Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) at 05:47, 31 January 2013 (→Terry Pratchett). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Economics Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge?

Perhaps this article could be merged into Tiebout model? Szarka (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It should.Volunteer Marek 00:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

They should be kept separate. The foot voting article should cover the general concept while the Tiebout model article should cover a specific concept. Tiebout's paper has been cited over 10,000 times...so it's certainly notable enough to warrant its own entry and contain it's own section within the foot voting article. --Xerographica (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

But there's no content here that does not belong in Tiebout's article. In fact there's really nothing here. It's a WP:CONTENTFORK, essentially being used as an excuse to include some block quotes from a couple of people. Remove the block quote and there's nothing here. Unless you can show that this has a reason to exist separately from the Tiebout article, I'm making this into a redirect.Volunteer Marek 01:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

And what in the world does it have to do with demographics? The fact it was created by an anon IP with an edit summary I am a genious! (sic) doesn't bode well either.Volunteer Marek 01:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The blockquotes establish that other notable people besides Tiebout have discussed this concept. Have you read any reliable sources on this concept? In other words, what are you basing your argument on? --Xerographica (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

As I've already said above, I'm "basing my argument" on the fact that once you remove the block quotes there's almost nothing here. There's certainly nothing here that couldn't be simply included in the Tiebout article. Yes, the blockquotes show that Friedman and Hayek made comments along the similar lines but this is irrelevant. First, there need to be secondary sources which discuss "foot voting" in a manner distinct enough from the Tiebout model. I'm not seeing that here. Basically somebody on Misplaced Pages decided that these were relevant and slapped them in here. That's original research and synthesis. Second, Capitalism and Freedom was published after Tiebout's article and IIRC Friedman actually made explicit references to Tiebout somewhere.

Again, this article needs reliable sources and distinct information. Neither of these are here right now. Otherwise, it should be a redirect.Volunteer Marek 02:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Once you remove all the content from an article...suddenly the concept is no longer notable enough to warrant it's own entry? That doesn't make any sense. Also...you're confusing research with original research. It requires research to establish whether or not this concept is notable enough to warrant its own entry. Given that two Nobel Prize winning economists have discussed this concept...I don't see why would you doubt the notability of this concept. --Xerographica (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

What content?!? Blockquotes are not content. And you're ignoring what I said. Look, I can actually sort of see how this concept *might* warrant it's own article. The Tiebout model is a specific formalization of this concept but if there are reliable sources out there that discuss it in a broader context then fine. The problem is that there's nothing like that in the article right now. So find reliable secondary sources which talk about "foot voting" in a way which is distinct from the Tiebout model or this becomes a redirect.Volunteer Marek 02:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Blockquotes are certainly content. And in most cases, what a Nobel Prize winning economist says about a concept is going to be of more value to readers than prose from the average editor. Regarding your ultimatum...can you please explain to me what exactly is your own contribution to the improvement of this article? Because I'm just not seeing it. --Xerographica (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

They're really not. This is an encyclopedia not Wikiquote.Volunteer Marek 03:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Terry Pratchett

"Is it? I understand you've traveled, Agnes," said Vlad, as she struggled. "So you'll know that so many people lead little lives, always under the whip of some king or ruler or master who won't hesitate to sacrifice them in battle or turn them out when they can't work anymore."

But they can run away, Perdita prompted.

"But they can run away!"

"Really? On foot? With a family? And no money? Mostly they never even try. Most people put up with most things, Agnes." - Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum

This relevant passage was removed from the criticism section. I don't see how this edit improves the article. --Xerographica (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reliable secondary source which discusses this particular statement in the context of "Foot Voting" or the Tiebout model? Also blockquotes should be avoided, and honestly the ones by Friedman and Hayek should be removed as well. For one thing, with blockquotes you start running into copyright issues.Volunteer Marek 01:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite the policy that states that secondary sources are required to establish the relevance of a passage from a primary source? If you're concerned with blockquotes and copyright issues...then you should probably head over to the Wikiquote project and start removing quotes. But if you're genuinely interested in improving this article...then you're welcome to add some reliably sourced prose. --Xerographica (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

??? WP:OR, WP:SYNTH.Volunteer Marek 02:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Please copy and paste the passages from those policies that you think are relevant here. --Xerographica (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.

Actually just the whole section . Basically, you just decided that somehow this passage from a novel was relevant to the topic. That's a classic case of original research. There's no need for this to be in the article.Volunteer Marek 02:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

From the policy...

A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

Terry Pratchett's passage is a straightforward critique of foot voting...just like it's straightforward that Hayek's and Friedman's passages support foot voting. Also, Hayek's passage is from a secondary source that describes Hayek's support of foot voting. But you removed his passage and Friedman's passage anyways. --Xerographica (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

One more time. Sources please.Volunteer Marek 03:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Those are sources. Are you arguing that those primary sources are not relevant to foot voting? --Xerographica (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No, sources which link the quotes to the subject of this article.Volunteer Marek 05:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Stub-Class Economics articles
• Low-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles