This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Lack of NPOV in this article!?!? The word "should" all over the place is rather alarming.
"...some general rules of thumb about how this should be accomplished" --- according to whom?
"The government should be subject to law..." --- according to whom?
And so on. The whole article looks like one big giant non-neutral POV. I'm baffled.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.114.118 ( talk) 23:12, 26 December 2003 (UTC)
I'm a graduate student of public policy -- and yes, I agree, this particular page needs some editing to make it more inclusive of many points of view. I'll see what I can do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.201.177.13 ( talk) 06:30, 31 January 2004 (UTC)
I can see that this article was edited to fit a libertarian/conservative view point. While those of you on the right/center-right are entitled to your views, please keep this article about public policy neutral. While I'm a progressive communitarian myself,I wouldn't edit this article to fit my views either. This article should strictly be about the technical details of public policy, not how one ideology or movement would like it to be. Save your rantings about the "free market" and "small government" for Republican/Libertarian blogs or GameFAQs. ~~~~Leaf Cable
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.48.25 ( talk) 21:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daaz ( talk • contribs) 12:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I propose that this article be merged with Policy. There is a substantial overlap in the content (check the outlines), and "Public Policy", is the largest subcategory of policy out there, and usually the one that comes to people's mind when they think about "policy".
Further, most of the content in this "Public Policy" article isn't actually specific to governments, except for the fact that the definitions and terms come from books whose primary focus is government policy.
There's just no need to have two separate articles that are 80% the same. I say merge. Gokmop 16:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Although not a bad thing, a very short article. Has a good feeling of an encyclopedia. Not many references so maybe more research needs to be done. As a person who is not very interested in public policy, it still was able to provide good information.
Reads very neutral. I think it would be easy to be very one sided with this topic but it seems to stay on course.
There are not a lot of references but still a good amount of information. I would verify references, just to make sure.
It was put together nicely put together. Not a fun topic for me personally to read, but still informational. I think if more research was done or more references were found, it would improve it a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Football1502 ( talk • contribs) 01:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
This article is (almost) exclusively about American (USA) Public Policy. It ignores the rich history of European public policy and public policy concepts, let alone the much less documented public policy from the rest of the world. 203.109.208.252 ( talk) 00:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Lack of NPOV in this article!?!? The word "should" all over the place is rather alarming.
"...some general rules of thumb about how this should be accomplished" --- according to whom?
"The government should be subject to law..." --- according to whom?
And so on. The whole article looks like one big giant non-neutral POV. I'm baffled.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.114.118 ( talk) 23:12, 26 December 2003 (UTC)
I'm a graduate student of public policy -- and yes, I agree, this particular page needs some editing to make it more inclusive of many points of view. I'll see what I can do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.201.177.13 ( talk) 06:30, 31 January 2004 (UTC)
I can see that this article was edited to fit a libertarian/conservative view point. While those of you on the right/center-right are entitled to your views, please keep this article about public policy neutral. While I'm a progressive communitarian myself,I wouldn't edit this article to fit my views either. This article should strictly be about the technical details of public policy, not how one ideology or movement would like it to be. Save your rantings about the "free market" and "small government" for Republican/Libertarian blogs or GameFAQs. ~~~~Leaf Cable
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.48.25 ( talk) 21:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daaz ( talk • contribs) 12:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I propose that this article be merged with Policy. There is a substantial overlap in the content (check the outlines), and "Public Policy", is the largest subcategory of policy out there, and usually the one that comes to people's mind when they think about "policy".
Further, most of the content in this "Public Policy" article isn't actually specific to governments, except for the fact that the definitions and terms come from books whose primary focus is government policy.
There's just no need to have two separate articles that are 80% the same. I say merge. Gokmop 16:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Although not a bad thing, a very short article. Has a good feeling of an encyclopedia. Not many references so maybe more research needs to be done. As a person who is not very interested in public policy, it still was able to provide good information.
Reads very neutral. I think it would be easy to be very one sided with this topic but it seems to stay on course.
There are not a lot of references but still a good amount of information. I would verify references, just to make sure.
It was put together nicely put together. Not a fun topic for me personally to read, but still informational. I think if more research was done or more references were found, it would improve it a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Football1502 ( talk • contribs) 01:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
This article is (almost) exclusively about American (USA) Public Policy. It ignores the rich history of European public policy and public policy concepts, let alone the much less documented public policy from the rest of the world. 203.109.208.252 ( talk) 00:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)