Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:53, 13 February 2013

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.

Nomination of Freedom of choice for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Freedom of choice is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Freedom of choice until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

See also - tax choice

Rubin removed tax choice from the "See also" section. Does anybody else fail to understand how freedom of choice is relevant to taxpayers having the freedom to choose where their taxes go? --Xerographica (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It's as relevant as "I'm Maxi. I'll be your server today. Would you like to hear the chef's specials?" in my opinion. Freedom to eat what I choose. Consumer sovereignty, etc. In other words, Arthur's deletion is correct. SPECIFICO talk 20:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

So it's relevant to consumer sovereignty...but not to taxpayer sovereignty? Oh by the way, I'm looking forward to your reply... Talk:Government_waste#Removal_of_reliably_sourced_content --Xerographica (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No no no... Chef's Special is relevant to consumer sovereignty. Tax choice is not relevant to the special of the day. SPECIFICO talk 20:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Is consumer sovereignty relevant to school choice? Also, why are you ignoring the question that I asked you on the government waste talk page? --Xerographica (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe public choice theory, but it doesn't make much sense to include all kinds of choices as related articles. Maybe including information about tax choice in the body of the article, if in context and appropriately sourced, would be nice. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Re-Title article

Shouldn't this article be called "Freedom of choice (economics)" to clarify its focus and avoid having to incorporate a large amount of other material that fits the words but is not covered by other WP articles? I think that would be a valuable improvement. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. I have left a message with SPECIFICO to comment on the AfD page. I think either the admin closing the AfD can make the name change, or once the article's fate is decided, we can change/move the name. -- – S. Rich (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. The general concept of "freedom of choice" has enough potential for a stand-alone article even without its economic aspects. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is the "general concept" nature of the topic. If we leave it bare, then it could pertain to philosophy, gender selection, male-female birth preferences, school choice, Mac v. Microsoft choices, Coke v. Pepsi, more-taste v. less-filling, etc. I think the policy of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA must be heeded. By adding "(economics)" to the article title, we gain needed precision. And then we leave non-economic freedom of choice article titles available. – S. Rich (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it pertains to all of that, but it doesn't mean that all of those topics should be included in the article. It must be presented as a general concept, the same way that religion cannot possibly address all religions that exist, and choice does not address all choice-related topics, but those articles discuss the topic in a broad, general way. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hugo, I agree with Srich on this. I think WP policy clearly states what Srich's has summarized. Most of what you've added in your recent edits is tangential. There could be separate articles on abortion rights, euthanasia, etc but they are entirely different topics than the economic implications and importance of freedom of choice, as articulated for example by Friedman. The article should not be like a dictionary entry that presents a variety of meanings for the words "Freedom of choice>" The article must be focused on the exposition of a single meaning or theory denoted by the term. We can write additional articles about the other meanings and theories. SPECIFICO talk 03:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

But it's not about abortion, euthanasia, etc., it's about the usage of the term. These topics are only used as an example to prove a point, the same way that the Apollo Lunar Module is used in the trade-off article. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest creating the article Choice (Economics), moving to it most of the content on Choice#Choice_and_evaluability_in_economics, and making it a main article for that section and for Freedom_of_choice#In_Economics. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

See also - consumer sovereignty

SPECIFICO removed consumer sovereignty from this article with this explanation..."delete tangential article". But according to WP:ALSO...

The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.

--Xerographica (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You're leaving out other parts of that guideline including the "should be limited to a reasonable number" part. Consumer sovereignty is just one of many things which can be viewed through the freedom of choice lens. Pichpich (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think "consumer sovereignty" is about something entirely different. It is about a theory of how consumers' choices, under certain specific conditions, affect economic variables. Freedom of choice is about human and civil liberty to act. There are hundreds of terms that are more closely related than "consumer sovereignty" and I think it's inappropriate here. SPECIFICO talk 03:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind including other related topics. I just can't think of any more interesting articles to link to. If you find some and "consumer sovereignty" becomes obfuscated, then it should be removed. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hugo Spinelli, you're doing an outstanding job with this article. It's long overdue for such an important concept. Keep up the great work. Regarding "a reasonable number"...we'll cross that bridge once we come even vaguely close to hitting the constraint...Talk:Constraint_optimization. Hey Pichpich...looking forward to seeing how you'll optimize the value of the constraint optimization "See also" section. --Xerographica (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

User:SPECIFICO has made significant changes in the article, but has not discussed them beforehand. The definition was changed to that of free will, the examples of usage of the term were reinterpreted and now configures WP:BIAS. He confused "freedom of choice" with the Freedom of Choice Act. He removed what I think to be relevant information. And it is worth pointing out that he has added this article to DR, so I don't know what his intentions are in trying to improve an article that he thinks should be deleted. I'm finding it really hard to assume good faith. May I revert his edits until consensus is reached regarding these changes? --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

First, not knowing his intentions is not good grounds to doubt AFG. Recommend and hope we can drop that issue.

Second, I think we are in the D phase of WP:BRD. So I recommend discussing now, reaching consensus, and then going on to agreed upon edits. Besides, let's get the AfD completed. Perhaps the closer will convert the title to Freedom of Choice (economics) which will help focus the issues. At that stage I recommend listing the edits (bulleted), the concerns and rationale, and proposed solutions. Something like:

• Definition changed – best RS is XYZ and says blah-blah-blah – suggest rewording to "FoC is such and such".

– S. Rich (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello user Hugo Spinelli. Please review the history of the AfD which I initiated. As I explained there, the article was a stub without a defined topic. I invited many users to comment. Some of them improved the article and changed it to point clearly toward the topic of "Freedom of choice" as used in economics. At that point the article appeared to have the potential to grow into a valuable addition to WP and I stated on the AfD page that I had changed my opinion. Yesterday I was concerned that your edits took the article back to being undefined and referring to an English language phrase rather than specifying single significant body of thought or theory. Your personal remarks about me above are inappropriate and I am disappointed that you did not review the history of the article and the AfD prior to speculating as to my motives and adherence to WP policy. Please make the gracious gesture of striking through your personal remarks above. SPECIFICO talk 14:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

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