Talk:College tuition in the United States

Need input from other editors...

This is the edit in question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=565617027&oldid=565615581

In making the case that this is a good edit, please note that opposing editor made this edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=565490131&oldid=565400063

While I disagree with his change, I admit (and give him credit) that he did change this partly because I asked him: I said that the additions I made would "address" rising tuition, and if he didn't agree why not change the header (which was not the best option, but did make his edit deletions technically correct).

Here is a 'diff' where we discussed this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flyte35&diff=565617831&oldid=565617540#College_tuition_in_the_United_States_-_-_redux

However, discussion, proper, needs to be on this 'talk' page, not on another editor's page, so I thus request input from the community to break this tie, and get consensus and resolution. I think my edit is correct, and presents the most complete set of recommendations to address these problems.71.101.54.213 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see much encyclopedic value in the first edit. First, it reads very much like a set of instructions or recommendations for students which is not our charge. Second, the sources are pretty weak which has led to the text itself being weak (e.g., "...many students have started working part time" - aside from the grammatical issue of the missing hyphen, the statement itself is facile and ignorant of historical context in which part-time work has been common for many students for many years). ElKevbo (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC).

I looked at your not our charge link and can not see how it would preclude this type of edit. (None of the exception here apply to this edit.) Therefore, I see plenty of encyclopedic value here: The students have always worked -and always NEEDED to work; however, with "bad" governmental policies that result in oppressive predatory loans, these burdened students need even more help. I agree, however, that the hyphen is needed. I will "assemble a committee" to look into it. :) 71.101.55.161 (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the specific part of the policy in question: "...an article should not read like a 'how-to' style owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box." Telling students what they should do is an obvious violation of that policy. ElKevbo (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No one is telling the students to do these things, any more than they are "telling" the lawmakers to "do" the recommended changes in federal law. These are merely encyclopedic entries for solutions, not unlike, for example, entries for "how to" counteract an overdose: See, for example, Iron_deficiency#Treatment or Iron_poisoning#Treatment or (better yet) Drug_overdose#Management: These 3 lists read like a "how to" manual, but, in all reality, that is because you are misreading them: They do not say you must do A-B- or C; they merely offer a short, concise encyclopedia list of recommendations or solutions (antidotes, ventilation, dialysis, diagnosis of the deficiency, supplements if low, etc.) -no different than those offered in this article --for both lawmakers and consumers. PS: I do see your recommendation to step back (due to maybe objectivity issues) below (and for simplicity, I am replying all in 1 place, here), and I do not have a problem doing that, if indeed there will be genuine community support for a complete encyclopedic entry -as opposed to your views only. (Lastly, how are my 'recommendations' any different -any worse -than those offered in the Iron and Drugs articles I link above?) Thank you, 71.101.54.16 (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the better sentence [1]. It states the issue with more clarity and more impact. It gets the intended message across much better than the other edit (hopefully that is what you're asking). Also, sorry to say, but "slow tuition growth" is much more cumbersome and seems almost vague when compared to the other, better, statement. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I KNOW it is a better sentence. I wrote it! (Thank you for the kudos.) This version addresses all aspects of the problem, thus leaving open all avenues of correction/assistance. With proper respect to the other editor, Flyet35, he meant well, but his edit, restricted to addressing how to "slow tuition growth" was/is restrictive. Thank you for backing/supporting my edit. :) 71.101.55.161 (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that " "slow tuition growth" is not the best line ever, and I'd be happy to hear other suggestions. The point is that reformers are proposing policy changes in order to make it so that tuition doesn't increase so fast every year. "Address rising tuition" strikes me as far too ambiguous. Reformers aren't talking about "addressing" rising tuition; they're talking about curtailing it.Flyte35 (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Although you may have lost the battle, you won the war: Your edits, overall, have been excellent. To answer your suggestion about "and I'd be happy to hear other suggestions," I would suggest that sometimes, doing nothing is the right thing: If it isn't broke, don't fix it: The original language ('address' problem) was less restrictive than your proposed solution (to 'slow' the tuition growth: Good, but restrictive, and precluded the other ideas I had). Yes, I'm all about curtailing the tuition, but being an 'inclusionist' (is that the word you use on your planet to describe a Wiki editor open to several ideas, including all?), I would prefer my edit over yours: My edit includes ALL of your ideas -plus a few unique ones. Don't worry, Flyet35, things won't get out of hand, it it will make the article stronger, more robust, and more well-rounded. :) 71.101.55.161 (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

How about "curtail tuition growth"? The point is these are policy recommendations to keep tuition down.Flyte35 (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, if we were going to restrict recommendations (e.g., solutions) solely to "their" side (i.e., addressing only the solutions that "they" could do), there would be an almost infinite variety of possibilities: "Recommendations from experts and consumer and students' rights advocates to..."

#1: ...Slow Tuition Growth (your original edit)

#2: ...Curtail Tuition Growth (your newer suggestion)

#3: ...Reduce Average Tuition (actually reversing course, and not just slowing rate of velocity)

#4: ...Seek Compensation for excessive tuition

#5: ...Make Corrections to the way tuition is calculated.

Can you see where I'm going with this? These methods only allow or permit suggestions for "them" to change "their" behavior; however, even though we, plebeians don't like to be told that WE can "do something," in all fairness, we CAN (even though I will readily admit that our culpability here is MUCH less than either the illegal monopoly that IS "Higher Education" OR the government, itself, which created this mess by not only making loans available to people who didn't need them (thus inducing colleges to raise tuition to match our increased borrowing abilities), but also by further preventing the bubble from growing: By illegally changing the terms of our loan contract AFTER THE FACT (cf: Contract Law) to strip the bankruptcy safety-net provisions, this was VERY illegal!! Furthermore, even in cases where new loans already had no bankruptcy protections, the lack of 'Truth in Lending' protection prevented students from even knowing about these terms, which is a Due Process Violation, insofar as proper notice of a danger is not explained, thus violating "Implied Warrant of Merchantability." (That's a legal term: Google it; in plain English, it's like if you buy apples, and they're poison, the seller has violated an implied warrant of "merchantability" because fitness of the apples, while not in an actual contract, is implied.) Also, when students are not able to protect themselves from Predatory Lending via Bankruptcy Protections, the 'easy loan' monies rush in even quicker (the lender has much less rick here), thus fueling the bubble.

...sorry to get off on a rant, but my point is simply this, Flyte35:

Yes, I would agree with what I'm sure you would conclude: The 'bad guys' are much more culpable then we, the little guy borrowers here, but in all fairness, if there are solutions that we, student borrowers, can do to help, it is MORALLY WRONG to have an encyclopedia entry that omits these solutions. While I have only listed a few -to be representative (and imply the rest), these are necessary; they don't take up too much space in the article and they do add to the depth, vibrancy, and completeness of this subject matter. Therefore, using the language that I left with my most recent edit here, which lists things that 'address' the problem, we are permitted to have the few (but important) 'extras' in these proposed solutions -and, cited via sources to boot, in good English grammar that flows. (And, this may also help save a student's life, since suicide attributed to Student Loan Debt stress is NOT getting smaller in incidence!) Therefore, it is logical to accept the article as optimal as it is now. I don't see it as "hurting" anything, and I certainly hope that you don't take in offense my prosecution of my case: I necessarily must be ardent in my prosecution (and certainly hope that such arguments or disagreements are less and less often, instead of the other way around). Thank you for hearing me out.71.101.55.161 (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Can someone else weigh in on this? Only solutions #1 and #2 actually address what the recommendations are really about. I feel like we've already had this discussion. The other recommendations are policy suggestions by experts to stop tuition from increasing. Your edit, and the sources for that edit, do not represent policy suggestions by experts to stop tuition from increasing. That's why it doesn't belong in this article. Flyte35 (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

(to the community) Even though there would be a greater-than-zero risk of there being a revert to the final version (which I support), I do agree with Flyte35 "on principle" that I, too, do welcome other input. (replying to you, Flyte35, and quoting you in italics as indictated) "I feel like we've already had this discussion." Yes, we did. "Your edit, and the sources for that edit, do not represent policy suggestions by experts to stop tuition from increasing." Correct, but they do address the problem with other solutions on the opposite end (supply of money vs. amount of debt). "That's why it doesn't belong in this article." Well, technically, you are correct, but, the way the header is worded now, the newer recommendations (that I added) do fit/belong. Please read (or re-read) my previous answer above; it does offer much clarification/insight. For the record, our edit dispute ended in a technical draw, with 2 editors for and 2 against, and on that basis alone, I would have declared you a winner (since my 'vote' as an unregistered editor counts for a little less than you all; however, as on of the registered editors who was initially against me has decided to null/mull his vote by inaction (perhaps in deference to my arguments), I (technically) won by the slimmest of margins, but I am not gloating or trying to make fun of you: Your edits are usually spot-on correct: that is why I ask you to slowly re-read my previous reply right above before you proceed to consider this further. Thank you. :) 71.101.54.16 (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

71.101.54.213, I strongly recommend that you step away from this article. Wikipedia is not a place for you to advocate for your personal causes, correct wrongs, or provide personal or legal advice to readers. ElKevbo (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I replied above for the sake of simplicity.71.101.54.16 (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

We reached no consensus on this matter. This is somewhat complicated by the fact there were two (related) edits under discussion. I've already made clear my feelings about the edits, but since this is essentially a deletion discussion, WP:NOCONSENSUS is that the edit generally remains. So there it is. I will leave this matter alone.Flyte35 (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Inflationary effects lacking in Loan Forgiveness discussion requested by Flyte35

I am starting a thread, based on the request of another editor to discuss this matter in talk.71.101.50.196 (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, here is the edit in question, which added the following text:

"Since forgiveness does not require the printing of new dollars (i.e., "too much money chasing too few goods") , it is not inflationary."

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&diff=617129328&oldid=617126963

Furthermore, here are the edit summaries of the edit war which resulted from competing editors, myself and Flyte35:

• (cur | prev) 02:31, 16 July 2014‎ Flyte35 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (44,421 bytes) (-347)‎ . . (Undid revision 617126963 by 71.101.50.196 (talk) No, you're drawing a conclusion based on two sources, even if it's valid it's still OR. Discuss in talk if you have questions.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 02:02, 16 July 2014‎ 71.101.50.196 (talk)‎ . . (44,768 bytes) (+347)‎ . . (rv possible vandalism or possibly Good faith (Reverted edits by Flyte35) who removed properly sourced content, which was not Original Research]])) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 05:30, 14 July 2014‎ Flyte35 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (44,421 bytes) (-347)‎ . . (Undid revision 616869566 by 71.100.192.81 (talk) original research?) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 04:47, 14 July 2014‎ 71.100.192.81 (talk)‎ . . (44,768 bytes) (+347)‎ . . (→‎Recommendations: add pros/cons of this option: not inflationary + cite source) (undo)

In the 4th, and last, edit, UserFlyete35 requested this matter be discussed on the talk page, and so, agree or disagree with his/her edit, this is a reasonable request.71.101.50.196 (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Similar request for discussion by ElKevbo

In a sister page, there was a similar edit war. With three registered editors (2 here and 1 in the other page, above), all of whom are against my edit, it seems "hopeless" that my edit will be upheld, even if (even though) it is a properly sourced and truthful statement. Things like this - rejecting a truthful and properly sourced "on-topic" statement -are chief reasons why people like me chose not to register an account, but, be that as it may, I must, 'myslef', give a good faith effort to fixing this omission, and assume good faith (on the part of the other editors as well), and discuss it: What is alleged both by ElKevbo in the Higher Education bubble page here -and by Flyte3 the College Tuition in the United States page above is "Original Research," and so, instead of running from this, I will be honest and let both sets of editors know of this common discussion, even though I will exponentially increase the odds that I am "ganged up on," and my edit defeated: I am human, but I am honest, so I will give all parties fair notice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Higher_education_bubble&diff=617129679&oldid=617126025 is the last diff edit with these being the last 4 edit summaries:

• (cur | prev) 02:35, 16 July 2014‎ ElKevbo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (40,024 bytes) (-347)‎ . . (rv OR; discuss in Talk, please) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 01:50, 16 July 2014‎ 71.101.50.196 (talk)‎ . . (40,371 bytes) (+347)‎ . . (rv (Reverted edits by Jim1138 (talk): who removed properly sourced content) reverted possible vandalism by this user who may (or may not) have acted in Good faith) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 05:32, 14 July 2014‎ Jim1138 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (40,024 bytes) (-347)‎ . . (Reverted edits by 71.100.192.81 (talk): addition of unsourced content (HG)) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 04:48, 14 July 2014‎ 71.100.192.81 (talk)‎ . . (40,371 bytes) (+347)‎ . . (→‎Recommendations: Add pros/cons of this option: not inflationary + cite source) (undo)

The text in question is the same for this edit. OK, I have come to the discussion page, as asked. Let me have a moment to notify all parties and also the other talk page (Higher Ed bubble) of this discussion. Be right back.71.101.50.196 (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: I just noticed that alleged "addition of unsourced content" in Jim1138's edit summary, which is false: you all can see I sourced it. I will assume good faith, and assume this was an honest, human mistake: I am human too, and shall not rail on or attempt to insult anyone here, but I must point out Jim1138's error to be fair. :) 71.101.50.196 (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

What I meant by "unsourced" is that I did not see anything in the cite that supported the edit. Jim1138 (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Further reflection - thanks for the synth link, Jim. I might word it better like this:

* "Loan Forgiveness does not require the printing of new dollars (i.e., "too much money chasing too few goods") [source for definition], and so it can not, in this way, directly result in inflation of the currency."

This quote leaves open the possibility that other effects may, indirectly, occur, such as people freaking out and somehow indirectly causing inflation (jacking up prices, harassing the Fed to print more Dollars, etc.), but these are only "maybes," and since these Butterflies' Effects are neither proven not disproved, they remain out. I think my compromise is a reasonable -and correct -one. What u think, Jim? 71.101.50.196 (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like a source that actually supports your entire assertion. The problem here is that you, a Wikipedia editor, are taking it upon yourself to try to apply basic principles to reach a conclusion and that's textbook synthesis. If this is a correct and important fact that belongs in this or any other article then you shouldn't have any trouble finding one or more reliable sources that directly support it. ElKevbo (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Half-time report: I admit, ElKevbo (talk), that I am having trouble finding a source that directly addresses whether or not there is a relationship between Loan Forgiveness and Inflation. But, it is HARD to prove a negative. What if, for example, you made an edit that said: "Since President Obama has never been over seven feet tall, then he would not have been able to cast a shadow of a certain such-and-such size in front of a given light."?? We all know that The President is a little taller than 6-feet tall, and we all know that people USUALLY don't grow to 7-feet, and then back again in a short period of time. But, how would you like it, Kevin, were I to accuse you of synthesis simply because you asserted that no usual medical or physical science conditions would be expected to make him grow to 7' for a short period of time? You would rail against me (and rightly so!). So, what you are doing is the same.

(I would think you could not find a source that makes the claim that The President didn't do something "crazy" like this, but asserting it based on logical known facts is not inappropriate.)

So, what I propose is this: We look at the ACCEPTED causes of inflation, and if loan forgiveness is not one of them, then we can safely conclude that it did not "directly" cause it. Here is my proof:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-causes-inflation.htm

http://useconomy.about.com/od/inflationfaq/f/Causes-Of-Inflation.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#Causes

http://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/macroessays/what-causes-sustained-period-inflation/

So, how would you word this sentence, were it you? Thank you.71.101.54.88 (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If it's not something written about it in the many reliable sources on this subject then it's probably not something we should include in an encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. As I wrote below, the section is a summary of possible policy solutions to address rising tuition. One of these is "The federal government should enact partial or total loan forgiveness for students who have taken out student loans." That's sourced and complete. There's no need to say what that policy IS NOT. Flyte35 (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm only indenting this six colons (not seven), Flyte35, which means that, like you, I'm responding to ElKevbo (thus making my reply parallel to yours and saving a bit of space), but, more to the point, this matter has been discussed before. To avoid an edit war, Flyte35, I would suggest that we follow the consensus that was, apparently, hammered out here before. But, anyhow, to respond to ElKevbo: Apparently, this now can be included in the article, as I've found no less than four credible sources (all different, so there is support from multiple, unrelated sources, cited) - and cited them. Moreover, to address the edit comments Flyte35 makes here, where he says "(→‎Recommendations: not a recommendation)," I would point out that the edit is support for the recommendation in question. In other words, the recommendation, proper, is loan forgiveness (via bankruptcy), one of several standard consumer protections. But, the edit cites 3 advocates and 1 professional page (giving a definition) to support this recommendation, therefore, it is proper. Reverting.96.59.168.147 (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the line in question is "One advocate for college loan forgiveness have argued the same thing from the opposite angle, namely that the 'lack of consumer protections,' particularly 'removing bankruptcy protections,' for college loans, has led to inflation." That is not a recommendation. The recommendation is just "The federal government should enact partial or total loan forgiveness for students who have taken out student loans." That's sufficient as is. Flyte35 (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Original Research: The Official Wikipedia Definition

As stated in this recent diff link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&diff=616964747&oldid=616964190 we have this official definition for OR:

"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)"

OK, what about OR do u guys not understand? Am I missing something? Am I wrong, or did all 3 of you really miss it here?

Flyete35 admits 2 sources (and that, technically, is true: You only see 1 source here, but the preceding sentence in question has an additional source, for a total of 2.) This (my claim that Loan Forgiveness is not inflationary, since it does not require printing of of more currency) is a fact, alright, but not one for which no reliable, published sources exists. Also, this matter is directly related to the Loan Forgiveness: The lack of an inflationary effect makes it more desirable.71.101.50.196 (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The whole edit, for context

Since Flyte35 righty pointed out that two sources were cited, not just the 1 in my original post, I owe it to him/her to show the whole thing -of course, this will undermine his/y'alls' argument, but that is fair, as it is seeking the truth - here is the full quote before it was destroyed by this recent edit-war:

• The federal government should enact partial or total loan forgiveness for students who have taken out student loans. Since forgiveness does not require the printing of new dollars (i.e., "too much money chasing too few goods") , it is not inflationary.

Whoops - I see five (5) sources, not two, as Flyter35 said. ?? 71.101.50.196 (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Do any of the sources state "loan forgiveness does not cause inflation" in those words or a paraphrasing of those words? My cursory search does not seem to revel that. If you are connecting multiple sources to generate that statement, it is probably wp:synth. Jim1138 (talk) 09:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, good question, Jim... Loan Forgiveness does not require the printing of dollars (this is common knowledge, like that the sky is blue, etc., and does not need to be sourced.) It is also true that lacking the printing of dollars is not inflationary. So, the loan forgiveness, itself, can not cause inflation -not directly, anyhow. Now, you raise a good point I had not initially considered: Is there some indirect "Butterfly effect," which might cause inflation...? Maybe, but not directly: I sourced that.71.101.50.196 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The first part of the statement might be obvious. The second part is not. The banks would need to be paid back by the government and/or lose collateral. So, money may need to be "printed". So, you need to find a source supporting that conclusion directly. Jim1138 (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... good point, but I believe that when a loan is forgiven in, say, Bankruptcy, then no dollars need to be printed. If you can show me even one instance of dollars being printed, then I will concede that you may be right. Yes, the Government normally backs loans, but when in the history of this nation has a loan, which was discharged in Bankruptcy, ever forced the government to back it? I don't know the answer, so I won't hound you, but in the absense of even 1 example that $$'s were printed, I will assume in good faith that I am right. Go get help if u don't know the answer; I won't blame u if u need to: it's a legit question.71.101.50.196 (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but you have the wp:burden, not others. Jim1138 (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Now, wait a second, Jim: When you pointed out that there may be an inflationary effect (albeit unexpected or indirect), I conceded that I had worded that new sentence wrongly, and admitted that I could not prove that, and backed away from that edit addition. However, when I reworded it to state only what the sources prove, then the burden is on you. Now, I'm not saying that you are wrong. Maybe what you suggest is true. But, then again, maybe little green men live on the moon too! In the absence of any proof otherwise (especially with a wild claim like yours), we must assume that a discharge in bankruptcy, or any type of forgiveness, for that matter, is just that, and no more. Never in the history of mankind, have I ever heard that some governmental agency would print up new dollars to "make up" for some loan that has 'gone south' in a lack of repayment (forgiveness, bankruptcy, failure to repay, etc.), and so your claim is a "wild claim" that can not be ignored. Now, yes, it is true that, perhaps, the unemployed Bank President of a bank that had a loan go south when it was forgiven, discharged in bankruptcy, etc., may become unemployed, and then go on Food Stamps, which, in theory, could require the printing up of more Government $$, but this would be indirect, and nowhere do I say that in my revised edit proposal - let me reprise you of that, if you are a "Doubting Thomas":

• "Loan Forgiveness does not require the printing of new dollars (i.e., "too much money chasing too few goods") [source for definition], and so it can not, in this way, directly result in inflation of the currency."

This quote leaves open the possibility that other effects may, indirectly, occur, such as people freaking out and somehow indirectly causing inflation (jacking up prices, harassing the Fed to print more Dollars, etc.), but these are only "maybes," and since these Butterflies' Effects are neither proven not disproved, they remain out. I think my compromise is a reasonable -and correct -one. (Would you argue with me if I said that the earth had a moon? I think so!) Therefore, as my proposed compromise is indisputably correct, the wp:burden is on you to show otherwise:

"Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material [that's you, Jim!] has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.). All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Burden#cite_note-2

Thank you, in advance, for clarifying here.10:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.50.196 (talk)

@71.101.50.196: The requirement is that you wp:cite a wp:reliable source (RS) supporting your statement. I don't see that in your sources. It appears that you are using multiple sources to generate this conclusion. That is called wp:synth and is not considered RS. You stated If you can show me even one instance... above. This implies that I need to prove otherwise. My needing to prove my assertion is not the case on Wikipedia. Per wp:burden, you need to show RS that what you are claiming is the case. Jim1138 (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Earlier, Jim, you said that you "did not see anything in the cite that supported the edit," and I responded, but I am copying/pasting my reply here, so it flows with our discussion -and bears repeating - I said, and I quote:

"Further reflection - thanks for the synth link, Jim. I might word it better like this:

• "Loan Forgiveness does not require the printing of new dollars (i.e., "too much money chasing too few goods") [source for definition], and so it can not, in this way, directly result in inflation of the currency."

This quote leaves open the possibility that other effects may, indirectly, occur, such as people freaking out and somehow indirectly causing inflation (jacking up prices, harassing the Fed to print more Dollars, etc.), but these are only "maybes," and since these Butterflies' Effects are neither proven not disproved, they remain out. I think my compromise is a reasonable -and correct -one. What u think, Jim?" (End of my copy/paste) 71.101.50.196 (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, first of all, the line isn't useful or necessary at all. The section is a summary of possible policy solutions to address rising tuition. One of these is "The federal government should enact partial or total loan forgiveness for students who have taken out student loans." That's sourced and complete. There's no need to say what that policy IS NOT.

Leaving that aside, however, what's going on here is that there is sourcing for the fact that people are making policy suggestions about loan forgiveness. Then there's have another source defining inflation. There is not sourcing supporting the idea that loan forgiveness does not cause inflation. That's why this isn't OK, you're drawing your own conclusion based on different sources.Flyte35 (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

So what's going on here? ElKevbo weighed in. So did I. Is there more to discuss at this point?Flyte35 (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I had thought that I would be able to find a source to verify my claims, but I can not recall where (if anywhere) I saw these claims. While I think you all are being over-technical here, I concede your point as correct: I was not able to verify my claims independently. Nonetheless, in my reading of this last edit (on both this page as well as the Higher Ed Bubble page, I will be honest enough to admit), the way it "reads" to me 'sounds' like a 'real' Encyclopedia, so I think, perhaps, this rule of yours is not valid. (It would be like an encyclopedia saying that hot objects are a danger to one's health, which would be 'ok' even if they failed to cite a doctor as a source!) But, if you think that this page (and its sister page, the Higher Ed Bubble which has a similar edit) is incorrect, you are free to revert it. It's your call.71.101.53.253 (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

To directly answer your last question, '"Is there more to discuss at this point?,"' (sorry I missed it!), well, one thing 'could' be discussed: If the rule in question is not something you'd expect of a real encyclopedia (and I showed just now an example of where your rule appears to fail), then maybe the Wikipedia rule itself needs either to be changed or modified to allow a 'little' "Original Research," insofar as it does not need a source to cite the obvious. But, strictly-speaking, I am in technical violation of the rule. It is your call, bro.71.101.53.253 (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I removed the inflation line.Flyte35 (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, very well, but you did not remove the analogous line in the sister article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Higher_education_bubble&action=history Like I said, I think that it would not be unencyclopedic to state an obvious thing (like how hot items can be a health danger) even if you don't have a doctor's website stating such, but, be that as it may, to be transparent and fair on my end, and consistent on your end, I am providing you the link, since apparently you didn't understand my prior comment, but I will leave it up to you to make the same revision/removal in this link there as you did here.71.101.48.141 (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference 14 leads to 404

I was looking through this article's references and I noticed that reference 14 doesn't lead to anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.215.116.209 (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting the consensus reached on the Inflation issue

Re this suggestion, I am revisiting the fact that we already arrived at consensus and now others want to reverse it.96.59.129.109 (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Based on this notification of the consensus reached here, I intended to revert the edit in question here. Fair notice given of intent to revert edit, based on prior consensus reached. Discussion welcome.96.59.129.109 (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus. No one ever said that if you find a reliable source then we can include a line about how loan forgiveness is not inflationary. There was no "agreement." I don't think it's useful or necessary to include that line, for the reasons I explained above, even if you did find reliable sourcing. Beyond that, though, you haven't found a reliable source for what you want to include. None of the sources you provided indicated that loan forgiveness is not inflationary. Flyte35 (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus. Incorrect: At this link there was consensus: ElKevbo said "If it's not something written about it in the many reliable sources on this subject then it's probably not something we should include in an encyclopedia article." This implies that the opposite is also true: That if it was written about in other sources, then it probably wasn't undue emphasis. Indeed, you did not contest at the time, even though you were part of that discussion, so why are you griping about it now? (Thus, all 3 editors accepted ElKevbo's suggestion, you being 1 of the 3, and I'd call that consensus. None of the sources you provided indicated that loan forgiveness is not inflationary. What? Can't you read!? The 1st source outright makes that statement, namely that loan forgiveness is not inflationary, and the next two state the same in reverse, namely, that lack of loan forgiveness (and other consumer protections) does result in inflation (possibly referring to tuition inflation, but this is a part of total inflation, and thus total inflation increases, so either interpretation, "tuition inflation" or "regular" inflation are supportive of the conclusion). The last source defines a word to support the first three. You are out of order, brother: the only argument you make that is even remotely possible is that it is undue emphasis (but the weight of evidence opposes that trivializing of the point too). Is everything alright?96.59.135.244 (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe get other editors, go to the village pump, etc., to break the tie if you insist on flip-flopping here?96.59.135.244 (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it does not imply that the opposite is true. There was no agreement about any of this. The fact that there are not reliable sources saying loan forgiveness is not inflationary is one reason not to include the line. There are other reasons as well, which I explained above. The line is simply unnecessary and does not make the point any clearer.

And no, while I really do appreciate your persistence on this, the only thing you've got to say loan forgiveness is not inflationary is this thing, which is not published by a reliable source and, indeed, appears to contain content lifted from Wikipedia. Flyte35 (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I went back and looked at the 4 sources cited, and I will address them in turn: First, the author of this thing is cited in this article four different times at note 33, implying he is a credible source. Moreover, he was also cited by Wikipedia in reference number 8, here in an even higher-profile case. Moreover, a look at this link on his official web page links directly to the Florida Supreme Court and shows that he did better even than a sitting governor or Schiavo's own blood family in that high-profile case. That is about as 'notable' as one can get! But, his pages seem to be referenced all over the Internet, here. and here (left-hand column). here, here, here at scholarshipwiki.org, here at tvstreamtimes.co, here, tagged here at sevp.net, and Forbes Magazine even cited him for a "handy graphic" here, at the bottom of the article.

Wiki guidelines on identifying reliable sources state that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The article (or position paper or whatever) provided is sourced to "ThirstForJustice.net," which is just someone's blog. It's not a reliable source. None of the other sources really matter that much because none of the other sources indicate that loan forgiveness is not inflationary. Flyte35 (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe not as 'official' as, say, the NY Times or CBS, but I'd say that 3 of the 4 sources are VERY reliable and creidible. Yeah, so one dude has his own blog (or someone else's? It's hard to tell who the host of that blog is), but so what? He and 2 of the remaining 3 are VERY credible according to Wiki standards, so I don't see what your problem is? I reported our disagreement to the Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump talk page, at this link, here. While I'm angry at your lack of common sense (these sources are VERY credible, having been cited by numerous others, and 2 of the 4 are 'notable' for having been involved in 'big' things: CBS and Coast to Coast AM, and nearly winning the Terri Schiavo case single-handedly, by himself (near-miracle, I think: bragging rights for life!), and being cited numerous times by Wikipedia, itself, etc et al.: go back and click on every link I provided, OK?), nonetheless, you seem to be sincere, and so I am sincerely hoping that we get other editors to help mediate or arbitrate our dispute and disagreement, so that we can move forward in a constructive way-in a way that is respectful and does not needlessly offend you or anyone else (or myself, too, I hope).96.59.141.215 (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, none of the other sources matter because none of the other sources indicate that loan forgiveness is not inflationary. Flyte35 (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Next, the 2nd author, Alan Collinge, is cited in note 39 of this article, here and as well, was a guest on coast to coast am, referenced in rolling stone, guest wrote for Forbes, cited by CBS, and thus, I'd say, is also as 'credible' than Watts, maybe more-so on the student loan matter. (But Watts, in nearly winning on behalf of Terri Schiavo, is 'credible' insofar as he's been cited by the court, in this case, as having almost won that case by himself, apparently. However, Collinge's quote says, basically, the same thing as Watts', but in reverse. (Youcan read, can't you?)

This NY Times article cites Collnig and the 3rd guy, Garrett Mockler, so while Mockelr is not as "big name" as, say, Terri Schiavo, Barack Obama, Gordon Wayne Watts, or Alan Collinge, he's still been cited, and should be 'OK' as a "supportive' source which says the same thnig as the 2nd source, Collinge.

The last source in an official dictionary website, and is thus credible. So, are you losing your mind? All 4 of these are credible. You're getting on my nerves, FlyT.96.59.141.215 (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Help Sought

Per this suggestion, I am asking for help settling our dispute with regard both to the sources as well as the view, in general.96.59.137.142 (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

After much discussion, the consensus is to put certain sources back in, as they are indeed cited correctly.96.59.155.137 (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

That is just wrong. NO ONE said that source should be in there. Flyte35 (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You have been reported, Flyte35. See the section below.96.59.141.200 (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Updates on vandalism of this page, College tuition in the United States

A request was made here, and the request was granted here.96.59.141.200 (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

See the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Major_Vandalism_on_the_College_tuition_in_the_United_States discussion of this; consensus, while fracture, supports your claims that advocates can make recommendations. If, however, they made a legal analysis, then, yes, I would oppose your edit, if these 'advocates; were not lawyers or law professors. I agree that this other editor, Flyte35, did carnage to this article. I am surprised that he was able to get some others to agree with him that tearing out major portions of this "recommendations" sections was ok. So, I support your edit. I invite any dissenting editors to read the article, review the edit deletions, an take an assessment based on your guidelines for advocates: who can be an 'advocate'??71.101.58.56 (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree that advocates can make recommendations. Of course they can. As I explained above, however, I removed the addition of your two additional recommendations because the recommendations section is about the policy suggestions by experts to stop tuition from increasing. The recommendations you wanted to include were not policy suggestions.Flyte35 (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Recommendations, as we both agree, must have arguments supporting "why are these good recommendations," and the fact that loan forgiveness does not result in inflation can be supportive of the very recommendations that these advocates make. If the same advocates make recommendations, then doesn't it make sense that these same advocates can back up their suggestions with arguments? I agree, but you overlook the arguments in support are part-and-parcel connected. Thus, I would accept these. As is well-known to all: if these economic behemoths continue unchecked, they will squash the likes of you and me, who are (I will assume) little people, who deserve the same Standard Consumer Protections as, say, Credit Card users, who can file bankruptcy, not to mention, Donald Trump, who filed for and receive bankruptcy for large amounts on 4 different occasions. If we fight each other, we are helpless to fight the bad guys! (Oh, and the article looks like crap too, thanks to numerous wholly unnecessary deletions of key and Sine Qua Non required materials, without the which, the article collapses!).71.101.58.56 (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't have anything to do with what I'm talking about. Again, I removed the addition of your two additional recommendations because the recommendations section is about policy suggestions to stop tuition from increasing. The recommendations you wanted to include were personal finance ideas, not policy suggestions, and, thus, inappropriate for this article.Flyte35 (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

First off, what do you consider an actual advocate? All the advocates (including Watts) were published in multiple places other than their own blogs. Besides, you didn't just remove the Watts source, which would be a content dispute, but rather, you removed a bunch of things "wholesale": here, which is (in my view) vandalism. (Unless you can go back and justify each deletion.) None of the college-student aged 'advocates' are expected to have any PhD, or work for a bank or finance company - if that's what you mean by a "reliable" source. (Besides, any "reliable" source, by your definition, would be tied to closely to the banking industry to make a recommendation that reflects the views of the oppressed students who, unlike rich millionaire bankers, can not files for and obtain bankruptcy. Are you sure you're not a banking executive trying to wreck this article, to protect your bottom line, and step on the backs of the students?)96.59.135.156 (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I took out all Watts stuff because the source is unreliable. I deleted the other things in the "The federal government should enact partial or total loan forgiveness for students who have taken out student loans" section because the sources there do not say anything anything about loan forgiveness. Using such sources to try to say something about loan forgiveness is WP:SYNTH. I removed your two additional recommendations because the recommendations section is about the policy suggestions by experts to stop tuition from increasing. The recommendations you wanted to include were not policy suggestions. Flyte35 (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

To reply to your comment (I'm not indenting for sake of space), let's take a look at the one major edit, OK?

"One advocate for college loan forgiveness[39] has argued that "Since forgiveness does not require the printing of new dollars (i.e., "too much money chasing too few goods"),[40] it is not inflationary." Other advocates[41] have argued the same thing from the opposite angle, namely that the "lack of consumer protections," particularly "removing bankruptcy protections,"[42] for college loans, has led to inflation."

First off, One advocate (Watts) did make this statements, and that is properly sourced. Now, whether Watts is reliable is a matter for the reliability sources page, and you met some disagreement there, even if, in all fairness, others agreed with you. However, in all fairness, not all agreed that Watts was unreliable as an advocate (even if, as I agree, he could not give a legal or medical analysis).

Secondly, source 40 might be WP:SYNTH, I will concede, but let's hold that thought and look at all the facts, first, OK?

Third and last, other advocates (Collinge and Mockler) made statements, and their statements were properly sourced, but you never said they were improperly sources, wrongly attributed (misquoted), or anything, except that these too, were unreliable. If that is true, why did you not remove all the other Collinge cites. If not, then why did remove this one? Do you have a personal grudge or some personal issue you're dealing with? You've fired a warning shot across the bow for no apparent reason, and contradicted yourself (as evidenced by my questions above).96.59.146.211 (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

As I've explained, I didn't remove that line because Collinge and Mockler were unreliable (though the Mockler piece probably is an unreliable source); I removed it because that statement is WP:SYNTH. You're combining multiple sources to try to reach a conclusion about loan forgiveness. Those sources don't say anything about loan forgiveness. Flyte35 (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

New Development

A new development just happened, Flyte35: Someone who is afraid of honest debate has made the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Clarifying inaccessible to an unregistered editor (such as I am). I could register an account, under a fake name (in order to edit on that "Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard"), if I were dishonest or otherwise bad, but I refuse to do so. Nonetheless, I wanted to give you the heads up that I replied to your comments both in the college tuition page, as well as here on Rhododendrite's page.

Heads up, Flyte35: I replied in 2 places, since the main page blocked me from editing. So much for "honest discussion!"96.59.146.211 (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Although we resolved this misunderstanding of the semi-protection of that page, when we discussed it on your talk page, just now, Flyte35, I still owe you a public apology here, as well: The reliable sources notice board was semi-protected from anonymous IP's due to some other editor (not myself) causing disruption and/or deleting stuff, and it was narrow-minded of me to assume it was due to me, when many others had arguments there too. However, as I asked you in your talk page right here, I don't see the issue with using all the edits you deleted: all seem proper on all points: related, sourced, cited, quoted correctly, and reliable, insofar as none of them are "lone rangers," mentioned only on their own blogs.96.59.146.211 (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote above, and elsewhere, I took out all Watts stuff because the source is unreliable. I deleted the other things in the "The federal government should enact partial or total loan forgiveness for students who have taken out student loans" section because the sources there do not say anything anything about loan forgiveness. Using such sources to try to say something about loan forgiveness is WP:SYNTH. I removed your two additional recommendations because the recommendations section is about the policy suggestions by experts to stop tuition from increasing. The recommendations you wanted to include were not policy suggestions. Flyte35 (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You said: "Using such sources to try to say something about loan forgiveness is WP:SYNTH." Incorrect. The actual page, you link here, states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." All 3 sources said what I quoted them as saying. There is no need for me to worry about what is implied. All 3 advocates were clear in their statements. You are confused about the distinction here: Had I made the article state, as fact, such-and-such about loan forgiveness vs inflation, yes, you'd have a point: that would indeed be WP:SYNTH. But, I do not make the article, itself, state this "as fact.": Instead, I quote 3 advocates. On the Watts source, how is he not a reliable source, in light of his having been cited on numerous blogs other than his own? Also, what do you make of Collinge and Mockler, as advocates? Are they reliable or no? Why or why not?96.59.146.211 (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

As I've explained already in multiple pages, my major reason for removing this part is that the section is about loan forgiveness, and those sources say nothing about loan forgiveness.

Ah, that's why you were confused! Bankruptcy in particular, is a form of loan forgiveness, and thus qualifies. And, just as loan forgiveness is a special type of bankruptcy, likewise, bankruptcy is a special type of consumer protection. So, whatever one says about a larger category automatically subsumes the smaller category. For example, if an advocate said that Russians drink a lot, as support for their argument that one particular province of Russia had a high drinking rate, that would be a good citation to an "on-topic" quote, and not WP:Synth. That is what is going on here.96.59.146.211 (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

What you wanted to include was "Other advocates have argued the same thing from the opposite angle..." They are not, because they're not saying anything about loan forgiveness. The section is about loan forgiveness, that's why it's inappropriate, and WP:SYNTH. Watts is not a reliable source, because, as we have already discussed quite extensively, Wiki guidelines on identifying reliable sources state that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The text provided is sourced to "ThirstForJustice.net," which is just someone's blog. It's not a reliable source. The fact that the writer has been "cited on numerous blogs other than his own" doesn't make "ThirstForJustice.net" a reliable source. Flyte35 (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I concede your point. On that point, since Watts wrote it, I think that he may have published it on his own blogs, as one would expect, and, if a reliable source can be found, e.g., from an offical blog of a known reliable source (and not just some random yahoo's blog) it will be used. Let me look.96.59.146.211 (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Update I did find, as I suspected, that Watts had this on a more "reliable" source than some random Yahoo's blog, and fixed that: as it's on the official "Watts" blog (from which, I'd guess, the thirstforjustice folk snatched it), I'd assume you would accept that URL source as officially from a reliable source, and thus reliable as a source, for Wikipedia's purposes?96.59.146.211 (talk) 06:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, 1 more thing: my last edit, here is indeed appropriate in the section, because it clearly states: "recommendations to address rising tuition have been advanced by experts and consumer and students' rights advocates:" Well, these recommendations do address that in several ways: "Lastly, in order to cope with the rising cost of tuition, many students have started working part-time." is one, and "getting a job after college, to further cope with the rising costs of tuition" is another. They "address" rising tuition by increasing input, not decreasing output, but it's still addressing them. I would revert all of your edits.96.59.146.211 (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, the reason I deleted it is because the other recommendations are policy recommendations to keep college tuition from rising. The things you want to include are inappropriate because they're personal finance recommendations, which wouldn't keep tuition from rising. Flyte35 (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect! The article's 'Recommendations' sections does not say to "keep" tuition from rising, but rather, "recommendations to address rising tuition." "keep" is from rising vs "address" the tuition; two different things! I will tentatively correct that, and reference this as a point on which you are wrong. You are free to revert, and discuss further, but please consider the actual language of the Recommendations section, which governs the edits, before you revert (or think to), OK?96.59.146.211 (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You raised one other point here on your page, which we did not discuss in talk, Flyte35, so I will link it here:

In short, on your own talk page, linked above, you said: "They are not, because they're not saying anything about loan forgiveness." They, the other 3 advocates, do make statements about loan forgiveness: Watts is quoted as saying: ""Since forgiveness does not require the printing of new dollars (i.e., "too much money chasing too few goods")," -- Collinge is quoted as saying: ""lack of consumer protections," particularly "removing bankruptcy protections,"", which applies here, since bankruptcy is a form of loan forgiveness. Mockler's statement about Consumer Protections included Bankruptcy, a form of loan forgiveness. I hope this helps clarify.96.59.146.211 (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That's what WP: SYNTH is, they are not saying "that loan forgiveness is not inflationary." You're interpreting what they say to make some other point about loan forgiveness. It's perhaps an interesting discussion, but "lack of consumer protections, particularly removing bankruptcy protections" is not the same thing as saying "loan forgiveness would not cause tuition inflation." Flyte35 (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You miss the point: I never said that the other 2 sources were saying that loan forgiveness is not inflationary. Rather, I quoted them as saying that lack of loan forgiveness (which is always present when you lack bankruptcy) will cause inflation. I merely quoted the sources, and did not alter their quotes. That they say different things alters not the fact that all 3 of their quotes support their common assertions that loan forgiveness should, indeed, be accepted as a "recommendation."96.59.146.211 (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

No, if you have to explain how your articles about consumer protection are connected to the loan forgiveness recommendation, and I don't find your argument convincing, it's WP: SYNTH. Please look at the link; it's a pretty clear explanation. Your example about drinking in Russia would also be SYNTH. I think we've both made our points here. There's no need to keep rehashing this argument. Flyte35 (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, first point, see you point. The article can, without WP: SYNTH, actually define terms. On that point, I see your concern: Bankruptcy, while indeed a form or type of loan forgiveness, is actually distinct, and since the article does not make this distinction, it is indeed WP: SYNTH. I know how to fix that. Also, second issue, I conceded your point about the website: thirstforjustice.net, while apparently a website where Watts is alleged to be a webmaster, does not look official, so it's hard to tell who is the actual owner of it, and thus your concern that it wasn't "official" was a valid concern. (Thus, something like gordonwaynewatts.com, which is official, would be acceptable.) I found an official source, so your concern is now moot. Third and last, I will 'tentatively' fix both problems, and also add back in the series of recommendations such as "Lastly, in order to cope with the rising cost of tuition,..." where these advocates suggest a way to increase income, as opposed to reducing tuition. While different, it these are a valid way to address tuition. I note that, right or wrong, you have not given any reasons that I am wrong on this 3rd point. Look closely, when I edit this: it will look similar to my last edit, but I will add in language to address your first concern, above.96.59.148.12 (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Reboot of the 3 concerns above

OK, I'm addressing your 3 concerns, Flyte35, without indenting for sake of space. First off, notice the new language below. An article in, say, the NY Times, would offer this language as a segue, in order to avoid WP: SYNTH:

The federal government should enact partial or total loan forgiveness for students who have taken out student loans.[33][36][37][38] One advocate for college loan forgiveness[39] has argued that "Since forgiveness does not require the printing of new dollars (i.e., "too much money chasing too few goods"),[40] it is not inflationary." Other advocates[41] have argued the same thing from the opposite angle, namely that the "lack of consumer protections," particularly "removing bankruptcy protections,"[42] (which is a type of partial or total loan forgiveness), for college loans, has led to inflation.

Here, the language is consistent ("loan forgiveness"), and thus not WP: SYNTH. Secondly, I fixed the Watts source to be cited in an official and reliable source. (Official, since it is Watts' official page, and reliable, since he is cited in places other than his own blog: he may be a 'legend in his own mind,' and egotistical even, but as he's cited independently on this topic, it is moot.) Lastly, I'd like some further discussion on the bottom set of edits: you may be right, but you have not proven your point: these are indeed recommendations to "address' high tuition, maybe not the ones you like, if you're, say, a west-coast liberal looking for a free handout, and detest increasing your income, but these are valid recommendations nonetheless. (Are you a west coast liberal? Not that it it relevant, and not meant to offend you, but I digress: I sense that! Yes, as others have pointed out, I live near Lakeland, Fla., a HUGE area between Tampa & Orlando, and, as being local to this area, disclaimer, I have heard of Mr. Watts, who is vocal on many issues, and a local personality, but that is moot. It is not some small suburban or urban county area as some have suggested.)96.59.148.12 (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

No, you haven't really changed anything. Watts is an unreliable source, so he absolutely can't go in. "Other advocates" have not "argued the same thing from the opposite angle," they're saying that "lack of consumer protections has led to inflation." That is all you can conclude from that. Trying to connect that to the impact of potential loan forgiveness is SYNTH. The other sources don't even mention loan forgiveness. Please refrain from making changes to this article until you get actual consensus, preferably from other editors. Flyte35 (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, you've made your point that you disagree, but let's address these 1-by-1, OK? First, if you believe that the other advocates did not say the "same thing from an opposite angle," then strike that language, but for God's sake, don't strike their quotes, properly sourced, and from reliable sources, which brings me up to the 2nd point: How is Watts any less reliable than the plethora of other sources in the article that you have let remain? Lastly, you did not address the 3rd point above, where we disagree: the 'recommendations' on the very bottom of my edit, which were included in your deletion, are indeed recommendations on how to "address" rising tuition (in this case, by increasing income, rather than decreasing outflow). How are these not also recommendations on how to "address" rising tuition? I am not clear on your reasons for wanting these out of the article? By the way, I strike my questions on your geolocation, above, except tot the extent that I'm just curious, in general, and don't mean to be nosey or insulting. But, I must admit that my "liberal handout" curiosity wondered if it were more than a mere coincidence you'd be ok with "reducing outflow/debt" solutions, but not with "increasing income" solutions.96.59.148.12 (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

1. Well no, the section is about loan forgiveness. There's no reason to include quotes in there from sources that are talking about something else; they do not improve the article. 2. We've already discussed this. Wiki guidelines on identifying reliable sources state that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Watts's blog is not that. If there are other unreliable sources cited in the article an editor would be justified in keeping those sources out as well. 3. As I've already said, many, many times, this is an article about policy trends. The other recommendations are policy recommendations. It's inappropriate to include personal fiance advice in a policy article. Flyte35 (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

1. Bankruptcy is loan forgiveness, partial or total - like it or not! 2. I don't see who Watts is any less reliable? His blog seems to have just as accurate facts and well-sourced, as most other advocates' blogs I've seen. Please clarify or distinguish here? 3. Trend or not, it is a recommendation on how to address tuition, and no one objected up until you came on to the scene. (Or if they did, they were over-ruled, and the policy suggestions stayed.) While I'm not saying you make bad points, you're the only one making them. Please solicit other editors for further feedback on these 3 points (or maybe I will?). I respectfully dissent.96.59.148.12 (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

We've already addressed the reliability of Watts over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. No one else agreed it was appropriate to include the source. I don't think that one is really worth rehashing, but whatever you want to do. Flyte35 (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why Watts is any less reliable? His blog seems to have just as accurate facts and well-sourced, as most other advocates' blogs I've seen: Robert Applebaum or Alan Collinge, for example. Please clarify or distinguish here?96.59.148.12 (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone could perhaps make a case for removing those sources as well. My point is that the policy is that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Watts's ThirstForJustice.net is clearly not that. If this is still unclear to you, you should go back to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. No one else agreed it was appropriate to include the source. I don't really have anything more to explain about this that hasn't already been clearly expressed by several different people. Flyte35 (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, after a few mis-starts, I've added back in the 3rd edit, since you don't explain why you disagree. While you did not give cogent reasons for the 1st and 2nd disagreements, you seem to disagree in good faith, so I left them alone for now, but you owe me an explanation better than that if you disagree.96.59.148.12 (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

These 3 points of disagreement and 1 other were brought to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard due to the impasse, Flyte35. Just thought I'd give you a heads up.96.59.148.12 (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable Sources: notes to self

Numerous advocates of restoration of bankruptcy protections to student loans have argued that removal of Standard Consumer Protections, particularly "removing bankruptcy protections," has led to tuition inflation, in particular, and inflation, in general.

However, the CATO Institute, a Libertarian public policy think tank, disputes those claims, arguing, instead, that reducing Federal aid, not changing bankruptcy laws, offer the solution to tuition inflation.

96.59.148.12 (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Flyte35, Re: your edit here, I see you reverted it. Fine, you disagree, but I made some changes in the edit to address come concerns raised about WP:Undue Weight, and, at the least, I would point out that your edit was only 9 minutes later (18:47, 30 June 2015‎ 96.59.148.12 to 18:56, 30 June 2015‎ Flyte35), and I doubt you even saw it when it was edited, meaning you probably looked at the revisions for less than 9 minutes. Since i fixed the undue weight problem, at the least you should accord the edit a fair review, and then, if you still disagree with me, we can discuss the issues. (I will admit that I put back in all the disputed content, but that was easier than picking and choosing, and all of it is disputed, and needs review.) So, now that I got reliable sources that are sufficient in number and show that there wasn't undue weight placed on this edit, what, now, is the problem?96.59.148.12 (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't add Watts back in. Watts is an unreliable source. It's perhaps useful to replace some of the blog sources with the Forbes and Daily Kos pieces, but beyond that none of these edits seem like an improvement. There is, for instance, no need to add "Numerous advocates of restoration of bankruptcy protections to student loans have argued that removal of Standard Consumer Protections," since there's already a whole paragraph about the removal of consumer protection as one of the possible causes in the article.Flyte35 (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how he is any less reliable than most of the other advocates, but, whatever; the article can probably still run on less than 8-cylinders, even if it doesn't run well. I do agree that the Daily KOS is ok, assuming the source in question (Collinge) is reliable, but, as with any source: Anyone can open a Daily KOS account. However, getting featured in Forbes, probably, is a good argument for notoriety, I will concede. I will see what I can do, after thinking a little bit on it.96.59.148.12 (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Recent Edit

In your last edit, Flyte35, here, you made edit comments of: "Except for that one, which is inappropriate here for the reasons I've already expressed.", suggesting that you're referring to previous edit the 19:58pm 06-29-2015 edit comments where you said; "As I've already explained, the other recommendations are policy recommendations. Those are personal finance recommendations, and inappropriate here." -- Perhaps, these are indeed "personal finance recommendations": "Other popular ways to address the rising tuition problems faced by students include completing your general education requirements at a community college, which is much cheaper than initially going to a university, obtaining scholarships and other financial aid, as well as looking for ways to pay in-state tuition."

However, the title and sub titles to this article don't limit that, but rather, in saying: "Recommendations[edit] Based on the available data, recommendations to address rising tuition have been advanced by experts and consumer and students' rights advocates:," it seems to leave that open to all types of recommendations. Why don't you change the title, here, if you believe these personal recommendations are out of order. Conversely, besides the title allowing these recommendations, I also have a feeling that they are small in length and add to the article's value for the reader. I don't see your objection. While I disagree with you on every single omitted/deleted edit, I still appreciate you working with me here, and, based on your good faith efforts here, I feel I owe you an explanation of my various personal biases and non-neutral points of view (none of us is unbiased!), and a signature with my real name in a registered account, as well, but owing to the evil nature of the wiki here (not all the editors' fault, but partly due to the fact the editors are not paid employees, and you get what you pay for -but rather part-time volunteers), I feel uncomfortable remaining other than anonymous. That said, some of our edit disagreements continue.96.59.148.12 (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• My apologies, Flyte35: Re (Undid revision 669533194 by 96.59.153.13 (talk) No, PIRG source specifically suggests offering more aid, the direct opposite of CATO, very different recommendations) PIRG does indeed say "2. Increase grant aid to students, such as the Pell Grant:," which distinguishes between grants and loans, the latter of which the CATO Institute opposes. But, question: Does the PIRG source really support the recommendation to "Cut lender subsidies, decrease student reliance on loans to pay for college, and otherwise reduce the 'loan limits' to limit the amount a student may borrow.?" It seems not, but I defer to your assessment, here, a 2nd set of eyes on this source.96.59.153.13 (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

breaking things down

96.59... requested my input on these issues on my talk page a few days ago. Sorry to say I'm just getting to it now. I've looked through it and feel like I do have a sense of what's going on, though it doesn't seem like things have moved much since the NPOVN thread. Unfortunately, a whole lot of text has been generated that will make it difficult for third parties to jump in. I think what would help, at the risk of requesting redundancy, is to first come to an agreement on what the specific points of contention are ... and then (and only then) creating clear, dedicated sections to hash out each one discretely.

Here's what I gather are the points of contention:

[Note: broke questions into sub-sections below] — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

If this is an agreeable approach to coming to consensus, I hope you'll validate or correct me where I'm getting it wrong (keeping in mind arguing the points themselves comes later). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for being slow to see your reply, Rhododendrites. Yes, my IP address is dynamic, meaning is moves around a little bit. OK, since I asked for your fedback, and you stopped by, it is my duty to reply.96.59.148.191 (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I validate your 3 points, and, as of right now, can't think of others to include. (Keeping in mind that massive arguments for many of these are above.)96.59.148.191 (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that if 96.59.148.191 is no longer going to insist on adding the line about loan forgiveness not being inflationary, there's no more need to discuss #1, whether or not the Watts amicus brief is a reliable source. Watts was just the source for that line. Since #2 wasn't really a debate--no one objected to including a line about student loan debt forgiveness in the recommendations section--there's no change under discussion here. It seems we can concentrate on #3 only, "Should the recommendations section include personal finance advice." But I might be misreading this. Flyte35 (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Points 2 can safely be eliminated; but actually, all 3 of the other points are balls in play: 1. What is the beef with the Watts source as an advocate? Even when a claim is properly sourced, having other sources as "resources" is beneficial for depth. In that light, perhaps Watts, Mockelr, and other genuine advocates can be added back in. 2. Eliminated. 3. Recommendations are recommendations, whether local or global, and 4. Does the PIRG source (see discussion immediately above) really support the recommendation to "Cut lender subsidies... etc.? Thx.96.59.142.135 (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

1. Watts RS?

1. Is the Watts amicus brief a reliable source in the context of the recommendations section?

That was a chief bone of contention, but actually all sources are in contention. While Watts, and the other advocates, are clearly neither experts, nor a members of the mainstream media press, they all are advocates. (Exceptions might include Dr. Kantrowitz, a higher ed expert, and selected press or well-known advocacy groups, like USPIRG or the CATO institute.)96.59.148.191 (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

2. Sufficient RS to include line about forgiveness

2. If the Watts amicus brief is not reliable, are there sufficient other reliable sources to include a line about student loan debt forgiveness in the recommendations section? Conversely, if the Watts amicus brief is reliable, then is it, in combination with any other available reliable sources, sufficient to include a line about student loan debt forgiveness in the recommendations section?

Good point; I accept this as a valid matter to consider. But one other thing: While I was insistent on putting in a line that bankruptcy and other standard consumer protections are not inflationary, I might have asked for something that is not needed or is redundant. Since many advocates are on record as saying that removal of Consumer Protections, like bankruptcy, is inflationary, then maybe I don't need to address the retention of the same Consumer Protections, which (obviously) would be just the opposite as removing them. (But, still, I think if we can address this point, it would be good to cover both sides.)96.59.148.191 (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is (#2) really an accurate summary of the discussion. There's already a line in the article about student loan debt forgiveness. And that is pretty well sourced. I don't think there was every any question about removing it as a proposed recommendation. I think the question (closely related to #1) was only whether or not to add Watts as a source, and quote that source, in the recommendation. Flyte35 (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

To his credit, Flyte35 has not, so far as I know, suggested removing this recommendations, that already existed before. Also, my insistence to put in a source to an argument that loan forgiveness was not inflationary might have been redundant because the article clearly had advocates who were quoted as saying the lack of forgiveness is inflationary. However, it would have been cool to have it in.96.59.142.135 (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

3. Personal finance advice in recommendations section?

3. Should the recommendations section include personal finance advice or should it be limited to recommendations on the level of public policy and macroeconomics?

I totally agree! This was a major bone of contention between me and Flyte35. I will add that I think he is acting in good faith, but a recommendation is a recommendation, personal or policy, and both need to be included.96.59.148.191 (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

As I've written, the reason I deleted it is because this is an article about policy. The other recommendations are policy recommendations to keep college tuition from rising. The things you want to include ("get a job while in college" and "completing your general education requirements at a community college... obtaining scholarships and other financial aid, as well as looking for ways to pay in-state tuition") are inappropriate because they're personal finance recommendations, which wouldn't have any impact on tuition. Adding this sort of thing isn't a problem on the level of unreliable sources or SYNTH, which we've discussed extensively, but it's simply bad writing, because it's presenting new information that has nothing to do with the rest of the article. Flyte35 (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I do agree that the things that I want to include ("get a job while in college" and "completing your general education requirements at a community college... obtaining scholarships and other financial aid, as well as looking for ways to pay in-state tuition") are not policy recommendations to keep college tuition from rising. However, they don't need to be. You see, Flyte35, the article simply states that: "Based on the available data, recommendations to address rising tuition have been advanced by experts and consumer and students' rights advocates:" source: College_tuition_in_the_United_States#Recommendations. These certainly address the rising tuition, not by changing the tuition paid out,, but rather by changing the monies paid in (getting a job, getting scholarships). (Actually, one of the ones you listed does change the tuition paid in: going to a community college ensures lower tuition paid in.)

So, based on a strict reading of the language in the article, all of these recommendations are appropriate. (And, I add, help the reader cope with the difficulties associated with unfordable college costs, and so it has plenty to do with the rest of the article.)

I will add: your reading comprehension error, while probably well-intentioned, is clear to me, when I am reading what the article demands along the way of recommendations. Moreover, this is like (analogy follows) when a person prays to God for a problem. Sometimes God changes the problem (tuition costs), but sometimes God changes the person (their income, choice of college, etc.).

If you could miss the clear language of what the article demands along the lines of "recommendations," then it is not surprising that we might disagree on "reliable sources" issues. (This, by itself, doesn't prove you're wrong on these other points, but it does bring your reasoning and analyses abilities in question and demand further analysis and outside feedback.96.59.139.179 (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

4. PIRG sourcing

4th question: Does the PIRG source (see discussion immediately above) really support the recommendation to "Cut lender subsidies, decrease student reliance on loans to pay for college, and otherwise reduce the 'loan limits' to limit the amount a student may borrow.?" It seems not, but I defer to your assessment, here, a 2nd set of eyes on this source.96.59.148.191 (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, the source ("Affordable Higher Education: Cutting Lender Subsidies". U.S. PIRG. 2011.) is just poorly cited, since the link no longer goes to an article called "Affordable Higher Education: Cutting Lender Subsidies." It just goes to the general education section at PIRG. The line was added by anonymous editor 71.100.178.19 (Lakeland, Florida, again) in 2011. If someone can find the original article referenced there that would be great. Other than that we would, I guess, be justified in removing the line since the sourcing for it is weak.Flyte35 (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I will defer to other editors on this, as I haven't had time to look more closely at it, but I think the PIRG source, while probably improperly placed or quoted wrongly, can be used somehow in the article. So, two down, two to go.96.59.138.125 (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)