Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ideal wealth distribution

{{Old prod full}}

This article is not an encyclopedic article, it's rather an opinion piece. I've hence nominated it for deletion. Possibly some of the content can be used elsewhere. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an opinion piece but a report of findings of a scientific article by respected researchers in a respected journal. If you want to squelch science, you will have to remove most of the encyclopedia. Just becauswe it reports Americans' opinions does not mean it is an opinoin piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imersion (talk • contribs) 13:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, it's an opinion piece as it makes claims about what is the ideal wealth distribution, claims that I don't even think is in the source itself (although I could be wrong). You can delete the prod tag though, that was my mistake I got it confused with AfD. But not the cleanup tag. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep it. The subject is a good one, but as it stands it is incomplete. I don't see any explicit value judgement of the beliefs expressed. One could express a positive value judgement on this alleged attitude of Americans, and advocate political action to bring the actual distribution more into line with what Americans prefer. One could just as easily advocate political action to adjust the attitude of Americans to be less egalitarian and more fair. Depends on your POV. "Ideal wealth distribution" does not necessarily imply egalitarian. There is an opportunity here to compare different published ideas about what constitutes "ideal" wealth distribution. There is the concept of Pareto-optimal wealth distribution which should also be included. The point could be made that the "ideal" wealth distribution is the result of an "ideal" method of distributing economic goods, and whatever distribution results from the application of this method is by definition ideal. PAR (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even the idea in itself that there is such a thing as an ideal wealth distribution is a value judgment. And the article does express a positive value judgment on the alleged attitude (which of course also in itself is false, and reflects rather a misunderstanding about the maths involved than the attitudes of Americans, but that's another question). Sure, you could discuss pareto-optimal distributions, but even better would to do that under Wealth distribution. Should there be enough there to have a separate article on different views on what type of distribution is best, such an article can of course be created, but it should definitely not be called "Ideal wealth distribution". --OpenFuture (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - the idea of "ideal wealth distribution" is a value judgement. But there is nothing wrong with articles describing different value judgements, as long as there is balance. I think this article was written by someone with a positive value judgement towards the data, but the cheerleader words can be removed to yield a more neutral statement of the data. I also agree that these competing value judgements can be made in the wealth distribution article, as long as it doesn't take too much space. As long as the data in this article is not manufactured, it deserves to be part of a balanced article (or section) on prevailing value judgements towards various methods of economic distribution. In other words, the article may be deleted, but the content should be moved elsewhere, along with any ensuing critique, assuming it is valid. PAR (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again: The mere *existence* of an ideal wealth distribution is a value judgment. It's like having an article called "the superiority of conservatism". The title in itself is POV. In addition to that, I've now read the paper it's based on, and unfortunately it's not worth the paper it's printed on (and it was a PDF). The methodology is flawed, the questions biased and the so called "Swedish wealth distribution" in the paper is a complete fabrication. So I have to change my opinion on the contents being moved elsewhere as well, the paper simply does not show what this article claims the paper shows. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And after some googling I found a source on that as well: [1] although it only mentions one of the many glaring errors in that paper. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR CREDENTIALS ARE OpenFuture , BUT the editors of the journal are presumably as able to judge what is science and what is not as you are, and their judgment clearly stands against yours. And my judgement disagress with you utterly. This is an excellent empricial article without any value judgements. It is telling that your first judgment came without even glancing at the original article (talk about Bias!) and you clearly still do not understand it. Your "reference" to a countervailing opinion is in the form of a Reuter's article describing political reaction to the article, not another scientific study! It does nothting to refute the scientiic content or accuracy of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imersion (talk • contribs) 11:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a journal of *psychology*. The peer reviewers comments are all about the psychological implications. None of the spot the errors, because they aren't economists or political scientists, since they like you are psychologists. You don't need another scientific study to contradict this survey, because it isn't a scientific study in the first place. It's a badly done, biased survey. As such, that Reuters article doesn't refute the scientific content of the survey (which is very small), but it *does* point out one (of many) glaring faults in the survey. The survey certainly does not show any of the things you claim in this article. I have only one bias: accuracy and truth. I don't have any problems in believing Americans want a more equal society, I sure think the US is way to unequal, but this survey does not show that. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for clarifying your biases. I can't reason against that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imersion (talk • contribs) 11:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a psychologist I have no understanding why you all regard this title as POV. It is a perfectly acceptable objective area of scientific study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imersion (talk • contribs) 18:17, April 26, 2011