Should the lead add a short sentence noting that there is consensus among economists that the United States is not on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve?

The text would be sourced to this survey of leading economists:[1]. (Original date of RfC: 20 July 2020). New date for the purposes of a RfC restart: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: RFC tag removed per WP:RFCBEFORE. There appears to have been zero discussion on this – merely one attempt at an addition that got reverted. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I wholly support the reversion. A statement like that with no context is meaningless. Even with context, this is a biography about Laffer. Placement in the lead (or anywhere really), about a single survey about the current state of a single country is completely off-topic. And what's the "wrong side"? The survey doesn't even say anything about a "right" or "wrong" side; it merely asks about the predicted effects of a tax cut. Putting in the context of an idea which the article admits wasn't even original to Laffer is...just...Jesus man, do you even listen to yourself? (Not to mention that there isn't even universal acceptance that the Laffer curve is a meaningful model, but that's another story). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem very unfamiliar with the topic in question, so here's a summary: Laffer's prime claim to fame is in popularizing the Laffer curve and arguing that the US is on the wrong side of it (that's why half the lead is about the Laffer curve). Being on the wrong side of the Laffer curve is the notion that tax cuts would pay for themselves, a notion that a consensus of economists reject. You want to obscure this consensus – good for you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the reasons cited by Decon Vorbis, WP:GLOBAL is relevant here. The Laffer curve is a general theory that (if correct) would apply to any taxation at any time anywhere on the planet. Randomly gluing some text into the lede about opinions about *one* tax in *one* country at *one* time is absurdly US biased. And you can stop calling this a "consensus". The sited source is simply a survey of some *US* economists, again, US biased. Bonewah (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "general theory" it is generally viewed as nonsense. It was never more than a rationalization of policies that appealed to Reagan and that later underpinned the career of Laffer. SPECIFICO talk 15:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this article notes that Greg Mankiw, a conservative economics professor at Harvard University said the authors "do not build their analysis on the foundation of professional consensus or serious studies from peer-reviewed journals. . . . The Laffer curve is undeniable as a matter of economic theory. There is certainly some level of taxation at which cutting tax rates would be win-win. (emphasis mine). Even if it were a non-sense theory, its would be a general non-sense theory, not one specific to The US. Bonewah (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its also worth noting that Karl Case and Ray Fair's 'Principles of Economics' 8th edition, a widely cited reliable source, absolutely does not describe the Laffer curve as nonsense. They say, in part, that "There is obviously some tax rate between zero and 100 percent at which tax revenue is at a maximum. ... Somewhere in between zero and 100 is the maximum-revenue rate". No where in their discussion of the laffer curve do they say or even imply that the theory is 'nonsense'. Bonewah (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between the Laffer curve (which no one disagrees with) and Laffer's application of the curve to the US (Laffer has argued consistently for decades that the US is on the wrong side of the curve), which there is a consensus against. As John Quiggin notes, the Laffer curve was "correct but unoriginal" whereas Laffer's analysis that the United States was on the wrong side of the Laffer curve "was original but incorrect."[2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that is why we discuss Laffer's application of the curve in the US in the body of this article. The only real question is whether this survey, not a consensus, but a survey of some economists about one tax in one place at one time is relevant to the lede of a biography about Laffer himself. Bonewah (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The "survey of leading economists" in the OP of this discussion fails WP:V because it does not say what the opening statement purports it to say. The questions presented to the economists in 2012 were, in their entirety: "Question A: A cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would lead to higher GDP within five years than without the tax cut." and "Question B: A cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut." Nowhere does there appear any consensus among the surveyed economists about the Laffer Curve's general applicability or what side of it the US may or may not be on. We could extrapolate from those responses, especially the responses to Question B, what the economists might think about the Laffer curve but that would be clearly WP:SYNTH. Any general statement about the Laffer Curve's as a theory is not supported by the source offered. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on the above rather insightful comment, the survey doesn't even attempt to ask what side of the curve the US was on at the time. Assume for the sake of argument that a cut in tax rates would raise taxable income enough so that tax revenue would be only slightly lower than without the tax cut. Now compare that with the assumption that the slope of the curve at that point went the other way. The questions asked don't differentiate between getting 95% back and getting 0% or a negative percent back. It is a binary choice: over 100% back or under 100% back. Interesting, but useless when applied to claims about the slope of the curve at a particular time. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, there is no "right" or "wrong" side. First we have to ignore the possibility that there are multiple local extrema on the curve, all while making the simplifying assumption where we treat an entire economy's output as a simple function of tax rates rather than as a complex dynamical system. Ignoring all that, then any point away from the maximum is suboptimal. Either side of the maximum is the "wrong" side. There's only a "wrong" side if you're making a statement with respect to either raising or lowering tax rates, in which case, either side may be the "wrong" side depending on your point of view. So making the statement that we're on the "wrong" side is meaningless and meant only to prejudice the reader. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, very similar to the "consensus" based on an IGM survey over at Gold standard[3]. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed yes. Bonewah (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why has the original date of the RFC been changed? (I see "Ignore Expired" has also been introduced as well.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[4] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why restart this? Do you think 4:6 against will turn into a consensus to include? Springee (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of odd to extend it since there are no new votes since July (and a slim consensus is there). But we can wait a while and put in a request for closure if no new votes emerge.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

!Votes[edit]

• Oppose. (And I'm glad to be the first person to actually put in a "Support" or "Oppose"!) Whether it represents consensus or not, a random statement about the current tax policy of one country makes no sense anywhere in this article. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's not at all clear why such a POINTy comment would be in the lead of a BLP. Springee (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support mention of consensus in the lead, just not in the first paragraph. It should definitely be mentioned in the paragraph that discusses it's use by US conservatives to justify tax reductions. Not mentioning it there would be egregious. LK (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Laffer's claim to fame is in very large party due to the Laffer curve and its purported application to US politics. There is consensus among economists that the US is not on the wrong side of the Laffer curve (confirmed with this survey and supported by every single tax cut assessment of the last 50 years), despite Laffer's rhetoric. As economist John Quiggin points out, the Laffer curve was "correct but unoriginal" whereas Laffer's analysis that the United States was on the wrong side of the Laffer curve "was original but incorrect."[5] See also the comment above by LK who has a PhD in economics and has published peer-reviewed research in econ journals. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This has been the basis of previously unknown Laffer's lifelong notability. And it's the basis of the Reaganized GOP economic policy platform for the past several decades, taken on faith as the solemn rationalization of tax cuts for the most heavily taxed, i.e. Republican donors. SPECIFICO talk 13:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Laffer curve? Yes. This one survey of opinions about one particular tax? No. Bonewah (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose.Per above. And do note that several other editors seem to oppose it as well but have not specified it here. Bonewah (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: per Snooganssnoogans soibangla (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I seriously doubt the majority of our readers will even know what it means, much less care. It doesn't pass WP:10YT but it should be mentioned and defined somewhat in the body text if it truly is as significant as some seem to think. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose if we're having to !vote I may as well make my opposition clear. The proposed edit is supported by a reference that does not state what the proposer wants it to state. That fails our fundamental principles so badly it is disturbing to see experienced editors supporting it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)
• Oppose As per Eggishore's comments (on 16:20, 20 July 2020). I'm not sure if Laffer himself has ever said (explicitly) where the peak of "his" curve actually is. We can extrapolate through his support of various tax cuts where.....but he supported Bill Clinton at one point (who raised the top marginal rate) as well. If we can find a source more explicit on this point, I would change my vote.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Qualified Support: I would support this alternative wording: after In certain circumstances, this would allow governments to cut taxes, and simultaneously increase revenue and economic growth. insert Laffer argued that these circumstances were much more common than most economists do, and that the United States was in those circumstances although most economists believe it was not. This is basically what we already have in the section for the Laffer Curve, and it's really this and not the curve itself that Laffer is known for. Loki (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source in question doesnt support your proposed additions. Bonewah (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But several other sources in the relevant section we already have do. Loki (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Im not opposed to your proposed edit as it speaks to why Laffer is important. The problem is that you and Mx. Granger support !voted for something that is the exact opposite. The proposed edits at issue in this RFC seek to put in the lead not central details about Laffer's role in US economics, but a reference to an informal survey of some economists from 8 years ago about whether or not a change in one particular tax in the United States at that time would lead to increased revenue. As far as im concerned, you can make your edit now as it seems non-controversial to me. However, i would ask that you strike or reconsider your support for the RFC's proposed change as it runs counter to what you seem to support. Bonewah (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I view it as a compromise proposal: it's not a support for Snoogan's exact wording but something that I think preserves Snoogan's intent while hopefully answering some of the objections to that particular wording. Loki (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Seems somewhat absurd to use an 8 year old survey (in which only about 40 economists were polled) that asked for future predictions and, based off that, we extrapolate a "consensus" about the current state of the US economy. And stick this supposed "consensus" into a lead of a BLP? WP:OR is a policy for a reason. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support something like Loki's suggestion, as that clarifies the relevance of the example in this biographical article. Oppose including this example in the lead without drawing the connection to Laffer's views. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Loki's version. A huge part of the article is devoted to Laffer's impact on US politics and economics and on the debate over that, so it is important to have at least a sentence on the mainstream consensus on that impact somewhere in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Loki version. This is one of the main things that Laffer is known for. (t · c) buidhe 03:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose To mention the US case in the introduction is geographical bias, to mention the current situation is temporal bias. The rejection of Laffer's view by other economists (when applied to the present moment) should be mentioned elsewhere in the article.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree because Laffer is not only an American economist who talks primarily about American economic policy, but at the time he became well known he was an adviser to the US government. Not all mentions of America are bias. (Also, my quote specifically refers to the situation at the time he proposed the Laffer Curve, or rather, proposed tax cuts based on the curve.) Loki (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Better sourcing needed, even for Loki's version. I'll bet it's out there. But neither proposal is reliably sourced. R2 (bleep) 21:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing is in the section on the Laffer Curve, which cites several economists stating that Laffer was wrong about tax cuts leading to increased revenue at current tax rates. Loki (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support LokiTheLiar's version or something close to it. Lawrencekhoo, SPECIFICO, et al. are correct that the fact that what this person is notable for does not have much in the way of real-world consensus. So, per WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE we need to make that clear from the lead on down. But we need to avoid editorializing, or overstating the degree to which experts disagree with Laffer (which is by no means unanimously).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Springee.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. per above discussion.Sea Ane (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above discussion. Heart ^(talk) 05:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. While debatably terrible, the Laffer curve is one of the top 10 reasons (shit, I'll say top 3) why the American economy is the way it is today. It's just as having a long-lasting impact as other parts of Reaganomics, and that's a pretty damn significant achievement on Laffer's part. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (but support Loki's first clause, see below) I'm sorry but I fail to see how the status of a single country (even if it is the world's second largest economy in ppp terms) at a single point in time could possibly be due weight for the lead in this or any bio. Honestly it comes off as some sort of WP:COATRACK, with helpings of WP:RECENTISM and WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. I get that Laffer was an American and the English Wikipedia is disproportionately written by Americans, but this is ridiculous. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the status of the United States is important is because Laffer was an advisor to the US government when he developed the curve, and was clear that he did it to support Reagan's proposed tax plan. As such, whether the curve actually did support Reagan's tax plan is very important information. (Also, what do you think of my version?) Loki (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LokiTheLiar: thanks for your reply. I do find your suggestion superior. When I first read the proposal I was most reminded of this (permalink), which is just silly. I like your first clause which is not specific to any one place and time. More on the fence about your second leaning weak oppose. It's reasonable to put a spotlight on the status of the United States at the time he published the work, but that feels more like a body thing than a lead thing. What we absolutely should not be anywhere (barring some dedicated WP:LISTCRUFT which an AfD bizarrely finds acceptable). Are statements explaining that the consensus of economists in YYYY was that in year ZZZZ $COUNTRY was at position foo in economical diagram bar, and that applies regardless of how many Wikipedians are from $COUNTRY. Hope that clears things up. Cheers, 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Including that in the lede is tantamount to editorializing. Discussions of where the US (or any other country) falls on the curve belongs in the body of the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the status of the United States is important is because Laffer was an advisor to the US government when he developed the curve, and was clear that he did it to support Reagan's proposed tax plan. As such, whether the curve actually did support Reagan's tax plan is very important information. (Also, what do you think of my version?) 05:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Loki (talk)

If you mean this version, I still don't believe Wikipedia needs to make that declaration in the lede. Furthermore, the wording is a little awkward; "most economists" being used twice in sentence. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is not notable anough to place in the lede, but would work well in Laffer curve's lede. ~ HAL333 19:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose in the lead of this article, as per all the above reasons. Could go it the text body of Laffer curve or Economy of the United States. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should the bolded text (Laffer's belief that public health measures shouldn't be implemented if they are costly to the economy and his false claims that the COVID-19 death toll is inflated) be included in the body of the article?: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In 2020, Laffer advised the Trump administration on how to re-open the economy amid the coronavirus pandemic.^[1][2][3] Laffer argued against policies intended to protect at-risk groups at a cost to the economy.^[4][5] Laffer argued for halting coronavirus rescue relief spending, calling instead for payroll tax cuts.^[6][7] He advocated for taxes on non-profit organizations in education and the arts, as well as for salary reductions for professors and government officials.^[7] He argued against expansion of unemployment aid, arguing it discouraged people from working.^[7] He suggested that the coronavirus death toll was inflated, falsely claiming that doctors attributed deaths to the coronavirus regardless of whether the coronavirus caused the death: "When you attribute a death to the coronavirus today, what that means is that the guy had the coronavirus and died. It doesn’t matter if he got hit by a car and died, and he would still be categorized as a coronavirus death."^[8]

Survey (2021 Jan)[edit]

• Yes. This is crucial context to understand the specific advice he's giving the Trump administration in his capacity as an official advisor. For example, his particular policy recommendations make more sense when it's clear that Laffer doesn't believe that the COVID-19 death numbers are accurate. To remove his fringe views on COVID-19 is to sanitize and whitewash the page, ultimately misleading readers as to the nature of his advice to the Trump administration. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No First this is a premature RFC. I don't see any discussion of this specific text prior to starting the RfC. Second, there is a world of difference between "Include exactly like this" and "some of this content could be included (with IMPARTIAL and DUE in mind)". There many be some merit to the material but I think things like the excessively long sentence regarding what is classified as a COVID death is too POINTY. The source was from last May which was early in the period of widespread response. At that time many people were trying to get their heads around the basic data. Additionally, the source for this quote is a biased publication. While I have do doubt the specific quote is true, the content may not be fully provided by the The Daily Beast. The inclusion reads more like it is included to make Laffer look bad vs to help the reader understand Laffer's basic position. A less alarmist, IMPARTIAL version of the same text could be used instead of this. Springee (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, this has been discussed[6]. Second, contrary to right-wing revisionist history, this is false: "At that time many people were trying to get their heads around the basic data." Fact-checkers at the time universally described those claims as false.[7][8][9][10] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the previous discussion saying your preferred text is the correct one to include. The closed RfC didn't say that. You BOLDly added a version, another editor (not me) rejected it. Time to discuss to find consensus vs just starting yet another RfC. Springee (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first bolded sentence about economy vs at risk populations could be included if more context is added. Laffer's argument is that the slowing of the economy comes with it's own negative effects on health. "Arthur Laffer, a conservative economist known for his tax cut proposals, said allowing poverty to spread would cause its own significant health problems. " Effectively this is a tradeoff, not just a callous dismissal of at risk populations. Note that a number of sources (not about Laffer specifically) have made similar arguments when discussing lockdowns.[[11]] Springee (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No--isn't this like the 3rd RfC on Art Laffer? I find it odd that each RfC has been started in an effort to insert negative information on the subject. He wasn't on the White House COVID task force and he's not even mentioned in the article on the administration's response to the pandemic. Anyway, for the first bold part, the second LA Times article is completely redundant because the only mention of Laffer is in a hyperlink that redirects to the first LA Times article. The first LA Times article contains precisely four sentences on Laffer, and the only mention of Laffer's arguing against protecting "at-risk groups" stems from a sole sentence. The article never specifies which policies he supports or doesn't support. We are giving undue emphasis on a single sentence that lacks any context or nuance. Instead, shouldn't we just summarize his main arguments, which seems to be pay-roll tax cuts and minimal lockdown restrictions? As for the second bold part, it is once again wholly undue. There's a reason why WP:RSP states that we need to use caution when using the Daily Beast for "controversial statements of fact related to living persons." The reason why is that the Daily Beast regularly uses hyperbolic language and tends to write articles on topics most mainstream sources do not. Don't believe me? Try Googling the proposed quote: When you attribute a death to the coronavirus today, what that means is that the guy had the coronavirus and died. It doesn’t matter if he got hit by a car and died, and he would still be categorized as a coronavirus death. Nothing pops up (except in a few SPS). I don't doubt the authenticity of the quote, but we are giving improper weight on it. Also, we can not state in WP:WIKIVOICE that Laffer made a "false claim." We would have to attribute that to Bob Anderson, whose the one who states that Laffer's claim is incorrect. However, this would only be necessary if the material was due for inclusion in the first place--which it is not. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes: clearly present in the provided sources, those sources are clearly reliable, and obviously WP:DUE in the context of the above paragraph. Also, yes we can say in WP:WIKIVOICE that Laffer's claim was false. There is no point in attributing a contradiction to the person in charge of the CDC's statistics branch: the CDC's branch of statistics is obviously reliable for claims about the collection of coronavirus statistics. Trying to balance Laffer, a person with no particular expertise in how coronavirus statistics are gathered, against the head of the organization that gathers those statistics would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. Loki (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The Daily Beast simply isn't a source of enough note to include that rhetorical quote. Note that we aren't arguing about including the more important part which was a call for transparency as to what would be considered a COVID related death. Furthermore, the selection of this specific part of the quote from the DB seems to be included only to discredit the BLP subject rather than to offer a better understanding of their POV. Springee (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes: I see no reason to exclude them on the grounds of content, plausibility, or citation. Only here for the RFC, and the objections raised here look to me, as an outsider, strongly POV, irrelevant, and tendentious. JonRichfield (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No This is just more POV pushing by Snooganssnoogans. There is no inidcation that his speculation on what counts as a COVID death mattered to anyone or anything. This is cherry picking material for the purposes of making Laffer look bad. Bonewah (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 1 yes; 2 no, at least in that exact form. The first statement is true and important, the second may be reaching. It's not clear that his assessment was false (though if true was probably statistically insignificant), and while I and a zillion other people remember him saying it, I don't see any proof that it was significant in the long run. But the first part is of key importance to the article. Anyway, Snooganssnoogans is correct that "include exactly like this" and "some of this content could be included (with IMPARTIAL and DUE in mind)" are not equivalent. The first statement under discussion about Laffer could actually be reworded in various ways as long as it's present and got the same gist across. The "reaching" in the second (the implication that it made a big difference) can be excised per WP:NOR, while the bare fact that Laffer said this (quoted or paraphrased) could be retained somewhere without editorializing about it; it definitely was reported and controversial, we're just not bound to report every controversy, nor are we permitted to extrapolate about controversies.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This comment implies to me that when Laffer says When you attribute a death to the coronavirus today, what that means is that the guy had the coronavirus and died. It doesn’t matter if he got hit by a car and died, and he would still be categorized as a coronavirus death, you're reading that in a significantly different way than I do. It sounds to me like your interpretation is something like There exists at least one person who has had coronavirus, been hit by a car, and was categorized as a death from coronavirus. I agree it's very hard to disprove that interpretation conclusively, but I don't think we have to. I think that when Laffer says When you attribute a death to the coronavirus today, what that means is that the guy had the coronavirus and died, he's speaking in general terms. He's saying It's the general practice of statistics authorities to attribute all deaths of people with coronavirus to coronavirus regardless of the actual cause of death, which is definitely both falsifiable, and false. We have the head of the CDC statistics authority saying conclusively that it's false. Loki (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not about what my interpretation might be or what you think, but rather what the RS are telling us. That's all I'm really getting at. As in the RfC above this one (where I'm agreeing with your version), we need to let DUE do its job, basically: avoid editorializing or trying to imply everyone thinks this or everyone thinks that, and go with the fact that most of the sources and experts are leaning a particular way on it, though that interpretation isn't universal. It's more important that what the person is actually notable for is covered, rather than something that was a public-relations blip that fired up various people (positively or mostly negatively) but which in a year or 5 years or 100 years won't be why people are reading this article. Pretty much everyone with any connection to US politics during the Trump administration said controversial things; we don't need to catalogue all of them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Is this a comment that was meant as rhetorical hyperbole when made or do we know that Laffer literally thought this was true? One of my concerns with quote mining (both by sources and on Wikipedia) is so often context is lost. It is clear that Laffer was concerned that the fatality numbers may be inflated. Do we think he literally believed that a person with a mild case of COVID who happens to die due to clear injuries suffered in a car crash would be counted as a COVID death? A more impartial way of handling this would be to say what his point was rather than cherry picking the hyperbolic rhetorical statement as if that was the critical point. It would be impartial to say Laffer claimed/said/was concerned that deaths that were not directly attributable to COVID were being classified as such which would inflate the fatality statistics. This was disputed by X. While it happens all the time, taking rhetorical comments out of the speaker's context is poor reporting and not something we should support here. Springee (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  We are not cherrypicking what the source wrote. This is exactly what the source wrote about Laffer: he used bad reasoning, and it was refuted. If there has been cherrypicking, it was done by the reliable source, and if you are trying to argue against that, you are second-guessing that reliable source. Which is called WP:OR.

  You could argue that it is WP:UNDUE. But this affair is pretty representative for the way economy-minded people like Laffer approach problems which lie outside their expertise, such as climate change or COVID-19: by grasping for straws. Laffer is the one who is cherry-picking. Worse: the cherries he picks do not even exist as data, they are hypothetical. RS noticed, and we report that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You should review WP:OR. This is a talk page where OR is allowed. We aren't even including the full quote that the rather partisan Daily Beast attributed to Laffer ("... You need the whole transcribed medical records on a disk so people can sit there, maybe without names, and look for causes and correlations."). If this quote is only attributed to DB then it isn't due. If, as you suggest, many other sources are talking about this quote then show them. Additionally, your comment that, "this affair is pretty representative for the way economy-minded people like Laffer approach problems which lie outside their expertise", suggests that you want to include this, not because it's significant to Laffer but because you feel it's significant to the public debates about COVID. That's fine. Add it, with full context etc, to those articles. Springee (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OR is a very basic rule. I have been editing Wikipedia for 15 years now, and when I say "this is OR" in this contexxt, you can assume that I don't mean "you should not write your own conclusions on Talk pages" but "we should not modify the article based on your own conclusions that a reliable source made a mistake".

  When I said, this affair is pretty representative, now that was OR on my side, which is, as you say, allowed on Talk pages. I never had any intention of adding it to articles, and I never suggested anything like it. Instead, I just used it to explain why Laffer's extremely stupid and misleading car claim, which was refuted by a reliable source, is an interesting fact about him. You don't accept that, fine. But don't invent strawmen about what I supposedly want to include where and which rules I supposedly have to review. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes This is an accurate quote that was widely covered and is relevant to include. Reywas92^Talk 06:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes If someone known for his expertise in subject A utters dangerous bullshit about subject B, and some uninformed people take him seriously because they do not understand the way academic knowledge works, and experts on subject B state that his claims are false, and if we have reliable secondary sources about all that, Wikipedia should not help him spread misinformation by concealing the fact that he does. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Are we here to impartially summarize this person or right great wrongs? Springee (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of us are here to report on what reliable sources say about Laffer. If they criticize him for saying stupid things, so be it. "Impartial" does not mean cutting the negative stuff out. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It is one thing to summarize, it is another to try to imply something that his rhetorical hyperbole may not have meant. Look at the actual statement from Laffer then look at how Snoogans's is summarizing it to mean something else. Laffer's comment "It doesn’t matter if he got hit by a car and died, and he would still be categorized as a coronavirus death." is clearly hyperbole. Look at the part of the quote that Snoogan's chose to leave out, "You need the whole transcribed medical records on a disk so people can sit there, maybe without names, and look for causes and correlations." That moves us back to something closer to what he originally said. Note that the DB doesn't provide the full source for that quote and it's not exactly an impartial source. Laffer may be wrong in the end but the presentation here seems to be aimed at making him look like an idiot/conspiracy theorist rather than someone pointing out a legitimate, if ultimately incorrect concern. Springee (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  "Clearly hyperbole"? Nothing clear about it. See Poe's Law.

  "You need the whole transcribed medical records" is his conclusion from his car accident "hyperbole". Yes, it is desirable to have lots of information in order to arrive at a reliable number. But that has to be weighted against the time needed for that. If you do not look at all the details, you will make mistakes in both directions, mistakes which make the virus seem more dangerous or less dangerous. So, what mistakes are we talking about here? Laffer chose to mention one hypothetical error, one which no professional would make and which, wonder of wonders, would make the COVID numbers increase. The picture Laffer draws is one where doctors either fake data, or make moronic mistakes, to make the virus seem more dangerous, and where free-market economists need to tell them how to do their job. (Well, they don't. Free-market economists' actual role is hindering doctors and other scientists, e.g. climatologists, doing their job, driving out actual, fact-based reasoning and replacing it by ideology-driven lies.) That picture does not change when you add the "whole transcribed medical records" bit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any proof that "some uninformed people take him seriously" in this regard as you claim? Bonewah (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SKYISBLUE? Some people even took Trump's suggestions on preventing COVID with disinfectants seriously. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really? No need for proof then? This is important because some people took him seriously and we know that because you said so? Id say im surprised, but your parenthetical statement suggests you were going to reach this conclusion no matter what it took, and here we are. Bonewah (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist on this, you can remove the "some uninformed people take him seriously" part in your head, and the rest of what I said is still a good justification for keeping the text. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes and Yes - Both widely reported and widely repeated by Trump and his supporters. SPECIFICO talk 17:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well im glad we resolved that via facts and citations and not just assertion. Bonewah (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, these are accurate summaries of the sources, which seem to be reasonably extensive. The latter quote is specifically cited in the source in the context of a broader push from the Trump administration to argue that COVID deaths were being overcounted, with Laffer's argument specifically being given as an example of how that argument is presented by his closest advisors. It is unusual for a presidential advisor's specific advice to get that much attention, so a few brief sentences covering it in the section devoted to that part of his biography is appropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember that the latter quote, which was cut down from the quote in the DB. The DB is a rather biased source so the fact that they decided to fixate on such a "soundbite" doesn't really mean it's something that would pass the 10YT. Springee (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]