Talk:Entitlement

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tyesmith1. Peer reviewers: Sb0957.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Pejorative?

Isn't an "entitlement program" supposed to be in the pejorative? I've never heard of anyone refer to it positively. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No I don't believe so. Have you sources rather than hearsay? Dmcq (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly one cannot take a purely historical definition of a word or concept as new meanings evolve over time. The term "entitlement" has clearly been politicized in the context of contemporary discussion. The term "right" could easly be used as a synonym for "entitlement".

However, the article is unquestionably biased agaimst "entitlements" as something "not earned". Substituting a "right to Social Secutity" does not carry the same bias, as "rights' should not be eliminated. I had hoped to find a list of the "entitlements" that the more conservative members of Congress are determined to cut or limit in order impact the deficits and national debt. "Cutting entitlements" has become the countermeasure to increased taxes, especially on the "super rich" who are, of course, "entitled" to their wealth because, presumably, they have "earned" it. But this presumption is not necessarily true. Much wealth is inherited, received from little or no effort (banking), received as tax-avoidance "gifts", "earned" disproportionately from the amount of effort expended (patent), winning the lottery, 'homesteading", finding valuable if unexpected mineral deposits under real estate (oil), etc. Consequently, much wealth is acquired through no effort by the recipient, rather like a "title" in royalty. Much of this wealth gets exceptional treatment under tax laws. However, "earned income" is fully taxed. Seems somewhat punitive. Clearly "entitlements" vs "wealth" has redefined the former. The assumption that "wealth" is earned (and thus an entitlement) while budgetary 'entitlements" are "welfare" or unearned "hand-outs", solely because they are distributed by government. A classification of what the conservative wing defines as 'entitlements" would certainly enlighten the debate. Work and earnings are prerequisites of unemployment compensation. Contributions based on earnings is a prerequisite of Social Security and Medicare. GI benefits are the result of "service". So what are 'entitlements' in the current context? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.0.143 (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles need to be based on WP:Reliable sources not on the musings of editors. Dmcq (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the term is frequently used in a pejorative sense. I've added a few references to the claim in the header. However, this whole article could be significantly improved by talking about its legal meaning, use in a positive way in Great Society programs, and how that relates to the use in psychology (which as of this writing is the bulk of the article. Matthew Miller (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Wrong

Social security is not an entitlement program. The source cited for that sentence is from an extremely short and quickly written news article, and is not a sufficient source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.145.114 (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see the history of this word as it was not to long ago this word had to do with the expected extras given to nobility. Now it has changed to be thought of as nothing more than payments by the government. Getting into Yale because your daddy went there is an entitlement. Adequate medical care is a right. -QuestioningAuthority

Found on WikiAnswers at answers.com Added by Sherry Hooker; An "entitlement program" is generally one for which an individual qualifies simply by virtue of his or her circumstances. For example, the Social Security law has several components, some of which are "entitlements" and some are not. The largest program, SS Retirement is NOT an entitlement as an individual qualifies for it only by virtue of having paid into the program at least forty quarters; Supplemental Security Income and Social Security Disabilities ARE entitlements because an individual is entitled to SSI simply by having a very low income and to SSD after being disabled for at least six months. Similarly, the largest portion of Medicare--health insurance of seniors--is NOT an "entitlement" as one qualifies by paying into the system and paying premiums. Medicaid and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, on the other hand, ARE entitlements as qualification depends on a set of circumstances in which an individual may find himself. Unemployment Compensation is an insurance program paid by employers and is NOT an entitlement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.63.159 (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Johnson Administration??

One sentence, that entitlement began during the Johnson administration, is irrelevant and untrue. This article concerns the legal concept of entitlement in the abstract, not specific entitlement programs. It does not cover Medicare, Social Security, or other specific programs commonly referred to as entitlements. Many entitlement programs began before Johnson in any case. I am deleting. --Bridgecross (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"Entitlement Program" shouldn't redirect here

Entitlement programs, and the concept of Entitlement, are two different things. Programs such as Social Security, and earned benefits such as the G.I. Bill (which people pay into in a manner similar to employers matching IRA contributions), are considered Entitlements, and the programs they come from Entitlement Programs.

The words "entitlement program" are being used more and more often in United States politics in a manner that is further and further divorced from the concept of entitlement itself.

To put this another way: I don't believe people who spend four years defending their country in order to earn the right to go to college deserve to be grouped together with narcissists, and I definitely don't think that anything that might eventually be referred to legally or politically as an Entitlement Program, deserves the negative connotation that pages such as this can cause.

I'm trying to find a good legal definition of Entitlement Program, and will create a section on this page for the time being with that information. I intend to grow it out until there is enough information in that section for an entire page. I'm wondering whether it would be a good idea to discuss earned and unearned entitlements. Ilaughedicriedithrewup (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC).

Fair enough, it sounds like a new article should probably be started on it. What you really need before setting up a new article is to establish what the topic is and its notability. A legal definition isn't best for that - you'd just be making a dictionary entry though it is good later on for more precise definition. To do that takes a citation to a report by a major newspaper talking about entitlement benefits or a book about them,, see WP:NOTABILITY. I would definitely avoid sticking in any personal opinions as above in and just describe what the citations say. Dmcq (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are some useful places to start:

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Thmazing (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Reagan

I read that the shift in meaning of "entitlement" in American politics began with Reagan ([6] p79). Mightn't it be appropriate in this article to discuss the change in denotation of the word? Thmazing (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. See https://www.npr.org/2012/08/14/158756957/with-ryans-ascent-a-few-thoughts-on-entitlement for one discussion on this change. Matthew Miller (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Politically?

Why is such a bias subsection being allowed in the entitlement area? Not everyone in the united states would argue that Social Security and Welfare (etc) are entitlement programs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.252.171 (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

And how exactly is it biased? -- O.Koslowski (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it could had been perceived as biased and/or POV by some. I added other cites -- as well as a bit of history about the concept -- to address any perceived biased. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Utterly Inaccurate

This is, without a doubt, the most inaccurate page I have ever read on Wikipedia. It's so completely and utterly wrong that I'm not even going to bother editing it.

The purpose of Wikipedia is to present factual information, which this page fails to do. Even the definition of "entitlement program" is wrong. An entitlement program is one for which the recipient does not have to meet a means test. But editors on both ends of the political spectrum have distorted even that fundamental definition to suit their views.

This page is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. It articulates the very worst of what this platform is capable of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.77.109 (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above. What is the purpose of including the definition of narcissism at all? If not to express extreme bias and personal opinion? Now I fully realize that such things are what most people use the forum of the Internet for. However Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia of accurate information. Not a social media junkyard. Now how ironic is it that in order to write this rubbish ones own sense of pejorative entitlement must be at epic levels of narcissism. Am I allowed edit the entire page out of existence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonA1974 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about the inaccuracy of the definition as I don't know whether entitlement programs were defined at any time as ones that don't require a means test. If that is the case, then this article should reflect that. Is there somebody more knowledgeable about this who can address this issue?

I do think that this article is conflating two different things. Only one of the definitions/meanings of the dictionaries cited for the word "entitlement" supports this definition. For example, Merriam Webster gives as the definition for "entitlement":

the condition of having a right to have, do, or get something

the feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges)

a type of financial help provided by the government for members of a particular group

This article is conflating the various definitions, but only giving one. For example, the section on "narcissism" only relates to that second definition, "the feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges). This has nothing to do with government programs. Most people receiving the listed benefits don't feel that they are entitled to the benefits because of narcissism. In the case of Social Security and Medicare, many feel that they have contributed money under an agreement with the government to provide future benefits. Those who receive medical assistance or food stamps need those government programs for survival. The section on narcissism relates more to the sense of entitlement part of the definition. If we are going to address that here, then we should probably discuss other entitlements or privileges that groups of people feel.

I don't think we want to go there. Therefore, this article should just be about government entitlements and not those other meanings of the word. Therefore, I am removing the section on narcissism. If someone wants, they can include references to articles on Narcissistic Personality Disorder, White Privilege, Male Privilege, Religious Privilege. This is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary so we don't need to be including all the meanings of the word. Ileanadu (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Not US-specific

Reverted multiple edits by Nbaugman as this is not a US-specific article. Per WP:TPG, when making significant WP:Bold edits to a long-established as well as highly controversial articles, it is always best to discuss edits in the Talk Page first. Mercy11 (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

We've discussed it. Ilaughedicriedithrewup discussed it above. The term "entitlement" as it is used by psychoanalysts in the middle of the 20th century and the term "entitlement program" as it is used in contemporary political discourse in the U.S. are two completely different and unrelated concepts. Putting them together in the same article is WP:OR. Redirecting "Entitlement program" here is wrong.

And I don't know what the phrase "in a casual sense" means, unless it means "imprecisely." At any rate, it's not supported by a WP:RS. You're citing a primary source which is one lawyer's personal opinion. --Nbauman (talk) 08:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you on the usefulness of the phrase "in a casual sense" and removed it as it seems out of place. I don't see any problem with entitlement program redirecting here. As long as Entitlement Programs do not have their own article, it is benefil for users to know that there is an artiel that contains some information on that subject. Mercy11 (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Overly US-specific

The perjorativeness of the term is entirely US-specific, due to its use in US government welfare programs. By comparison, in Australia and other countries, the accrued leave a worker has earned in the course of their employment is called their Entitlements. If a business goes bankrupt, or they sack an employee, they must legally pay out those entitlements, and in no way would a worker consider it a charity. They earned them and are entitled to them. 124.169.71.27 (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

What about the other Entitlements/Entitlement Programs?

If this is the definition of a government entitlement:

An entitlement is a government program guaranteeing access to some benefit by members of a specific group and based on established rights or by legislation.

Then there are a number of other entitlement programs, for example, to the oil industry, to farmers, to renewable resource companies, and many others we are probably not even aware of. These groups are not government agencies but private actors that get this government money because of their belonging to a specific group that has been given the money through legislation and just try to take it away and you can see how entitled they feel.

The Oil Entitlements Program and Its Effects on the Domestic Refining Industry, by Stephen W. Chapel (1976)

http://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P5717.html

"Support under the Basic Payment Scheme is available to farmers who are allocated payment entitlements.

You can apply for entitlements based on the land you farm and the activity you undertake."

Scottish Government pages. https://www.ruralpayments.org/publicsite/futures/topics/all-schemes/basic-payment-scheme/

UNCAPPED ENTITLEMENT IS BAD FOR AGRICULTURE AND HOLDING UP THE NEW FARM BILL, April 12, 2014, National Sustainable Agricultural Coalition

http://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/farm-bill-needs-payment-reform/

Yes, these programs represent government policy toward certain goals, but so do social security and all the other things we normally think of as an entitlement. Ileanadu (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

"This page is an embarrassment to Wikipedia"

My title, "This page is an embarrassment to Wikipedia", is taken from one of the comments above. People have been commenting for years about this article's faults, and I agree with much of it. The article, as written, is very USA-centric, probably modern USA-centric. The word "entitlement" has had, and has, several definitions; this article reflects just the one modern one. It should either be much expanded, with the narrow political usage occupying just a section, or it should be re-named something like Entitlement, U.S. political usage or Entitlements, modern governmental support programs.

I'd prefer the re-naming to solve the immediate problem. --Hordaland (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Well I did add a section on narcissism a while ago as an attempt to broaden it out to its more general psychological sense but it got removed. I have just put it back. Sigh.--Penbat (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Penbat the page is an engagement because you're taking a redefinition of a word from politics applying it to psychology in a junk science sort of way. your source material is WebMD and an opinion book bolstered by an attempt to utilize narcissistic personality disorder as found in the DSM to substantiate your claim. This article belongs on urban dictionary or conservapedia rather than Wikipedia.

just because fox news propaganda uses entitlement in a way doesn't make it a valid psychological problem any more than homosexuality was an actual mental illness. 24.56.237.49 (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I know an editor who may be willing to help on psychological aspects of entitlement. I will ask him but he is currently on a Wikibreak.--Penbat (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally entitlement is not only to do with legal frameworks, also social norms and social conventions.--Penbat (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow, you've been working Penbat. Good job. --Hordaland (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page?

This page talks about multiple concepts which have nothing to do with each other. Would it be a better to split the contents of the page up into multiple pages and provide a disambiguation page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvint69 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Theoretically yes - the US specific stuff could be in a separate "entitlement program" article. Hopefully in time more text will be written to make this idea more viable.--Penbat (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Split has now been done. I discovered that social programs in the United States probably covers the same ground as the US-specific stuff here so I have placed it in that article's talk page for now.--Penbat (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Articles should only be about one subject.

This article is currently about two things at once:

• The psychological or social phenomenon of entitlement
• The legal concept of entitlement (sometimes called subjective or positive rights)

I suggest it be split, or the parts about the legal concept added to the article Positive and negative rights. --BurritoBazooka ^Talk Contribs 01:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Entitlement a word under attack for some time now.

Looking at the talk section about the word "entitlement" I am discouraged and dismayed. So much of the use of the term in psychology seems to take the term "presumed entitlement" and cut it down to "entitlement." So many who write about Social Security are sure it is not an entitlement. But it is the best example of an entitlement; earned and paid for. I do suspect there has been a long term effort to show that an entitlement is a gift and can be reduced or even cut as we can end a gift. And that seems to have been successful. Even past work in Wikipedia have been altered to the point of being a disaster. Some go back to Royal entitlements as reason to doubt them. I prefer to start with Social Security in the USA and move forward to retain its reasons to exist and to continue without the idea it is a gift.

This should be reformed or deleted. As it is now it is a false statement. It may mislead and can not educate anyone.

Gary4books (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Sam Vaknin?

Why is this fellow Sam Vaknin even being cited? He does not seems trustworthy nor seems to bear any reputable credential or experience. 2804:14C:6588:848B:844A:ABB0:D491:BAE6 (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)