Jump to content

User talk:Cupco

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cupco (talk | contribs) at 17:17, 21 September 2012 (→Tax chart). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I am working on writing Good Articles on my topics of interest.
Please consider reviewing a good article nomination. The oldest unreviewed nominations are:

Pete Astudillo (talk | history | start review) • 2022 Fife Council election (talk | history | start review) • New England Revolution in international competition (talk | history | start review) • Swim School (talk | history | start review) • Chennai Super Kings (talk | history | start review)

If you review one of these articles, please remove it from the list and add the next oldest. See the report for more information.

Read these first: Good article criteria  · Reviewing good articles

My interests include:

Specific articles I'd like to improve are listed in my sandbox. —Cupco

not affiliated with Cupco.net or @Cupco on Twitter

Birth control

Would be great to get this article to GA. It is on the list of articles to be translated as part of this project. [3] To get it there we need to make sure we use nearly exclusively review articles or major textbooks from the last 3-5/10 years per WP:MEDRS. Anyway many thanks for your efforts.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing discussion at Talk:Birth control. —Cupco 22:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cupco, I've reviewed Birth control and it's almost there. I've hidden one image which seemed to have a flaky NFUR, hidden a few redlinks, fixed a few typos, ... and put the article on hold for the Citations needed tags. Actually the GA review criteria are a bit vague/contradictory/ambiguous on whether one or two tags are permitted; certainly there mustn't be "many". Hmm. The easiest way would be to fix all of them - one or two can I think be resolved simply by rearranging wording to avoid having sentences dangling after their citations; others could be fixed by cutting the claims or finding new citations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget for subst'ing Cite_journal

I have created a quick gadget {subst:Template:Fcite_journal/subst|...} which can store subst'ed {Cite_journal} entries as simple wiki-text, omitting the <span class=...> and tedious COinS metadata. Unfortunately, there are still some formatting characters stored, such &#32 for space and "<b/>;" for semicolons, due to restrictions in storing lead-spaces or semicolons in text. However, the resulting text is portable to other wikis, which lack {Cite_journal}. Example (edit this talk-topic and look inside for results): 

{{subst:Fcite journal/subst
| last1 = Chin | first1 = H. B. | last2 = Sipe | first2 = T. A. 
| last3 = Elder | first3 = R.   | last4 = Mercer | first4 = S. L. 
| last5 = Chattopadhyay | first5 = S. K. | last6 = Jacob | first6 = V. 
| last7 = Wethington | first7 = H. R. | last8 = Kirby | first8 = D. 
| last9 = Elliston | first9 = D. B. 
| doi = 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.11.006 
| title = The Effectiveness of Group-Based Comprehensive Risk-Reduction and Abstinence Education Interventions to Prevent or Reduce the Risk of Adolescent Pregnancy, Human Immunodeficiency Virus, and Sexually Transmitted Infections 
| journal = American Journal of Preventive Medicine 
| volume = 42 | issue = 3 | pages = 272–294 | year = 2012 
| pmid = 22341164 | pmc = 
| url = http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(11)00906-8/abstract
}}

Subst'ed result: Chin, H. B.; Sipe, T. A.; Elder, R.; Mercer, S. L.; Chattopadhyay, S. K.; Jacob, V.; Wethington, H. R.; Kirby, D.; et al. (2012). "The Effectiveness of Group-Based Comprehensive Risk-Reduction and Abstinence Education Interventions to Prevent or Reduce the Risk of Adolescent Pregnancy, Human Immunodeficiency Virus, and Sexually Transmitted Infections". American Journal of Preventive Medicine  42 (3): 272–294. . PMID 22341164.
The {Fcite_journal/subst} handles most options of {Cite_journal} and puts "et al." for author9. Meanwhile, I am still working with Template:If to replace the "&#32" with simple spaces, but feel free to use it as needed. I know many articles have like "46" {cite_journal} entries, which can be too tedious for wiki-reformatting by hand. The next step, below, is to replace all {cite_pmid} entries.

Subst'ing Cite_pmid to Cite_journal to Fcite_journal/subst: To answer your original problem, edit the new page twice, copying all {cite_pmid} to the new page. First subst all of the {cite_pmid|222333} as slashed {subst:cite_pmid/222333|noedit}, and then re-edit that subst'ed page and subst all the new {cite_journal} entries:

  • Edit 1: Subst every {cite_pmid} with "/"
{subst:cite_pmid/111222|noedit}
{subst:cite_pmid/111333|noedit}
{subst:cite_pmid/111444|noedit}
Upon SAVE, all {cite_pmid/...} become {cite_journal} entries.
  • Edit 2: Subst every {cite_journal} with "F /subst"
{subst:Fcite_journal/subst |... pmid=111222|...}
{subst:Fcite_journal/subst |... pmid=111333|...}
{subst:Fcite_journal/subst |... pmid=111444|...}

By that 2-step process, then all {cite_pmid} will become simple wiki-text cites with no more templates in use. Should take just a few minutes to convert all 46 {cite_pmid} to clean, portable wiki-text. Ask below if any questions. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Power-to-Gas

Hello! According to this page, the project is supposed to go on line in autumn 2012. --Eike sauer (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danke schoen! —Cupco 20:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Concerning your message in the "Auskunft": Thank you very much, although most of us are not directly involved. ;) Looking at your machine translated text (the term "deutsches Volk" is somewhat unusal nowadays, see Volk (disambiguation)), it might be better you just ask in English though. :) Most poeple will understand it anyhow. --Eike (Diskussion) 19:29, 11. Sep. 2012 (CEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eike sauer (talk • contribs) 17:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

Innocence of Muslims film trailer

Hi, I'm writing because you are listed in Category:Translators ar-en. It was recently pointed out at Talk:Innocence of Muslims#ARABIC Wikipedia version that the English Wikipedia article on the deliberately inflammatory film trailer Innocence of Muslims contains very much more detailed information about the deliberate deceit on the part of the filmmakers to try to obscure their identity and the nature of the trailers which has not yet been added to the Arabic version at ar:براءة_المسلمين which is getting about 8,000 page views per day presently. Would you please consider adding some of the details which might help Arabic readers understand some of the missing details of the trailers? Thank you for your consideration. —Cupco 22:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry dear, i am against this amateur hate message. and i will NOT be a part of this project by any mean. it is not even encyclopedic in my point of view.  A M M A R  08:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cupco, I would rather keep silent and say nothing either right or wrong. This whole thing is a political game with much in the shade than in the open. --HaythamAbulela 16:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honest inquiry.

I am quite certain that one or more of my detractors have created a secondary account with the sole purpose of mimicking some of my posts in order to maliciously accuse me of operating two accounts and practising vandalism. Have you encountered this, before? I strongly suspect it is either 2001:db8 or Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556. Just curious if you have any insights into this sort of infantile behaviour which is expected given the demographic composition of Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobinisrael (talk • contribs) 01:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:Bobinisrael#Re: Honest inquiry. —Cupco 03:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RX

Please enable your mail so I will send you the link--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sent.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Carbon neutral fuel

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

\o/ —Cupco 00:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can look at something.

I am in the midst of an edit war with AndyTheGrump, who continually deletes a well-written paragraph I composed documenting a controversy with CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien. This is obviously not being done in good faith, as no specific criticisms are being levied against anything I've composed aside from slandering the legitimate sources as "conservative blogs" (they are all reliable sources as per Wikipedia guidelines), with the edit being described as pushing a certain POV. An honest examination of the paragraph instantly reveals that it is painstakingly written with a NPOV, but again, these detractors are unable to be honest. They are more concerned with my demeanour and candour in the talk pages than with the actual quality of content in the article. Have a look for yourself here, and use the 'undo' and then 'show preview' button. The article I composed will be the first paragraph in the paragraph section under the year 2012. Thanks in advance. Bobinisrael (talk) 06:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:Bobinisrael#Re: Perhaps you can look at something. —Cupco 06:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

Tax chart

Cupco, I have a problem with the tax chart you added to several of the articles from the left-leaning ITEP. In particular, some of the charts and the caption of the image supplied use a measure other than the tax base. This is mathematically incorrect and violates the definition. Some publications try to generically compare apples to oranges and apply it using a single base, which is fine for the point they're trying to make, but in the context of the article and proper economics - it's pretty bias. The tax base of sales, excise, and property is one of consumption, not income. So such taxes are proportional in application relative to the tax base (and that's minus the progressive effects of base exclusions). The chart being described as a measure of incidence is also misleading, making it sound as if these sales and excise taxes are primarily paid by low income, which is false - rich people obviously buy more stuff. So it's not the incidence of the tax, but the incidence of the tax as applied to the individual's income (assuming untaxed savings). Again, they're twisting the definition to fit their narrative. I have no problem putting a chart of income taxes to show a progressive tax (or any other tax measured by base), but this combination graph is extremely misleading in this context. Morphh (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The new 2007 ITEP chart in question.
The 2000 chart I was replacing.
Hi Morphh, I got your message about the ITEP "Who Pays?" tax chart. You said several things, some of which I didn't understand, so let me reply to each of them:
I have a problem with the tax chart you added to several of the articles from the left-leaning ITEP.
I was not aware that ITEP was or had a reputation of being left-leaning. As far as I know, they are strictly centrist and go out of their way to not take sides in any political debate. Their "About" page is here. I see that our article describes them as left-leaning, citing an op-ed which calls them "a bunch of lefties" but that same op-ed also says they are accurate. Our article also calls them "non-partisan" as does every other third-party mention of them on the web I was able to find.
some of the charts and the caption of the image supplied use a measure other than the tax base. This is mathematically incorrect and violates the definition. Some publications try to generically compare apples to oranges and apply it using a single base, which is fine for the point they're trying to make, but in the context of the article and proper economics - it's pretty bias. The tax base of sales, excise, and property is one of consumption, not income. So such taxes are proportional in application relative to the tax base (and that's minus the progressive effects of base exclusions).
Can you please explain what you mean here? I don't understand what you are suggesting by "a measure other than the tax base". They use the proportion of income taxed by the various kinds of taxation, do they not?
The chart being described as a measure of incidence is also misleading, making it sound as if these sales and excise taxes are primarily paid by low income, which is false - rich people obviously buy more stuff.
Not as a proportion of their income, they do not. Please note that is the exact same basis as the Treasury's File:Distribution of U.S. Federal Taxes 2000.JPG chart I was replacing uses.
So it's not the incidence of the tax, but the incidence of the tax as applied to the individual's income (assuming untaxed savings). Again, they're twisting the definition to fit their narrative.
This seems completely absurd to me. I've never seen anyone measure tax incidence in terms of total dollars paid. Can you point to any such uses in the economics or government, non-political literature?
Our tax incidence article says, "tax incidence is the analysis of the effect of a particular tax on the distribution of economic welfare." If someone with a $200,000 income pays a $10,000 tax, would you say that has the same impact on their economic welfare as if someone with a $20,000 income pays the same $10,000? —Cupco 17:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cupco, no problem.. I'll try to address your statements. I moved your discussion here to keep it all in one place (I'll watch your page).
I was not aware that ITEP was or had a reputation of being left-leaning. As far as I know, they are strictly centrist and go out of their way to not take sides in any political debate. Their "About" page is here. I see that our article describes them as left-leaning, citing an op-ed which calls them "a bunch of lefties" but that same op-ed also says they are accurate. Our article also calls them "non-partisan" as does every other third-party mention of them on the web I was able to find.
Non-partisan is a correct and accurate description based on the organization's 501(c)(3) not-for-profit status, which means they can't support a candidate or a party. It does not mean they are centrist and it doesn't restrict them from leaning toward a political philosophy. Regardless, being left or right leaning is somewhat irrelevant. I only included it to demonstrate that the organization is presenting a point of view. It's not simply presenting economic statistics in a direct way that everyone would agree with. In this sense, it's an opinion piece, so I don't think it appropriate to take that opinion and push it center stage. It would be undue weight. To clarify, I didn't state their material was inaccurate for what they are presenting - they explain what they're doing, but that doesn't make it fact or an even measure of comparison. It just makes it an opinion based on an accurate comparison using their definitions and assumptions.
Can you please explain what you mean here? I don't understand what you are suggesting by "a measure other than the tax base". They use the proportion of income taxed by the various kinds of taxation, do they not?
The definition of progressive and regressive is not a measure on income - it is a measure on the amount subject to taxation (the tax base). So if you're taxing income, which we usually are, then income is your tax base. If you're taxing sales, then consumption is your tax base. You have to measure the item that is being taxed. You can do otherwise, but it requires specific definitions and a lot of assumptions about spending, savings, time frames, uniformity, etc. So, a simple chart on income - great. A simple chart on sales, great. A chart that tries to compare the two using direct tax bases and indirect tax bases that include major assumptions and opinion - not good. At least, not good for a basic image meant to demonstrate a progressive or regressive process. There is no need to lead off with an chart of economic opinion, fuzzy math, and suggestions of U.S. economic injustice.
Not as a proportion of their income, they do not. Please note that is the exact same basis as the Treasury's File:Distribution of U.S. Federal Taxes 2000.JPG chart I was replacing uses.
The Treasury Department chart is based on federal taxes. The total taxes they describe that offset the income taxes are payroll taxes, which become regressive after the annual wage maximum is reached.
This seems completely absurd to me. I've never seen anyone measure tax incidence in terms of total dollars paid. Can you point to any such uses in the economics or government, non-political literature? Our tax incidence article says, "tax incidence is the analysis of the effect of a particular tax on the distribution of economic welfare." If someone with a $200,000 income pays a $10,000 tax, would you say that has the same impact on their economic welfare as if someone with a $20,000 income pays the same $10,000?
If you look at the tax incidence article again, you'll see it talks about how a tax is distributed in relation to the item taxed. It says "The key concept is that the tax incidence or tax burden does not depend on where the revenue is collected, but on the price elasticity of demand and price elasticity of supply." See the examples given in the article. You'll see it describes where the tax is distributed, the factors of product and where those burdens eventually fall - the owner (shareholder), the employees, the consumers. Tax incidence is said to "fall" upon the group that ultimately bears the burden of, or ultimately has to pay, the tax. Which in the case of sales may not entirely be the consumer based again on elasticity (another assumption made by the publication). You'll note that the article doesn't say anything about a percentage of an individual's income being a measure of incidence.
I hope this helps clarify some of the points. Again, I'm fine with including a chart that demonstrates the basic effects on a tax - it would be great (something like this). Morphh (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you're not disputing the ITEP figures or saying they fail to cover all taxes paid by U.S. taxpayers, is that right? And you're not saying that the chart is biased or inaccurate, only that it leaves a biased impression because it compares sales tax to proportion of income instead of proportion of consumption? Can you point to any other description of progressive or regressive taxation or tax incidence anywhere on the internet that measures sales tax in terms of proportion of individual consumption? I have never heard of such a thing. Am I understanding you correctly to say that you would prefer a chart which only shows one particular form of taxation, which happens to look very progressive, instead showing of all the taxes which fall on the U.S. taxpayer? And you don't think that would be far more biased than showing the grand total of all taxes? —Cupco 21:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The chart doesn't cover all taxes paid by U.S. taxpayers - it covers local and state taxes. Also, I do believe the chart is bias and it's inaccurate in the context in which you're using it. As for using the subject of taxation as the measure of said taxation, see the basic definition.
  • Webster (4b): increasing in rate as the base increases (a progressive tax)
  • American Heritage (6). Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases.
  • Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: Tax levied at a rate that increases as the quantity subject to taxation increases.
  • Princeton University WordNet: (n) progressive tax (any tax in which the rate increases as the amount subject to taxation increases)
  • Sommerfeld, Ray M., Silvia A. Madeo, Kenneth E. Anderson, Betty R. Jackson (1992), Concepts of Taxation, Dryden Press: Fort Worth, TX
  • Hyman, David M. (1990) Public Finance: A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy, 3rd, Dryden Press: Chicago, IL
  • James, Simon (1998) A Dictionary of Taxation, Edgar Elgar Publishing Limited: Northampton, MA
Here is a quick example. If I purchase an item for $10 and pay 10% tax, what is the tax rate on that sale? 10% Do I need to know what my income level is? No, as income is not taxed. If my income was $1, my tax rate is still 10% of the tax base, not 100%. Another example, let's say I make $100,000 and spend it over the next 4 years. How do you measure that? Using income as a base like ITEP does in this publication, it would all fall on year one (10% * $25,000 / $100,000) = 2.5% - very regressive, but it ignores the consumption in year 2,3,4 (it considers all savings as untaxed income). If we happen to catch this analysis in year 2, this guy would be poor and have a very high tax burden relative to his zero income. Under a proper measure, we see 10% on consumption each year (10% * $25,000 / $25,000) = 10% year 1, year 2, year 3, year 4. This is what economic data shows - people save earlier in life and consume that savings later, which is why estimations on consumption tend to be life-time or multi-year analysis, but I'm getting off topic.
The articles that we're primarily discussing are not United States articles, they're global articles that discuss a generic distribution. It makes sense for an article that is discussing a progressive tax to show what a progressive distribution looks like. Similarly, a regressive tax article would show what a regressive distribution looks like. It doesn't matter if it's an income tax, sales tax, property tax, payroll tax, excise tax.. whatever - a progressive tax distribution looks like this (rate increases as the amount subject to taxation increases), a regressive tax looks like this (opposite graph). There is no need to get into conflicts about what type of tax it is or what country or state the measures are from. No opinion or interpretation is needed and stretching it to include such a comparison just adds bias and pov where it is unnecessary and disadvantageous. This very discussion between two economically educated individuals proves that the graph is too complex for these basic articles. Morphh (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Citizens for Tax Justice estimate the U.S. total effective tax rates (personal and corporate income, payroll, property, sales, excise, estate, etc.) by income level in 2011.
Ugh! I thought I had excerpted the chart which included the federal income tax, but I clearly wasn't paying attention! —Cupco 01:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here, this is the graph of the actual U.S. tax incidence including corporate taxes as individuals end up paying them. This is the graph I thought I was including earlier. I'm sorry for the confusion. —Cupco 03:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of the Progressive tax and Regressive tax articles, since it only depicts a single measure, I think it would be ok if we changed the caption to just describe the distribution that is taking place in the chart to something like "Graph demonstrates a progressive tax distribution with a regressive dip on top earners". In that case, I don't think we would need to attribute the opinion because it's not meant to advance a position (avoid pushing some 99% mantra). As for U.S. tax articles, CTJ is a progressive organization and the chart still includes a mix of methods, as it uses the ITEP paper for its local / state assessment, and who knows how they applied the incidence of employer payroll and corporate taxes. It would be much better if we just used something direct from the CBO or Treasury. If it was to be included, we'd need to attribute it and perhaps include another chart from the Tax Foundation, CATO, or Heritage to offset POV issues. It's not the best we could do, but it's certainly better that the other one. It's not a simple thing to put everything in one chart and anything that does is going to use a very subjective methodology. Morphh (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added that chart to the progressive tax and regressive tax articles and attributed the images in the U.S. articles. I removed it from the tax incidence article as it didn't help the reader understand the topic (it had nothing to do with the example and didn't help demonstrate the incidence of a tax). Morphh (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with all that; thanks. I don't understand why it's not suitable for tax incidence but that's okay with me. —Cupco 17:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cupco&oldid=513899125"