This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Government waste redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
SPECIFICO deleted the "Causes" section and gave the following explanation: "Deleted statement of opinion from non-notable individual. For a strong assertion like "ridiculous..." please find a notable authority whose opinion is significant."
Here's the content that he deleted:
SPECIFICO, I've already asked you once... User_talk:Xerographica#Dispute_Resolution...but evidently I have to ask you again. Which authorities do you consider to be notable? Please be specific. Thanks. -- Xerographica ( talk) 16:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
SPECIFICO modified the "Solutions" section like so...
Hey SPECIFICO...are you sure that Russell Baker was making fun of his own proposal? Because it seems a lot more likely, and ridiculously self-evident, that he's making fun of frivolous government spending. Perhaps you should post your changes here on the talk page beforehand. -- Xerographica ( talk) 17:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
This article, like Unnecessary war, should be deleted. By its' very title, it tends to POV. (Moreover, giving examples turns it into a US-centric article.) How can we ever properly balance it? With examples of government non-waste? The inefficiencies of government can be addressed in articles about government spending, where, at the outset, a NPOV approach can be pursued. – S. Rich ( talk) 18:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
It's hard to keep track of all the reliably sourced material that Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO remove from articles...I only just now realized that one of them removed Friedman's Law from this article. Perhaps it was SPECIFICO given that he removed the same content from The Machinery of Freedom... here.
It turns out that back in 2007 Lavklumpen created an entry for Friedman's Law...but then it was redirected to the book. David R. Henderson, a respected economist, has discussed this concept...which was initially developed by another respected economist.... David D. Friedman. I'd be bold and add a section on the concept myself...but I'm stilling waiting for SPECIFICO to share his list of economists who he believes to be notable. Plus I'm not sure if Rubin would consider Henderson's blog entry to be a reliable source...and lastly, I have no idea if Rich is going to follow through and nominate this page for deletion. -- Xerographica ( talk) 20:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Government waste redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
SPECIFICO deleted the "Causes" section and gave the following explanation: "Deleted statement of opinion from non-notable individual. For a strong assertion like "ridiculous..." please find a notable authority whose opinion is significant."
Here's the content that he deleted:
SPECIFICO, I've already asked you once... User_talk:Xerographica#Dispute_Resolution...but evidently I have to ask you again. Which authorities do you consider to be notable? Please be specific. Thanks. -- Xerographica ( talk) 16:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
SPECIFICO modified the "Solutions" section like so...
Hey SPECIFICO...are you sure that Russell Baker was making fun of his own proposal? Because it seems a lot more likely, and ridiculously self-evident, that he's making fun of frivolous government spending. Perhaps you should post your changes here on the talk page beforehand. -- Xerographica ( talk) 17:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
This article, like Unnecessary war, should be deleted. By its' very title, it tends to POV. (Moreover, giving examples turns it into a US-centric article.) How can we ever properly balance it? With examples of government non-waste? The inefficiencies of government can be addressed in articles about government spending, where, at the outset, a NPOV approach can be pursued. – S. Rich ( talk) 18:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
It's hard to keep track of all the reliably sourced material that Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO remove from articles...I only just now realized that one of them removed Friedman's Law from this article. Perhaps it was SPECIFICO given that he removed the same content from The Machinery of Freedom... here.
It turns out that back in 2007 Lavklumpen created an entry for Friedman's Law...but then it was redirected to the book. David R. Henderson, a respected economist, has discussed this concept...which was initially developed by another respected economist.... David D. Friedman. I'd be bold and add a section on the concept myself...but I'm stilling waiting for SPECIFICO to share his list of economists who he believes to be notable. Plus I'm not sure if Rubin would consider Henderson's blog entry to be a reliable source...and lastly, I have no idea if Rich is going to follow through and nominate this page for deletion. -- Xerographica ( talk) 20:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)