Talk:Supply-side progressivism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by CSJJ104 (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that supply-side progressives complain that the United States has closed more nuclear power plants than it has created this century? Source: Thompson, Derek (2022-01-12). "A Simple Plan to Solve All of America's Problems". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
    • Reviewed:

Created by Ruthgrace (talk) and Qzekrom (talk). Nominated by Ruthgrace (talk) at 18:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • I am reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/William George Carlile Kent for the QPQ requirement. Ruthgrace (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for writing an interesting new article! This is pretty close, but I believe the hook needs adjusting. "Progressives" is plural in the hook, but from what I can tell, the cited article is one person's analysis, so this isn't quite precise. For maximum strength of hook, I'd also suggest basing a hook in whatever you have that's close to being an independent secondary source (maybe the Irwin article?) rather than one of the opinion pieces.
Other elements look good though. Recency check: author nominated the article on June 20, and it was moved to mainspace on June 16. Article is more than long enough. It has a good density of citations; I went through all the citations, and much of it is cited to opinion pieces, but that seems appropriate for the subject matter when framed appropriately (and I checked the framing). Hook is short enough. Topic is of interest to a broad audience. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say that I have tweaked the hook, replacing "it's" with "it has" for formal writing. BTW, Ruthgrace, you are still QPQ-exempt as it's your first nomination but thank you for tackling that. I'll look over your review to make sure that you haven't missed anything (DYK is a complex business, after all). Schwede66 02:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC) done; looks all good Schwede66 03:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made a minor formatting change to the hook per MOS:USA. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been struggling to think of an alt hook that is nearly as interesting as a DYK. Ruthgrace (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK how about this?
  • Alt 1 ... that supply-side progressives complain about how environmental regulations make it hard to build renewable energy plants, while oil and gas drilling are mostly exempt.
Sources:
  • Thompson, Derek (2022-01-12). "A Simple Plan to Solve All of America's Problems". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
  • Yglesias, Matthew (November 2, 2021). "Energy innovation needs more than R&D". Slow Boring. Retrieved 2022-06-15.
  • Alt 2 ... that instead of conserving energy, supply-side progressives believe that we need an abundance of energy, especially clean energy, to continue human progress.
Sources:
  • Yglesias, Matthew (October 7, 2021). "The case for more energy". Slow Boring. Retrieved 2022-06-03.
  • Pritzker, Rachel (December 12, 2014). "The Case for Energy Abundance". Stanford Social Innovation Review. Retrieved 2022-06-15.
Ruthgrace (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthgrace: I don't know how much this applies to DYKs, but I think it would be good to rewrite these in an encyclopedic tone. For example, first- and second-person pronouns like "we" should be avoided: "supply-side progressives believe that we need an abundance of energy, especially clean energy, to continue human progress" → "supply-side progressives believe that abundant, clean energy is important for continued human progress". Similarly, the first alt could be reworded to avoid "complain about how".
Also, when describing a point of view, it's important to be specific about who is expressing that point of view. Claims like "supply-side progressives believe X" are vague. Which individuals believe X, and are they really supply-side progressives or not?
Here are some example hooks that fit the encyclopedic mold better IMO (we can use more interesting ones):
Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 13:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Is this any better?
  • ALT 1.1: ... that supply-side progressives call attention to the fact that environmental regulations make it hard to build renewable energy plants, while oil and gas drilling are mostly exempt?
Sources:
  • Thompson, Derek (2022-01-12). "A Simple Plan to Solve All of America's Problems". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
  • Yglesias, Matthew (November 2, 2021). "Energy innovation needs more than R&D". Slow Boring. Retrieved 2022-06-15.
Ruthgrace (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Dreamyshade for a look at the newly proposed hooks. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! @Ruthgrace I think this is closer but still a bit tricky for DYK, since I'd like to try to be super clear about what's advocacy and what's established fact. Here's another option, curious if it sounds ok to you. It's 166 characters, within the 200 character limit (Wikipedia:Did you know/Hook length). Although it still has the issue that @Qzekrom pointed out about being vague about who is making these claims — if that still seems important even in this iteration, I think the alt about Klein is a reasonable compromise between clarity and interestingness. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT 3: ... that supply-side progressivism is a liberal version of supply-side economics, such as the theory of increasing labor supply by providing child care subsidies? Sourced to Irwin article: “It amounts to a liberal version of "supply-side economics" ... The clearest example of a program that appears to increase labor supply and hence the United States’ economic potential is the earned-income tax credit (E.I.T.C.) ... a major driver of higher employment among single mothers ... Child care subsidies appear to work the same way.”
Thanks so much. I like Alt 3! Let's run with it. Who has the ability to approve? Ruthgrace (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'm updating my review to approved (via this green checkmark), so the next step is for volunteers who generally work on assembling DYK queues to decide if they feel comfortable incorporating it. This can take a little while, sometimes a week or two. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A new reviewer is needed for ALT3. Editors can't approve their own hooks. SL93 (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93, Dreamyshade, and Ruthgrace: The cited source is an NYT Upshot blog opinion column and it doesn't seem to mention anything by the name of "supply-side progressivism". Can we get a better source? Additionally, I'm looking through the article and the 96 word-long pullquote from what appears to be a non-free source looks like it may well pose an issue for WP:FREER part b; the notion that the view of Pritzker cannot be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all seems somewhat dubious to me. Brief quotations are fine, per WP:NFCC, but this pullquote seems to use quite a bit more non-free content than is consistent with the criterion of no free equivalent. This needs to be fixed before this goes to the main page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 11:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I went ahead and condensed that quote into a brief paraphrase of key points. I'll defer to others on ALT-crafting. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dreamyshade: What are the changes you made to ALT 3? I don't see any changes to it in the version history since the others' comments. Oh never mind, it's on the article. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 03:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another alternate hook for your consideration:
  • Alt 4: ... that supply-side progressivism is a response to rising costs of housing, healthcare, and other essential goods in the United States? Source: Walsh, Bryan (2021-12-18). "The case for creating more of everything". Axios. Retrieved 2022-04-25.
Let me know if this needs improvement. I'm a little worried that the phrase "essential goods" (for housing, healthcare, college, etc.) is inherently value-laden, but (1) it is used in the source and (2) it corresponds to terms used by economists such as necessity goods and basic needs. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 03:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like it! What do you think, User:Red-tailed hawk and User:BlueMoonset? Ruthgrace (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of consumer staples vs discretionary goods is pretty well-established, though it gets quite a bit more hazy when the services portion of the economy is brought into the fold. But I think that basically anyone is going to lump housing and medicine as essential, so I don't see reason to be concerned with this hook. I like it. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk: Is this a {{DYKtick}}? Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 21:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is a . — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The very last phrases in the sections "History", "Encouraging innovation", and "Transportation" need citations before this can be promoted. CSJJ104 (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CSJJ104: Ah yeah, there were some half-cited sentences. I refined the citations. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now good to go CSJJ104 (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions[edit]

From checking out this article for DYK, a couple additional suggestions for strengthening the article — not necessary for DYK, but in case helpful:

  • Can you compare this in more depth to the standard/traditional concepts of supply-side economics? For example, both seem to advocate for reducing government regulations in various ways? Does supply-side progressivism advocate for reducing taxes?
  • What are some critiques or responses to advocates of this concept?
  • Are there scholarly/journal sources that could be incorporated? I saw this article, for example.
  • How does this concept relate to this article's description of "Supply-Side Liberalism"?

Dreamyshade (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Supply-side_progressivism&oldid=1207469055"