Talk:United States/Archive 67

Archive 60

←

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Declared versus recognized independence

Was the United States independent in 1776, 1783, or 1784?...The Declaration of Indepence was law in in 1776 while the Treaty of Paris recognized independence, written in 1783 and ratified by the U.S.in 1784...Does this issue need any further clarification in the article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

United_States#Independence_and_expansion seems to cover it. -- Calidum 05:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Upon reading I found there is an issue whether the U.S. was independent July 2 or July 4...my query is there any standard of American Independence from England...The Revolutionary War lasted from 1775 to 1783...in essense lasting 6 years and 9 months after the July 2 Congressional independence declaration or July 4 1776 Declaration of Independence...Were the colonies actually independent in 1776, 1783, or 1784 ? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

It’s nationally recognized in the US as July 4, 1776, though Britain didn’t officially recognize American independence until after the Siege of Yorktown in 1781. There is no objective measure, if that’s what you’re asking, no moment when it undeniably happened in everyone’s minds at once. But July 4, 1776, is the accepted date. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The U.S. declared independence with an effective date of 4th July, 1776, but it was not recognized by the UK until 1783. The earlier date is preferable, because the UK ceased to have effective control, even if the UK did not recognize it until later. TFD (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, there is the matter of the representatives of the people of the United States acting in Congress, promulgating the Declaration of Independence to the public on July 4, and dating it July 4, and the national holiday celebrating independence on July 4. The Congressional floor vote of July 2 is discussed in the article United States Declaration of Independence where that level of detail is appropriate. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

We've had some discussion on this before. Most historians agree that the July 2, 1776, date was crucial in establishing independence, and there's no doubt that the resolution for independence passed on that day. Also, let's not forget that international recognition (in our case, first by France in 1778) is crucial to a new country's being considered independent. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a distinction between when an act is passed and when it comes into effect. Under the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 for example the federal minimum wage was raised to $7.25 per hour on 24 July 2009. It would be incorrect to say it was raised to $7.25 on 25 May 2007, which is the date the legislation became law. The theory that a state requires recognition did not develop until the 19th century and is generally not accepted today - they need only the capacity to enter into relations with other states, which the U.S. had before recognition by France. TFD (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Your minimum wage example says that the date of the registering of political will (i.e. the passage of the 2007 bill and the July 2 passage of the Lee Resolution) is important, even if the consequences of the act take years to realize. So, I can't tell if you're disagreeing with me here. Modern diplomatic usage seems to issue from what was codified at the Congress of Vienna of 1815, which probably just regularized, or made manifest, the 18th century practices obtaining in recognizing the U.S. So, I don't know what more modern political theory or practice you're referring to. Small states have always needed the protection of larger states (i.e. recognition), however that recognition might have been tendered. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

No, Vienna brought in a new world order where the great powers of Europe alone would decide which states were valid, something rejected in the 20th century. Recognition was not until then any part of the definition of a state. Otherwise your basic argument is: the U.S. voted 2 July 1776 to become independent on 4 July 1776, therefore the U.S, became independent on 2 July 1776. TFD (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the statement by TVH is the best way to put it in this summary article, that the place for detail on this subject is in the specific article where the Independence of the United States is the specific subject. The majority of reliable sources say 4 July 1776, so we should go with that due to WP:WEIGHT of WP:RSs.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

This seems an objection to mentioning July 2 at all. What are the reliable sources you've consulted? See the earlier discussion, which I referenced above and do so here in more obvious fashion (Talk:United_States/Archive_63#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_15_August_2014), where I go into some detail as to what sources treat July 2, as well as other dates. I see some, but not a majority of, sources neglecting July 2. I don't think that we go into too much detail by mentioning the Second in this article, nor do I think that "actual vote for independence" is too strong a statement, based on my reading. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

We may be getting down into the weeds here, but, Pauline Maier, describing the making of the Declaration of Independence, notes on page 45, [http://www.amazon.com/American-Scripture-Making-Declaration-Independence/dp/0679779086]. On July 1, “New York’s delegates abstained because their twelve-month-old instructions allowed them to do nothing that would impede reconciliation.” Then on July 2, “When the vote was put, the nine affirmative votes of the previous day had grown to twelve” with the addition of South Carolina, Delaware and Pennsylvania. “A week later [July 9], New York’s Provincial Congress convention allowed its delegates to add the colony’s approval to that of the other twelve colonies.” --- An encyclopedia for the general reader need not report that the United States became independent on July 2, 4, and 9, when the Declaration of Independence is dated July 4. The historical detail can be relegated to a subsidiary article linked, such as Declaration of Independence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

By their own rules (3/4 majority, I believe) the Continental Congress passed the resolution on July 2. That's independence by their own lights. That's why why note that date. The rest *can* go into another article, although, as I mentioned in the archived discussion referenced, several other dates were mentioned in the Britannica "country", or "summary", article as important. Also, people seem to want some more weeds here. Both the archived and present discussions were started by people seeking more detail, not less. I don't know if those OP's count as the "general reader", but it's the best indication we have of what is wanted here. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

They chose the date of July 4. They decided that the colonies would remain British on July 2 and 3 and cease their connection on July 4. New York later decided that it had become independent on July 4 also. In fact the royal governors had already lost power and left, so the colonies were already independent. TFD (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

They didn't choose July 4. The wording of the Resolution was "are...free and independent", not "will be on July 4". John Adams was a lawyer and a prime mover regarding the Resolution and the Declaration, and he thought that July 2 was the signal date, not July 4. Of course, what you later argue, that all the dates are somewhat symbolic, is agreeable; and that's why we can do with more than one date here, and probably why a more complex elaboration of the move toward independence has been requested. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Besides a letter to Abigail Adams celebrating his personal triumph at the time of passage, what indication is there that John Adams might have failed to celebrate Independence Day as July 4th while he was Vice President or President of the United States? Surely if he held parties on July 2 in his official capacity and went into seclusion on July 4 while the rest of the nation celebrated, it would have been noted.

At Independence Day (United States), we have, * In 1777,... July 4...Philadelphia celebrated the first anniversary in a manner a modern American would find quite familiar: an official dinner for the Continental Congress, toasts, 13-gun salutes, speeches, prayers, music, parades, troop reviews, and fireworks. ...[13] * In 1778, General George Washington marked July 4 with a double ration of rum for his soldiers and an artillery salute. Across the Atlantic Ocean, ambassadors John Adams and Benjamin Franklin held a dinner for their fellow Americans in Paris, France.[14] TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that Adams never celebrated the 4th, but he did think that the 2nd was worthy of celebration, i.e. he wasn't waiting for the 4th. I think you make a case for July 4 quickly having become the day of celebration, but that doesn't mean that the passage of the Lee Resolution pointed to independence on the 4th, which was the case that TFD was making. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Adams wrote a letter to his wife on July 3 in which he said "Yesterday the greatest question was decided which ever was debated in America; and a greater perhaps never was, nor will be, decided among men. A resolution was passed without one dissenting colony, "that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States."" He did not say they became independent that day, but that it was decided that day. In fact the wording is such as to suggest that the states were already independent. See Novanglus: Adams had always rejected Blackstone's view that the colonies were ever subject to Parliament. In any case a personal letter that did not purport to be a legal opinion with no other mention in any of his other writings without any secondary source to interpret it is insufficient to draw any conclusions that we could add to the article. TFD (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

What happened to your argument that the colonies would "cease their connection" on the fourth? You now seem to say that most of them regarded themselves as independent before the second. Adams's letter was that of a man who understood—even if writing informally—the legal, as well as the political, significance, of July 2, which *has* been emphasized by secondary and tertiary scholarship, if you'll take note of the historian (Commager) and work (Encyclopedia Britannica) I mentioned in the archived discussion (which I've linked to twice in this discussion). Dhtwiki (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I never argued the colonies ceased their connection on the fourth, but that the Continental Congress decided the connection would cease on the fourth. And the fact that I explained Adams' view does not mean that I have changed my mind and now agree with him. There is a difference between explaining other people's views and agreeing with them. I do not know when the U.S. achieved independence but I do know that under U.S. law it became independent on 4 July through the declaration dated 4 July. TFD (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Demographics.

The demographics section tries to present a picture of the US that is objectively very wrong. Today people know much better than that. All this new information should be in that part of the article. Just read yourselves: http://mashable.com/2014/12/21/americans-mixed-ancestry/

I just cut and pasted this: DNA tells no lies, so the findings, published in the American Journal of Human Genetics, reveal just what a melting pot of different racial and ethnic groups exists in the United States.

Or check these ones: http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/12/genetic-study-reveals-surprising-ancestry-many-americans http://www.newswise.com/articles/23andme-study-sketches-genetic-portrait-of-the-united-states — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.236 (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. What edit do you want made, then? --Golbez (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

See the One drop rule and Race in the United States.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I am just pointing out inconsistencies in the article that do not take into account modern research into the subject, and common sense. It is up to users here to decide what to do. Of course I understand the force of culture. If you imbue every American that Obama is black, and they cannot see that he is half white and half black, then the nation has a serious problem perceiving reality and they are not mature to face this fact in an encyclopedia, I guess.---— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.236 (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

No, you're saying there are inconsistencies, you aren't pointing any out. It would be very helpful if you shared exactly what text you think is inconsistent rather than expecting us to figure out what you mean. --Golbez (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Ethnicity is a social construct, not a biological category. TFD (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Is that it? Are you not supposed to cultivate critical thinking in school? Or you prefer dogmas? --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.236 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 31 December 2014

This is not school and not the place for "critical thinking." What you call "dogma" is merely representing various views in proportion to their significance. If you think the experts are wrong, argue with them. If you think the policy is wrong, get it changed. TFD (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

OK Chief, of course, Obama is black. Actually, people of mixed ancestry are a tiny, little minority in the US--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.236 (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:DEADHORSE, there is no support for what is suggested. No reliable sources have been provided. May I suggest going to Race and ethnicity in the United States, a more relevant article for the concerns raised.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Spanish influence.

The Spanish influence in the US has been huge, yet, in my opinion, it is not properly reflected in this article. For example, the American cowboy, made a symbol of the country by Hollywood, is of full Spanish origins. This video clip shows the famous Feria de Abril in Seville, Spain, or Fair of April, with people from Southern Spain in traditional costumes riding horses, with traditional music. The similarities between them and the American cowboys are amazing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIH70DYLBV0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.236 (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

United State Congress

The current Congress is the 114th, not the 113th. The House of Representatives and the Senate are now both controlled by the Republican Party. S18:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)18:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)18:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)~ee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#Parties_and_elections — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biddizza (talk • contribs) 18:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I updated data per the website cited which had been updated with the incoming new Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 8 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Speedily closed. It's not that this move could never happen. It's more that if it does ever happen, it's not going to be because of Mexico. Please, future editors, only suggest a move for a high-profile page after carefully considering all the pros and cons. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 18:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

---

United States → United States of America – I would like to suggest moving United States to United States of America. The United Mexican States is also known as the United States of Mexico as those pages redirect to Mexico. Many historical and proposed countries are also named with United States (see: United States (disambiguation) . I am making this merge proposal to clarify any confusion. The United States of America is certainly the most common nation referred to as United States, so a redirect from United States to United States of America would make the most sense. Aidan721 22:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This page is at United States for the same reason the article on the country formally known as the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is at United Kingdom -- we use common names, not official ones. As for the country to the south, it's known as plain old "Mexico" in English so its name is a red herring. (For what it's worth the full name of Mexico is United Mexican States, not United States of Mexico.) Also see /Name and /FAQ for more info on the history of this. -- Calidum 22:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME seems clear, I do believe "United States" is the most common phrase. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - per above. "United States" is easily the most common name for the country in all sources. It's actually fairly unusual to see the full name used. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support WP:IAR, I personally prefer the term "United States of America", it's usually how it appears in more formal contexts, and I think it makes a better title for an article. It's just a personal preference though. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  Per WP:AT (and probably WP:OR as well), personal preferences are irrelevant. It should primarily be what most English-language reliable sources commonly use. Also WP:IAR should only apply if it helps improve or maintain Wikipedia. Moving it away from a common name to a personal preference is not really an improvement. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONAME, and WP:CONCISE. Most English-language reliable sources primary use "United States" to refer to that country. They also commonly refer to the other country as "Mexico", not "United Mexican States". Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose nogood reason for this suggested move. Legacypac (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Since the similarity to the official name of Mexico was mentioned, I thought I'd add that when I see "EE.UU." (for Estados Unidos) when reading something in Spanish—most likely regarding Colombia, which was actually named "Estados Unidos de Colombia" for awhile in the 19th century—I know that they're talking about this U.S. and not any other. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. This request undoubtedly was made in good faith, but it's unfortunate that Aidan721 evidently didn't consult the page's archives to find the numerous instances in which such a move was proposed and rejected. Had Aidan721 done so, he/she would have learned that confusion with Mexico isn't even an issue among speakers of Spanish, let alone speakers of English. The Spanish Wikipedia's article is titled "Estados Unidos" ("United States"), despite the fact that Mexico's official Spanish name ("Estados Unidos Mexicanos") contains that exact phrase – a condition not present in English (wherein Mexico's official name is "United Mexican States", not the misnomer "United States of Mexico").
  No other entity called "United States" – past or present, real, fictional or hypothetical – approaches this country's level of usage, nor do all of them combined. I'm sure that Aidan72 seeks to address a problem, but it simply doesn't exist. —David Levy 12:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: no one says "the United States" in English to mean anything other than this topic. United States should be the title of the article about the U.S.A. just as United Kingdom is the title of the article about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, despite the existence of other united kingdoms past and present (and a disambiguating hatnote is appropriate and already present in both articles). -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. In the English language, the only sovereign state United States is the USA; the others are in other languages (Estados Unidos Mexicanos, etc.). The problem with creating a redirect is that anyone can too easily go in and turn that into a disambiguation page. Softlavender (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. This has already been debated to death for a decade, as a cursory review of a few of this talk page's archives would reveal. The issue is settled unless WP:COMMONNAME itself is reversed. Which won't happen any time soon since the overwhelming community consensus in the perennial debates on that issue have always been to stay with the common name guideline. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME in American dialect. — Also in British dialect as used in the Encyclopedia Britannica, where the article entry is “United States” [1]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Change Government Process to "Capitalist Oligarchy" on United States Page

The United States was once a Federal Republic, but over the course of recent history, this has become untrue. The following Princeton study, dated 2014, contradicts our idealized image of the United States as a Federal Republic and substantiates the fact that the country is much closer to a Capitalist Oligarchy. The United States page must be changed to reflect this.

http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.97.53 (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

One paper does not mandate much of anything. Come back when the U.S. is commonly referred to as a Capitalist Oligarchy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. We are supposed to be summarizing the most reliable sources, not mirroring popular culture. EllenCT (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

We've been through this recently. It must be in the archives. A constitutional change would perhaps be necessary, before we go changing things here. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

As they say on the internet, have all my NOs. Fails WP:NEU, fails MOS:IDENTITY.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

How is oligarchy less neutral than republic? EllenCT (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You must be looking for an article which is not dominated by editors with such little respect for accuracy that they can't summarize reliable sources because they are made uncomfortable when they read them. Sorry. You may be interested in [2] and [3] and the "no consensus" discussion which you are welcome to reopen at Talk:Politics of the United States#RfC on added charts. Thanks for trying. EllenCT (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because a single study trumps two and a half centuries of definition and scholarship. No, it must be entirely because we have no respect for accuracy. Ellen, you've really outstayed your welcome, and I say that as someone pretty sympathetic to your politics. You don't seem to be here to improve the article anymore, simply to complain about other editors. --Golbez (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Do Wikipedia policies demand that we summarize the secondary literature reviews, or bow to popular definition and scholarship? If I want the former, and you want the latter, which one of us is here to improve the article? I have refrained from editing the article for almost a year, and this talk page for several months. I think you doth protest too much. EllenCT (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

So, Wikipedia must include the results of every study, no matter how isolated they are? You're saying that we should change the definition of the country based on a single study. Even if you agreed with the study, doesn't that strike you as undue weight? --Golbez (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying it's a single study? I linked to two more, from impeccable sources, which reflect the consensus of all the recent secondary peer-reviewed literature on the topic. Have there been any literature reviews since 2000 which suggest the US tends more towards representative democracy than oligarchy or plutocracy? EllenCT (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

User:EllenCT - Republic is a well-understood term, and the constitution of the United States is the constitution of a republic. Whether the United States is to a large extent a capitalist oligarchy is a matter of opinion. The OP was making an arbitrary demand that republic be changed to capitalist oligarchy. The studies that you cite may be saying that, in the opinions of their authors, the United States, which is a republic, is also a capitalist oligarchy. Reliable sources offering opinions on oligarchy in the United States are not the same as whether the United States is a republic, which it is. Please do not encourage silly demands simply because both you and the silly demand come from the left. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to report the opinions of those literature reviews which pass peer review, in preference to primary sources. The Constitution of North Korea says it is a "people's democracy" with absolute freedom of expression, the right to elect officials, the right to a fair trial, and freedom of religion. But the North Korea article introduction says that it is "widely considered a dictatorship and has been described as totalitarian and Stalinist." Under your criteria, such "opinions" of the secondary sources should defer to the primary DPRK Constitution. Who is being silly? EllenCT (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY applies here. The organization calls itself what it calls itself, the view points expressed are a very small minority bordering on WP:FRINGE. Criticism of the government or structure of the United States can surely be included in pages where that is the primary subject, and a link to that subject for WP:BALANCE can be added to this article, but any significant WP:WEIGHT to critics of the structure of the subject IMHO would be un-necessary.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

User:EllenCT: You say that you refrained from editing this talk page for a few months. Why did you decide now to edit it to reply to an absurd demand? You know that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Where do you propose to make this edit? Are you simply finding a convenient soapbox? If you want to be encyclopedic, rather than sounding off here, is there an article or article section containing opinions about equality and inequality in the United States, in which those papers would be relevant, or did you just come here to vent? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you think I am not sincerely proposing that this article should say something to the effect of, "the United States Constitution established a federal republic based on representative democracy, but governance in the US is widely regarded to tend towards oligarchy and plutocracy"? If you think that is inaccurate, then let's see a source. If you think it violates WP:IDENTITY, FRINGE, UNDUE, BALANCE, or WEIGHT, then say exactly which provisions are being violated. I do not think it is absurd to summarize the most reliable peer reviewed secondary literature on the subject. You know I have held this opinion for years. Is it soapboxing to ask that the DPRK not be called a "people's democracy" with free speech and freedom of religion, that WP:IDENTITY would nominally require? Is it a rant or venting to ask that North Korea be called a totalitarian dictatorship? Take your personal attack-based attempts to bully elsewhere. EllenCT (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

As much as I agree with you, I think you're fighting a losing battle here. What is important is that the studies are included in the article. I like User:Robert McClenon's suggestion of inserting them into the section pertaining to inequality. How about something like this:

"Wealth, like income and taxes, is highly concentrated; the richest 10% of the adult population possess 72% of the country's household wealth, while the bottom half claim only 2%. Recent academic studies purport to show that growing inequality and wealth concentration have resulted in affluent individuals, powerful business interests and other economic elites gaining undue influence over public policy."

In fact, I might go ahead and add this per WP:BRD and see what happens...--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned about those studies being given so much weight in a summary article, when not talking about the economic opportunities in the U.S. you know, to provide balance. I added balance in the public policy influence statement, as the wealthiest (which I am not a part of) pay the majority of the taxes.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I support C.J.'s compromise proposal. WP:WEIGHT concerns should not apply to the consensus of the secondary peer reviewed literature on this question. The question of who effectively runs the country is entirely appropriate for a summary top-level article, and trying to hide it because it makes people uncomfortable enough to accuse others of ranting when they sincerely support it should be a huge clue to whether it is a controversy in the purview of the WP:NPOV policy. EllenCT (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not support such a change based on a small number of "popular economists" - to make such a change we should need an actual consensus in the scholarly journals that this is a proper term. We do not have one by a mile. Collect (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you cite anything from the past century suggesting that median demographic preferences have as much influence in decision making as the top upper class and special interest groups? The consensus of the scholarly journal articles is that the latter has been getting much stronger relative to the former. EllenCT (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not need to. The onus is on those who wish to alter the status quo here. And there is a difference between "organized groups wield more influence than unorganized groups" (actually tautological in every society yet known) and calling the US a "capitalist oligarchy." By the way, yes -- the Masons were long accused of wielding disproportionate power in the US - even to the point that "Anti-Masons" arose to fight that alleged "oligarchy." Collect (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to do anything, but if you look through the bibliography of the sources cited, you will see that the vast majority of scholarship has never found democratic representation of the demographic median preferences, and the secondary literature reviews certainly haven't, for decades if not centuries. The compromise proposal does not use the term "capitalist oligarchy" suggested by OP, but changing the subject to conspiracy theories does not help your case that it may be inaccurate, if that is what you are trying to suggest. Are you in fact claiming that "capitalist oligarchy" or "capitalist plutocracy" are inaccurate, or are you just offended by them for patriotic reasons? If the latter, why isn't it far more patriotic to critique the truth, your right to do so for which the Founders died, than to cover it up with jingoistic euphemisms? EllenCT (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Kindly avoid patronizing me. It is not a form well suited for actual discourse. I gave a specific historical example where people alleged the US was run by the Masons. Trying to accuse me of "jingoistic euphemisms" is inane, improper, and not going to impress me a hell of a lot. Cheers. Tell me when you wish an actual conversation instead of attacking everyone on the road. Collect (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You're not the one doing that here, so don't take it personally. But leaving the description as a federal republic based on representative democracy is neither accurate nor neutral. EllenCT (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Are we talking about Gilens and Page? I cannot find “capitalist oligarchy” at any of the links provided. Gilens and Page use the term “biased pluralism” to describe changes to the status quo in their sample, and point out the study does not apply to the regime as a whole. What they say about the study is "Here—in a tentative and preliminary way—we offer such a test, bringing a unique data set to bear on the problem.” p.564 [4] It seems “tentative and preliminary” says it all, we should defer to the judgment of the authors. I like including the reference with others in a section on inequality. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

They also use the term "economic-elite domination". Gilens and Page supports the other references. What reliable sources are to the contrary? EllenCT (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The majority of the literature surveyed in the article are reliable sources to the contrary. That's why the study is self-labeled "tentative and preliminary".

This thread began with The United States was once a Federal Republic, but over the course of recent history, this has become untrue. This is overreach, alluding to a study regarding economic elites in 2014, but nothing relates to 1814 or 1914 for a comparison of economic elites influence over U.S. policy decisions to explain how "this has become untrue" over time. I submit for the sake of discussion, that the financial class in 2014 has less influence over U.S. policy than the propertied class of 1814 or the industrial class of 1914 (influence over narrow income protection interests remain the same -- high).

In the study sample, no effort is made to characterize what kinds of issues failed, and what kinds succeeded in the four year period allotted each to come to fruition. This is unlike research alluded to in Jeffrey Winters' discussion of “oligarchy” relating solely to issues clustered around wealth and income protection. The study does not address fundamental values of the general population satisfied by the status quo.

So while the findings are provocative, they fail to interpret the political process which could be used to redefine the nature of the U.S. democracy for our article. The data related to "economic elites, ...not public officials and political party activists.” Most issues of innovation such as women’s vote require more than four years to attain, and those kinds of issues that would show more general population influence are outside the scope of this study sample. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The references in notes 1-9 of Gillens and and Page are those cited in support of the "Majoritarian Electoral Democracy" tradition and most of them are very old. Tocqueville, Lincoln (1863), just the dates for the general flavor: 1929, 1948, 1957, 1970, 1963, 1976, 1979, and then they move on to Bartels for the evidence that the "Majoritarian" tradition has eroded so much recently. What they say is "tentative and preliminary" is their statistical method of measuring just how much that has happened. The other sources illustrate it well using alternate means, without reservation. EllenCT (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

With regard to the IP's original suggestion, assuming that the United States is an oligarchy, it is still a federal republic. It would be better to add ideas and claims regarding oligarchism in the United States to sections somewhere, but it does not appear that any change to the infobox is necessary. Dustin (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Just because a very minority view (a single paper?) holds an opinion relating to narrow field of study, it does not follow we should change the overall definition of the country to match it. I'm amazed this much "ink" has been written here on this nonsense. See WP:SOAP. If the OP and his/her supporters want to make hay out of this, it can be mentioned in the 'Income, poverty and wealth' section. Oh wait, it's there already. Can we dispense with this now? Mattnad (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

What proof do you have that this is a "very minority view"? Among whom? The American public? Dustin (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Mattnad on this one, this does appear to be WP:SOAP & WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The amount of weight given to these two papers is disproportionate, IMHO. If they are to remain included they should be balanced with reliable sources that counter their opinion. Socio-economic mobility in the United States does a decent, job at providing such balance, although it leans left of the political center IMHO. While it highlights the work of left leaning Brookings Institute, it leaves out the right leaning American Enterprise Institute view of the Harvard study. Furthermore, economic mobility differs from area to area in the country.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

First, try WP:V. There aren't any secondary peer-reviewed sources saying median demographic preferences are represented in US governance over those of economic elites and organized special interests. Second, there are more than three impeccable sources being discussed here, not two, and the only uncertainty that any of them express is on a new method of characterizing the rate of change. Thirdly, what does any of this have to do with mobility? Mobility is independent of governance: a plutocracy can have high mobility and a representative democracy can have low mobility. EllenCT (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's stop with the original research here and cherry picking papers to misrepresent the country. The vast majority of reliable sources on the topic do not subscribe to your fringe views. As an illustration Encyclopedia Britannica is one example that does not agree with your opinions. With all due respect EllenCT, I trust their editors more than I trust you to be thorough and balanced and representative of the consensus view of the United States government. Without overstating it, their editors are far more professional and informed than you are on the topic.Mattnad (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Gilen, Piketty and Bartels are interesting, but not determinative. Gilen and Bartels do not use “oligarchy” that is a bit of original research or wp:synthesis. Has any other peer reviewed publication adopted the methodology of Gilens and Page, limiting issues to a four-year horizon? None is provided since 2014. A second reference is to a French economist translation in 2014 making a joint study of Europe and the United States, whose methodology is also questioned in reliable sources, and not replicated anywhere to our knowledge. Bartels concludes that in the early 1990s Senate, Republicans are the party of the rich twice as much as Democrats? Once again, I am in sympathy with EllenCT’s central point, and believe it should be reflected in the narrative under an economic inequality section, but the characterization of the U.S. federal republic should remain the same for the country article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Is the issue that rich people run the government? Even so, that does not mean it's not a republic. 21:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not support changing the infobox description from "federal presidential constitutional republic." I do support "The wealthiest 10% paid 49.6% of all federal, state, and local taxes in 2014.[400] Growing inequality and wealth concentration have resulted in affluent individuals, powerful business interests and other economic elites gaining increased influence over public policy.[401][402][403]" in the paragraph on wealth, which is based on C.J. Griffin's and RightCowLeftCoast's proposals above, except with total taxes instead of just federal income tax, and removing the terms "purport" and "undue." EllenCT (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

User:EllenCT: Originally it appeared that you were agreeing with the IP/OP. Now I see that you agree that the infobox should be left unchanged, and now we are talking about a discussion of inequality in the body of the article, rather than the absurd demand made by the IP/OP. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I said I agreed to the compromise proposal days ago, above. But apparently the ITEP/CTJ's precise computation that the top 10% bears 49.6% of the entire tax burden must be replaced by the Heritage Foundation's claim that they pay "more than half" according to someone who has not even been participating in this discussion, and who reverted the more neutral phrasing of the following sentence. I reverted correcting additional inaccuracies, i.e, confusing wealth with income. The sentence about the tax paid by the top 10% should be moved to a paragraph about income, too, but not urgently. EllenCT (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

? I see the claim that the sentence "The wealthiest 10% pay more than majority of total taxes to the Federal Government." has "consensus". But I have a hard time believing that. What does "more than majority" mean - it's decidedly vague and poor English. What does "more than . . . total" mean? Also, why the focus on just Federal taxes? In that sense, it is also misleading, at least without more explanation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason is that there's one federal tax system and 50 states. It's just easier to track changes to the federal taxes over time. Adding the state taxes is very complicated. And there's another practical reason for just federal; for the lower 90% of household incomes, they typically can deduct 100% of their state and local taxes from the federal taxes. Not so with higher income households that are subject to the AMT which reduces or eliminates deductions. I'll add that payroll taxes are considered progressive by the CBO. Social security and medicare pay back more per dollar contributed for lower income workers than higher income workers.Mattnad (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Progressive taxation is discussed elsewhere in the article, so we can get rid of "The wealthiest 10% pay more than majority of total taxes to the Federal Government." As that sentence is poor English, decidedly vague, and more of a sound-bite than encyclopedic tone. If something is needed there, it can be replaced with something that links back to the progressive tax structure discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

User:EllenCT's revision is superior to what the section says now. "The wealthiest 10% pay more than majority of total taxes to the Federal Government" is both incoherent and misleading. It appears this is the consensus so I'm reverting to the other version. Edit: Nevermind User:EllenCT beat me to it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

WHAT? I include content verified by a multitude of reliable sources: Jane Wells (11 December 2013). "The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes". CNBC. Retrieved 14 January 2015.
Steve Hargreaves (12 March 2013). "The rich pay majority of U.S. income taxes". CNN. Retrieved 14 January 2015.
"Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 68 Percent of Federal Income Taxes". Fedeeral Budget. The Heritage Foundation. 2015. Retrieved 14 January 2015.
Stephen Dinan (10 July 2012). "CBO: The wealthy pay 70 percent of taxes". Washington Times. Retrieved 14 January 2015.
"The Tax Man Cometh! But For Whom?". NPR. 15 April 2012. Retrieved 14 January 2015.
and it gets reverted by a single source!?! That is awful and does a disservice to the readers. I am sorry of I have not been active in this discussion, but I have life outside of Wikipedia. Therefore I cannot be active all the time, see WP:WIP. The content was verified by multiple reliable sources, whereas what is presently in the article " Those earning in the top 10% paid 49.6% of all federal, state, and local taxes in 2014." is only verified by a single source. Therefore more weight should be given to the content verified by multiple reliable sources. I will tag the content accordingly.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

List of Government Officials in the Sidebar

Currently the sidebar lists the government officials as President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, and Chief Justice. Which makes sense when thinking about the country from who leads each major part of government. President over Executive Branch, Vice President over the Senate and Speaker of the House over the House of Reps, and Chief Justice over the Judicial Branch. I don't think this is accurate though as far as who makes the real decisions for the US Government though in a more modern sense. The Vice President has no real power in the US government other than to break a tie in the Senate or to become president in case of succession. I propose that the Vice President is replace with the Senate Majority Leader as they are the one who controls the flow of bills through the Senate and therefore one half of the Legislative Branch just as the Speaker does for the House of Reps. Therefore my proposal is based on more modern interpretations of US leaders instead of ones that exist only on paper. English06 (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Whose modern interpretation, based on what? Vice-presidents often either succeed to the presidency (since World War II: Truman, Johnson, Ford), are elected in their own right (Nixon, George H. W. Bush), or are considered important members of the administration they're a part of (Mondale, Cheney, Biden). The vice-presidency is not only an important office ceremonially, but one that matters politically. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Plenty of articles discuss the lack of power in the Vice Presidential office. Being the next in line does not give you leadership, some insight and influence yes, but not leadership. I am fine if the infobox exists to list ceremonial officials, but as a quick glance to the relevant officials I would say the person controlling the flow of legislation through the Senate is significantly more relevant than the person who exists to be President if something bad were to happen. In my opinion, this infobox should list the leaders of these relevant parts of government and those who are truly leaders, not the "next guy" or "trusted confidant".English06 (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I've undone these changes. The vice president is one of two positions elected nationwide and is also the president of the Senate. We don't base the infobox on your interpretation of who has power. -- Calidum 05:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

If Senate majority leader office is not listed additionally in the info box, --- I do not see why it has to replace the Vice President, it could be added to the info box --- The office certainly deserves an expanded treatment in the Parties and Elections section. At the present time, the only mention in the article is in a picture caption. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with it being added. But the vide president shouldn't be removed. -- Calidum 15:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's just have both and call it a day. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we agree to insert Majority Leader Mitch McConnell following Speaker Boehner in the order of presidential succession?

We would then have Obama, Biden, Boehner, McConnell and Roberts.

 Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Remember that that order is not that of presidential succession. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with change. The majority leader is not mentioned in the Constitution and has no official power. I doubt that any have exercised any real power, unlike the Speaker. According to the United States order of precedence, the order is President, Vice President, Speaker, Chief Justice. Senators are behind cabinet officers and they rank first President Pro Tem, followed by other senators in order of senority. So I will reverse it. TFD (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I would accept that the Senate majority leader does have real power, and certainly is looked to as a spokesman for the majority party, and thus is worthy of mention. An alternative is to list the President Pro Tempore, who is a constitutional officer and third in line of presidential succession, although much further down than that in the order of precedence, which has more to do with governing seating charts. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Line of succession is irrelevant. Note that the UK article does not list anyone in succession to the Crown or the prime minister's office. Could you please point to the part of the Constitution that provides powers to the majority leader. No article for any other country AFAIK lists whips or other parliamentary officers in the info-box. TFD (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Dhtwiki and TFD, I stand corrected. I meant Senate President Pro Tem, Orrin Hatch. That is the only rationale I can see for adding another officer of government from the Senate, and not the Senate Majority Leader that English06 proposed. Nevertheless, a Senate officer should be represented in the info box.

It may be that the House of Lords is irrelevant to British governance as reflected in the WP country info box, but the U.S. Senate office of President Pro Tem has existed since the First Congress and the Senate is accorded substantial importance in U.S. governance by its constitutional powers of "advice and consent" in administrative functions related to treaties and appointments apart from the executive branch. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

[I wrote this just as TVH followed up, and got into an edit conflict. I'll include it here unaltered, as a followup to TFD, although it is now somewhat redundant to TVH's reply.] Presidential succession is no more irrelevant than order of precedence. I'm mentioning the presidential succession to make sure that people weren't confusing it with precedence or the infobox list. The powers of the Speaker arise more from the rules of the House than the constitution, as do those of the Majority Leader from the rules of the Senate. I think it would be appropriate to have someone represent the Senate on the infobox list, and the President Pro Tem, the more ceremonial office (but occupied by a very senior senator where seniority is important), is a likely alternative to the Leader, especially if constitutional legitimacy is important. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not mind having the president pro tem, since the office is in the constitution, although it is largely ceremonial. (The UK equivalent, the Lord Chancellor, was actually much more powerful.) TFD (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the main discussion here hinges on whether or not this infobox listing is for people with ceremonial roles or with real power. Both sides include President, Chief Justice, and Speaker, so we can ignore those. The ceremonial leader argument would include the Vice President and/or Senate Pro Tem. The real/power leader argument would include the Senate Majority Leader, which is my proposal. The Vice President's only dictated duty by the constitution is to be in charge of the Senate as "President of the Senate” and to succeed as President in case of absence. However, the vice president is rarely, if ever, seen present and lets the Pro Tem run the senate. The Pro Tem is elected by the majority and is given that post by being the oldest senator of that majority party. The Pro Tem then passes along these duties to junior senators of the majority party so that they may gain experience. Neither the VP nor Pro Tem deserves a listing in this infobox. As stated above the vice presidency is a shell of an office that exists in a modern role to provide continuity of government and to perform duties or attend events the President can't or doesn't want to participate in, and the Pro Tem is more an honorary role with the actual duties doled out to junior senators.

The Senate Majority Leader controls both the flow of bills to the floor of the Senate by controlling the majority party and then controls the vote on those bills by, again, being head of the majority party. Being the leader of the majority party in the Senate gives you managing control of the entire Senate and therefore one half of the legislative branch. If that doesn’t earn you a spot as a top government official, I don't know what does. I am not opposed to including the Vice President if that is the decision here because of the potential for the Vice President to have both influence and to be integral very quickly. My main argument is to include the Senate Majority Leader (after speaker on the list based on both precedence and power) due to the office’s power and influence over the flow of legislation through the United States government. English06 (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to have the Senate Majority Leader, the Speak of the House, the VP, and the President. I don't think having four US gov't officials is too much. Also, we probably should be focusing on more important matters such as the GA review underway right now.PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Why wasn't the senate majority leader included before 2015? Why should it be included now?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Nothing changes because it's 2015. In my opinion it should have changed a while ago, hence the proposal. English06 (talk) 04:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus to do anything, so we should leave McConnell's name off, although I was once agnostic about including him (my objection being to removing the VP). McConnell, while he is important, is not on the level of Boehner, who has a higher office constitutionally and politically, especially as the majority leader position in the Senate is often considered a less powerful position than the chairmanship of a powerful committee, where control over legislation tends to reside in the upper house (witness Robert Byrd's once choosing to chair the Senate Appropriations committee rather than remain as leader; also in line with that is the fact that Hatch is not only President Pro Tem but also chairman of Finance). Dhtwiki (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

So far the only person against this proposal has been you and The Four Deuces. Everyone else has this position noted as worthy of inclusion amongst the other officials. An interview came out today from Orrin Hatch where he discusses how he must back up Mitch in whatever he decides to do. In the interview he openly stated that his office is ceremonial and he defers to the Senate Majority Leader. Ultimately both the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader will have final say over what a subordinate party member will do, committee chair or not. To suggest that a committee chair would have more power than the Senate Majority Leader is laughable. Robert Byrd chose to chair Appropriations as a means to better funnel money to West Virginia and the fact that his own party was about to oust him from leadership for just simply not being good at leadership. Not surprising at all is that elected Robert Byrd, the same crappy leader, to be the Pro Tem 2 years later simply because of seniority. I would without a doubt say the Speaker has more power than Senate Majority Leader, but Leader comes in very, very close behind. English06 (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

He does not. Notice the position did not even exist until the 20th century. The speaker btw has little more than ceremonial powers - like the majority leader, their powers derive from what influence they are able to exert. Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson had far more personal presence than John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and were feared. It had nothing to do with their formal power. TFD (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Why does it matter that the position did not exist before the 20th century? The position of prime minister in England did not originally exist but it is still included in the infobox of the UK article. Recent does not mean its not vital. Also, the Senate Majority Leader can prevent a vote just as much as the Speaker of the House can. They are in many ways of equal status with the exception of the line of presidential succession (the speaker of the House has never become president through presidential succession, so this is not even a factor). PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not just line of presidential succession, the majority leader isn't even an officer of the Senate, i.e. his position isn't voted on by the entire Senate, as opposed to the vote for Speaker by the entire House. Also, I stand by my contention that the majority leader's de facto power is less, as well. Even the article that English06 quoted suggests that Byrd, as both a committee chairman and president pro tem, would have the power to make things difficult for the new majority leader. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Leave it with the four, (Pres. VP. SH and CJ) unless we include the majority/minority leaders for both houses - just the majority leader of the senate is an odd addition by himself. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2015

Citation 506 is a broken url.

Done Fixed, Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 13:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Pwfen (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Regime change in lead

A user is attempting to add this to the lead. I've now undone the addition twice, as I don't feel it's necessary or appropriate for the lead. Thoughts? -- Calidum 06:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It also needs a WP:RS. Mlpearc (open channel) 13:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The lede unfolds in a logical manner. It's not the place for dropping a cherry-picked, niche detail in a random spot. VictorD7 (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Wealth and influence

Continued from above but without the divisive "Change Government Process to 'Capitalist Oligarchy'" header:

My attempted improvements to C.J. and RCLC's compromise got undo-reverted again by User:Calidum, who still refuses to discuss this here on the talk page, saying he was restoring the "consensus version" even though there were no objections to the improvements here. In hopes of clarifying, here is a table:

Calidium's preferred version

EllenCT's preferred version

The wealthiest 10% pay more than majority of total taxes to the Federal Government. [Citing CNBC, CNN, the Heritage Foundation, the Washington Times, and NPR.] Recent academic studies purport to show that growing inequality and wealth concentration have resulted in affluent individuals, powerful business interests and other economic elites gaining undue influence over public policy. [Citing Gilens and Page, Bartels, and Hayes.]

Those earning in the top 10% paid 49.6% of all federal, state, and local taxes in 2014. [Citing the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.] Growing income inequality and wealth concentration have resulted in affluent individuals, powerful business interests and other economic elites gaining increased influence over public policy. [Citing the same three sources as the other version.]

I have added bold emphasis to highlight the salient differences. Note that all five of the five sources for the first sentence in Calidium's preferred version refer to the top 10% of income earners, not the top 10% by wealth. The top 10% by wealth pay considerably less tax, because they have their savings sheltered in tax havens and many of them are Fortune 5000 companies qualifying for net refunds because of accounting tricks and loopholes, even at the strictly federal level. And again, that first sentence should probably be moved from the paragraph on wealth to one of the previous two paragraphs on income, and replaced with a description of the proportion of taxes that the top 10% of taxpayers by wealth actually pay. EllenCT (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Object to both. Excessive detail and both put a spin on the sources, which themselves put a spin on the source data. TFD (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It was the compromise reached in the section linked above. What spin do they put on the source data? EllenCT (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Object to both. Neither furthers an actual encyclopedia article here. Collect (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

This seems like controversial material. Where do you want to put this paragraph? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is a description of who pays half the taxes and who actually runs the country controversial? EllenCT (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Support EllenCT's preferred version. It is certainly notable and is included in the proper section where inequality is discussed at length. I would suggest moving the first sentence to the section pertaining to government financing though. As for the materials being controversial, I'd like to point out that controversial materials are already included in the section, in particular a heavily criticized "study" on poverty in the US by The Heritage Foundation. At least the materials above are backed by academic publications and not corporate-funded propaganda dressed up in pseudo-scholarly garb. There is also a [http://www.amazon.com/Affluence-Influence-Economic-Inequality-Political/dp/0691162425/ref=pd_sim_b_70?ie=UTF8&refRID=0TKNK4HC2JDVG3CH4NA4 book] on the subject written by Martin Gilens (one of the authors of the study which started this discussion) and published by Princeton University Press [2014] that could perhaps be included as a source.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the added narrative addresses an important element of American economic and political life. I like EllenCTs draft as the two now read, especially the rendering "increased influence". My preference is that 49.6% be rendered "almost half". I’d like to see if Calidium has any further suggestions on how to amend Ellen’s, to see if there is any nuance that can carry forward from the Heritage source. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ellen you say, "Why is a description of who pays half the taxes and who actually runs the country controversial?" That's the problem. The implication is that only high income earners pay taxes, while the it is only federal income tax. To be meaningful, you would have to mention all other taxes and compare taxation rates with similar countries. And who actually runs the country is a controversial topic. Furthermore you throw in as proved the populist position that there was a time when the people ran the country. TFD (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

To do as you suggest would make every statistic into a comparative table with all other nations. We already have articles comparing Gini coefficients across countries, and there's no reason we shouldn't do the same with general tax incidence, but putting such tables into each article where any such statistic is mentioned would result in insurmountable bloat. If you want to eliminate the level of income below and above which earners pay half of all taxes, then why not eliminate the GDP or population? If people want to compare they can look up the numbers for other countries. Who actually runs the country is only controversial because the answer makes people extremely uncomfortable. The sources cited have hard data showing the extent to which preferences closer to the demographic median were expressed by the government in the past, and the rate at which they have been replaced by the preferences of economic elites. EllenCT (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems that EllenCT’s first reference covered “federal, state and local taxes", so there is no implication in her draft that the subject is federal taxes only as there is with Calidium's. I do not see an assumption that there was a time when the people ran the country apart from an intersection of their interests and the voting population with the landed elites early 1800s and capitalist elites early 1900s. Over all, the reading/voting public has had more influence over policy than the general population who might respond to a national survey as in our current studies. The lower the voter turnout, the more likely a divergence might appear, IMHO.

As TFD correctly points out, the scope of these articles is the near term. I especially prefer EllenCT's use of “increased influence” rather than the alternate “undue influence” in this regard, because "undue" indicates a threat to the federal republic which is not born out by the sources since they are short term snap shots. Gilens and Page note overlap in economic elites, interest groups and the general public for some issues. I look forward to a study of the influence of the general public when a national majority is sustained for issues that are not resolved within four years, but over say, three presidential terms. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer EllenCT's draft because it seems to be more neutral than the other one. The other one seems to have a biased representation of the facts while Ellen's representation is more neutral. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

All that fact tells us is that the US tax system is very progressive, particularly given the top 10% earn nowhere near 49% of US income in a given year. The rest of it is POV spin. If EllenCT and others want to push this item, there are articles on income inequality that can suffice for their hobby horses. Neither approach is encyclopedic for a top level article like this. Mattnad (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The top 10% of earners made 45.9% of all income, which you would know if you had read the two page source cited. EllenCT (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If you're referring to the ITEP paper, it's very suspect in their calculations which are based on some black box model and not actual incomes. The non partisan CBO is very explicit, based on ACTUAL tax filings, in this recent document that the top 20% (quintile) is only slightly more than 50% in revenue. So if we believed your source, that would mean that the 80th to 90th percentiles get only a few percent of the national income when compared to the CBO data. This becomes even more stark if we include government transfers like the EITC and social security which are substantial in boosting household income in lower income percentiles. Sorry, EllenCT, your dog doesn't hunt. You pick marginal sources that support your agenda and ignore more authoritative sources like the CBO.Mattnad (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, do you propose using federal taxes on earned income in the narrative? I thought we were trying to get to total (federal, state, local) tax burden on total wealth. But, what is your alternative language? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that Federal Taxes give nearly full deductions for state and local taxes at lower levels, plus transfers like the EITC then it's an easier way using CBO data to demonstrate the the income/tax paid ratios. I'll add that ITEP uses some gymnastics, including ignoring Federal progressive tax rates and transfers within the tax system to come up with it's levels. Here's a Jan. 15/2015 analysis by the tax foundation that does not use a black box, but instead presents the logic and rationale behind it's numbers when looking at combined effective state and federal taxes. EllenCT likes the ITEP papers and has pushed for it extensively in other articles, and has had a lot of pushback because of the skewed analysis. So if we're going to include this kind of a sentence, including state tax burden, I recommend using the CBO to provide income and federal taxes paid by quintile (or whatever percentage groups we want) and if we want to use combined state/federal tax rates, the CBO and Tax Foundation strike me as more reliable sources than ITEP.Mattnad (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The Tax Foundation analysis you linked to is a comment on the ITEP's report on the incidence of state taxes, published every two years, which complains that the ITEP report doesn't include federal taxes. The source cited for the total tax burden of the top 10% of earners is ITEP's summary of all federal, state, and local taxes in the US, which is published every year in April. All of the editors who complain about the ITEP have been unable to produce any alternative sources of summary data of all US taxes. Addition is not a black box. EllenCT (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I've proposed two better sources than ITEP. It was you who cited them for the revenue by income percentile. The CBO is far more authoritative for that, and the Tax Foundation has noted many problems with ITEPs work that disqualify it as any reliable source for this article IMHO.Mattnad (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Which specific CBO and TF publications, in support of what summary text proposed for inclusion? EllenCT (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

We could simply summarize the income distribution debate in America including thinks like trickle down economics and tax burden. That way both sides are heard. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me say that the "undue influence" wording is not one that I added. That being said it does make sense that the majority of those paying federal income tax influence the policies of the Federal Government, they're paying for it. Whether that is right or wrong is a matter of opinion, and might be better in a sub-article. Also, let this section not become an attack on the wealthy, that violates WP:NEU IMHO. Stating statistics is one thing, interjecting opinion is another; and if it is included it should be balanced.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If you believe the section as it currently stands is an attack on the wealthy, how would you rephrase it so that it presents the same information in a neutral manner? As it stands, as I wrote above, stating that the top 10% income earners pay about half the taxes gives an incomplete view relative to also stating the much less in taxes that the top 10% by wealth pay. EllenCT (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the CTJ/ITEP figures, essentially restoring the previous version. CTJ (which is the ITEP's lobbying arm) has been repeatedly rejected as an authoritative source for these figures on this and other articles (including by RFC) because the partisan group's numbers are extreme outliers, dramatically contradicted by the far more reliable sources.

I also deleted the segment giving Wikipedia an opinion about wealth concentration as both undue (for this broad summary article) and a neutrality violation, so if the tax sentence was only there as part of a compromise then maybe it should be deleted or moved too. If the Galen stuff remains, however, it should altered into a brief, neutrally worded segment summarizing the debate (more like simply mentioning one exists, given our limited space for coverage here), and including sources from both sides, as the US Economy page now does (at least last I checked). VictorD7 (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You know that your revert of a compromise that took weeks to reach and was approved during the article's recent promotion to Good Article status needed to be discussed in advance, so please do so, per WP:BRD. Also, you've been complaining about CTJ and IETP for years now, but have you ever come up with a shred of evidence that any of their numeric reports of tax incidence are inaccurate in any way? Or indeed, any other sources of combined federal, state, and local tax rates? EllenCT (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The above section was only created on Jan. 13 with the alleged "compromise" material only getting added a few days ago. One of the two people behind the alleged "compromise" you attempted to unilaterally "improve" tagged the segment for POV after your edits and thanked me for reverting. Another editor reverted your unilateral replacement of the original tax segment with the CTJ numbers multiple times, and yet others opposed you on this page, explaining why CTJ is a dubious source. I did restore the Gilens segment, but that will have to be rewritten, per some suggestions here along the lines of neutrally and vaguely describing the debate over wealth/income inequality, using sources from both sides. I'll probably implement that later as it should be an easy fix.

As for CTJ/ITEP, you know full well why it's a dubious source for authoritative tax incidence data statements. It was explained here, in the RFC on this page establishing a consensus against using it the last time you tried to edit war the material into the article, along with numerous other discussions on several different articles reaching the same conclusion. But for others here who don't know, CTJ is the partisan lobbying arm of ITEP, and the group's internal federal component is dramatically contradicted by every other source, with the others producing roughly the same results. If the federal component (at least) is garbage, so are the total figures. I'd be happy to provide details and links to anyone who wants further information, but this has been litigated extensively for years. VictorD7 (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and the GA review didn't mention the Income section, apart from an aesthetic complaint about the graph being too small. You were edit warring over the segment during the review, and it's unclear whether the reviewer paid any attention to this dispute, much less knew its background. Besides, GA is hardly the highest quality rating. Things can always be improved, especially when there's a POV tag sitting on the section. VictorD7 (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Not only are you mistaken in counting the number of people who have voiced support for the compromise, but your edit warring over the statement in question now reads, "The wealthiest 10% pay a majority of total federal taxes." But all five of the sources you reverted back in, including from the Heritage Foundation, say that the statistics refer to the top 10% of income earners, not the top ten percent by wealth. That you would use a Heritage Foundation source calls your sincerity about "partisan lobbying" into question, and that you would confuse income with wealth after the difference has already been described in detail several times above in this very section shows the extent of your respect for accuracy. And again, not only have you not produced any reason that anyone should believe that the ITEP tax incidence numbers are not entirely accurate, but the lengthy section you linked to doesn't have any such reasons, either. That section is all about you wanting to show readers federal income and capital gains tax information instead of the more comprehensive and relevant combined federal, state, and local numbers which the ITEP produces. Of course, if you knew of any other source which shows the combined federal, state, and local tax incidence, you would have already provided it, wouldn't you? EllenCT (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't add "wealthiest", Ellen; it was already in the version I reverted back to. I copy pasted it (sources and all) and just made some slight prose changes. Your personal attack is amusing since I've actually had to explain the difference between wealth and income in discussions with you before, but I appreciate the heads up nonetheless, and I've corrected the line. The RFC I linked to rejecting your CTJ tax incidence figures, along with this discussion on the US Taxation talk page, show that the ITEP federal component is dramatically contradicted by all the other sources on federal taxes. The ITEP federal component is a dubious outlier, so its total figures, which include that federal component, are unusable here. I'm not saying CTJ/ITEP can never be used as a source on Wikipedia (especially if we're merely quoting its attributed opinion when covering a debate somewhere in an appropriate article), but it is unfit for use as an authoritative source on tax incidence. Since above you described your alleged unilateral improvements to "C.J. and RCLC's compromise", and RCLC is the one who posted a POV tag after your edit, while another editor repeatedly reverted your edit while yet others oppose it here, I think my assessment that there's a lack of consensus for your new changes is fair. VictorD7 (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Well thank you for correcting the "wealthiest" line. Here's my proposed compromise: "The highest 10% of income earners pay about half the taxes," sourced to both the Heritage Foundation and ITEP. EllenCT (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I would rather just leave this paragraph out. This paragraph will inevitably lead to edit warring. The only way I would be okay with anything similar to this is by adding a graph of amount of taxes paid by each income bracket. It must be cited by a gov't source. No caption or anything other than saying what the image is should be added. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The paragraph should go. The CBO has such graphs that have been used on other articles, but if we wanted to use something like that we could just replace the current EPI productivity/income graph that doesn't belong and should have been deleted long ago (that's another discussion), though it would probably be better to put a tax chart in the finance section instead. VictorD7 (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

What compromise? I for one didn't support the new language? IMHO the two studies are given undue weight. While a balanced section can be created, perhaps it is better to revert it to before EllenCT began adjusting it. At least for now.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

What new language don't you support? Victor's correction of your addition? EllenCT (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously I support my own addition. The new language that allegedly was compromised was one that I was not involved in, thus did not (nor could not have) supported; the one that gave sole weight to the CTJ source. Thus, I boldly added verified content, while leaving the last edit by EllenCT alone. That being said perhaps it would be best to revert the section to the version prior to the IP request of 13 January, as suggested by PointsofNoReturn.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with RCLC's proposal to revert to Jan. 13 version. VictorD7 (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree too. Do you want to make a graph of the federal income tax rates of each tax bracket? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Why should such a graph include only federal rates without state and local taxes? I disagree that the description of increasing influence of economic elites should be omitted, and I note that several others above share this position. EllenCT (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Because capturing the huge number of varying local/state tax rates and lumping them all together is notoriously difficult and there aren't any reliable, regularly published sources on that in the tax rate by income format being discussed (ITEP/CTJ is out for reasons given). There are really only a few agencies that publish such reliable figures even at the federal level, the most salient being the CBO and Tax Policy Center, each of which have their own microsimulation models. To answer Point's question, here's a CBO chart published about a year ago that breaks down burden share in 2010, here's one breaking down rates by income level since 1979, and here's one with more recent data covering 2014 based on Tax Policy Center data (which typically tracks very closely with CBO results in overlapping years) that I got email permission to add to the commons. Of those I prefer the last one as the income breakdown is mostly at even intervals and it includes an informative and easy to see tax type breakdown. I'm not sure if others have been added to the commons recently, though someone could always draw one based on the latest TPC or CBO numbers (the sources provide all the necessary data). If we're deleting this new paragraph anyway, I think such a chart would probably fit better in the Government finance section. VictorD7 (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• This is ok transitory ground but it is still confusing, as the paragraph begins by talking about wealth (presumably assets) and then goes to income: income ≠ assets. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that discussions concerning income, including taxation by income, should be in the first two paragraphs on income. And I would strongly prefer that we include the federal, state, and local taxes paid by the top 10% most wealthy taxpayers, because their tax incidence is very much lower. EllenCT (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to revert section Income, poverty and wealth to to 13 January version

I had proposed that this section be reverted to the 13 January 2015 version, due to the lack of consensus for the current version, leading to its instability. Three editors (including myself) supported the proposal, with the editor who inserted content which began this present discussion opposing it. The proposal is still out there, and there appears to be support for it.
Furthermore, why is this content not in a sub-article such as Taxation in the United States? Why does it deserve weight in this summary article? This appears to push Class conflict#21st century USA into this article, giving it IMHO undue weight.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you should implement the proposal, RightCowLeftCoast. If I had known that segment was still there I would have already altered the second sentence to read something along the lines of "There is debate over the extent and economic relevance of wealth inequality.", followed by the sources from both sides, which can be found on the US Economy page. As you said though, not every political debate is due coverage in this summary article. VictorD7 (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Done.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)