This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xerographica (talk | contribs) at 01:03, 25 January 2013 (→Original Research: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:03, 25 January 2013 by Xerographica (talk | contribs) (→Original Research: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Taxation (inactive) | |||
| ||||
Disputed accuracy
This page doesn't follow standard editing guidelines, and is in all likelihood was written with a total disregard to NPOV, and instead to help advance an idea rather than explain it. I've put a disputed template on it in the meantime. Sarcastic Avenger (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Merge to theory of taxation
While I haven't (yet) tagged it as such, this article should go into theory of taxation as a section. In doing so, the various references could be and should be incorporated into the text as citations supporting article prose.--S. Rich (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Are you saying that this concept isn't notable enough to warrant its own entry? --Xerographica (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is notable, but the concept will be better handled in theory of taxation. (In the meantime, please stop the disruptive editing. You readded names that lack referenced connection to the the concept, removed a basic layout parameter, e.g., the references section with reflist that normally and properly supports in-line citations. Quotefarms are not acceptable.)--S. Rich (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- A merge would be an excellent way to include whatever notable material may be found for this topic. It will also engage the efforts of additional experienced editors. There is no coherent sourced content in this article as it stands.
- Rich, why would it be better handled in the theory of taxation? You're the one engaging in disruptive editing by engaging in the wholesale removal of content that is supported by RS. If you dispute any of the content then please create a section and share your concerns. We will discuss the content problems like reasonable editors. You're not assuming good faith by implying that I've added content that is not based on RS. --Xerographica (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Original Research
Rich, you added tags which indicate that certain sections may contain original research. I know that the content is based on RS. My question is...why do you not know that? Have you read the RS? --Xerographica (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)