Talk:United States/Archive 57

Contemporary era
I think we should rethink some of the content in the "Contemporary era" subsection. Specifically I am referring to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and Hurricane Katrina. Both of these, especially the former, seem to be WP:RECENTISM.

Is the oil spill really important enough to the overall history of the U.S. to be included in what is supposed to be a relatively concise summary of U.S. history? According to this list there was a significantly larger oil spill in the early 20th century (which surely also would have caused economic and environmental issues), and it isn't mentioned in this article at all. In my opinion, the oil spill is nowhere near sufficiently notable to be included in the history section.

As for Katrina, while it was certainly a massive event in terms of both casualties and damage, was it really important enough to fit into the overall picture of U.S. history, which is supposed to be portrayed here? By my count, according to this list, there have been 7 disasters in the U.S. with more fatalities than Katrina, only 2 of which are mentioned in the history section of this article (Pearl Harbor and 9/11), and those are mainly important due to subsequent resulting historical events (U.S. entry into WW2 and the War on Terror). Katrina caused no such long term developments in history (to my knowledge). So really, all Katrina has going for it is the heavy monetary damage it caused (and even that is somewhat negated by inflation which has occurred since past disasters). Does that alone warrant inclusion?

The history section is not meant to be a list of events; it should tell the story of the overall progression of the nation over time. Hence singular events such as these should only be mentioned if they are important to the overall progression of the history of the country. Other thoughts? --Philpill691 (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. Much of the late History section needs reworking. VictorD7 (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have been looking at those sections too, but its size and my limited time usually keep me from making any significant changes I'm not sure have consensus. I agree with Philpill691 in that the History section of a general country article should only mention causal events that shaped the future or modern state of a nation, and should also not suffer from recentism. If others want to look at those sections and suggest changes here, that's their prerogative. Cadiomals (talk) 04:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I plan on removing the mentions of the oil spill and Katrina sometime tomorrow evening if nobody has raised any objections here by then. --Philpill691 (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Chart that needs to be removed


If you look at the creation history of this chart (by clicking on it) you can see that it was created by VictorD7 and is sourced to an unreliable right-wing organization known as the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. If the material is reliable and worth mentioning, it needs to be directly sourced to a weighted organization, which includes scholarship coming out of academia. VictorD7 has been insistent on pushing his right-wing agenda, which is harmful to creating a neutral presentation of data. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The PGPF is a perfectly fine source (they just drew the chart anyway) and the chart's numbers come from the Tax Policy Center (feel free to compare the figures), a perfectly fine liberal source widely cited by media and scholars. I'm not sure why me being the one who gained permission for the chart's use is relevant. The CTJ/ITEP chart you're pushing was drawn by a Wikipedia user. Your last sentence is a hypocritical personal attack that's unhelpful to productive discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The reason you can't find a reliable source presenting this chart is because there isn't one that exists. The Tax Policy Center created no chart; the Peter G. Peterson Foundation did. By leaving out the dollar figures from Footnote #1 there is no context in relation to the tax rates, which creates a highly biased presentation. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? What does it even mean for the chart itself to "have a reliable source"? Wikipedia users can make charts themselves, and it doesn't even count as OR. No such source is required. The chart's data source is the Tax Policy Center, as I just proved (again). Why does it need dollar figures?  How is it "biased" for an effective rate chart to not have dollar figures? That would be extra information, and they change significantly over time anyway.  Your comment is irrational. It's more important that it contains informative component breakdowns, which your (inaccurate, disputed, truly biased) chart doesn't. VictorD7 (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Simple solution: remove it from this article only and then you guys can fight over it in Taxation in the United States, where it also exists. I don't follow that article, but I know that based on Page view statistics that it is much less popular, so a lot fewer people will be impacted by disputed information. Cadiomals (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm done here
Before a few days ago I was not a major contributor to this article and only made a few changes every now and then. I realized the article had serious issues when I noticed it was fully protected and saw the heated political arguments happening in Talk.

I tried to be a mediator who didn't side with anyone and objectively looked at information to analyze whether it was inappropriate for this article, unbalanced, or had excessive detail relative to other sections. After all, compared to the size of the Income, Govt Finance, Health, and Law enforcements sections, which are all the sections where editors have chosen to trumpet their political views, the Science and Technology, Military, Education, and Infrastructure sections have a relative dearth of information. Why not expand on those sections with blatantly skewed information about the failure of the American education system, our decreasing investment in scientific research, the American military's policing of the world, and our lack of spending on infrastructure?

No other country articles in Wikipedia, especially not the Featured ones, spend three whole paragraphs explaining the nuances of the national tax system and opinions on whether its "fair". EllenCT, VictorD7, Lance Friedman, and others do not want their changes removed under the guise that "the readers want more detail" when they really just want to make sure their political views are promulgated.

The "encyclopedia anyone can edit" not only has had a steadily decreasing editor base for years now but is scaring away new editors because it has been hijacked by an oligarchy of watchdogs who unofficially "own" certain articles. I have experienced this before, which is why I eventually gave up on making substantial contributions. In many ways this article reflects Wikipedia's problems as a whole, the problems that will always keep it from being as authoritative or reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica or text encyclopedias. The fact that it can be edited by people who aren't professionals means political articles will always have a slant, and as we all know its always a leftist one. The occasional right-wingers like VictorD7 are almost immediately shot down by the leftist oligarchy.

I have neither the time nor the energy to waste on trying to make this article balanced when childish editors are going to inevitably come back and wreck it again, one small change at a time. I tried being an objective contributor concerned only for the quality of the article and not for selfishly promoting my views, but the Wikipedia watchdogs have won again, and all my changes were rejected. I am not going to be blocked for edit warring and not going to waste time on a lost cause, so I'm removing this article from my watch list and refraining from coming back to check on the degradation process. I hope you all have fun. Cadiomals (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey, I supported your edit, even removing the portions of my own material that you had before it was reverted again, so give me some credit and don't lump me in with them. You shouldn't give up after one attempt. Good faith editors washing their hands of it is why this article is being wrecked.VictorD7 (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Case in point
User:EllenCT and User:Attleboro made it seem like they were reverting all of my massive changes, but it turns out they clandestinely left out a paragraph on America's higher cancer survival rates in the Health section simply because it is information that casts a positive light on the United States and thought no one would notice, yet wanting to leave in all the information that casts the US in a negative light. If they support "adding more comprehensive detail" to the article, why did they choose to leave out this one bit of information? Is it not extra detail? Just one of the countless examples of the severe partisan slant imposed by this article's watchdogs, who claim they are neutral yet filter out any information that doesn't fit their views, and why it is even more imperative to limit the amount of detail in certain sections. It's tragic and reflects one of the biggest problems Wikipedia has. Unfortunately, I feel that my words are falling on deaf ears and the people who control this article are chuckling to themselves, because they know I'm right but that nothing will be done about it. Cadiomals (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * In general what I see is we have relatively new editors fighting for there POV over topics most dont even think should be in detail here in the first place. What we are looking for is mature edits neutral in there presentation  - not edits of this nature I hope this is not a typical edit for you - I hope this type of thing has not infected many articles -- Moxy (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I suspect that was an ironic edit born of frustration, though, in fairness, given how over the top biased some of the sincerely added material currently in the article is, it doesn't necessarily look out of place. VictorD7 (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The first part could have been pretty well supported by and some effort to tally votes by party, which isn't such a bad idea but would certainly be seen as biased even if entirely factual. EllenCT (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That was an attempt to compromise with what I agreed was too much detail. It's great that cancer survival rates are better in the US than elsewhere, but as a very close second leading cause of death I question its significance and think it's very unlikely that readers will be seeking or interested in the information. That was not the only passage I left out in an attempt to compromise. EllenCT (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * So your attempt at "compromising" with "too much detail" was removing things you yourself disagreed with while leaving in details that fit your views? Remember that 'United States' used to be branded a good article before many of its sections were doubled in size by being filled with thinly veiled political commentary (as long as its cited by "reliable" sources, a completely arbitrary term). All attempts to "improve" it by saturating sections with more detail have driven it further and further from ever attaining that title again, and my attempt to bring it more in line with how it looked when it was actually "Good" was blocked by you, and we now return to pointless political bickering with no genuine progress being made. But that's okay as long as you continue having a soapbox from which to preach your thinly veiled criticisms of the United States, and as long as the editor base of Wikipedia remains majority leftist, you will get away with degrading its neutrality and objectivity, while promoting an agenda most other people happen to agree with. Meanwhile, the occasional right-winger like VictorD7 who attempts to balance this with a little info from the other perspective is immediately chastised as a "propagandist" with an "agenda" who is "POV pushing". As I've said before, I'm not siding with him, but how is that fair? Over the years though I have seen that the last thing the average Wikipedian cares about is fair. Have fun wasting time throwing personal attacks at each other while this article stays trashed. Cadiomals (talk) 05:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "'reliable' sources, a completely arbitrary term"
 * Please read WP:RS. Sometimes editors' political points of view are very highly correlated with their accuracy or lack thereof.
 * What is the evidence this article is "trashed"? According to the reader feedback, 55% of respondents found what they were looking for. That's more than China (51%), Russia (54%), and the "good article" Switzerland (50%). EllenCT (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that only around 50% of readers "find what they're looking for" does not warrant more and more detail being stuffed into this general article. There are main articles on specific topics linked below every section heading. The majority of people who add feedback can't even spell right or post unreasonable suggestions that don't fit in with established WP guidelines. Many of them, based on their spelling and grammar, also look as though they haven't made it past grade school yet. Here are a few examples of their "suggestions", verbatim:
 * "the article needs to talk more about film productions"
 * "how many people are paying taxes and what percent"
 * "This article ignores slavery in the North and South and how slavery was the foundation of America rather then freedom or being a republic. You can't be a republic and millions of slaves. I suggest that instead of reading Wikipedia, read other books that have a less impartial view of history and are not afraid to tackle controversial issues."
 * "rank of literacy in the states"
 * "The Capital of each state"
 * "how many president in the us last couple years"
 * "All the presidents of the United States are not listed"
 * "usa,clothing,fashionand jewels"
 * Notice how that last one didn't even bother putting spaces between the commas. This is how you gauge the quality of the article, and your justification for saturating it with more detail? Almost all of these posters don't appear to realize there are main articles for which they can actually find the specific information they're looking for, such as this one. They don't realize this is a general article with general summary information, and it seems neither do you. Looks like we've fulfilled the second bullet point suggestion, but are you planning on fulfilling the rest? An article is labeled "Good" if it meets the established good article criteria, not if it satisfies a random grade-schooler. I go so far as to call it "trashed" because almost every substantial edit that has been made over the past several weeks and months have only driven it further from meeting this criteria, especially points 3b, 4, and 5 in WP:GA?.


 * Also, I am not saying Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources are necessarily arbitrary, but that their determination by the individual editors here seems quite arbitrary. For example, WP:RS advocates the limited use of news reports for academic information in favor of "scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources". Yet HuffPost, one of the most blatantly liberal sites on the net, is used quite "liberally" here for many statistics and no one thinks anything of it. I quote from WP:ORS: "Further, in recent times the Internet has become a major source of information about current events. These includes blogs, and sites like The Drudge Report and the Huffington Post. According to WP:RS blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. However blogs that also collect news information present a unique challenge to the Wikipedia Editor. For example the Huffington Post blog also contains an extensive repository of news articles from around the country. The Wikipedia editor should be aware of quoting information directly from websites like this. In these cases, it is best to simply source to the newspaper article and not to the blog."


 * Ellen, as of now you are making very weak arguments for keeping your excessive information. I have thoroughly refuted all your points from all your replies and it is obvious you aren't even making an effort to construct good arguments. I have contributed as much as I am willing and as much as I have the time and energy for here. If progress still can't be made on improving the quality and objectivity of this article, then the fault doesn't lie with me, and I'm not going to be having a back and forth with you on a daily basis like this like so many here are wasting their time doing, while in the end nothing gets done. If you continue replying as you do, I'm not even going to bother responding anymore. Cadiomals (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If you think criticizing survey respondents' typing skill is a thorough refutation of the point that the article is comprehensive rather than "trashed," that is probably for the best. EllenCT (talk) 10:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Every time you respond to me you make me regret having written long-winded, three-paragraph, researched refutations that you probably didn't even read half of. It's how a teacher must feel when dealing with a child who has no attention span. It's obvious you don't pay attention to what I say because you know if won't have an effect on any changes here. You won, you and others have officially succeeded in trashing this article with no one else being the wiser. Good-bye. Cadiomals (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Cadiomals, "The occasional right-wingers like VictorD7 are almost immediately shot down by the leftist oligarchy."??? I actually thought you were attempting to be fair up until that statement.  Victor currently has tons of stuff in this article possibly more than any other editor.Lance Friedman (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I lean left myself, Lance, but in trying to make this article as neutral and straight-forward as possible, my political inclinations shouldn't even be relevant. So my simple question is, why is VictorD7 lambasted for using the Heritage Foundation as a source, when the Huffington Post, one of the most liberal news sites on the net, is accepted as "reliable"? The answer is simple: because the majority of Wikipedia editors lean left. But, issues with using the Heritage Foundation as a source wouldn't even exist if so much extra detail wasn't being added (one of the things which disqualifies an article from being good). Cadiomals (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I am tired of repeating the same points over and over to different people and often to the same people because it falls on deaf ears and nothing gets done. I have contributed as much as I am willing and as much as I have the time and energy for, and if progress still can't be made on improving the quality and objectivity of this article, then the fault doesn't lie with me. This is going to be me last post here for a long time because more often than not my extremely long-winded replies are just repeating the same things to people who are too selfish to hear of it. I have no interest in being part of the club you guys have going on here. Cadiomals (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As pointed out in FactCheck.org, the cancer survival rates are misleading because they count the time from diagnosis rather than from when the disease is contracted. Also, the extremely high survival rates for prostate cancer skewed the results, since survival rates for other cancers were comparable.  When providing this type of information, we should follow WP:MEDRS which means not relying on a single study and using a source that properly interprets scholarly opinion.  That btw is the problem with right-wing think tanks, that they assemble evidence in order to support a specific political objective, in this case opposition to universal health care, and ignore mainstream opinion, in this case the opinions of medical professionals.  The comparison with the Huffington Post btw is misleading.  The Huffington Post is a news source and should be compared with Fox News, which is also accepted as a reliable source.  TFD (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh. My. God. I don't care about the cancer survival rate information! It was information I was going to remove anyway! This is part of the larger issue of excessive details in this general article, and here I go repeating myself again. My point is that when EllenCT reverted my massive changes she intentionally left out that paragraph without explanation, when she made it look liked she restored everything. I interpreted this as clandestinely filtering information she didn't disagree with while simultaneously lying and saying we should find "consensus" on what info to remove. I'm sorry, but I started off here being as civilized and mature-sounding as I could, but when everything you say falls on deaf ears, it can start to get frustrating! I've already said I would stop replying, why am I still replying??? Cadiomals (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The source for the cancer survival rates are medical professionals, supplemented by a story from the Telegraph with multiple medical professionals indicating that the study's results are important, not a right wing think tank, and the US has higher survival rates for most cancers (men and women), not just prostate cancer. FactCheck leans left (just because it calls itself "nonpartisan" and "factcheck" doesn't necessarily mean anything), but it didn't dispute the essential facts. Here's its second paragraph per your link: "It’s certainly the case that we have higher survival rates than the United Kingdom and other countries with nationalized health care. Across the board, the United States boasts a higher five-year relative survival rate than the European average, according to a 2008 study in the British medical journal Lancet. For breast cancer, for instance, the U.S. survival rate was 83.9 percent, the U.K. rate was 69.7, and the average European rate was 73.1."  The rest of its piece is speculative spin trying to minimize the findings.  It only quoted one "expert", a professor, and all she did was caution against drawing "too many conclusions" from a survival rate comparison. Her comments were vague and speculative, and she also suggested that variables other than healthcare quality could account for the differences in survival rates between the insured and uninsured. In the one real example your piece cited of this difference (it ignored the fact that significant internal differences also exist within European nations, btw), even uninsured Americans had a higher survival rate than average Europeans anyway. Most of your piece's links are busted, so its claim about Canada and Cuba isn't really sourced (and contradicts some high quality studies I've seen before; BTW, this Eurocare study is by far the highest quality, most comprehensive international cancer survival rate study done to date). Your piece says that US survival rates could be partially inflated by more broad based, aggressive cancer screening in the US (such screening is notable in and of itself), but acknowledges that early detection greatly helps survival, so it's really not much of a counterpoint. The author mostly just didn't like the political implications involved, and wanted to bleat. The European medical professionals themselves chalked the differences up to a mix of factors, including "cancer services (eg, organisation, training and skills of health-care professionals, application of evidence-based guidelines, and investment in diagnostic and treatment facilities), and clinical factors (eg, tumour stage and biology)." No single metric is the perfect, end all be all stat, but stronger counterpoints can be made against citing stuff like "life expectancy", "infant mortality", or general incidence in healthcare system comparisons, since they're largely determined by factors like genetics, environment, and lifestyle choices that have nothing to do with the healthcare system (at least in first world comparisons). At least this deals more directly with actual healthcare. As for your think tank comments, that's at least as true of leftist outlets, think tanks and otherwise. And the closest equivalent to Fox would be other tv networks. The liberal equivalent of Heritage are liberal think tanks like Brookings and the Urban Institute. The equivalent of the American Enterprise Institute might be think tanks like CBPP and EPI. The closest liberal equivalent to National Review might be something like Slate. The Huffington Post is more  equivalent to Breitbart.com or The Blaze (Glenn Beck's site).  VictorD7 (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Cadiomals is way over the line with his first sentence at top. He should not say any deletion is motivated "simply because it is information that casts a positive light on the United States" with no evidence. It may simply be an oversight. I favor inclusion of any useful RS info. Attleboro (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * VictorD7, The mission of right-wing think tanks is to create doubt in the public mind about mainstream academic opinion on politically sensitive topics such as climate change, smoking, evolution, universal health care, acid rain, obesity and poverty. Apparently they are unable to argue these views in mainstream academic publications.  If you want to argue that they are right and the mainstream is biased, or that their views have equal weight, then that discussion belongs on content policy talk pages.  TFD (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's certainly a narrow minded, extremely one sided, leftist view of things that doesn't explain what the "mission" of leftist think tanks is or really have much to do with this discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not know of any leftist thinktanks in the U.S. I know there are a number of Trotskyist and Maoist parties have publications, but no one seems to be asking for them to be used as sources.  I do not think in any case that their views on natural science differ from the mainstream, although their views on social sciences do.  But definitely I would put them in the same league as right-wing thinktanks.  TFD (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I just listed several leftist US think tanks in my reply to you above, all of which are currently used as sources in this article. VictorD7 (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not know what you mean by leftidt. Do you mean sources that are not right-wing, so Harvard, the NYT, scientists, General Electric, Starbucks, Goldman Sachs are all the Left?  TFD (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, he's referring to sources like the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, as he indicated several times.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The fact that they do not provide the same conclusions as right-wing think tanks does not make them left-wing. This is an example of the extreme right calling mainstream opinion left-wing in order to misrepresent that there is parity between them.  The John Birch Society went so far as to claim that Eisenhower was a Communist, but mainstream sources do not provide parity between Birchers and Eisenhower Republicans and pretend that together they represent the entire U.S. political spectrum.
 * If someone sets up a Maoist think tank that calls the mainstream right-wing, we do not automatically assume that they have parity with the mainstream, and start calling the Brookings Institute right-wing.
 * TFD (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It just means this: leftist [ˈlɛftɪst] adj of, tending towards, or relating to the political left or its principles;... n. (sometimes cap.) 1. a member of the political Left; liberal or radical. The vague terms' meanings vary by national/historical context, but, broadly speaking, the liberals and Democrats represent the American left while the Republicans and conservatives represent the right. Think tanks which consistently support Democrats and espouse liberal policies can be described as "liberal" ("leftist"), and vice versa. Clearly a more preposterous hypothetical posturing than your example would be to write off Republicans and conservatives as "right wing" while calling Democrats and liberals "mainstream". Of course none of that really matters since all sources have some kind of bias, and we shouldn't be purging them solely for ideological reasons, but evaluating contributions based on them on a case by case basis with verifiability (and potential bias) in mind. We certainly shouldn't conduct a one sided purge of political sources from the article. You never did answer my question about why leftist (or "non right wing" or whatever) think tanks exist, given your earlier thesis, but that's alright. It is a fairly pointless tangent. VictorD7 (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Positions commonly referred to as "leftist" in the US are usually considered centrist or center-right in the rest of the developed world. The US Republican Party is far to the right of most European conservative parties, although the far right in Europe is sadly much more racist, fascist, and authoritarian than the US Republicans. Both of the major US political parties are to the right of the demographic center of US public opinion on economic but not social and individual liberty issues. The Libertarians' "four point political compass" fails to capture that nuance. What has actually been going on since the late 1960s is an alliance between conservative Christians with an authoritarian moralist bent and big business favoring corporate welfare, corporate tax breaks, and tax breaks for wealthy individuals. Which is why there are so many very wealthy individuals but such a small proportion of individuals are wealthy. EllenCT (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be blunt with you and say no one cares User:EllenCT. You are very clearly violating Talk page guidelines with your casual political commentary rather than discussing the issues of this article at hand. Your statement ought to be removed, but I'm not sure if I have the authority to just remove it. The talk page is not a soapbox for your political views, and this is exactly what is blocking progress on this article; I'm sure half of the statements here could be removed for going off topic. Cadiomals (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I was responding to TFD's question, as indicated by the indentation. The different interpretations of what is considered centrist throughout the English speaking world are crucial to understanding what constitutes a neutral position, and therefore respond to the points you have raised about bias. So the fact that we are supposed to write from a global perspective even when the subjects of articles involve views skewed therefrom are pertinent to the topics being discussed. If you are so offended by my attempts to elucidate those facts, I do hope you will please be true to your word and stop responding to me as you promised above. EllenCT (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Too long
Someone should place the  thing in the section for Income, poverty, and wealth


 * I disagree, because the tag is appropriate to an article rather than a section. Splitting the section into articles isn't appropriate.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't just say to split it into new pages, it also says to add subheadings or to condense it; the latter is what can be done. There are already main articles where all these details belong; as such, they don't need any new articles. Cadiomals (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Same-sex Marriage
The Family structure section needs to be updated to 15 states and DC, now that Hawaii has it legalized.

Zelwolf (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Zelwolf
 * It's not "legally recognized" in Hawaii until December 2, even if a bill was passed already. —Designate (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: For the record, the bill was signed into law by the governor. Since it takes effect on Dec. 2, the article should be updated on that date. (Technically, we could insert something parenthetically now to reflect Hawaii's status, but it would be awkward and unnecessary. If you disagree, feel free to start a new thread and propose it—no formal edit request is required.) Rivertorch (talk) 07:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, the previous discussion on this topic occurred under the umbrella of a larger section, and saw the leftist poster who pushed this chart onto the page make false claims and repeatedly dodge pertinent questions, almost entirely avoiding substantive conversation. I would prefer to settle things here in a civil manner, but if this issue doesn't get a full, sober hearing, including an intellectually honest discussion that sees questions answered, facts acknowledged, and arguments addressed, I will take this to arbitration. VictorD7 (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are they less credible than The Heritage Foundation? Because their numbers contradict the CBO?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Heritage Foundation wouldn't be any more credible if we were talking about including numbers they had developed through extensive original research with an opaque, proprietary methodology (as opposed to simply relaying basic government stats) that was explicitly, dramatically disputed by sources like the Tax Policy Center and CBO, especially if we were discussing turning said numbers into a big chart. Such visual aids on the page are rare per section (usually one), and shouldn't be the subject of extreme controversy like this. VictorD7 (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ITEP's chart shows a tax rate for the top 1% of 29.0%, which is "at around 30%", not "dramatically contradicted." The CTJ figure of 21-22% is the percentage of all tax revenues received from the top 1%, not their effective tax rate.  ITEP is separate from CTJ and receives funding from the Ford Foundation and other corporate foundations.  Its sources are widely used by publications across the political spectrum.  TFD (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ITEP's "29%" is for total taxation, not just federal taxation. The CBO and TPC calculate federal taxation, and their top 1% rate for federal taxation alone is consistently around 30%. Clearly adding state/local taxes to the CBO or TPC rates would dramatically increase those numbers. And no, CTJ's 2011 chart gives a rate 21.1% for the top 1% in the "Federal taxes" column under "TAXES AS A % OF INCOME" (aka effective tax rates) on the right side of the page, and 7.9% for state/local taxes (21.1 + 7.9 = 29). ITEP and CTJ advertise their linkage on their own sites, as I showed. In fact the quote where CTJ was identified as the "liberal lobbying arm of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy" came form a WSJ story featured on the ITEP site, as I linked. It's not uncommon for an outfit to brand different parts of itself with different names, and they don't exactly try to hide the connection. The Ford Foundation (not connected to the auto company for several decades) is known for funding radical leftist causes, so its support isn't surprising. CTJ/ITEP isn't cited anywhere near as often as the far more prominent Tax Policy Center and CBO, and that it's been occasionally cited by non leftists doesn't mean anything since it's common for good political debaters to use their opponents' own sources to undermine their arguments, enhancing the robustness of their own arguments. VictorD7 (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Victor, am I to understand that you are supporting the chart which shows the incidence of corporate income tax on the wealthy instead of about half on lower income consumers? EllenCT (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The chart based on TPC numbers is a separate issue, and if you want to raise questions about it you're free to start a section doing so, but since you raised the issue I'll ask again: How does your CTJ chart attribute corporate tax? Did you read the quote from the CTJ official in this section's op saying that "The corporate tax is paid by the owners of corporate stock and business assets"? Also, the CTJ is dedicated to raising, not lowering corporate taxes (per its own mission statement page).  If it believed corporate taxes were regressive one would think the group would be lobbying hard to eliminate them, and yet not a peep on that front. Are you implying that CTJ secretly counts corporate taxes more on lower income earners even while publicly advocating that "corporate loopholes" be closed?  Regardless, even if they attributed ZERO corporate taxes to the top 1% (which would be insane), that wouldn't account for all the difference between CTJ and the more reliable sources. Something is seriously wrong here. VictorD7 (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the NYT, the effective federal tax rate for the top 1% is 20.6. The incidence of corporate taxation is disputed and there is no reason why we should spin it to favor your viewpoint.  In any case, you appear to be disputing what information is presented rather than the accuracy of the underlying data.  So please stop this "left-wing propaganda" malarkey.  TFD (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that "20.65" figure is only the "income and payroll tax rate" (their wording), and it's labeled 2007 data. It's not sold as total federal tax rates. Furthermore, it says it's sourced by CBO data, which I already linked to multiple times above (CBO's top 1% total federal rate for 2007 was 28.3%, its second lowest mark of the century, and was rising again by 2009). Please stop deciding that you're going to argue with me for political reasons before you even investigate the matter, and read your own sources carefully.  So far it's unclear precisely how the CTJ even attributes corporate taxation, or what proportion of the discrepancy that would account for, though it couldn't possibly explain the entire gap. I'm definitely disputing its accuracy.


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


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


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

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

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


 * I am sympathetic towards VictorD7, and hope we can work together. I think the tension pertaining to progressive taxation in general is central to the political issues of the US and has been for decades, and the incidence of the corporate income tax may very well hold the key to resolving the entire conflict. I urge patience and thought on these topics. There may be a way that Wikipedia itself can support greater understanding in the populations affected. EllenCT (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you said that and I look forward to you answering my questions above about precisely how CTJ/ITEP attributes corporate taxes, and what else is in play since even a corporate tax rate of zero for the top 1% wouldn't explain the entire difference with other sources. The bottom line is that in a country article summary there's no reason for the image chosen for a section to be the subject of hot dispute and controversy, given the enhanced prominence involved with such a selection. VictorD7 (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because I am sympathetic to your plight does not mean I believe that your right-wing viewpoint leaves you with even a tiny fraction of the accuracy necessary to help compose an encyclopedia to which society would benefit from having access. Competence is required to edit, and your political views require you to harbor falsehoods which interfere with your ability to identify reliable sources and summarize truthfully. EllenCT (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from making personal attacks.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by personal attacks??? VictorD7 has in general continually pushed his right-wing POV agenda. Using a flashlight is not a personal attack; IT'S USEFUL INFORMATION . Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * VictorD7 asked Ellen a question. She refused to respond, instead expressing her personal "sympathy" for his supposed cognitive dissonance. Outside of the implication that the Left is the objective Truth according to the holy Consensus, her personal attack added nothing of substantive value to this discussion. Comment on content, not contributors. This talk page is not the place for discussing another editor.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that I wasn't referring to the accuracy of Victor's contributed content? EllenCT (talk) 05:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You failed to mention any alleged inaccurate content, or answer my questions about your own inaccurate CTJ material. VictorD7 (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There's nothing disruptive about TP posts clearly laying out an issue, complete with enough evidence to remove any good faith doubt. Wikipedia quality suffers when issues aren't thoroughly explored. When an editor or two have been making loads of unilateral, often poorly constructed article edits on an almost daily basis without running any of them by the Talk page first, one should expect a lot of TP activity as a consequence. Your focus would be better spent on reading the material in question (including your own sources), thinking about the issues, and participating in the discussions, rather than starting new sections complaining about them, or diverting from substance.   VictorD7 (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * However, in the interest of comity, since some have objected to having to read a few paragraphs, I'll produce a cliff notes version below. Hopefully it won't draw the anticipated misguided replies the longer version was meant to preempt. VictorD7 (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * VictorD7: being disruptive, which extremely long posts can be construed as, can get you blocked. -- Given that you were blocked | from this very article roughly 2 weeks ago, you should watch your behavior. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that you just destroyed the organization of an entire section of this talk page, I think its high time you leave this conversation to the grown-ups.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Excessive shouting, wild threats, chaotic revisions of other editors' posts, and a general ad hominem obsession are actually disruptive, Somedifferentstuff. Besides, you've shown no interest in the short version I posted below in a good faith attempt to address your complaints over length. TheTimesAreAChanging is right. If you have no sincere interest in substance, perhaps it's time you found a new hobby. VictorD7 (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * TheTimesAreAChanging: If you're referring to me | trying to fix the indentation issue in a completely different section and on a completely different topic, then let's discuss it; I'm more than willing to make it as readable as possible and take responsibility if my layout edits weren't helpful -- (aside from being very misleading, I give you credit for distracting editors from the present topic under discussion). --- VictorD7, the ferocity of your post is telling. Yes, your excessively long posts are disruptive. | Yes, you were recently blocked from this very article. Yes, your right-wing POV pushing needs to be toned down. Yes, yes, and yes. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your post was longer than mine, Somedifferentstuff, you're the one pushing a one sided leftist agenda with low quality POV edits, you're the one spewing diversionary ad hominem garbage like this subsection, you're the one shouting incessantly, you're the one being disruptive, and you can tell he was talking to you because he properly indented. Learn how to follow a nest. Oh, and repeatedly saying "you were recently blocked" is a childish, yawn inducing tactic that doesn't help your cause. VictorD7 (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Short Version
The CTJ source's internal federal tax rate components are dramatically disputed by the Tax Policy Center, especially for the top 1%.


 * Effective Federal Tax Rate for the Top 1% in 2011
 * TPC - 30.4%
 * CTJ - 21.1%

In fact TPC's federal rate is higher than CTJ's entire purported rate (including state/local). The other income levels are way off too, as CTJ shows the bottom four quintiles with significantly higher federal rates than TPC does, with that flipping for the top segments. CTJ is the liberal lobbying arm of ITEP, and it has an explicit interest in pretending US taxation is less progressive than it truly is. These differences are consistent, and aren't a one year fluke (e.g. CTJ 2009, 2013 ; TPC 2010 , 2013 , 2014 ). Independent CBO numbers  also dispute CTJ findings, and closely track with the TPC over time across the board (within a point or two), enhancing those two outfits' credibility.

CTJ uses a less transparent methodology than the other sources, so it's unclear exactly why there's such a huge discrepancy. An image chosen to represent a section in this country summary article shouldn't be the subject of extreme doubt and controversy. There are too many perfectly fine alternatives. Since the CTJ numbers have no corroboration and are disputed by multiple reliable sources, we should remove the image. Can anyone build a rational case why it should remain? VictorD7 (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you say that a 9% discrepancy is huge when the differences in reliable sources' reports on the incidence of corporate income tax is much more widely divergent? EllenCT (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What sources? TPC's 2011 corporate tax rate for the top 1% is 7.7%, less than that difference, so it wouldn't account for the gap even if we assumed the top 1% somehow paid zero in corporate taxes, which would be a fringe and unsupportable position anyway, and one at odds with the CTJ spokesman I quoted earlier from the story on the ITEP website about how owners (investors) pay the corporate tax. Do you even know how CTJ/ITEP attributes corporate taxes, or have you not been able to discover that yet? Because we know precisely how the TPC and CBO do it, complete with component breakdowns.  CTJ/ITEP's non-transparent nature is all the more reason why we should take down the chart image, at least until we've been able to ascertain more about where its numbers come from. VictorD7 (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The ITEP uses a DSGE model, and are consistent with the traditional sources such as Musgrave et al. (1951) and your previously-stated view that about half of the corporate income tax is borne by consumers. On one hand you seem to want to promote that view, but on the other hand you seem even more interested in suppressing it to make taxation seem more progressive than it is. Hence my sympathy. Property and sales tax levied against corporations have a similar incidence on their customers, explaining the discrepancy you point out above. EllenCT (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So you still can't tell me what corporate rate CTJ/ITEP assigns to the top 1% or any other segment, the way the TPC and CBO do? Your linked page doesn't mention "Musgrave" or spell out federal corporate incidence. Indeed it only mentions the word "corporate" once, in the context of the state level, and it hardly supports anything you just said. In fact the page also says "Second, taxes on business income, capital and property were generally treated as taxes on capital and allocated to individuals--both residents and out-of-state owners of capital-- according to the ownership of capital", though it's unclear what all they're counting as "business income" there. Perhaps you accidentally linked to the wrong page.  Even if they do go half and half on corporate incidence, which you've failed to support so far, doesn't that still mean a few points of federal corporate taxes should be attributed to the top 1% (TPC attributed 7.7% in 2011), meaning that corporate incidence doesn't come close to accounting for the discrepancy between ITEP and multiple reliable sources? I've also never said "half of the corporate income tax is borne by consumers". In fact I've repeatedly said that attributing it to owners is the most reasonable method since they're the ones directly paying it, but that all taxes have ripple effects that impact those not directly paying them (not just corporate taxes, and not just "consumers"). I figure memory loss and poor reading comprehension must be debilitating at times, so you have my sympathy, EllenCT.


 * I understand that you want to portray taxes as less progressive than they really are, but you should be able to answer the questions about incidence and find some type of corroboration. Lacking that, given the dramatic contradictions with other sources like the Tax Policy Center and CBO, and given your sole source's openly expressed bias and lobbying activity, an honest person, regardless of ideology, would adopt the more cautious route here and agree that the image should at least temporarily be taken down. Why should such a controversial, hotly disputed image be given exalted prominence in a country summary article? VictorD7 (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Victor, you might feel entitled to repeated answers to your questions which are already answered in our archived discussions on tax incidence (and Musgrave is cited in the article too) but I don't owe you anything except the truth. And the truth is that your right-wing POV pushing is transparent, tiresome, misleading to readers, and undeserving of further effort other than correction. Have you tried phoning or emailing ITEP and talking to their experts on incidence? They will probably feel a lot more inclined to walk you through this than I do. EllenCT (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ellen, you've answered none of my questions and your dodging is pathetic. Clearly you have no idea how CTJ attributes corporate incidence, much less specifically how much their 2011 figures attribute to the top 1%. What's transparent is that you're uncritically embracing debunked numbers from a partisan lobbying group because you're bent on pushing your leftist POV agenda, truth, corroboration, and consistent standards be damned.  "Misleading"? You've failed to cite a single inaccuracy I've ever pushed, while I've repeatedly had to correct your objective falsehoods in our interactions over the months, and am now highlighting your inaccurate CTJ chart.  As for archives, I'd love for you to quote and link to where I allegedly said what you claimed I did, or apologize for mischaracterizing my expressed views. And no, I won't hold my breath for either, but any honest person reading this will see your failure to comply and your demonstrated bad faith. VictorD7 (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * They derive the incidence from Bayesian re-estimation of the simulation parameters which most closely match historical outcomes in all 50 states. And they get a figure which you said you are more inclined to agree with than not attributing corporate tax incidence to consumers. What does that suggest to you in terms of the consistency of your position? EllenCT (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What incidence? You still haven't provided any figures. Does ITEP attribute corporate tax to the top 1% or not?  If so, how much? And you failed again to provide a quote from me or a link to support your gross (and pointless) mischaracterization of my position, which I just spelled out above for anyone to read, and which has been entirely consistent since long before I first encountered you.VictorD7 (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * *crickets* VictorD7 (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "I tend to agree with you that corporate income taxes are passed on to consumers and others.... That said, if one is going to develop effective tax rate incidence charts, then corporate taxes should be imputed to the owners, since they're the ones most directly paying them."
 * How is that not like saying consumer spending via checks, credit cards and ATM cards should be attributed to banks because the money comes directly from a bank account? Musgrave and the ITEP say about half of corporate income tax is borne by consumers. The ITEP says it because their models predict historical outcomes more accurately with that assumption than the assumption that only owners (and employees) bear the tax. But that doesn't leave the impression you prefer about overall progressiveness. Faced with such a contradiction, wouldn't examining your premises be preferable to name-calling? EllenCT (talk) 04:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's not what you falsely claimed I had said earlier is it? In fact for good measure I'll post the whole quote. I tend to agree with you that corporate income taxes are passed on to consumers and others, but then I think other taxes are at least partially passed on in various ways too, as I illustrated earlier with my income tax hike on the rich guy comments. That said, if one is going to develop effective tax rate incidence charts, then corporate taxes should be imputed to the owners, since they're the ones most directly paying them. Which has always been my position, just as I laid out earlier. Musgrave wrote in the 1950s and I'm not sure why you keep bringing him up.  Do you have a link to proof of how ITEP attributes corporate incidence or not? Can you answer the question about how much, if any, it attributes to the top 1%? VictorD7 (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If that's your position, why do you want to include a chart that has no corporate tax incidence borne by consumers? I already linked to the ITEP's description of their models, and again I urge you to email or pick up the phone and call them for specific questions about what goes wrong when corporate tax incidence isn't attributed to consumers. DSGE models are complicated, like weather models, but very well regarded in reliable sources because with enough computational effort they are not only very accurately predictive of past outcomes, but that accuracy carries forward often for years or until some legislative or judicial change throws a wrench into to the modeled processes. You run them over and over performing a heuristic search on the parameters until they start predicting historical outcomes correctly. They are used to make sure suppliers have reasonable inventories on hand, among other things, and keep supply chains flowing smoothly without waste or delay. See Dynamic stochastic general equilibrium, Monte Carlo method, Markov chain Monte Carlo, and Gibbs sampling. EllenCT (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So you don't know the answer? It's ok to admit you don't know if ITEP attributes any corporate taxes to the top 1% or not, or, if so, how much. I don't know either.  There's no need to try and obscure that with a load of off-point jargon. However, that lack of knowledge does undermine your attempt to dismiss ITEP being contradicted by multiple reliable sources as merely different treatments of corporate incidence, as well as underscore ITEP's problematically opaque methodology. Both TPC and the CBO do provide corporate component breakdowns, and corporate taxation wouldn't account for the difference even if ITEP attributed zero to the top 1%, a fringe position that would fly in the face of every source presented anyway, including CTJ/ITEP's own spokesman who only mentioned investors paying corporate taxes (as I quoted earlier). As for my position, are you kidding?  Did you not read the last sentence of my quote? You quoted it too. The one about me saying corporate taxes (not "some") should be imputed to owners (investors), since they're the ones most directly paying them?  How about the part where I pointed out that consumers aren't the only ones to feel the ripple effects of corporate taxes?  Labor and everyone else in the economy does, which I said is true of all taxes. Why would I support cherry-picking one tax and treating it differently?  VictorD7 (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * About half of the corporate property and sales taxes fall on consumers, too, which explains why the last bar of the ITEP graph is less than the penultimate bar. EllenCT (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as an admission that you have no idea how much if any corporate tax ITEP attributes to the top 1%, or why their figure for that percentile is so much lower than the TPC and CBO's. VictorD7 (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And I will take that entirely false assumption as an admission that you have not yet found a way to reconcile your conflicting desires to portray taxes as progressive and assign the incidence of corporate taxes to consumers. EllenCT (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How much, if any, corporate tax does ITEP attribute to the top 1% then, Ellen? Give a number, like the TPC and CBO do. Your lie about my desire regarding incidence (debunked with quotes and clear commentary above) merits no response, though I'll point out that your desire to falsely depict US taxation as regressive is at odds with even your own CTJ/ITEP outlier lobbyist source, which calls overall US taxation "progressive". VictorD7 (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Health section trimming
The Health section of this article is yet another section that has too many specific details relative to the sections around it, such as Education, Sci & Tech, and Infrastructure, which have relatively little detail and more general information in comparison. The below highlighted information is what should be removed because it becomes too specific about a certain subject. Such details can be found in Healthcare in the United States and other US Health articles if the reader wishes to learn more. It is one of the sections that is in danger of becoming a WP:SOAPBOX for certain editors because of the ongoing healthcare debates in the US, but as has been reiterated numerous times, this should remain a summary section within a summary article.

____

The U.S. is a global leader in medical innovation. America solely developed or contributed significantly to 9 of the top 10 most important medical innovations since 1975 as ranked by a 2001 poll of physicians, while the EU and Switzerland together contributed to five. Since 1966, Americans have received more Nobel Prizes in Medicine than the rest of the world combined. From 1989 to 2002, four times more money was invested in private biotechnology companies in America than in Europe.[440][441] A comprehensive 2007 study by European doctors found the five-year cancer survival rate was significantly higher in the U.S. than in all 21 European nations studied, 66.3% for men versus the European mean of 47.3% and 62.9% versus 52.8% for women.[442][443] Americans undergo cancer screenings at significantly higher rates than people in other developed countries, and access MRI and CT scans at the highest rate of any OECD nation.[444] People in the U.S. diagnosed with high cholesterol or hypertension access pharmaceutical treatments at higher rates than those diagnosed in other developed nations, and are more likely to successfully control the conditions.[445][446] Diabetics are more likely to receive treatment and meet treatment targets in the U.S. than in Canada, England, or Scotland.[447][448] Needs to be removed because this is yet another example of the US vs. Europe competition which is unneccessary here, and because cancer survival rates is too specific for this general summary section.

The U.S. health-care system far outspends any other nations, measured in both per capita spending and percentage of GDP.[449] In 2008, the U.S. spent more on health care per capita ($7,146), and as percentage of GDP (15.2%), than any other nation. Health-care coverage in the United States is a combination of public and private efforts, and is not universal as in all other developed countries. In 2004, private insurance paid for 36% of personal health expenditures, private out-of-pocket payments covered 15%, and federal, state, and local governments paid for 44%.[450] Statistics too specific for general summary section, can be found in Healthcare in the United States In 2010, 49.9 million residents or 16.3% of the population did not carry health insurance. The main cause of this rise is the drop in the number of Americans with employer-sponsored health insurance.[451] The subject of uninsured and underinsured Americans is a major political issue.[452][453] In 2006, Massachusetts became the first state to mandate universal health insurance.[454] '''In 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcy blamed medical expenses. About 25% of all senior citizens declare bankruptcy because of medical expenses, and 43% are forced to mortgage or sell their primary residence.[455]' Statistics too specific for general summary section.'' Federal legislation passed in early 2010 would ostensibly create a near-universal health insurance system around the country by 2014, though the bill and its ultimate impact are issues of controversy.[456][457]

Cadiomals (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If you're opposed to "US vs. Europe" competition, as you claimed when deleting the paragraph covering actual US healthcare traits and stats for the most common ailments (including comparisons with OECD and "developed" nations), why did you leave comparisons with the developed (or "western", both of which essentially mean the US and Europe) world all over the section?


 * Why is the relatively recently added "maternal mortality" segment, which compares the US with other "Western countries", and impacts a tiny fraction of the population, still there when you erased informative segments on cancer, high US screening rates, hypertension, diabetes, and generally high US pharmaceutical use that impacts the vast majority of the population?


 * Why is the relatively high US spending mentioned twice in back to back sentences? Isn't one enough?


 * Why did you delete that sentence breaking down private versus public coverage, which was a perfectly fine, neutral fact sequence illustrating how the US system works, and leave in the lines about coverage not being "universal" as in "all other developed countries", and the out of context political talking point about 49.9 million Americans being uninsured in 2010 (isn't that too much detail?) followed by the nonsensical claim of cause of this "rise" (what rise?) being a drop in employer-sponsored insurance. If that frivolous segment remains then (aside from basic logical/grammatical corrections) we will have to add an actual breakdown of the uninsured, and the reasons why they're uninsured (hint - only a small percentage of that number is involuntarily uninsured; most are wealthy or at least could afford it but choose not to, are eligible for Medicaid but haven't bothered to enroll because they're allowed to wait until they need it, or are illegal aliens; that's one of the many reasons Obamacare is crashing and burning).


 * While I support deleting the bankruptcy talking point (which even some liberals admit is a problematic claim), that "62.1%" sentence isn't even sourced, and the "elderly" sentence is sourced only to a pay to read study (no thanks). The former apparently originated from this study from our old single payer activist PNHP buddies Himmelstein and Woolhandler (who previously brought us classics like the widely debunked "45k" deaths a year from uninsurance BS), but the actual pdf says the 62.1% figure is for all "medical bankruptcies", lumping in those who merely cite an illness itself (not medical expenses; people losing jobs or having their lives disrupted rather than medical bills per se) or even just what the study activist/authors deem to be "high" medical bills with those who blame "medical expenses" for their bankruptcies (the latter is what the text segment here erroneously associates with the 61.2% figure). In the only (pertinent) chart they show (Table 2), only 29% of debtors blame "medical expenses" for their bankruptcies. Granted, there's a bizarre asterisk saying the chart applies to recent home owners rather than all debtors, but that begs the question why they don't give the info about total debtor responses? Medical costs may have been one of many contributing factors to more than 29%, but the pdf isn't transparent enough to provide the full questionaire they used (complete with the answers) or lay this crucial stuff out. Furthermore, bankruptcy is getting far removed from health. Deleting these two sentences isn't much of a fair tradeoff for losing the entire paragraph about actual healthcare.


 * Not a big deal, but does the MA sentence really merit inclusion? It's the only state mentioned. VictorD7 (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am trying my best to remain neutral in the political infighting here. Unlike you and others, I don't deliberately choose to remove or keep information that is skewed towards my political viewpoints. It might appear that way to you, but I tried to remove enough information to shorten the section while not moving so much that others (like EllenCT) will object to it and potentially revert it. I was also considering removing some of the stuff you mentioned above, but decided against it, once again because I didn't want my removals to appear excessive and have someone revert them. I think I left in maternal mortality and misconstrued it with infant mortality, which is a statistic mentioned in many other country articles. I left in the MA sentence because I saw it as being related to the last sentence. After further thought I would remove a couple more details mostly for bias or redundance but that's it. If I were to remove any more detail that you perceive as "bias" it is bound to be reverted and restored completely to its previous lengthy state, resulting in nothing being done and more stalemate.


 * U.S. teenage pregnancy and abortion rates are substantially higher than in other Western nations, particularly among blacks and Hispanics.[443] In 2010, the maternal mortality rate was 21 deaths/100,000 live births, higher than in most Western countries.[444] 


 * The U.S. health-care system far outspends any other nations, measured in both per capita spending and percentage of GDP.[447] In 2008, the U.S. spent more on health care per capita ($7,146), and as percentage of GDP (15.2%), than any other nation. Basically repeats preceding statistic but only for one year. Health-care coverage in the United States is a combination of public and private efforts and is not universal as in all other developed countries. In 2010, 49.9 million residents or 16.3% of the population did not carry health insurance. The main cause of this rise is the drop in the number of Americans with employer-sponsored health insurance.[448] 


 * Please remember that is very frustrating and exhausting for me, as someone who ideally wants to be a casual Wikipedia editor who edits when he feels like it, to shorten these sections while leaving them balanced or not drawing too much objection. I am leaving the percent uninsured in because it is a viable statistic and there is no reason we need to break down why people are uninsured. I really don't care what your political views are and would prefer you keep your responses short by not expressing them to me. I also wish to remind you and others that I am not pandering to you in any way and ultimately couldn't care less what you personally approve of, as I seek consensus and compromise and you have only shown yourself to be another unreliable soapboxer and already been blocked for edit-warring. Cadiomals (talk) 06:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Your personal attack against me is off base and totally unwarranted, especially since you just conceded I made some good points. I'm not interested in being a "soapboxer" and didn't give more than an indirect hint of my political views in my response to your lengthy post.  I was blocked once for a technical rule violation while standing up to dishonest soapboxers (who were also violating the rules, but I'm not a run to admin and tell kind of guy), and that random comment is irrelevant to the substance of this discussion. I've undeniably been willing to compromise and have operated in good faith every step of the way, following the Talk Page consensus process more than you or anyone else. I was planning on reverting your Health edits myself (while the discussion continued), but since you've already implemented the additional changes (mindless insults notwithstanding), I'll let them stand.   VictorD7 (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Victor D7's removals and a proposal
Even I, who has been extensively advocating trimming sections in this article, would not have supported such a big slashing of even more information which shortened the section by over 2/3rd from its original length, and I would not have called for such an extreme removal of info knowing it would be too contentious and not garner enough support for at least some trimming. It will be difficult gathering consensus once again to keep or remove the info he wanted gone, so I think the section in its current state is a satisfactory compromise with people (like EllenCT) who wanted to keep all of it. We have to accept a certain level of compromise to at least get something done. Editors who go for one extreme or another just invite more edit warring.

Since VictorD7 seems so keen in trimming this article, I propose he remove the information he added within Government finance which brought the section into excessive detail about the national taxation system. Such a section doesn't even exist in most country articles, and it should be bare-bones when it comes to general information about taxes and government spending. Cadiomals (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Why didn't you comment on them above then? Unlike you and Ellen, I actually laid out my proposals on the Talk Page and waited a couple of days for objections before implementing them, providing rationales for each one. And no, I'm not sure what you mean by "original" length", but even with my changes the Income section is still pretty long. When you started the survey that garnered 7-2 support for significant reduction the subsection was 7330 characters long, before Friedman's driveby edits bloated it even further. Ellen's undiscussed changes and the couple of lines you deleted brought it down to 4049 characters, and my telegraphed edit brought it down to 2652 characters, so let's not leave the false impression that I single-handedly reduced the subsection by two-thirds.  Since my edit was reverted by one of the leftist editors who opposed this streamlining project but hasn't commented on it at all on the Talk Page, so far I've had no say in the reductions. The section is still more than half as long as it was when this started, and much longer than it was before the extreme bloating began in recent months.


 * My edit would have been a compromise. Five sentences would have still been dedicated to explicit poverty, not counting another 11 sentences about the economic downturn, unemployment, inequality, and falling incomes. Only five sentences deal with other stuff, mostly topline stats describing the entire population. Most of the sources would still be left wing.


 * By putting back in the extra garbage the section is even more skewed to the left. At 4049 characters it's also still longer than the 3639 character parent Economy section. Since I went to the trouble of explaining why the material I removed should go, could you at least offer specific counterarguments? Can you support any of my deletions? Can we at least agree that this vague and opinionated segment should go? People living in such neighborhoods tend to suffer from inadequate access to quality education; higher crime rates; higher rates of physical and psychological ailment; limited access to credit and wealth accumulation; higher prices for goods and services; and constrained access to job opportunities.[391][392] If not, can you provide a legitimate, rational argument why I shouldn't restore this segment describing a much broader swath of "poor" Americans in a more concrete way? Over 80% of poor American households have air conditioning, three quarters own at least one automobile, about 40% own their homes, and the average poor American has more living space than the general population average in every European nation except Luxembourg and Denmark. Most of them have a refrigerator, stove, microwave, telephone, and television. About half have computers and less than half have internet service.[375][408][409]  What's your defense for only a giving a very skewed, one sided POV portion of the story?


 * Also, Ellen changed the name of the subsection from "Personal income" to "Income, poverty, and wealth" several months ago when she dramatically expanded it with material already mostly covered in the Economy section (most of which still remains in the Income section, btw), yet it devotes much attention to poverty and virtually none to affluence. The only mention of wealth is in the share breakdown (emphasizing inequality). This could be alleviated by restoring the mention at the end of the fact that the US has the most millionaires and billionaires in the world. The segment went through a few versions, with the longest lasting one crafted by Ellen (after discussion with me). Friedman didn't like the "self-made" portion and recently tried to counter it with far left blogs playing with language, but we could reword it or simply leave that clause out. It's hard to imagine people objecting to the simple factoid about the US having the most millionaires and billionaires.


 * I said I'd support your effort if it was done neutrally, but this is far from neutral. The current section is unacceptable. Such an overwhelming leftist slant is inherently unstable and practically screams for future balancing additions. Even if I accepted it (which I wouldn't), and even if the predictable cluster of 2-4 unscrupulous leftist hacks reverted my attempts to add counterpoints while defending and expanding their own partisan talking points, I'm not the only non-leftist editor on Wikipedia, and those numbers could change at any time. If you just blow off my concerns here, you're only undermining your own project and guaranteeing failure. VictorD7 (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As for Gov. Finance, you'd have to be more specific. The information I added recently was in response to Friedman bloating it with excessive, poorly constructed material. I already supported your first attempt to edit it, but that was as part of a larger package, and given how this Income thing went, I'd have to know more before I endorsed any future moves by you. I certainly wouldn't support you only deleting my segments.  Gov. Finance would be fine if the third paragraph and the inaccurate, far left lobbyist ITEP chart was deleted.  Though no real objections have been raised against the TPC chart, it'd be better to remove both charts than leave the misleading propaganda in place, so I'd support that too. VictorD7 (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have only recently (within this past month) developed a vested interest in the content in this article. Prior to that I had only been making occasional small edits and never noticed the content disputes going on until the article became protected due to edit-warring a few weeks ago. After that I took a good look and realized many sections had become much, much longer than how I remembered them. I had and still have no clear idea who started this downward spiral. My initial massive clean-up was blocked by EllenCT, so I had to take the time to gather many people for consensus before she finally saw the light and conceded to shortening the section by half. Now, even though I really don't want to, I have to keep a daily eye on this article because of fears that people with a blatant disregard of WP guidelines such as WP:SOAPBOX and WP:SUMMARY would return it to its previous state.


 * The point is I had to go out of my way to gather consensus and compromise by accepting less-extensive removals in order to get stubborn people like EllenCT to concede to at least some changes. If you don't want your further removals to be blocked, you will have to gain some approval of your own. To prove that you are also not here to soapbox your right-wing views, you should remove not just other people's excessive additions to Government finance but also your own, including the graphs. That section should be as general and bare-bones as possible, to the point where you can actually remove the "Public debt" section and merge it with the rest of Govt finance. It is no coincidence that the sections which are most excessive are of subjects that are currently hotly debated in the political arena and can easily fall prey to soapboxing. I feel I have succeeded in doing my part to shorten many of them, but if you want further trimming it's your job to gather consensus this time and not start another edit war. Cadiomals (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You didn't answer any of my questions or address any of my concerns. I've already compromised by supporting your original edits deleting a lot of material I added (and stuff I didn't add but liked), I just repeated my support for deleting both Gov. finance charts (however, I didn't create the Public debt subsection and don't see why that refreshingly short and neutral subsection should be deleted or merged), and I've undeniably made a good faith effort to engage you in this process with specific proposals and questions, which so far you've entirely blown off. If you support me on some things Ellen will likely compromise. This article was wrecked in recent months by a low brow leftist quartet of Friedman, Stuff, Griffin, and Ellen, with the first two being the most persistent offenders, Griffin getting the ball rolling but ducking out for a long time until now, and the opportunistic Ellen popping in occasionally (they've tended to rotate, almost in shifts). That's it. The opposition to your originally stated goal is more fragile than you apparently realize, but it will take more than me being willing to revert them. You backing me up would probably be enough to dissuade edit warring by them, and if it's not we'd just need another editor or two to guarantee success. The survey showed how much sentiment there is among the broader group of editors floating around for significant streamlining. It's overwhelming. It'd just be a matter of getting someone from that group to go from passive to active support. But you throwing in the towel and pulling the rug out from under me like this greatly lessens the chances of that, given how reluctant most editors are to get involved as it is.  If you let Ellen (one of the two who opposed reduction) dictate the course of streamlining, knocking off the few (albeit more powerful, better constructed, and more article appropriate) "conservative" segments while only sacrificing a few of the more irrelevant and inane leftist ones, you're letting yourself be used to skew the article further and are guaranteeing future edit warring by others (whether I'm involved or not). You're being tested.  The aforementioned quartet isn't interested in rational, intellectually honest Talk Page discussion.  You've seen that for yourself. Ellen's undiscussed, massive unilateral edit was an act of desperation to lock in as much leftist bias as she could and see if she could get away with it (she even said "I recognize where this RFC is going...", which was a place not conducive to her agenda). If you don't show resolve in your stated goal to have a streamlined, neutral article, you'll lose control of this thing and they'll know they can go back to driveby editing in the near future (if not now).


 * All that aside, there's no good reason you can't just give your opinions on my specific proposals and comments here on the Talk Page. I make a lot of good points. At the very least they merit an articulated, good faith disagreement.


 * PS - For the record, regarding the "downward spiral", I only started an account a little over a year ago because I was fed up with seeing the US page riddled with inaccuracies and one sided, leftist propaganda bullet points. It's actually improved a lot since then, and your original edit would have furthered that improvement, though the recent, reckless driveby bloating has lowered the quality of a few key sections, and the inadequate, skewed deletions being implemented so far are threatening to leave the article worse off. Unlike the quartet, I'd be perfectly happy with a truly neutral article and don't feel the need to hijack Wikipedia for use as a platform for my side's talking points. My position since the beginning is that we should either lose those leftist talking points, or, if they remain, allow counterpoints. Since I intend to remain faithful to that position, I can't in good conscience sign off on a section or article with an absurd partisan slant. My position is reasonable.  VictorD7 (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but there is only so much time and energy I'm willing to put into seeing articles at optimal quality and fighting POV editors. As I said before I am normally a very casual editor. I have never been deeply involved in any one article and as such my willpower to fighting the degradation of this one has a limit. If the leftist watchdogs here are testing me as you say and calling the shots then ultimately I wouldn't have the will to fight that or gather an army and will ultimately end up throwing in the towel if it gets too frustrating. That's why I readily embraced EllenCT's removals without really looking into exactly what she removed, because at least she had finally agreed to remove something. I suggest you outline your proposed deletions for the Government finance section here and we'll go from there. If you can make it bare bones with no signs of bias (including your own) then there is no reason anyone who is truly concerned for this article's neutrality would object. Cadiomals (talk) 06:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Um, I just did (see my first reply). I'd support deleting the entire third paragraph and both charts (neither of which are "biased" to my side, btw; I use sources from across the spectrum). It would have been a lot quicker to address that proposal rather than typing up a paragraph explaining how tired and disinterested you are. It's disconcerting that you didn't even bother to examine Ellen's edit. If you're sincere about wanting a better article, you'll have to do better. VictorD7 (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree with removing the entire third paragraph and both graphs just for the sole reasoning that it is excessive detail, but before I would, is there any reason anyone might object to its removal? Also, aren't there a few details in the second paragraph that could be removed? Why do we need to mention payroll taxes for social security? Cadiomals (talk) 07:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * PS - I'm sorry you find it disconcerting. I did examine it somewhat, but Wikipedia's "before and after" system can be very confusing. At that point I was just so desperate to get that hideously long section shortened it was a relief when it was finally halved. Just looking at that huge unwarranted wall of text made me sick. Cadiomals (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No legitimate reason for objection, but that's not necessarily controlling, so I can't say for sure. Friedman got the expansion going that led to the recently created third paragraph, but most of the lines there now are mine. Prior to that, after a long time without an image, I added an informative chart based on Tax Policy Center numbers (a prominently cited liberal group with figures that closely track the CBO's over time) showing the federal tax rate breakdown. He and Ellen saw that as an opportunity to add the other chart from CTJ (a fringe, far left lobbying group) purporting to show total taxation (inc. state/local) with uncorroborated numbers and an internal federal component dramatically disputed by multiple reliable sources (including the TPC and CBO). That resulted in a serious, ongoing dispute, but unfortunately we're the only ones participating in it, so if that chart remains I'll probably eventually have to take the issue to arbitration to have it removed at some point. They initially claimed they thought the TPC chart was "right wing" because it showed taxation as more progressive than they'd like it depicted, but after I linked to evidence proving the TPC is liberal they backed off that.  They haven't really been participating in a full, honest, rational exchange, so I'm not sure what their rationale would be now. Presumably Ellen and Friedman would oppose deleting only the CTJ chart, but Friedman did say at one point in an edit summary that "During the discussion in talk we should keep both in the article or delete BOTH charts," so they should be fine with deleting both of them, and doing so would defuse a dispute that would otherwise continue.  As for payroll taxes for social security, I'm not sure precisely which segment you're referring to, but some of that was added by either Friedman or Stuff, so I can't make any promises on that. The original wording, before whoever it was added SS specific numbers, was more general and article appropriate (and shared a sentence with a shorter version of what's now the following sentence), so a rewording/consolidation might be better than outright deletion. VictorD7 (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Back to Income, can you at least support removing the relatively recently added segment on poverty I quoted above that features multiple overtly opinionated words (no army required)? If not, I'll be reinserting the much longer standing amenities/home ownership material, which was actually shaped by several different editors several months ago. The only reason I didn't immediately revert that was because I had been led to believe that further deletions were imminent that would likely balance things out. VictorD7 (talk) 07:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I had actually considered removing/changing the info you brought up as part of the "further changes" section above, but once again, I refrained for fear that it would be "too much" for a certain few and would backfire totally. However, I feel I have complete justification based on WP guidelines for removing the following sentences, as I agree that they are excessive in terms of recycling the same ideas about poverty or being too vague:
 * Over the last two decades income inequality has been increasing to the point of becoming permanent, reducing social mobility in the US.[365] According to a survey by the Associated Press, four out of five U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives.[366] These sentences are vaguely worded. I had actually removed them before along with other changes. However once again Ellen partially returned some information while accepting the removal of others. Willing to compromise rather than edit war, I ignored it. But the above sentences are worded very vaguely and I will remove them until someone who wants it to stay can somehow word it to be less vague and skewed.
 * I am going to just reword the following sentence, Half of the U.S. population lives in poverty or has a low income, according to U.S. census data. to Nearly half of U.S. households are considered "low-income" by the U.S. census, earning $45,000 or less per year for a family of four. This is actually the Census' definition for "low income" and it would sound much less vague than just saying "poor or low-income".
 * People living in such neighborhoods tend to suffer from inadequate access to quality education; higher crime rates; higher rates of physical and psychological ailment; limited access to credit and wealth accumulation; higher prices for goods and services; and constrained access to job opportunities. This sentences basically defines what poverty is for almost every nation, as such it isn't necessary here. It's another detail that I had initially had in mind to remove but compromised on.
 * About 1.56 million people, or about 0.5% of the U.S. population, used an emergency shelter or a transitional housing program between October 1, 2008, and September 30, 2009. Not politically biased, just excessive detail elaborating on the sentence before it.
 * I feel agreeing on removing the legitimate income inequality stats would go a little overboard. While the sentences above have genuinely no place in this article, you appear to just have a problem with how those inequality stats are worded/presented. Cadiomals (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * First, I appreciate you taking the time to look into the substance here. My salient objection to the income segments is based on both their excessive detail and skewed, partisan nature. The most pertinent sentences originally read: The rise in the share of total annual income received by the top 1 percent, which has more than doubled from 9 percent in 1976 to 20 percent in 2011, has had a significant impact on income inequality,[399] leaving the United States with one of the widest income distributions among OECD nations,[387][400] though incomes have risen across the board in that time and individuals' incomes have increased significantly with age.[397] The median American family had almost twice the purchasing power in 2011 that it did in 1960.[401][402] The post-recession income gains have been very uneven, with the top 1 percent capturing 95 percent of the income gains from 2009 to 2012.[403] Ellen deleted the bolded portions and left the rest. This standard partisan talking point ignores gain breakdowns for the other 99% of the population (it's cherry-picked), obscures wide fluctuations in the top 1%'s share in that span (especially recently), is a carefully selected comparison that implies there's something unprecedented about the top 1%'s current share (it's increased in most data sets in recent decades, but the late 1970s was an aberrational low, it was higher than now in the past, and has probably been closer to this level than the 1970s for most of US history), ignores that the individuals making up the top 1% (and other brackets) have changed considerably over that time, implies that a higher top 1% share is bad for everyone else (empirically the opposite is typically the case, economics not being a zero-sum game), and ignores that incomes have risen across the board in absolute terms in that span. The "inequality" theme is important to the left but the text currently excludes other perspectives, and presents that theme in the most extreme manner possible. This material might be fine for other articles, but for the summary page can't we sidestep the need for counterpoints, drop the sentence's niche "1%" focus, and just relay the legitimately descriptive trait that The U.S has one of the widest income distributions among OECD nations. ? That's a fair, general statement about a legitimate, distinctive trait that doesn't descend into partisan polemics or call for more counterpoints. We can leave the two liberal sources currently used and add one or both of what I linked to here for a balanced perspective of the same topic. The second sentence (post-recession income gains) is also skewed (what about post recession welfare expansion, record food stamp levels, etc.?), is sourced to a liberal opinion piece calling for more substantial tax hikes and regulatory expansions, and mostly reflects the rising stock market (historically the primary driver of "top 1%" income/wealth share fluctuations) coinciding with an overall dismal economy. As the source itself shows, the top 1%'s recent income growth rate is historically modest, with the "gains" skewing reflecting almost no growth for anyone else. How many sentences on inequality do we need?  I'd just delete that sentence, but it's not as big a deal since at least the "95%" stat is overwhelming enough to justify exclusive focus on the top 1%, unlike the previous sentence. VictorD7 (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Justice and law enforcement section
Please insert into article: The country punishes at a higher per capita rate than any other country in the world. In the past two decades, rates of incarceration have risen by 500%.
 * ❌ No thanks. We just got done trimming out unnecessary skewed details, many still remain, and we're not about to add any more. Anyway, your POV-pushing addition would just be reiterating the details already present in the incarceration paragraph which already discusses increased incarceration rates. Cadiomals (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Language
I actually laughed at the fact someone has put language in the main section as American English. Isn't that a bit unnecessary? We haven't changed the UK's one to British English, England's to English English, Australia's to Australian English. The language we speak in America is English, no matter how you dress it up. Apparently someone wasn't satisfied America doesn't speak its own language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.239.21 (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * We don't speak proper English, we speak American English. That said, the United States of America lacks an official language, only a de facto primary language of American English. I suggest you read English language and Comparison of American and British English to understand a little bit more on the subject. A prime example would be comparing the usage of ass in American English and the English spoken in England. In the US, an your comment would prove that you are an ass (if one ignores simple ignorance), whereas in England, an ass is a beast of burden and arse would be the proper term. That said, you are obviously not an ass in American English, simply ignorant on the subject, yet seeking to speak as an authority on the subject. Hmmm, that contradicts itself. But then, I'm being an ass myself right now, hopefully in a humorous way. I also write and speak fluent American and proper British English. Can't quite figure out a few regional dialects of it, either in the UK or the US though.Wzrd1 (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Europe comparison
A quick read through the much-discussed "Heritage Foundation" report demonstrates something interesting. The only comparisons with Europe - indeed with any other country- that I could find were in the living space category. Additionally, "Europe" excludes much of Eastern Europe. Cherry-picking one category (which moreover lumps "Europe" largely together) for use in the article seems pointless and creates a false impression that a) "Europeans are one group and b) European poor are worse off than American poor.Rwenonah (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Europeans are lumped together all the time (there's even been a huge project to unify the continent over the past half century plus, through vehicles like the EU), and the comparison is also with individual European countries. American "poor" arguably are better off than European poor, but the remaining line doesn't mention poor, US or European, so I'm not sure why you even brought that up. Most of eastern Europe is covered, but the comparison is actually with EU nations, so, for precision, I'd support changing it to read "...as European Union residents, and more than every EU nation." VictorD7 (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It is typical of partisan sources to select comparisons in order to defend a viewpoint. I came across this in the writings of an expert on charities who publishes scholarly and polemical books.  Notice the two charts he picks to compare volunteerism in the U.S. and other countries:  "Voluntarism in Nineteen Industrialized Nations, 1998" and "International Volunteering Comparisons, 1998"  Both charts use the same data, but while the first chart shows volunteerism in the U.S. is the same as in Canada, Australia and NZ, the three countries that are most similar to the U.S., the second omits them and shows that volunteerism in the U.S. is higher than all other nations.   TFD (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * For those unacquainted with the Heritage Foundation, it is a conservative US think tank. There is a Wikipedia entry for the organization, the criticism section was rather interesting. It would be great if non-partison sources could be found, to prevent POV and nonsense from entering the article.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Heritage and Brookings, right and left, are the think tanks most influencing U.S. law, so they seem relevant to an article on the US. They are also two that post much of their research online for ready access. It seems that sourcing one would carry the WP editorial burden of sourcing the other on the same topic for encyclopedic balance -- at WP. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. It is like saying that Southern racists were influential in racial policy therefore we should use them as sources for race in America.  TFD (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Insert That makes no sense, neither Heritage nor Brookings are particularly southern or racist. I oppose southern racists, marxist racists and neo-confederates. If someone uses Heritage, they should balance the same entry with Brookings or equivalent. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking of balance, TVH, what do you think about the subsection's extreme skew laid out below, especially now that the undisputed Heritage supported sentence has been deleted? VictorD7 (talk) 05:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with users Rwenonah, TFD, and Wzrd1. I have discussed this issue extensively here. The general consensus at this point is for removal. The material can be added back at a later date if this changes. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The comparison actually ignores the Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, and European Russia, although in the the report the comparison is between the U.S. and Europe. WHy are we using a report written by those who don't know the difference between Europe the continent and the EU? In my opinion, it seems like living space was cherry-picked as the category in which the American poor are most superior, and countries in which this may not have been true were ignored. Rwenonah (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Since all but the fringes of the continent are in the EU it's common to use the terms almost interchangeably. "European" is vaguer term and even Europeans can't always agree on precisely who all is European or not (Russians? Turks?). Countries weren't "ignored". The European source is a report on EU nations, so those are the ones counted. In context, Heritage was referring to every European nation studied. The Heritage source is of limited importance to this discussion though since the underlying information is verifiable. I've posted the underlying government sources before and could do so again if you're sincerely concerned with source credibility. But this is the second time here you've erroneously claimed or implied that the comparison is about the "poor".  The sentence is about general population average.  The word "poor" isn't mentioned. After all, the section isn't just supposed to be about the poor, but also "Income...and wealth". By your own logic why should anyone listen to you? I still will because people make honest mistakes, but in the future please refrain from claiming that the inclusion being discussed is about the poor. VictorD7 (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wzrd1, Wikipedia isn't a good source (there's actually a rule prohibiting it from being used as a source I can dig up if you want me to), but Heritage is a conservative think tank, and one of the most prominent think tanks in the country. Being conservative doesn't disqualify a source from being used, especially when the pertinent claim is well referenced and verifiable from the underlying government documents. Are you opposed to the leftist sources currently filling the subsection and much of the article, or do you only have problems with conservative ones? For example, how about the very next sentence, which is only sourced to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, one of the most left wing think tanks in the country, with that particular piece arguing (dubiously) that Obama's interventionist policies have been good for the economy?  Or the "productivity" sentence later based entirely on original, apparently unverifiable calculations by an even more leftist outfit called EPI? How about the liberal blogs, like multiple Huffington Post pieces and a personal blog from a Marxist professor obsessed with "class power" to support the sentence on the top 10%'s wealth share?  Any of that bother you? VictorD7 (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This was Victor's attempt to balance what he perceived as an overly negative bias towards America's economic weaknesses in this section with very little focus on its strengths, constantly comparing it negatively to Europe to send a subtle and biased message to the reader that the "European system" is somehow superior and it ought to be adopted. I agreed with him when it came to that and luckily, most of that inappropriate soapboxing has since been successfully removed. However, I have to be honest in saying I never saw the usefulness of this particular statement, even if he defended its source. It is just another example of comparing the US to Europe, but in a different way. As such, it also seems like cherry-picking to make a point and is of no real usefulness to the reader other than to serve as a "positive" statement amid negative ones. I'm sure Mongolians, who have the world's lowest population density, have tons of living space, but I wouldn't say they're better off than Americans. However, I hope Victor will not be as upset this time and respect consensus, knowing that many of the biased and frivolous details he was against were ultimately removed too. Cadiomals (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The article has seen a net improvement but is still extremely slanted, especially the Income subsection, which I'll expand on in a new section below (along with a list of other European comparisons). This deletion would make it even worse. I reverted Stuff's premature removal for now to give the Talk Page process more than a single day to play out, though I did address the one legitimate concern by changing "European" to "European Union" for precision. Living space is a basic feature of living standard (as this BBC piece lays out), and it's a mistake to assume it's just about population density. This Guardian piece (from one of Britain's chief left wing media outfits) explicitly says the low British figure is not due to density, blaming it on financial decisions made by builders. I seriously doubt Mongolians are living it up in large homes. Besides, density is skewed since most of the US is desert or rugged terrain. Most Americans live in urban areas, just like Europeans. Home size for the average American is a lot more important and descriptive than the top 1%'s income share is, and yet the article dwells extensively on the latter. Plus, American homes being so much larger than the rest of the world's makes that a salient defining trait in its own right, one worth mentioning, as the incarceration rate and other such topics are. That it's true isn't disputed. There's no good reason to delete this line when there are so many others more worthy of removal. VictorD7 (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh look, while Mongols undoubtedly have much smaller homes than Americans, they do have a Gini index over 11 points lower, meaning they're significantly more "equal" than Americans, as are North Koreans, Egyptians, Poles, etc.. What was the rationale for deleting the single living space line while keeping several sentences on "inequality" again? Come on, Cadiomals, look at the overwhelming slant I documented below. Were you serious about pursuing article neutrality or not? VictorD7 (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Some other European comparisons in the article
Including "developed nations" references, which mostly means Europe and the US, with Japan and a few British Commonwealth nations tacked on. A quick, partial list:

''
 * Though larger than any other nation's, its national GDP was about 5% smaller at PPP in 2011 than the European Union's
 * About 12% of workers are unionized, compared to 30% in Western Europe.[344]
 * Social mobility is actually lower than other high-income countries, with the OECD ranking the U.S. 10th behind France, Germany, Canada, Australia, and the Nordic countries,[434][435][436][437]
 * American art and literature took most of its cues from Europe. (not a comparison, but one of many examples of Europe being "lumped together")
 * While most major U.S. sports have evolved out of European practices (same as above)
 * Among developed nations, the United States has above-average levels of violent crime and particularly high levels of gun violence and homicide
 * The market for professional sports in the United States is roughly $69 billion, roughly 50% larger than that of all of Europe, the Middle East, and Africa combined.
 * A cross-sectional analysis of the World Health Organization Mortality Database from 2003 showed that United States "homicide rates were 6.9 times higher than rates in the other high-income countries, driven by firearm homicide rates that were 19.5 times higher."
 * The United States is the only advanced economy that that does not guarantee its workers paid vacation
 * The U.S. has the fourth most unequal income distribution among OECD nations[23][24]
 * the U.S. has the highest mean and second-highest median household income in the OECD as well as the highest average wage
 * its population growth rate is positive at 0.9%, significantly higher than those of many developed nations.
 * Wealth, like income and taxes, is highly concentrated: The richest 10% of the adult population possesses 69.8% of the country's household wealth, the second-highest share among developed nations.
 * leaving the United States with one of the widest income distributions among OECD nations.
 * ''For decades, nuclear power has played a limited role relative to many other developed countries
 * As for public expenditures on higher education, the U.S. trails some other OECD nations but spends more per student than the OECD average
 * The United States has life expectancy of 78.4 years at birth, up from 75.2 years in 1990, ranks it 50th among 221 nations, and 27th out of the 34 industrialized OECD countries, down from 20th in 1990.
 * four times more money was invested in private biotechnology companies in America than in Europe
 * U.S. teenage pregnancy and abortion rates are substantially higher than in other Western nations.
 * Mainstream American cuisine is similar to that in other Western countries.

Since the EU and US account for the vast majority of the developed world (and the OECD), it'd seem disingenuous to accept the principle of the above comparisons while claiming a US/EU comparison is irrelevant, especially since explicit US/EU comparisons already exist elsewhere in the article. VictorD7 (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The average home in Detroit is larger than the average home in Manhattan or central London. You may believe that is more important than the difference in incomes and think unemployed people living in falling down houses are better off than lawyers living in luxury condos, but you need to show that is how reasonable observers would see it.
 * Also, for U.S. comparisons, you should include Canada, Australia and NZ, which are the three countries most similar to the U.S. in settlement, language and culture. TFD (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it? You didn't provide a source for that claim, but your argument is invalid since it can be applied to income (which I fully support remaining in the article too), "poverty" (relative poverty), and (most of all) "inequality".  North Korea, Egypt, and Poland are far more equal than the US is, and yet the article dwells on the theme extensively.  No metric is the end all be all that tells the whole story, which is why diverse ones should be included, but living space is one of the components of home price and living standard anywhere you go.  It's why the Census Bureau and EU keep track of the stat, and why, all things being equal, larger homes cost more than smaller homes.  That Americans have extremely large homes by world standards is undeniably true info (the BBC piece I linked showed they're bigger than Australian homes too; feel free to show me Canadian info if you find some), and is more deserving of article inclusion than much of the remaining material. You didn't say whether you have a problem with the other US/European comparisons peppering the article. VictorD7 (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The garbage Heritage source doesn't include the well known OECD nations of Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. -- Nevertheless, I agree with users Rwenonah, TFD, Cadiomals, and Wzrd1. -- VictorD7, you clearly don't understand how WP:Consensus works and may end up getting | blocked again if you continue reverting. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Drop the insipid personal attacks, Stuff. Your rabidly partisan driveby editing wrecked this article, you've been a constant disruption on the Talk Page as well, and you don't know the first thing about Wikipedia rules or consensus building. Since I just reverted once, stating reasonably that we should actually have the discussion for a few days before rushing to remove the long standing, sourced sentence after a single day of input, your empty threat is yawn inducing. And Heritage is one of the highest quality sources on the page, this segment in particular transparently sourced by gov. figures and undisputed. You should take a break from preaching misinformation and ignorance online and crack open a book sometime. Your mind sorely needs developing. VictorD7 (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Why are we comparing the U.S. to Europe in the first place? If it's soapboxing to have statements "favouring the European system", how are statements making the U.S. look superior any less soapboxing? Additionally, the statement isn't very notable, is clearly cherry-picking, and ignores the relationship between poulation density and home price/size. I have no objection to the source, but this statement seems of no benefit and possibly some detriment to the article.Rwenonah (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you pushing to have the other US/European comparisons deleted (see list above), or just this one? Living space is extremely notable and is more important to the average person than incarceration, which the article currently comments on extensively, is. Do you have any proof the difference is merely an artifact of pop. density?  The Guardian piece I linked to above explicitly says international differences aren't determined by pop. density.  After all, it's not like even high density nations have come close to running out of space. Living space is tied to prices though; all things being equal, bigger homes are more expensive, as everyone knows. VictorD7 (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * First, let's consider a few things. The United States of America is one nation. Europe is not one nation, it is a continent with many nations, many cultures and an extremely long history. The comparison fails on that alone. Add in European cottages, limited space for expanding populations, etc, again the comparison fails. The United States of America has had room to have large living areas (if you can call my old Philadelphia row large) by sheer ability to continue expanding. Indeed, in many European nations, graves aren't bought, they're rented. Upon expiration or cessation of payment, the remains are disinterred and reburied away from the "blessed" cemetery. In the United States of America, graves are bought in perpetuity. Directly comparing the two isn't comparing apples and oranges, at least they're both still fruits. You're comparing apples to potatoes.Wzrd1 (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So all the comparisons with Europe should be removed, right?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, we are just explaining to you the irrational conclusions of tendentious sources. Instead of using sources that argue tobacco is safe, global warming is a hoax and fast food does not cause obesity, let's use sources that are accepted in the mainstream.  Let the experts decide what comparisons to use.  TFD (talk) 07:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, actually you didn't come close to pulling that off. Heritage is more "mainstream" than the remaining, relatively obscure leftist sources filling the section are (several of which are blogs and/or opinion pieces written by Democrat operatives), but I also posted pieces from the BBC, Guardian, a Swedish think tank, and other outlets discussing living space as important, not to mention the US and EU government sources that thought it fit to keep track of such information in the first place. Both you and Wzrd1 above totally ignored all of that, simply repeating your already addressed "limited space" argument. The Guardian disagrees with you, and by your logic stronger arguments can (and have) been made against including "inequality" and other metrics that can be extremely misleading. It's easy to list reasons why US/EU (or "developed world") comparisons are misguided on a slew of other topics currently featuring such comparisons. Not sure why you jumped in there though. I would like to hear Wzrd1 answer TheTimesAreAChanging's logical question for his/her self, unless, of course, you're operating both accounts. Of course your implication about Heritage's views is an infantile straw man argument, especially since the living space fact is undisputed. Side note - Oliver Stone, Ward Churchill, and Jenny McCarthy are leftists. VictorD7 (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comparing a nation to other nations is not inherently bad, nor is it uncommon in any way on this site. It happens across all country articles. Individual countries are often assessed for what makes them unique or notable within the world and within its region or countries similar to it. Individual European countries are frequently compared to other European countries, and the same goes for countries in Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, Asia, etc. As such, this article is not unique in comparing the US to high-income advanced countries like it.


 * Rather than removing all of them, what we do have to decide through consensus is which comparisons are both useful to the reader and adhere to summary style. I helped remove many such details which were frivolous and/or excessive for a summary article. If many users don't find Victor's living space statement useful or accurate, then there's really no other way he can fight that, and further details he is concerned with have to be dealt with individually. The only detail in the above list I really have a concern with is the statement "Social mobility is actually lower than other high-income countries, with the OECD ranking the U.S. 10th behind France, Germany, Canada, Australia, and the Nordic countries" because it does not directly explain how the OECD measures how "socially mobile" a country is, and few people will actually try to navigate the sources listed. It also seems like an irrelevant talking point that was just tacked on, because the section specifically discusses American culture and its perception of social mobility, regardless of how true that perception actually is. Cadiomals (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't think rushing the deletion of a long standing, sourced, undisputed fact with less than 24 hours discussion was a bit fast? Regardless, I can lay out a case and expose page double standards. There's currently a small cluster of leftist editors here, but the numbers pendulum has swung before and will do so again at some point. VictorD7 (talk)

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

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

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

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

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


 * I agree. In order to maintain the rating we would have to show that it is significant.  I think what is important with these reports is the band that a country falls into, rather than relative ranking.  The report says that the U.S. is a "full democracy", but then that is the general viewpoint, so inline citation is not required.  The article already says the U.S. is a democracy, which appears to adequate.  TFD (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. People who want detail on just such issues as described will benefit tremendously by even a flawed ranking. Concerns should be addressed by expanding the article about the index, not by omitting it. EllenCT (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's just it; simply reporting the topline "ranking" provides no detail. And it's not about whether it's "flawed" or not. That's opinion, as the index itself is, which is the even bigger point. VictorD7 (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So, you object to a few components in a multi-component ranking. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. EllenCT (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ellen, you're somehow still missing the point. I object to the notion of treating an extremely subjective construction (whether I agree with it or not) as objective or somehow singularly worthy of inclusion in what's otherwise a mundane section merely describing the structure of US government. VictorD7 (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you get to "I have quibbles with a few of the components of the ranking" to "extremely subjective"? It is documented, it is supported by sources, it is widely reported, it is interesting to readers, and it is encyclopedic, so it is included. EllenCT (talk) 03:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I never said "I have quibbles with a few of the components of the ranking". Ellen, did you even the read the op?  Did you miss this sentence: The point of all this isn't that you should agree with me or disagree with the British outfit, but that we should recognize their opinion is just that: an opinion.? I systematically showed the index's subjectivity on numerous items, and pointed out its opaque judging system, all in addition to the inherent subjectivity involved in any index. The report itself admits that there's no precise definition of "democracy" that can be used as an objective standard against which the index can judge. I'm not even sure what you mean when you say "it's documented" and "supported by sources".  In what way?  It is reported on by some news outfits, but so are Ann Coulter's opinions.  So? Doesn't mean either is encyclopedic or appropriate for a section that's not about subjective tastes. VictorD7 (talk) 03:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course I read your "op." The Index is designed to be a ranking based on several objective measures. You pointed out some potential issues with a few of those many measures. You have not shown any hint of subjectivity or anything more than slight flaws. It is not an opinion, it is a measurement. EllenCT (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Temporarily setting aside the multi-layered absurdity of that reply, what is it a "measurement" of? I'll also restate my request below: Please summarize what info the Democracy Index ranking (and only the ranking, because that's all that's in the text) conveys to a reader.VictorD7 (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't Democracy Index provide a sufficient answer to these questions? EllenCT (talk) 05:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you saying it measures "democracy"? What does that even mean? The index authors themselves admit that "There is no consensus on how to measure democracy, definitions of democracy are contested and there is an ongoing lively debate on the subject." While a broad definition of "democracy" as concept exists, there's no consensus way to quantify it objectively or make precise measurements between democracies, hence the scattershot and highly debatable scoring system employed. It's essentially a list of things the authors like or don't like, and the scoring itself (done by secret judges) is entirely subjective on most points.


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

Suppose the index were corrected in a manner that you found acceptable. How much do you think that would change the average rankings? Do you have similar objections to the Corruption Perception Index, mention of which you have also tried to delete? EllenCT (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why can't you answer simple questions? And why can't you grasp the central point here? It's not possible to "correct" the index because all indices are inherently subjective. Someone chooses what to count, weight, and omit.  The useful ones are narrow in scope, hopefully base their few variables on objective stats, and convey some type of information to readers without them having to dig around elsewhere for the internals. The "Democracy Index" doesn't even allow for that, because its internal scoring for each country is apparently secret.  Its judges are also secret, so we can't even say "this is so and so's opinion", and even most of the individual variables chosen are subjectively scored. That's why you can't tell me what information the index conveys.  To answer your question though, I could develop an alternative "democracy index" that would have radically different rankings. Anyone could. That's the point. And the Corruptions Perception Index is garbage too for various reasons, though I wanted to keep this section focused on the Democracy Index. VictorD7 (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else have any thoughts? Is cherry-picked and hopelessly uninformative subjective opinion appropriate for this section? VictorD7 (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, "all indices are inherently subjective. Someone chooses what to count, weight, and omit," is not a statement with which most people would agree. When you combine subjective scores from multiple judges, it makes the resulting aggregate score more objective, not less. And then using the resulting score to rank countries instead of saying something like the US is 80% democratic and Russia is 40% democratic, is a perfectly legitimate way to objectively combine several subjective feature evaluations. The same technique is used for the very highly regarded Press Freedom Index, the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, the World Bank's Ease of doing business index, and the Global Peace Index, all of which I would prefer to include, by the way. Some of those cast the US in a very good light, and some do not. My goal is not to slander or puff up the US, it is to provide the reader with useful information. If there are published critiques of these indexes, by all means cite them so that the readers can decide for themselves how much credence they deserve. EllenCT (talk) 03:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * So your position is that someone doesn't choose what to count, weight, and omit? How are indices formed then? Delivered fully formed by stork? Where does he get them? As for judging, can you name any of the judges who score for the "Democracy Index"? Can you guarantee that the crazy guy from the Hangover movies and those beer commercials wasn't one of them? Can you even provide the internals for the US score that determine where it "ranks"? If not, what information is even conveyed by presenting these "rankings"? While all indices are inherently subjective, at least some are transparent and informative. This is neither. VictorD7 (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The judges are Robin Bew, his employees, and the experts they contract to evaluate political conditions. Are there any reliable sources which share your issues with the index or its methods? EllenCT (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you name any of these alleged "experts" who do the actual scoring? And can you answer my other questions about the internal scoring details for each nation, or at least the US (the answers to the 60 questions)? As for your question, why is a "reliable source" needed to point out that an opinion is an opinion? It's not disputed. That's an editing question, not a sourcing one. VictorD7 (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, but I can't name a lot of the people who actually write legislation, either. Editorial fringe is still fringe. EllenCT (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing "fringe" about deleting a fringe, uninformative index that's not appropriate for the basic government structure section it's been forced into. To further illustrate what I'm talking about regarding subjectivity, consider the OECD Better Life Index. It acknowledges the inherent subjectivity involved by inviting readers to construct their own index on the right side of the page, picking and weighting variables according to their own values. One could do that with any index to produce very different results, especially if the topic is broad enough.  I could develop a "Democracy index" using an entirely different methodology with radically different rankings that would be at least as legitimate as the British guy's. The Better Life index is currently used as a source, but it doesn't appear in the text. One of its components is average income, an objective and very important metric, and the index is used to support that stat's inclusion in the text. That's an example of how an index can be useful; by conveying information to readers.  You haven't been able to explain how the "Democracy Index" is useful or merits inclusion in a limited space article at all. VictorD7 (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyone ELSE want to weigh in on whether this uninformative, trashy looking "ranking" belongs in a section otherwise merely describing the basic structure of government? VictorD7 (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Is the Income, Poverty, and Wealth section too long?
Is the Income, Poverty, and Wealth section too long, and should it be significantly shortened? Cadiomals (talk) 05:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Survey for RFC

 * Support reducing the section by at least half and removing all details that are by consensus deemed excessive for a general summary article. Cadiomals (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The deletions proposed at above all involve objective statistical facts about economic conditions, unemployment, wealth and income distribution, poverty, homelessness, and nutrition which have been central to campaign debate themes in the election cycles since the 2008 economic crisis, and in many cases since the 2000 dot com collapse. It is very likely that readers will be seeking that information. Removing them would introduce bias, because low information voters skew in a uniform direction politically. EllenCT (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support This article should be more general than any of the supporting articles called out for further reference to those details. Chart-level details can be found at Main articles: Income in the United States, Poverty in the United States, and Wealth in the United States and, See also: Income inequality in the United States and Affluence in the United States. --- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would support removing some things from this subsection. However, I definitely oppose taking a meat cleaver to it and cutting it in half.  There has already been a consensus to remove tons of stuff from this article, but essentially a single editor has been allowed to ignore consensus.  For example in this subsection,  multiple editors have called for dubious/controversial material from the rabidly partisan Heritage Foundation to be deleted.  If you want to make this subsection smaller go ahead and delete the Heritage Foundation material.  Multiple editors will support you and it is likely that only one editor will have a huge hissy fit.Lance Friedman (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Lance, I know you are referring to VictorD7, but the only person I think seems to be making a real "hissy fit" is EllenCT, who is opposed to the trimming of all the sections here. Based on her above opposed statement she isn't even being subtle about the fact that she wants to use this article and this section in particular as her WP:SOAPBOX, whereas Victor has accepted the removal of a lot of the info he added. The more details are added, the more objective statistics can be deliberately manipulated to promote a certain perspective (soapbox), and the only way to prevent this is to significantly cut back on the details in this summary article. Cadiomals (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Victor didn't accept anything, anyone who looks at the history can see that Victor immediately began adding back in his info right after you made your deletions. If you make the same deletions you made last time, I bet he will put his skewed controversial stuff right back in againLance Friedman (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And if he does, he and anyone else who goes against consensus will be blocked for edit-warring. It's really as simple as that. It's not like people will stop watching this article. He's already been blocked before and next time it could be much longer or even permanent. Since we already have broad support for shortening the section, we'll now need to gather a neutral third party to help decide what info to remove. Cadiomals (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong, Friedman. I only put back in the living space line because Cadiomals had said right before he implemented his edit that he'd have no problem with me putting it back in if I added other sources. Otherwise I would have left it out too, like I did the other (perfectly fine) material I had contributed that was deleted when I supported his edit. VictorD7 (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support shorten or delete. Been seeing this article pop up on my watch list but never looked to see what all the "editing" was about. It all looks a bit WP:SOAPBOX to me. Lots can be said and referenced about "Income, Poverty, and Wealth" in the US but should a summary section say it at all? Linked articles have all the detail and some refs can be turned into ELs if someone thinks something is missed. Readers can look it all up and think for themselves. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support major streamlining. The section should feature a few basic facts, especially topline ones describing the whole population. The current version has been stuffed with an absurd level of skewed detail, and even features personal, one sided opinions, including from Warren Buffet (only man mentioned by name) and an obscure liberal blog spouting off about the "myth" of the "self-made man" supposedly being "destructive". This article shouldn't be politically slanted. VictorD7 (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Victor, the quote and most of the rest of what you are referring to comes from Psychology Today not some liberal blog and considering Warren Buffet is the 2nd wealthiest person in the country I don't think it is out of line to have a quote from him in section that has wealth as one of its topics. The Columbia Review of Journalism & yes one liberal web site are secondary sources.Lance Friedman (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's slanted to cherry-pick a single guy's political opinion in a section that should be restricted to basic facts regardless of source (though that Psych. Today piece was an opinion column written by a guy who also blogs for the liberal site Salon.com), and the CJR blog was a partisan opinion piece, though even it describes United for a Fair Economy, which provides the other aforementioned subjective quote currently featured in the paragraph, as a "liberal group" (it's a blog/activist outfit). A blog by Alternet (the very name boasts about its fringe status) attacking the alleged "deep black heart of the entire right-wing worldview" rounds out your sources for that segment. VictorD7 (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The article from Psychology Today is not not one mans opinion. It quotes multiple American billionaires and sources.  It isn't labeled an opinion piece and it certainly isn't anymore opinionated than various Forbes & Advisor 1 articles that you have inserted into multiple sections.  Also, are you actually trying to say that Heritage isn't an activist, partisan organization with their own agenda.  It was founded by a couple of fringe billionaires and its current leader is a former Republican Senator. Lance Friedman (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The partisan Psych. blog is irrelevant. I'm talking text inclusion. Neither the subjective opinion of Buffet or the liberal activist blog (United for a Fair Economy) belongs in this section, which should be restricted to facts. I haven't put personal opinions from sources like Heritage in the article. VictorD7 (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support both a shortening of the section and breaking the section into subsections. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The information may be useful at Wikipedia, but just not in this article. This is supposed to be a very general overview, and it would be good to move this into other articles rather than here.  -- Jayron  32  03:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support shortening. The section is far too long and detailed for an overview article, as Jayron noted. Hot Stop talk-contribs 23:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Support shortening but not deletion. The rise of inequality is a significant development in the US economy and should be mentioned. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Support shortening. Readers will frequently come here for this information, to the United States article. Any shortening should be modest, leaving the wikilinks to the full articles on the sub-subjects. Full removal would tend to discourage the average reader, as most people I'm aware of dislike having to go to five different articles, when a section could cover the "mile high view".Wzrd1 (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks BoogaLouie and Wzrd1 for your additional contributions. This issue has been generally settled. We have decided on cutting the section by about half by removing only the most nonessential details, not removing the section altogether. The section is long enough to cover the main points appropriate in a summary article while not delving too deep, and readers will be able to find further details in the respective articles. Thank you to the people who contributed their thoughts and helped those opposed see the broad support for overall shortening. Cadiomals (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I was randomly selected to be invited here to take part in this survey and have not been part of any earlier discussions on this page.  I don't think the section is too long; the topics listed in this section affect the health and happiness of all of the citizens of any country.  There are a few places where the information should be more time-specific - for example, "Americans have the highest average household ..." would be better if the time period for which this has been true were mentioned.  The word "currently" becomes less accurate with time - maybe "In 2013" or "beginning in 20__" would be less likely to get out of date.  The section about the number of children in "food-insecure" homes it seems to me should be left out or be replaced by information about the number of households instead, since the following statistics about children who don't get enough food make it clear that it's not children in particular who are affected by the food insecurity, and this makes it seem as though children are being used to push a POV.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Strongly Opposed. Randomly selected. Generally the motto "more information is better than less" springs instantly to mind, and unless information that is provided muddies the text or bogs it down in to irrelevancy, such information should be retained. Remember, Wikipedia attempts to be encyclopedic and readers looking for information always have the ability to skip forward however readers specifically looking for intimate details have that option only if said information is provided. It's "not too long" and should be retained. Damotclese (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
I'll admit, I thought I could just take this article off my watch list and walk away from it forever, but despite having said I'm done I simply could never have peace of mind leaving what was once a perfectly decent article while knowing of its current state, this section above all. It would be unethical. Income, poverty, and wealth is now the single longest subsection in the whole article. How was it allowed to be saturated with so much specific information while other sections are short in comparison? That's why I want to bring more people into this, because the regulars around here are far too partisan to bring about change on their own. Even though a few other sections have gotten excessive too, if I can convince others to at the very least reduce just this one by a third or even half I could finally walk away from this with peace of mind and go back to casually editing elsewhere. Cadiomals (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I recognize where this RFC is going, so I have removed 10 KB of extraneous material from the "Income, poverty, and wealth" section (and rearranged the remainder so that it discusses those topics in that order.) I invite others to compare my deletions to Cadiomals's 17 KB of deletions which eviscerated many basic economic statistics central to national and local political debates over the past dozen years. EllenCT (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You should have sought input from others before doing that on your own first, but no matter, this isn't totally over yet and we will get further input from others on remaining issues. As it stands, a significant trimming is widely supported anyway, so a major objection from multiple users shouldn't be expected. But I feel there are still problems with a few remaining details in terms of overall usefulness to the reader, and I have pointed out those details below. Since you were bold enough to remove significant information on your own without seeking input or having the courtesy to outline your exact changes, I'm also going ahead with them as they are not as major. After this, the issue with this section's excessive length should be largely resolved. Cadiomals (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Further I, P, and W changes
The U.S. economy is currently embroiled in the economic downturn which followed the financial crisis of 2007–2008, with output still below potential according to the CBO[369] and unemployment still above historic trends.[370] From 1983 to 2008, U.S. real compounded annual GDP growth was 3.3%, compared to a 2.3% weighted average for the rest of the G7.[371] In 2013 the United Nations Development Programme ranked the United States 16th among 132 countries on its inequality-adjusted human development index (IHDI), 13 places lower than in the standard HDI.[372] For the year 2012, the United States ranks 12th on the Legatum Prosperity Index.[373] ''This is another random index from a random think tank that contributes little to nothing to actually educating the reader. I think it is best we just stick with HDI and IHDI rankings which are the most widely recognized.''

In February 2013, the unemployment rate was 7.7%, or 12.0 million people, while the government's broader U-6 unemployment rate, which includes the part-time underemployed, was 14.3%, or 22.2 million. With a record proportion of long-term unemployed, continued decreasing household income, tax rises, and new federal budget cuts, the U.S. economy remained in a jobless recovery.[374][375] Half of the U.S. population lives in poverty or has a low income, according to U.S. census data. According to a survey by the Associated Press, four out of five U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives.[377] ''I question the overall usefulness of this statement. It's one of those statistics that confirms the obvious. In other words, for most people life isn't a breeze and almost all of us hit snags throughout our lives? That could be said of the entire world. Also, it is such a broad and vague statement and is not helpful in actually educating the reader about the US economic state. Does 80% of the US struggle with poverty, joblessness, and reliance on welfare all at the same time, or is it either/or and at different times? This is not clarified, at least not here, so it isn't helpful. After being higher in the postwar period, the U.S. unemployment rate fell below the rising eurozone unemployment rate in the mid-1980s and has remained significantly lower almost continuously since. This is also unnecessary because it is more of the details comparing the US to Europe like it's a competition, which is another bad habit in this article, having the biased underlying message of "the American vs. European system and which is superior". Why don't we compare the US to other continents for once? It is not particularly helpful to the reader.'' The rise in the share of total annual income received by the top 1 percent, which has more than doubled from 9 percent in 1976 to 20 percent in 2011, has had a significant impact on income inequality,[381] leaving the United States with one of the widest income distributions among OECD nations.[382][383] The post-recession income gains have been very uneven, with the top 1 percent capturing 95 percent of the income gains from 2009 to 2012.[384] Over the last two decades income inequality has been increasing to the point of becoming permanent, reducing social mobility in the US.[385]

Poverty in the U.S. has been increasing as median incomes have declined. Median income has now fallen for five consecutive years.[392] The population in extreme-poverty neighborhoods rose by one-third from 2000 to 2009.''"Extreme" is a loaded word that overstates the conditions of the underclass in the US, especially since it does not match up with international definitions of "extreme" poverty, which is those earning less than $1 a day, almost unheard of in this country. I would instead just change it to "very low-income"'' Cadiomals (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Needs way more deletions than that, especially since removing the government stats laying out actual living standards for the "poor" via things like household appliances and home ownership rate leaves the section even more skewed than it was before. It's essentially the "Extreme poverty and inequality compared to Europe" section. How about something closer to the order of your original proposal, now that we have more editors paying attention? There's no reason the section should be more than two or three paragraphs. VictorD7 (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Remember this is a subsection, and yet it's still larger than the primary Economy section. Here's some more we should lose: The post-recession income gains have been very uneven, with the top 1 percent capturing 95 percent of the income gains from 2009 to 2012.[385] Over the last two decades income inequality has been increasing to the point of becoming permanent, reducing social mobility in the US.[386] According to a survey by the Associated Press, four out of five U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives.[387] Opinionated and speculative; unnecessary level of detail. There has been a widening gap between productivity and median incomes since the 1970s.[388] POV cherry-picking and verifiability issues since it's based entirely on a liberal think tank's extensive original calculations. The sentence was added as a flimsy ex post facto excuse for changing the chart from one of median income over the past decade to one featuring the "productivity" and income comparison, the section previously not even mentioning the word "productivity" (a topic covered more appropriately in the main Economy section, unless someone's trying to push a POV angle by making an assumptive comparison with income, of course). The chart should also be deleted or replaced by the previous, more topically straightforward and up to date median income one.  The population in very low-income neighborhoods rose by one-third from 2000 to 2009.[391] So?  We already talk elsewhere about poverty increasing, so this is frivolous detail and dead horse beating. People living in such neighborhoods tend to suffer from inadequate access to quality education; higher crime rates; higher rates of physical and psychological ailment; limited access to credit and wealth accumulation; higher prices for goods and services; and constrained access to job opportunities.[391][392] If this remains then the Heritage inclusion (based on easily verifiable government stats) covering living standards for the vast majority of US "poor" in a far more comprehensive and relatable way to readers will have to be put back in.  There's no legitimate, rational justification for deleting the latter (which is more important and worthy of inclusion) while retaining the former.  The segment is even opinionated, using words like "inadequate" and "quality", and conveniently vague "constrained" job opportunities and "limited" credit. By contrast the Heritage inclusion was straight up facts (especially as originally added with actual percentages, though even the watered down version featuring the word "most" was mathematically factual).


 * Also, this sentence should be rewritten in a less POV fashion: The rise in the share of total annual income received by the top 1 percent, which has more than doubled from 9 percent in 1976 to 20 percent in 2011, has had a significant impact on income inequality,[382] leaving the United States with one of the widest income distributions among OECD nations.[383][384] Aside from the cherry-picked nature of that starting point, the top 1%'s income share fluctuates heavily, typically rising when the economy is good (for the general population) and falling during recessions (per the CBO it was down to 13.4% in 2009, though different data sets can yield different results). That the US has a wider income distribution than most other developed nations is legitimate info, but how about eliminating the false, agenda driven implication of precision, and just shortening the sentence to say The U.S has one of the widest income distributions among OECD nations. ? There's also still the wealth inequality comparison later (retrieved in 2006 and sourced by Marxist professor/activist's personal blog entry), so it's not like the theme is being ignored.  And,  I'm not necessarily saying we shouldn't have any lines on homelessness, but do we really need three whole sentences...There were about 643,000 sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons in the U.S. in January 2009. Almost two-thirds stayed in an emergency shelter or transitional housing program and the other third were living on the street, in an abandoned building, or another place not meant for human habitation. About 1.56 million people, or about 0.5% of the U.S. population, used an emergency shelter or a transitional housing program between October 1, 2008, and September 30, 2009.[395]....when homelessness represents a tiny fraction of one percent of the US population, and basic material covering tens of millions of "poor" has been deleted, along with the notable info about America having more millionaires and billionaires than any other country? Why is homelessness so much more notable than any of that stuff? Maybe we could reduce it to a sentence.


 * There are other potential deletions, but the items I outlined should be low hanging fruit, among the most deserving of deletion. If those changes are implemented the subsection will still talk plenty about poverty and inequality, but it will be less skewed than it currently is. VictorD7 (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This sentence should also go: Half of the U.S. population lives in poverty or has a low income, according to U.S. census data.[381] That's like saying "half the population either suffered from a cold or tuberculosis last year". Lumping those categories together is a textbook example of almost comically POV wording.


 * The Income subsection currently has 4049 characters versus 3639 for the main Economy section. Implementing the above changes (keeping the first homeless sentence) would take it to 2652, moving it from 111% the length of its parent section to 73%. Still probably too big, but well on the way to improvement. VictorD7 (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Barring compelling, rational objections, I'll implement these changes soon. VictorD7 (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

National language
While the U.S. has no official language, there is also a field for "national language." I changed "American English" to "English", since "American English" is not a language, but a group of dialects of North American English, which is a variety of the English language. However another editor reversed my edit. TFD (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Were the field “language” the answer would be simply ‘English’. There is no official U.S. language, -- but for personal mobility across the continent and among the islands, English allows for the widest job opportunities. Spanish is the second mother-tongue, variously called 'Puerto Rican', 'Cuban' and 'Mexican' in American English dialects of NYC, Miami and the Southwest. The French spoken in Maine and Florida and Louisiana, or the Portuguese in Massachusetts and Hawaii, or Algonquin dialects east of the Mississippi River, etc., are not germane to this discussion as they do not meet a threshold of say, 15% of the total U.S. native population.


 * As the field is “national language” it seems to admit dialects in national usage, (‘American English’) or secondary language (‘English, Spanish’) or ('English dialects, Spanish dialects').  On the other hand, there does seem a bias towards conciseness in WP editing, and that would suggest the answer would simply be ‘English’ as TFD proposes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with TFD. The term "American English" is used to distinguish from "British English" for purposes of usage, not to denote national language. The language of America is English. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Graphic of the Top 1%


Given that the United States has the highest income inequality of any western country, I don't see a problem with adding some type of graphic demonstrating this. Have a look at this material in The New York Times. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is only one graphic which seems to be about economics, so doing so would give undue emphasis to income inequality, which is only one of many issues.Rwenonah (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not about "one of many issues", it's about the weight carried by the subject matter, which is significant regarding income inequality. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I agree with Rwenonah. In fact that subsection (which already has two images already, probably one too many) gives more than enough coverage to inequality.  It includes several sentences about it, two of which focus on the top 1%. That said, I do appreciate you sharing a chart that illustrates what I said elsewhere on this page about the late 1970s being the trough in terms the top 1%'s income share, a fact currently omitted in the section's segment about the growth since then.  VictorD7 (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Where would you propose adding this? Income, poverty, and wealth seems the only viable section. I don't think this graph would be biased or add undue weight, but if you put it in, it would have to replace the "Productivity and Real Median Family Income" graph as we can only accommodate two images in that section; any more would be cramming too much in. Cadiomals (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This graphic is already present in Income inequality in the United States. I see no reason to add it here, as it would serve to bloat an already large section that was the subject of a recent RfC.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Isn't there a better graph showing the histograms of each quintile? EllenCT (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)