Talk:Economic growth/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Shiller quote, other quotes

The Shiller quote is off topic. Yes, inequality can be bad. But this is an article on economic growth.

As far as the other quotes go, the problem is that they're only tangentially relevant and that they bloat a section which is already given WP:UNDUE weight in this article. Again, this is an article on economic growth, not inequality.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think Shiller was not complaining about inequality? Are you familiar with his opinions on the subject? It is most certainly on topic. EllenCT (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

EllenCT. It seems impossible to discuss things with you as you repeatedly attribute to me, and others (including sources) things which they did not say. Read my comment again. I did not claim that Shiller was "not complaining about inequality". I said that this was off topic as the quote doesn't say anything about economic growth, which is the subject of this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course I meant to ask whether you thought he was not complaining about inequality's effect on growth. EllenCT (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but then why are you linking the HP above? In it Shiller says nothing about inequality and anything he says about growth is very indirect (he supports more infrastructure investment, apparently. Good to know.)Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You're the one who agrees public spending should be considered beneficial. Even if the private sector contracts, given your arguments above. EllenCT (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not agreeing with anything. I am simply stating that it is not our job as Wikipedia editors to evaluate the findings of reliable secondary sources. That is left to the editors and referees of journals, where the paper you're talking about was published.

Let me repeat the question, since you completely ignored it:

Why are you linking the Huffington Post article above? In it Shiller says nothing about inequality and hardly anything about growth.

Please answer the question rather than making attempts to derail the discussion to some other paper. Shiller. Not other papers. Shiller. That guy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you think that when Shiller talks about "the economy" as in, "the central problem weighing on the economy is a lack of business and consumer confidence," that he is talking about some other measure than GDP? Do you think he is referring to economic growth when he refers to the "self-reinforcing cycle of more spending and hiring" (emphasis added)? How would you characterize the relationship between unemployment and income inequality? EllenCT (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't matter what you think. Not our job to read into his words. He's not talking about growth, at least not in any obvious way. "spending" is not growth. Stop it with the original research. This quote goes, it's off topic and unrelated in an already bloated and undue section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

If it doesn't matter, you wouldn't have been so insistent! Sorry you didn't read it carefully enough before hand. The obvious relationship between the unemployment rate and income inequality is WP:CK. EllenCT (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

POV tag (was Factual accuracy tag)

Why is that in there? What facts' accuracy is disputed? This looks just like tag-bombing per WP:IDONTLIKEIT (on top of tendentious POV pushing and edit warring). The only kind of factual misrepresentation I can find in that section is the inaccurate representation of Banerjee and Duflo's paper about this one year lag stuff, which appears to be User:EllenCT's own hobby horse rather than what's actually in the paper (specifically, EllenCT believes that certain studies are flawed - which in itself is original research - because they don't allow for long term effects of inequality on growth. This is not only original research, it's just false. Virtually all studies look at horizons of five to ten years. And none of this is in Banerjee and Duflo. I have no idea where EllenCT came up with this).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I changed it to a POV tag moments later. Simple mistake on my part. Clearly the section needs a dispute tag. EllenCT (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

- a POV tag seems to match there is discussion going on, and I'll ask EllenCT to please start a Talk section to match that where she would set out the explanation of what the tag is for and beginning a discussion of removing it. Markbassett (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The tag links to the #Request for comments on the different preferences for inclusion. 17:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

And this is completely wrong headed:

[1]. Come on, it's not that hard.

Obviously Alesina and Rodrik need to be in that section, since that's a seminal paper which exemplifies one of the major approaches to the subject, in fact, one which might have introduced it (I'm pretty sure there's earlier works along those lines, but this paper was the one who made it center piece again) - the political economy approach. Yes, the citation is to the original 1994 paper by Alesina and Rodrik. According to EllenCT this should be a no-no since only "literature reviews" (or sections) are counted as "secondary sources". That's a complete misunderstanding of what a secondary source is, but nevermind. It should be trivial to find a ... tertiary source, or some "literature review" which discusses Alesina and Rodrik as this is another key paper in the literature. Indeed, I've linked to several (Galor, Helpmann etc., even Barro, Berg and Ostry) which discuss it. So even by the criteria of "we can only include it if it's discussed in someone else's lit review" it needs to be in here. Also by the criteria of "common sense of anyone familiar with the literature on inequality and growth".

I don't know. This is either throwing out the baby with the bath water or it's some kind of vengeful "fine, if I don't get my way I'm going to make this a mess" kind of approach.

Please put that back in. I will then source it to whatever third party "literature reviews" you want.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It is in, like it says in the edit summary, Alesina and Rodrik (1994) are cited in the very first paragraph of the section, where they are summarized in much the same way, except for the jargony name of their approach. And the AER paper is the one you were complaining about that was primary from 1994. ("The problem with Temple and Persson and Tabellini is that they're both very very outdated - they precede most of the research that has occurred on this topic since ... 1995.") You were complaining about bloat. Do you really want Alesina and Rodrik to be in twice? EllenCT (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Inequality and growth section - how should it be structured?

The way I think the section should be structure is something like:

older theories about different propensities to save by the rich and poor (Kaldor etc) and the empirical literature on these.
newer theories
- Credit constraints theories. The article currently cites Galor and Zeira, as representing this class of theories, but I'm pretty sure the idea predates 1993. I'm also not sure if that particular paper really exemplifies the theory (iirc that paper is also about explaining the productivity slowdown)
- Political economy approach. This should start with Alesina and Rodrik but then discuss the various developments.
Overview. Honestly, the literature is somewhat inconclusive, although tending towards the conclusion that inequality can hurt growth. The article should not be written as if this was completely established however.

We basically have the rudiments of such a section but it's all confused right now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

If the literature tends towards the conclusion that inequality can hurt growth, then why did you just delete every statement saying so? EllenCT (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Why did you delete the vast majority of them? Why did you revert my intervening improvements to other parts of the articles with an edit summary to "stop edit warring"? EllenCT (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed off topic and minor material in order to shorten the section so that it reflects due weight. I don't know what improvements you're referring to. Most of the other edits just seem like ref shuffling for the text which doesn't belong in there anyway. Can you list the "other" improvements you made to the article here specifically? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You removed peer reviewed literature review summaries of sources which you explicitly said were mostly good. EllenCT (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. See above. I've addressed this several times. You generally don't bother addressing the issues I raise, just start obfuscating or derailing discussion with irrelevancies. So one more time (again!!!!!). I've removed off topic and minor material in order to shorten the section so that it reflects due weight. Can you list the "other" improvements you made to the article here specifically? <----- See how you haven't done that on your response? See how frustrating (some would say pointless) it is trying to discuss this with you seriously?Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You want me to go through the edit history and list all the improvements I've made that you haven't objected to? Why? What difference does it make? Please stop wasting my time. EllenCT (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Why should older theories come first when they have been discredited for the reasons that Milanovic states? How does that serve the readership? EllenCT (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Two reasons... well, one reason: organization. We can organize the section either thematically or chronologically. If we do it chronologically, then obviously the older theories should come first. If we do it thematically, then it's precisely the fact that these theories have become discredited (more or less) that they should come first. Basically what we want to say is something like "Economists used to believe that <blah blah blah older theories>. Empirical studies conducted in the 1990's found little or no support for them and hence other theories, such as the credit-constraint approach or the political economy approach were developed which seemed to provide an explanation for why inequality and growth were not positively related. Then..." and that's where we move on to the newer literature.

As I said before (again!), just because we *discuss* these theories, does not mean we *promote* or justify them. We are merely acknowledging the fact that they are a part of the research tradition. Yes, they should be discussed as outdated and for the most part rejected theories, but because they were influential and notable at one point they deserve a place in the article.

Okay, as an attempt to working together, could we agree on two things: 1) that these "older theories" need to be discussed because they are part of the economic history of thought and 2) that they should come early on in the section? But at the same time it should be clearly explained that they do not have much support, either theoretical or empirical in modern economic thought? This is one thing where there is a strong consensus in the literature and I also think that we both see eye to eye on this. So let's start with that, and make it the first paragraph of the section and then work our way further.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

They actually do come relatively early on now, in the third paragraph. Here's what we have, with one line per sentence:

IMF summary.
Alesina and Rodrick thesis.
Alesina and Rodrick prescription.
Shiller quote.
Easterly (2007) on prosperity, institutions, and education.

Castells-Quintana and Royuela, inequality hurts growth.
Castells-Quintana and Royuela, unemployment increases inequality.
Castells-Quintana and Royuela, unemployment harms growth because it wastes 
     resources, causes redistributive pressure and poverty, constrains liquidity,
     limits labor mobility, and erodes self-esteem promoting unrest and conflict.
Castells-Quintana and Royuela, reducing unemployment and inequality increases growth.

1950s to 2011 theories wrong about inequality causing growth. (THIRD PARAGRAPH)
Banerjee and Duflo on why they were wrong.
IMF approach to sustained periods of economic growth. 
Detail on why IMF approach is more accurate.

Stiglitz, global and in-country inequality hurt growth by limiting aggregate demand.
Milanovic quote on shift to from physical to human capital.

Temple (1999) JEL review, high inequality lowers growth maybe because of instability.
Clarke (1992/5) on robustness of correlation and independence of its assumptions.

Galor and Zeira on credit market imperfections.
Perotti on the different channels of causation.
Perotti on credit market approach on human capital formation and fertility. 
Perotti on inequality associated with lower taxation and less growth.

1970s Okun theories on inequality causing growth. (SEVENTH PARAGRAPH) 
1955 review on savings by the wealthy offsetting reduced consumer demand.
2013 report on Nigeria, growth rose with inequality.

Barro on lack of correlations. (EIGHTH PARAGRAPH)
Borrow on inequality reducing growth 
Roland Benabou, no correlation except with "relative distribution of
     earnings and political power". (MISSING CITATION)
Swedish counties, inequality caused growth in 5 but not 10 years. 
Banerjee an Duflo and IMF reality check. (NECESSARY REDUNDANCIES)

Subsection: Equitable growth. Main article: Inclusive growth....

Can you use that to suggest a reorganization? EllenCT (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous

As soon as I make ANY attempt to improve this article, EllenCT jumps in and reverts me wholesale. Their edits have no support here, at the relevant discussion board (NPOVN) or in the article history. The latter refers to the fact that several other users have tried to improve the article as well, but have been reverted by EllenCT too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You have repeatedly deleted my summaries of peer reviewed literature reviews, replacing them with papers from 1955, for goodness sake. I have left your recent additions stand in the section. Have you been able to find a review that agrees with you and is less than half a century old? EllenCT (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You've made no "summaries of peer reviewed literature reviews"!!!!! You put in the papers you like and you took papers you don't like.

The 1955 is obviously a reference to Kaldor's theory. It was there before, I didn't put it in. Clearly, if we mention older theories we need to source them. And for ffs, and for the millionth time, it's not about "agreeing with me", it's about including relevant reliable sources. You are removing - peer reviewed, reliable - source you don't like, based on WP:OR and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and replacing them with ones you like. Easterly's results (and discussion) agree with Barro's. Banerjee and Duflo's results (and discussion) agree with Barro's. Etc.

Like I said, your obfuscation on this article (perhaps others?) has really reached ridiculous proportions. You keep coming up with nonsense argument after another:

Barro can't be included because it's not peer reviewed. Oh, wait, the same paper was published less than a year later in a top journal.

Barro can't be included because he uses only short term effects. Oh wait, that's not what Barro does at all, someone just hasn't bothered to actually read the paper.

Barro can't be included because Banerjee and Duflo contradict his findings. Oh wait, that's original research and on top of that nonsense, since Banerjee and Duflo's findings are in line with Barro, so someone hasn't bothered to read that paper either.

Barro can't be included because Berg and Ostry discuss him negatively. Oh wait, that's original research and on top of that nonsense, since Berg and Ostry just cite, not discuss Barro. Did someone not even bother to read the paper which they so adamantly want to put into the article?

Barro can't be included because it's not mentioned in somebody else's literature review. Oh wait, the papers you demand discuss Barro's 2000 result were actually published BEFORE Barro's paper so it's freakin' impossible for them to discuss Barro.

Barro can't be included because he didn't invent a correlation the way Edison invented lightbulbs. WTF?

Barro can't be included because his results are not mentioned in somebody else's later literature review. Oh wait, that's no the standard for inclusion, and oh wait wait wait, actually this paper is mentioned in almost every single major work on the subject since it freakin' started this whole literature!!!

Barro can't be included because some other theory is cited to a 1955 paper. Huh?

And so on and on...Volunteer Marek (talk)

I'm referring to the Journal of Economic Literature review by Temple and the American Economic Review review Persson and Tabellini, along with all the other secondary sources that include literature reviews in agreement with their conclusions. I've left in your favored Barro 1990 paper, your Kaldor review from 1955, and Benabou (1999) with your bare URL ref. If you want to include some NBER draft, don't expect me to figure it out if it eventually ended up getting through peer review. Hyperlink the courtesy link to the draft and cite the journal source. EllenCT (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, then going by threshold you've set, let's remove Berg and Ostry and Castells-Quintana and Royuela since these are not literature reviews. The problem with Temple and Persson and Tabellini is that they're both very very outdated - they precede most of the research that has occurred on this topic since ... 1995.

Kaldor's obviously just there (and I'm not the one who put it in) to cite the older theories. If you can find a discussion of Kaldor's theory in a tertiary source that'd be fine. Likewise, I'm not the one who put in Benabou - but for what its worth, the discussion of that paper comes from.... Barro's literature review which appears to be exactly the kind of thing you favor. And actually Barro's "literature review" is quite good for a summary of the various theories on inequality and growth. You should look into it, not try to fight it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You've constantly been re-inserting Kaldor, and have changed its summary statement in the article text from last month. Berg & Ostry and Castells-Quintana & Royuela, have literature review sections, unlike many if not most of what you've been trying to push, and their reviews agree with their conclusions, and they either passed peer review or were repeatedly published as an IMF staff note, of which there were less than a dozen in total last year. Shame on you! EllenCT (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, those papers have literature reviews in them but you are NOT using text from their literature reviews, you're putting in their PRIMARY findings. Which contradicts what you're advocating for other papers. Can't have cake. Can't eat it. One of the above. IMF staff note is not peer reviewed. All the other papers which you are trying to remove have passed peer review. Can't have cake. Can't eat it. One of the above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You're the one who said un-reviewed NBER working papers were more authoritative than peer review, but they publish hundreds per month when the IMF typically publishes less than a single staff note. Do you think the IMF has no internal process for review of staff notes? EllenCT (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't start with that again. You know very well that Barro's NBER paper was published less than a year later in a top journal (how many times have I had to remind you off that). Technically, Berg and Ostry is not peer reviewed. By the standards you've chosen to enforce when it came to sources which you didn't like. Consistency and intellectual honesty requires that you follow through.

And again. Let me repeat. Since you, again, failed completely to address the point:

Those papers have literature reviews in them but you are NOT using their literature reviews, you're putting in their PRIMARY findings. So, again, by the standards you've chosen to enforce when it came to sources which you didn't like, Castells-Quintana and Royuela, as well as Berg and Ostry have to go. Consistency and intellectual honesty requires that you follow through.

As I said before (again!!!!!!), you've NOT made "summaries of literature reviews". You've put in papers whose conclusions you like, you removed, and edit warred to keep removed, papers whose conclusions you don't like. That is textbook POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

And as I said before, if you define everything that isn't just a raw data table as WP:SECONDARY in economics, then a peer reviewed literature review section is as authoritative as a literature review article, whether it agrees with the article's primary findings or not. But the reviews in all of the articles I've cited agree with their primary findings. EllenCT (talk) 06:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop making excuses and setting up strawman. Nobody's defining "anything but raw data" as secondary (although...). You are pulling up standards out of thin air. There's nothing in any Wikipedia policy anywhere which states that a source must have a section entitled "Literature Review" for it to be secondary. The reason there isn't is because that would be ridiculous. As is your insistence on it.

But if you are going to insist on it, then at least be consistent, lest someone might get the idea that you're just POV pushing. You're welcome to use the material from the "Literature Review" section of the articles you want. But please remove the parts which are based on the primary findings.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Show me one source I've added with a review that doesn't reach the same conclusion as its primary findings. EllenCT (talk) 08:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? What does that even mean? Lit reviews cover ALL kinds of papers, both those which reached similar conclusions and those which reached different conclusions. That's scholarship. Unlike the present state of this article where only sources which reach a particular conclusion are included. So, for example, Berg and Ostry discuss Kaldor, Barro, Bernajeeb and Duflo etc. All papers which DIDN'T reach the same conclusion as their primary findings.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

And I'm starting to think you don't actually understand what a "Literature Review" is. Lit Reviews don't "reach conclusions". They summarize previous work. It makes no sense to say "lit review reaches same conclusion as primary findings".Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you remember telling me that I was using papers' primary findings instead of the conclusions of their literature reviews? Like, a dozen times so far? Show me a paper I've included which has primary findings which diverge from its literature review's assessment of the dominant viewpoint (if that's what you want to call what most people refer to as the conclusions of the literature reviews.) EllenCT (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I do. Because that's what you were doing. One more time. A literature review summarizes the literature that came before a particular paper. It does not matter one bit if a "literature review" of a particular paper agrees or disagrees with the primary conclusions of a particular paper. Insisting that only papers whose "literature reviews" are completely in accordance with the extra findings that these papers produce is stupid. Also, WP:OR. The whole point of writing a scholarly paper is that it *improves* upon the existing literature. If a paper was wrote which said "we do exactly the same thing that previous papers did, and we get the same damn conclusion" it wouldn't get published. And it would be useless. There is no papers out there, outside of replication studies, for which "primary findings do not diverge from its literature review's assessment of the dominant viewpoint". Nevermind that this criteria for inclusion cannot be found anywhere in Wikipedia policies. It's some bullshit excuse you invented to exclude papers you don't like, and keep in trivial papers which you do like. I repeat, it seems that you have no idea what "Literature Review" actually is, nevermind that it's pretty obvious at this point that you haven't even bothered to read the papers you keep on bringing up. You misrepresent a paper once or twice, fine, there's always some subtleties which can be missed and everyone makes sloppy mistakes. But to keep on doing it over and over and over again is a pretty clear signal that you simply are too lazy to actually read the works you're citing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Geez, again with the incessant personal attacks. Could you please cut it out? Or if not, just assume that any accusations of being too lazy will be met with rejoinders of "your mom is too lazy" that I am just too lazy to actually type. If you don't think I'm reading the papers, how do you explain how I excerpted the nine you said were good sources? EllenCT (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow! That is a lot of back and forth! May I suggest that you each write a concise statement of the problem as you see it, as far as I can tell a pro/con on a source inclusion. In that statement do not use the term "Literature Review" unless it is in fact one. (A paper that is a Literature Review and a paper that has a literature review are two very different beasts, the first is intended to be an exhaustive examination of the state of the discipline the other simply places a work within the overall context of the question and except in rare instances is not the part of a paper intended to advance the discipline.) After you have each written these do not comment on them. Let some other editors comment and when they do do not reply to the comments on the other person's statement. As this talk page shows, that is not productive right now.

If you would link the paper(s) in question here, so I do not have to wade through the whole dispute history, I would be happy to read them and see if I can offer another opinion. I purposely want to avoid reading through the dispute history because right now I have no opinion on either of your positions or of yourselves. (I know that shouldn't matter but no one comes off looking good in what looks to be a bitter argument and I am only human.)

If you interested in trying this please ping me or try with someone else. pinging EllenCT,Volunteer Marek JBH (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

My not-so-concise statement can already be found in the "Other problems in the inequality section" section below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"summaries of peer reviewed literature reviews"

EllenCT, can you please list here the sources you are referring to when you speak of your "summaries of peer reviewed literature reviews"? Which ones are "peer reviewed literature reviews"? Castells-Quintana and Royuela aren't a literature review. It's a standard paper. Berg and Ostry isn't a literature review. It's original research. And in fact, it's not even peer reviewed. Galor and Zeira is not a literature review. Alesina and Rodrik and Persson and Tabellini are not literature reviews. Stiglitz is not a literature review (and essentially off topic, as it's focus is the 2007 recession, not long run growth). Shiller is not a literature review.

Now, if you're referring to Temple and Clarke, those are literature reviews, although outdated. A more comprehensive and more recent (though still not quite recent enough) is Helpmann's The Mystery of Economic Growth [2] which has a section on inequality in it, and could serve as a good template for how to organize the section here (which is pretty much in line with what I suggested above).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I have done so above. This section is redundant and should be archived immediately, or hatted to save other editors' time. A peer reviewed literature review can include a peer reviewed WP:SECONDARY source with a literature review section. Specific statements about inequality and growth are on-topic, even in an article written to explain specific events. It's absurd to say that the late 1990s is too far in the past when the only literature review you've been inserting is from 1955. EllenCT (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No you haven't. All you've done is to note that Castells-Quintana and Royuela and Berg and Ostry HAVE literature reviews in them. That doesn't mean THEY ARE literature reviews, or even that you're USING their literature reviews for this article. In fact, you're not, you're putting in their primary findings.

So. One more time. Which "peer reviewed literature reviews" are you talking about? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As above, "I'm referring to the Journal of Economic Literature review by Temple and the American Economic Review review Persson and Tabellini, along with all the other secondary sources that include literature reviews in agreement with their conclusions." EllenCT (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Let's put aside for the moment the fact that these are quite outdated. So, first, Persson and Tabellini is NOT a literature review. The text in the article says: "Persson and Tabellini (1994), argues that inequality is harmful for economic development because ...". This is Persson and Tabellini's PRIMARY conclusion. It is NOT a literature review. They don't "argue" this based on the literature. They "argue" this based on their regressions. So you are including a PRIMARY finding. Please stop pretending that this is a lit review. Same goes for Castells-Quintana and Royuela and Berg and Ostry.

There's two ways this can go. Either "primary findings" are okay, in which case we can keep these papers, but then we should also keep Frank Li and Zou, Frank, and other papers.

Or, we stick to this strict interpretation of WP:SECONDARY that you've invented, but we do it consistently. In that case we remove Castells-Quintana and Royuela, Berg and Ostry, Persson and Tabellini. We should have no problem finding an actual lit review for Alesina and Rodrik, or Barro, since these are widely discussed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't take your assertion that a 1994 review is "quite outdated" when the only review article you've been inserting is from 1955, and as you pointed out, you didn't even find it, you just re-wrote the summary from last month's article to suit your purposes. EllenCT (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I see I have to repeat myself some more. I didn't put the 1955 Kaldor paper in there. However, the theory should be mentioned. I provided several contemporary sources which discuss it.

Stop making excuses. Yes, 1994 review is outdated, especially seeing how the literature took off with Barro's 2000 paper.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Please explain your reasoning behind why the 1955 review you like should stay but the 1994 review I like is outdated. EllenCT (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the 1955 paper, but keep my text and source it to one of the sources I've already provided. Here they are again: [3], [4], [5]].

Then, please remove the outdated 1994 review.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

[6]: "Banerjee and Duflo (2003) argued that the linear regression structure imposed in previous studies is inconsistent with the predictions of the theories and the qualitative findings may be an artifact of the imposed linearity. They find that changes in inequality (in any direction) are associated with lower growth rates. Moreover, in line with the adverse long-run impact of inequality proposed by the theories, they find a negative relationship between growth rates and lagged inequality. Recently, Easterly (2007) has reaffirmed the hypothesis advanced by the modern theories that inequality has an adverse effect on human capital formation and economic development."

[7]: "Inequality can be harmful to long run economic growth by making economic reforms less plausible.... Rodrik (1998) has provided empirical evidence that unequal societies are less likely to carry out the adjustments necessary to respond to negative macroeconomic shocks."

[8]: "If we plot growth as a function of inequality, we will observe growth rates that are low and constant for high degrees of inequality, corresponding to non-cooperative outcomes. As inequality decreases we may observe a jump in the growth rate as we enter the range of sustainable cooperation."

Great, sure, I'm happy to add them if you don't want to, but following User:Darx9url how about not deleting the text I added?

Let's try to get in what we both like the best, and leave it to RFC respondents to suggest what needs to be paired down. Okay? EllenCT (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

We are talking about the outdated 1994 article. Are you going to remove it? Don't change the topic (again).Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I'm going to insist that it remain, in accordance with the RFC respondent's wishes, just like I'm going to insist the Shiller quote remain. Feel free to reorganize to your heart's content, but I will replace deletions. And I intend to add a summary of my excerpts from your three sources, if you don't. EllenCT (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

So you complain about one study because it's outdated, but insist that another study which is outdated stay. Because you like the conclusion of one study and don't like the conclusion of the other. Just wondering, how can you reconcile such an approach? (and don't try to use "RFC respondent's wishes" as an excuse, that's not what they said at all).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Because there are 40 years between 1955 and 1995. But did I take out the 1955 review which reaches conclusions you said you don't even agree with? No, it's been in there since you started insisting that it stay. If you want to get rid of bloat, start with that one. EllenCT (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for comments

No consensus appears to have developed here. Number 5 7 16:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which version of the income equality section more accurately reflects the findings of the peer reviewed literature reviews, Marek's or Ellen's? EllenCT (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment This is not a good RfC question, and displays a battleground mentality. As far as I can tell, both of you are trying to improve the page. I think the both of you should restrict yourselves to zero reverts of each others edits. Just add, edit, and reword, but don't remove material included by the other person. This may lead to bloat, but it'll at least get the two of you to work cooperatively together. If the section on the effects of inequality gets too big, you can move it to a new article on Inequality and economic growth. Darx9url (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem is that BLOAT is the problem. Stuff needs to be removed. But in accordance with Wikipedia policy, not according to "I like the conclusions of this source, I don't like the conclusions of this source". Saying "just add" then compounds the problem.

However, the suggestion to have a separate article on Inequality and economic growth might be a good one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Just as an reductio ad absurdum to illustrate the point. Suppose I add, for some strange reason, "Obama is a horrible president because he thinks inequality is not a problem for growth". Then EllenCT can't revert that, but she should. And vice-versa. "Adding" stuff is not privileged over "removing" stuff. In fact, real world editors mostly remove stuff that silly authors put in (authors tend to write too much).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we could work together if you didn't define "stuff" to mean "absolutely everything that you disagree with in the slightest," as anyone can see by comparing the two links in the RFC question. Eight paragraphs is not long enough to warrant a new WP:SUMMARY POV-fork article. EllenCT (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as how 1) this article is already very long and 2) inequality is generally not thought to be one of the major determinants of growth (which isn't to say that it doesn't have an effect), eight paragraphs is most certainly WP:UNDUE. This was also mentioned by others in the NPOVN thread.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"Generally not thought to be one of the major determinants"? It's the largest determinant the IMF was able to find from the most extensive study in history, of more than half a century of data from 140 countries. The whole article is less than 70 KB. Nowhere near WP:TOOBIG for a single WP:SUMMARY spinoff from a 2,100 view per day article. EllenCT (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

One non-peer reviewed study, using a peculiar methodology. No, it is not thought to be one of the major determinants. Saving rates, technological progress, initial level of income, quality of institutions, rule of law and absence of war. Oh, and it's not even a "secondary source" according to your definition. Show me a literature review where the source is discussed. And seriously, "most extensive study in history" is just insanely ... wrong, to put it nicely.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Ha! The IMF measured savings rates (and they're dismissed very clearly by Milanovic too) and development investment, and institutions, and rule of law (which includes war conditions.) They are all lesser determinants. Show me a study of a larger dataset searching for determinants of growth. EllenCT (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It's one non-peer reviewed study using a peculiar methodology.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Show me a study of a larger dataset searching for determinants of growth, or strike "insanely wrong". EllenCT (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Neither is good for this article As I said at NPOVN, this is just the area showing factors in the Economic Growth article, so is diverting waaaaaaay too much into details on this one. Suggest do like the other factors: identify what the factor is with less than 200 words and otherwise shift the details of conclusions and cites to the article on that topic (i.e. Economic inequality). Even at that article, I'd suggest it looks like help vs hinder positions exist and that would be another something to cover with some secondary source. Markbassett (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you propose deletions from the current version of the article, which includes multiple compromise edits since the RFC was open, please? EllenCT (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

All the existing material is detail level that does not belong in this article, so : Delete All. Markbassett (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Markbassett's comment. My version above was intended to move towards that outcome. Unfortunately, since EllenCT would jump in and revert my changes right away, I just gave up. 200 words should be more than enough.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment This is not a properly worded or conceived RfC. It should be closed and rewritten. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Which provisions of the RFC rules do you think it violates? There are dozens just like it every month. "Which revision is best" is probably the most common RFC question there is. Feel free to answer it in the form "what needs to be included to best represent the peer reviewed literature reviews" if that makes you more comfortable. EllenCT (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek's version is better, as it mostly solves the WP:UNDUE problem. bobrayner (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for comments

No consensus appears to have developed here. Number 5 7 16:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which version of the income equality section more accurately reflects the findings of the peer reviewed literature reviews, Marek's or Ellen's? EllenCT (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment This is not a good RfC question, and displays a battleground mentality. As far as I can tell, both of you are trying to improve the page. I think the both of you should restrict yourselves to zero reverts of each others edits. Just add, edit, and reword, but don't remove material included by the other person. This may lead to bloat, but it'll at least get the two of you to work cooperatively together. If the section on the effects of inequality gets too big, you can move it to a new article on Inequality and economic growth. Darx9url (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)