Talk:Lucky duckies/archive

NPOV

I found this article to be POV in favor of those disagreeing with the WSJ. There is the language itself -- calling something a "rhetorical sleight-of-hand," for instance, is not NPOV. More importantly, the parts of the article that are there to give factual information focus exclusively on debunking the WSJ. These debunkings are not even phrased as things critics of the WSJ have said. They are written in a factual, authoritative tone ("Just because somebody does not pay any federal income tax does not mean that they are part of some 'non-taxpaying class'"), and given their content, this is not NPOV. In all? The article -- or at least the first section of it -- reads like an editorial.

Inkburrow 8 July 2005 04:29 (UTC)

I disagree. The majority of the "The facts of the matter" section actually supports the position in the WSJ editorial by reinforcing the fact that an increasing percentage of U.S. citizens pay no federal income tax. The "other taxes hit the poor harder" subsection also does not contradict the WSJ editorial, but only contradicts certain other writers who have misinterpreted these findings.

Calling something "rhetorical sleight-of-hand" may in fact be an objectively-accurate and NPOV description, unless you take an especially radical epistemologically relativist position. Certain logical fallacies and manipulations of language are not simply differences of opinion but are dishonest "rhetorical sleight-of-hand." -Moorlock 8 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)

The majority of the "The facts of the matter" section actually supports the position in the WSJ editorial

There is one claim that "in recent years, the number of Americans who pay no federal income tax has increased" and a quote to back that up, but the rest is out to debunk the notion of "lucky duckies." The vast majority of the article's own words are focused on debunking. There's an entire section called "other taxes hit the poor harder." Even the structure makes it read like a debunking: you set up the claims of those who believe there are "lucky duckies," and then devote the rest of the "facts of the matter" section (and particularly the rest of the article's own words) to pointing out perceived problems with those arguments. It's this problem on a larger scale. Furthermore, even if it is supporting the position in the WSJ editorial, it shouldn't be doing that either.

Certain logical fallacies and manipulations of language are not simply differences of opinion but are dishonest "rhetorical sleight-of-hand."

The only places I can think of where "rhetorical sleight-of-hand," when simply asserted, is NPOV are articles about logical fallacies. This is not such an article; it is about a controversial political subject. Would the people using them describe them as "manipulations of language" and "dishonest 'rhetorical sleights-of-hand'"? "Rhetorical sleights-of-hand" is an inherently opinionated word; I don't care how sleazy you think the quoted editorial is, it's not NPOV to just assert like that that it's a logical fallacy and deliberate falsehood. The use of "misrepresented" in the previous sentence is bad for similar reasons. (So, for that matter, is "as logical as it seems." Not only is the entire sentence biased against the WSJ article because of how it's phrased -- "it looks logical, but it's actually not" is not NPOV in a situation like this -- but those particular words are, in and of themselves, biased towards the WSJ. It's not your position as editor to dictate what seems logical and what doesn't.) "Critics say this is a rhetorical sleight-of-hand because blah blah blah" is far more neutral. This is not to say that "the poor do pay taxes X, Y, and Z" itself needs to be couched behind a "critics say" clause, depending on how it's incorporated. Despite the quoted editorial (which I suspect is using "non-tax paying class" as a shorthand), I don't think anyone's seriously disputing that the poor do, in fact, pay certain kinds of taxes.

As it stands now, however, the article doesn't characterize the positions in the debate. It asserts one.

Inkburrow 8 July 2005 23:11 (UTC)

One of the useful things to know about the "Lucky Duckies" subject-matter is that the original WSJ argument was distorted, by both its critics and its proponents, to assert that the WSJ declared that "Lucky Duckies" do not pay any federal taxes at all, even though the original WSJ editorial carefully noted that this is not the case and the facts of the matter are that it is not the case. This isn't a matter of opinion, where a "so-and-so says this, but so-and-so claims otherwise" makes sense. This is a matter of fact, where the Wikipedia entry should side with fact and be an authority rather than a wishy-washy reporter of talking-points.

Commentators who started their op-eds or what-have-you by remarking on the large number of people who don't pay federal income tax and who then shift over into berating the "non-taxpaying class" for being free-riders on the rest of us and so forth are in fact engaging in a rhetorical sleight-of-hand. The same goes for the critics who accused the WSJ of claiming that the poor pay no taxes. Both categories of people are being dishonest (though, for some, the dishonesty may be a product of reckless reading) - they are making a false assertion of fact in an attempt to sway opinion.

The terms "dishonest" and "rhetorical sleight-of-hand" are, to most people I hope, unflattering. Does this make the terms not neutral, in the sense of Wikipedia's NPOV policy? Can Wikipedia not describe the unflattering things people do without using round-about terminology like "some people assert that when President Clinton said 'I did not have sex with that woman' the statement he made did not completely conform to the reality of the situation as they understand it." Writing "President Clinton prevaricated, saying 'I did not...'" is unflattering and accurate and if not neutral, then the NPOV policy has lost a friend in me.

There is a fad that treats all possible points-of-view as having equal validity and demands that people, confronted with statements that are patently untrue or even self-contradictory, censor their "bullshit"s in favor of "I disagree"s. If such a philosophy is the governing one at Wikipedia, then I stand corrected, or perhaps merely disagreed-with.

As for the "logical" bit - the WSJ editorial makes an intuitive assertion about people's opinions on tax policy being governed by their self-interest. It is an important part of the editorial's argument, but as an assertion it is only held up by its intuitive strength. To me it seems reasonable in this Wikipedia entry to point to evidence that casts doubt on whether this is sufficient.

I think at the heart of your argument is a good impulse, and I think the "Lucky Duckies" article as it stands is no work-of-art. I hope you will do some research and some rewriting/reorganization on the article itself to improve it rather than putting too much more effort into arguing with me here in the backwaters of the talk page. -Moorlock 9 July 2005 03:38 (UTC)

The terms "dishonest" and "rhetorical sleight-of-hand" are, to most people I hope, unflattering. Does this make the terms not neutral, in the sense of Wikipedia's NPOV policy?

Yes, in my opinion. At the risk of invoking Godwin, see here. (There is also, related to more general problems with the article, this.) There is nothing inherently wrong with noting (largely) undisputed facts, such as that the poor do pay taxes. However, using unflattering language (particularly deliberately unflattering language) makes it not NPOV. (Issues of article focus and organization can also make things NPOV -- an article that consists entirely of neutrally phrased, undisputed facts can still not be NPOV.) If the person's actions do, in fact, make them look bad, that will come through even if the facts are stated in a neutral tone. "X was convicted of perjury, on the basis of blah blah blah" is acceptable. "X told self-contradictory lies, saying blah blah blah" is not. Unflattering facts should not be avoided, but they should be stated in neutral, non-value-laden terms.

That said, I'll be giving the article a closer look later on (though the most recent changes, judging from my skimming, seem to be an improvement) and probably tweak some stuff.

Inkburrow 14:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

When you do, consider cleaning up some of the wording like "It ain't peanuts, but not enough to get his or her blood boiling with tax rage." It's not very encyclopedic.Isotope23 12:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

That wording is a direct quote from the article that is the main subject of the Lucky Duckies page. -Moorlock 18:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not clear from the way the section is laid out that the paragraph is a direct quote from the same source as [2] above. Consider adding a footnote to the pargraph or wording to better indicate it is a continuation from above. The indentation is not enough.

Is this quotation from the WSJ? I didn't realize they were hiring writers away from Highlights...Isotope23 15:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV rm

I stumbled on this article, and made some edits to achieve NPOV. In particular "rhetorical sleight-of-hand" is probably POV -- and unnecessary; readers can judge for themselves as the next paragraph is a quotation.

In my opinion the facts of the matter which lead to contention are these: (A) some people pay no income tax. (B) These people pay other taxes which are often significant. The original Journal article, and subsequent articles on the phenomenon, assert both (A) and not-(B) ("...Workers who pay little or no taxes...", and saying that 4% of income to income taxes implies 4% of income to taxes, both quoted in the article.)

The article covers lots of ground and is currently very good IMO.

Sdedeo 23:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)