Talk:College tuition in the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reference 14 leads to 404

I was looking through this article's references and I noticed that reference 14 doesn't lead to anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.215.116.209 (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting the consensus reached on the Inflation issue

Re this suggestion, I am revisiting the fact that we already arrived at consensus and now others want to reverse it.96.59.129.109 (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Based on this notification of the consensus reached here, I intended to revert the edit in question here. Fair notice given of intent to revert edit, based on prior consensus reached. Discussion welcome.96.59.129.109 (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus. No one ever said that if you find a reliable source then we can include a line about how loan forgiveness is not inflationary. There was no "agreement." I don't think it's useful or necessary to include that line, for the reasons I explained above, even if you did find reliable sourcing. Beyond that, though, you haven't found a reliable source for what you want to include. None of the sources you provided indicated that loan forgiveness is not inflationary. Flyte35 (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus. Incorrect: At this link there was consensus: ElKevbo said "If it's not something written about it in the many reliable sources on this subject then it's probably not something we should include in an encyclopedia article." This implies that the opposite is also true: That if it was written about in other sources, then it probably wasn't undue emphasis. Indeed, you did not contest at the time, even though you were part of that discussion, so why are you griping about it now? (Thus, all 3 editors accepted ElKevbo's suggestion, you being 1 of the 3, and I'd call that consensus. None of the sources you provided indicated that loan forgiveness is not inflationary. What? Can't you read!? The 1st source outright makes that statement, namely that loan forgiveness is not inflationary, and the next two state the same in reverse, namely, that lack of loan forgiveness (and other consumer protections) does result in inflation (possibly referring to tuition inflation, but this is a part of total inflation, and thus total inflation increases, so either interpretation, "tuition inflation" or "regular" inflation are supportive of the conclusion). The last source defines a word to support the first three. You are out of order, brother: the only argument you make that is even remotely possible is that it is undue emphasis (but the weight of evidence opposes that trivializing of the point too). Is everything alright?96.59.135.244 (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe get other editors, go to the village pump, etc., to break the tie if you insist on flip-flopping here?96.59.135.244 (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it does not imply that the opposite is true. There was no agreement about any of this. The fact that there are not reliable sources saying loan forgiveness is not inflationary is one reason not to include the line. There are other reasons as well, which I explained above. The line is simply unnecessary and does not make the point any clearer.

And no, while I really do appreciate your persistence on this, the only thing you've got to say loan forgiveness is not inflationary is this thing, which is not published by a reliable source and, indeed, appears to contain content lifted from Wikipedia. Flyte35 (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I went back and looked at the 4 sources cited, and I will address them in turn: First, the author of this thing is cited in this article four different times at note 33, implying he is a credible source. Moreover, he was also cited by Wikipedia in reference number 8, here in an even higher-profile case. Moreover, a look at this link on his official web page links directly to the Florida Supreme Court and shows that he did better even than a sitting governor or Schiavo's own blood family in that high-profile case. That is about as 'notable' as one can get! But, his pages seem to be referenced all over the Internet, here. and here (left-hand column). here, here, here at scholarshipwiki.org, here at tvstreamtimes.co, here, tagged here at sevp.net, and Forbes Magazine even cited him for a "handy graphic" here, at the bottom of the article.

Oops: forgot one: University of Miami cites Watts here: ""Top Ten List for Myths about Terri Schiavo + critical updates from TerrisFight.org," a site maintained by Gordon Watts.".96.59.139.179 (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Wiki guidelines on identifying reliable sources state that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The article (or position paper or whatever) provided is sourced to "ThirstForJustice.net," which is just someone's blog. It's not a reliable source. None of the other sources really matter that much because none of the other sources indicate that loan forgiveness is not inflationary. Flyte35 (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe not as 'official' as, say, the NY Times or CBS, but I'd say that 3 of the 4 sources are VERY reliable and creidible. Yeah, so one dude has his own blog (or someone else's? It's hard to tell who the host of that blog is), but so what? He and 2 of the remaining 3 are VERY credible according to Wiki standards, so I don't see what your problem is? I reported our disagreement to the Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump talk page, at this link, here. While I'm angry at your lack of common sense (these sources are VERY credible, having been cited by numerous others, and 2 of the 4 are 'notable' for having been involved in 'big' things: CBS and Coast to Coast AM, and nearly winning the Terri Schiavo case single-handedly, by himself (near-miracle, I think: bragging rights for life!), and being cited numerous times by Wikipedia, itself, etc et al.: go back and click on every link I provided, OK?), nonetheless, you seem to be sincere, and so I am sincerely hoping that we get other editors to help mediate or arbitrate our dispute and disagreement, so that we can move forward in a constructive way-in a way that is respectful and does not needlessly offend you or anyone else (or myself, too, I hope).96.59.141.215 (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, none of the other sources matter because none of the other sources indicate that loan forgiveness is not inflationary. Flyte35 (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Next, the 2nd author, Alan Collinge, is cited in note 39 of this article, here and as well, was a guest on coast to coast am, referenced in rolling stone, guest wrote for Forbes, cited by CBS, and thus, I'd say, is also as 'credible' than Watts, maybe more-so on the student loan matter. (But Watts, in nearly winning on behalf of Terri Schiavo, is 'credible' insofar as he's been cited by the court, in this case, as having almost won that case by himself, apparently. However, Collinge's quote says, basically, the same thing as Watts', but in reverse. (Youcan read, can't you?)

This NY Times article cites Collnig and the 3rd guy, Garrett Mockler, so while Mockelr is not as "big name" as, say, Terri Schiavo, Barack Obama, Gordon Wayne Watts, or Alan Collinge, he's still been cited, and should be 'OK' as a "supportive' source which says the same thnig as the 2nd source, Collinge.

The last source in an official dictionary website, and is thus credible. So, are you losing your mind? All 4 of these are credible. You're getting on my nerves, FlyT.96.59.141.215 (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Help Sought

Per this suggestion, I am asking for help settling our dispute with regard both to the sources as well as the view, in general.96.59.137.142 (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

After much discussion, the consensus is to put certain sources back in, as they are indeed cited correctly.96.59.155.137 (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

That is just wrong. NO ONE said that source should be in there. Flyte35 (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You have been reported, Flyte35. See the section below.96.59.141.200 (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Updates on vandalism of this page, College tuition in the United States

A request was made here, and the request was granted here.96.59.141.200 (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

See the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Major_Vandalism_on_the_College_tuition_in_the_United_States discussion of this; consensus, while fracture, supports your claims that advocates can make recommendations. If, however, they made a legal analysis, then, yes, I would oppose your edit, if these 'advocates; were not lawyers or law professors. I agree that this other editor, Flyte35, did carnage to this article. I am surprised that he was able to get some others to agree with him that tearing out major portions of this "recommendations" sections was ok. So, I support your edit. I invite any dissenting editors to read the article, review the edit deletions, an take an assessment based on your guidelines for advocates: who can be an 'advocate'??71.101.58.56 (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree that advocates can make recommendations. Of course they can. As I explained above, however, I removed the addition of your two additional recommendations because the recommendations section is about the policy suggestions by experts to stop tuition from increasing. The recommendations you wanted to include were not policy suggestions.Flyte35 (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Recommendations, as we both agree, must have arguments supporting "why are these good recommendations," and the fact that loan forgiveness does not result in inflation can be supportive of the very recommendations that these advocates make. If the same advocates make recommendations, then doesn't it make sense that these same advocates can back up their suggestions with arguments? I agree, but you overlook the arguments in support are part-and-parcel connected. Thus, I would accept these. As is well-known to all: if these economic behemoths continue unchecked, they will squash the likes of you and me, who are (I will assume) little people, who deserve the same Standard Consumer Protections as, say, Credit Card users, who can file bankruptcy, not to mention, Donald Trump, who filed for and receive bankruptcy for large amounts on 4 different occasions. If we fight each other, we are helpless to fight the bad guys! (Oh, and the article looks like crap too, thanks to numerous wholly unnecessary deletions of key and Sine Qua Non required materials, without the which, the article collapses!).71.101.58.56 (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't have anything to do with what I'm talking about. Again, I removed the addition of your two additional recommendations because the recommendations section is about policy suggestions to stop tuition from increasing. The recommendations you wanted to include were personal finance ideas, not policy suggestions, and, thus, inappropriate for this article.Flyte35 (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

First off, what do you consider an actual advocate? All the advocates (including Watts) were published in multiple places other than their own blogs. Besides, you didn't just remove the Watts source, which would be a content dispute, but rather, you removed a bunch of things "wholesale": here, which is (in my view) vandalism. (Unless you can go back and justify each deletion.) None of the college-student aged 'advocates' are expected to have any PhD, or work for a bank or finance company - if that's what you mean by a "reliable" source. (Besides, any "reliable" source, by your definition, would be tied to closely to the banking industry to make a recommendation that reflects the views of the oppressed students who, unlike rich millionaire bankers, can not files for and obtain bankruptcy. Are you sure you're not a banking executive trying to wreck this article, to protect your bottom line, and step on the backs of the students?)96.59.135.156 (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I took out all Watts stuff because the source is unreliable. I deleted the other things in the "The federal government should enact partial or total loan forgiveness for students who have taken out student loans" section because the sources there do not say anything anything about loan forgiveness. Using such sources to try to say something about loan forgiveness is WP:SYNTH. I removed your two additional recommendations because the recommendations section is about the policy suggestions by experts to stop tuition from increasing. The recommendations you wanted to include were not policy suggestions. Flyte35 (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

To reply to your comment (I'm not indenting for sake of space), let's take a look at the one major edit, OK?

"One advocate for college loan forgiveness[39] has argued that "Since forgiveness does not require the printing of new dollars (i.e., "too much money chasing too few goods"),[40] it is not inflationary." Other advocates[41] have argued the same thing from the opposite angle, namely that the "lack of consumer protections," particularly "removing bankruptcy protections,"[42] for college loans, has led to inflation."

First off, One advocate (Watts) did make this statements, and that is properly sourced. Now, whether Watts is reliable is a matter for the reliability sources page, and you met some disagreement there, even if, in all fairness, others agreed with you. However, in all fairness, not all agreed that Watts was unreliable as an advocate (even if, as I agree, he could not give a legal or medical analysis).

Secondly, source 40 might be WP:SYNTH, I will concede, but let's hold that thought and look at all the facts, first, OK?

Third and last, other advocates (Collinge and Mockler) made statements, and their statements were properly sourced, but you never said they were improperly sources, wrongly attributed (misquoted), or anything, except that these too, were unreliable. If that is true, why did you not remove all the other Collinge cites. If not, then why did remove this one? Do you have a personal grudge or some personal issue you're dealing with? You've fired a warning shot across the bow for no apparent reason, and contradicted yourself (as evidenced by my questions above).96.59.146.211 (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

As I've explained, I didn't remove that line because Collinge and Mockler were unreliable (though the Mockler piece probably is an unreliable source); I removed it because that statement is WP:SYNTH. You're combining multiple sources to try to reach a conclusion about loan forgiveness. Those sources don't say anything about loan forgiveness. Flyte35 (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

New Development

A new development just happened, Flyte35: Someone who is afraid of honest debate has made the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Clarifying inaccessible to an unregistered editor (such as I am). I could register an account, under a fake name (in order to edit on that "Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard"), if I were dishonest or otherwise bad, but I refuse to do so. Nonetheless, I wanted to give you the heads up that I replied to your comments both in the college tuition page, as well as here on Rhododendrite's page.

Heads up, Flyte35: I replied in 2 places, since the main page blocked me from editing. So much for "honest discussion!"96.59.146.211 (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Although we resolved this misunderstanding of the semi-protection of that page, when we discussed it on your talk page, just now, Flyte35, I still owe you a public apology here, as well: The reliable sources notice board was semi-protected from anonymous IP's due to some other editor (not myself) causing disruption and/or deleting stuff, and it was narrow-minded of me to assume it was due to me, when many others had arguments there too. However, as I asked you in your talk page right here, I don't see the issue with using all the edits you deleted: all seem proper on all points: related, sourced, cited, quoted correctly, and reliable, insofar as none of them are "lone rangers," mentioned only on their own blogs.96.59.146.211 (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote above, and elsewhere, I took out all Watts stuff because the source is unreliable. I deleted the other things in the "The federal government should enact partial or total loan forgiveness for students who have taken out student loans" section because the sources there do not say anything anything about loan forgiveness. Using such sources to try to say something about loan forgiveness is WP:SYNTH. I removed your two additional recommendations because the recommendations section is about the policy suggestions by experts to stop tuition from increasing. The recommendations you wanted to include were not policy suggestions. Flyte35 (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You said: "Using such sources to try to say something about loan forgiveness is WP:SYNTH." Incorrect. The actual page, you link here, states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." All 3 sources said what I quoted them as saying. There is no need for me to worry about what is implied. All 3 advocates were clear in their statements. You are confused about the distinction here: Had I made the article state, as fact, such-and-such about loan forgiveness vs inflation, yes, you'd have a point: that would indeed be WP:SYNTH. But, I do not make the article, itself, state this "as fact.": Instead, I quote 3 advocates. On the Watts source, how is he not a reliable source, in light of his having been cited on numerous blogs other than his own? Also, what do you make of Collinge and Mockler, as advocates? Are they reliable or no? Why or why not?96.59.146.211 (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

As I've explained already in multiple pages, my major reason for removing this part is that the section is about loan forgiveness, and those sources say nothing about loan forgiveness.

Ah, that's why you were confused! Bankruptcy in particular, is a form of loan forgiveness, and thus qualifies. And, just as loan forgiveness is a special type of bankruptcy, likewise, bankruptcy is a special type of consumer protection. So, whatever one says about a larger category automatically subsumes the smaller category. For example, if an advocate said that Russians drink a lot, as support for their argument that one particular province of Russia had a high drinking rate, that would be a good citation to an "on-topic" quote, and not WP:Synth. That is what is going on here.96.59.146.211 (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

What you wanted to include was "Other advocates have argued the same thing from the opposite angle..." They are not, because they're not saying anything about loan forgiveness. The section is about loan forgiveness, that's why it's inappropriate, and WP:SYNTH. Watts is not a reliable source, because, as we have already discussed quite extensively, Wiki guidelines on identifying reliable sources state that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The text provided is sourced to "ThirstForJustice.net," which is just someone's blog. It's not a reliable source. The fact that the writer has been "cited on numerous blogs other than his own" doesn't make "ThirstForJustice.net" a reliable source. Flyte35 (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I concede your point. On that point, since Watts wrote it, I think that he may have published it on his own blogs, as one would expect, and, if a reliable source can be found, e.g., from an offical blog of a known reliable source (and not just some random yahoo's blog) it will be used. Let me look.96.59.146.211 (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Update I did find, as I suspected, that Watts had this on a more "reliable" source than some random Yahoo's blog, and fixed that: as it's on the official "Watts" blog (from which, I'd guess, the thirstforjustice folk snatched it), I'd assume you would accept that URL source as officially from a reliable source, and thus reliable as a source, for Wikipedia's purposes?96.59.146.211 (talk) 06:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, 1 more thing: my last edit, here is indeed appropriate in the section, because it clearly states: "recommendations to address rising tuition have been advanced by experts and consumer and students' rights advocates:" Well, these recommendations do address that in several ways: "Lastly, in order to cope with the rising cost of tuition, many students have started working part-time." is one, and "getting a job after college, to further cope with the rising costs of tuition" is another. They "address" rising tuition by increasing input, not decreasing output, but it's still addressing them. I would revert all of your edits.96.59.146.211 (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, the reason I deleted it is because the other recommendations are policy recommendations to keep college tuition from rising. The things you want to include are inappropriate because they're personal finance recommendations, which wouldn't keep tuition from rising. Flyte35 (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect! The article's 'Recommendations' sections does not say to "keep" tuition from rising, but rather, "recommendations to address rising tuition." "keep" is from rising vs "address" the tuition; two different things! I will tentatively correct that, and reference this as a point on which you are wrong. You are free to revert, and discuss further, but please consider the actual language of the Recommendations section, which governs the edits, before you revert (or think to), OK?96.59.146.211 (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You raised one other point here on your page, which we did not discuss in talk, Flyte35, so I will link it here:

In short, on your own talk page, linked above, you said: "They are not, because they're not saying anything about loan forgiveness." They, the other 3 advocates, do make statements about loan forgiveness: Watts is quoted as saying: ""Since forgiveness does not require the printing of new dollars (i.e., "too much money chasing too few goods")," -- Collinge is quoted as saying: ""lack of consumer protections," particularly "removing bankruptcy protections,"", which applies here, since bankruptcy is a form of loan forgiveness. Mockler's statement about Consumer Protections included Bankruptcy, a form of loan forgiveness. I hope this helps clarify.96.59.146.211 (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That's what WP: SYNTH is, they are not saying "that loan forgiveness is not inflationary." You're interpreting what they say to make some other point about loan forgiveness. It's perhaps an interesting discussion, but "lack of consumer protections, particularly removing bankruptcy protections" is not the same thing as saying "loan forgiveness would not cause tuition inflation." Flyte35 (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You miss the point: I never said that the other 2 sources were saying that loan forgiveness is not inflationary. Rather, I quoted them as saying that lack of loan forgiveness (which is always present when you lack bankruptcy) will cause inflation. I merely quoted the sources, and did not alter their quotes. That they say different things alters not the fact that all 3 of their quotes support their common assertions that loan forgiveness should, indeed, be accepted as a "recommendation."96.59.146.211 (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

No, if you have to explain how your articles about consumer protection are connected to the loan forgiveness recommendation, and I don't find your argument convincing, it's WP: SYNTH. Please look at the link; it's a pretty clear explanation. Your example about drinking in Russia would also be SYNTH. I think we've both made our points here. There's no need to keep rehashing this argument. Flyte35 (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, first point, see you point. The article can, without WP: SYNTH, actually define terms. On that point, I see your concern: Bankruptcy, while indeed a form or type of loan forgiveness, is actually distinct, and since the article does not make this distinction, it is indeed WP: SYNTH. I know how to fix that. Also, second issue, I conceded your point about the website: thirstforjustice.net, while apparently a website where Watts is alleged to be a webmaster, does not look official, so it's hard to tell who is the actual owner of it, and thus your concern that it wasn't "official" was a valid concern. (Thus, something like gordonwaynewatts.com, which is official, would be acceptable.) I found an official source, so your concern is now moot. Third and last, I will 'tentatively' fix both problems, and also add back in the series of recommendations such as "Lastly, in order to cope with the rising cost of tuition,..." where these advocates suggest a way to increase income, as opposed to reducing tuition. While different, it these are a valid way to address tuition. I note that, right or wrong, you have not given any reasons that I am wrong on this 3rd point. Look closely, when I edit this: it will look similar to my last edit, but I will add in language to address your first concern, above.96.59.148.12 (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Reboot of the 3 concerns above

OK, I'm addressing your 3 concerns, Flyte35, without indenting for sake of space. First off, notice the new language below. An article in, say, the NY Times, would offer this language as a segue, in order to avoid WP: SYNTH:

The federal government should enact partial or total loan forgiveness for students who have taken out student loans.[33][36][37][38] One advocate for college loan forgiveness[39] has argued that "Since forgiveness does not require the printing of new dollars (i.e., "too much money chasing too few goods"),[40] it is not inflationary." Other advocates[41] have argued the same thing from the opposite angle, namely that the "lack of consumer protections," particularly "removing bankruptcy protections,"[42] (which is a type of partial or total loan forgiveness), for college loans, has led to inflation.

Here, the language is consistent ("loan forgiveness"), and thus not WP: SYNTH. Secondly, I fixed the Watts source to be cited in an official and reliable source. (Official, since it is Watts' official page, and reliable, since he is cited in places other than his own blog: he may be a 'legend in his own mind,' and egotistical even, but as he's cited independently on this topic, it is moot.) Lastly, I'd like some further discussion on the bottom set of edits: you may be right, but you have not proven your point: these are indeed recommendations to "address' high tuition, maybe not the ones you like, if you're, say, a west-coast liberal looking for a free handout, and detest increasing your income, but these are valid recommendations nonetheless. (Are you a west coast liberal? Not that it it relevant, and not meant to offend you, but I digress: I sense that! Yes, as others have pointed out, I live near Lakeland, Fla., a HUGE area between Tampa & Orlando, and, as being local to this area, disclaimer, I have heard of Mr. Watts, who is vocal on many issues, and a local personality, but that is moot. It is not some small suburban or urban county area as some have suggested.)96.59.148.12 (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

No, you haven't really changed anything. Watts is an unreliable source, so he absolutely can't go in. "Other advocates" have not "argued the same thing from the opposite angle," they're saying that "lack of consumer protections has led to inflation." That is all you can conclude from that. Trying to connect that to the impact of potential loan forgiveness is SYNTH. The other sources don't even mention loan forgiveness. Please refrain from making changes to this article until you get actual consensus, preferably from other editors. Flyte35 (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, you've made your point that you disagree, but let's address these 1-by-1, OK? First, if you believe that the other advocates did not say the "same thing from an opposite angle," then strike that language, but for God's sake, don't strike their quotes, properly sourced, and from reliable sources, which brings me up to the 2nd point: How is Watts any less reliable than the plethora of other sources in the article that you have let remain? Lastly, you did not address the 3rd point above, where we disagree: the 'recommendations' on the very bottom of my edit, which were included in your deletion, are indeed recommendations on how to "address" rising tuition (in this case, by increasing income, rather than decreasing outflow). How are these not also recommendations on how to "address" rising tuition? I am not clear on your reasons for wanting these out of the article? By the way, I strike my questions on your geolocation, above, except tot the extent that I'm just curious, in general, and don't mean to be nosey or insulting. But, I must admit that my "liberal handout" curiosity wondered if it were more than a mere coincidence you'd be ok with "reducing outflow/debt" solutions, but not with "increasing income" solutions.96.59.148.12 (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

1. Well no, the section is about loan forgiveness. There's no reason to include quotes in there from sources that are talking about something else; they do not improve the article. 2. We've already discussed this. Wiki guidelines on identifying reliable sources state that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Watts's blog is not that. If there are other unreliable sources cited in the article an editor would be justified in keeping those sources out as well. 3. As I've already said, many, many times, this is an article about policy trends. The other recommendations are policy recommendations. It's inappropriate to include personal fiance advice in a policy article. Flyte35 (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

1. Bankruptcy is loan forgiveness, partial or total - like it or not! 2. I don't see who Watts is any less reliable? His blog seems to have just as accurate facts and well-sourced, as most other advocates' blogs I've seen. Please clarify or distinguish here? 3. Trend or not, it is a recommendation on how to address tuition, and no one objected up until you came on to the scene. (Or if they did, they were over-ruled, and the policy suggestions stayed.) While I'm not saying you make bad points, you're the only one making them. Please solicit other editors for further feedback on these 3 points (or maybe I will?). I respectfully dissent.96.59.148.12 (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

We've already addressed the reliability of Watts over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. No one else agreed it was appropriate to include the source. I don't think that one is really worth rehashing, but whatever you want to do. Flyte35 (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why Watts is any less reliable? His blog seems to have just as accurate facts and well-sourced, as most other advocates' blogs I've seen: Robert Applebaum or Alan Collinge, for example. Please clarify or distinguish here?96.59.148.12 (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone could perhaps make a case for removing those sources as well. My point is that the policy is that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Watts's ThirstForJustice.net is clearly not that. If this is still unclear to you, you should go back to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. No one else agreed it was appropriate to include the source. I don't really have anything more to explain about this that hasn't already been clearly expressed by several different people. Flyte35 (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, after a few mis-starts, I've added back in the 3rd edit, since you don't explain why you disagree. While you did not give cogent reasons for the 1st and 2nd disagreements, you seem to disagree in good faith, so I left them alone for now, but you owe me an explanation better than that if you disagree.96.59.148.12 (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

These 3 points of disagreement and 1 other were brought to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard due to the impasse, Flyte35. Just thought I'd give you a heads up.96.59.148.12 (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable Sources: notes to self

Numerous advocates of restoration of bankruptcy protections to student loans have argued that removal of Standard Consumer Protections, particularly "removing bankruptcy protections," has led to tuition inflation, in particular, and inflation, in general.

However, the CATO Institute, a Libertarian public policy think tank, disputes those claims, arguing, instead, that reducing Federal aid, not changing bankruptcy laws, offer the solution to tuition inflation.

96.59.148.12 (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Flyte35, Re: your edit here, I see you reverted it. Fine, you disagree, but I made some changes in the edit to address come concerns raised about WP:Undue Weight, and, at the least, I would point out that your edit was only 9 minutes later (18:47, 30 June 2015‎ 96.59.148.12 to 18:56, 30 June 2015‎ Flyte35), and I doubt you even saw it when it was edited, meaning you probably looked at the revisions for less than 9 minutes. Since i fixed the undue weight problem, at the least you should accord the edit a fair review, and then, if you still disagree with me, we can discuss the issues. (I will admit that I put back in all the disputed content, but that was easier than picking and choosing, and all of it is disputed, and needs review.) So, now that I got reliable sources that are sufficient in number and show that there wasn't undue weight placed on this edit, what, now, is the problem?96.59.148.12 (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't add Watts back in. Watts is an unreliable source. It's perhaps useful to replace some of the blog sources with the Forbes and Daily Kos pieces, but beyond that none of these edits seem like an improvement. There is, for instance, no need to add "Numerous advocates of restoration of bankruptcy protections to student loans have argued that removal of Standard Consumer Protections," since there's already a whole paragraph about the removal of consumer protection as one of the possible causes in the article.Flyte35 (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how he is any less reliable than most of the other advocates, but, whatever; the article can probably still run on less than 8-cylinders, even if it doesn't run well. I do agree that the Daily KOS is ok, assuming the source in question (Collinge) is reliable, but, as with any source: Anyone can open a Daily KOS account. However, getting featured in Forbes, probably, is a good argument for notoriety, I will concede. I will see what I can do, after thinking a little bit on it.96.59.148.12 (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Recent Edit

In your last edit, Flyte35, here, you made edit comments of: "Except for that one, which is inappropriate here for the reasons I've already expressed.", suggesting that you're referring to previous edit the 19:58pm 06-29-2015 edit comments where you said; "As I've already explained, the other recommendations are policy recommendations. Those are personal finance recommendations, and inappropriate here." -- Perhaps, these are indeed "personal finance recommendations": "Other popular ways to address the rising tuition problems faced by students include completing your general education requirements at a community college, which is much cheaper than initially going to a university, obtaining scholarships and other financial aid, as well as looking for ways to pay in-state tuition."

However, the title and sub titles to this article don't limit that, but rather, in saying: "Recommendations[edit] Based on the available data, recommendations to address rising tuition have been advanced by experts and consumer and students' rights advocates:," it seems to leave that open to all types of recommendations. Why don't you change the title, here, if you believe these personal recommendations are out of order. Conversely, besides the title allowing these recommendations, I also have a feeling that they are small in length and add to the article's value for the reader. I don't see your objection. While I disagree with you on every single omitted/deleted edit, I still appreciate you working with me here, and, based on your good faith efforts here, I feel I owe you an explanation of my various personal biases and non-neutral points of view (none of us is unbiased!), and a signature with my real name in a registered account, as well, but owing to the evil nature of the wiki here (not all the editors' fault, but partly due to the fact the editors are not paid employees, and you get what you pay for -but rather part-time volunteers), I feel uncomfortable remaining other than anonymous. That said, some of our edit disagreements continue.96.59.148.12 (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• My apologies, Flyte35: Re (Undid revision 669533194 by 96.59.153.13 (talk) No, PIRG source specifically suggests offering more aid, the direct opposite of CATO, very different recommendations) PIRG does indeed say "2. Increase grant aid to students, such as the Pell Grant:," which distinguishes between grants and loans, the latter of which the CATO Institute opposes. But, question: Does the PIRG source really support the recommendation to "Cut lender subsidies, decrease student reliance on loans to pay for college, and otherwise reduce the 'loan limits' to limit the amount a student may borrow.?" It seems not, but I defer to your assessment, here, a 2nd set of eyes on this source.96.59.153.13 (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

breaking things down

96.59... requested my input on these issues on my talk page a few days ago. Sorry to say I'm just getting to it now. I've looked through it and feel like I do have a sense of what's going on, though it doesn't seem like things have moved much since the NPOVN thread. Unfortunately, a whole lot of text has been generated that will make it difficult for third parties to jump in. I think what would help, at the risk of requesting redundancy, is to first come to an agreement on what the specific points of contention are ... and then (and only then) creating clear, dedicated sections to hash out each one discretely.

Here's what I gather are the points of contention:

[Note: broke questions into sub-sections below] — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

If this is an agreeable approach to coming to consensus, I hope you'll validate or correct me where I'm getting it wrong (keeping in mind arguing the points themselves comes later). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for being slow to see your reply, Rhododendrites. Yes, my IP address is dynamic, meaning is moves around a little bit. OK, since I asked for your fedback, and you stopped by, it is my duty to reply.96.59.148.191 (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I validate your 3 points, and, as of right now, can't think of others to include. (Keeping in mind that massive arguments for many of these are above.)96.59.148.191 (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that if 96.59.148.191 is no longer going to insist on adding the line about loan forgiveness not being inflationary, there's no more need to discuss #1, whether or not the Watts amicus brief is a reliable source. Watts was just the source for that line. Since #2 wasn't really a debate--no one objected to including a line about student loan debt forgiveness in the recommendations section--there's no change under discussion here. It seems we can concentrate on #3 only, "Should the recommendations section include personal finance advice." But I might be misreading this. Flyte35 (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Points 2 can safely be eliminated; but actually, all 3 of the other points are balls in play: 1. What is the beef with the Watts source as an advocate? Even when a claim is properly sourced, having other sources as "resources" is beneficial for depth. In that light, perhaps Watts, Mockelr, and other genuine advocates can be added back in. 2. Eliminated. 3. Recommendations are recommendations, whether local or global, and 4. Does the PIRG source (see discussion immediately above) really support the recommendation to "Cut lender subsidies... etc.? Thx.96.59.142.135 (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

1. Watts RS?

1. Is the Watts amicus brief a reliable source in the context of the recommendations section? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

That was a chief bone of contention, but actually all sources are in contention. While Watts, and the other advocates, are clearly neither experts, nor a members of the mainstream media press, they all are advocates. (Exceptions might include Dr. Kantrowitz, a higher ed expert, and selected press or well-known advocacy groups, like USPIRG or the CATO institute.)96.59.148.191 (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

2. Sufficient RS to include line about forgiveness

2. If the Watts amicus brief is not reliable, are there sufficient other reliable sources to include a line about student loan debt forgiveness in the recommendations section? Conversely, if the Watts amicus brief is reliable, then is it, in combination with any other available reliable sources, sufficient to include a line about student loan debt forgiveness in the recommendations section? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Good point; I accept this as a valid matter to consider. But one other thing: While I was insistent on putting in a line that bankruptcy and other standard consumer protections are not inflationary, I might have asked for something that is not needed or is redundant. Since many advocates are on record as saying that removal of Consumer Protections, like bankruptcy, is inflationary, then maybe I don't need to address the retention of the same Consumer Protections, which (obviously) would be just the opposite as removing them. (But, still, I think if we can address this point, it would be good to cover both sides.)96.59.148.191 (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is (#2) really an accurate summary of the discussion. There's already a line in the article about student loan debt forgiveness. And that is pretty well sourced. I don't think there was every any question about removing it as a proposed recommendation. I think the question (closely related to #1) was only whether or not to add Watts as a source, and quote that source, in the recommendation. Flyte35 (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

To his credit, Flyte35 has not, so far as I know, suggested removing this recommendations, that already existed before. Also, my insistence to put in a source to an argument that loan forgiveness was not inflationary might have been redundant because the article clearly had advocates who were quoted as saying the lack of forgiveness is inflationary. However, it would have been cool to have it in.96.59.142.135 (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

- there is no disagreement. the line is ok to include. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

3. Personal finance advice in recommendations section?

3. Should the recommendations section include personal finance advice or should it be limited to recommendations on the level of public policy and macroeconomics? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree! This was a major bone of contention between me and Flyte35. I will add that I think he is acting in good faith, but a recommendation is a recommendation, personal or policy, and both need to be included.96.59.148.191 (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

As I've written, the reason I deleted it is because this is an article about policy. The other recommendations are policy recommendations to keep college tuition from rising. The things you want to include ("get a job while in college" and "completing your general education requirements at a community college... obtaining scholarships and other financial aid, as well as looking for ways to pay in-state tuition") are inappropriate because they're personal finance recommendations, which wouldn't have any impact on tuition. Adding this sort of thing isn't a problem on the level of unreliable sources or SYNTH, which we've discussed extensively, but it's simply bad writing, because it's presenting new information that has nothing to do with the rest of the article. Flyte35 (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I do agree that the things that I want to include ("get a job while in college" and "completing your general education requirements at a community college... obtaining scholarships and other financial aid, as well as looking for ways to pay in-state tuition") are not policy recommendations to keep college tuition from rising. However, they don't need to be. You see, Flyte35, the article simply states that: "Based on the available data, recommendations to address rising tuition have been advanced by experts and consumer and students' rights advocates:" source: College_tuition_in_the_United_States#Recommendations. These certainly address the rising tuition, not by changing the tuition paid out,, but rather by changing the monies paid in (getting a job, getting scholarships). (Actually, one of the ones you listed does change the tuition paid in: going to a community college ensures lower tuition paid in.)

So, based on a strict reading of the language in the article, all of these recommendations are appropriate. (And, I add, help the reader cope with the difficulties associated with unfordable college costs, and so it has plenty to do with the rest of the article.)

I will add: your reading comprehension error, while probably well-intentioned, is clear to me, when I am reading what the article demands along the way of recommendations. Moreover, this is like (analogy follows) when a person prays to God for a problem. Sometimes God changes the problem (tuition costs), but sometimes God changes the person (their income, choice of college, etc.).

If you could miss the clear language of what the article demands along the lines of "recommendations," then it is not surprising that we might disagree on "reliable sources" issues. (This, by itself, doesn't prove you're wrong on these other points, but it does bring your reasoning and analyses abilities in question and demand further analysis and outside feedback.96.59.139.179 (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

4. PIRG sourcing

4th question: Does the PIRG source (see discussion immediately above) really support the recommendation to "Cut lender subsidies, decrease student reliance on loans to pay for college, and otherwise reduce the 'loan limits' to limit the amount a student may borrow.?" It seems not, but I defer to your assessment, here, a 2nd set of eyes on this source.96.59.148.191 (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, the source ("Affordable Higher Education: Cutting Lender Subsidies". U.S. PIRG. 2011.) is just poorly cited, since the link no longer goes to an article called "Affordable Higher Education: Cutting Lender Subsidies." It just goes to the general education section at PIRG. The line was added by anonymous editor 71.100.178.19 (Lakeland, Florida, again) in 2011. If someone can find the original article referenced there that would be great. Other than that we would, I guess, be justified in removing the line since the sourcing for it is weak.Flyte35 (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I will defer to other editors on this, as I haven't had time to look more closely at it, but I think the PIRG source, while probably improperly placed or quoted wrongly, can be used somehow in the article. So, two down, two to go.96.59.138.125 (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on College tuition in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://newyorkartworld.com/commentary/WhatCongressCanDo-2012.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Sugar babies

I'm wondering if Mistress (lover)#Sugar babies should be developed into a standalone article. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

That discussion would be more appropriate for another article. Flyte35 (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Good suggestion.

Please comment at Talk:Mistress (lover)#Sugar babies. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Removed from this article again, okay. How about a see also item? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't seem necessary; there are no other links in that section to possible trends some students are using to pay tuition. At this point there's no Wiki article about the trend, though, so I don' t think it's worth worrying about yet. Flyte35 (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, fine. Thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 7 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anthony Ghobrial, Nataliengo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)