User talk:69.231.68.47

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] February 2008

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Social Security (United States). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.


Hi, I'm the one who added the Social Security example. No it's not personal analysis; I provided a reference. By contrast, those who assert that Social Security is not being run like a Ponzi scheme have failed to provide references. Perhaps you should try to improve that argument instead of deleting the arguments you don't like.

To help you I've added a new reference to a New York Sun article about an analysis of Social Security done by Moody Investment services. If you don't want people to read about analysis by Moody then you're seriously compromising the neutrality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.68.47 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 17 February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia! This project has been around for several years, and we've developed rules to handle subjects on which there's a difference of opinion. Our guiding principle is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. That means that we don't write articles from the point of view of any one side. We try to give a fair presentation of all significant opinions. The approved method is to state facts, and to state facts about opinions -- ideally, including an attribution to at least one prominent spokesperson, instead of weasel words like "some people argue". This approach means reporting opinions without adopting them.
Some conservatives and libertarians argue that social security systems, including the one in the United States, are the equivalent of Ponzi schemes. The article already reports that opinion, identifying Thomas Sowell as a proponent. It also reports the contrary opinion, with, for example, a reference to the Social Security Administration's analysis of the issue.
To list the American Social Security System as a Ponzi scheme would be to adopt the controversial opinion that it is one. You can't simply toss in a couple references to right-wing sources and imply that you've done enough "to convince people like Malik Shabazz", and that the Wikipedia article should therefore endorse the right-wing viewpoint. We report facts about the world as it is. In the real world, there is still a significant body of opinion that disagrees with Sowell et al. Therefore, we do not state their controversial opinion as fact.
The discussion of this issue should present all sides fairly. If you believe that your point of view hasn't been presented properly, you can edit that section to improve the explanation. Whether we should cite the opinion piece by Harold Furchtgott-Roth is an open question. We can't cite every attack on Social Security or every defense of it. We have to exercise some judgment to keep article lengths manageable. My first reaction is that his piece doesn't add very much information. It merely reiterates the "Ponzi scheme" allegation, without elaboration, and it lumps together Social Security and Medicare. Furchtgott-Roth isn't nearly so prominent a spokesperson as Sowell. (The ISIL is less prominent still.) Contrary to your comment above, the link is not to "an analysis of Social Security done by Moody Investment services". The linked Sun article says that Moody's was analyzing "the long-term creditworthiness of federal securities", which is a different issue. Over the last several years, Social Security has had revenues that exceeded expenses by hundreds of billions of dollars. The long-term problem for federal securities is that the U.S. government has spent all that money on non-Social Security matters, but still faces the obligation to pay it back. Overall, my reaction is that the reader's understanding isn't improved by this link, but if you think it can usefully be incorporated into the discussion, you can give it a try. I strongly suggest, though, that you read WP:NPOV first. JamesMLane t c 01:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)