, and only after he had earlier appointed the disastrous George Miller, who was one in a long line of Keynesian Fed chiefs (Carter then made the failed Miller Secretary of the Treasury!). Even then Carter actively undermined Volcker's attempts to reign in inflation with threats to strip his post of power, causing Volcker to temper his actions until Reagan came into office and (with Milton Friedman himself as an adviser) gave his agenda unqualified support. Nixon was one of the most liberal Republican presidents ever, instituting wage and price controls among other things, though he never actually said "We are all Keynesians now" (that misattribution is a terrible bastardization of something Friedman actually said). I'm not sure what your point is there. Democrats have been staunchly Keynesian before and since, while Republicans have favored alternatives like supply side economics. I almost mentioned widespread support for monetarism among European central bankers myself earlier to illustrate that Europe is to the right of America on certain issues (this is also true on tort law, immigration, current abortion law, and the public childhood education systems). I never said "Democrats are socialist", only that there's overlap in their base among liberals and socialists. I was just providing yet another piece of evidence that the Democrats lean left rather than right. You have no idea what you're talking about on any of these issues (including our Blair discussion above), and your failure to read for comprehension or grasp any nuanced point is rendering this discussion unproductive. Fortunately you don't have to understand politics or history, TFD. Just acknowledge the several sources I've provided here explicitly saying the Democrats are "center-left". VictorD7 (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- If dropping the descriptor for both major parties is necessary to relieve this from becoming a contentious point of a possible edit war, I am OK with that. But if not, I agree with the statement by VictorD7 above.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is a pretty short rundown on a U.S. Political parties versus UK political parties. http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/08/how-conservative-would-uk-conservatives-be-us/67930/ . Both dems and the GOP should be placed in the proper global context for political parties. Will provide more sources as I get the time, but I think we will find that the Dems are similar in position to most conservative parties in Europe and the GOP is further to the right.Casprings (talk)
- British Conservatives: Not Very Conservative By U.S. Standards
- I think trying to define the two political parties is POV. I understand that Victor has several sources to support the claims. That isn't difficult:
- Basically, being conservative or liberal within a party is not what defines the party and is looking at them through a political filter. I strongly support dropping any description of either party in this manner, using Misplaced Pages's voice of authority. Trying to define the Republican party as left, center left, center, center right or right, is a perception and opinion and should be only be written as a quote from a reputable political science expert, most notable in the field and highly cited.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- I would agree with that. But if we are going to describe them, it should be in a global context.Casprings (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Mark and Casprings, you posted a blog by some guy named "Bump" that can charitably be described as moronic, especially since it it ignored the fact that Democratic operatives acting as free lance hired guns served on both sides of the recent British election (and more tellingly, because it was at Obama's direction, on the side of the leftists in the recent Israeli election, while a Republican operative helped Netanyahu), with David Axelrod himself helping Labour and Messina catching heat from American liberals for helping the Conservatives, and a short magazine piece that didn't really have a point except that current UK policy is more left wing on healthcare than the US (yes; so?). The books you linked to appear to have nothing to do with this discussion, which may be why you didn't quote anything from them.
- You say we should cite expert opinion. Well I quoted from several such sources, including a political science textbook, scholarly works, and a column by the smartest and most respected political scientist in the country. It's not controversial to describe the Democrats as "center-left" or the Republicans as "center-right". That's widespread and accurate on the global spectrum. You can't honestly believe that there's no way to describe the parties' ideology in a fashion as neutral and well sourced as the rest of the article is. The United Kingdom, France, and most other country articles I've seen describe their major parties' ideologies. All we need to do here is restore the long standing, brief, non controversial labels. It's easy and harmless. VictorD7 (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- First, I posted a Time Article. Second, one has to understand it is a moving target and plenty of peer reviewed articles show that the Republican Party has moved to the right.
Both peer reviewed and show the latest in how the field views the Ideological position of the republican party. What you posted earlier were general despriptions from work that did not directly deal with the issue of the political positions of the parties. Casprings (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- You posted a terrible blog piece from "the wire" that I easily debunked (it would show good faith for you to acknowledge that, btw) and a short Time article that didn't address the question at hand. Your two new articles don't address it either. Even if one accepts their premise that Republicans have moved to the right, what's your point? They can move to the right and still be center-right. Are you trying to argue that Republicans are no longer center-right in a global context? Your papers' abstracts didn't make that claim or even mention the term "center-right". Are you trying to imply that Republicans are now Nazis/fascists? Because no, libertarians wanting tax/spending cuts are quite different from Nazis/fascists. Both American parties are near the global spectrum center. It helps to think through what your point is before posting, Casprings. Also, for the record since many Misplaced Pages editors don't understand how scholarship works, having an article "peer reviewed" isn't an infallible process even in the hard sciences, and being "peer reviewed" means almost nothing on humanities topics (apart from it generally being good for writers to get a little feedback). Here's a recent example where a study designed to promote gay marriage was retracted for falsifying data after it was published in the highly touted peer reviewed journal Science, and the falsifications may not have been noticed if it hadn't attracted so much attention by being eagerly trumpeted throughout the media. In your case you posted articles mostly written by students who come across as extremely biased leftist activists and their work doesn't directly address this discussion anyway. By contrast I quoted from a political science textbook (which undergoes much more review than typical journal articles do) and established, prominent experts all stating that Democrats are "center-left" and Republicans are "center-right". Can you find a single real source even disputing that by directly saying these people are wrong, and that the Republicans aren't "center-right" on the global spectrum? VictorD7 (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'd suggest to WP:DROPTHESTICK and leave the descriptions of the parties to their respective articles. Here we can just mention the two main parties by name and leave it at that. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Except the debate hasn't come to an end, since only one side has posted pertinent sources. Unless you're acknowledging that's the only side with pertinent sources to post. Why should the United States article contain absolutely no description of the political parties when the UK, France, Spain and most other country articles I've seen do, and when reliable sources have been produced attaching non-controversial labels to the US parties? VictorD7 (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Except...no, but maybe "accept" as in...consensus. Look, this is contentious and always will be. I think Cwobeel is correct and we should not try to define the parties in this article. I think there is a rough consensus for that.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- There certainly isn't a consensus for that, with at least five editors disagreeing with you (counting the ones who reverted the attempt to alter or remove the long standing labels). Besides, consensus isn't dictated by people simply driving by and voting. It's based on argument weight, and you haven't presented a rationale for removing the material, much less a sound, compelling one. I assume the intent wasn't to spam a bunch of links that don't address the question here in hopes of ending the debate in manufactured dissonance. How about actually responding to the points made, acknowledging source evidence posted, and explaining why you don't think the labels belong (apart from vague, unsupported assertions that "this is contentious"), backing your argument up with evidence? VictorD7 (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- In a consensus discussion, the only thing that counts are the arguments and consensus of those involved. A closer doesn't count edit warring which got us to the discussion to begin with. If you are finished accusing me of drive by voting I might remind you I am a major contributor to this article and helped raise it to GA. If you are having problems with consensus and wish to filibuster, this thread may need admin closing.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Spare me the threats. I wasn't even referring to you with that comment, but I will note that you dodged my request to provide an actual argument. Contrary to your false "filibuster" accusation, I'm practically begging you to speak (substantively). There clearly is no consensus yet and I don't think the discussion has reached an end. Even if it does peter out I and others would have the option of initiating an RFC over it to bring in the broader community. BTW, I spent far more hours elevating this article back to good status over the past couple of years than you did, not that such posturing has anything at all to do with this particular discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- That wasn't a threat. That's what I recommend for this section; administrative closing. You are being highly aggressive and an bit disruptive however, if there are other arguments then the discussion will continue, but at this point you do seem to be the lone hold out with the least persuasive argument. At this point, the rough consensus is not for defining the parties. I don't care if you the major contributor. We have identified those parties that have major interested editors with time and input in both the article and discussion. it isn't a contest, but a defense against your continued personal attacks.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- You're threatening to run to admin and shut down a conversation that only really began a few days ago. Ridiculous. And aggressive on your part. You also failed again to actually present an argument, much less a "persuasive" one. Maybe in your next response....VictorD7 (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think you can read what I wrote, where I made it clear if there were others that had arguments the discussion should continue but the article was recently locked and this thread created to gain consensus not soap box or attempt to steamroll content for whatever reason. Right now, one editor has told you to drop the stick and another simply mentioning there is a rough consensus. Since you made it clear you don't believe there is a consensus, no other consideration will probably be trusted by you. An admin closing isn't to shut down the discussion...it is to determine the consensus when the discussion is closed. I believe this discussion may qualify for admin closing as a highly contentious subject on a highly visible article that had just returned from full lock. A request now, is not for a request to close the discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- You still didn't post a rationale for your position. Let me know if you come up with one that's not "....just because." If I think this material was steamrolled out without an intellectually honest hearing I'll initiate an RFC, though we're not quite there yet since this conversation is just starting. VictorD7 (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I posted my reasoning for my concern and opinion. This can be an RFC if you choose once this discussion ends. But if you act the same there as you are here, I doubt the outcome will change.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- But you didn't post an argument, just more personal attacks. It's unclear what the results here even are (some editors weren't firm one way or the other while others gave answers that partially support both sides and are difficult to categorize), but if there is an RFC and you fail to post a rationale there the closer should disregard your commentary. VictorD7 (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- For those accusing VictorD7 of tedious editing, may I humbly remind others of WP:BOOMERANG & WP:KETTLE. That being said, if we remove spectrum descriptors as suggested, would that improve the stability of this section on the article page?
- That being said, if we are to keep descriptors, just as different reliable sources describe the Republican Party in different ways, surely the Democrat Party has been described in different ways as well: Lane Kenworthy (3 December 2013). Social Democratic America. Oxford University Press. p. 158. ISBN 978-0-19-932253-4. (describing the party as centrist), David Mosler; Robert Catley (1 January 1998). America and Americans in Australia. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 83. ISBN 978-0-275-96252-4. (describing the party as centre-left), Sidney Verba (1987). Elites and the Idea of Equality: A Comparison of Japan, Sweden, and the United States. Harvard University Press. p. 73. ISBN 978-0-674-24685-0. (describing the party as "On the left"). Therefore, perhaps, it is best to drop the descriptor if it will help reduce edit warring?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Those seeking to drop the ideological qualifiers also need to clarify whether they're advocating we delete the "conservative" and "liberal" labels still in the article. VictorD7 (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- But you didn't post an argument, just more personal attacks. It's unclear what the results here even are (some editors weren't firm one way or the other while others gave answers that partially support both sides and are difficult to categorize), but if there is an RFC and you fail to post a rationale there the closer should disregard your commentary. VictorD7 (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I posted my reasoning for my concern and opinion. This can be an RFC if you choose once this discussion ends. But if you act the same there as you are here, I doubt the outcome will change.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- You still didn't post a rationale for your position. Let me know if you come up with one that's not "....just because." If I think this material was steamrolled out without an intellectually honest hearing I'll initiate an RFC, though we're not quite there yet since this conversation is just starting. VictorD7 (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think you can read what I wrote, where I made it clear if there were others that had arguments the discussion should continue but the article was recently locked and this thread created to gain consensus not soap box or attempt to steamroll content for whatever reason. Right now, one editor has told you to drop the stick and another simply mentioning there is a rough consensus. Since you made it clear you don't believe there is a consensus, no other consideration will probably be trusted by you. An admin closing isn't to shut down the discussion...it is to determine the consensus when the discussion is closed. I believe this discussion may qualify for admin closing as a highly contentious subject on a highly visible article that had just returned from full lock. A request now, is not for a request to close the discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- You're threatening to run to admin and shut down a conversation that only really began a few days ago. Ridiculous. And aggressive on your part. You also failed again to actually present an argument, much less a "persuasive" one. Maybe in your next response....VictorD7 (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- That wasn't a threat. That's what I recommend for this section; administrative closing. You are being highly aggressive and an bit disruptive however, if there are other arguments then the discussion will continue, but at this point you do seem to be the lone hold out with the least persuasive argument. At this point, the rough consensus is not for defining the parties. I don't care if you the major contributor. We have identified those parties that have major interested editors with time and input in both the article and discussion. it isn't a contest, but a defense against your continued personal attacks.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Spare me the threats. I wasn't even referring to you with that comment, but I will note that you dodged my request to provide an actual argument. Contrary to your false "filibuster" accusation, I'm practically begging you to speak (substantively). There clearly is no consensus yet and I don't think the discussion has reached an end. Even if it does peter out I and others would have the option of initiating an RFC over it to bring in the broader community. BTW, I spent far more hours elevating this article back to good status over the past couple of years than you did, not that such posturing has anything at all to do with this particular discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- In a consensus discussion, the only thing that counts are the arguments and consensus of those involved. A closer doesn't count edit warring which got us to the discussion to begin with. If you are finished accusing me of drive by voting I might remind you I am a major contributor to this article and helped raise it to GA. If you are having problems with consensus and wish to filibuster, this thread may need admin closing.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- There certainly isn't a consensus for that, with at least five editors disagreeing with you (counting the ones who reverted the attempt to alter or remove the long standing labels). Besides, consensus isn't dictated by people simply driving by and voting. It's based on argument weight, and you haven't presented a rationale for removing the material, much less a sound, compelling one. I assume the intent wasn't to spam a bunch of links that don't address the question here in hopes of ending the debate in manufactured dissonance. How about actually responding to the points made, acknowledging source evidence posted, and explaining why you don't think the labels belong (apart from vague, unsupported assertions that "this is contentious"), backing your argument up with evidence? VictorD7 (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Except...no, but maybe "accept" as in...consensus. Look, this is contentious and always will be. I think Cwobeel is correct and we should not try to define the parties in this article. I think there is a rough consensus for that.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Except the debate hasn't come to an end, since only one side has posted pertinent sources. Unless you're acknowledging that's the only side with pertinent sources to post. Why should the United States article contain absolutely no description of the political parties when the UK, France, Spain and most other country articles I've seen do, and when reliable sources have been produced attaching non-controversial labels to the US parties? VictorD7 (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I do not see any non-U.S. sources categorizing the Democrats as center-left. Comparative Democratic Politics (p. 169) for example categorizes Republicans as "conservative" and Democrats as "center." The footnotes qualify center to include center-right (but not center-left), It does not include social democratic parties, which are described as left. I do not however object to using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in the article, because it is clear that are used as defined in the U.S. A European conservative can be in U.S. terms socially and economically liberal, yet still a conservative, while a social democrat can be in U.S. terms socially and economically conservative, yet still left-wing. TFD (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Since this discussion seems to have petered out without a clear consensus for anything, I added a caveat to the "liberal"/"conservative" labels to address concerns raised about those terms having different meanings than they do in much of the rest of the world, summarized from the linked articles. I'd also recommend deleting the frivolous "red state"/"blue state" qualifiers. It seems absurd for there to be so much hand wringing over "center-left" and "center-right" when a couple of lines down we have a completely arbitrary, colloquial color dichotomy only popularized since the 2000 election because a few networks used them in election coverage (arguably because the left leaning networks wanted to depict the Republicans with the color most associated with hostility, stopping, or the enemy in gaming; though it's since been defiantly embraced by some-not all-conservative bloggers), with other long established sources reversing the colors or using different ones. Also, for the record, one of RightCowLeftCoast's books above calling Republicans "center-right" and Democrats "center-left" and equating them with the Australian Liberal and Labor parties respectively was co-written by a Brit who immigrated to Australia and became a Labor Party politician/political science academic and an American who has lived in Australia for a long time. I've seen many foreign writers describe Democrats as "left" or "center-left", not that the American perspective is exactly irrelevant to English Misplaced Pages. VictorD7 (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Are you serious? red states and blue states is a common way to describe states' politics in the US.- Cwobeel (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Nowhere near as common as "left" and "right" are in describing politics generally, including in the US. VictorD7 (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Are you serious? red states and blue states is a common way to describe states' politics in the US.- Cwobeel (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- The Australian source says it is trying to simplify things for readers. It says Democrats and Labor are social democrats, while Liberals and Republicans are conservatives. While there has been some convergence as modern parties have moved toward the center, it ignores the standard classification of parties according to how they arose and the sources of their on-going support. Liberal parties were established to defend liberal values, conservative parties were formed by traditional elites in reaction, while social democratic parties were formed to establish socialism. The reality is that neither mainstream Democrats or Republicans have moved away from liberalism, while UK Conservatives and Australia's Labor have increasingly but not exclusively become more liberal. But we should not imply that they are exact equivalents. Note too the book does not say "center-right", but "center/right", i.e., a mix of centrist and right-wing, rather than lying between center and right. In reality, the centrists in UK Conservatives and Australian Liberals, such as Cameron and Turnbull, are closer to Clinton and Obama than they are to the Republican party today. TFD (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, Cameron has much more in common with US Republicans than with US Democrats and Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were allies on both domestic and foreign policy while Blair and Bush were only aligned on foreign policy. The Australian source is also correct to roughly equate (no one claimed or needs to claim precision) Aussie Liberals with Republicans and Labor with Democrats. Your historical description totally ignores the dramatically changing meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" in different national/historical contexts. The truth is that many US "liberals" would call themselves "socialists" if they lived in Europe, where the word is less taboo, and basically advocate for the same things. At least one of the sources I cited below even makes that point. VictorD7 (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- What has happened is that the ahistorical U.S. usage has crept into other countries. But the historic usage remains, so conservatives such as Ian Gilmour could accuse Thatcher of being a liberal. Even Blair accused the Conservative leadership of being liberal. I doubt that many Democrats would call themselves socialists. Where the Socialists were the major party, they might vote for them, but would probably be uneasy with much of their ethos and certainly their history. And certainly no one applies current U.S. usage to before the modern period. Otherwise we would call Bismarck and Disraeli liberals, while their Liberal opponents would be called conservatives.
- No, Cameron has much more in common with US Republicans than with US Democrats and Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were allies on both domestic and foreign policy while Blair and Bush were only aligned on foreign policy. The Australian source is also correct to roughly equate (no one claimed or needs to claim precision) Aussie Liberals with Republicans and Labor with Democrats. Your historical description totally ignores the dramatically changing meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" in different national/historical contexts. The truth is that many US "liberals" would call themselves "socialists" if they lived in Europe, where the word is less taboo, and basically advocate for the same things. At least one of the sources I cited below even makes that point. VictorD7 (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- But how would you compare the two major U.S. parties to the three major parties in Canada? Certainly the closest match would be Liberals and Conservatives. Even then, 58% of Canadian Conservative voters said they would vote for Obama if they could. But the Liberal party has close ties to the Democrats and the UK Liberal Democrats, while Canada's socialist party has close ties to UK Labour.
- The point is that while it is possible to provide rough equivalents between parties in the U.S. and other two party states, it becomes problematic when compared with multi-party states. But liberalism is wide enough to include both parties. See for example the Liberal International's "Hall of Freedom." Bastiat, Hayek and Mises are honored along with Eleanor Roosevelt, Keynes and Martin Luther King.
- The problem with the various meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" is exactly why I proposed the caveat below. You'd be surprised at how socialistic big chunks of the Democratic party base is, and it's not just a recent development. FDR's administration in particular included some admirers (and in some cases agents, but that's a different topic) of the Soviet Union in very prominent positions, and sought to establish government control over the economy and society in general in a number of big, bold ways. Much of Eugene Debs' Socialist Party platform in the early 20th Century became central to what ultimately became known as the "liberal" agenda, and was largely co-opted by the Democrats and to a lesser extent even the Republicans. As for results like the Canadian poll you cite, that has less to do with ideological affinity than with the fact that most of those people know little about the United States or its parties except what they're presented with through their local media filter, and left leaning outfits like the CBC and similar operations in Europe tend to demonize and caricature Republicans (and US conservatives, Christians, and often America in general) in sometimes comically biased ways (Hollywood does too for that matter). The converse helps explain why a liberal Democrat like Obama got the immediate and totally irrational enthusiastic response he did in Europe after his election, with the Nobel Prize committee even awarding him the Peace Prize....just 'cause.... driving the final nail into the coffin of that once meaningful award's credibility. But I will point out that when it comes to people more knowledgeable on these topics, like politicians themselves, center-right leaders like Harper, Thatcher, Kohl, Cameron, Sarkozy, Netanyahu, Berlusconi, John Howard, etc. tend to get along better with Republican politicians than with Democrats, and vice versa with center-left leaders. VictorD7 (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Seeing the New Deal as socialist is a typical position of the U.S. Right, but has no support in reliable sources. Debs`s successor said, "Roosevelt did not carry out the Socialist platform, unless he carried it out on a stretcher." Certainly there were and are some socialists in the Democratic Party, and had been in the Republican Party too, but played only a minor role. Ironically Roosevelt called his opponents conservatives, trying to link them to the traditional European Right. The reality is that European conservatives and socialists have moved closer to the center where the two U.S. parties have always been. TFD (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- I mostly agree with your last sentence (all the more reason to use "center-left" and "center-right"), with the caveat that the US parties have moved at least some back and forth at certain points in history, with their respective bases losing and gaining strength at various times. Thomas was running against FDR for president in that pamphlet you linked to, so that has to be viewed in the context of trying to draw contrasts between himself and his rival. Besides, he basically just criticized Roosevelt for not managing to completely destroy the capitalist system. The truth is Thomas wouldn't have either if he had won. Even western European socialist parties don't eliminate the mostly capitalist system in their countries when they take power, instead typically operating at the margins by raising taxes or increasing spending and regulation. The US system has even more built in moderation than European nations do; lots of checks and balances. That doesn't mean the party bases wouldn't prefer to do more. I didn't say the New Deal was "socialist" but it's accurate to call many of its salient features socialistic, and that has plenty of support from reliable sources (which does include U.S. conservatives), including certain of its own members. That Thomas felt the need to distance FDR from supposedly "true socialism", because both Republicans and Democrats were associating the two, is telling in and of itself. More telling than Thomas's face value campaign rhetoric is the fact that the Socialist Party withered to the point where it stopped bothering to run presidential candidates in the 1950s. This was due to a combination of both recent events strengthening Americans' traditional aversion to socialism and the major parties, particularly the Democrats, successfully co-opting so many of the old Socialist Party's goals that voters who once favored the SP increasingly voted Democrat instead. The Socialist Party's successor groups, led by men like Michael Harrington, started working from within the Democratic Party and endorsing Democratic candidates for president, especially from McGovern's 1972 campaign onward. I'd argue that in the 19th Century the US political spectrum didn't have a "left"/"right" divide in the way those terms are commonly meant today, but it developed one in the 20th Century with the ideological transition of the Democrats. VictorD7 (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- The European Parliament has 7 recognized parties: Left, Socialist, Green, Liberal, Christian Democrat, Conservative and right-wing populist, and the far right is not recognized any more but is seated as non-escrits on the far right. In U.S. terms, the Left, Socialists, Greens, left-wing Liberals, traditional Conservatives, and left-wing Christian Democrats are liberals, while right-wing liberals, right-wing Christian Democrats, free market Conservatives, right-wing populists and the far right are conservatives. You are trying to shoehorn 8 parties into the U.S. two party system.
- And certainly the left-right spectrum existed in 19th century U.S., even though the terms had not been invented. They were federalist/republican, liberal/radical, conservative/liberal, whig/democrat, liberal/republican. While there is disagreement on terminology, there is agreement on which was left or right.
- TFD (talk) 06:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Actually those terms had been invented, mostly for use in Europe, and no there isn't universal agreement on how to retroactively apply them. When someone does occasionally try to apply them they involving twisting definitions. My argument is that they didn't apply in the way most modern commentators use them today. It's not like there was a pro monarchy party or a socialist/progressive/modern liberal party in the US. All major sides back then adhered staunchly to republicanism, individual liberty, free market economics, and constitutional process. The disagreements were mostly over functional issues like foreign policy, tariffs, and monetary policy (not to be confused with fiscal policy, especially since there was no income tax or welfare state; the disagreement was over whether to have a central bank, and later what metal to base the currency on), with the exception of slavery being the high arching moral issue. I suppose if you had to apply the modern spectrum to that era then one really could say both US parties were on the center-right, but that certainly hasn't been the case from the early 20th Century onward, and "left"/"right" terminology is ubiquitous in America today.
- I mostly agree with your last sentence (all the more reason to use "center-left" and "center-right"), with the caveat that the US parties have moved at least some back and forth at certain points in history, with their respective bases losing and gaining strength at various times. Thomas was running against FDR for president in that pamphlet you linked to, so that has to be viewed in the context of trying to draw contrasts between himself and his rival. Besides, he basically just criticized Roosevelt for not managing to completely destroy the capitalist system. The truth is Thomas wouldn't have either if he had won. Even western European socialist parties don't eliminate the mostly capitalist system in their countries when they take power, instead typically operating at the margins by raising taxes or increasing spending and regulation. The US system has even more built in moderation than European nations do; lots of checks and balances. That doesn't mean the party bases wouldn't prefer to do more. I didn't say the New Deal was "socialist" but it's accurate to call many of its salient features socialistic, and that has plenty of support from reliable sources (which does include U.S. conservatives), including certain of its own members. That Thomas felt the need to distance FDR from supposedly "true socialism", because both Republicans and Democrats were associating the two, is telling in and of itself. More telling than Thomas's face value campaign rhetoric is the fact that the Socialist Party withered to the point where it stopped bothering to run presidential candidates in the 1950s. This was due to a combination of both recent events strengthening Americans' traditional aversion to socialism and the major parties, particularly the Democrats, successfully co-opting so many of the old Socialist Party's goals that voters who once favored the SP increasingly voted Democrat instead. The Socialist Party's successor groups, led by men like Michael Harrington, started working from within the Democratic Party and endorsing Democratic candidates for president, especially from McGovern's 1972 campaign onward. I'd argue that in the 19th Century the US political spectrum didn't have a "left"/"right" divide in the way those terms are commonly meant today, but it developed one in the 20th Century with the ideological transition of the Democrats. VictorD7 (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Seeing the New Deal as socialist is a typical position of the U.S. Right, but has no support in reliable sources. Debs`s successor said, "Roosevelt did not carry out the Socialist platform, unless he carried it out on a stretcher." Certainly there were and are some socialists in the Democratic Party, and had been in the Republican Party too, but played only a minor role. Ironically Roosevelt called his opponents conservatives, trying to link them to the traditional European Right. The reality is that European conservatives and socialists have moved closer to the center where the two U.S. parties have always been. TFD (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- The problem with the various meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" is exactly why I proposed the caveat below. You'd be surprised at how socialistic big chunks of the Democratic party base is, and it's not just a recent development. FDR's administration in particular included some admirers (and in some cases agents, but that's a different topic) of the Soviet Union in very prominent positions, and sought to establish government control over the economy and society in general in a number of big, bold ways. Much of Eugene Debs' Socialist Party platform in the early 20th Century became central to what ultimately became known as the "liberal" agenda, and was largely co-opted by the Democrats and to a lesser extent even the Republicans. As for results like the Canadian poll you cite, that has less to do with ideological affinity than with the fact that most of those people know little about the United States or its parties except what they're presented with through their local media filter, and left leaning outfits like the CBC and similar operations in Europe tend to demonize and caricature Republicans (and US conservatives, Christians, and often America in general) in sometimes comically biased ways (Hollywood does too for that matter). The converse helps explain why a liberal Democrat like Obama got the immediate and totally irrational enthusiastic response he did in Europe after his election, with the Nobel Prize committee even awarding him the Peace Prize....just 'cause.... driving the final nail into the coffin of that once meaningful award's credibility. But I will point out that when it comes to people more knowledgeable on these topics, like politicians themselves, center-right leaders like Harper, Thatcher, Kohl, Cameron, Sarkozy, Netanyahu, Berlusconi, John Howard, etc. tend to get along better with Republican politicians than with Democrats, and vice versa with center-left leaders. VictorD7 (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- And I'm not trying to shoehorn anything into the US system, so I'm not sure what your point is with the 7/8 European Parliament parties. I'm simply recognizing, as most expert commentators do, that the US Democrats lean left while the Republicans lean right. That doesn't need to mean that all the same niche ideological flavors currently identified in Europe are present in the exact same proportions and ways in America, though many are present within the much broader tents of the US parties. VictorD7 (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
The terms left and right were not used in the 19th century to describe ideology. See Marcel Gauchet, "Right and Left", 1996. Notice for example Marx and Engels never used the terms. And yes historians do see ideological differences in 18th and 19th century America, even if none of them went beyond liberalism and radicalism. As Schlesinger wrote, "When a laissez-faire policy seemed best calculated to achieve the liberal objective of equality of opportunity for all -- as it did in the time of Jefferson -- liberals believed, in the Jeffersonian phrase, that that government is best which governs least. But, when the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state." You may believe that Roosevelt transformed the Democrats into a social democratic party, but no one writing in mainstream sources agrees. TFD (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Your own source talks extensively about the use of "right"/"left" terminology in 19th Century politics, but that's an irrelevant tangent. I didn't say FDR turned the Democrats into a social democratic party. I didn't even call the Democrats a social democratic party, though there's heavy overlap (arguably more than not). The notion that only hard core socialists or self described "social democrats" can be considered "left wing" is wrong anyway and rejected by countless sources. Whatever labels you want to put on it, the Democrats' ideology undeniably shifted in a dramatic way around the turn of the 20th Century (long before FDR; I just cited his administration earlier because he took things to another level) to something that certainly wasn't classically liberal (or liberal in the modern European sense of the word) and that altered the US political dynamic. You quote one source as if it's definitive. Schlesinger was an extremely partisan liberal Democrat trying to tie the current politicians he supported to founding fathers like Jefferson who, in actuality, would have recoiled in horror at the big government liberalism of Schlesinger and his friends. That said, even he in your own link says this just before your quote: "Enough should have been said by now to indicate that liberalism in the American usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any European country, save possibly Britain." I also cited four more objective, much higher quality sources below further establishing that the word "liberal" has changed meaning in the US to something different from its common European usage. For example:
- (; page 572; a cross cultural encyclopedic dictionary of complex concepts; Princeton University Press) "In the exemplary case of the United States, where the three political families (conservatism, liberalism, radicalism) are different from those in Europe, and can only really be defined through their relations to each other, liberalism clearly occupies more or less the ground of the political left as it is understood in Europe."
- (; page xi; a topical political science book; Routledge) "In the United States, and to a lesser extent in Britain, the term ‘liberal’ has come to refer only to the revisionist or social democratic wing of the liberal tradition. Moreover, because of the stigma which attaches to the term ‘socialist’ in that country, many Americans pass under the name of ‘liberal’ who would be described as socialists in any other country. In Europe outside Britain the word ‘liberal’ retains its old meaning and refers primarily to what political scientists call ‘classical liberalism’. Consequently the word ‘conservative’ has taken on a portmanteau quality in America and now refers both to people who would be described as conservatives in any language and to others who would in any European country other than Britain be labelled as liberals."
- (; page 22; a political science textbook; Cengage Publishing) "The Difficulty of Defining Liberalism and Conservatism...While political candidates and commentators are quick to label candidates and voters as “liberals” and “conservatives”, the meanings of these words have evolved over time. Moreover, each term may represent a different set of ideas to the person or group that uses it.....Liberalism. The word liberal has an odd history. It comes from the same root as liberty, and originally it simply meant “free”. In that broad sense, the United States as a whole is a liberal country, and all popular American ideologies are variants of liberalism. In a more restricted definition, a liberal was a person who believed in limited government and who opposed religion in politics. A hundred years ago, liberalism referred to a philosophy that in some ways resembled modern-day libertarianism. For that reason, many libertarians today refer to themselves as classical liberals....How did the meaning of the word liberal change? In the 1800s, the Democratic party was seen as the more liberal of the two parties. The Democrats of that time stood for limited government and opposition to moralism in politics. Democrats opposed Republican projects such as building roads, freeing the slaves, and prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages. Beginning with Democratic president Woodrow Wilson (served 1913-1921), however, the party’s economic policies began to change……By the end of Roosevelt’s presidency in 1945, the Democratic Party had established itself as standing for positive government action to help the economy. Although Roosevelt stood for new policies, he kept the old language—as Democrats had long done, he called himself a liberal....Outside of the United States and Canada, the meaning of the world liberal never changed. For this reason, you might hear a left-of-center European denounce U.S. president Ronald Reagan…or British prime minister Margaret Thatcher…for their “liberalism,” meaning that these two leaders were enthusiastic advocates of laissez-faire capitalism and limited government."
- (: page 252; book by notable political scientist/sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset; W. W. Norton & Company);"The meaning of “conservatism,” of course, is quite different in the two societies. In America, it involves support of laissez-faire, anti-statist doctrines, which correspond to bourgeois-linked classical liberalism. In Jefferson’s words, “that government governs best which governs least.”"
- Per its root, classical liberalism was always more about freedom than equality. Despite his reaching attempt to tie the modern US usage to the classic term, even your Schlesinger quote acknowledges a significant shift away from limited government and laissez-faire economics, more or less underscoring the other sources in the essentials. All that said, I'm wondering what your point is. You just seemed to have helped further establish the need for a caveat along the lines of what I proposed below. Since the "conservative"/"liberal" labels are already in the article, do you support adding such a caveat? VictorD7 (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, most Republicans are not classical liberals, they are generally plutocrats. EllenCT (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- The reliable sources and most Republicans would disagree with you. VictorD7 (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- No, most Republicans are not classical liberals, they are generally plutocrats. EllenCT (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Proposed caveat to "conservative" and "liberal" labels
<UPDATE>: Clarification - the proposal here is only to add the bolded portion of the quote below and scare quotes. The regular italics portion is already in the article. This subsection isn't about whether we should add or retain the "conservative" and "liberal" labels, which are already in the article, but whether to leave them as is or add the caveat. If people want to comment on both issues that's fine, but please comment specifically on the caveat assuming the labels are retained.
As linked above, to address valid concerns over the labels "conservative" and "liberals" meaning often completely different things in America versus Europe (and some other parts of the world), I put both terms in quotes and added a caveat summarized from the linked articles (which both make the same point): Within American political culture, the Republican Party is considered "conservative" and the Democratic Party is considered "liberal", though those terms have come to have different meanings than they do in much of the rest of the world.
Mark Miller reverted saying we should use sourcing for such a segment, so I offer these as potential sources:
(page 22; political science textbook); American Government and Politics Today, 2015-2016 edition, Lynne Ford, Barbara Bardes, Steffen Schmidt, Mack Shelley, Cengage Publishing
(page 252; book by notable political scientist/sociologist); American Exceptionalism: A Double-edged Sword, 1997, Seymour Martin Lipset, W. W. Norton & Company
(page 572; a cross cultural encyclopedic dictionary of complex concepts); Dictionary of Untranslatables: A Philosophical Lexicon, 2014, Barbara Cassin, Emily Apter, Jacques Lezra, Michael Wood, Princeton University Press
(page xi; topical political science book); A Dictionary of Conservative and Libertarian Thought, 2012 edition, Nigel Ashford, Stephen Davies, Routledge
Is this acceptable? It's not like this is controversial. That's why Europeans call Reagan and Thatcher "neoliberals", and why the conservative Australian party is called the "Liberal Party". VictorD7 (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Calling the Democratic party liberal is silly.Casprings (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- The article already does that. This subsection is about adding the caveat assuming the conservative/liberal labels remain. It sounds like maybe you should support the caveat if you feel just calling them "liberal" is silly. VictorD7 (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Liberal/Conservative doesn't seem likely to solve it. We need easily understood labels that don't need to be further explained. I was fine with center-right/left labels, which, though clumsy, gave an, I thought, easily understandable thumbnail sketch of where the parties stood, without labeling either as extreme (calling the Republicans "right-wing", as was done, when the party now commands absolute majorities in both houses of Congress is ludicrous; as is using extreme labels for either party). One question on sources: I reverted "right-wing" because it replaced part of a sourced statement; were "center-right/left" sourced by the reference to that description, and is that source included above? Dhtwiki (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed completely, though use of "conservative" and "liberal" is so ubiquitous within American culture that I don't mind keeping them too. If they do remain as the only ideological labels I think we need some sort of caveat like that proposed above lest readers having much different ideas of "liberal" and "conservative" in mind than modern Americans do be misled. Do you agree? I added an update to the op clarifying that this proposal only deals with the bolded portion quoted above, and not whether to keep or remove the "conservative"/"liberal" labels, which are still currently in the article. As for your question, I didn't add the source in the article, I don't recall having read it, and I'm not sure if the pertinent page is available online. No, I supplied four new sources above, all of which have the pertinent pages freely accessible online. VictorD7 (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Liberal/Conservative doesn't seem likely to solve it. We need easily understood labels that don't need to be further explained. I was fine with center-right/left labels, which, though clumsy, gave an, I thought, easily understandable thumbnail sketch of where the parties stood, without labeling either as extreme (calling the Republicans "right-wing", as was done, when the party now commands absolute majorities in both houses of Congress is ludicrous; as is using extreme labels for either party). One question on sources: I reverted "right-wing" because it replaced part of a sourced statement; were "center-right/left" sourced by the reference to that description, and is that source included above? Dhtwiki (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- The article already does that. This subsection is about adding the caveat assuming the conservative/liberal labels remain. It sounds like maybe you should support the caveat if you feel just calling them "liberal" is silly. VictorD7 (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose the Republicans have been right-wing on both social and economic issues while the Democrats have been center-right on economic issues and left-wing on social issues. How about just putting it that way? EllenCT (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- The proposed clause above doesn't mention "right" or "left" in any variation. What exactly are you opposing? VictorD7 (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose as the bolded portion is redundant to what is implied by "Within American political culture...". People can follow the links if they want to know what "conservative" and "liberal" mean. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- But millions of people think they know what liberal and conservative mean, and they don't know that those words have completely different meanings within US culture, as all the academic sources I cited above make clear, so why would they bother clicking on the links? They'd just go away misled. The caveat is just enough to give them a reason to click on the links for more information. It's not redundant because only saying "within American political culture" doesn't mention anything about those words being different from..say..European culture. Readers might assume the culture qualification just means those are popular terms to use, not that they have totally different meanings from what they're used to. VictorD7 (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- How do you know how many people have this different interpretation, or that they'll somehow be enlightened by a the warning you propose? If we have terms that have to be explained in such a manner, then we have the wrong terms. I think what's important to note is that both parties govern by majorities, and not by coalition building, as may happen in other countries, so that neither is a small or extreme party. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Did you look at the sources I cited at the top of this subsection or read where I quoted from them extensively in a post near the bottom of the above subsection? They all say the terms "liberal" and "conservative" mean totally different things on different sides of the Atlantic, which is how I know so many people think different things when they see the words (actually I already knew through extensive experience and research, but it's why you don't have to take my word for it). They'll only be enlightened to the extent that they'll be warned not to assume this. If they want further info they can look it up themselves, but at least with the caveat they aren't being misled. . Of course if you think the terms should be removed altogether that's fine, but that's a different discussion. This caveat would only apply so long as the segment remains in; it doesn't preclude "conservative"/"liberal" from being removed at some point later. VictorD7 (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- I was able to look at three of the four just now. The first, in order that you gave them, is rather schematic, positing, left-to-right, socialism-liberalism-conservativism-libertarianism, and oddly delays the Democratic party's change to statist, nationalist policies (witness Jackson during the first South Carolina secession crisis). The second compares Europe and Japan to America, but in saying conservatives in the former areas differ by respecting elitist values, or by relying on government, does not necessarily make the strongest case for why their conservatives are different from ours. The page of third reference wasn't available to me. The fourth seems to make the point that liberalism can mean both left (social democracy) and right (libertarianism), but that's not a huge distinction, since the former is what Americans usually mean by "liberal". In any case, I don't think your added wording is going to make the case better than what's already there. And, yes, I've said that "conservative" and "liberal" are not my choice, but they're better than trying to label the Republicans as "far right". Dhtwiki (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Fortunately labeling Republicans "far right" (that won't happen) and leaving the deeply flawed "conservative"/"liberal" labels in without caveat aren't the only two options. I'll drop my opposition to them if we add this brief caveat. That's how we can reach a consensus. We shouldn't want readers to come away thinking that modern liberals (and therefore modern Democrats) are the champions of laissez-faire free market economics and limited government, while American conservatives (and therefore Republicans) support the monarchy or some similar type of authoritarian form of government and maybe even champion the welfare state (especially since they're being juxtaposed against "liberals" instead of "labour" or "socialists"). That's not much better than calling Republicans "far right". Would it really be so bad to add the caveat even if you don't think it's necessary? The third source (starting at page 572) is available to me. Did you read my quotes from the sources in the above sections? They all make the point that these terms have totally different meanings than they do abroad. I'll help by reposting some of the quotes here and adding some new stuff. From the third source: "In the exemplary case of the United States, where the three political families (conservatism, liberalism, radicalism) are different from those in Europe, and can only really be defined through their relations to each other, liberalism clearly occupies more or less the ground of the political left as it is understood in Europe....Conservatives or, more recently, neo-Conservatives, correspond roughly to the European right wing, but with nuances that have to do with particularities of American history. There is no place in the imaginative world of this history for the ancient regime". It goes on into more detail.
- I was able to look at three of the four just now. The first, in order that you gave them, is rather schematic, positing, left-to-right, socialism-liberalism-conservativism-libertarianism, and oddly delays the Democratic party's change to statist, nationalist policies (witness Jackson during the first South Carolina secession crisis). The second compares Europe and Japan to America, but in saying conservatives in the former areas differ by respecting elitist values, or by relying on government, does not necessarily make the strongest case for why their conservatives are different from ours. The page of third reference wasn't available to me. The fourth seems to make the point that liberalism can mean both left (social democracy) and right (libertarianism), but that's not a huge distinction, since the former is what Americans usually mean by "liberal". In any case, I don't think your added wording is going to make the case better than what's already there. And, yes, I've said that "conservative" and "liberal" are not my choice, but they're better than trying to label the Republicans as "far right". Dhtwiki (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Did you look at the sources I cited at the top of this subsection or read where I quoted from them extensively in a post near the bottom of the above subsection? They all say the terms "liberal" and "conservative" mean totally different things on different sides of the Atlantic, which is how I know so many people think different things when they see the words (actually I already knew through extensive experience and research, but it's why you don't have to take my word for it). They'll only be enlightened to the extent that they'll be warned not to assume this. If they want further info they can look it up themselves, but at least with the caveat they aren't being misled. . Of course if you think the terms should be removed altogether that's fine, but that's a different discussion. This caveat would only apply so long as the segment remains in; it doesn't preclude "conservative"/"liberal" from being removed at some point later. VictorD7 (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- How do you know how many people have this different interpretation, or that they'll somehow be enlightened by a the warning you propose? If we have terms that have to be explained in such a manner, then we have the wrong terms. I think what's important to note is that both parties govern by majorities, and not by coalition building, as may happen in other countries, so that neither is a small or extreme party. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- But millions of people think they know what liberal and conservative mean, and they don't know that those words have completely different meanings within US culture, as all the academic sources I cited above make clear, so why would they bother clicking on the links? They'd just go away misled. The caveat is just enough to give them a reason to click on the links for more information. It's not redundant because only saying "within American political culture" doesn't mention anything about those words being different from..say..European culture. Readers might assume the culture qualification just means those are popular terms to use, not that they have totally different meanings from what they're used to. VictorD7 (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- From TFD's Schlesinger source: "Enough should have been said by now to indicate that liberalism in the American usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any European country, save possibly Britain."
- From the first textbook listed: "Outside of the United States and Canada, the meaning of the world liberal never changed. For this reason, you might hear a left-of-center European denounce U.S. president Ronald Reagan…or British prime minister Margaret Thatcher…for their “liberalism,” meaning that these two leaders were enthusiastic advocates of laissez-faire capitalism and limited government."
- From the Routledge published book on conservatism (which includes a lot of British scholars among its authors): "Moreover, because of the stigma which attaches to the term ‘socialist’ in that country, many Americans pass under the name of ‘liberal’ who would be described as socialists in any other country. In Europe outside Britain the word ‘liberal’ retains its old meaning and refers primarily to what political scientists call ‘classical liberalism’. Consequently the word ‘conservative’ has taken on a portmanteau quality in America and now refers both to people who would be described as conservatives in any language and to others who would in any European country other than Britain be labelled as liberals."
- From Lipset's political science book: "The meaning of “conservatism,” of course, is quite different in the two societies. In America, it involves support of laissez-faire, anti-statist doctrines, which correspond to bourgeois-linked classical liberalism. In Jefferson’s words, “that government governs best which governs least.”...In Japan, as in postfeudal Europe, conservatives have been associated with the defense of the alliance between state and religion (i.e., throne and altar), the maintenance of elitist values, and extensive reliance on government to further economic and social purposes. Aristocratic monarchical conservatives (Tories) have favored a strong state. From Meiji onwards, this meant a powerful state bureaucracy and politicians who consciously planned the use of national resources to enhance growth and, in prewar times, military power. The business community, insofar as it took independent stances, as more classically liberal, more supportive of laissez-faire, and less militaristic than the aristocracy, but it was weak politically. In Europe, aristocratic, agrarian-based conservatism, which favored a strong state, fostered the nobles oblige communitarian values of the nobility, disliked the competitive, materialistic values and behavior of the capitalists, and introduced the welfare state into Germany and Britain."
- The reliable sources are extremely clear cut, and we're supposed to follow the sources. BTW, not that it matters here but Jackson was a unionist, not a statist. He opposed secessionist tendencies but also opposed a central bank and supported laissez-faire economics. VictorD7 (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quotes, but I think that all this says is that the new labels, "conservative" and "liberal" are the wrong ones. I tried to make that point in my response to the first "oppose" by Casprings, which only seemed to cause you to limit debate to the adding of the new explanatory wording, which I oppose because I don't think it helps, and I still don't. I heard ex-French-president Giscard d'Estaing on TV ("Charlie Rose") expounding on politics, using "left" and "right" in ways I though clear. I think it's time to discard the labels we have. We were cribbing from the main party articles, if I recall correctly, to avoid the "center-right" versus "right-wing" (or "far right") choice. We need to back it up to that, I think. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- I understand your position, but I tried to steer discussion back to the proposed caveat because that's the purpose of this subsection. The section on the broader section is still there above for people to post in, and new sections or subsections can be created if someone wants to propose getting rid of the "conservative"/"liberal" language. My concern here is that those terms are currently in the article misleading readers, so I was hoping to add this quick fix as at least a stopgap measure until a broader consensus on terminology is reached (if that happens). That said, I do appreciate you being one of the three respondents here to at least address the proposal.VictorD7 (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quotes, but I think that all this says is that the new labels, "conservative" and "liberal" are the wrong ones. I tried to make that point in my response to the first "oppose" by Casprings, which only seemed to cause you to limit debate to the adding of the new explanatory wording, which I oppose because I don't think it helps, and I still don't. I heard ex-French-president Giscard d'Estaing on TV ("Charlie Rose") expounding on politics, using "left" and "right" in ways I though clear. I think it's time to discard the labels we have. We were cribbing from the main party articles, if I recall correctly, to avoid the "center-right" versus "right-wing" (or "far right") choice. We need to back it up to that, I think. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support. VictorD7 is correct about how the liberal/conservative terminology is used in American political discourse and how different are these meanings from other parts of the world. "Left" and "right" don't mean the same things either, and carry more inappropriate weight in world terms. (While the Democrats may be "center right" on some issues by world standards, you won't find consensus for that description among Republicans, at least; characterizing the current GOP as "center right" is equally prone to dispute.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- I see not reason to add the bolded phrase, because we already say "Within American political culture" and put both conservative and liberal in "scare quotes." I would also add that unlike other countries, the U.S. does not have ideological parties. In fact the parties themselves bear little resemblance to parties elsewhere. TFD (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- The reason is that those same words are used in other parts of the world, especially Europe, to mean completely different things. Saying "within American culture" doesn't signal this huge difference to readers. Their current use is misleading. Also, I had added the scare quotes as part of the proposal so they were reverted too. They aren't currently in the article. I've updated the op to clarify that. VictorD7 (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'll add that events since this discussion left off, like Bernie Sanders doing so well with the Democratic base and the head of the Democratic Party herself, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, being unable to articulate a difference between Democrats and socialists in two interviews days apart with extremely friendly hosts, further underscore the absurdity of anyone pretending the Democrats aren't a left leaning party. This issue will have to be revisited at some point since modern American liberalism is completely different from what Europe and most of the rest of the world mean by the term "liberal", as the scholarly sources I provided above make clear. The current article version is misleading. VictorD7 (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Bernie Sanders is not running as a socialist and the fact that Wasserman-Schultz does not know what Sanders means by socialist is not evidence that she is secretly one herself. There are btw Liberal parties outside the U.S. similar in political orientation to the Democratic Party for example in Canada and the UK and they are distinct from and antagonistic to their Socialist parties. TFD (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sanders is a socialist running for the Democratic Party nomination, and Wasserman Schultz wasn't asked what Sanders means by socialist. She was asked what the difference is between a socialist and a Democrat. She refused to answer because she didn't want to alienate the large elements of her base who are favorably disposed toward socialism. "Democrat" and "socialist" aren't synonymous, but the base's affinity for socialism of various stripes underscores that it is definitely a left leaning party, which is what's actually pertinent to my previous post. None of this is "secret" (that's your wording, not mine). There are some other countries where "liberals" are associated more with the left than the right (and the existence of more than two major parties in some countries means multiple left leaning parties can be at odds with each other), but generally speaking it's the other way around (e.g. the Australian Liberal Party being their equivalent of the US Republican Party, while their Labour Party is the equivalent of the US Democratic Party; Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher being called "neoliberals" by Europeans; US politicians using "liberal" to refer to pro free market sentiment and limited government when speaking in an international context, essentially the opposite of the domestic context usage; etc.).
- That "liberal" and "conservative" have different meanings in different national contexts is indisputable and proven conclusively by the sources I've posted. No rational reason has been provided for opposing some type of caveat to the current misleading article version, or for that matter for continuing to oppose the restoration of the original "left"/"right" designations in some form now that the complaint used to delete the long standing qualifiers (a lack of sourcing) has been more than answered by several quality sources above. VictorD7 (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- She was asked what a socialist was during a conversation about Bernie Sanders. In any case, you make great leaps of logic which reliable sources do not. TFD (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sure she was, but she was asked what I said she was asked, not what you said she was. The leaps here are all yours. I've quoted verbatim where the sources support my position on every level. VictorD7 (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- She was asked what a socialist was during a conversation about Bernie Sanders. In any case, you make great leaps of logic which reliable sources do not. TFD (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Dropping any label to each political party
I think there is general consensus at the top of this discussion to simply drop the labels and name the political parities. I am starting this section to formally see who supports this option or opposes it. Please indicate by saying support or oppose and give your rational. Casprings (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- To clarify - this logically includes removing the totally unsourced "red"/"blue" state mentions in the following line since those are party based political labels too (that sentence also repeats "conservative" and "liberal"). In fact that's the most egregious item here, since "red"/"blue" is recentist, colloquial, shallow, and not universally embraced. It's also frivolous. The sentence on geographical party strength can stand on its own without those expressions. VictorD7 (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose because I think that some labeling is helpful. I've just reread what's in the article, and I can live with what's there now, in the second paragraph under "Parties and elections", although the labeling of "conservative" and "liberal" isn't entirely clear, and the paragraph becomes painful as it goes on to discuss red states versus blue states. But, the first paragraph makes the two-party system abundantly clear, and that's what I think is important to convey. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose proposal per se because most other country articles I've seen include some description of party ideology. Support deleting what's currently there if there are no changes. Based on the numerous sources provided above, I support restoring the long standing "center-left"/"center-right" labels and keeping "conservative"/"liberal" while adding the brief caveat proposed in the above section letting readers know the most common terminology and that they shouldn't assume the words necessarily mean what they might otherwise assume they do (or some other wording; I'm open to alternative suggestions). That would go a long way toward educating readers on the basics of the American political divide without misleading them, while providing links for further education if they desired it. I do support removal of the "red state"/"blue state" phrases though for reasons given above, and I oppose leaving the "conservative"/"liberal" labels in without any caveat indicating to Europeans and others that these words likely have completely different meanings from what they're used to. Deletion would be preferable to that .VictorD7 (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Progressiveness of taxes and fiscal policy
2. I agree with VictorD7's compromise proposal on taxes being somewhat/generally/most/least progressive above. We shouldn't be getting hung up on adjectives for numerical facts which can be described with quantitative rankings.
- Well the word is what is important. As Ellen points out, the US tax system is somewhat progressive with many regressive aspects (sales tax, for example).Casprings (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- As currently worded it shows plenty of POV on something that is properly factually wrong and is, at the very least, highly disputed.Casprings (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, the current section accurately describes the taxation issue, including the regressive aspects (like sales/consumption taxes) and overall progressivity, and is well sourced by outfits from across the political spectrum. The facts aren't in dispute. See also . VictorD7 (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- The suggestion that there is no room for improvement is contrary to established facts. All of my recently proposed improvements would improve the article. We need not miss the opportunity to make further improvements because we were too busy trying to figure out how to sweep things under the rug. Including the Wall Street Journal's recent graphic or an adaption of it would be beneficial. EllenCT (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- No one said there isn't room for improvement, but clearly many editors disagree with you on whether your proposals would be improvements, as even a majority of uninvolved editors in your RFC below currently oppose that graphic's inclusion in this article. VictorD7 (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- The suggestion that there is no room for improvement is contrary to established facts. All of my recently proposed improvements would improve the article. We need not miss the opportunity to make further improvements because we were too busy trying to figure out how to sweep things under the rug. Including the Wall Street Journal's recent graphic or an adaption of it would be beneficial. EllenCT (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Private prisons
3. Is the additional reference for "The privatization of prisons and prison services which began in the 1980s" does not seem to be the subject of an actual controversy here on the talk page. Is it actually controversial? I don't think "has been a subject of debate" is appropriate, but that hasn't been part of the edit warring. Can we say something quantitative about the prison population instead?
- We can say that privatization of prisons is controversial (as per Incarceration in the United States#Privatization)
- Do we need to go into the prisoner population size? Comparatively U.S. prisons are more humane than other nations (while not as nice as say Nordic prisons). Perhaps a link to Incarceration in the United States article is sufficient.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Not occurring to most human rights groups. For example:https://www.hrw.org/united-states/us-program/prison-and-detention-conditions Casprings (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- The page you linked to doesn't appear to contain international comparisons so it doesn't dispute what RightCowlLeftCoast said. That's leaving aside the fact that HRW is a mostly George Soros funded, left wing propaganda outfit with an anti-American bent.
- Not occurring to most human rights groups. For example:https://www.hrw.org/united-states/us-program/prison-and-detention-conditions Casprings (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Back to the actual topic here, Ellen is right to observe that the source in question hasn't been the subject of controversy here. It's simply there to illustrate one side of the debate and no legitimate rationale was presented by the editor attempting to single it out for removal. It should remain if the rest of the segment does. VictorD7 (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Is it notable enough for mention here is there is little to no context? The subject itself is controversial, but is it notable enough for mention in this article?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I would delete the entire sentence, but if it remains there's no reason to start deleting sources covering one side's opinion on a complex, controversial issue while leaving all the other side's. VictorD7 (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Is it notable enough for mention here is there is little to no context? The subject itself is controversial, but is it notable enough for mention in this article?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Back to the actual topic here, Ellen is right to observe that the source in question hasn't been the subject of controversy here. It's simply there to illustrate one side of the debate and no legitimate rationale was presented by the editor attempting to single it out for removal. It should remain if the rest of the segment does. VictorD7 (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think the key thing you have to mention is that the U.S. Has the largest per capital population and actual number of prisoners in the World. I think that is the unique and important fact here.Casprings (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- A function of the US being the third most populous country in the world, and one with the combination of extremely effective law enforcement and the somewhat higher crime rate that often comes with having a freer society (as opposed to Saudi Arabia, totalitarian China, or even states like Singapore that are mostly libertarian but deter crime by punishing it very harshly), particularly one with massive immigration (legal and illegal) from third world sources. Of course that is mentioned in the article. Does that mean you'd support deleting the "privatization" sentence? VictorD7 (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- What is the point of the private prison statement in the section and what balance does it provide. I am unclear of that.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I support placing the most important facts in the article with regard to WP:Weight]]. The fact I mentioned seems more important than prisoners becoming private. The actual facts on the subject or very significant when looking at an article on the United States.Casprings (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- A function of the US being the third most populous country in the world, and one with the combination of extremely effective law enforcement and the somewhat higher crime rate that often comes with having a freer society (as opposed to Saudi Arabia, totalitarian China, or even states like Singapore that are mostly libertarian but deter crime by punishing it very harshly), particularly one with massive immigration (legal and illegal) from third world sources. Of course that is mentioned in the article. Does that mean you'd support deleting the "privatization" sentence? VictorD7 (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/americas/23iht-23prison.12253738.html?mwrsm=Email
- So are we all agreed that the prison privatization sentence should be deleted? VictorD7 (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Is someone adding input without signing? I can't tell from the last comment above yours what that direction that goes to be honest.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry. If the article was made much shorter, I would support getting ride of it. With the articles current size, this is a relevant enough fact to include. The privatization of prisons are unique and have produced a number of human rights violations.http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5466166 . Casprings (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I concur with Casprings above. I would also like to note that while the sources I have added on this subject are peer-reviewed and academic, which are the most qualified for Misplaced Pages, at least two of the citations added in a pathetic attempt to defend prison privatization are blatant propaganda from right-wing sources that are NOT peer-reviewed or academic (I'm referring to the Reason Foundation, "an American libertarian research organization" and something called "The Commonwealth Foundation," a corporate-funded, libertarian "think tank" pushing "free market" policies - one of many spawned by the Powell Memorandum). These should be removed as they do not qualify as WP:RS.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- My only concern with this content, is that it have proper context and not appear to just be dropped in to add controversial content. Also, if added there needs to be some expansion on the information to give some reasoning to why it is an issue important enough to be mentioned in this article. Other than that, I also fully agree that the partisan sources are being used innappropriatly and are certainly replaceable with academic sources from experts in the fields.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- In terms of context, prison privatization is largely (but not solely) unique to the United States, especially to the extent that we've privatized not only prisons but also outsourced prison functions such as healthcare and food services to private corporations such as Corizon and Aramark respectively, with sometimes fatal results. In addition, the prison industry, according to scholars such as Marie Gottschalk, professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, is playing a role in sustaining America's obscenely high incarceration rates. But adding such content could be problematic as some would argue it would be giving too much weight to the issue.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- My only concern with this content, is that it have proper context and not appear to just be dropped in to add controversial content. Also, if added there needs to be some expansion on the information to give some reasoning to why it is an issue important enough to be mentioned in this article. Other than that, I also fully agree that the partisan sources are being used innappropriatly and are certainly replaceable with academic sources from experts in the fields.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, Griffin, you added three books by liberal activists with colorful polemical titles like "Punishment for sale: Private Prisons, Big Business, and the Incarceration Binge", "The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order", and "Caught: the Prison State and the Lockdown of American Politics". Your one peer reviewed journal article, also by a liberal activist, has the sensationalistic title "Neoliberalism's Penal and Debtor States". Fortunately we aren't restricted to only using peer reviewed sources (the vast majority of sources in the article, especially the ones added by you, aren't), and we certainly aren't prohibited from using biased sources (every source you've added is extremely biased), especially if we're merely representing the different points of view in a debate.
- I concur with Casprings above. I would also like to note that while the sources I have added on this subject are peer-reviewed and academic, which are the most qualified for Misplaced Pages, at least two of the citations added in a pathetic attempt to defend prison privatization are blatant propaganda from right-wing sources that are NOT peer-reviewed or academic (I'm referring to the Reason Foundation, "an American libertarian research organization" and something called "The Commonwealth Foundation," a corporate-funded, libertarian "think tank" pushing "free market" policies - one of many spawned by the Powell Memorandum). These should be removed as they do not qualify as WP:RS.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry. If the article was made much shorter, I would support getting ride of it. With the articles current size, this is a relevant enough fact to include. The privatization of prisons are unique and have produced a number of human rights violations.http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5466166 . Casprings (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Is someone adding input without signing? I can't tell from the last comment above yours what that direction that goes to be honest.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- So are we all agreed that the prison privatization sentence should be deleted? VictorD7 (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- "Criticism", no matter how scholarly, is still opinion, as is praise. You can't say in Misplaced Pages's voice that prison privatization has come under "criticism" while excluding any mention of those who praise or support it when it's the status quo, most people support it, and many prominent politicians and noteworthy commentators support it. What I did was take your extreme WP:NPOV violating sentence and make it one that neutrally acknowledges the debate with sources representing both points of view. I added two peer reviewed articles with less polemical, more scholarly sounding titles than yours: "Cost Effectiveness Comparisons of Private Versus Public Prisons in Louisiana: A Comprehensive Analysis of Allen, Avoyelles, and Winn Correctional Centers" and "A Tale of Two Prisons: Cost, Quality, and Accountability in Private Prisons", and yes, I added two fact heavy think tank pieces to fully flesh out the other POV. I used these in part because they brought together a lot of different arguments and sub topics and because I only wanted to use four sources to balance your four sources, rather than piling on with many more. Those think tank pieces are certainly RS for their own opinions, which is what they're being used for here, as are your sources. VictorD7 (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- "You can't say in Misplaced Pages's voice that prison privatization has come under "criticism" while excluding any mention of those who praise or support it when it's the status quo, most people support it, and many prominent politicians and noteworthy commentators support it." This sort of thing almost always has a due amount of balance in academic circles and opinion but we can't just toss in any support. The balance should come from whatever weight the arguments have in real life. Prison overcrowding may have supporters, but just adding their mention may not be within guidelines if they are not in reliable sources. Generally the balance will be in the sources. If there is no balance, I would wonder a bit about that sources or the subject. In this case, what exactly do "supporters" of private prisons have to add to the over all subject from sources. That might be interesting to look at, but it is a little like arguing for the sake of arguing if the is no real need for the balance. Not that there isn't in this case...but we do need to consider it.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- The sources I added have far more balance than the stridently polemical ones Griffin added. Frankly including this sentence at all is niche soapboxing inappropriate for this broad summary article, but if it's to remain it must conform with neutrality policy. VictorD7 (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I believe the point being made is, that the subject is notable enough for mention in this summary article of the overall importance or notability of prison over-population and the government allowing prisons to be run by private companies in some instances. This seems reasonable but right now I wouldn't call it soapboxing. However, this illustrates the problems of using weak sources and then trying to balance the sources with other sources. That isn't balance that is just more soapboxing. I think these issues are far deeper than just the topics. The sources being used appear to be veiled partisan bickering within the article. Is there a way to get past this? Wouldn't further research for stronger sources and more accurate overview of the issue be better than just debating what is there so far if the sources are being questioned?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I reject your premise that the subject is "notable" enough (presumably you meant "noteworthy"; notability in a Misplaced Pages context only pertains to a subject having its own article) to get its own segment here when countless other arguably more important topics (school choice, the USA's extreme tort abuse compared to other countries, fueled by the powerful trial lawyer lobby, late term abortions, the breakdown of the family and rise of single parent homes, etc.) are ignored. The USA's high incarceration rate is already mentioned in the section in its own segment so I can only surmise that Casprings emphasized that above because he was initially confused (he may have originally indicated opposition to including a private prison segment because he thought I was supporting it, and then when he finally realized what was going on switched sides). I also reject your premise that the sources used are necessarily "weak" for the task at hand. If you're going to cover opinion (which is what "criticism" is) on an emerging (but still little discussed) controversial topic, then these are the type of sources you're going to have. All I'm saying is that if there's a dispute, which is what "criticism" implies, then we cover it in a neutral manner, and without taking sides in Misplaced Pages's voice. Even if the sources are low quality, it's better to have low quality sources from both sides than only one side. VictorD7 (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- You can reject anything you want, but the premise isn't mine. Notability for an article and notability for mention in an article are different standards but are still a part of how we determine content's encyclopedic value and worthiness for inclusion or exclusion. At this point I think most of this content is politically motivated and the sources misused. I support exclusion based on the questionable manner in which the information is being added and sourced.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I reject your premise that the subject is "notable" enough (presumably you meant "noteworthy"; notability in a Misplaced Pages context only pertains to a subject having its own article) to get its own segment here when countless other arguably more important topics (school choice, the USA's extreme tort abuse compared to other countries, fueled by the powerful trial lawyer lobby, late term abortions, the breakdown of the family and rise of single parent homes, etc.) are ignored. The USA's high incarceration rate is already mentioned in the section in its own segment so I can only surmise that Casprings emphasized that above because he was initially confused (he may have originally indicated opposition to including a private prison segment because he thought I was supporting it, and then when he finally realized what was going on switched sides). I also reject your premise that the sources used are necessarily "weak" for the task at hand. If you're going to cover opinion (which is what "criticism" is) on an emerging (but still little discussed) controversial topic, then these are the type of sources you're going to have. All I'm saying is that if there's a dispute, which is what "criticism" implies, then we cover it in a neutral manner, and without taking sides in Misplaced Pages's voice. Even if the sources are low quality, it's better to have low quality sources from both sides than only one side. VictorD7 (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I believe the point being made is, that the subject is notable enough for mention in this summary article of the overall importance or notability of prison over-population and the government allowing prisons to be run by private companies in some instances. This seems reasonable but right now I wouldn't call it soapboxing. However, this illustrates the problems of using weak sources and then trying to balance the sources with other sources. That isn't balance that is just more soapboxing. I think these issues are far deeper than just the topics. The sources being used appear to be veiled partisan bickering within the article. Is there a way to get past this? Wouldn't further research for stronger sources and more accurate overview of the issue be better than just debating what is there so far if the sources are being questioned?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- The sources I added have far more balance than the stridently polemical ones Griffin added. Frankly including this sentence at all is niche soapboxing inappropriate for this broad summary article, but if it's to remain it must conform with neutrality policy. VictorD7 (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- "You can't say in Misplaced Pages's voice that prison privatization has come under "criticism" while excluding any mention of those who praise or support it when it's the status quo, most people support it, and many prominent politicians and noteworthy commentators support it." This sort of thing almost always has a due amount of balance in academic circles and opinion but we can't just toss in any support. The balance should come from whatever weight the arguments have in real life. Prison overcrowding may have supporters, but just adding their mention may not be within guidelines if they are not in reliable sources. Generally the balance will be in the sources. If there is no balance, I would wonder a bit about that sources or the subject. In this case, what exactly do "supporters" of private prisons have to add to the over all subject from sources. That might be interesting to look at, but it is a little like arguing for the sake of arguing if the is no real need for the balance. Not that there isn't in this case...but we do need to consider it.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- "Criticism", no matter how scholarly, is still opinion, as is praise. You can't say in Misplaced Pages's voice that prison privatization has come under "criticism" while excluding any mention of those who praise or support it when it's the status quo, most people support it, and many prominent politicians and noteworthy commentators support it. What I did was take your extreme WP:NPOV violating sentence and make it one that neutrally acknowledges the debate with sources representing both points of view. I added two peer reviewed articles with less polemical, more scholarly sounding titles than yours: "Cost Effectiveness Comparisons of Private Versus Public Prisons in Louisiana: A Comprehensive Analysis of Allen, Avoyelles, and Winn Correctional Centers" and "A Tale of Two Prisons: Cost, Quality, and Accountability in Private Prisons", and yes, I added two fact heavy think tank pieces to fully flesh out the other POV. I used these in part because they brought together a lot of different arguments and sub topics and because I only wanted to use four sources to balance your four sources, rather than piling on with many more. Those think tank pieces are certainly RS for their own opinions, which is what they're being used for here, as are your sources. VictorD7 (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- The books listed are from researchers and published at by University Presses.
- The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order published by Harvard University Press and by Bernard Harcourt at The University of Columbia.
- Punishment for sale: Private Prisons, Big Business, and the Incarceration Binge by Donna Selman from Eastern Michigan and Paul Leighton from Eastern Michigan.
- The Prison State and the Lockdown of American Politics from Princeton University Press by Marie Gottschalk out of UPEN
- These are all independent researchers publishing from respected publishing companies. In my opinion, they are better WP:RS then the sources you listed. Casprings (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- So? They're clearly polemical. I think my two more scholarly, neutrally toned articles (from the Harvard Law Review and Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Journal) and even the two think tank analyses are better than your sources, but fortunately we don't have to choose. We can retain both. VictorD7 (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Let us drop the privatization sentence all together, and just state the raw data of per capita incarcerated, total population, and total number on death row, and leave it at that. To give context, we can provide crime rate, and number of homicides, with details being left to the article Crime in the United States. That should be able to be stated neutrally, with good sources, and then the rest of the details can be expanded upon in the specific article about this topic: Incarceration in the United States.
- No need to state adjectives like "most", "greatest", "fewest". No need to compare to other nations. Just give the raw data. Does this sound like a fair compromise?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- @RightCowLeftCoast: are you proposing a specific edit? Otherwise, I believe the consensus above is that the sentence should stand. EllenCT (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- As stated above, I agree with RCLC's suggestion of removing the sentence, though if it stands I oppose deleting the current sources in one sided fashion. VictorD7 (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- @RightCowLeftCoast: are you proposing a specific edit? Otherwise, I believe the consensus above is that the sentence should stand. EllenCT (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Living space
4. I don't think we need to say "According to a 2011 report by The Heritage Foundation" before "Americans on average have over twice as much living space per dwelling and per person as European Union residents" because I don't think the underlying statistic is in dispute, so it's fine to say it in Misplaced Pages's voice. I would prefer that we find a more centrist source to cite, but I don't feel strongly enough about that to go looking for one. I do wonder whether we should be reporting highly skewed mean living space as "average," instead of the median. Therefore I propose to replace the mean with the median living space size. Does anyone have a source for that? EllenCT (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Not RS for that claim in my opinion. As a conservative think-tank I don't know why they would be cited for this fact.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- But you have no problem with EPI (a liberal think tank) or countless other leftist sources used throughout the article? Unlike the EPI based chart/sentence, which is based on EPI's unverifiable (in fact disputed) original calculations and yet shoves a striking visual image on alleged "productivity" into readers' faces, Heritage simply relays publicly available government information. The source is definitely RS and the facts aren't in dispute. As to Ellen's question, I'm fine with adding median stats if one can find them (I don't recall off the top of my head if I've seen them or not), but mean is a legitimate stat too, and in this case the gap is so large that it wouldn't fundamentally alter the international comparison anyway. Even on income using median instead of mean doesn't radically alter international rankings. VictorD7 (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have a problem with certain sources that are far weaker for the claims than those publications from experts in the fields...Yes. Not wanting one does not mean I want any of the others. This was brought up and this is my opinion and input for the subject of this thread.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Your refusal to answer the question about the leftist think tank EPI and the much more prominent visual and text segment it serves as the sole source for in the same section is noted. Consistency is vital to neutrality and good faith editing. The Heritage piece was written and reviewed by experts in the field. Again, the stats come directly from publicly available data that I had posted as a second source at one point so any skeptics could verify it for themselves, but I guess may have been removed when there was a big push to reduce article space (including frivolous sources) a while back. The facts presented are undisputed. VictorD7 (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- If left-leaning think tanks which fall under WP:BIASED, are accepted, and right-leaning think tanks are not accepted. This is a HUGE problem, not just for this article but for all of Misplaced Pages. That's like saying only sources from country X are only acceptable, while sources from country Y are never acceptable.
- That being said, why not just give a the raw data?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Good question. The raw data is publicly available from different government sources (one American and one European) but combined in a comparison by Heritage. It would be OR for us to only use the government sources without including the source that made the comparison. VictorD7 (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Victor was the one that accused me of having no problem with the left leaning sources when I already said I have a problem with any source being used that is weaker than an academic source that should be used. I am against using left or right leaning political sources and again, why are we using such sources?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- But I provided a salient actual example from the same section and you refused to specifically comment on it, rendering your vague disclaimer hollow. While there are real problems with the EPI graph/segment (for one thing it's disputed) not shared by the perfectly fine Heritage segment, I will say that we aren't restricted to only using "academic sources", nor are we prohibited from using "political sources". You just endorsed an OECD chart on inequality below, and of course most sources used here aren't academic. Academic sources can be very political anyway. VictorD7 (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Victor was the one that accused me of having no problem with the left leaning sources when I already said I have a problem with any source being used that is weaker than an academic source that should be used. I am against using left or right leaning political sources and again, why are we using such sources?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Good question. The raw data is publicly available from different government sources (one American and one European) but combined in a comparison by Heritage. It would be OR for us to only use the government sources without including the source that made the comparison. VictorD7 (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Your refusal to answer the question about the leftist think tank EPI and the much more prominent visual and text segment it serves as the sole source for in the same section is noted. Consistency is vital to neutrality and good faith editing. The Heritage piece was written and reviewed by experts in the field. Again, the stats come directly from publicly available data that I had posted as a second source at one point so any skeptics could verify it for themselves, but I guess may have been removed when there was a big push to reduce article space (including frivolous sources) a while back. The facts presented are undisputed. VictorD7 (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have a problem with certain sources that are far weaker for the claims than those publications from experts in the fields...Yes. Not wanting one does not mean I want any of the others. This was brought up and this is my opinion and input for the subject of this thread.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- But you have no problem with EPI (a liberal think tank) or countless other leftist sources used throughout the article? Unlike the EPI based chart/sentence, which is based on EPI's unverifiable (in fact disputed) original calculations and yet shoves a striking visual image on alleged "productivity" into readers' faces, Heritage simply relays publicly available government information. The source is definitely RS and the facts aren't in dispute. As to Ellen's question, I'm fine with adding median stats if one can find them (I don't recall off the top of my head if I've seen them or not), but mean is a legitimate stat too, and in this case the gap is so large that it wouldn't fundamentally alter the international comparison anyway. Even on income using median instead of mean doesn't radically alter international rankings. VictorD7 (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Income inequality trends
5. This was discussed and revised at great length, and I thought I addressed all of the objections; if any objections remain, please state them so we can work out a compromise: "According to Pavlina Tcherneva at Bard College's Levy Economics Institute, the lack of income increases commensurate with productivity, the gender pay gap, and the erosion of unemployment safety net welfare at living wages have led to the increases in income inequality."
References
- Tcherneva, Pavlina R. (April 2015). "When a rising tide sinks most boats: trends in US income inequality" (PDF). levyinstitute.org. Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
- Casselman, Ben (September 22, 2014). "The American Middle Class Hasn't Gotten A Raise In 15 Years". FiveThirtyEightEconomics. Retrieved 23 April 2015.
- Parlapiano, Alicia; Gebeloff, Robert; Carter, Shan (January 26, 2013). "The Shrinking American Middle Class". The Upshot. New York Times. Retrieved 23 April 2015.
- I have said this before and I will say it again. That section needs to be a summary per WP:SUMMARY of Income in the United States, Poverty in the United States, Affluence in the United States, and Income inequality in the United States, and not a section created from scratch. I will strongly oppose any new litigation about what to include, what to exclude, and how it needs to be framed, of any material that is not a good faith attempt to summarize these articles here. The leads of these articles may be a good starting point, as leads are supposed to be an abstract of these articles. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Why not United States counties by per capita income which is also a linked "further information" header? In practice at least portions of virtually all Misplaced Pages articles are written from scratch, in part because all of these articles are in constant flux. Material is sometimes taken from subarticles and added to pages like this, and vice versa, but other times fresh material is added. As for doing nothing but summarizing other articles here, low traffic articles are often lower quality (sometimes extremely messed up) and the question of how to summarize four or five subarticles covering different topics into one, different section in a way that's appropriate for this article is more complicated than it may seem at first glance. Also, if editors want to improve encyclopedic coverage, should they start editing from scratch at the linked subarticles, the subarticles linked to on those pages, or the ones linked to from there, etc..? Should editors just let problems sit on very high traffic articles while all this is taking place? If you feel the section doesn't properly summarize the linked "further information" articles, and this really bothers you, it may be a more efficient solution to simply change or delete those header links. I'm not sure we need five for Income anyway. There likely would have been far more resistance to them being added at the time if editors had thought they would be rigidly dictating the sections' permissible shapes. VictorD7 (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Can you tell whether Tcherneva thinks that increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit forms a legitimate unemployment safety net? At first glance, it might not, because it doesn't apply to the unemployed, but in reality is the incentive and consumer spending demand sufficient for growth? EllenCT (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Everything in this section needs to be ironed out there is a huge ugly template and a tag in the section. That needs to go away and to do that a consensus here is important. The sentence makes no sense to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Which question makes no sense and why doesn't it? EllenCT (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. No question, the sentence in debate from the article: "According to Pavlina Tcherneva at Bard College's Levy Economics Institute, the lack of income increases commensurate with productivity, the gender pay gap, and the erosion of unemployment safety net welfare at living wages have led to the increases in income inequality". That's an awful lot to take in. I'm not sure what it's saying. As an opinion, is it possible to use a direct quote? Would that not be more to guidelines or would that make this more complicated?--Mark Miller (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- My concern here is that we have the opinion of someone (I assume is notable enough to use in the article) however, I only see the primary source work that the opinion is derived from and no source making the claim itself. In other words, we need a source that says that Pavlina Tcherneva has this opinion in order to use the opinion here. I scanned the other two sources and they appear to be supporting references for Pavlina Tcherneva's opinion but don't seem to mention the author. Or did I miss it?--Mark Miller (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- All of the secondary peer reviewed literature reviews which weigh in on the subject support the statement. I am happy to add those, too. EllenCT (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Which question makes no sense and why doesn't it? EllenCT (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Everything in this section needs to be ironed out there is a huge ugly template and a tag in the section. That needs to go away and to do that a consensus here is important. The sentence makes no sense to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Can you tell whether Tcherneva thinks that increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit forms a legitimate unemployment safety net? At first glance, it might not, because it doesn't apply to the unemployed, but in reality is the incentive and consumer spending demand sufficient for growth? EllenCT (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Why not United States counties by per capita income which is also a linked "further information" header? In practice at least portions of virtually all Misplaced Pages articles are written from scratch, in part because all of these articles are in constant flux. Material is sometimes taken from subarticles and added to pages like this, and vice versa, but other times fresh material is added. As for doing nothing but summarizing other articles here, low traffic articles are often lower quality (sometimes extremely messed up) and the question of how to summarize four or five subarticles covering different topics into one, different section in a way that's appropriate for this article is more complicated than it may seem at first glance. Also, if editors want to improve encyclopedic coverage, should they start editing from scratch at the linked subarticles, the subarticles linked to on those pages, or the ones linked to from there, etc..? Should editors just let problems sit on very high traffic articles while all this is taking place? If you feel the section doesn't properly summarize the linked "further information" articles, and this really bothers you, it may be a more efficient solution to simply change or delete those header links. I'm not sure we need five for Income anyway. There likely would have been far more resistance to them being added at the time if editors had thought they would be rigidly dictating the sections' permissible shapes. VictorD7 (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have said this before and I will say it again. That section needs to be a summary per WP:SUMMARY of Income in the United States, Poverty in the United States, Affluence in the United States, and Income inequality in the United States, and not a section created from scratch. I will strongly oppose any new litigation about what to include, what to exclude, and how it needs to be framed, of any material that is not a good faith attempt to summarize these articles here. The leads of these articles may be a good starting point, as leads are supposed to be an abstract of these articles. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Some information that was removed from Economic inequality that may be of interest to this article:
There is statistical evidence that shows strong links between single-parent families and lower income. In spite of the statistical evidence about the economic advantages enjoyed by married couples and also by their children, evidence that is at odds with ideological positions of many influential voices, Maranto and Crouch point out that "in the current discussions about increased inequality, few researchers... directly address what seems to be the strongest statistical correlate of inequality in the United States: the rise of single-parent families during the past half century." WSJ article
Economic growth has also had issues with undue weight and POV, primarily by someone who is also causing problems with this article. My recommendation is that we have this person blocked.Phmoreno (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- OK but...any such block discussion would take place at ANI and I am not sure how to respond other than to ask....who do you want blocked?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not going to name anyone here, especially because I do not have much experience with this article; however, I did observe the same pattern with this person here as on other articles I actively edit. The person was notified a few days ago. After some checking of that editor's various articles/talk pages I had enough evidence to turn in a complaint to the administrators notice board, which I just did. I think its better to eliminate editors who won't abide by the rules than to let them be a constant drain on resources.Phmoreno (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Good post, Phmoreno. I mentioned the impact of single parent homes elsewhere on this page earlier as one of the countless examples of niche topics we'll have to consider to be fair game for inclusion now if this current POV blitz is allowed to gain ground. VictorD7 (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note that Phmoreno's complaint about this at ANI resulted in a WP:BOOMERANG where the experienced administrators overwhelmingly !voted to topic-ban VictorD7. EllenCT (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- False. Phmoreno was unfamiliar with how ANI worked, and there was no ruling there on the substance of what he brought up here one way or the other. The ludicrous attempt to get me sanctioned was opposed by a majority of respondents (including admin) who saw the effort as clearly partisan in nature, with at least as many indicating you merited banning. It properly ended in a no consensus for action against anyone. I strongly suggest you refrain from derailing discussion with ad hominem diversions, especially ones based on false claims. VictorD7 (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- I invite those who still have good faith in Victor's assertions to count the !votes. Victor's supporters are overwhelmingly non-admins with WP:COMPETENCE issues, most of whom weigh in against me at every opportunity, no matter the subject. The experienced administrators overwhelmingly supported the topic ban. I invite those who are tired of Victor's POV pushing to request a formal closure. EllenCT (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- The only admin I noticed voting there was Jayron32, and he opposed sanctions. I admittedly skimmed fast, but I don't see anyone else identifying themselves as an admin on their user page or showing up as one on this page. Everything I've said has been true and people can simply read this talk page to see who possesses the competence issues and POV pushing agenda. Regardless, attempting to draw me into a personal feud here isn't conducive to a productive collaboration. I advise you to stick to substance. VictorD7 (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Protonk is an admin, but I see now that many of the users I thought were admins are merely very long term editors. The proposal needs a formal close by an admin. EllenCT (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Neither his user page nor that search page I linked to shows Protonk as an administrator, and I noticed at least as much experience if not more on the oppose side, in addition to the only confirmed admin to vote. I'm not sure why you feel it needs to be closed since a majority disagreed with you, or why you believe it would be anything other than a no consensus for sanctions. I think admin showed how they felt about that effort by letting it fall off the page and into the archives. VictorD7 (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'll add that an apology would be nice since you explicitly attacked my "good faith" above when I challenged your claim that "the experienced administrators overwhelmingly" voted to ban me, something you now concede isn't true. VictorD7 (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Good thing I didn't hold my breath waiting for that apology. VictorD7 (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Protonk is an admin, but I see now that many of the users I thought were admins are merely very long term editors. The proposal needs a formal close by an admin. EllenCT (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
EllenCT: As you were posting your last comment you sneakily removed a quote from the conclusion of one of your favorite sources because it discredited your POV claims. You also failed to disclose that another one of your favorite sources stated that the magnitude of the relationship between income inequality and economic growth was "relatively minor" and then had the nerve to continually repeat that income inequality had a major effect on growth. Despite the fact that your own sources cast doubt on your POV, you left edits that other editors called "crap" and "a disorganized mess" and left sections of a couple of articles tagged with undue weight, you never took any action to go in and correct any of the biased editing and other complaints. You waited until the discussions got archived and then showed up with your same old tricks.Phmoreno (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Influence of the wealthy / RFC outcome
6. This is the one which pisses me off the most, because it was an attempt to blatantly disregard the outcome of this closed RFC:
| RFC-approved passage | Post-RFC text inserted without discussion |
|---|---|
| Growing income inequality and wealth concentration have resulted in affluent individuals, powerful business interests and other economic elites gaining increased influence over public policy. | The extent and relevance of income inequality is a matter of debate. |
References
- Martin, Molly A. (2006) “Family Structure and Income Inequality in Families with Children: 1976 to 2000.” Demography 43: 421-445
- W. Bradford Wilcox. Family Studies
- Robert Maranto and Michael Crouch. Ignoring an Inequality Culprit: Single-Parent Families Intellectuals fretting about income disparity are oddly silent regarding the decline of the two-parent family. April 20, 2014, Wall Street Journal
- ^ Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page (2014). "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens". Perspectives on Politics. 12 (3): 564–581. doi:10.1017/S1537592714001595.
{{cite journal}}: External link in|title= - ^ Larry Bartels (2009). "Economic Inequality and Political Representation". The Unsustainable American State. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195392135.003.0007.
{{cite journal}}: External link in|title= - ^ Thomas J. Hayes (2012). "Responsiveness in an Era of Inequality: The Case of the U.S. Senate". Political Research Quarterly. 66 (3): 585–599. doi:10.1177/1065912912459567.
- Winship, Scott (Spring 2013). "Overstating the Costs of Inequality" (PDF). National Affairs (15). Retrieved April 29, 2015.
"Income Inequality in America: Fact and Fiction" (PDF). Manhattan Institute. May 2014. Retrieved April 29, 2015.
- On 6, the RFC (which was barely participated in and featured significant opposition and qualified support) close only said "The consensus is to include both in some form." The closer went out of his way to word it that way and it wasn't a rubber stamp of approval for your specific text. There should have been more discussion of the precise form of inclusion before it was added. In my opinion at this summary detail level the best way to neutrally include your proposed material is with the statement acknowledging a broad debate on the topic of equality, backed up by sources illustrating the views on each side. Since neutrality is policy I suppose the alternative would be to allow your longer, more detailed exposition and others laying out alternative points of view, though that would bloat the article even more and skew it with undue emphasis on selected topics. VictorD7 (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- There were no other proposals made during the RFC period, and your subsequent proposal violates WP:WEASEL. EllenCT (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- My "proposal" was made during the RFC discussion, and may have influenced the closer to go out of his way to use the language "included in some form" rather than just "included". The debate over the causes, extent, and impact of inequality is much broader than a couple of cutting edge research papers on very niche subtopics. I strongly reject the assertion that the current language is weasel. It's accurate, neutral, and appropriately broad for this detail level. We can't just censor out the fact that many reject the premises and opinions of the leftists bemoaning "inequality" as if it's the biggest problem we face, and as if it's the purpose of the government to guarantee equality of result. VictorD7 (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Do you think that the indeterminate nature of "some form" referred to the economic statistics which were being proposed to be updated from 2010 to the present, for which a textual proposal had not been made, or to the text which had been proposed? EllenCT (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- At face value it clearly referred to all the material. VictorD7 (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Do you think that the indeterminate nature of "some form" referred to the economic statistics which were being proposed to be updated from 2010 to the present, for which a textual proposal had not been made, or to the text which had been proposed? EllenCT (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- My "proposal" was made during the RFC discussion, and may have influenced the closer to go out of his way to use the language "included in some form" rather than just "included". The debate over the causes, extent, and impact of inequality is much broader than a couple of cutting edge research papers on very niche subtopics. I strongly reject the assertion that the current language is weasel. It's accurate, neutral, and appropriately broad for this detail level. We can't just censor out the fact that many reject the premises and opinions of the leftists bemoaning "inequality" as if it's the biggest problem we face, and as if it's the purpose of the government to guarantee equality of result. VictorD7 (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- There were no other proposals made during the RFC period, and your subsequent proposal violates WP:WEASEL. EllenCT (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- In general that's also the problem with 8, 7, 5, and adding more specifics on 3: too much niche detail for this summary country article. All of these also represent POVs on controversial issues. They'd be better suited for more topically focused articles where there would be more room for laying out details and for neutrally covering alternative views as well. Not including them here would also let us avoid the logical question, "Well why not cover issues x, y, and z too?" Different editors have different pet interests they'd like to include if it became a free for all. VictorD7 (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- I tried to respond to these concerns regarding 7 and 8, and ask that you address points that might not have been yet on 3 and 5. EllenCT (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Support the RFC version. The degree of income inequality in the US is unique and its effects should be covered. In my opinion, this as to little WP:WEIGHT.Casprings (talk)
- Thank you. Please sign your statements with four tildes here on the talk page. EllenCT (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Inequality already has about six full lines of text in the Income section alone, and receives by far more coverage than any other topic there. Just how much weight do you feel it should have? VictorD7 (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Support the RFC version. It is interesting to note that a new report by the OECD warns that global inequality continues to climb, and the United States, along with Mexico, Chile (thank you Pinochet), and Turkey, rank highest on the spectrum (social democratic Denmark ranks as having the lowest levels of inequality). Casprings is right, this issue does carry significant weight and the effects deserve mention in the article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
While there is a disparity in income, it's because the United States doesn't operate on a state-owned property, communism model. As the RfC stated, there should be elements from both POVs present in the article. Furthermore, as VictorD7, rightfully stated, there is more content on income inequality than any other part of content in that section. And while income inequality might grow, it can be argued based on reliable sources that, during the recent history, the rich trend to be Democrats: NYT "“The paradox is that, while these rich states have become more strongly Democratic over time, rich voters have remained consistently more Republican than voters on the lower end of the income scale,”", New American Gazette "An analysis of the Top 20 Richest People in America (from Forbes Top 100) reveals that a full 60% are actually Democrats.", Associated Press "But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen.", and Forbes "Of the ten richest zip codes in the U.S. eight gave more money to Democrats than Republicans in the last two presidential cycles.". Therefore, the growing income inequality, is due to the Democratic Party. However, I doubt that this will be reflected in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- You are confusing communism with taxation. Do you ever intend to explain why you think the education statement is biased? EllenCT (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Poverty trends
7. I am not sure this passage was discussed on the talk page before being inserted, but I certainly support its inclusion: "Academics claim that since the 1980s, new and extreme forms of poverty have emerged in the U.S. as a result of neoliberal policies and globalization."
References
- Stephen Haymes, Maria Vidal de Haymes and Reuben Miller (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Poverty in the United States, (London: Routledge, 2015), ISBN 0415673445, pp. 2, 3 & 346.
- Loïc Wacquant, Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity, (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 2009), ISBN 082234422X, pp. 53-54.
- This kind of wording can be problematic, because it is possible to cherry-pick academic sources to make such a sweeping statement (or WP:WEASEL). You can collect several sources by Chicago School right-wing academics or leftist academics to make contradicting "Academics claim..." statements. --Pudeo' 00:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Correct. It's usually problematic to get into selective correlations and assertions about causality in this article, especially if it's potentially controversial, as this certainly is. There may be a place for neutrally laying out various significant views on a controversial issue, but this isn't the right article for such opinions, and one view on a disputed issue should never be cherry-picked for unchallenged presentation. VictorD7 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree because"new and extreme forms of poverty" emerge when the median real income falls. It is sufficient to describe the trends in the underlying statistics than to harp on their resulting misery or gloat at their blessings. Instead, we should accentuate our best proposals for further improvement. EllenCT (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)- I have changed my mind and support inclusion. EllenCT (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Correct. It's usually problematic to get into selective correlations and assertions about causality in this article, especially if it's potentially controversial, as this certainly is. There may be a place for neutrally laying out various significant views on a controversial issue, but this isn't the right article for such opinions, and one view on a disputed issue should never be cherry-picked for unchallenged presentation. VictorD7 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Wage trends by education level
8. This was extensively discussed without actual objections to the text as was included, as far as I can tell, just unsupported claims that it is somehow POV pushing, which I think is absurd because it's such a plain non-political and hugely economically significant fact: "From 1990 to 2013, workers with high school education or less have lost more wages than those with college degrees have gained."
References
- Irwin, Neil (April 21, 2015). "Why American Workers Without Much Education Are Being Hammered". The Upshot. New York Times. Retrieved 25 April 2015.
- This is in line with the wealth inequality argument, except that the statement "workers with high school education or less have lost more wages than those with college degrees have gained" actually seems nonsensical to me. The Times article implies that the answer is a higher minimum wage and unionization. But a higher minimum wage will only work if it does actually increase worker productivity, when the arguments tend to center on workers not being able to lead the good life. What's likely to happen is that stores will close (already lost my favorite McDonald's) or the $9/hr people will be replaced by $15/hr people. The eventually corrupting power of unionization is well-known (see Levinson's _The Box_, which makes containerization, and thus globalization, seem worthy if only because it undercut the pilfering, featherbedding Longshoreman's Union). And there isn't any comment on the havoc that the lousy school systems have wrought (ever see a native-born American worker with a worse grasp of English than someone for whom English is a second language, the number of years of schooling being equivalent?).
- And where are the articles on this issue from the Wall Street Journal, National Review, Weekly Standard, Washington Times, etc.?
- But I digress. Your point of view pushing is demonstrable. You labeled me as "uninvolved with this article" when my name is on the diff referenced by the closing statement of the RfC you were recently purporting to be implementing. In other words, I hope that, on the verge of the article being reopened, you will stay your hand at making further changes. We should set up a section on wealth inequality, assuming that it's not thought too contentious to include, where the actual text of what is to be included in the article will be cobbled together, voted on, and then placed by someone less passionate on the issue, referenced easily by a link in the form of talk page name-section name, and not have vague claims of consensus stand in for that. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please forgive me if I mischaracterized your involvement. How would you phrase the essential statistic? Do you think the revenue implications are more or less as important as the underlying fact? EllenCT (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I believe I objected? If memory serves me?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you objected, claiming bias, but never described how or why the statement is biased. EllenCT (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- @RightCowLeftCoast: would you please state your rationale for why you think the statement is biased, or withdraw your objection? EllenCT (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- I believe I objected? If memory serves me?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please forgive me if I mischaracterized your involvement. How would you phrase the essential statistic? Do you think the revenue implications are more or less as important as the underlying fact? EllenCT (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
RFC on wage trends by education level
 |
|
Should "From 1990 to 2013, workers with high school education or less have lost more wages than those with college degrees have gained." be included in this article? 15:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
References
- Irwin, Neil (April 21, 2015). "Why American Workers Without Much Education Are Being Hammered". The Upshot. New York Times. Retrieved 25 April 2015.
- Support inclusion, as proposer. EllenCT (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's a convoluted factoid from an opinion piece arguing for certain policy changes. It might be acceptable with attribution and accompanying material from diverse sources resulting in full, neutral coverage of the issue in an article more topically dedicated to wages, the economy, and/or inequality, but it's inappropriate for this broad, summary country article, just as your previous attempts to insert material for your inequality soapbox were. Fortunately they were soundly rejected (, ), but is your plan to keep starting new RFCs along this same general topic line every couple of weeks in an attempt to wear down opposing editors? Because that's extremely disruptive and not conducive to collaborative editing. As for this latest attempt, I'll note that every editor to respond to your proposal in the discussion above opposed it, and I'll add to their criticisms that it's unclear from your text whether the big increase in benefits in recent decades is being considered, that the population itself has changed (these aren't the same people in the labor force as two and a half decades ago, especially with the huge increase in immigration), and that the strangely cherry-picked 1990-2013 time frame is heavily skewed by the recent economic downturn. You also made no attempt here to say where you would insert the material or explain why it belongs in this particular article or how it should be integrated into it. It's just presented as a random assertion. There are countless similar facts involving Americans we could fill millions of pages with, but that's not the purpose of this article. VictorD7 (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- None of the numerical facts on which the statement is based are opinion. The only convolutions are those suffered from realizing that you will never get the time you spent reading Victor's attempts to misdirect with irrlevant references to other discussions back. EllenCT (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- I said your source is an opinion piece, which is relevant to the choice, omission, and construction of the "facts". VictorD7 (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- The Upshot is a news column, Neil Irwin is supposedly not an op-ed columnist, and the column in question is entirely news and factual commentary devoid of opinion. EllenCT (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Irwin is a columnist and this particular column is full of his personal opinion, which is pretty much what a column is. I'm not saying that alone is enough to disqualify a source, but that you're simply using this one opinionated source and only this source does further weaken the essentially non-existent case for including this. VictorD7 (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Irwin is hired for reporting facts, not opinions. The statement depends only on undisputed numerical facts. EllenCT (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Words like "terrible", "shocking", "interesting", and "good" underscore the column's opinionated nature. BTW, the "facts" come from the Hamilton Project, a part of the left leaning Brookings Institute (a think tank within a think tank) launched in 2006. Barack Obama spoke at the group's launch and most of its leaders have worked for the Obama administration and/or his campaigns at some point. Again, however, the problem isn't so much with the source as it is the proposal's overly detailed nature in a cherry-picked niche. VictorD7 (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Brookings is most widely accepted as centrist, at least relative to the two major parties, and of course the President is likely to speak at the most oft-cited think tank in the world. Your edits are as far out of touch with reality as the establishment GOP candidates are with their base. EllenCT (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Obama wasn't president in 2006 for starters, EllenCT (you were saying something about being in touch with reality?). He was just a really liberal US Senator. And no, you cited one paper from 2005, before the Hamilton Project subgroup was even founded, and failed to address the info I linked to above about the leadership's close association with the Clinton and Obama administrations. It was founded by long time Democrats like Robert Rubin and Roger Altman, and the website's "about us" page features pictures of Bill Clinton, Obama Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, Obama FCC appointee Tom Wheeler, Joe Biden, Obama policy adviser Melody Barnes, Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), former Democratic Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm, former Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana), former Clinton Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and others. The only Republican I noticed was Warner of Virginia, but that was in a picture that also featured Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Washington). The study you linked to was a valuable but blunt instrument designed to gauge the media's aggregate bias. The methodology was too rough to precisely categorize any specific outlet or think tank. It classified Brookings as "moderate" simply because so many Republicans were citing it at the time, not because of any examination of the organization's ideology. Republicans often cite useful facts developed from their opponents' own camp in debates. That said, even that study classified Brookings as more liberal than conservative. Other, more recent media has classified it as liberal. For example, US News and World Report classifies Brookings as "liberal" and found that between 2003 and 2010 97.60% of its members' campaign donations went to Democrats. That's a dose of reality for you, and none of it is surprising if you actually read their policy papers and know something about them as I do. That said, again, the main problem isn't sourcing, but the proposed inclusion itself. VictorD7 (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Brookings is most widely accepted as centrist, at least relative to the two major parties, and of course the President is likely to speak at the most oft-cited think tank in the world. Your edits are as far out of touch with reality as the establishment GOP candidates are with their base. EllenCT (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Words like "terrible", "shocking", "interesting", and "good" underscore the column's opinionated nature. BTW, the "facts" come from the Hamilton Project, a part of the left leaning Brookings Institute (a think tank within a think tank) launched in 2006. Barack Obama spoke at the group's launch and most of its leaders have worked for the Obama administration and/or his campaigns at some point. Again, however, the problem isn't so much with the source as it is the proposal's overly detailed nature in a cherry-picked niche. VictorD7 (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Irwin is hired for reporting facts, not opinions. The statement depends only on undisputed numerical facts. EllenCT (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Irwin is a columnist and this particular column is full of his personal opinion, which is pretty much what a column is. I'm not saying that alone is enough to disqualify a source, but that you're simply using this one opinionated source and only this source does further weaken the essentially non-existent case for including this. VictorD7 (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- The Upshot is a news column, Neil Irwin is supposedly not an op-ed columnist, and the column in question is entirely news and factual commentary devoid of opinion. EllenCT (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- I said your source is an opinion piece, which is relevant to the choice, omission, and construction of the "facts". VictorD7 (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- None of the numerical facts on which the statement is based are opinion. The only convolutions are those suffered from realizing that you will never get the time you spent reading Victor's attempts to misdirect with irrlevant references to other discussions back. EllenCT (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose- This topic is not directly related to the United States as a political or geographic entity. Wage trends by education level belongs in a more appropriate article.Phmoreno (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Why do you say the relationship is not direct? EllenCT (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Explain how the wages and education structure has anything to do with the United States. Is there anything written about it in the Constitution? How about in histories of the United States, including economic histories?Phmoreno (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- What is the difference in amortized income tax receipts of a high school dropout compared to that of an M.D. or engineering Ph.D. over a lifetime? Based on that information, what is the expected value to the taxpayer of each dollar spent to subsidize education via loan guarantees based on ability to pay through higher education with student-teacher ratio and teacher salary controls? Why do you say the relationship is not direct? EllenCT (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- None of what you said has any reason to be in this article. It is completely off topic. You mentioned six topics: tax policy, expected returns on education specific professions, the return on investment of subsidized education, student-teacher ratios and teacher salary controls. I didn't see how any of these are even remotely related to this article.Phmoreno (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Answer the questions, if you can. Your inability to see how they are directly on topic is not interesting to me. EllenCT (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- None of what you said has any reason to be in this article. It is completely off topic. You mentioned six topics: tax policy, expected returns on education specific professions, the return on investment of subsidized education, student-teacher ratios and teacher salary controls. I didn't see how any of these are even remotely related to this article.Phmoreno (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- What is the difference in amortized income tax receipts of a high school dropout compared to that of an M.D. or engineering Ph.D. over a lifetime? Based on that information, what is the expected value to the taxpayer of each dollar spent to subsidize education via loan guarantees based on ability to pay through higher education with student-teacher ratio and teacher salary controls? Why do you say the relationship is not direct? EllenCT (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Explain how the wages and education structure has anything to do with the United States. Is there anything written about it in the Constitution? How about in histories of the United States, including economic histories?Phmoreno (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - WP:UNDUE in this article. Put it in Economics of the United States. NickCT (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Undue why? EllenCT (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- For the same reason Phmoreno brought up. It's not directly related to the United States. It's directly related to the Economics of the United States or Income in the United States. Not to be mean Ellen, but you're pretty clearly trying to use WP to make a point. Now I think it's an important factoid, but not here. Not in this article. NickCT (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- @NickCT: what point do you think I am trying to make? Is this article trying to make a point? Are these data? How can the information be included without trying to make a point? EllenCT (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- @EllenCT: - Including the information is making a point, b/c including the information is WP:UNDUE. Imagine if I added, "Yesterday Nick won a debating trophy" to History of the United States. Even if I source that factoid, clearly the fact that I took a walk isn't relevant within the grand scheme of US History. If I pushed for including that information, I'd clearly be trying make a point about my debating skills. NickCT (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- What relevance would your winning a trophy have to describing the aggregate population member's situation? EllenCT (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well that's exactly the point EllenCT. How much of US population are workers with a high school education or less? NickCT (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- About 20%. So? The quality of your argument is shameful, no better than the usual tag team. How disappointing! EllenCT (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- @EllenCT: - I'm confused. You realize you're supporting my point, right? The US economy is just one part of the US (which is why it only gets a small subsection). Salaries are just one part of the economy. Salaries of 1/5th of the population is just one part of aggregate salaries. So at the end of the day, we really should be dedicating much or any time to discussing a factoid which bares little relevance to the "aggregate" subject. NickCT (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, describing the economy isn't the same as describing the experience of the typical person within that economy, which is what any general national article should be doing for demographics. I sincerely believe that the statement in question conveys more such information per word than the vast majority of demographic statements that we already have. But I also believe that there is a similar statement which can convey even more such information per word based on this article that I will propose instead. I am thoroughly unconvinced by any of these arguments in this RFC. EllenCT (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Look. Let's start from something we agree on. You'd agree that describing the salary of a single person in the US economy would be WP:UNDUE right? For instance, we shouldn't describe Trump's salary, because Trump's salary ultimately bares little relevance to the United States as a whole. So if not one person's salary, how about two people? Three people? 0.5% of the population? 10% of the population? 20%? 50%? I think I'd put the number of 100%. If you were describing the median salary for the whole population, that might be relevant and due. But for 20% of the population, it's simply undue. NickCT (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- You're proposing the same flawed NY Times article you suggested to me. And you already want to start a new RfC, when you've garnered so little support for this very similar one? If only for the sake of not having us use up our quota of free Times articles (5 or 10 a month), you should think about desisting for awhile. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, describing the economy isn't the same as describing the experience of the typical person within that economy, which is what any general national article should be doing for demographics. I sincerely believe that the statement in question conveys more such information per word than the vast majority of demographic statements that we already have. But I also believe that there is a similar statement which can convey even more such information per word based on this article that I will propose instead. I am thoroughly unconvinced by any of these arguments in this RFC. EllenCT (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- @EllenCT: - I'm confused. You realize you're supporting my point, right? The US economy is just one part of the US (which is why it only gets a small subsection). Salaries are just one part of the economy. Salaries of 1/5th of the population is just one part of aggregate salaries. So at the end of the day, we really should be dedicating much or any time to discussing a factoid which bares little relevance to the "aggregate" subject. NickCT (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- About 20%. So? The quality of your argument is shameful, no better than the usual tag team. How disappointing! EllenCT (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well that's exactly the point EllenCT. How much of US population are workers with a high school education or less? NickCT (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- What relevance would your winning a trophy have to describing the aggregate population member's situation? EllenCT (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- @EllenCT: - Including the information is making a point, b/c including the information is WP:UNDUE. Imagine if I added, "Yesterday Nick won a debating trophy" to History of the United States. Even if I source that factoid, clearly the fact that I took a walk isn't relevant within the grand scheme of US History. If I pushed for including that information, I'd clearly be trying make a point about my debating skills. NickCT (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- @NickCT: what point do you think I am trying to make? Is this article trying to make a point? Are these data? How can the information be included without trying to make a point? EllenCT (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- For the same reason Phmoreno brought up. It's not directly related to the United States. It's directly related to the Economics of the United States or Income in the United States. Not to be mean Ellen, but you're pretty clearly trying to use WP to make a point. Now I think it's an important factoid, but not here. Not in this article. NickCT (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Undue why? EllenCT (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - The statistic seems vague, and a convoluted way of saying that wages have been stagnant. Does the statistic mean that employers aren't paying educated people what they're worth, or that education isn't worth what it costs? Also, as others have noted, it's an undue amount of detail. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Please see http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/17/business/racial-wealth-gap-persists-despite-degree-study-says.html for further detail, which I support including, by the way. EllenCT (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- That article addresses racial economic inequality, but doesn't explain why the education level statistic is particularly meaningful. And it is flawed. If minorities are subject to discrimination manifested by the fact that someone with a "white-sounding name receives more callbacks", then why are Asians doing the best of all, and blacks, who are apt to have very white-sounding names, doing so poorly? Dhtwiki (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Please see http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/17/business/racial-wealth-gap-persists-despite-degree-study-says.html for further detail, which I support including, by the way. EllenCT (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - too specific for a broad summary article like this one. Some general information on wage trends would be worthwhile, but this statistic is too narrow and too convoluted to be worth adding. Rwenonah (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- General information on wage trends, such as? EllenCT (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - similar to last set, it doesn't seem phrased to fit into an article nor topic for this article and seems just a loose factoid. The bounded phrasing also make it sound not worth saying. It being a specific 12 year period ending 2 years ago, being unspecified how much, and being high-school makes it sound like it's only a small amount and just a past statistical quirk. Markbassett (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- If an effect that large was affecting the top fifth of the population instead of the bottom, would you still call it a quirk? Why is a reader of a general demographic summary better off not knowing? EllenCT (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Phrasing for inequality RFC segment.
I had to start this section because the above one falsely labels Ellen's preferred text "RFC-approved" at the top, when the RFC closer went out of his way to say the material was allowed "in some form", clearly not a rubber stamp approval of her phrasing. Also, I proposed the broader, neutral alternative text during the RFC discussion, not after it, and the above section omits some sourcing involved.
| Proposal A | Proposal B |
|---|---|
| Growing income inequality and wealth concentration have resulted in affluent individuals, powerful business interests and other economic elites gaining increased influence over public policy. | The extent and relevance of income inequality is a matter of debate. |
References
- ^ Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page (2014). "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens". Perspectives on Politics. 12 (3): 564–581. doi:10.1017/S1537592714001595.
{{cite journal}}: External link in|title= - ^ Larry Bartels (2009). "Economic Inequality and Political Representation". The Unsustainable American State. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195392135.003.0007.
{{cite journal}}: External link in|title= - ^ Thomas J. Hayes (2012). "Responsiveness in an Era of Inequality: The Case of the U.S. Senate". Political Research Quarterly. 66 (3): 585–599. doi:10.1177/1065912912459567.
- Winship, Scott (Spring 2013). "Overstating the Costs of Inequality" (PDF). National Affairs (15). Retrieved April 29, 2015.
- "Income Inequality in America: Fact and Fiction" (PDF). Manhattan Institute. May 2014. Retrieved April 29, 2015.(A collection of articles on various inequality topics by accomplished economists and sociologists who have worked in academia, the government, and the private sector)
- Stiles, Andrew (May 28, 2014). "The Full Piketty: Experts raise questions about Frenchman's data on income inequality". The Washington Free Beacon. Retrieved 23 May 2015.(Includes essential quotes and links to a Wall Street Journal piece by Harvard economist and NBER president emeritus Martin Feldstein, a widely publicized investigative report by Financial Times economics editor Chris Giles, an article by widely published, influential economist and senior Cato Institute fellow Alan Reynolds, and a National Review article by George Mason University economist Veronique de Rugy that cites views from prominent economist Tyler Cowen and several French economists from the globally prestigious l’Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris)
The sources were consolidated into two references with internal breaks to save space in the article.
I made the alternative proposal as a way to include Ellen's sources while avoiding a POV and niche topical skew, particularly one based on a few avante garde, cutting edge, highly subjective research papers of the type we should always be cautious about using as sources. Proposal B deals with the inequality issue in a broader way more appropriate to this article's detail level, neutrally covering opinions on it from all angles, including from a number of established, notable experts. It also includes Ellen's material in a closed way that requires no further expansion, while Proposal A would spark the addition of counterpoints and other controversial talking points deemed of interest to various editors, leading to dramatic article bloat in a page already deemed too long by most and likely contentious edit warring.
A fair discussion can't take place in the above section, where Ellen admits she was pissed off, which may have warped its construction, so I'll ask EllenCT, C.J. Griffin, Casprings, RightCowLeftCoast, Capitalismojo, Mattnad, and anyone else who has participated in this discussion or wants to to do so here. Let's iron out a consensus phrasing. Do you favor one of the above proposals? A modified version? Do you have an entirely different proposal? VictorD7 (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Strongly prefer B and oppose A for reasons given. VictorD7 (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- How many times do you think you can keep calling a new vote while you're losing? I propose including the Wall Street Journal's recent graphic. EllenCT (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Just establishing a fairer baseline. BTW, how many visuals do you want in the Income section, lol? VictorD7 (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Do you know where to get the time series for the data on pages 12 and 13 of ? It might also be good to present that along with asset ownership by demographic categories from the triennial FRB consumer survey as we had discussed doing elsewhere. EllenCT (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- So you're advocating having at least three and maybe four images in the Income section alone? No, I don't think we should be adding any new images now, especially overly detailed ones on such selectively niche topics. There are multiple editors having a completely separate discussion above about the Income section being way too long and advocating cutting it to maybe a sentence or two. Don't stretch the rubber band too far or you may not like where it lands when you let go. VictorD7 (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Do you know where to get the time series for the data on pages 12 and 13 of ? It might also be good to present that along with asset ownership by demographic categories from the triennial FRB consumer survey as we had discussed doing elsewhere. EllenCT (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Just establishing a fairer baseline. BTW, how many visuals do you want in the Income section, lol? VictorD7 (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- How many times do you think you can keep calling a new vote while you're losing? I propose including the Wall Street Journal's recent graphic. EllenCT (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I prefer A in a copy edited for or this one if not edited. But I also support adding the additional source Ellen provides.
- What type of copy editing did you have in mind? And what do you mean by "this one" if not edited? VictorD7 (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'd prefer to see some slight modification:
- What type of copy editing did you have in mind? And what do you mean by "this one" if not edited? VictorD7 (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- I prefer A in a copy edited for or this one if not edited. But I also support adding the additional source Ellen provides.
Increased income inequality and the concentration of capital have resulted in growing individual affluence and created a select economic force, giving business interests more influence over public policy.
- But I could live with the original text for now if I had to.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Don't you think Proposal A should at least be attributed as opinion rather than presented as fact in Misplaced Pages's voice? And would you support other editors expanding the broader inequality discussion to include views like those from the well credentialed experts I cited above? VictorD7 (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, I believe that statement A is sourced correctly with expert academic journals. It could be expanded with opinion sources like editorials in support (which in turn would need balance of opposing opinion), but how much weight should be given to opinion or editorials can be very difficult in short summary like this. These do appear to be correct and accurate trends recorded and documented in a number of ways. We could add more supporting primary sources such as the CBO reports and a vast amount of work and research by a number of editors on this subject. I once went to DRN over this subject and the way it was being presented. My main concern is the encyclopedic tone, but the facts were well established in the DRN by two other editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Don't you think Proposal A should at least be attributed as opinion rather than presented as fact in Misplaced Pages's voice? And would you support other editors expanding the broader inequality discussion to include views like those from the well credentialed experts I cited above? VictorD7 (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- But I could live with the original text for now if I had to.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Mark, you realize that much of what appears in academic journals is opinion, don't you? This topic in particular isn't hard science, and these aren't long established, consensus expert conclusions resulting from a mature discussion. Have you read these articles? These are tentative, recent, cutting edge articles with conclusions that just happen to line up with the authors' political agendas. They're subjectively constructed (being a humanities topic) and filled with speculative assumptions other researchers don't share. What's more, they acknowledge this. Gilens himself states that (564), "Here—in a tentative and preliminary way—we offer such a test, bringing a unique data set to bear on the problem. Our measures are far from perfect, but we hope that this first step will help inspire further research into what we see as some of the most fundamental questions about American politics." Gilens even acknowledges that much of the empirical evidence and many scholars disagree with his views: (page 565) "..a good many scholars—probably more economists than political scientists among them—still cling to the idea that the policy preferences of the median voter tend to drive policy outputs from the U.S. political system. A fair amount of empirical evidence has been adduced—by Alan Monroe; Benjamin Page and Robert Shapiro; Robert Erikson, Michael MacKuen, and James Stimson (authors of the very influential Macro Polity); and others—that seems to support the notion that the median voter determines the results of much or most policy making".
- Bartels even admits that he hasn't proved the causal link asserted in Proposal A (29-31): "It is important to reiterate that I have been using the terms “responsiveness” and “representation” loosely to refer to the statistical association between constituents’ opinions and their senators’ behavior. Whether senators behave the way they do because their constituents have the opinions they do is impossible to gauge using the research design employed here. It is certainly plausible to imagine that senators consciously and intentionally strive to represent the views of (especially) affluent constituents. However, it might also be the case, as Jacobs and Page (2005) have suggested in the context of national foreign policy-making, that public opinion seems to be influential only because it happens to be correlated with the opinion of influential elites, organized interest groups, or the policy-makers themselves." Like Gilens, he goes on to state "There is clearly a great deal more work to be done investigating the mechanisms by which economic inequality gets reproduced in the political realm", and conceded "the significant limitations of my data and the crudeness of my analysis" meant more work is needed.
- Actually these studies are garbage, full of methodological flaws pointed out by me and others elsewhere in previous discussions, but that's beside the point. It's not about whether they "appear to be correct and accurate" or not to you and me, but whether they represent the expert consensus, and the articles themselves admit they don't. The authors are nowhere near as certain as you're suggesting we be with Proposal A. The material should certainly be attributed if it belongs here at all. VictorD7 (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- That was very extensive, and yet it still doesn't come close to disproving the claims or that the sources do not contain the facts being summarized.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Did you read the part where Bartels says his method can't prove that economic elites have greater influence over public policy, completely undermining the factual claim asserted in Proposal A? VictorD7 (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree with a lot of what you are assuming and a lot of the direction you are taking in regard to the sources but again, you have not demonstrated that they do not support the claims. This argument about academic journals is old is not entirely accurate or we would be removing every journal used to source facts.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- You didn't answer my question, and I'm assuming nothing. I'm also not calling for these sources to be deleted. I'm just saying if we're going to use them we should faithfully represent them, along with other good sources. VictorD7 (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree with a lot of what you are assuming and a lot of the direction you are taking in regard to the sources but again, you have not demonstrated that they do not support the claims. This argument about academic journals is old is not entirely accurate or we would be removing every journal used to source facts.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Did you read the part where Bartels says his method can't prove that economic elites have greater influence over public policy, completely undermining the factual claim asserted in Proposal A? VictorD7 (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- That was very extensive, and yet it still doesn't come close to disproving the claims or that the sources do not contain the facts being summarized.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Actually these studies are garbage, full of methodological flaws pointed out by me and others elsewhere in previous discussions, but that's beside the point. It's not about whether they "appear to be correct and accurate" or not to you and me, but whether they represent the expert consensus, and the articles themselves admit they don't. The authors are nowhere near as certain as you're suggesting we be with Proposal A. The material should certainly be attributed if it belongs here at all. VictorD7 (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- A "capitol" is a building in which a legislature meets. EllenCT (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yep. LOL! Good catch. Capitol is derived from Capitoline Hill.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's 2015. Anyone seriously considering adding the statement "The extent and relevance of income inequality is a matter of debate" to this article is engaging in outright denial. We know the extent and relevance of income inequality in comparison to other countries. This is not seriously in dispute by anyone other than fringe sources. Viriditas (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- This discussion isn't about "income inequality in comparison to other countries." Try reading more closely, including the sources added from experts who don't share your politics. They're certainly not "fringe". VictorD7 (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion is just about improving the article and Viriditas' point seems valid. It would appear like denying facts to use "B".--Mark Miller (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- You're saying there's no debate on inequality, lol? How then do you explain all the sources posted by both sides saying there is a debate? It helps to actually read the sources, even the ones your political ally posts. Talk about denying facts....VictorD7 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- VictorD7, you are intentionally attempting to manufacture doubt about inequality in the U.S. We know there is income inequality in the U.S. and we know about its impact. By continuing to manufacture doubt about income inequality you are engaging in denial. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Your vapid name calling is a poor substitute for intelligent, substantive discourse, Viriditas. I manufactured nothing. I quoted expert sources. In fact I appear to be the only one here who's even willing to read Ellen's sources all the way through. No one denied "there is income inequality in the U.S." or indeed in every country. Fortunately. Can you imagine how stifling and terrible the world would be if there wasn't any? But that has nothing to do with this discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Describing your edits as an attempt to manufacture doubt and cast uncertainty on income inequality is not "name calling". For the record, you are the only one who has engaged in personalizing the dispute here in this thread, referring to "experts who don't share your politics" when I have not discussed my politics and referring to other editors who don't agree with you as "political allies". Instead of manufacturing doubt and casting uncertainty on the subject, what you are doing is trying to politicize this discussion by casting doubt and uncertainty on the motivations of participating editors. So when you are not busy manufacturing doubt and uncertainty about income inequality, you try to do the same thing to editors. Yet, here you are accusing others of "name calling"? I'm sorry, Victor, but you aren't playing fair nor are you being reasonable. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- You engaged in false personal characterizations, and totally dodged the specific substance which I've posted above in abundance. By contrast my description of various editors' politics is accurate, as is my point about you repeatedly not even grasping what this discussion is about (hint: it's a lot more specific than "inequality in the U.S.", and isn't about international comparisons, which are already present elsewhere in the section). I'm being extremely fair and reasonable. Worry less about my motives and focus on actually reading the article, proposals, and sources involved. Think critically about them too. Pay especially close attention to the material I quoted and bolded above. VictorD7 (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Describing your edits as an attempt to manufacture doubt and cast uncertainty on income inequality is not "name calling". For the record, you are the only one who has engaged in personalizing the dispute here in this thread, referring to "experts who don't share your politics" when I have not discussed my politics and referring to other editors who don't agree with you as "political allies". Instead of manufacturing doubt and casting uncertainty on the subject, what you are doing is trying to politicize this discussion by casting doubt and uncertainty on the motivations of participating editors. So when you are not busy manufacturing doubt and uncertainty about income inequality, you try to do the same thing to editors. Yet, here you are accusing others of "name calling"? I'm sorry, Victor, but you aren't playing fair nor are you being reasonable. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Your vapid name calling is a poor substitute for intelligent, substantive discourse, Viriditas. I manufactured nothing. I quoted expert sources. In fact I appear to be the only one here who's even willing to read Ellen's sources all the way through. No one denied "there is income inequality in the U.S." or indeed in every country. Fortunately. Can you imagine how stifling and terrible the world would be if there wasn't any? But that has nothing to do with this discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- VictorD7, you are intentionally attempting to manufacture doubt about inequality in the U.S. We know there is income inequality in the U.S. and we know about its impact. By continuing to manufacture doubt about income inequality you are engaging in denial. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- You're saying there's no debate on inequality, lol? How then do you explain all the sources posted by both sides saying there is a debate? It helps to actually read the sources, even the ones your political ally posts. Talk about denying facts....VictorD7 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Proposal A The evidence is very clear and backed by multiple sources. The "debate" is similar to the "debate" on global warming. Casprings (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Did you actually read the sources? Because, as I quoted above, even they disagree with your assertion here. Gilens explicitly says "many" (his word) researchers disagree with him, Bartels concedes his method can't prove that economic elites have greater influence over policy, and they both describe their methodology as "tentative", and "crude", calling for more research. In short, they don't support the phrasing of Proposal A. Why would any honest, competent editor oppose attributing this claim as opinion to the authors used as sources, while acknowledging the alternative views even those sources admit exist? VictorD7 (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Proposal B Proposal A, to the extent it's not just a truism, has a bad connotation (that we worry when "business interests" seem ascendant, but not the bureaucracy, academy, etc.), and the sources backing it are insular (two of the three carry Princeton's imprimatur), jargonistic and mathematical (making the argument with labels and mathematical givens, rather than a more accessible historical narrative), and rife with questionable assumptions (that labor unions speak for the workingman, when it's repugnance at labor's tactics—its legal and physical strong-arming, and its corruption—that have cost union jobs, as much as anything). Proposal B is too bland (there is considerable debate on this point) and its sources have their own problems (mockery of liberal academics, but not the authors of the first three papers; aggregation of articles from the Journal, Financial Times, etc., but not direct links to the newspaper articles themselves (probably behind paywalls), and too-laudatory introductions of the authors (this being source 6, Free Beacon something), etc.). But better to say too little than too much that is questionable, and Proposal B does give a more complete array of sources. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I definitely view B as a lesser evil. VictorD7 (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
New source evidence directly contradicting Bartels and co.
Does Less Income Mean Less Representation?, PDF, Brunner, Eric, Stephen L. Ross, and Ebonya Washington, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy: Vol. 5 No. 2 (May 2013), DOI: 10.1257/pol.5.2.53 - Study directly criticizes the methodology used by Bartels and similar researchers and employs its own methodology that contradicts their conclusion; "We assemble a novel dataset of matched legislative and constituent votes and demonstrate that less income does not mean less representation." Study finds partisanship is more important than income in explaining correlation between office holder policy votes and constituent views.
How Poorly are the Poor Represented in the US Senate?, Robert S. Erikson Professor of Political Science Columbia University, Yosef Bhatti Department of Political Science University of Copenhagen, Chapter prepared for Enns, Peter and Christopher Wlezien (eds.): “Who Gets Represented”, New York: Russell Sage Foundation (2011) - While not claiming to directly disprove his thesis, their study failed to replicate Bartels’ findings using a larger sample set and more recent data, indicating the issue is more complex than some may have thought, and sought to correct some methodological flaws in Bartels' work. They found no significant evidence that higher income people are more represented than lower income people, in part because ideology tracked more closely together across income groups within a particular state than in the older data Bartels used.
The Macro Polity (especially Chapter 8; also read this PDF with ideas adapted from the book), Robert S. Erikson, Michael B. Mackuen, James A. Stimson, Cambridge University Press, 2002 - Finds that policies largely reflect the views and mood of the median voter, especially over time; Gilens called this work "very influential", and it better represents the established mainstream scholarly view than the three avant garde primary research papers in Proposal A above. VictorD7 (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
New proposals
It's also worth noting the quotes from EllenCT's own sources in the above section where Gilens concedes "a good many scholars" (his wording) disagree with his conclusion (he also admits there is significant empirical evidence supporting the other views), where Bartels concedes his method hasn't proved a causal link (meaning actual "influence" per Proposal A's wording) between economic elites and policy outcomes, and where all her sources cop to the "tentative" and "crude" nature of their methods, calling for more research. I'll add that Hayes (her third source, which I didn't get around to quoting above for space reasons) makes these same concessions, and also produces results that contradict those of Bartels (and the AEJ study above for that matter) in finding that Democrats are more responsive to the wealthy while Republicans are more responsive to the middle class (like Bartels, he finds neither is responsive to the poor, a finding contradicted by the new sources posted here).
There have also been numerous criticisms of the methodologies and political biases of Gilens, Bartels, and Hayes in past discussions here, including contrived definitions, cherry-picked poll (polls can easily yield contradictory results with different question wording) and policy selections, skewed interpretations, disputed assumptions, etc., and Bartels calling anyone with an income over $40k a year "high income" (Hayes uses anyone over $75k a year), hardly what most readers imagine when they see the phrase "economic elites".
Given all this, we'd have to either keep the broad Proposal B (with the new sources added), or at least implement only a modified version of Proposal A that includes the qualification that only some academics believe that, with "many" (Gilens' own word) disagreeing. I suppose we can call the latter Proposal C. The advantage of B is that it would be closed off, while a modified version of A (aka C) would likely lead to article bloat through further expansions and point/counterpoint edits on this and related issues.
Better yet would be to simply delete the entire segment as undue weight for this article and more trouble than it's worth. This is clearly not a mature research field with a firm consensus. There isn't even a consensus on how to approach or define all the pertinent concepts on this issue, let alone consensus results. Indeed there are recent primary research papers producing results that are all over the place. If the various views have to be laid out, that should take place on other, more topically dedicated articles and all significant views should be laid out fully and neutrally.
If there's strong opposition to deleting the segment based on EllenCT's RFC, I'll initiate a new RFC. This would be justified given the new source evidence, the fact that her RFC started with a bizarre apples/oranges false dichotomy that confused respondents, and the fact that her RFC didn't include discussion about what the sources actually said. I'll add that her RFC also failed to mention the previous discussions on this talk page soundly rejecting proposals to include this material. While EllenCT's RFC only saw 8 editors participate, two other recent discussions rejecting the proposed Bartels/Gilens/Hayes material in various forms included at least 12 editors in one and 10 in the other. VictorD7 (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support RFC outcome -- Victor is simply continuing his campaign to oppose the RFC outcome, and his advocacy of WP:WEASEL wording which has been soundly rejected by senior editors (although there do seem to be editors who have no history with this article suddenly in support of his anti-RFC drive.) EllenCT (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- How do you think we should incorporate the alternative academic opinions in the new sources I provided above? VictorD7 (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- By all means add them as additional references saying that the statements agreed to be added are not unanimously accepted, but not as an alternative to the broader results agreed in the RFC outcome. EllenCT (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- That would require tweaking Proposal A (the wording of which was not endorsed by the RFC close anyway) so that it's not asserting the views of a few cutting edge primary researchers as unchallenged fact in Misplaced Pages's voice, to allow room for the disagreement. VictorD7 (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Just restore the edits you reverted and add the challenging references, putting the opposing statements in the authors' voices. That is the "some form" you want. However, I noticed that at least one of your characterizations of the references you found is misleading, so we will need to work on the text. EllenCT (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Nothing I said is misleading, and your suggestion doesn't work because the text you want restored simply states the conclusion of Bartels and his two friends as fact in Misplaced Pages's voice, without attributing that view to them. The sources directly contradicting them (which you apparently didn't know about when you crafted that wording, or until I posted them) obviously make that untenable, but so do your own sources, who acknowledge that they don't represent the consensus view. We'd need to make that clear even if we were only using your sources. VictorD7 (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Just restore the edits you reverted and add the challenging references, putting the opposing statements in the authors' voices. That is the "some form" you want. However, I noticed that at least one of your characterizations of the references you found is misleading, so we will need to work on the text. EllenCT (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- That would require tweaking Proposal A (the wording of which was not endorsed by the RFC close anyway) so that it's not asserting the views of a few cutting edge primary researchers as unchallenged fact in Misplaced Pages's voice, to allow room for the disagreement. VictorD7 (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- By all means add them as additional references saying that the statements agreed to be added are not unanimously accepted, but not as an alternative to the broader results agreed in the RFC outcome. EllenCT (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- What is the sell-by date of RfC outcomes that are sparsely attended, evenly divided, whose closings are equivocally worded, and where few editors defend, or can even define, the RfC in Talk, other than to say it gives them carte blanche? Dhtwiki (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Every attempt to reverse the RFC has resulted in clear consensus that its outcome should be upheld. EllenCT (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- You're ignoring the multiple discussions here I linked to here where your material was explicitly rejected in discussions involving more editors than your quietly attended RFC pulled, as well as the fact that the RFC only said the material could be included "in some form", and didn't endorse your wording. VictorD7 (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- You are ignoring the vast majority of admins and users who have since endorsed the RFC outcome and rejected your attempts to disrupt it, including with proposal to topic ban you which seems to be quite popular with admins. What is it going to take for you to ease up on the POV pushing? EllenCT (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- You seem to be talking into a mirror here, but since you posted this as a reply to me I'll point out that even fewer people supported your wording in post RFC discussions so far than supported the inclusion of the material itself in the RFC ("in some form"; some of that support even explicitly called for changes to your wording like attribution), and no one has endorsed your wording since I posted the new sources directly disputing your segment. I'll also note that on Casprings' latest ridiculous attempt to have someone who disagrees with his politics topic banned (I've been his latest fixation for a while), there are currently more "oppose" than "support" votes, so it doesn't appear his proposal will gain consensus support. At least one uninvolved person already tried to close it but Casprings reverted. As for POV pushing, I don't even know what to say to that. It's like being accused of irresponsible behavior by Lindsay Lohan. I'm the one opposing POV pushing here. I'm not even the one trying to add items to an already bloated article. I just want to make sure what does get added accurately rather than selectively represents the sources. VictorD7 (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- You are ignoring the vast majority of admins and users who have since endorsed the RFC outcome and rejected your attempts to disrupt it, including with proposal to topic ban you which seems to be quite popular with admins. What is it going to take for you to ease up on the POV pushing? EllenCT (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't seen the clear consensus supporting the RfC. When I reverted, I did so on the basis of not having seen agreement comporting with Ellen's additions. When I asked to be enlightened as to what the RfC, whose closing found "no consensus to support the reversion" or something seemingly equally equivocal, was meant to authorize, I received no clear direction as to what inference I had not fathomed. The follow-on discussion hasn't indicated that there was a consensus to do much of anything. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- You just completely made that quote up out of wishful thinking, didn't you? Some of us care about accuracy. EllenCT (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Here's the quote verbatim, from here:
There was no consensus at Talk:United States/Archive 67#Proposal to revert section Income, poverty and wealth to to 13 January version for this revert making the following change, because seven editors supported the 8 February version but only three supported the revert.
- Is that not the RfC you're talking about? What were you defending there? Your additions seemed to be outside of merely enforcing either of the texts listed below the closing statement. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but that was the opening statement, not the closing. Each of my inclusions was and has since been discussed above. EllenCT (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- You just completely made that quote up out of wishful thinking, didn't you? Some of us care about accuracy. EllenCT (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- You're ignoring the multiple discussions here I linked to here where your material was explicitly rejected in discussions involving more editors than your quietly attended RFC pulled, as well as the fact that the RFC only said the material could be included "in some form", and didn't endorse your wording. VictorD7 (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Every attempt to reverse the RFC has resulted in clear consensus that its outcome should be upheld. EllenCT (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- What is the sell-by date of RfC outcomes that are sparsely attended, evenly divided, whose closings are equivocally worded, and where few editors defend, or can even define, the RfC in Talk, other than to say it gives them carte blanche? Dhtwiki (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Specific excerpts from proposed new references: It took me a long time to read Erikson and Bhatti (2011) and Brunner et al. (2012), netiher of which contradict the existing sources. Erikson and Bhatti's book chapter was not peer reviewed. They say, "Bartels finds that rich constituents are substantially better represented by the legislators in the US Senate than their poorer counterparts. In fact, the poorest third of the population is not represented at all. While we do not find evidence directly contradictory this result, we add some complications." The complications agree with Bartells and the other sources from the RFC, too. Erikson and Bhatti went to great lengths to pose arbitrary hypotheses which came in just over p<0.05 significance, so that they could say that they can't find "statistical evidence." For shame! Brunner et al say, "Republicans more often vote the will of their higher income over their lower income constituents; Democratic legislators do the reverse," which is in contradiction to Hayes (2012) which states, "the major political parties seemed to have recently switched roles as the Democratic Party has become responsive to the wealthy, while Republicans are responsive to the middle-class." While I propose inclusion of those two excerpts on Politics of the United States, they do not rise to the level where they should be summarized in this article. Gilens and Page (2014) address all of the points raised in the 2011-2 papers. Therefore, I continue to support the verbatim RFC outcome. EllenCT (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- False. First, your own Gilens source cited Macro Polity as representing what it calls the views of a good many scholars who disagree with his thesis: ""..a good many scholars—probably more economists than political scientists among them—still cling to the idea that the policy preferences of the median voter tend to drive policy outputs from the U.S. political system. A fair amount of empirical evidence has been adduced—by Alan Monroe; Benjamin Page and Robert Shapiro; Robert Erikson, Michael MacKuen, and James Stimson (authors of the very influential Macro Polity); and others—that seems to support the notion that the median voter determines the results of much or most policy making." So you're essentially attacking the reliability of your own source here. And that and your other two sources emphasize that their own work does not represent the established scholarly consensus, but rather is "tentative" and "crude", the issue requiring much more study before firm conclusions are drawn, as I quoted in the above section.
- Brunner's peer reviewed journal article most certainly does contradict Bartels, and does so explicitly: (intro) "We assemble a novel dataset of matched legislative and constituent votes and demonstrate that less income does not mean less representation.... Differences in representation by income are largely explained by the correlation between constituent income and party affiliation." (2, 3) "Bartels (2008) regresses the DW Nominate score, a summary measure of the liberal/conservative leaning of a United States senator’s voting record, on the mean liberal/conservative leaning (seven point scale) of lower, middle and upper income survey respondents in the senator’s state. He finds that the ideology of the highest income group enters with a significantly larger coefficient than that of the lowest income group; he concludes that higher income state residents are better represented than their lower income counterparts. Bhatti and Erikson (2011) revisit Bartels’ analysis to address a weighting issue and sample size limitations. While in most specifications the authors find that the liberalness of higher income voters enters with a larger coefficient than that of lower 2 income voters, the difference is not statistically significant. In contrast to Bartels, these authors conclude that higher income constituents are not better represented.1" They go on to conduct their own study also contradicting Bartels' findings.
- As I said above, the scholarly book chapter (by Erikson and Bhatti, Columbia and University of Copenhagen political scientists, published by the Russell Sage Foundation) stated that they failed to duplicate Bartels' findings. You left out the portion almost immediately following: "Second, we replicate Bartels’ findings in two recent datasets with larger sample sizes and hence less measurement error. We cannot find statistical evidence of differential representation."
- Whether you feel that Bartels has adequately addressed the various criticisms (not that you've made a convincing case for that, or much of any case for that at all) is beside the point. The methodology of Bartels, Hayes, and Gilens has been ripped to shreds by knowledgeable editors here who point out even more fundamental flaws than these contrary sources do. What matters here is that there is strong disagreement among the sources, with even your own three sources conceding that they don't represent the established scholarly view. Frankly none of them belong in this article at all, since we're supposed to be reflecting stable, mainstream, scholarly positions, and not cutting edge recent research involving high degrees of subjectivity and controversy, but I respect the RFC closing, despite it being barely participated in, poorly framed (with a false dichotomy), and introduced with virtually no discussion or attempt by you to find opposing views like those I produced above. However, that RFC closing was intentionally vague, only allowing the inclusion of the material "in some form", which means it was not an endorsement of your wording, wording which the new evidence produced here clearly shows is untenable. Your wording would violate core Misplaced Pages policies that trump a single RFC outcome anyway. The current sentence is an appropriately broad summary for this article's detail level, referenced by sources from both sides. Best to just be happy that you got your sources and the debate into this article at all, and stop pushing to purge disputing sources or alter the wording to make specific, unattributed claims in Misplaced Pages's voice that fail to acknowledge the dispute. VictorD7 (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- "Ripped to shreds" how? And by whom? The results of the RFC have been confirmed four times now. EllenCT (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Even before I posted scholarly sources disputing it, your proposal to include the Bartels and friends material was rejected on this very talk page twice (at least 12 editors participated; at least 10 editors participated), and despite that you ignored these results and kept pushing the material over and over again. Your RFC finally got it into the article (despite only 8 editors participating and there being no preliminary source or other discussion), but since I posted the scholarly sources disputing yours no editors have supported your particular wording (which is untenable given policy) and multiple editors have opposed it. And I and others have posted more detailed criticisms of the methodology employed in your sources on other talk pages, though I won't spend time digging those discussions up now since it's beside the point. VictorD7 (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Your "scholarly" sources aren't in disagreement with the original three sources. If you say water is wet, and I say I don't have any information to the contrary, but by including ice and steam in sampling I can't confirm your findings statistically at the p<0.05 level, do you think I have somehow disproved you? Or even added anything worthwhile to the conversation? EllenCT (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- One explicitly stated that it contradicted your source's findings while another criticized your source's methodology and failed to replicate its findings using what it considered to be a superior methodology. And it's amusing that you place "scholarly" in quotes. VictorD7 (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- On the contrary, the peer reviewed literature reviews on the topic are in agreement, opposed to your non-peer reviewed book chapter and article with it's cherry-picked data set. The subsequent peer reviewed literature addressed and disposed with all of the issues they raised. Why do you constantly suggest that Wikipedians should consider your paid advocacy, non-peer reviewed, and primary source original research to be scholarly? That has never been the standard on Misplaced Pages, but it is often if not usually the standard of those who wish to introduce bias to advance their personal positions. EllenCT (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- To what "paid advocacy" and "original research" do you refer? Not only did I introduce you to peer reviewed articles that dispute your sources' findings, but I showed that even your own sources cite numerous scholars who disagree with their conclusion and make it clear that their own "crude", "tentative" methods don't represent the established expert consensus. Even if we just used your own sources your wording would be untenable because it fails to faithfully represent them. VictorD7 (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- The several advocacy organizations you repeatedly cite expressing opinions in favor of supply side and trickle down economics. You can't find any support for them in the peer reviewed literature reviews, because they are wrong, so you try to pretend that ad agencies are "scholarship." EllenCT (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you're talking about. "Ad agencies"? Name them. Nothing I linked to above has anything to do with ad agencies. Also, you should refrain from referring to sources as "paid advocacy", since on Misplaced Pages paid advocacy refers to paid editing, which actually your posting history shows you already knew (e.g. - you participating heavily in the policy discussions on paid editing, and repeatedly using "paid advocacy" to refer to editors being paid to edit , , , ). I'm sure you'd hate for any observers to mistake your meaning, conflate the two accusations, and think that I was being described a paid editor, given the seriousness of that charge here (illustrated by your own strong sentiments in the linked quotes). VictorD7 (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Whether you personally are paid to edit or not, you know full well that the so-called think tank sources you try to insert as authoritative scholarship are paid to represent their point of view. That is their only reason for existing, to advocate the positions of their donors. Because one of their most prolific and incorrect topic areas is supply side trickle down economics, they belong in the encyclopedia just as much as homeopathy. They are WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE in almost any encyclopedic context, other than that of describing them and their activities. By constantly championing their fully discredited views, you play the role of a paid advocate whether you are one or not. EllenCT (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- You failed to name any sources, and certainly none of the sources I've supplied above are "ad agencies" or "think tanks" (two very different things, btw), so this appears to be a pointless diversion. Your contention that I "play the role of a paid advocate" "whether (I am) one or not" shows you're happy slapping that label on me even if it's false (as you did with your earlier blunt, unqualified assertion above), a clear violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:HARASS policies. Again, for the record, as I've told you many times before, I am not a paid advocate. I suggest you drop insinuations otherwise. VictorD7 (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- The Heritage Foundation content supporting supply side trickle down economics which you've repeatedly relied upon and have been trying to insert is worse than the vast majority of paid advocacy. Attempting to insert or rely upon it here is equivalent to a direct attack on the reliability, usefulness, reputation, and quality of the encyclopedia, is equivalent to an admission of a lack of WP:COMPETENCE in creating an encyclopedia, and is equivalent to an admission that the editor repeatedly trying to insert it after being informed of their mistake is WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia, choosing to use Misplaced Pages as a political forum instead. EllenCT (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Nothing I posted above is from the Heritage Foundation or any other think tank. I cited a peer reviewed journal article, a scholarly chapter prepared by multiple academics that includes a study they conducted, and an academic book cited in your own source as being "very influential". That said, The Heritage Foundation is one of the nation's most prominent think tanks and a perfectly legitimate source in many circumstances (RS is context specific). You again failed to link to an example, but if it's the home size fact currently sourced by Heritage in the article that's based on easily verifiable government stats and isn't disputed. Think tank sources, mostly leftist ones like Think Progress, CBPP, Brookings (which I've also added), and EPI (featured prominently in the same section you're alluding to), litter this article and others. You've personally sought to add a wide array of much lower quality sources to this and other articles, like this obscure advocacy group called Insight: Center for Community for Economic Development (, ), a lobbying group seeking special benefits for minorities, and of course hotly disputed tax rate charts from the lobbying group Citizens for Tax Justice. Given all this, perhaps the rest of your paragraph is a simple case of projection. VictorD7 (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Courtesy section break
- If we ban the pro-homeopathy advocacy organizations, does NPOV require that we also ban those opposed to homeopathy? EllenCT (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Since I've never supported including anything about "homeopathy", I assume this is an abstract hypothetical question. Your "advocacy organizations" are the fringe ones, though I never suggested banning them per se. RS is always context specific. The problem with your specific proposed inclusions have been that they were inappropriate for a particular article or section, misrepresented the sources, and/or were contradicted by all the other (more) reliable sources. I only mentioned your own inclusion of "advocacy" groups to drive home how bizarre your off topic complaints about me here are. VictorD7 (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Let me put it in concrete terms for you. If we exclude sources with no support in the peer reviewed secondary literature, does NPOV require that we also exclude sources with peer reviewed secondary support? EllenCT (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- I already answered in concrete, far more pertinent terms in my last post. The sources aren't as you characterize them. VictorD7 (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- So are you claiming that there is support for supply side trickle down economics in the peer reviewed secondary literature, or that the Heritage foundation isn't paid to push supply side trickle down economics? EllenCT (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- You mean like how your Citizens for Tax Justice and CCED sources are paid to lobby for tax increases and for special benefits for minorities, respectively? Of course there's enormous support for supply side economics in scholarly literature (e.g. like numerous studies showing lower tax rates boost growth), but that has nothing at all to do with this discussion. I don't even recall if I've ever mentioned "supply side economics" in a Misplaced Pages edit, and "trickle down" was a partisan Democrat epithet from the 80s. VictorD7 (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- If you are referring to the OECD, yes, those sources have support in the peer reviewed secondary literature and thus should be favored. The Heritage Foundation and other proponents of supply side trickle down economics should be excluded from any encyclopedia to the extent it is reliable, except to report on their activities. EllenCT (talk) 02:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- You mean like how your Citizens for Tax Justice and CCED sources are paid to lobby for tax increases and for special benefits for minorities, respectively? Of course there's enormous support for supply side economics in scholarly literature (e.g. like numerous studies showing lower tax rates boost growth), but that has nothing at all to do with this discussion. I don't even recall if I've ever mentioned "supply side economics" in a Misplaced Pages edit, and "trickle down" was a partisan Democrat epithet from the 80s. VictorD7 (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- So are you claiming that there is support for supply side trickle down economics in the peer reviewed secondary literature, or that the Heritage foundation isn't paid to push supply side trickle down economics? EllenCT (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- I already answered in concrete, far more pertinent terms in my last post. The sources aren't as you characterize them. VictorD7 (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Let me put it in concrete terms for you. If we exclude sources with no support in the peer reviewed secondary literature, does NPOV require that we also exclude sources with peer reviewed secondary support? EllenCT (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Since I've never supported including anything about "homeopathy", I assume this is an abstract hypothetical question. Your "advocacy organizations" are the fringe ones, though I never suggested banning them per se. RS is always context specific. The problem with your specific proposed inclusions have been that they were inappropriate for a particular article or section, misrepresented the sources, and/or were contradicted by all the other (more) reliable sources. I only mentioned your own inclusion of "advocacy" groups to drive home how bizarre your off topic complaints about me here are. VictorD7 (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- If we ban the pro-homeopathy advocacy organizations, does NPOV require that we also ban those opposed to homeopathy? EllenCT (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I said nothing about the OECD. You pulled that non sequitur out of the blue, unless you confused that with CCED, the abbreviation for the Center for Community for Economic Development advocacy group you've used as a source in articles that I just referred to. And no, your material was not "peer reviewed" and has nothing to do with peer reviewed literature. As for you wanting to exclude sources you politically oppose while adding far more obscure sources (like CCED) you politically agree with, I guess you'll have to fight that battle next time it comes up. BTW, it's fascinating that while you're carrying on this discussion you're simultaneously pushing in another section for the inclusion of a column citing a "study" by the Hamilton Project, a subgroup of the left leaning Brookings Institute (a think tank within a think tank) launched in 2006. Barack Obama spoke at the group's launch and most of its leaders have worked for the Obama administration and/or his campaigns at some point. So much for "peer reviewed secondary sources". VictorD7 (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Do you mean the "Insight Center for Community Economic Development" in Oakland? They also advocate demand side economics and thus have support from the secondary peer reviewed literature, unlike your supply side trickle down POV pushing. Again, Brookings is centrist and the largest think tank in the world. EllenCT (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- All major economic schools of thought have support in the peer reviewed literature. Heck, the Austrians you always rail against have even collected a boatload of Nobel Prizes, solidifying their "expert" status for Misplaced Pages sourcing purposes. Wanting special benefits for minorities has nothing to do with peer reviewed analysis. It's just a subjective political preference. And the CTJ tax chart you tried to introduce throughout Misplaced Pages has no corroboration whatsoever, and direct contradiction by other, more reliable sources (e.g. the CBO, Brookings' Tax Policy Center, the Tax Foundation). My expansive reply to your misleading Brookings claim is in the other section. Its ideology is irrelevant to the fact that the study you're pushing isn't "secondary peer reviewed literature", undermining your purported fixation on that sourcing requirement, but I'll point out here that Brookings is liberal and between 2003 and 2010 97.6% of its members' political donations went to Democrats. However, I'm glad to see that you're now a fan of the think tank, and no longer label it "right wing" as you used to when I cited its TPC tax chart to refute your CTJ figures. VictorD7 (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Not all major economic schools of thought have support in the WP:SECONDARY peer reviewed literature. Most are firmly opposed by the peer reviewed literature reviews and meta-analyses. My "purported fixation" is due to the fact that as tertiary sources, encyclopedias are required to defer to the secondary literature over primary and original research. If your claim had merit, it could be a lot less expansive. You don't need to convince me that you are far enough to the right to think Brookings isn't centrist. EllenCT (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- All major economic schools of thought have support in the peer reviewed literature. Heck, the Austrians you always rail against have even collected a boatload of Nobel Prizes, solidifying their "expert" status for Misplaced Pages sourcing purposes. Wanting special benefits for minorities has nothing to do with peer reviewed analysis. It's just a subjective political preference. And the CTJ tax chart you tried to introduce throughout Misplaced Pages has no corroboration whatsoever, and direct contradiction by other, more reliable sources (e.g. the CBO, Brookings' Tax Policy Center, the Tax Foundation). My expansive reply to your misleading Brookings claim is in the other section. Its ideology is irrelevant to the fact that the study you're pushing isn't "secondary peer reviewed literature", undermining your purported fixation on that sourcing requirement, but I'll point out here that Brookings is liberal and between 2003 and 2010 97.6% of its members' political donations went to Democrats. However, I'm glad to see that you're now a fan of the think tank, and no longer label it "right wing" as you used to when I cited its TPC tax chart to refute your CTJ figures. VictorD7 (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- As much as I'd love to debate the nuances of economic theory with someone who just claimed elsewhere on this page that Obama was president in 2006, none of this has anything to do with this talk page section. VictorD7 (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- I said it's not surprising that a President would speak at the most oft-cited think tank in the world, not that he was President when he did. EllenCT (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well that makes a lot of sense. VictorD7 (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Strongly prefer A B is a non-statement that says nothing, and it violates the previous RfC close. Darx9url (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Continued attempts to contravene the RFC outcome
I object to this revert because it continues to oppose consensus. I also object to this revert because there have been no compelling reasons stated to omit the fact, against plenty of evidence that it is the most important determinant of economic outcomes. EllenCT (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- I object to the misleading title of this section, since the RFC close explicitly said the material could be allowed "in some form" and wasn't a rubber stamp approval of the phrasing, which is still being discussed (I just recently initiated the first discussion about what your sources actually say). But I object even more strongly to you telling me you agreed with my compromise proposal on the other issue involving tax progressivity and redistribution, which I led off by stating, "The current long standing Government finance segment stays the way it is..." and you replied to by stating, "I'm completely okay with that," only for you to wait several days after I implemented the other part of the compromise in the Economics section to try and sneakily completely delete the comparative progressivity segment that you had agreed to keep as is. Reprehensible. Honesty and good faith are vital to productive collaboration. VictorD7 (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- My proposal for an alternate form is better than yours because it incorporates more comprehensive supporting sources. Do you have actual objections to the education statement? The characterization of tax incidence is a separate issue, and I guess you don't like the changes there, either, but similarly, are you able to say why you don't like them? EllenCT (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Why did you agree to the compromise proposal ("completely" in your words) and then blatantly violate it a few days later? As for inequality, my proposal incorporates all your sources and a few others, and is a far broader, comprehensive textual statement, so I have no idea what you're talking about. As for your education statement, I might not necessarily oppose some version of it in a vacuum or in other contexts, but I mostly reverted it because every editor to comment on it here opposes it (, ), and because it's just a random statement that doesn't coherently fit into this article. If we allow that then why not segments on the relationship between single parent homes and income, the impact of centralized bureaucracy or teachers' unions on education, or all sorts of other causal statements? VictorD7 (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't seen any evidence that any of those factors, including single parent homes, or even all of them together, are more determinant of income inequality than education outcomes. I am not opposed to describing the changes in household composition over time, but I would like to see peer reviewed literature reviews or meta-analyses on the extent to which they are a cause of deleterious outcomes. EllenCT (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Such research exists on single parent homes and countless other topics (involving income level and totally different subjects) not included in this article, but I think you missed the point. This is a topical/page layout issue, not a sourcing one (recent research papers on complex topics usually don't make good sources anyway). This isn't the place for adding opinions on causality, much less selective ones on selective niche topics, much less to a section most editors already deem too bloated. Let me know if you ever want to explain why you agreed to my tax/spending compromise (at least twice: "I'm completely okay with that" , "I agree with VictorD7's compromise proposal" ) only to completely violate it a few days later. VictorD7 (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Do you understand the difference between recent research papers and literature reviews? I changed my mind about agreeing with you when you made it completely clear that you had zero respect for the RFC outcome. If there is research meeting WP:SECONDARY on your claim of a relationship between household composition and economic output, you have already had ample time to bring it to our attention. EllenCT (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- If your agreement to the proposal was contingent on me doing something else on a different issue you shouldn't have stated that you agreed to it without condition and then waited until after I implemented my part of the compromise days later to violate yours, not that I accept the premise that I disrespected the RFC outcome on that different issue anyway (it's why your sources and the general topic are in the article; plus it's not like my position on that issue changed at some point between you accepting and violating the compromise on the much more long running tax progressivity issue dispute). VictorD7 (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Do you understand the difference between recent research papers and literature reviews? I changed my mind about agreeing with you when you made it completely clear that you had zero respect for the RFC outcome. If there is research meeting WP:SECONDARY on your claim of a relationship between household composition and economic output, you have already had ample time to bring it to our attention. EllenCT (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Such research exists on single parent homes and countless other topics (involving income level and totally different subjects) not included in this article, but I think you missed the point. This is a topical/page layout issue, not a sourcing one (recent research papers on complex topics usually don't make good sources anyway). This isn't the place for adding opinions on causality, much less selective ones on selective niche topics, much less to a section most editors already deem too bloated. Let me know if you ever want to explain why you agreed to my tax/spending compromise (at least twice: "I'm completely okay with that" , "I agree with VictorD7's compromise proposal" ) only to completely violate it a few days later. VictorD7 (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't seen any evidence that any of those factors, including single parent homes, or even all of them together, are more determinant of income inequality than education outcomes. I am not opposed to describing the changes in household composition over time, but I would like to see peer reviewed literature reviews or meta-analyses on the extent to which they are a cause of deleterious outcomes. EllenCT (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Why did you agree to the compromise proposal ("completely" in your words) and then blatantly violate it a few days later? As for inequality, my proposal incorporates all your sources and a few others, and is a far broader, comprehensive textual statement, so I have no idea what you're talking about. As for your education statement, I might not necessarily oppose some version of it in a vacuum or in other contexts, but I mostly reverted it because every editor to comment on it here opposes it (, ), and because it's just a random statement that doesn't coherently fit into this article. If we allow that then why not segments on the relationship between single parent homes and income, the impact of centralized bureaucracy or teachers' unions on education, or all sorts of other causal statements? VictorD7 (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- My proposal for an alternate form is better than yours because it incorporates more comprehensive supporting sources. Do you have actual objections to the education statement? The characterization of tax incidence is a separate issue, and I guess you don't like the changes there, either, but similarly, are you able to say why you don't like them? EllenCT (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Since you seem to think ignoring RFC outcomes is acceptable and would not make ordinary editors immediately see that you have lost whatever remaining good faith you had left, then would you mind if I just make a few edits according to how I wish the last dozen RFCs had closed out instead of how they actually did? It's a hypothetical question because I have no further interest in your opinion until you find some peer reviewed literature reviews instead of just propaganda sites. EllenCT (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well it should be clear to any good faith, at least reasonably intelligent observers how fruitful attempts at rational discourse are with you. VictorD7 (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- We are supposed to be improving the encyclopedia with WP:SECONDARY reliable sources, not as a forum for propaganda discourse per WP:NOT#FORUM. When was the last time you cited a peer reviewed literature review or meta-analysis? EllenCT (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Apart from me citing your own sources and quoting what they actually say? I've put lots of peer reviewed journal articles, reviewed government publications, and other sources that include surveys of existing scholarship on a topic into various articles (not that we're limited to such sources or that you in particular haven't used plenty of other kinds), but instead of continuing this unproductive exchange, whey don't you respond above to my question about what exactly you're opposing, if anything, regarding my proposed caveat to "conservative"/"liberal" (apart from the screenname attached)? BTW, in that section I'm proposing using sources like vetted university level political science textbooks, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP ("For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper.; Also note - "However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.".....and....."Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields."). VictorD7 (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, when have you shown any indication that you are here to write an encyclopedia based on secondary sources that you haven't depended on others to find for you? Your insinuations are false. Until you show respect for WP:SECONDARY and the RFC process, my attempts to compromise with you will be more advantageous to me than to you. EllenCT (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- That's littered with false non sequiturs and generally makes no sense, but if you refuse to actually register any opposition to my proposal in the above section then I won't count you as being opposed to it, which may be for the best. VictorD7 (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Let me rephrase the question: Have you ever once, in your years of editing, found a single WP:SECONDARY source on your own, which you have used to improve the encyclopedia? Not counting being dependent on others to find them for you. EllenCT (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- You know I have, and you of all people presuming to lecture me on research skills is hilarious. Even in this discussion so far I've produced far more sources than you have, in addition to reading and having to explain your own sources to you. Ellen, most sources apart from news articles are secondary sources. Most of the academic papers and almost all of the books I've added over the years are secondary sources, like these several scholarly books I found (actually some of them I own) and added when we substantially rewrote the history section. This section is pointless. I'm not jumping through any more of your hoops when you're being so uncooperative on every front. VictorD7 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- You honestly think that non-peer reviewed monograph intended for undergraduates meets WP:SECONDARY? It doesn't even have a bibliography. Is there any evidence whatsoever that you are here to build an encyclopedia based on the best secondary sources, and not just as a forum for primary source debate? EllenCT (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Reiteration
UNACTIONABLE (NAC following ANRFC listing) It is not possible to close multiple discussions that have taken place elsewhere in one talk page subsection. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I reiterate my concerns above in the enclosing section as the first two of several post-discretionary sanction proposals for improvement to follow. EllenCT (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Any objections? EllenCT (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Objections to what? VictorD7 (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- What are you proposing? Capitalismojo (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- That both edits be reverted due to the lack of any cogent arguments in opposition and the lack of competence evident in the above attempts at such arguments. EllenCT (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- You should have "reiterated" precise proposals, since you have yet to construct alternative wording on inequality that would meet the policy minimums given the disputing scholarly sourcing I provided that your earlier edit failed to even attempt to account for, and since it's unclear what other "edit" you're talking about wanting to revert here. You and I strongly disagree about which of us has displayed a lack of "competence", and I'd advise you to refrain from derailing discussion with ad hominem distractions and creating a Battlefield environment. VictorD7 (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- I refer to the two edits mentioned at the top of #Continued attempts to contravene the RFC outcome above, as most people find entirely clear, I'm sure. EllenCT (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Apparently not, since the only two editors to reply to you in this separate subsection indicated otherwise, but I appreciate you clarifying. I don't recall seeing anything other than opposition by editors to your "education" proposal. VictorD7 (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- That doesn't change or hold a candle to the fact that the RFC has been confirmed four times in four separate polls. EllenCT (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Your proposed inclusion was rejected at least twice on this talk page (, ) and was only barely supported once via RFC, each of the discussions rejecting it involving more editors than your poorly constructed RFC did. I have no idea what these alleged "four separate polls" you're referring to are. Despite that, the material has been included per the RFC. However, the RFC did not endorse your wording. We've repeatedly been through all this. VictorD7 (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Subsequent to both of those links, which were different proposals with different text and fewer corroborating references:
- Talk:United States/Archive 69#No consensus to revert to out of date, inaccurate 2009 descriptions of 2008 recession (RFC) "The consensus is to include both in some form."
- Influence of the wealthy / RFC outcome (above) unanimous support for the RFC outcome
- Phrasing for inequality RFC segment. (above) no consensus to reverse the RFC outcome
- Continued attempts to contravene the RFC outcome (below) zero support for your proposal that "some form" means deleting the sources you don't like. Additionally, you indicated that you thought a freshman textbook without a bibliography qualifies as a WP:SECONDARY source.
- @Golbez: how can this constant back-and-forth be resolved? Can you please make a formal close on all of these post-RFC requests? EllenCT (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'd rather not; I haven't been paying any attention to this, and I'm not in a mood to decipher a political argument at the moment. A neutral third party might be best. Maybe all they need to do is close it but that's beyond even my ability at the moment. --Golbez (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Subsequent to both of those links, which were different proposals with different text and fewer corroborating references:
As for your frivolous off topic claim about the alleged "freshman textbook" from the last discussion you linked to (an exchange that had nothing to do with this topic), leaving aside the fact that textbooks often are secondary sources, and the fact that tertiary and primary sources are both also acceptable anyway, I didn't specifically mention any books, much less a "freshman textbook". You absurdly asked if I had ever supplied a secondary source, so I generously jumped through your ridiculous hoop by linking to an edit on this very article (one of many) where I had added several such sources, more than answering your question, unless you're denying that any of those are secondary sources. That I and other posters have repeatedly had to explain the basics of research, sourcing, and policy to you, along with economics and the other topics which you prefer to edit about for some reason, and read your own sources and explain what they actually mean to you to correct your habitual comprehension failures (assuming good faith) that lead to your frequent misrepresentations, make your failed ad hominem diversions against me even more surreal. VictorD7 (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- I have no faith that there is any reason to believe your edits are those of someone who is here to write an encyclopedia. I have filed Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:United States#Reiteration. EllenCT (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Contingency resources
The Wall Street Journal reports, "household finances remain fragile: 47% said they wouldn’t be able to cover a $400 emergency expense or would have to borrow money or sell something, and 31% said they went without some form of medical care in the last year because they couldn’t afford it." I propose including those facts. EllenCT (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- WP:NOTNEWS WP:RECENT This is not a newspaper. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Capitalismojo: would it be better to use the same triennial Fed Survey of Consumer Finances to show the relative wealth of minority women over time? It looks bad for households but it is much worse when you look at the wealth of individual minority women. EllenCT (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps you'd like to start a new section on what you'd like to add (different material not from this WSJ article). Capitalismojo (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I will, but this is the last time I intend to let you avoid my questions. EllenCT (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps you'd like to start a new section on what you'd like to add (different material not from this WSJ article). Capitalismojo (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Capitalismojo: would it be better to use the same triennial Fed Survey of Consumer Finances to show the relative wealth of minority women over time? It looks bad for households but it is much worse when you look at the wealth of individual minority women. EllenCT (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Proposal: relative wealth of Americans
I propose including: 47% of Americans said they either would not be able to cover a $400 emergency expense, or would have to borrow money or sell something to do so. 31% of Americans said they could not afford medical care in the past year. White households had 13 times the median wealth of black households in 2013, compared with eight times in 2010. In 2010, the median wealth of American single black women was five dollars. EllenCT (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose as excessive detail for this article on a niche topic already given undue emphasis. Items like these belong on more topically focused articles, along, of course, with plenty of other material so the coverage is full, accurate, and devoid of POV soapboxing. VictorD7 (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- The relative wealth of Americans is most certainly not a niche topic, having been reflected in this article before either of us started editing it. EllenCT (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- It most certainly is a niche topic. The article covers many niche topics. The problem here is that you're wanting to pile more and more details relating to subtopics of that niche topic, and a niche topic that many editors have complained already receives undue emphasis here. Misplaced Pages is structured so that such extreme details can be presented and expounded on (accurately and neutrally) in subtopical articles. We're not supposed to be shoving everything into this broad country article. VictorD7 (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Why do you consider these headline points of three year Fed Survey of Consumer Finance studies "extreme details"? I would prefer knowing the median wealth of minority women from the most recent Survey instead of 2010's. Has that been published anywhere? EllenCT (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Because this isn't an article about the "wealth of minority women". It's the United States article. Measuring "wealth" is a tricky, controversial subject in itself (income is much easier, and even that's not without problems), though that's another discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Why do you consider these headline points of three year Fed Survey of Consumer Finance studies "extreme details"? I would prefer knowing the median wealth of minority women from the most recent Survey instead of 2010's. Has that been published anywhere? EllenCT (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- It most certainly is a niche topic. The article covers many niche topics. The problem here is that you're wanting to pile more and more details relating to subtopics of that niche topic, and a niche topic that many editors have complained already receives undue emphasis here. Misplaced Pages is structured so that such extreme details can be presented and expounded on (accurately and neutrally) in subtopical articles. We're not supposed to be shoving everything into this broad country article. VictorD7 (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- The relative wealth of Americans is most certainly not a niche topic, having been reflected in this article before either of us started editing it. EllenCT (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
RFC on relative wealth of Americans
Should the article include these statements:
- 47% of Americans said they either would not be able to cover a $400 emergency expense, or would have to borrow money or sell something to do so.
- 31% of Americans said they could not afford medical care in the past year.
- White households had 13 times the median wealth of black households in 2013, compared with eight times in 2010.
- In 2010, the median wealth of American single black women was five dollars.
? 19:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support including all as proposer, because these figures provide useful, informative, and important insights into the economic status of Americans of value far beyond the savings from omitting them. EllenCT (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support sensible addition. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - These are random (or cherry-picked), extremely niche details that don't even come close to belonging in the United States article. Such materials belongs on sub topic articles where they can be fully and neutrally covered at the appropriate detail level. The first two are especially preposterous. As for the last two, a proposal breaking down median income for every ethnic group (not cherry-picked ones only focusing on two races) might be reasonable, but "net wealth" is a nebulous concept defined differently by different sources and prone to extreme fluctuations even when the definition is held constant. Since we don't currently even have a racial income breakdown, we shouldn't skip that more commonsense addition and leap to "net wealth" material of more dubious worth.
- I'll add that the RFC initiator, EllenCT, still has another RFC up, currently being rejected by respondents, as part of her larger, sustained effort to soapbox on the "inequality" issue. I hope this isn't part of a "flood the zone" with RFCs strategy as this Talk Page is already insanely crowded, and that's not conducive to collaborative editing. VictorD7 (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose That type of information is ridiculous for this article. How about if I post a photo of some obese low income person eating a bag of chips and drinking a soft drink and label it "Low income in the U.S." alongside some bony starveling in a third world country. That's a true illustration of "relative wealth."Phmoreno (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Furthermore, EllenCT needs to move all of this excessive POV crap to the respective main articles, not just in this article but in some of the other ones she's degraded with all of her garbage. People like her are destroying Misplaced Pages.Phmoreno (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose The first two seem to be hearsay and the last two are obscure as to how the numbers are arrived at or why they are meaningful, other than some people seem to have a lot more than others. The last, from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, is especially sensationalistic, singling out a most extreme number (married or co-habitating black women have a median net worth of $31,500) for their headline. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Sparse data listed, no citations. If we're going to include the wealth disparity, a *lot* more information, with citations would have to be listed that would make an entire section absent for every other nation's article. Are we also going to add in the wealth distribution of Qatar as well as every other nation on the planet? I'd support a separate, linked in this article, article on income disparity within the United States - oh, wait, there is one. Add a link in the economics section in a way that doesn't disrupt the section or flow and add current data, with citations in Income inequality in the United States.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per Wzrd, and Victor. Weakly ref'd. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
This issue was dealt with in the history of economic thought. Classical economists recognized that people varied in propensity to consume versus save and invest. They also reasoned that if wealth were redistributed, after a while the same people who were wealthy would again be wealthy and the same people who were poor would eventually be poor again. This is not to say that people with no savings aren't typically low income, but articles with statistics on peoples savings generally do not analyze what people do with their money. Recommended reading Myths of Rich and Poor by Cox and Alm.Phmoreno (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
In a change of mind I'm proposing that we include some of this information, but only if we can show an international comparison. People should know that Chinese households, who have a fraction of the income of U.S. households, save 30% of their income.Phmoreno (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The Oppose count is clearly the majority by a large margin. Time to close this discussion.Phmoreno (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- No it is not. This RfC was only opened five days ago. I haven't personally taken a stance on this issue, but give other people time to respond. I'm not saying it will, but sometimes, consensus can dramatically shift from one side to the other. Dustin (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- The idea that someone reading a general article about a country wouldn't ordinarily want to learn about the relative wealth of minority women is absurd. It's the summary measure of the country's de facto racist and sexist outcomes. The idea that it is biased or cherry picked is manufactured to try to hide the bias of censoring it. EllenCT (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- If people really wanted to learn about it, we would be seeing more IP edits that attempted to insert similar material. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- That would be true if the article wasn't semi-protected. Can you give any examples of general tertiary source articles of about this length on countries which don't include detailed discussion of relative wealth of women and minorities? The CIA Factbook dwells on topics pertaining to severely disadvantaged minorities when they exist because they are so politically destabilizing. EllenCT (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Even with this article being semi-protected, which I hadn't taken into account, IP users can make requests on the Talk page (they can even edit here, in the not unusual case that their IP account has the requisite number of edits). Other Misplaced Pages country articles have data on wealth inequality, but which are not likely to focus so schematically on a particular race and gender as you have. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- That would be true if the article wasn't semi-protected. Can you give any examples of general tertiary source articles of about this length on countries which don't include detailed discussion of relative wealth of women and minorities? The CIA Factbook dwells on topics pertaining to severely disadvantaged minorities when they exist because they are so politically destabilizing. EllenCT (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- One, blacks aren't the only "minority" group in the country. Two, black women are hardly representative of women in general. Three, different outcomes do not result from "racism" or "sexism", any more than Asians having higher incomes results from racism. Four, your assumption otherwise, and your assertion that it's important for this article to include an alleged gauge of "racism" and "sexism" shows your own bias and POV agenda, which violates WP:SOAPBOX policy. Five, I don't recall ever having seen a racial income or wealth breakdown in another Misplaced Pages country article. Certainly the major ones I've just resampled like United Kingdom, Canada, France, and others don't have them. So it would be bizarre indeed to assume readers were expecting to see such a breakdown on the US and only on the US page. VictorD7 (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- If people really wanted to learn about it, we would be seeing more IP edits that attempted to insert similar material. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- The idea that someone reading a general article about a country wouldn't ordinarily want to learn about the relative wealth of minority women is absurd. It's the summary measure of the country's de facto racist and sexist outcomes. The idea that it is biased or cherry picked is manufactured to try to hide the bias of censoring it. EllenCT (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - Frankly, it seems a little undue in this article. Maybe put it in Poverty in the United States? NickCT (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. Clearly chery-picked; why don't you also include there is one shark-attack fatality every two years while you're at it? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. Summoned by bot. The relevant section does need additional information on the household income of the lower 50% of Americans to balance the claim that "Americans have the highest average household and employee income among OECD nations", which can be misleading to a reader without a background in economics or knowledge of income inequality in the United States. We can do far better than this information, however. Something like this would serve the article far better, which discusses BLS stats and other reliable numbers. ~ Rob 00:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- The line you quote is immediately followed by a comparative median income stat (per the OECD; a snapshot of the "middle class"), and those items are already more than "balanced" by extensive discussion about inequality through most of the rest of the section, along with material on poverty. In fact numerous editors have expressed valid concerns that there's already an undue emphasis on inequality. As for the state of the middle class, I'm not sure the piece you link to (with its random anecdotes and unfocused style) has much useful to this article, but there is already some discussion in the section and elsewhere on the page about the economic downturn in recent years, and its impact on the entire population, so this seems to be a solution in search of a problem. VictorD7 (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- I somehow managed to miss the median despite reading that twice. It's good as-is then. That source was as an example of types of stats to quote if it needed to swing that direction, not as an example of what to insert into the article. Irrelevant now, either way. ~ Rob 19:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- The line you quote is immediately followed by a comparative median income stat (per the OECD; a snapshot of the "middle class"), and those items are already more than "balanced" by extensive discussion about inequality through most of the rest of the section, along with material on poverty. In fact numerous editors have expressed valid concerns that there's already an undue emphasis on inequality. As for the state of the middle class, I'm not sure the piece you link to (with its random anecdotes and unfocused style) has much useful to this article, but there is already some discussion in the section and elsewhere on the page about the economic downturn in recent years, and its impact on the entire population, so this seems to be a solution in search of a problem. VictorD7 (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Clarify This RFC is confusing. What section are we discussing here? Is it Income, poverty and wealth? If so, I think the whole section needs to be rewritten. The statements above will just confuse more. Irrelevant information blurs the main topics: income (current, trend etc.), poverty and wealth (current, trend, factors contributing to the trend). There is also no mention and no link to the major United States housing bubble. This was definitely one of the factors for the current poverty and wealth ratio. There are references such as Chain of Blame book or The Road to Collapse and some other articles Google search results. I support listing the statistics as in the statements under discussion but only after the main topics are clarified. Otherwise, the average reader will be confused. Gpeja (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - those statements are not phrased to fit into an article, they are just loose factoid items. Also this article does not seem the right venue for that kind of material or blogs the place to cite. Things like this might better fit as cites in articles on that topic such as Income inequality metrics or Economic inequality, and really I'd think it better if US states were part of a list of all nations rather than by-nation tidbits such as Income disparity in Malaysia. Markbassett (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per Markbassett and Gpeja, but a moral support. I don't fully understand where the proposer wants them included and as they stand they are just loose facts. I do believe that racially based income disparity is notable, particularly in the united states, however I don't think this proposal is fully formed enough to support inclusion, and there are other articles that could host the information, or a new article created if it's notable enough. Until the proposer can give a more concrete idea of where and how this information would be used in this article, I can't support. Wugapodes (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Wouldn't omitting facts be cherry-picking? In reality aren't FoCuSandLeArN and VictorD7 the actual cherry-pickers because they prefer leaving certain facts out! MurderByDeadcopy 21:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, because every article leaves facts out. No article contains the sum of human knowledge. The term "cherry-picking" is useful when there appears to be no consistency or legitimate rhyme or reason for including some facts but not others, particularly when a section's general detail level would being greatly exceeded with a couple of seemingly random items, often proposed for emotive impact to further a soapbox agenda. VictorD7 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- So, what you are saying is it's okay to cherry-pick as long as you're doing the cherry-picking? Neither the cherry-picking nor the WP:SOAPBOX accusation are good arguments here. What I'm saying is if you believe that strongly against adding these facts, pick better reasons, instead of using two of the laziest fallacies around. Fallacies that can be directly turned around back on the person using them. I understood that WP:PURPOSE should include the sum of all human knowledge, and not exclude certain races or genders. Explain exactly why one should exclude race and gender. MurderByDeadcopy 16:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, that's not what I said at all. If you're too lazy to read the posts you respond to, I'm not sure why you bother responding. VictorD7 (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose As said above, racially based income disparity is a notable topic which is probably significant enough to be included in some form, but some of these statistics are so obscure they don't deserve inclusion in a broad summary article like this one. For instance, the wealth of single black women is an extremely specific fact focusing on a demographic that is small and doesn't necessarily deserve special focus over other, equally important demographics. The third fact, for instance, might merit inclusion, given its broad applicability and evident importance, but this proposal seems overtly specific and of questionable relevance. Rwenonah (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose weakly referenced and too granular for such a high level article. They could be used in sub articles if there's more substantial sources.Mattnad (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Mattnad (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Mediation update Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/United States
Over the course of six months, eight editors and a mediator consulted on the scope of the United States to determine a sourced lede sentence for the United States article, with an eye to resolving how the total area of the United States should be reported in the Infobox. The mediation has been successful and the participants reached consensus on the issues and have a proposed a new lede sentence for the article which is to be accompanied by a note. It has been agreed by the participants and the mediator that the proposed lede and accompanying note would be presented to article editors and members of the WP community as a Request for comment. It was agreed from the outset that the statement in the lede sentence of the article would have a footnote to explain the inclusion of U.S. territories, the consensus was to use the geographical sense of the United States for a general readership in an international context. Participants in the RfC are invited to survey the summary boxes below and the discussions at the link Requests for mediation/United States. (To review tables, click "show" in column 1)
| United States District/Territory | Geographically, US national jurisdiction | US Citizens/Nationals | Estimated population | In Congress (Member of Congress) | Local self governance | US Constitution supreme law | US District Court | Presidential vote |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 District of Columbia
|
 Done
|
Done 1801 US citizenship
|
658,000 | Done 1971: Norton
|
Done 1975
|
Done Congressional Organic Act
|
Done Fed'l Dist Crt - DC
|
Done 1961 Constitutional Amendment
|
 American Samoa
|
Done
|
Done 1904 US nationals
|
57,000 (≈ 1% territorial population) | Done 1981; Amata
|
Done 1978
|
Done Territorial Constitution
|
Fed'l appointed High Ct; DC or Hi | citizenship under litigation at Supreme Court |
 Guam
|
Done
|
Done 1950 US citizenship
|
159,000 | Done 1973; Bordallo
|
Done 1972
|
Done Congressional Organic Act
|
Done Terr'l Dist Crt - GU
|
while resident in a state |
 Northern Mariana Islands
|
Done
|
Done 1986 US citizenship
|
77,000 | Done 2009; Sablan
|
Done 1978
|
Done Territorial Constitution
|
Done Fed'l Dist Crt - MP
|
while resident in a state |
 Puerto Rico
|
Done
|
Done 1952 US citizenship mutually agreed (1917 citizenship by Congressional fiat)
|
3,667,000 (≈ 90% insular territory population) | Done 1901; Pierluisi
|
Done 1948
|
Done Territorial Constitution
|
Done Fed'l Dist Crt - PR
|
while resident in a state |
 US Virgin Islands
|
Done
|
Done 1927 US citizenship
|
106,000 | Done 1973; Plaskett
|
Done 1970
|
Done Congressional Organic Act
|
Done Terr'l Dist Crt - VI
|
while resident in a state |
| uninhabited possessions | Done
|
Citizenship by blood, otherwise not decided in the courts for Palmyra Atoll | n/a | n/a | n/a | Done fundamental provisions
|
various | n/a |
| ----------- Scope --------- | ----------- USG sources --------- | ----------- Scholars --------- | ----------- USG sources -------- | ----------- Scholars --------- | ----------- Almanac --------- | ----------- Encyclopedia ---------- |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US federal republic geographic extent | Pres. Proclamation , Pres. Exec Order , GAO (1997) , State Dept. Common Core , Homeland Act | Tarr , Katz , Van Dyke | FEMA , US Customs , Immigration serv. , Education , Soc. Sec. | Sparrow , Haider-Markel , Fry | Fact Book | Britannica |
| 50 states (18 sources) | Done (5)
|
Done (3)
|
Done (5)
|
Done (3)
|
Done (1)
|
Done (1)
|
| 50 states & DC (17 sources) | Done (5)
|
Done (3)
|
Done (5)
|
Done (3)
|
Done (1)
|
1 omits DC & terr & poss |
| 50 states, DC, & 5 terr. (16 sources) | Done (5) "contiguous territory", "geographical sense", "within framework", US "definition" includes territories & possessions to define the US homeland
|
Done (3) "encompasses", "composed", "a part of" the US
|
Done (5) two define “United States” with, two enumerate 5 major territories, one included 5 major territories equally as a “state” for purposes of the law
|
Done (3) “includes”, “officially a part of”, "US fed'l system”
|
1 omits insular terr & poss | 1 omits DC & terr & poss |
| 50 states, DC, terr. & poss. (8 sources) | Done (5)
|
Done (3)
|
5 USG sources omit possessions | 3 omit possessions | 1 omits insular terr & poss | 1 omits DC & terr & poss |
| Mediation sources deliberation | The mediation consensus was arrived at not only by a numerical count of sources, but also taking into consideration geographical extent as national jurisdiction, territory formally claimed internationally, homeland security and definitions of the "United States" found in law, proclamation and international reports.
The “United States" defined in a geographic sense is, "any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any possession…” Homeland Security Public Law 107-296 Sec.2.(16)(A), Presidential Proclamation of national jurisdiction , US State Department Common Core report to United Nations Human Rights Committee |
|---|
which map should we use?
|
|
which map should we use? there was a disagreement between me Dannis243 and Dhtwiki about the map so i want to create a new clear consensus on this Dannis243 (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
.svg)
- Of the two offered, A is superior, as you can actually see elements like Hawaii and the Alaska panhandle in thumbnail, and the Aleutians at all. (Though I note Puerto Rico is not colored in the maps...) --Golbez (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Of the two offered, A is superior, as over 99% of the US population is mapped. (Though another source might supply color for Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands.) NOAA presents an alternative global perspective showing the US land and water extent for states, CD, territories and possessions. See discussion at Exclusive Economic Zone online. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- "Of the two offered, A is superior, as over 99% of the US population is mapped." Pretty sure B does the same thing... what added percentages of the US population are missing in B? --Golbez (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Neither. We should have one map showing the bulk of the country as we do with France etc. We should also have one that shows the entire country, which neither does. TFD (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- A better shows Alaska and Hawaii. It makes sense to have a map of the 50 states and another of the states + territories/possessions, and I believe the first map works for the 50 states. Dustin (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Between the two, A seems clearer. However, a version of A that adds shading to the visible territories of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands would be better still. ╠╣uw 09:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Dustin, it does not make sense because it draws an arbitrary distinction between states and territories. TFD (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Version B is continental US only, without island Hawaii or insular territories. Puerto Rico now falls legally within the US customs borders (Reconsidering the Insular Cases Gerald L. Neuman. Harvard U. Pr. 2015), perhaps the publisher will soon add Puerto Rico.
- We can await the publisher while using Version A in the meantime, or use the NOAA map an alternative global perspective rotated so as to show the US land and water extent for states, DC, territories and possessions. See discussion at Exclusive Economic Zone online. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Version B includes Hawaii and the Caribbean parts of the U.S, while excluding parts of the U.S. to the east of Hawaii. Why are they are not highlighted in the map? What reason do you have to exclude insular territories from the map? Why does Version A for example not highlight PR and USVI? In what way is Hawaii different from Guam? TFD (talk) 06:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Good points TFD, lets upload the NOAA map an alternative global perspective with the globe rotated so as to show the US land and water extent for states, DC, territories and possessions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- If the intention is to use that EEZ map (or a similar projection) as the US article's main infobox map, I'm afraid I see a number of problems with that. First, it shifts the continental US off entirely into the upper right corner which I don't think is suitable given what an overwhelming portion of the nation it represents, and results in a map centered on mostly empty ocean. Further, the land area in some of the remote Pacific territories is so minuscule that it'd scarcely be discernible anyway, even if shaded green as in versions A and B (and as is the standard for most of our comparable nation maps). The red-line sea-border outlines are also IMHO inadvisable and inconsistent with the maps we use for most other nations.
- Though I entirely support and agree with making it clear in the article that the territories are part of the US, I'm not convinced it's a good idea to use a projection that strains to include every island at the cost of moving the overwhelming bulk of the nation to the side. I would suggest retaining A's continent-centered projection and shading the visible territories of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, perhaps accompanied by a note indicating that not all US possessions are shown in that view. ╠╣uw 17:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Good points TFD, lets upload the NOAA map an alternative global perspective with the globe rotated so as to show the US land and water extent for states, DC, territories and possessions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
We could use a two map selection as is done for similar articles with the first focusing on the 48 states & DC and the second map showing the entire country. See the maps for France. One shows metropolitan France in a map of Europe, while the second shows all of France in a map of the world. TFD (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support a two-map version, with the EEZ dataset as map#1of2; that pretty closely represents the U.S. as a superpower (ideally it would be a different map projection so as to permit the lower 48 to be in the center of the image ... I suggest either transverse Mercator projection or maybe the Dymaxion-and-friends many of which are homebrew-American-inventions). Even more ideally, should use dots to indicate airbases (dot-size determined as 50% of the range of non-midair-refueled jets at said airbase), to indicate not just economic superpower status, but also military superpower status; suggest green lines to indicate economic footprint, red dots to indicate military footprint. For map#2of2, something like "Version A" which shows all 50 states (plus Puerto Rico), but preferably add in the green-economic-lines (shown in the EEZ map only at the moment) and the red-airbase-dots (hypothetical at the moment). p.s. I would also support a three-map-solution, with map#1of3 and map#2of3 being the same as in the two-map solution I just outlined, and map#3of3 being the lower 48 only, with the biggest 25 of the ~170 total commuter-centers legibly named (green borders for cash-power), plus major military facilities also noted (red dots for fire-power). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Let's not. --Golbez (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- So, from your comment above I know that you like version_A better than version_B, because the fine details are more visible. And you WP:IDONTLIKEIT my suggestion ... what specifically? Are you against anything but version_A? Against any form of two-map solution? Against some specific map I suggested, or some specific projection, or some specific feature-illustration? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- From my comment above you can know that I hate the idea of including military facilities on the map, it just didn't seem necessary to explain that. --Golbez (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Nope, definitely necessary. Honestly didn't catch your drift from the two-word answer. But since nobody else seems interested by the military-airspace-footprint-idea, seems I will have to await another bangvote, for that one to fly. Pun intended. :-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- From my comment above you can know that I hate the idea of including military facilities on the map, it just didn't seem necessary to explain that. --Golbez (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- So, from your comment above I know that you like version_A better than version_B, because the fine details are more visible. And you WP:IDONTLIKEIT my suggestion ... what specifically? Are you against anything but version_A? Against any form of two-map solution? Against some specific map I suggested, or some specific projection, or some specific feature-illustration? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Alternative maps showing insular territories for #2 map:
US territorial waters, Exclusive Economic Zone internationally recognized by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 
United States and its insular areas
- Let's not. --Golbez (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I like this one, showing all 50 states with labelling of major cities.
SantiagoFrancoRamos (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately that won't work because some people here have determined that the United States includes the territories, so anything omitting them can't be used. Someone should inform the United Nations that they are, in fact, wrong. Misplaced Pages has solved it. --Golbez (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- The UN is correct in its Exclusive Economic Zones under its Convention on the Law of the Sea. Fortunately, Misplaced Pages reports three territories in France and three territories in the US found in the UN list of non-self-governing places as a part of each nation's geographic extent, so as to include those territories claimed by each nation to the United Nations. WP should display a map of the US Exclusive Economic Zone as internationally recognized. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- We can always have our cake and eat it too: why not use one coloration for outlining the economic-zone of the 50 states (plus DC), another coloration for territorial econ-zones, and a third coloration for the econ-zones of the not-fully-agreed-upon territorial claims. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- The UN is correct in its Exclusive Economic Zones under its Convention on the Law of the Sea. Fortunately, Misplaced Pages reports three territories in France and three territories in the US found in the UN list of non-self-governing places as a part of each nation's geographic extent, so as to include those territories claimed by each nation to the United Nations. WP should display a map of the US Exclusive Economic Zone as internationally recognized. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Version A - For the reasons given (any preferences at all shown for Version B?, even though, by the article edit history, some people prefer it). Also, I don't see the advantage of the other maps introduced (needless to say the confusion they might inject into this debate). The infobox map really just needs to say that this country is here in relation to the rest of the world; it doesn't need to be too comprehensive. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
| Infobox mockup: maps @ 220px | |
|---|---|
| The contiguous United States plus Alaska and Hawaii in green | |
 US Economic Exclusion Zone (EEZ): states, territories and possessions in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea |
- Version A So far we have 5-1 for A as superior, Golbez, Dustin, Huw, Dhtwiki, and TVH. Dannis243 suggesting B? and two alternate map suggestions for the first map. I suggest calling 5-1 a consensus for Map A as the lead locator map.
- Version A I do not see that much of a difference between versions A and B, so I would rather simply stick with the status quo. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- TFD notes France has a global locator map for metropolitan France with 99% of its population without territories (comparable to our Map A for the US), and a second map shows “all of France in a map of the world”, including the three French territories on the UN non-self-governing list. The second map should be the US map of its EEZ which includes states, territories and possessions claimed by the US in the State Department Core Report to the UN, — either the version already at Wikimedia Commons above, or perhaps we should upload , or link to the interactive photographic map at . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I agree that we have 6-1 local consensus that version_A is superior to version_B, but that is not the same that as "consensus version_A is superior" without qualification. I like the idea of *some* kind of EEZ map (one of the three or four EEZ variants suggested so far) being used in a two-map solution. I would also support the use of some EEZ variant, as a one-map solution that acts as a replacement for the wiki-traditional version_A. The advantage to version_A is that it is very simple, and gives you the location of the main landmass of the USA, relative to other landmasses.
- The main disadvantage to version_A is that is all it gives. The EEZ map also, obviously, gives the reader the same tidbit of information, the relative position of the main USA landmass relative to other places... but in addition, it gives more information. The EEZ map is more complex, but the complexity is justified, because it provides more information to the reader. We need to strike a balance between too-cluttered-to-understand, versus too-simple-to-be-really-useful. How many people, in our readership, need to be reminded that the main landmass of the USA is located in the continent of North America (not named), and that South America (also not named) is to the south, and that there are nameless oceans to the west and east? That is the informative-content of version_A. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Remember that the infobox map should also be clear at the standard thumbnail size of about 250 pixels, which I suspect is why such maps for most other nations omit text labels and are kept extremely simple. ╠╣uw 09:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- I've supplied a mockup of the info box with maps only at 220px.
- Remember that the infobox map should also be clear at the standard thumbnail size of about 250 pixels, which I suspect is why such maps for most other nations omit text labels and are kept extremely simple. ╠╣uw 09:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Map of the US EEZ omits US claimed Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo Bank which are disputed.
- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks TVH, definitely like the 220px_EEZ_map, as more informative than the 220px_version_A map immediately above it. Almost everybody knows where the continents are already, and most people know Alaska and Hawaii, but the additional blue-zones around the territories is encyclopedically-interesting-additional-info that only the EEZ map offers. Of course, one could always add the bluezones to the version_A-style of map, with a 3D projection... one downside to the particular 220px_EEZ_map shown immediately to the right, is that it somewhat distorts the relative size of Alaska. There are also other map-projection-options, besides the two pictured here, which could be bluezoned. Anyways, I do think the bluezone EEZ data adds something worth keeping. Ping User:TheVirginiaHistorian, can you label your maximally-preferred EEZ-style map "version C" so that folks can bangvote in favor of it please? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- The US EEZ map now labelled Version C is currently in use at United States#Political divisions to highlight states, territories and possessions. But you hold out the chance at creating a new blue zoned map on another projection, and that sounds interesting. Ping ] TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks TVH, definitely like the 220px_EEZ_map, as more informative than the 220px_version_A map immediately above it. Almost everybody knows where the continents are already, and most people know Alaska and Hawaii, but the additional blue-zones around the territories is encyclopedically-interesting-additional-info that only the EEZ map offers. Of course, one could always add the bluezones to the version_A-style of map, with a 3D projection... one downside to the particular 220px_EEZ_map shown immediately to the right, is that it somewhat distorts the relative size of Alaska. There are also other map-projection-options, besides the two pictured here, which could be bluezoned. Anyways, I do think the bluezone EEZ data adds something worth keeping. Ping User:TheVirginiaHistorian, can you label your maximally-preferred EEZ-style map "version C" so that folks can bangvote in favor of it please? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Just a note to mention that the article currently uses an SVG image
that may or may not be the same information as the PNG and the PNG file cannot be edited, while the SVG file can.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Version A - If I have to choose between A and B. Some suggestions : (a) Add a note below this map that territories are not included and point to the map that includes them. (b) Close this discussion and open another one about including territories into countries maps (not just for this article but in general). Gpeja (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Version A - Looking closely between A & B - A seems to include more green parts as well as grey parts so personally I'd say A is a better choice here. –Davey2010 00:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Article clean up
Much of the content in this article strays from the topic of the United States. The article should be limited to the Unites States as a political and geographic entity. It should not go into great detail about history, political parties, crime, and several other off-topic issues. In almost all cases there are separate articles to discuss any historical, economic, sociological, demographic and other topics. Sections for these topics should include only a paragraph or two summary following the main, details or see also templates. Also, the lede is too long.Phmoreno (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- That's not the policy taken at any other country's article; I see no reason it should be the case here. Better to err by providing the reader too much information than too little. Rwenonah (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Regardless of what other country articles say, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a book. And most importantly, this is not an appropriate place for political and social commentary. I would rate this article as low quality for style and content. No doubt some other country articles deserve the same low rating, but let us focus on improving this one.Phmoreno (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- You haven't presented any reason not to include "historical, economic, sociological, demographic and other topics" in detail, or presented any evidence other than your opinion that the article is less effective as a result. Any understanding of the US (or any country) as a "political and geographic entity" will inevitably be impaired if readers are not provided with the historical, economic, sociological and demographic context. Misplaced Pages's strength compared to conventional paper encyclopedias is that it isn't bound by the space constraints enforced by books. Statistics have shown that readers are significantly less likely to look beyond an initial article for information by clicking on links; by not providing information in a widely-searched-for article like this one, we impair their ability to get information and thus their understanding of the topic they searched for, directly in contradiction of Misplaced Pages's goals. Your opinion of this article as "low rating" isn't justification to drastically rewrite it.Rwenonah (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Regardless of what other country articles say, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a book. And most importantly, this is not an appropriate place for political and social commentary. I would rate this article as low quality for style and content. No doubt some other country articles deserve the same low rating, but let us focus on improving this one.Phmoreno (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Some of this is amateurish garbage based on a very limited understanding of the subject matter and supported with low quality references.Phmoreno (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- If we exclude historical, economic, sociological, demographic and other topics, what should we discuss? TFD (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Exclusion is not the proposal. Quote: "Sections for these topics should include only a paragraph or two summary." In other words, instead of spending, at this point in mainspace, ~850 words in the population-subsection of United_States#Demographics, followed by a medium chunk of text about languages, a big chunk about religions, and a relatively-small chunk about family structures (itself ~238 words), we should be able to condense that *entire* demographics section down into a two-paragraph-summary of the demographics-related material. Here's a shot at cutting the first big chunk down to size: "The population is over 320m today, up from 75m circa 1900, and is still growing relatively quickly." "37 ancestry groups have more than one million members: 13% African American, 5% Asian, 1% American Indian and Alaska Native, and 2% multiracial. (Orthogonally, 17% identify as Hispanic/Latino.)" "Something about racial-percentage trends." "Something about immigration patterns, maybe just a wikilink." "Two sentences on sexuality and family structure, respectively." "Two sentences about major cities and percent urbanization and such." That's under 100 words, but includes some handwaving; it would probably still be under 200 words once fleshed out, and once wikilinked, it decently summarizes the topic of United_States#Population (that currently burns up 850 words).
- That is what Phmoreno is proposing, as I understand it: slash the verbiage, and just wikilink to the main articles, for the small slice of the readership that wants all the details, such as the exact number of millions of people in the United States with "exclusively native Hawaiian or Pacific island ancestry". It's 0.5 million, mainspace currently claims. But who is checking that summarized-figure stays up to date? Who comes to the United States article seeking that particular factoid, is also worth asking? We give that factoid in the subsidiary article, Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity, and *there* we say the exact figure is either 481,576 or maybe 540,013 ... with roughly 58,437 of those (we don't say which estimate is "those" unfortunately) identifying as Hispanic/Latino. I'm reasonably certain somebody is keeping up with *that* exacting census-data. I'm not sure the parenthetical 0.5m factoid-estimate at United States is getting anywhere near the same amount of scrutiny. Better to send the readership to the dedicated article, where they can see the exact figures (and the conflicting sources!) for themselves; rather than have it here in this article, just link to the article that properly covers the datasets in question. It is not just a question of whether this article is too long to be read comfortably, it is a question of whether this article is too overly-detailed to be reliably maintained. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- There is notability to the content about the Hawaiian population and a good amount of readers may well be coming here for basic information in regards to the US State Department's recent declaration and it's actual efforts to regain a government to government relationship to the nation of Hawaii. Of all the states, Hawaii is still considered a stand alone nation, even among the US government officials. The content seems relevant to that section to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing the wiki-notability of the government of Hawaii (either the state-of-the-union government or the quasi-independent-royalty-one), nor the population-demographics of Hawaii, I'm arguing that we don't need excruciating detail in this top-level article. Broad strokes for the top-level article, not pointillism. I picked the 0.5 million-exclusively-native-Hawaiian-or-Pacific-island-ancestry number on purpose as an excruciating level detail inappropriate for a toplevel article. Here is the full sentence mainspace has: "In 2010, the U.S. population included an estimated 5.2 million people with some American Indian or Alaska Native ancestry (2.9 million exclusively of such ancestry) and 1.2 million with some native Hawaiian or Pacific island ancestry (0.5 million exclusively)." I'm suggesting that the particular factoid at the end, the parenthetical "...(0.5 million exclusively)" factoid, is excruciatingly detailed. There are 1.2 million Hawaiian-or-other-islander people, so presumably they'd make the cut at getting a mention in the list. But of the 37 ancestry groups with more than a million members, we don't need to list them all, in the top-level article; the exact percentages of German-stock-population, et cetera, are not something that the usual encyclopedias will cover the the thousandth decimal place. You are suggesting that Hawaii is important, and deserves at *least* as much coverage as we already give it in mainspace at the United States top-level article, right? So you want to mention the 1.2 million figure mixed figure, and also the 0.5 million pure figure. But why stop there? We could actually mention what percentage of that 0.5 million is directly descended from specific famous families, and mention notable members of those families. We could do the same for all the other states in the United States, mentioning all the wiki-notable people and families that make up the population of those states, because what is the United States, but the sum of all her citizens? But then the article would be a hundred times longer than it already is, and it would contain duplicative content, that better belongs in subsidiary articles, and is not helpful in the toplevel article. You have to draw the line somewhere. Currently, the article draws the line at 850 words on population-demographics, including the 1.2-million-but-also-0.5-million bit about Hawaiian-and-other-islander ancestry (we need both numeric factoids?), the recent growth of San Bernardino (and four other cities?), the average number of of children per woman in the 1800s (a good statistic for a toplevel article but do we really need that factoid to a precision of two decimal places?) ... and a bunch of other stuff. We have lost sight of the forest, for all the undergrowth. The suggestion that we cut the verbiage by half, is a suggestion that we cut out the details that are better and more accurately left to subsidiary articles, rather than maintaining them imprecisely, twice. p.s. Technically, WP:OR strongly suggests Alaska is more-standalone than Hawaii, no matter what "many" politicians say; Alaska has more oil, and more assault-rifles-per-citizen, than Hawaii. ;-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- There is notability to the content about the Hawaiian population and a good amount of readers may well be coming here for basic information in regards to the US State Department's recent declaration and it's actual efforts to regain a government to government relationship to the nation of Hawaii. Of all the states, Hawaii is still considered a stand alone nation, even among the US government officials. The content seems relevant to that section to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Statistics are less likely to be updated on a much less high-profile, less edited article like Demographics of the United States, meaning that the problem you mention is just begin shifted off to another article where it is less likely to be solved. There's no objective reason an 850-word section is worse than a 100-word one. In fact, given that most readers don't click links, it's better that we provide more detail in the main article than less. Misplaced Pages isn't a paper encyclopedia limited by page space; as long as the article is fluid, readable and easy to navigate, we should include as much detail as possible, rather than removing things for the sake of removing things. When we cut detail, we aren't "sending readers to the dedicated article"; we're effectively denying them information for the sake of unnecessary brevity. Rwenonah (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree that having two sets of statistics, in two places (at least!), is somehow making both sets more likely to be updated, and more likely to stay in sync. Having one set of detailed statistics, and on overview-which-elides-most-details, is the correct way to achieve one reliable set of statistics: put all your eggs in one basket, and then Watch That Basket, is what I'm advocating doing. The reason that readers don't click into another article, is because they believe what they see in this article. But as Phmoreno ... albeit with a rather pointed lack of tact unfortunately ... was pointing out, the problem is that this top-level article has Too Much Information to be completely accurate, the sheer bulk means *some* small bit of it is going to be outdated, at any given time. There are 331,360 bytes of wikitext at present; even if only 0.01% of that is wrong, we're still talking 33 bytes of inaccuracy, aka six wrong words. Whereas for my own argument, per my reply to MarkMiller above, I'm pointing out that this article has too much *excruciating detail* to be completely accurate. Specifically, when we give the rounded mini-factoid "...(0.5 million exclusively)" we are glossing over the *actual* status of that figure -- one source estimates 480k and another source estimates 530k, if memory serves. Sure, those both round to 0.5 million ... but doing the rounding, and conflating the two sources together, to cram the factoid into this already-bloated toplevel article, means that readers don't get informed of the fact that the sources are not in agreement with each other... and their disagreement is fairly significant, tens of thousands of people, is the differential. Anyways, significant pruning like what is being proposed here needs strong consensus, and from the look of EllenCT's push to add more and more details, and other bits of this talkpage, the article is likely to grow even more gigatic than ever in the near term, rather than experience the drastic verbosity-lossage I'm advocating. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Statistics are less likely to be updated on a much less high-profile, less edited article like Demographics of the United States, meaning that the problem you mention is just begin shifted off to another article where it is less likely to be solved. There's no objective reason an 850-word section is worse than a 100-word one. In fact, given that most readers don't click links, it's better that we provide more detail in the main article than less. Misplaced Pages isn't a paper encyclopedia limited by page space; as long as the article is fluid, readable and easy to navigate, we should include as much detail as possible, rather than removing things for the sake of removing things. When we cut detail, we aren't "sending readers to the dedicated article"; we're effectively denying them information for the sake of unnecessary brevity. Rwenonah (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Geography of the United States
I see that the lede of our Geography of the United States article defines the geographical United States as "the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands". In light of the main United States article's lede now defining the US as including "five major territories and various possessions", this seems inconsistent. Shall we amend the wording in the geography lede to jibe with the wording in the main article? ╠╣uw 10:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Done with three references in the note and discussion at Talk. The previous narrative was a misreading of the State Department FAM historical section which omitted the Northern Mariana Islands included as of 1978. The article Contiguous United States already had states, territories and possessions mentioned as had Territories of the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, THV. I've made a couple of further small tweaks as well. When time permits I'll pore through the rest of the article and identify other areas that might need similar attention. ╠╣uw 14:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
further inconsistencies
- The footnote in the intro includes Seranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo Bank; these are not shown on the map.
- Since the populated territories have been determined by this community to be "judicially incorporated" the territories map needs to be updated to mark them all as incorporated.
- The article mentions acquiring the Philippines but doesn't mention when this notable territory gained independence. That should be fixed.
- "The southern tip of Florida is tropical, as is Hawaii." Are any of the territories tropical? Like Puerto Rico? If so it should be mentioned here, since we're being specific over which states (or even portions of states) are tropical.
- Why include the anachronistic "state" map in "political divisions"? It's ignoring at least a full 1% of the population. --Golbez (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- We should use sources for maps which are readily available from published sources without copyright; those maps reviewed to date do not meet your specific interest in Seranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo Bank, perhaps because their status is disputed, but the US claim is worth a footnote as overwhelming mediation and RfC consensus allows.
- If sourced maps disagree with sourced data then we need a footnote explaining this discrepancy. --Golbez (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Territories remain ambiguously both judicially "unincorporated" in the US, and politically "within" the geographical extent of its constitutional framework as sourced; it's a federal republic of three branches and multiple agencies; there is no unitary standard enforced across all published databases.
- "Scholars note that the racist Court of Jim Crow invented the term “unincorporated” by judicial fiat to allow imperial governance of indigenous peoples without the protections of the Constitution except as future Congresses might allow." Why are we pandering to racism by continuing the supposed judicial fiction that the territories are unincorporated? --Golbez (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Some bold editor is bound take it upon himself to note when the Philippines gained independence sooner or later without impacting readability.
- Florida is part tropical, Alaska is part arctic -- probably too much detail for this summary article except to generally note the country's climate variety.
- So prune it. Otherwise the territories are being unfairly omitted. Don't you care about islanders? --Golbez (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- The "state" map in "political divisions" is useful for the general reader for internal purposes such as locating place names for presidential elections or Senate representation, rather like admitting the geographic extent of the United States including territories is useful to the general reader in an international context. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- They can go to the list of US states for that; the map here should include the whole country, not just those areas relevant for elections. Also, I don't really see the point of the statehood chart. --Golbez (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- We should use sources for maps which are readily available from published sources without copyright; those maps reviewed to date do not meet your specific interest in Seranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo Bank, perhaps because their status is disputed, but the US claim is worth a footnote as overwhelming mediation and RfC consensus allows.
- Agree with Golbez. And there are no "unincorporated" territories, since the overturn of the insular cases by federal court decisions. The
independencesecession of the Philippines is surely significant since the U.S. lost 1/10 of its population, similar to when Ireland became independent of the UK. TFD (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with Golbez. And there are no "unincorporated" territories, since the overturn of the insular cases by federal court decisions. The
- Golbez: It'd be good for territories to have a mention in the geographic and climate summaries along with the other regions. Since I've already started looking at some adjustments of that nature for the geography page (and plan to look at the climate page next) I'd be happy to make that addition.
- As for things like the map in the political divisions section, I'd be fine with a new one that adds territories, but I'm also fine with the current map as-is. As I see it, just because we recognize territories as part of the US doesn't somehow mean that we must never again use a map of the states. ╠╣uw 20:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Please do, and soon; the article is internally inconsistent, which is going to confuse our readers. And some here would say it's discriminatory to islanders to give an image of the United States that lacks them. It would be like showing a picture of the UK with Northern Ireland omitted, or Australia with a gap where the Northern Territory is. --Golbez (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Interestingly, the US political map referenced, "USA midsize imagemap with state names", also lacks mapping for the tribal areas mentioned in the political divisions narrative. Further, Hawaii and Alaska are not to scale and not properly located. The presentation is however, an often found convention, even though it has been proven to confuse some students into believing Alaska is south of California and adjacent to Hawaii. If there were a reasonable objection and a viable alternative, perhaps a consensus can be developed as seems to have come about for the info box orthographic map.
- Wherever sourced narrative disagrees with sourced maps, a footnote can explain discrepancies which arise in a federal republic with databases generated by three branches and multiple independent agencies. The existing consensus seems to find the map useful, but I would have no objection to another map on whatever grounds seemed to them to be reasonably sourced based on the Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith among editors participating in the new consensus. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- I do not think an often used convention should make us discriminate against islanders. Your first map seems best, but it does not include American Samoa and draws an arbitrary distinction between islanders using now overturned and discredited insular cases' incorporation theory. (See the different borders used for islanders' islands, as opposed to Hawaii.) TFD (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Wherever sourced narrative disagrees with sourced maps, a footnote can explain discrepancies which arise in a federal republic with databases generated by three branches and multiple independent agencies. The existing consensus seems to find the map useful, but I would have no objection to another map on whatever grounds seemed to them to be reasonably sourced based on the Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith among editors participating in the new consensus. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Map of the US EEZ omits US claimed Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo Bank which are disputed.
- Mock-up maps for the Political divisions section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- The yellow markings on the left-hand map signify inclusion in some humorous segment of The Colbert Report TV show. The animation of the middle map - how much slower will the page be to load if we have this, assuming these maps are candidates for inclusion and aren't already part of the article? Dhtwiki (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Mock-up maps for the Political divisions section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Something akin to the first map (but with an additional inset for American Samoa) seems best to me.
- Wherever consensus ultimately points, it's probably worth taking some cues from the exemplar maps at the Maps WikiProject. As a matter of fact, if we can agree on roughly what we're looking for in a US map, someone there could probably make a new, custom one just for the article. ╠╣uw 19:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- I've changed out the maps per Dhtwiki, substituting EEZ map and Electoral College map. Three maps with different political divisions to replace the existing one political map of states only. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- I've uploaded the Census 113th Congressional District wall map with includes 50 states, DC and five territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is that existing maps draw a distinction between the 50 states and DC, and the territories. Their reasoning is that only the first are part of the U.S., while the territories (with the possible exception of Palmyra) are possessions of the U.S. We however have accepted the argument that the U.S. does not and cannot have possessions, that every area under its jurisdiction is equally part of the U.S. So our maps need to show that. If we are to have one map, it must show the entire country, which requires basically a world map. We should also have one map showing where the bulk of the U.S. is, which means the lower 48 states and D.C. This map shows a possible area to use: it includes the 48 states, D.C., Puerto Rico and the other Caribbean parts of the U.S., while excluding the distant areas of Alaska and the islands in the Pacific. TFD (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- There is no such reasoning in the maps making distinctions of constitutional status, not in the US Economic Exclusion Zone, nor in the Congressional Districts. There is no assumption that the US cannot have possessions. Continuing efforts to exclude Pacific islanders altogether in the "US of 48 states and Caribbean" map is misplaced. The discussion has moved on. See “Political divisions edit” below. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Map three has thin borders around Hawaii and Alaska, and thick borders around the Pacific and Caribbean territories. Why do you think that different borders should be used? Also, the concept that the U.S. cannot have possessions is the reason why we know that territories cannot be possessions. TFD (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- There is no such reasoning in the maps making distinctions of constitutional status, not in the US Economic Exclusion Zone, nor in the Congressional Districts. There is no assumption that the US cannot have possessions. Continuing efforts to exclude Pacific islanders altogether in the "US of 48 states and Caribbean" map is misplaced. The discussion has moved on. See “Political divisions edit” below. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- We use reliable published sources available and follow their conventions in mapping and in terminology. Thick borders on the Census map show a different scale from the center map. The source agreed to (22) by a) super majority in the mediation and b) super majority in the RfC, refers to the US as “states, territories and possessions”. So we are bound by the existing consensus to use the adopted conventions based on reliable sources, because WP is collaborative.
- Residents of territories take pride in their self-determined elective self governance within the US constitutional framework which is has not historically been available to US “possessions” under military rule, military courts and representation in a territorial legislature partially appointed by the US president. But we in the mediation and in the RfC have agreed to address the geographic extent of the US, and not split hairs over constitutional status — as the country article is meant for a general reader, not as arcane legal treatise.
- In any case, we should use conventions of terminology established in consensus-adopted references, rather than unsourced editor speculation. Why do you ask? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2015
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The type of governement for the US is A Federal Republic or Constitution based Federal Republic. This article also states that. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2128.html Rklesla (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Infobox already says Federal presidential constitutional republic. The very first sentence of the lede says "The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic". What are you requesting be changed? Cannolis (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Political divisions edit
As suggested by others above, removed mirror of List of states and territories of the United States map and statehood chart — which is already linked in the Main article hat note to the section Political divisions, and added national maps, including the two (EEZ and CD) recently uploaded from government sources:
- Map of the US EEZ omits US claimed Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo Bank which are disputed.
TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- The three maps together force my screen into horizontal scroll mode. The second map conveys relatively little information. The third map is useless as a thumbnail and is a very slow to load PDF, rather than PNG or SVG. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see the point in including the middle map. --Golbez (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- The second, middle map conveys the political importance of the state political divisions showing their relative influence by population. The third map illustrates the territorial representation within the US as a federal republic. The source offers GIF and PDF, is there a wizard app to reformat? The triptych can be made smaller. The "Political divisions” section should be copy edited to read as follows (maintaining existing links), removing excessive detail concerning state history belonging to another section and that relating to the territories belonging in the subsidiary article:
The United States is a federal republic of 50 states, a federal district, five territories and eleven uninhabited island possessions. The states and territories are the principal administrative districts in the country. These are divided into subdivisions of counties and independent cities. The District of Columbia is a federal district which contains the capital of the United States, Washington DC. The states and the District of Columbia choose the President of the United States. Each state has presidential electors equal to the number of their Representatives and Senators in Congress, DC has three.
Congressional Districts are reapportioned among the states following each decennial Census of Population. Each state then draws single member districts to conform with the census apportionment. The total number of Representatives is 435, and delegate Members of Congress represent the District of Columbia and the five major US territories.
The United States also observes tribal sovereignty of the Native American nations. Though reservations are within state borders, the reservation is a sovereign entity. While the United States recognizes this sovereignty, other countries may not.
- Map of the US EEZ omits US claimed Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo Bank which are disputed.
The second, middle map conveys the political importance of the state political divisions showing their relative influence by population.
Not really, because the sparsely populated states have disproportionate influence in the Senate with regard to population; and that map doesn't separate Senate from population-determined House membership. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)- The political character of the states is expressed in the Electoral College related to their population in a meaningful way though the extreme outliers are moderated. The ranked order of states in the Electoral College is the same as the ranked order of states in the House of Representatives and by and large the same as population ranking. The ratios in the Senate (all equal at ratios of 1:1) do not pertain to the Electoral College at all. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Dhtwiki: I uploaded a .gif file for the Congressional Districts ... it is advertised as smaller. Does it upload quicker? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, much quicker, dazzlingly quick; but at highest resolution the legend is still too small to be comprehensible. It would make little sense to have that map unless it can be read. Also, the middle map still seems unnecessary, because it doesn't show anything graphically that wouldn't be just as well, or better, expressed in a table. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Posting the one map without objection makes for a much more compact section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, much quicker, dazzlingly quick; but at highest resolution the legend is still too small to be comprehensible. It would make little sense to have that map unless it can be read. Also, the middle map still seems unnecessary, because it doesn't show anything graphically that wouldn't be just as well, or better, expressed in a table. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Are you listing the states? If not, why are we listing the inhabited territories? --Golbez (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- We probably need not; proposal copy edited. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Are you listing the states? If not, why are we listing the inhabited territories? --Golbez (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- "The United States is a federal republic of states, territories..." "The United States also possesses five major insular territories" First of all, not sure we need to repeat that they're insular; the word already appears three times in the article. All of the present territories are insular, we don't need that adjective every time. Second of all, if the country includes territories, how can it also possess them? No one would say the United States possesses fifty states.
- "The bulk of the U.S. land mass" The last two words are unnecessary.
- The phrase "principal administrative district" seems clunky in a way I'm unable to put into words, except that the phrase doesn't really exist in any usage relating to the U.S. In fact, that whole sentence is clunky; the "along with territories" particularly sticks out.
- Hawaii's mention seems random; why does that state get a separate mention and description?
- Why is the number of states hidden until midway through the graf, after the number of inhabited territories?
- Is "Native Nations" usually capitalized such?
- Will there still be a map showing the administrative divisions of the country? Or just this EEZ map? Because we kind of need a map of the divisions in the divisions section. Even countries so complex as France and Russia have that. In fact, the section in France is particularly well put together, we would do well to emulate their example, especially since the situations are so similar (scattered country, territories without full rights, large EEZ, etc.) --Golbez (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- And I realize I above urged the removal of the "anachronistic state map"; I admit, I was trolling. shit, I've been trolling this whole time; you wanted the territories part of the country, by god you're going to get it. But. Seeing France's article made me realize that we can have multiple maps, and we don't need to include everything in one map, because that's stupid and I was stupid for urging it, so I'm sorry. --Golbez (talk) 07:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Further copy edit of proposal narrative. I'm looking at the US population density map as an alternative to the Electoral College map, it gets a two-fer by mapping states and counties/independent cities. It also enlarges with a reasonable resolution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's too bad that the new map doesn't show Alaska and Hawaii (and the territories). There are some blank maps out there such as this one. Here's an electoral college map, keyed to the last presidential election, which shows graphically what your previous map showed numerically. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- "The United States is a federal republic of 50 states, DC, five territories and eleven uninhabited island possessions." You should say 'a federal district' here instead of DC; also the paragraph is inconsistent with punctuation, it uses "DC" twice but "D.C." once. --Golbez (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's too bad that the new map doesn't show Alaska and Hawaii (and the territories). There are some blank maps out there such as this one. Here's an electoral college map, keyed to the last presidential election, which shows graphically what your previous map showed numerically. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Further copy edit of proposal narrative. I'm looking at the US population density map as an alternative to the Electoral College map, it gets a two-fer by mapping states and counties/independent cities. It also enlarges with a reasonable resolution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- No reason to distinguish between inhabited and uninhabited territories. It was originally made by TVH when he believed the uninhabited territories were not part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- There is a substantive difference, though; the uninhabited ones don't have a civilian government or representation in congress. And seeing how this is the political divisions, we should be specific about the divisions and types thereof. Of course, then the question is, ... why treat them as individual territories? Yes, to pick two random ones, Howland Island and Baker Island are both under the jurisdiction of the United States, but are they individual, notable polities of their own, with notably separate jurisdictions and governing policies that warrants mention? Or are they simply two of many minor, uninhabited or almost uninhabited islands that the U.S. has jurisdiction over? To list them individually feels like listing the Florida Keys or Channel Islands individually, or the counties of the country, or listing what the independent cities are. Perhaps we should simply use the grouping "United States Minor Outlying Islands" and not attempt to afford them more status than they actually have. Am I making sense? I feel like I've rambled a bit here. --Golbez (talk) 03:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- The distinction between the five major (inhabited) and eleven minor (uninhabited) territories of the United States has been maintained on these pages for a two and a half years since the GAO 1997 report on U.S. Insular Areas was introduced for editors to access together in our collaborative good faith efforts.
- I note that at France#Administrative divisions, that article enumerates inhabited insular territory represented in its National Assembly.
- Copy edit proposal using DC consistently.
- I really like the 2012 Electoral vote cartogram map for the Elections section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- What is the difference? TFD (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- The Electoral Vote map illustrates the results of a two party system elections, rather than nonpartisanly portraying political divisions of states, counties and independent cities -- which can be distinguished in the Population density map. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- What is the difference? TFD (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Any objection if I make some inquiries at the Maps WikiProject? I'd be interested to know what the experts there could come up with... ╠╣uw 09:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- No objections at all at casting a wider net, I find the categories at Wikicommons somewhat like the wild west. Sometimes google searches come up with results on Wikicommons from search terms that the Wikicommons searches do not find. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Any objection if I make some inquiries at the Maps WikiProject? I'd be interested to know what the experts there could come up with... ╠╣uw 09:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Please remove the photo of the burning World Trade Center towers
The original twin towers stood for over a quarter of a century, but are depicted here only in their final moments as macabre charnel houses of mass murder -- a photographic monument to murderous Arab/Muslim supremacists. We don't post photos of the bodies of murder victims on other nation's Wiki pages, so why do we let anti-American vandals deface this page with such an incredibly disrespectful and insensitive crime scene photo? Please relegate photos of 9/11 to the U.S. history, 9/11, and World Trade Center-specific Wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.185.50 (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Agree. Most historic sections once had two illustrations, but the consensus was that two images per historical era was too much clutter. The image which illustrates the ongoing preponderance of American urban life is a skyscraper which is not aflame. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree too. A picture that depicts twin towers in their former glory would look much better than a picture of its final moments. However, if there's consensus to not to include two images in historic sections it'd be better to simply retain the image of One World Trade Center. -- Chamith (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree, at least with the OP's reasoning, and certainly with the tone. I don't think that placing the photo was an act of anti-American vandalism. We don't suppress photos of the Pearl Harbor attack or of the Kennedy assassination (just the moment of his most grievous wounding). Photos of the old World Trade Center burning are iconic, and encapsulate what those buildings have come to signify. We don't have to have that photo, if enough people find it disturbing, but the characterization of its inclusion here is over the top. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Rebuttal - A quick perusal of the uncurated videos of the World Trade Center attacks on YouTube shows that the comments are rife with anti-Americanism, 9/11 "Truthism", and other examples of hate speech, bigotry, and idiocracy. This, in fact, is a true representation of the response of the average world citizen when he sees images of the World Trade Center attacks. I'm not advocating censorship, but being classy. There are countless Wiki pages devoted to 9/11 and the World Trade Center attacks. By all means, include photos of the World Trade Center attacks there, but not on the United States landing page. Anonymous (talk) 24 August 2015
- From to my experience, the response of the average world citizen was sympathetic. I don't know where you found it to be otherwise without it's being promptly denounced, but you shouldn't read that into why that rather demure picture was placed. We usually rate a picture's unsuitability by its explicit depiction of horror not by what we can imagine is going on, as you seem to be doing further down (because you went out of your way to satisfy your curiosity?). There's a possibly related discussion at WP Village Pump (policy) on placing images apt that are to trigger unpleasant emotions. It might be of interest here. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Rebuttal - A quick perusal of the uncurated videos of the World Trade Center attacks on YouTube shows that the comments are rife with anti-Americanism, 9/11 "Truthism", and other examples of hate speech, bigotry, and idiocracy. This, in fact, is a true representation of the response of the average world citizen when he sees images of the World Trade Center attacks. I'm not advocating censorship, but being classy. There are countless Wiki pages devoted to 9/11 and the World Trade Center attacks. By all means, include photos of the World Trade Center attacks there, but not on the United States landing page. Anonymous (talk) 24 August 2015
- Disagree - The section that the image is located is about contemporary history and talks about the attack on 9/11. So showing what happen and then having the new building next to it shows that we are a strong country and can recover, and show how terror can not keep us down. Reb1981 (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree - probably one of the defining events of recent American history, especially in terms of its relations to the rest of the world. It may offend some, and it may represent a tragic and unrepresentative moment of American history, but we don't remove Holocaust or Srebrenica photos simply because people might find them offensive, or because they are tragic or fail to accurately represent everyday life in the nations in question, and there's no reason this should be different. Also, OP should know that there's no such thing as an "Arab/Muslim supremacist", and Al Qaeda certainly doesn't espouse any such ideology. Rwenonah (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Rebuttal - How apropos that you should mention the Holocaust. I, in fact, do not see any photos of the Holocaust on the Germany page, nor even of the Allies' destruction of Germany itself, but I do see a rather classy photo of Hitler. I also do not see any photos of killings of any kind on the Srebrenica page; nor of the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the Japan page; nor of starving Russians resorting to cannibalism during the Battle of Stalingrad on the Russia page; nor of Chinese being raped and murdered at the Rape of Nanking on the China page; nor of the genocide of Tutsi on the Rwanda page. It's certainly not because there's a lack of photographic documentation of these events. The issue I am bringing up is not one of censorship, but of context. Anonymous (talk) 24 August 2015
- I prefer two images for each historical era, and that would allow an image of the WTC burning, but that is not the consensus. The modern era should not have more than one, so that would exclude the WTC burning imo.
- The IP characterization is over the top, though Al Qaeda does not promote cultural diversity where it holds sway, rather it “espouses” or rather administers ethnic cleansing of non-Sunni Muslims and other nonconformist faiths in its domain. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- To the IP: all this page shows is a building with smoke coming off it. That's not even remotely graphic. Other country pages regularly show burnt or damaged buildings; the Serbia page shows a bombed-out courthouse, the Hungary and Bosnia pages bombed bridges; the Netherlands page the remnants of bombed Rotterdam. Equally, the aftermath of tragic events, such as the aftermath of the Utoya massacre on the Norway page, the aftermath of Srebrenica on the Bosnia page, or the aftermath of the Khmer Rouge killings on the Cambodia page. So other country pages clearly have no issue with including photos of tragedies; why must an American tragedy, which had a smaller impact than the massacres in Cambodia or Bosnia, be removed from the page? Rwenonah (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Not one of your examples is that of an active massacre in progress; moreover, I'd support demoting some of those photos to sub-Wikis as well, if they are in fact showing the active killing of people. What you callously regard as being a "building with smoke coming off it" and "not even remotely graphic" is me seeing thousands of souls dismembered, blown out of 90-story windows, and incinerated alive. That the enormous size of the Twin Towers relegates its trapped occupants to mere subpixels of human anguish doesn't sterilize the image. Much as that photo of a stupa on the Cambodia landing page is reminder enough of the Killing Fields, the current photo of the Freedom Tower is reminder enough of the events on 9/11. Anonymous (talk) 24 August 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.187.1 (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- We don't remove images solely because they represent tragic or bloody events; we remove them because they are graphic. This image isn't; it simply doesn't show anything anyone would find controversial if they didn't know the context. On the whole, I think this image better represents 9/11 than simply an image of a fairly generic skyscraper, so if we were to show a photo of something involving the event, this image is better. You're not protesting about the Rotterdam image, or the clear image of genocide victims on the Armenia page, or the picture of the bombing of La Moneda on the Chile page, or the images of bombed houses on the Saudi Arabia page, or the pictures of executed civilians on the North Korea page, suggests that you find this one somehow more deserving of removal than these equally (or in some cases far more) graphic images. I'm not sure why. Rwenonah (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Who is this "we"? Is this the royal "We"? I haven't bothered to visit every single one of the pages you mentioned -- there are, after all, almost two hundred countries and thousands of major cities in the world, and millions upon millions of Wiki pages. As I said, if someone has a similar problem with photos on those other national landing pages, I support their removal. I suspect someone from Armenia is going to have a much better idea about whether a particular photo of her country from one hundred years ago is going to be as offensive to living Armenians as this photo of the burning World Trade Center is to me. Let each citizen police his own country's pages. Anonymous (talk) 24 August 2015
- I completely agree with you Rwenonah it was a tragic day that no one will ever forget that was around that day. I feel having both pictures show how we triumph over evil. It was a major event in our county's history. Just like the other picture showing the landing in normandy. You know there is death in the distance.Reb1981 (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- I understand your position, but I also believe in the right to forget. It's why authorities in the U.S. try to prevent photos of murder/accident victims from making it onto the Internet (albeit not always successfully). What's drama and documentation to the average person can be searing trauma to loved ones, and the latter have spoken of not being able to use the Internet for fear of coming across such photos. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of living eyewitnesses to 9/11 along with an enormous number of bereaved. If someone wants to go actively looking for snuff images, then let them wallow in it, but someone simply looking up summary information on the United States should not be compelled to see this atrocity all over again. I have no problem with having the event mentioned in the text, with links to more detailed accounts, but photos are too eye-catching to ignore. And make no mistake, the photos of 9/11 "inspire" psychopaths around the world. The images of suffering from the first World Trade Center bombing didn't chasten the Islamists; nay, the images quickened their black hearts and inspired them to try again. It's precisely for this reason why we dumped bin Laden in the Indian Ocean and the Soviets destroyed Hitler's remains: the less inspiration for nutters and other copycat killers, the better. Anonymous (talk) 24 August 2015
- We don't remove images solely because they represent tragic or bloody events; we remove them because they are graphic. This image isn't; it simply doesn't show anything anyone would find controversial if they didn't know the context. On the whole, I think this image better represents 9/11 than simply an image of a fairly generic skyscraper, so if we were to show a photo of something involving the event, this image is better. You're not protesting about the Rotterdam image, or the clear image of genocide victims on the Armenia page, or the picture of the bombing of La Moneda on the Chile page, or the images of bombed houses on the Saudi Arabia page, or the pictures of executed civilians on the North Korea page, suggests that you find this one somehow more deserving of removal than these equally (or in some cases far more) graphic images. I'm not sure why. Rwenonah (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Not one of your examples is that of an active massacre in progress; moreover, I'd support demoting some of those photos to sub-Wikis as well, if they are in fact showing the active killing of people. What you callously regard as being a "building with smoke coming off it" and "not even remotely graphic" is me seeing thousands of souls dismembered, blown out of 90-story windows, and incinerated alive. That the enormous size of the Twin Towers relegates its trapped occupants to mere subpixels of human anguish doesn't sterilize the image. Much as that photo of a stupa on the Cambodia landing page is reminder enough of the Killing Fields, the current photo of the Freedom Tower is reminder enough of the events on 9/11. Anonymous (talk) 24 August 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.187.1 (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- To the IP: all this page shows is a building with smoke coming off it. That's not even remotely graphic. Other country pages regularly show burnt or damaged buildings; the Serbia page shows a bombed-out courthouse, the Hungary and Bosnia pages bombed bridges; the Netherlands page the remnants of bombed Rotterdam. Equally, the aftermath of tragic events, such as the aftermath of the Utoya massacre on the Norway page, the aftermath of Srebrenica on the Bosnia page, or the aftermath of the Khmer Rouge killings on the Cambodia page. So other country pages clearly have no issue with including photos of tragedies; why must an American tragedy, which had a smaller impact than the massacres in Cambodia or Bosnia, be removed from the page? Rwenonah (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Terrorism is not featured in other country articles as descriptive of their societies. I have searched through the France article and find no double images for historical subjects. There need not be any double image for New York skyscrapers. France has had a continuing problem of terrorist attacks since the Algerian revolt continuing to the present day, and it does not feature illustration documenting their successes.
- The US article does not need a representation of terrorist successes, foreign or domestic, until they become more commonplace in everyday life on trains, at worship and in bakery shops as they are in France, or Iraq, for instance, which also does not feature any illustration of terrorist attacks which have caused far more deaths there than those in the US, over a longer period of time, more generally throughout the country, and at a greater ongoing frequency. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Terrorist attacks in France or Iraq, however tragic, never had anything like the same impact on the countries they occur in - 9/11 on the other hand, caused massive changes both in the US and internationally. It caused a global shift in attitudes toward terrorism, resulting in changed domestic policies, such as airline searches, throughout the Western world. Not to mention it caused the Bush administration to embark on an invasion of Afghanistan, intervention or involvement in numerous other countries, and the widespread use of summary executions through drones. That's why we're showing it in a picture, I would assume. It's strange that you find it objectionable if a "terrorist success" is shown on the US page, but perfectly okay for the aftermath of successful genocides to be shown in other country's articles, especially when these images are far more graphic.
IP, that's not how wikipedia works. If we treat the Armenia article differently than the American one based on the objections of wikipedians, we end up with systemic bias differing standards for the same thing in different national or cultural contexts. This image isn't a snuff image - it's impossible to tell than anything particularly bad is going on unless you know the context, which is far less traumatic than the context of the Armenian genocide photo, (an event in which hundreds of thousands died), or the Korean War photo, (a conflict in which more than 2 million civilians died). That being the case, it seems your objection to the image isn't that it shows a tragedy, but that it shows an American tragedy. Rwenonah (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Significant as it is, the American photo is appropriate to September 11 attacks. Country articles do not illustrate major atrocities. The Turkey article mentions major atrocities against Armenians, but it does not picture the Armenian tragedy in the country article. Germany does not feature an image of the Holocaust. You refer to the Armenian article? You may have meant Armenian Genocide, which is comparable to the September 11 attacks article. You linked to a disambiguation page, not a country article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Armenia or North Korea both contain far more graphic photos. Rwenonah (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with TheVirginiaHistorian. Also, the 911 attack, though technically part of our history, did not involve the 'actions of Americans', as did the Civil War, moon landing, etc. It was simply a terrorist attack. The 911 attack has about as much to do with American History as a bank robbery that happened to take place on Broadway. Seems we could find far better examples to represent American History. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- The statement above is a bit off...as both the domestic and international aftermath was big. That said many other images can be used. -- Moxy (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with TheVirginiaHistorian. Also, the 911 attack, though technically part of our history, did not involve the 'actions of Americans', as did the Civil War, moon landing, etc. It was simply a terrorist attack. The 911 attack has about as much to do with American History as a bank robbery that happened to take place on Broadway. Seems we could find far better examples to represent American History. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I again agree with User:Rwenonah also this is more than just a terror attack, comparing it to a bank robbery is more than a bit off too. This is defining moment in our domestic and global policies. It also caused a increase in patriotism throughout our great country. Reb1981 (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- The photo has historical significance and for that reason I'm against its removal. Prcc27 (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I also oppose the removal of the images. While 9/11 was a tragic event, it is also perhaps the most significant event worldwide in the 21st Century. Showing a picture of the towers intact does not demonstrate the gravity of what happened. Removing the picture does not erase history. ISIS followers will just get the image from Wikimedia Commons or some other site. Even as a New Yorker, I believe that showing the towers burning to the ground is vital to the understanding of the American mindset after 9/11 and the subsequent War on Terror. A picture is worth a thousand words, and this picture is fundamental to the section of the article on 9/11. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- The photo has historical significance and for that reason I'm against its removal. Prcc27 (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Armenia or North Korea both contain far more graphic photos. Rwenonah (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Parties and elections edit
In “Parties and elections” section, propose to remove outdated photo of political branches leadership (executive and legislative) and replace it with a map representing divisions found under a two party system as illustrated in the 2012 Electoral Vote cartogram.
Add to the one sentence third paragraph to read,
The winner of the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, Democrat Barack Obama, is the 44th, and current, U.S. president. Current leadership in the Senate includes Democratic Vice President Joseph Biden, and Republican President Pro Tempore (Pro Tem) Orrin Hatch. Current leadership in the House includes Speaker of the House, Republican John Boehner, and Minority Leader Democratic Nancy Pelosi.
- US Senate, Senate Organization Chart for the 114th Congress, viewed August 25, 2015.
- US House of Representatives, Leadership, viewed August 25, 2015.
TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree. The photo serves as an illustration of the bipartsian process of governing; the map does nothing but show how particular electoral votes were doled out in 2012. It doesn't indicate how strongly each state is for that color, like a congressional map would; it has absolutely no relevance to congressional representation at all. If people want to know how the election went, we have more than enough articles about that very subject. I would sooner suggest removing the photo than adding this map, it has no place in this summary article. And even if your point is to illustrate the lockdown of the two-party system, I'm sure there are better ways than this. --Golbez (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- The section is “Parties and elections”. National party legal existence is in National Conventions to nominate presidential candidates, not in Congressional caucuses, the section is not "Congressional caucuses". The 2012 Electoral Vote represents party successes in state elections voting for the national office of President of the United States. The map as a cartogram shows the relative size of the states casting Electoral College vote, the people choose a president in their states independent of Congressional lockdown, Congressional District turnout per se is irrelevant.
- If your point is that state geographic diversity should be reflected in the Electoral College, then we can work together to expand the District Plan that Maine and Nebraska have, but the President is not elected by the Congress, so a congressional map of presidential votes would be irrelevant to “Parties and elections” in the US. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- My point is simply that the map is irrelevant. It shows how the states voted for president in 2012; what does that illustrate for this summary article? If people want to know how the states voted in 2012 the article is linked right there. Basically, the image illustrates a subtopic, rather than improves general understanding of the topic of the United States. Knowing how the electoral votes were doled out in 2012 doesn't enhance my knowledge of the topic "United States" at all. Of the 2012 election, yes. Of people involved in it, perhaps. Of the country as a whole, not really. --Golbez (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- If your point is that state geographic diversity should be reflected in the Electoral College, then we can work together to expand the District Plan that Maine and Nebraska have, but the President is not elected by the Congress, so a congressional map of presidential votes would be irrelevant to “Parties and elections” in the US. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Of course the map is relevant. The section is “Parties and elections”, the map depicts the two major parties in an election reflecting persistent regional divisions as a whole as it really is. Of course another aspect might show the disparity between presidential returns and the gerrymandered state results in Congressional Districts.
- That would take two maps, though again the cartogram is better graphically. What is called for is an update of this cartogram Congressional District map for comparison.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
It does not follow that since every illustration considered is of something specific, it cannot be admitted since it does not encompass the entire nation’s history in all places at a glance. The section will admit one perhaps two images of something.
US national parties meet in national conventions to select candidates for president, a national office. They are made up of state and territory delegations reflecting the party voting and population of each. For an article about the nation's Parties and elections, a national office is appropriate, and this rationale serves for picturing elected national office holders. But an image of the US process of nominating a presidential candidate informs the reader's knowledge of the topic "United States, parties and elections" by illustrating part of the process among citizens by states meeting nationally, not just the result of Congressional party office elections.
WP prefers not mirroring other articles. The selection here shows a recent national convention (Democratic 2008) for the sitting president at the time of a roll call of a particular state (New York), and the companion major national convention (Republican 2008) from the floor addressed by the nominee. Each image is used in one other article, at the NY Democratic primary 2008 and at John McCain. Neither is linked in the United States article in the way the election maps are. These image should meet all previous objections. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- What happened to the maps? Please keep talk page entries stable. The maps made more sense than these pictures, which say nothing; they're just pictures of conventions. But we don't need any more graphics than necessary, because this page is so slow to load as it is. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- The section is “United States, Parties and elections”. It has had an illustration which is now out of date showing the leaders of the two political branches, a sitting president and four past Congressional leaders. It should be replaced with an alternative which will not recognizably slow the loading speed of the article but related to parties and elections.
- I propose two alternatives, a) one with national maps objected to on the grounds they do not represent the country as a whole, and b) one with party conventions nominating candidates for elections to illustrate “Parties and elections”. That is now objected to on the grounds that it is only an illustration of conventions of parties for elections, and that says “nothing” about “Parties and elections".
- The images explain how it is party candidates in elections for the national office of president and vice-president are chosen, by delegates from states in conventions of all 50 states, DC and 5 territories. Please explain your objection further. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- I rather like the Democratic convention photo, though the caption is needlessly descriptive. I don't see a purpose to the far lower quality Republican convention photo. --Golbez (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- The right-hand map is an excellent graphic, showing constitution of the House by party and concentration of population. It's a good summary map, not used elsewhere, that I could see. It's too bad that the presidential results aren't shown on it. That states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania voted Democratic for president is remarkable, given how covered in red they are otherwise. Having a second map showing the presidential results as just labels is a much lesser graphic, as I indicated before. The problem with the convention photos, for me, is that they don't elucidate the process (note the barely visible state-delegation signs and tiny, off-to-the side total shown for New York, in the D. convention photo), with the R. photo being definitely sub-par (focus very poor). Dhtwiki (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- The images explain how it is party candidates in elections for the national office of president and vice-president are chosen, by delegates from states in conventions of all 50 states, DC and 5 territories. Please explain your objection further. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Why has Misplaced Pages stopped showing the breakdown of religions in the summary panel in entries on a respective country?
This seems to have been a unilateral decision affecting all entries for countries - I was advised by the Misplaced Pages information team to address this question to an article talk page.
"Decisions like these are made by the volunteer editors who donate their time maintaining our various articles. You can ask questions to them on the article talk pages. Simply click the "talk" or "discussion" tab at the top of any article, then click "new section" to start a thread with a new section. Click the "edit" button next to a thread title to add a message to an existing thread.
Yours sincerely, Robert Johnson" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.188.122 (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
This Article should be called The United States of America because the official name of Mexico is the United States of Mexico.
This Article should be called The United States of America because the official name of Mexico is the United States of Mexico.
- The official name of Mexico is "United Mexican States". There are virtually no instances in English of Mexico being referred to as "United States", so I don't think your concerns are realistic. Dustin (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Geography and places good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Misplaced Pages Did you know articles that are good articles
- All unassessed articles
- Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
- GA-Class United States articles
- Top-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- Past U.S. collaborations of the Month
- WikiProject United States articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- GA-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- GA-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
- Misplaced Pages requests for comment