Talk:Inflation Reduction Act/Archive 1

The Impact section is fundamentally flawed.

The Impact section is flawed in that it has two types of comments: - "Hypothetical Impacts" which are general reactions or predictions of future results, sometimes with modeling, sometimes without.

- "Actual Impacts" that discuss things that have happened since the bill was passed.

This should likely be split up into "Modeled Impacts" and "Actual Impacts".

Further, although inflation has come down, economists generally agree (in part because most of the bill hasn't been implemented) that the decrease in inflation at this time is not as a result of the act. Other facts are more likely to have led to inflation reduction at this time.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/inflation-inflation-reduction-act-deserve-credit-102232837

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/a-year-later-the-inflation-reduction-act-likely-hasn-t-reduced-inflation-but-give-it-time/ar-AA1fpBvZ

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-inflation-reduction-act-impact-one-year-950550722320 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbachler (talk • contribs) 16:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Yet all these sources are Democrat biased. Why not include some Republican articles too.

Better yet, right downtown New York:

https://nypost.com/2022/07/28/democrats-high-spending-inflation-reduction-act-will-do-the-opposite/ 50.35.14.34 (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

We'd need something better than an op-ed in the WP:NYPOST. Endwise (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Give it up, 50.35.14.34 - the editors on Wikipedia have a strong reluctance to conservative sources. For the most part, they will insist that all political articles have strong liberal spin, rely on liberal-leaning sources like MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, etc., and are fully supportive of the Democrat agenda and talking points. That is why articles about Democrats and Democrat programs read like campaign ads, and articles about Republicans are very negative. Any edits to articles which try to paint both sides of an issue are quickly deleted, and a "vote" on the site invariably quashes any opposition. Of course, this is despite the supposedly neutral position of Wikipedia.Not Illogical (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest suggesting constructive edits instead of making wholesale accusations and complaints about the wiki on your very first day of edits under your account. 107.127.21.90 (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Not Illogical, the news reporting of the conservative Wall Street Journal is acceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

There is generally good reporting in The Hill but it can be quite conservative. Andre🚐 17:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize the Wall Street Journal as conservative, but rather as moderate. But I agree it is an acceptable source, as is Fox News, which tends to lean right. But the fact remains that most news articles cited tend to lean left, like those from New York Times, Washington Post, etc. as well as liberal cable news sources like CNN and MSNBC.Not Illogical (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

This is not the page to discuss that, as others have reminded us. Your personal opinion is not aligned with the views of Wikipedia's consensus view. Andre🚐 17:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

This is highly doubtful, given that this consensus has usually been established a significant amount of time ago. Since then, many of these supposed "reliable" sources have been involved in lawsuits they have lost, large-scale retractions of entire swaths of articles and other disreputable behaviour. I would not be surprised if a lot of reliable sources - including some heavily relied upon by Wikipedia - would change in classification if a proper attempt to seek consensus was attempted nowadays. - 2A02:810A:13BF:9584:D37:296:D1D:203F (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, many of the reliable sources (and ones without consensus on reliability) are frequently re-evaluated as to the consensus. You can participate in that here if you want: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (It shows a clock symbol when discussion is in progress).

Either way: This Talk page is definitely the wrong place to discuss reliability of specific sources, so let's not continue doing that. CrazyPredictor (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Not true, as a simple look at the page you helpfully linked and the discussions it further links to prove. Most of the sources that have had reputational damage in recent years (many of them among the most frequently used on Wikipedia) have not been properly evaluated in years. While I agree that this Talk Page is not the right place to ascertain the reliabity of specific sources, I have thankfully done no such thing and instead proven how User Andre's comment to User Not Illogical is false. - 2A02:810A:13BF:9584:D37:296:D1D:203F (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Not at all. NYT, CNN, etc are considered reliable. If you disagree, this isn't the place. Andre🚐 21:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

As has been proven, only due to a lack of recent evaluation of flawed sources such as those you mentioned - lending credence to NotIllogical's statements. But this is not the right place for disagreement over this fact. - 2A02:810A:13BF:9584:40A6:6636:9DB6:BCE0 (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Not Illogical, do you have any actual reliable articles from conservative or moderate sources that can be used to improve the article? Cullen328 (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

There are no reliable articles, only reliable sources. - 2A02:810A:13BF:9584:D37:296:D1D:203F (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Should this page be merged into the Build Back Better page?

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, as introduced, is a substitute amendment to the current Build Back Better Bill, and essentially strikes out all of the current content. Given that it is a different bill than what the original BBB bill intended, I made a separate page for it. Should this page be merged into the BBB page? The current page misses out on the context that the BBB bill goes into. Phillip Samuel (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I would oppose this, because it is being covered as a separate re-brand of the bill. At least for the time being, I think there's a meaningful distinction between pre-Inflation-Reduction-Act bill and the current Manchin-Schumer bill. But I think you could add some information about its relationship to BBB if the sources get into that. Andrevan@ 00:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The substitute amendment will actually rename the bill to the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and the congress.gov page on it will be updated (if Congress passes the bill with the amendment).

So I definitely believe it should be separate and not be merged into Build Back Better.

I support adding more context as to how the bills relate in both articles. CrazyPredictor (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think so. I think it would be better if this article starts with a "background" section which summarises the history with Build Back Better act, negotiations with Joe Manchin, etc, and links to Build Back Better Act in a hatnote. They are ultimately different bills. Endwise (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed Andrevan@ 06:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed CrazyPredictor (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose a merge. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 23:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support a merge. The re-titled Inflation Reduction Act is nothing but another phase of the tax-and-spend Build Back Better platform. The first part, the $2 trillion spending package, caused the rampant inflation we now suffer under. This is more of the same, and should be properly characterized as such. Not Illogical (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  Absolutely not, and please remember that we have to be NPOV. I'm concerned about the tone and tenor of your comment. The question here is what to name the article and what bill is it about, and not whether the bill was good or bad. Obviously, reliable sources do not agree with your assertions; you may provide others if you have evidence of such. Andre🚐 17:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Adding to above by Andre: Build Back Better Plan =/= Build Back Better Act. The former is Joe Biden's overall legislative proposal package that resulted in a couple of other laws; the latter is a specific act implementing a portion of that agenda. This discussion is about whether the latter should be merged with its new iteration. So making complaints about the former, the spending measures in the American Rescue Plan (a different portion of the agenda) is irrelevent to the discussion about the BBB Act.

I also don't find reasonable to complain about the generous spending on one bill and then say "more of the same" about another bill that actually brings in more revenue than it spends. 107.127.21.90 (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, and the bottom line is that the Build Back Better Plan or Act won't become law, but the Inflation Reduction Act looks to. It does overlap a lot with the Build Back Better bill proposal that was negotiated, but it is not identical to it. Andre🚐 19:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

This bill will not bring in more money than is spent, as discussed on many credible news sources. Not Illogical (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Citation needed. What I've seen is that the bill is paid for. Andre🚐 14:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Mention of the IRS expansion

Mainstream sources like Forbes and WSJ mention that the bill creates a massive expansion of the IRS, including 87,000 new agents and $80bn in funding, in order to ramp up tax auditing. User:CrazyPredictor undid the mention of the IRS that I had added, apparently under the mistaken impression that the fact was sourced to Marjorie Taylor Green, when it is not. I'm curious if there have a reason why these should not be included? If you take issue with the sourcing, we could add more beyond Forbes, but Forbes is considered reliable in Wikipedia:Perennial Sources. Thanks. --TocMan (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@TocMan: both of the sources you cited are opinion pieces. You need to provide sources that are not opinion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction,there's plenty of sources, here is a non opinion one. I will swap it out in the article. --TocMan (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not enough for the article to mention 87.000 IRS agents:

"In assailing the proposed legislation, the Republican National Committee claimed this week that an “army” of 87,000 I.R.S. agents would “disproportionately target poorer Americans.”

We cannot assume that the opinion of the RNC is factual just because the NYT reported that the RNC claims this.

Furthermore, stronger IRS enforcement is already mentioned in the revenue part as "Increased tax enforcement – $124 billion". That is because, all in all, it is estimated to net that amount. We cannot add the spending part of it again under the spending section because that would be double accounting. CrazyPredictor (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

If it's double accounting to mention $80bn in expenditures, then we should break out the revenue and expenditures separately, not remove all mention of the expenditures. Right now there is NO reference in the article to the fact that the IRS is getting a large expansion. The headline of that NY Times article mentions the $80bn and you keep acting like this is something that is only sourced to Republicans or Marjorie Taylor Greene. Here is yet another mainstream source mentioning the 87,000 new agents. Please stop removing this information from the article - if you think the information can be structured better in the article, go ahead, but there is no justification for removing the information completely. Right now our main source for the breakdown of bill expenditures is a Democratic party press release, so if you want to remove partisan information, I suggest you consider targeting that one next instead. --TocMan (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

CrazyPredictor - I've gone ahead and addressed your concerns: I split out the revenue and expenses so that we are not double counting anything, and also included the article from CNBC that cites the Treasury on the 87,000 agents number, rather than mentioning Republicans. Hopefully this satisfies you and you're willing to allow the information in the article now. --TocMan (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

TocMan I appreciate that you have split out the revenue and expenses.

However, there are multiple other issues with the newest edit. The first one is that the provisions of the bill do not provide for hiring of 87.000 agents (or any specific number). That means that it is not appropriate to cite this information in the "Provisions" section. The CNBC article did not make this clear, but the Treasury Department figure cited was from a preliminary Treasury report from May 2021. This cannot be linked to the provisions in this bill.

Furthermore, the claim of the IRA leading to 87.000 IRS agents being hired is very much disputed. I would refer to this fact check on the matter: https://time.com/6204928/irs-87000-agents-factcheck-biden/ This means that we should definitely not use that figure in any factual manner.

For the above reasons, I am reverting the newest edit. CrazyPredictor (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are removing the information *entirely* because of this or that nitpick. If you take issue with a particular phraseology (e.g. your Time article says the Treasury estimates 87,000 new IRS employees will be added, just not 87,000 "Internal Revenue agents". CNBC says "agents"), then remove or correct that. Please stop removing the fact that there is strong new funding for the IRS going forward. It's a well sourced fact, and I see no justification for removing it entirely. Please escalate the issue if you disagree, but removing the info entirely is nonsensical. I will use the term 87,000 new IRS employees, since Time and CNBC both agree on this. If you find contrary information, I strongly request that you correct the article, rather than removing all references to the IRS in the article. --TocMan (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, these aren't nitpicks, but substantial.

While the newest edit is once again a step forward from the previous one, it appears that you did not fully address or comment on the point that the bill does not mention or require that the appropriated funds go towards hiring new IRS employees (refer to https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5376/text). For that reason, as previously mentioned, the hypothetical 87,000 estimate does definitely not belong in the "Provisions" section. There has also been no announcement that the funds would be used for that purpose either. The Treasury document is a preliminary proposal/report from more than a year ago. It is not directly tied to this bill and the administration has not confirmed they would actually do that (as far as I know. Would be happy to see a source).

I have edited that part accordingly and hope that we are in agreement now. CrazyPredictor (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated you making a piecemeal edit rather than wiping all the info. I think the 87,000 number is well established, because the Biden admin's Treasury already wrote the report in 2021 with what they would do with this amount of funding for enforcement, and this number has been widely reported, in CNBC, Time, and others. It is admittedly a provisional number - per CNBC we will see "IRS sharing the exact numbers in the coming months". I don't think there is any problem with including this as an estimated and widely reported but provisional number. Similar to how the revenue that the enhanced enforcement will raise is estimated - there is no guarantee of exactly what $ value will actually be raised by the new enforcement. The fact that the 87,000 number is widely reported in mainstream sources should mean there is no problem including it in this article. We can couch it in the appropriate nuance, and the exact location we put it is open to discussion, but I see no reason not to include it. --TocMan (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

For the reasons already laid out above, I disagree and ask you to refrain from adding that number to the Provisions section.

I am not opposed to including the number with the much-needed context here, although it does not belong in the Provisions section as there is no such provision. There is also no provision with the aim of specific aim/goal of hiring that number. The goal of the IRS provisions is already laid out without that number. The important nuance is that the mainstream sources are not reporting that IRS provisions would lead to the hiring of x employees or have the stated goal of hiring that number. As such, I do not regard that as well-established.

Thank you. CrazyPredictor (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your diligence in working through our disagreement here. I will add the 87,000 projection to the 'impact' section instead. I will ask you directly, do you think that the projected revenue sources like the $200bn from tax enforcement should also be removed from the "provisions" section, since those are not included specifically in the bill text? If not, why not? --TocMan (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. It is a good idea to put it in the impacts section.

The estimated revenues, while not in the bill text, are the stated goals of the bill's provisions as per the authors (per the source cited). They mark it as a "Congressional Budget Office estimate" which makes it reasonable to assume that this will be the direct effect of these provisions. CrazyPredictor (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis - Summer Session22

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 August 2022 and 4 September 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stepham454, Bferrante (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Bferrante (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Economists

@Bill Williams removed the letter by the hundreds of economists - I submit that of course that letter is relevant and belongs in the article. Andre🚐 00:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not relevant, and it goes against actual mathematical analyses. Babbling about hundreds of economists is highly misleading, none of them did some advanced model of the bill's effects, while Wharton and CBO did and disagreed completely. Not a single reliable analysis states the bill will reduce inflation, so pretending like it did is not something that belongs in "Impact" section. Bill Williams 00:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

A letter from hundreds of economists, many of whom are credentialed experts and who did analyze the bill and are quoted explaining the analysis they did, is absolutely relevant to the article. In fact, several of the economists in the letter, such as the president of the Center for Responsible Budget discussed earlier in the section, and also Larry Summers, did do detailed mathematical modelling on the bill, and Summers was said to have convinced Manchin to get on board - tho I don't have source for that offhand. Andre🚐 01:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Then provide a source showing that these economists actually did an analysis of the bill, because the organizations listed elsewhere all did and published their analyses of the bill, two of which clearly stated it would not affect inflation.Bill Williams 01:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The Center for Responsible Budget one is already in the article[1], and they signed the letter. Stiglitz published an article[2] and Larry Summers had an interview in the Harvard Gazette[3], though there isn't a breakdown of their analysis. Summers also said "I saw a bill that, when fully analyzed, will have a positive impact on inflation — not a huge positive impact but a positive impact on inflation," [4] [5] Andre🚐 01:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Your letter is purely babble and nonsense, in fact [6] another letter signed by 200+ economists said the bill was misnamed and that it would not reduce inflation. Neither belongs in this article. Bill Williams 01:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

MasterResource.org, a free market energy blog, really? I don't think that is a reliable source. Andre🚐 01:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It probably should be included. It does introduce other views different from the rest of the content, which is important for WP:NPOV. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree with Andrevan here. The letter is relevant, includes renowned economists and is cited by reliable sources. It should definitely be included.

The letter cited by Bill Williams is not reported on by reliable sources (as far as I could find) and even the linked sources is missing the names of the economists who apparently signed. Definitely not reliable and questionable whether it is real. CrazyPredictor (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

[7] stop spreading conspiracy theories, the letter you want in this article is just some fake babble by economists who did no analysis on the subject, compared to two separate reliable sources that both did actual analyses. Claiming that the letter I linked is not a reliable source is nonsense, unless you think 230 economists are somehow magically liars but a different hundred economists are genius predictors. Bill Williams 02:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

[8] [9] ah yes the fake letter that The Hill and Fox News made up. Bill Williams 02:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The Hill article is an opinion piece, and it links to the same link you shared above that seems to be unreliable. I consider Fox News unreliable, but I'd be willing to entertain it. This is what the Fox Business politics article, says about it: "A few of the notable signers include Nobel laureate Vernon Smith, former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Kevin Hassett, former Director of the Office of Management and Budget Jim Miller and Robert Heller, former president of the Federal Reserve Board 1986-1989. In addition, professors from the University of Chicago, Princeton University, Duke University, the University of Virginia, Columbia University and the University of Notre Dame, among others, were listed on the letter dated Aug. 3. "

If this letter really exists I suppose we can include it. Can you find either the letter itself or another source besides Fox News and the Hill opinion piece? Andre🚐 02:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The news agencies being unreliable is irrelevant, you are not disputing their factuality, you are disputing the existence of a letter that clearly was signed by hundreds of people, unless you're implying their names were added without their consent. Either way I'm not advocating for adding the letter, my point is the other letter shouldn't be included either, because having hundreds of economists sign a piece of paper when they never did any sophisticated mathematical analysis on the bill is just misleading to people who read this article. Not a single reliable analysis showed a statistically significant chance that the bill reduces inflation. Bill Williams 02:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I think there should be more than a Hill op-ed and a Fox Business article to mention this. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I do not appreciate the tone or the wrong accusation of spreading conspiracy theories. This leads me to believe that you might not be operating in good faith. But I will still entertain it for now.

As for the letter, multiple reliable sources report that the economists are top economists and include seven Nobel laureates. You don't seem to believe that their opinions hold value. However, they are renowned experts on the economy and capable of evaluating the impact of policies. Source for that: [1]

In contrast to the letter you are trying to cite, we can view this full letter text and people who signed it here: [2]

The Hill Opinion piece cannot be cited as it references the definitely unreliable source you originally cited. I would advocate against using the Fox Business article as well. Fox News has no consensus on reliability, so we would need a separate source to confirm the reliability of this contentious claim pr the letter itself. I would concur in Andrevan's request for that here. CrazyPredictor (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Did you even click on a single thing I sent? The letter is attached in the link, with the names of 230 economists, and do you have a single source that claims that all 230 names were stolen and forged onto this article? That is quite a wild accusation, once again, a conspiracy theory, accusing The Hill and Fox Business of both agreeing to publish a forged letter. Anyway, the letter has 100 more economists than the one you are forcing in the article, but neither belongs there, I just pointed it out for rhetorical purposes, because it's a bunch of random professors signing a piece of paper, meaningless whatsoever compared to actual analyses by computers and statisticians. Bill Williams 00:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

[10] click on this Bill Williams 00:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

In no way is that Google Drive link a reliable source, Bill. But why are you posting it if you agree it doesn't belong in the article? Andre🚐 00:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It's from the source I sent, CrazyPredictor also sent a "document cloud" link because it was in an article and he wanted to send the exact letter. Once again, letters are meaningless without analysis, and this letter has 230 signatures from leading economists agreeing that the Inflation Reduction Act would actually NOT reduce inflation. Bill Williams 01:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The letter does not come from any reliable sources. By contrast, the letter with 126 economists saying it WILL reduce inflation, does. Or are you asserting that the Fox News article is a reliable source? Andre🚐 01:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone answer the comment at the end of this talk page section?

Speaking as someone that favors this new law, after I checked out the letter and the CNN article that referred to it, I do have some issues the way this content in question is written in the article.

Drawing content from the letter itself doesn't seem like a good idea, I think we can agree - the letter is written as lobbying/advocacy piece, rather than a reporting source, or even an opinion piece that gives a detailed argument on how it arrives at its thesis (which seems to be Bill Williams' complaint). The letter is short and doesn't really add anything to what's already said in the bill (or about the bill by news sources).

So then that brings us to the CNN article that reports on this letter. This letter isn't the only thing the article reports on (the CNN article itself cites other economists' analyses stating that there may not be significant impact to inflation initially). My problem is the way this statement is written:

In a letter sent to congressional leadership and touted by Senate Democrats, 126 economists including Robert Rubin, Jack Lew, Jason Furman, Lawrence Summers, Mark Zandi, and Joseph Stiglitz, said that the bill is paid for and will lower inflation.

Like I said above, this sentence would have more encyclopedic value if this would include, according to these economists that signed on to the letter, the mechanisms on how this law would help reduce inflation: something like "they claimed that this law would impact inflation by (insert mechanism)". Simply saying "they think it would" doesn't really accomplish any more than the title of this law. Right now the sentence just reads like additional "votes" in support of the idea that the law does what it says it does, raising NPOV concerns.

An alternative approach is to treat this as a factual reporting on who is in favor of this law (and moving this from Economic, under Impact, to Reactions). Something like "126 economists came in support of the law, stating that the law helps reduce inflation and is paid for while (bringing these other benefits)". This too needs some care; the sentence needs to be written in a way such that it doesn't make people question why a selection of economists advocating the law should be particularly notable. It may be fine to say that a notable group came out in support of the law (for instance, AARP supported its provision of Medicare negotiating drug prices), but if it's just listing a bunch of economist names it begs the question as to what makes those particular persons special.

And I don't think the other source, from Senate Democratic Leadership, should be included. It can be used as a source if it's explaining the position of the Senate Democratic leadership, or simply a factual reporting of "Senate Democratic leaderships says X", but beyond that I don't think it's needed in an encyclopedic context. 2603:8000:B600:4000:418B:54BF:C0AE:DC70 (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a letter from economists to the Senate, that's how it's presented. The bill was just signed, so, there's nothing vote-related pending. So I'm not sure I understand or follow your logic. Andre🚐 03:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You're misreading what I'm saying. I'm saying the way this sentence is written right now is nothing more than "we support the law too", just adding undue weight to the Impacts section, not any sort of explanation that actually adds content to the article. The way it's currently written, it's something for Reactions not Impact. 2603:8000:B600:4000:418B:54BF:C0AE:DC70 (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, no, it's economists weighing in with an expert opinion about the impact of the law. Andre🚐 03:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Then add content on how they weighed in and what the substance of their arguments are. Saying that "126 economists agree with the title of the law" isn't useful encyclopedic content. A simple "the economists argued that this article would impact inflation by (doing this) and would also (do this)" would add some value. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt as to how this letter, which I don't think is essential to the article, can be preserved in it. Is it that hard? 2603:8000:B600:4000:418B:54BF:C0AE:DC70 (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear IP, the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget signed the 126-economists letter, so that is the analysis you're looking for. The current text of the article and the usage of the letter is appropriate. Andre🚐 03:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Saying that an analysis exists means nothing if the content isn't in the article. This is just appeal to authority instead of contributing useful content to the encyclopedia from the authority. I'm not necessarily saying the whole section needs to be omitted; I'm objecting to how the section is written. I don't see why it's such a problem to simply explain in the article itself the details of the economists' argument. That adds value to the article. Just add the reasons economists gave for their thesis and how they think the law would work (I'm not doing it myself only because the article is locked for anonymous users; otherwise I might have). What's there to reject that proposition? 2603:8000:B600:4000:418B:54BF:C0AE:DC70 (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to explain why economists said something. Just that they did is fine, since it's attributed to RS, verifiable, and encyclopedic. It just needs to have the proper context. Economists made a claim, in RS, about the impact of the bill, we attributed that to them. That's all that we need. We don't need to convince you that the bill will help inflation. We also have in that same section, other groups who came to a different conclusion. That's NPOV, that's balance. Andre🚐 04:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Here's the thing.

If a collection of a bunch of claims in a balance (without any of their reasoning) makes an article, it would look simply like this: "Democrats claim the law will help. Republicans claim it does not. 126 economists also claims it will help with inflation. Penn Wharton Budget Model claims otherwise." That's not a very well-written article. Adding substance - the basic line of reasoning on why they think the way they do - enhances the article.

It doesn't matter if prominent economists like Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes came back from the dead to say that they agree with the thesis: that's a reaction. All that tells you is who is in support of the law, however much respect they may garner from some people. Only when you add their arguments on why the law would/would not do something does it become an analysis that is useful content to include in impact. The way this sentence is written is inadequate for impact and is needlessly long to report on a simple reaction from certain economists.

So I ask you, one more time: why do you insist on being against the simple idea of including additional explanations to a section of an article to make that section more worthwhile? That's literally how Wikipedia works. 2603:8000:B600:4000:418B:54BF:C0AE:DC70 (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Andrevan on the current coverage on the letter already having encyclopedic value as we have notable and renowned experts weighing in. That's not a reaction of a lobbying group or an affected company, and thus not a "Reaction". It is directly relevant to assessing the impacts.

I also disagree with the notion that this is somehow an "appeal to authority". The letter is very much notable as some of the economists signing it are harsh critics of the administration's prior policy proposals (an interesting bit of context that we could consider adding). The letter is also definitely the main topic of the cited source. The article title quotes from the letter and it is brought up in a prominent way.

Having said that, I am never opposed to considering an expansion or additional explanations on any section. While I believe that the letter is fairly and accurately summarized, as in the letter itself and the reliable source reporting on it, I would certainly like to consider any concrete expansion proposals you might have on it while keeping it under the same heading as it is currently in.

Short note on why I believe the Senate Democratic Leadership source was included: It appears necessary to cite for the "and touted by Senate Democrats" portion. CrazyPredictor (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. @Bill Williams I have no way to confirm the letter since the only sources that refer to it are a random blog with a google drive link, a Hill op-ed, and Fox. If you want to include it, provide sources. If you don't want to include it, don't try to do so or argue for its inclusion. But the other, reliably-reported-on letter is something that should be included. Andre🚐 03:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I just want to comment: letter or not, media sources have stated various predicted effects on inflation, short- and long-term. Why not include the content to the article using those sources? 2603:8000:B600:4000:46C:D530:C26D:5CD6 (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

What sources are you referring to? Andre🚐 03:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The letter from economists is a reaction, as the IP stated, not an analysis, and therefore belongs in the reaction section, which I moved it to. I have no issue with it remaining there as it was cited as a reaction by much of the media. Bill Williams 13:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not a reaction but an expert economist opinion, so it should be in the impact section. Andre🚐 14:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

As discussed at length, it belongs to the Impacts section because we are looking at notable and renowned experts (qualified to assess this) weighing in on what the specific effects of these policies are.

I am disappointed that you thought you would move it to the Reactions section without notice after all the discussions we had in this thread. CrazyPredictor (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I've found this discussion based on a RSN topic. Here is another source for the opposition letter [11] Springee (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

We consider Reason reliable for facts but biased - this is an obvious opinion piece, and not usable for the letter. Andre🚐 19:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

So it's an opinion article because you don't like that they mention the letter? Sorry, using that sort of reasoning any time the NYT says a law is going to be good for the country it's just an opinion article. Springee (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It's clearly an opinion piece, it states opinions, it uses superlatives and hyperbole, like, "The behemoth bill," and it only quotes Republicans, like Amash and Thune, it's advocacy and the reference to the letter is secondhand to an unreliable source ("The Political Insider") which has been Pants on Fire by Politifact in the past [12] Andre🚐 19:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

So it's using opinions when it says the letter exists or the contents of the letter are? It seems like you are trying to game the system to avoid allowing factual information (the existence of the letter) in under the claim the source is an OpEd. It's more correct to say the article is a mix of factual reporting and commentary and all of it is subject to editorial review by the publisher. Springee (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not gaming the system whatsoever. The sourcing for the letter is not adequate and there's a substantial argument on this talk page in this discussion that it hasn't been adequate. The Reason article can't be used for factual reporting due to the nature of its sourcing being unreliable and it being an opinion piece, only usable for attributed opinion, which is undue in this article. If we downgraded Fox News, I wouldn't need to spend time debating with editors who believe this sketchily sourced letter should be given equal weight to the well-sourced letter that appears in all the WP:GENREL sources. Andre🚐 19:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are gaming the "OpEd" standards to try to claim Reason's discussion of the letter is an opinion vs factual reporting. You can still claim the existence of the letter isn't DUE but you started by claiming it wasn't DUE because Fox was the source rather than because the claims Fox was making are somehow faulty. As for Reason being an opinion article, well that is your claim but it isn't supported by anything other than your claim. Springee (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The letter appears only in Fox, Reason oped, The Hill Oped, and Detroit News oped. Versus the other letter which is in all the reliable sources. It's not gaming, it's simple logic, it's what i've said all along. The Reason piece is by no means anything other than an oped, and regardless, the link to the letter is to an unreliable source. Andre🚐 19:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you point to the part where the Reason article is listed as an OpEd? If not, please be clear that isn't an analysis article, not an OpEd. Springee (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't need to say oped to be an opinion article. Reason in general is a biased magazine source. Andre🚐 19:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I fully concur in Andrevan's assessment that including this letter based on the Reason piece as well as the other sources mentioned so far would be undue and the sentiment of the previous discussions appears to have had a similar sentiment.

I would additionally point out that the Reason piece links to a "thepoliticalinsider.com" piece which in turn links back to the mentioned Fox article with regard to the letter. CrazyPredictor (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Nice catch CrazyPredictor. I guess that's why they call you a crazy predictor, and eagle eye at that. Andre🚐 21:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

We had a recent discussion on a topic like this at RSN. Basically, if a RS cites another source then, even if Wikipedia doesn't like the original source, the credibility follows the final source. So if NYT, cites Daily Wire for a fact then, with respect to that fact, we assume the credibility of the NYT, not DW. Again, Andrevan is just claiming it's an OpEd rather than explaining what policy makes it one. CP, I understand that even if we accept Reason as a rock solid source UNDUE can still apply. I also understand the view that it would be better if we had copy of the letter in hand. That said, Andrvan's rejection of Fox as a source looks a lot more like IDONTLIKEIT vs a reasoned argument against the reliability of any of the sources. Springee (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

That's incorrect - you can cite a reliable source citing an unreliable secondary source, and you must attribute the unreliable part as attributed opinion. In this case we have a biased opinion article citing an unreliable source citing another unreliable source. Your reasoning doesn't apply in this case. You've accused me of IDONTLIKEIT several times and it's bad faith. You can disagree with the reasoning, but there is extensive reasoning being provided. Andre🚐 22:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you sure? Can you show where policy supports your claim? Here is a recent RSN discussion that parallels this one [13]. I said it looks like IDONTLIKEIT because you aren't providing actual policy etc to support your claims. You are claiming that the Reason article is an OpEd based on what you view as hyperbole. WP:BIASED doesn't say a biased source becomes an OpEd but that is what you are arguing. Reason is saying the letter exists, they aren't saying it should exist (that would be an opinion). Springee (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight. WP:RSP Andre🚐 23:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It would be more correct to say some editors. Additionally, don't confuse opinionated with "OpEd". Additionally, "primarily" doesn't mean exclusively. They are factually saying the letter exists. Are you claiming that is just an opinion? Are you claiming the letter doesn't exist? Springee (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I've seen the letter. It's in a Google Drive link in an unreliable blog post linked above. That doesn't mean the letter was verified, as a reliable outlet would do, that all the signatories signed it and stand by it. Since RS don't discuss the letter, we can't confirm it, and it isn't due any weight in the article. Fox, as a biased propaganda outlet, is amplifying sketchy and unverified claims. Per our current consensus policy, considerations apply to usage of Fox, and it should be scrutinized closely in the case of claims such as these which aren't covered in RS. If the letter turns up in RS, that would be a different situation. Andre🚐 00:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Reason is a RS. Fox's claims are repeated by a RS which give more credit to them. Your arguments look like excuses to avoid including the content rather than sound reading of policy. Springee (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't really understand your position, Springee. Andrevan has made multiple completely valid points and cited reason's why it would be undue to include info on this. There is still no proper reason that would make this worthy of inclusion given the sourcing situation. Your accusation of IDONTLIKEIT is very much unwarranted and thus not appreciated. CrazyPredictor (talk) 09:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Your comment can be broken down into two issues. The first is this discussion, prior to my comments, seemed to have whittled down to Fox and an OpEd source mentioned the letter thus absent an addition RS mention, there isn't strong enough sourcing to establish WEIGHT. I pointed out that Reason mentioned the same letter and Reason is a RS. Andrevan tries to dismiss Reason claiming their choice of words to describe the size of this bill and it's effects makes them an OpEd article. That isn't correct as it's actually a mix of factual reporting and analysis and all of it is under Reason Magazine's normal editorial control. It is not like a NYT OpEd where the opinions expressed may not reflect that of the parent paper. Since the mention of the letter is factual in nature rather than analysis we can say a RS mentioned the letter. If people want to still argue that doesn't rise to the level of establishing weight for inclusion that is fine but let's not try to wikilawyer out of inclusion by selectively downgrading sources to avoid the bigger issue. The other issue is Andervan's crusade against Fox News. It does look like an IDONTLIKEIT issue. Andervan started a RfC at RSN trying to get Fox downgraded. One of the arguments against changing Fox's status is that the current status isn't causing issues. Andervan's response to that is pointing to this discussion. Well that's a bit self serving since they are a party to the dispute. Thus they are using their own view of Fox as a source rather than the consensus view (use with care etc). Back to the topic here, if such a letter exists and many notable economists say this law will hurt inflation etc then such information should be included in the article per NPOV. I have to say it does seem wrong to mention one letter sent to congress but not the other if the signatories are similar. Springee (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The only reason Springee even needs to say that the source exists is because editors were spreading conspiracy theories that this is somehow a fake editor with 230 people's signatures being forged and multiple different sources lying about it. That's obviously absurd, and a letter by econonomists which states that the bill will not reduce inflation exists. It does not matter how reliable the sources are, nobody is saying the letter is a fact, but it clearly exists and is cited by multiple sources. My point in mentioning the existence of this letter is because it shows how irrelevant and unproven the opposing letter is, the one mentioned as a supposed economic analysis when not a single person who signed the letter provided any analysis to support their conclusion. That is why the letter belongs in "reactions" and not the "economic" section of "impact." It is complete editorialization to babble that some letter was "touted by Senate Democrats," that is a reaction, not an impact. Bill Williams 12:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I can't keep rehashing the same points, and responding to the same invalid arguments and POV pushing, and incivility, so if you really think the letter has sufficient weight in reliable sources, or that Fox and the Reason op-ed are reliable for this letter versus the other letter that appears in all the reliable sources, go ahead and start an RFC. Andre🚐 13:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

It's your opinion that the Reason article is an OpEd. It isn't listed as such and you haven't shown that it is an opinion that isn't covered by Reason's normal editorial process. Springee (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

As I quoted from RSN on Reason, Reason is a biased opinionated source, and should be attributed and treated as opinion, it can be reliable for simple facts only, not contentious views. The author of the piece in question, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, is an advocacy journalist and founder of a libertarian group, she's a partisan. The article contains tons of clues that it is an opinion piece. "the misleadingly named Inflation Reduction Act" "The behemoth bill is full of questionable spending" "inflation—which is now impacting prices across the U.S. economy— isn't actually reduced just because the government artificially lowers the consumer cost of a few items. And whether it will even succeed in bringing down things like health care costs is questionable" These are opinions. They can be attributed to Reason magazine but they can't be stated as fact. They lack weight for inclusion regardless. And they contradict the statements in actually reliable sources.

The part you want to include, "230 economists have signed an open letter saying the proposed law will "perpetuate the same fiscal policy errors that have helped precipitate the current troubling economic climate."", can be used only as an attributed opinion since it's a quote from the letter offered as fact, but the link, goes to[14] which is an unreliable pants-on-fire blog (and also links back to Fox, but this is not Reason linking directly to Fox).

The only possible usage of all of this would be a multiply-attributed secondhand opinion. Regardless, none of this is sufficient weight to include in the article at all. I have no idea why the libertarian economists' letter, if you will, wasn't covered in reliable outlets, instead only the mainstream economists' letter was covered in substantial weight. It's not relevant, because there's no policy-based argument to include the lesser-sourced letter. EVEN if we considered Fox News reliable, which we do not (we consider it case-by-case, marginally reliable with considerable caveats for any political claims), it still wouldn't have weight to include, but at least if it were unreliable full stop, we wouldn't be having this discussion about it. Andre🚐 14:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I feel like we are going in circles here. I can only recommend that you re-read this discussion that was already had and Andrevan's latest postings as he was kind enough to repeat what was already stated multiple times.

I would also remind you that you have already been criticized for throwing around accusations of conspiracy theories being pushed around here which is not something that happened. CrazyPredictor (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Springee: I agree and see no valid reason why, if the first letter from economists is included, the subsequent letter—written for the same purpose, sent to the same people, and signed by almost twice as many economists—shouldn't be as well. That some individual editors have a personal preference for the RS reporting one letter over those reporting the other is immaterial. In our perennial RS list, "Fox News (politics and science)" states: "Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims." But no serious contention exists as to the existence of either letter. Our RS guidance is meant to ensure accuracy and notability—not to be wielded as a cudgel to include/exclude information that aligns with the political proclivities of editors. Both letters have been reported in sources reliable as to their existence. Both are signed by some extremely well-regarded economists and available online. Fox News, now with a second reporter on the byline, has followed up on the second letter with Sen. Chuck Schumer. More significantly, on August 10, ranking member of the House Rules Committee Rep. Tom Cole not only referenced the letter on the House floor, but entered it into the record. Claiming that the existence of the letter fails WP:V is simply not a tenable or sustainable—let alone serious—position to take.

I also very much appreciate the point made by @Bill Williams: there's a very real question as to whether either letter should be included at all—and if so, where. A fair reading of both letters reveals that neither involve rigorous, unbiased analysis; they were written with the express purpose of influencing political opinion.

Lastly: it's impossible to miss the irony in the heated debate about how to characterize sources, given that the letters are themselves nothing more than "opinion pieces".

Thanks! ElleTheBelle 16:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

There is serious contention as to the validity and veracity of the libertarian letter, since it appears only in opinion editorial, and in no WP:GENREL RS. By contrast, the mainstream economists' letter is well-attested.

Your bad faith and incivil comment, which uncharitably mischaracterizes the discussion and attributes malice to editors, doesn't merit a detailed rebuttal. There isn't consensus that it has due weight in reliable coverage. Start an RFC if you wish on the inclusion of the letter. Andre🚐 16:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear: the "serious contention as to the... veracity" you refer to here—are you asserting that this letter may, in fact, not exist? Or are you questioning the "veracity" of the opinions expressed within? Also: by what criteria is an open letter's "validity" assessed, and for what purpose? Thanks! ElleTheBelle 18:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

As I wrote above, I've seen the letter. It's in a Google Drive that's linked from an unreliable blog. I do not believe that the letter was confirmed authentic and all the signatures were confirmed authentic, since no reliable media outlet is picking it up. Regardless, since it lacks any weight in reliable sources, it would not be afforded any weight for inclusion in the article. This was all stated in the discussion above. Andre🚐 18:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

How did we get from discussions on whether the present reliable sources make an inclusion due to accusations of editors "wielding" guidelines depending on political opinion.

That is not how we should discuss things on here. Let's stay with the factual and nuanced arguments.

The difference between the two letters, very clearly, is how much weight they hold in reliable sources. We have very solid weight vs almost none. That is not an opinion, but it logically follows out of all the sources we have mentioned on here.

As per whether such a letter belongs to "Reactions" or whether it can assess "Impacts": It is very clear that the letter can assess impacts, because we are looking at renowned experts in this field making an assessment on what effects certain policies (the policies in this bill) will have. It is also understood in that very manner by the reliable sources reporting on it. CrazyPredictor (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Impacts section on Emissions

I was wondering whether we should separate the emissions estimates from the Energy section. Should "Emission reduction" or "Emissions" get its own section? Or do you feel that it fits into Energy or does not yet have enough text to be its own section? CrazyPredictor (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't really think its necessary, but I suppose it could be done. I've never been a fan of a bunch of subsections. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Grammar Issues

Some of the sentences in this article do not make sense because they are not grammatically well written.

As one example, the Republicans did not say that this bill would do little to exacerbate inflation, yet the quoted sentence below as structured states that they did. This was not the intent of the writer of this sentence but the writer did not do a good job of structuring the sentence well.

"Congressional Republicans have voiced unanimous opposition to the bill, claiming the legislation would do little to combat inflation or exacerbate it." Itinerantlife (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I think this is the kind of thing where we don't need to build consensus but anyone can just go ahead and improve on it. CrazyPredictor (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Energy Innovation Group modeling

The contentious point here appears to be whether it is possible to cite things from a modeling report that is well-covered by reliable sources for things that are in the report but not specifically mentioned by the article cited for covering it.

The answer to that question is: Obviously yes. The modeling being reported on by reliable sources means that it is reliable, and it is reasonable to use different data from that same report if it is properly attributed to the original source (which it is in that case).

As such the economic portion of the Energy Innovation model should remain. After all, we use data from that model in other sections as well. Perhaps all we need to do is adjust the way it is cited?

Would be happy to discuss this before further action is taken. CrazyPredictor (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

"Modeling being reported on by reliable sources means that it is reliable" is both grammatically nonsensical—and, at least if I correctly understand what you're trying to say, false.

First: it should go without saying that to report on a model is not to endorse its accuracy—the instant sort of model can only be accurate in hindsight—and, in fact, much of the Scientific American article is devoted to the uncertainties inherent in the sort of environmental forecasting it addresses.

More to the point: in order to cite Energy Innovation's economic modeling in a Wikipedia passage about potential economic impacts, that economic model needs to have been reported on by a reliable source—otherwise its inclusion is simply WP:OR. "Reliability" is not some rubber-stamp status conferred upon the entirety of a publication (let alone publisher) simply by virtue of that publication "being reported on" by an established RS. Rather: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." A simple example should suffice: the NYT could write an article that included Joe Rogan's comments about MMA in a podcast—hell, it could even confirm his statements were 100% accurate—and while those comments might well be appropriate in an article about MMA, the NYT article obviously wouldn't, in and of itself, mean that Rogan's opinion on marijuana laws, even from that same specific podcast, would automatically be appropriate in or a "reliable source" for a Wikipedia article about drug policy. The Scientific American article doesn't report anything about Energy Innovation's job projections—so it doesn't itself merit their inclusion in a Wikipedia article.

Last, as something of a side note: no cited RS describes Energy Innovation as "nonpartisan"—as it is twice in our article. Indeed, that term doesn't even appear in the cited report—but only in Energy Innovation's description of itself on its own website. Yet, oddly enough, the Tax Foundation, which describes itself as "independent", is here labeled "conservative"—despite Wikipedia's own article on the group citing eight (8) instances of it being described as "nonpartisan" or "bipartisan", two (2) as "conservative" and one (1) as "center-right". Is it too much to expect some consistency, at least between adjacent paragraphs in our article?

In sum, I agree with @Bill Williams: Energy Innovation's job-projection modeling is not, as it stands, established as an RS—in the context it's currently being used. Thanks! ElleTheBelle 21:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

It was reported on in a reliable source. Scientific American[15] Andre🚐 21:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't really agree that your example is appropriate in this case because the results of a model are not to be compared to an opinion/podcast from Rogan or anyone else.

I understand the point you are trying to make, though. To resolve this, I would suggest that we simply add this reliable source: [16] It reports on the jobs and GDP figures, plus it also provides for the "nonpartisan" label that we currently use. It seems that this would be the appropriate course of action, unless there are any objections. CrazyPredictor (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Good find. Go for it. Andre🚐 22:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Scientific American said absolutely nothing about its absurd job projections that disagree with every legitimate economic analysis. Unless you can find more than one source that quotes the 1.4 to 1.5 million jobs estimate, which is wildly different from every other massively cited estimate, then Energy Innovation's economic analysis does not belong in the article. It is completely misleading to readers. Bill Williams 12:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

There are dozens of sources on every other economic analysis yet only a single one from yahoo news on Energy Innovation's economic analysis? It is not even close to being properly weighed by putting it in the article. Bill Williams 12:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Statement on carbon emission target is too vague, it should include numbers

Specifically referring to “the law is projected to bring the U.S. significantly closer to Biden's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 50% below 2005 levels by 2030”.

This is too vague and potentially misleading. It doesn’t tell the reader the impact of the bill. It just says the projections are now closer to 50%. According to https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/08/02/climate/manchin-deal-emissions-cuts.html, which is the source cited in within [5]:

“[The legislation] could enable the country to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by roughly 40 percent below 2005 levels by the end of this decade….Without the bill, emissions in the United States were already on track to fall roughly 27 percent from their peak in 2005 by the end of this decade, the researchers found”.

It should be clear that this bill is only changing the projection by 13 percent. Instead, it gives the impression it had a near 50 percent impact. This information could easily be fit in a sentence as long as the current sentence on the subject 98.113.184.124 (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we should find a reliable source for the data of what allocations are in the bill and represent it as a Wikipedia:Graphs_and_charts#Brick_chart Andre🚐 02:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been thinking about doing that for the Impacts section (or taking a properly licensed graphic from one of the sources). I am not sure that we should put that near the lead though, if that's what you mean. CrazyPredictor (talk) 02:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I agree for the impacts section Andre🚐 02:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I totally understand this concern.

The reason why I didn't want to include that full detail (as we have it in the Impacts section) is that it is a little too detailed and complicated for the lead where we want to give a rough overview of the bill.

The NYT source contains this:

"While that falls short of President Biden’s goal to cut U.S. emissions by at least 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, experts said that additional policies like new federal regulations or more aggressive state and local climate action could help close the gap".

I think the sentence as it is now is definitely accurate if you read it correctly as jumping from 27% to 40% when your final goal is 50% is, without a doubt, significant. But I understand that it can be seen as misleading. Maybe we can find a way to make it less misleading while still leaving the full detail for the Impacts section (where it is explained in detail) already?

Also, important bit: The projection is not a 13% change but a shift of 13 percent points, which is much more major. CrazyPredictor (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

So on the REPEAT project report [1] they phrase it like this

"The inflation Reduction Act does about two-thirds of the remaining work needed to close the gap between current policy and the nation’s 2030 climate goal."

Maybe phrasing similar to that would do the trick for the lead? CrazyPredictor (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

support this Andre🚐 21:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Every study states that the bill will help bring the U.S. to approximately a 40% reduction of emissions by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. The current lead is a misleading lie, because it does not bring the U.S. to 50% reduction, and the studies state that without the bill the reduction would be around 25% anyway, so the bill only reduces emissions by itself by around 15%. Pretending like a 15% decrease is a 50% decrease is completely misleading to readers, and the wording of the lead shouldn't be propaganda on Biden's goals, it should be the reality cited by sources that it helps bring the U.S. towards a 40% decrease in emissions. Bill Williams 12:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The current lead is factually sound and supported by the reliable source. It does bring the US significantly closer to Biden's goal of 50%, by bringing it to 40% (as estimated) compared to 27% without the law.

We are currently floating different variants of wording this. I already commented on your suggestion above. What do you think about the example suggestion I posted earlier? CrazyPredictor (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Biden's goals are irrelevant to the lead, did every article about Trump's border policies talk about them bringing the U.S. closer to meeting his illegal immigration reduction? Or his Afghanistan troop reduction? This is not an opinion article on Biden. Your misleading sentence might as well say it brings the U.S. "closer" to 70% because 40% is closer than 27%. "two-thirds the remaining work" is just babble, to be accurate, it simply brings the U.S. to reducing 40% of 2005 levels by 2030. There is no need to misleadingly talk about "goals" when the factual basis is quite simple. Bill Williams 12:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Prescription drug prices

The 1st bullet under "Provisons" needs clarification. For example, "(STARTING AT 10 BY 2026)" in "Prescription drug price reform to lower prices, including Medicare negotiation of drug prices for certain drugs (starting at 10 by 2026) – $265 billion." Also, how does drug price reform produce $265B in revenue? 2600:1005:B11F:B0B4:94DA:A049:1B09:CF89 (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

It is estimated to bring in that much revenue due to the federal government being able to pay significantly less for drugs. As far as I understand, that is why medicare drug price negotiations bring in that sort of revenue.

As for the clarification, do you have any suggestions? "Starting at 10 by 2026" means that by 2026 there will be 10 individual drugs where prices are negotiated, and in later years that number increases. CrazyPredictor (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

"Landmark" Editorialization

This is pure editorialization in the lead, considering that a single source called the legislation "landmark" while the person who reverted me compared it to the Affordable Care Act, which was far more significant and cited as landmark legislation. If the law is actually landmark then more than one major newspaper would say so. To determine this, I looked through multiple pages of different sources on google, and only six major sources in total described it as such, versus dozens on Obamacare. Bill Williams 13:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Mild keep. I'm no supporter of editorialization, but since this Act is the largest one ever directed to climate change, and because it is supported by several references, I think the word "landmark" achieves the threshold of acceptability in this context. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Keep. For similar reasons as RCraig09. It is the most consequential climate legislation ever enacted and various reliable sources designate it as such. Additionally, to the WaPo source already mentioned, here are a few more: [1] [2] Note that a source not mentioning the word landmark is not a valid argument against describing the law as such.

Based on that, it definitely crosses the threshold to be called "landmark". CrazyPredictor (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

A few sources calling it landmark does not actually make it landmark, my point is that other laws and cases etc. referred to as "landmark" by U.S. media have dozens of sources calling them landmark. Bill Williams 12:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• keep it in, I agree with CrazyPredictor and RCraig, it's landmark Andre🚐 14:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Remove I am against using the word landmark in general sense, including for Obamacare. What about using important instead?

Madame Necker (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Economist letter

"In a letter sent to congressional leadership and touted by Senate Democrats, 126 economists including Robert Rubin, Jack Lew, Jason Furman, Lawrence Summers, Mark Zandi, and Joseph Stiglitz, wrote that the bill is more than fully paid for, lowers prices for consumers and will lower inflation." This text should be restored to the "Impact" session not the "Reactions" section since it concerns the qualified expert opinion on economic impact. Andre🚐 16:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Yup, that's correct. The letter signed by renowned economists is to be understood as an expert assessment of the impacts of the law. CrazyPredictor (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. The problem is editors want to use one letter but refuse to use a second that says the bill won't help. Per NPOV both should be included since both include a long list of experts. Springee (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Compiling a list of RS that discuss both letters, the included letter has significant coverage, while the excluded letter has a very tiny minority of coverage and none that aren't opinion or in unreliable or marginally reliable sources that I can tell. Do you have a single WP:GENREL source that discusses the other letter? Andre🚐 14:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That was done, you rejected then as you felt they weren't sufficient. Rather than including it as an alternative POV signed by (I think over 300 economists at this point) you simply said, the sources aren't sufficient so we don't have to cover it at all. That doesn't make for a better article but it does make it look like the intent of this article is to carry weight for those who support the bill. Springee (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not an assessment of anything, it's the opinion of individuals who did no quantitative analysis, their opinions were just gathered in a letter. Everything else in impact is a quantitative analysis, not a reaction to the legislation being introduced, which is what the letter is. Babbling about claims that it will reduce inflation does not belong in impact without actual numbers, which every other assessment has. Bill Williams 13:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It is not for us to dig into their rationale. We report what the RS say. A qualified expert opinion covered in RS deserves to be covered in the economic impact section. Andre🚐 14:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Fox can be reliable on a case by case basis. Reason is a generally reliable source. Springee (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The Fox reference in this case, is not reliable. The Reason reference is RSOPINION at best, and its source linking ultimately leads elsewhere, so it can't be used for this. Even for the sake of argument is Fox is reliable in this instance, that's 1 source versus probably 20 or more covering the other letter. Not even close to equal weight. Since we're at an impasse here, I'll prepare an RFC. Andre🚐 14:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Fox is reliable unless you are claiming the letter never existed. That would be quite a stretch since it was mentioned by members of the house committee discussing this bill [16]. In addition to Fox and Reason a number of other sources have mentioned this letter [17][18][19]. The fact that a major news source mentioned it, even if you don't like that source, certainly provides weight for inclusion. Springee (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

This Fox mention of the letter is not reliable, since it is sourced to an unreliable source and not original reporting, as discussed, it is sourced to an unreliable blog. The other links you've provided are not sufficient either. The first one still gets it from Fox. The 2nd one is an op-ed by the conservative Detroit News editorial board. The 3rd link is sourced to a press release. None of these establish the letter sufficiently. Andre🚐 14:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

What makes it unreliable? Either the facts are wrong (are you making that claim) or you as saying the content isn't significant (but it was mentioned by house committee members). I've opened a NPOVN discussion related to this question. Springee (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Um, ok. I put an RFC below. I already explained how it is unreliable. Reliability in this case has nothing to do with actual accuracy of facts, but how they are sourced. Andre🚐 14:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

RFC on the economists' letters

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

---

Question 1: Should the letter[20][21][22][forbes is unreliable so swapping for ap Andre🚐] signed by 126 economists, which asserts this bill reduces inflation, be included* in the article?

• Option 1a: include in the "Reactions" section
• Option 1b: include in the "Impact" section
• Option 2: do not include this letter at all

Question 2: Should the letter[23][24][25][26]I added the AFR citation. X-Editor (talk) signed by 230 economists, which asserts this bill does not reduce inflation, be included* in the article?

• Option 1a: include in the "Reactions" section
• Option 1b: include in the "Impact" section
• Option 2: do not include this letter at all

Andre🚐 14:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

*: [by include, I meant "mention" the letter, and not paste its text. clarified by request] Andre🚐 20:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Survey Question 1

• Option 1b - include in the "Impact" section. This letter is signed by a number of economic experts and Nobel Prize winners, and is attested in reliable sources. Andre🚐 14:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1a or 1b It depends on how the rest is written but this belongs in the article. --Masem (t) 14:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1a seems most reasonable.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 a or b That economist were willing to sign this letter is DUE in this article. Springee (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1b Include it in the "Impact" section - This letter is very well sourced and mentioned by reliable sources often enough. That makes it due. It should be in the Impacts section because it is an expert assessment on the impacts of the law by renowned economists. The impact on inflation is assessed by analyzing the policies of the law. CrazyPredictor (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1b for both. I would suggest to keep the reactions section as concise as possible and just wait and see what the impact would be. This should not be in the Impact section per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Alaexis_¿question? 19:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Based on your response I believe you meant to type Option 1a (i.e. Option 1a: include in the "Reactions" section) --Guest2625 (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1a; see below. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1a or 1b - this is a no-brainer. Of course it belongs in this article. Atsme 💬 📧 23:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1b - a letter well sourced and signed by numerous economist is clearly DUE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1a b - Neither letter received a ton of news coverage but given the fact that each letter was signed by hundreds of notable economists, I think a single sentence (two at most) for each letter would be WP:PROPORTIONAL. This is better for the reaction section since the impact of the law hasn't really been established. Also, to argue to include one letter but not the other is a plainly clear WP:NPOV vio. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Based on your response I believe you meant to type Option 1a (i.e. Option 1a: include in the "Reactions" section) --Guest2625 (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1a - Letter lacks in depth economic analysis so should be placed as one sentence in the reaction section. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1a or b Fine with either section. X-Editor (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1a it's a reaction, not an impact, it wasn't an assessment with a quantitative analysis like the rest of the impacts, it was simply the opinion of economists who reacted to the bill. Bill Williams 12:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 UNDUE - passing news fodder. Further, it conflates economic growth and efficiency with "inflation" reduction. SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)18:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1b OK, now I read the letter itself and I see that it does not conflate "inflation" with the actual benefits to growth, efficiency, cost reduction, and opportunity that the bill provides. And importantly it addresses the issue of funding and the Republican red herring about bloating the budget deficit. Maybe the Republicans oppose it because it fails to increase the US deficit as every one of their policy inititives has done over the past half century. SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe the Republicans oppose it because it fails to increase the US deficit as every one of their policy inititives has done over the past half century. 🤔 -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1b With the body of reliable sources reporting on it, it certainly deserves a spot. I think it belongs in the Impact section, with language qualifying it as "expected impact".PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1a WP:NOTEWORTHY enough to be included. — hako9 (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1a or b Noteworthy and covered by RS. - LilySophie (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1a - as per all above, it is a noteworthy reaction and not an impact. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Survey Question 2

• Option 2 - This letter is not attested in reliable sources sufficiently to include. Andre🚐 14:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  This is false. Reason is a RS, Fox Business news is case by case. Given there is no dispute that Fox's report about the letter is true and the letter was mentioned during house committee meetings, Fox News should be considered reliable in this case. Springee (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  The Reason article is an opinion piece which is sourced to an unreliable blog. The Fox piece is also unreliably sourced. Articles link to unreliable blog posts that lead to a Google Drive link, none of which is reliable. In context, the Fox article shouldn't be considered reliable. Andre🚐 15:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  The Australian Financial Review [27] also mentions the 230 economists letter as pointed out by several editors below. It's not listed on WP:RSP, but there's no indication that it's unreliable. X-Editor (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1a or 1b The veracity of the letter can be confirmed by its primary source, so if there's any misinformation from the secondary sources, that could be identified (but I don't see that). That the letter has been identified by reliable sources like Reason and The Hill makes it appropriate to include, particularly as to maintain NPOV with the supporting letter. --Masem (t) 16:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  The primary source for the letter is a random Google Drive link, so I don't see how that confirms the letter's veracity. The signatures/signatories haven't been verifiable AFAIK by RS. About the Hill source, it's flagged as an opinion contributor piece explicitly. While we consider Reason a biased RS, the link they use in the articles goes to this [28] and I think the letter's veracity is controversial enough that Reason shouldn't be used. Andre🚐 16:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Do we have to do the same for the 130 economists support letter? You're asking for unreasonable expectations of verification that goes far beyond the level we expect for WP. We don't expect the secondary source reporting the letter to have gone to each signaturory to verify they signed to it (in either the support or opposition letter), simply that they have judged the letter is legitimate enough to mention in their work. Masem (t) 16:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  In my opinion we can trust the 130 economists letter because it was published in RS that have high standards for verification and fact checking, but I can't say the same for the 230 economists letter, since it appears to be sketchily sourced to unreliable places. Andre🚐 16:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  The Australian Financial Review [29] also mentions the 230 economists letter as pointed out by several editors below. It's not listed on WP:RSP, but there's no indication that it's unreliable. X-Editor (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  I do not know if it is. I've been trying to research it. So far I haven't found a reason to consider it unreliable, but it does appear to be right-leaning. That's not in and of itself a problem, and the article linked appears in the "analysis" section, but it's not so brazenly an op-ed as the Reason article that I objected to. Andre🚐 03:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  If there's no indication that the source is unreliable, then I don't think there's harm in using it. It also looks far more reliable than the op-eds. X-Editor (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  At the moment, I agree, it is the best and probably the only possibly acceptable source for this letter. Still, that's 1 source for this letter versus at least more than 1 for the other one, which implies that the lesser-attested letter is in a minority in its representation in reliable sources. Andre🚐 03:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's true, but that doesn't mean it should not be added, because the goal of NPOV is to cover all views published by reliable sources. X-Editor (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1a, both letters should be treated equally.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 a or b The existence of the letter is not in doubt or dispute. Being mentioned by Fox Business News and Reason is sufficient to establish weight for including the simple fact that it exists. The mention by house members during discussions (the C-span reference) can help assuage any fear that the letter simply doesn't exist. Springee (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 - This letter should not be included. It is simply not mentioned in reporting enough, making it not relevant enough to include. In stark contrast, to the other letter, this letter has effectively no reliable sourcing, except for one article in controversial standing that links back to the non-reliable source in question. We shouldn't have to include a Fox article for this. This is the course of action that is most inline with NPOV. CrazyPredictor (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1b for both. I would suggest to keep the reactions section as concise as possible and just wait and see what the impact would be. This should not be in the Impact section per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Alaexis_¿question? 19:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1a: both letters should mentioned in the reaction section. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1a or b – Question 1 and Question 2 belong in the same section; either 1a for both or 1b for both. Atsme 💬 📧 23:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1a b - Neither letter received a ton of news coverage but given the fact that each letter was signed by hundreds of notable economists, I think a single sentence (two at most) for each letter would be WP:PROPORTIONAL. This is better for the reaction section since the impact of the law hasn't really been established. Also, to argue to include one letter but not the other is a plainly clear WP:NPOV vio. (FWIW, the Australian Financial Review, a top international business newspaper, covered the second letter, mentioning Vernon L. Smith and some other signatories [30] ). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1a - Letter lacks in depth economic analysis so should be placed as one sentence in the reaction section.--Guest2625 (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1b - Reason is greenlit at WP:RSP, and Fox Business and the Hill could be cited as supporting. It's a letter signed by 230 economist. Clearly, it's DUE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 16:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1a or b Fine with either section. Op-eds are fine for adding to the reaction section, but AFR also exists. UNDUE weight does not mean entirely excluding "minority" positions, even though more economists signed the "UNDUE" letter. X-Editor (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1a the source is not a quantitative assessment, it is simply the reaction of a group of economists to the bill, not an analysis of the impact, and therefore it belongs in the reaction section. Bill Williams 12:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  not a quantitiative assessment - How do you know the basis and methods they used to reach their conclusions? Link? Most of them have little armies of research assistants and other resources at their disposal. SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 UNDUE partisan false balance contrived by political opposition to Democrats' UNDUE economist letter. And the "economists" on the Republican list are a singularly undistinguished lot. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  I respect that you have picked option 2 for both letters. I don't think it's correct to say the economists on the opposed letter are undistinguished. Per the AFR source the opposition includes Nobel laureate Vernon L. Smith, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers Kevin Hassett, former director of the Office of Management and Budget Jim Miller, and Robert Heller, president of the Federal Reserve Board from 1986 to 1989. Not exactly nobodies. Springee (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  Not that you can't find a few notable names, but as a lot, the lot of them is undistinguished. Smith is distinguished, but his work is about as far as you could get from macro, monetary policy and the like. The others you linked, non-confirmed Republican appointees, bankers, whatever. Yes, an unimpressive list to opine on the policy issues at hand. SPECIFICO talk 17:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  The Republican letter didn't even attempt to put forth any economic analysis or prinicples. It's an openly partisan polemic, perhaps quotable for Fox and the other weak sources that have been offered, but certainly not a serious assessment of impact. If it is to be included as reaction, we would need to see whether there are mainstream sources that take the opposition letter seriously enough to cover and evaluate it. The links up top in this RfC are disqualifying on their face, starting with Fox and the Aussie. SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  Australian Financial Review [31] has taken the 230 economist letter seriously and there's no indication that they are unreliable. X-Editor (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  "UNDUE partisan false balance contrived by political opposition" is an assertion backed up by zero evidence and is extremely conspiratorial. X-Editor (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  When ya gotta go Down Under to dredge up RS for WEIGHT, your on thin ice. And nobody suggested conspiratorial, just shall we say -- purposeful. As opposed to substantive or reasoned or like that. SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  You've failed to prove that the Australia source is unreliable. Besides, if we're going to add this to the reactions section, then the op-eds linked above are fine for that. WEIGHT does not necessarily mean excluding minority viewpoints. X-Editor (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  Straw man. I didn't say it's generally unreliable. I said it fails to support WEIGHT. Would you need to cite Chicago Tribune in an article about kangaroos? In this case, it's not a great source, either, and Bob's your uncle. SPECIFICO talk 23:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1b Reason and Fox Business are reliable sources; however, this letter receives much less notice from the whole body of reliable sources. I think it deserves a spot in the article as a counterpoint to the first letter in the Impact section, but certainly with a smaller mention than the first letter.PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1a WP:NOTEWORTHY enough to be included. — hako9 (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1a or b Supporting using the same reasons as stated by Iamreallygoodatcheckers. - LilySophie (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1a - as per all above, it is a noteworthy reaction and not an impact. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

See also the discussions above elsewhere on this page. Andre🚐 14:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a confusing structure. You should ask this as a single question with two parts, "Should A and/or B be included? If yes should it be in Reactions or Impact"? I would suggest restructuring before there are more replies. Springee (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this structure. Andre🚐 15:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

As a point of reference, the Fox source is Fox Business News. Adfonts' media bias chart rates Fox Business news as quite respectable with Reliability: 43.34 and Bias: 5.88[32]. This puts the source into neutral bias (+-6 pts) and in the reliable, factual reporting range. In terms of reliability that puts it on par with The Guardian but a bit less biased in absolute terms. For reference the Washington Post is more biased and less reliable (40 and -8.8) Springee (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Ad fontes is not an RS. Andre🚐 18:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Which would matter if I were trying cite it in an article to say something like "The New York Times ratings are X and Y [cite adfontes]". Since that isn't what we are discussing that isn't important. Media rating sites can be used for talk page discussions about the reliability of sources. Springee (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer sources better The New York Times. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Springee, Fox Business is worse than Fox News, with the likes of Maria Bartiromo, who is just short of the My Pillow Guy. SPECIFICO talk 18:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Just because Fox Business is allegedly worse than a top-tier source, does not mean we cannot use it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan:: Point of order, regarding include vs. mention in the Rfc statement. To me, include is an unfortunate word choice as it implies including the text of the letter, which wouldn't be appropriate (although it could perhaps be added to Wikisource, and then linked here in various ways) but I'm pretty sure you didn't mean it that way. If you agree, can you please change the word included to mentioned? I think most respondents to date are, in fact, interpreting it that way, but I was unsure when I read the words. Since people have already responded, WP:REDACT applies; however, since the word occurs eight times, the strikeout/underline convention might be a bit visually disruptive; perhaps you could instead append a statement, "by include, this means, 'mention' and not full-text inclusion", or some such. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Oops, sure, I will append that statement. Andre🚐 20:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Here is another source that mentions the 230 letter, Financial Review [33]. From that source, Others think the legislation will actually contribute to inflation. A letter sent to House and Senate leadership from 230 economists argue the act will add to price rises. The economists include Nobel laureate Vernon Smith, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers Kevin Hassett, former director of the Office of Management and Budget Jim Miller, and Robert Heller, president of the Federal Reserve Board from 1986 to 1989. In addition, professors from the University of Chicago, Princeton University, Duke University, the University of Virginia, Columbia University and the University of Notre Dame signed the letter. So just as the "pro" letter has Nobel laureates, the oppose does as well. Springee (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

One of the citations for the first letter is a Forbes contributer article, which is not reliable per WP:RSP. X-Editor (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

True. Here are AP [34] USA Today [35] Politico [36] [37] Sac Bee [38] Andre🚐 03:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

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