Talk:Benefit principle

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. SPECIFICO talk 02:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

When you add lists of examples, the entire list must come from the same source, or it's WP:SYNTHESIS. Aside from that, I don't know that the lists are sourced, as I would have to read all of the "sources" you list, not all of which are available online, in order to determine whether you have misquoted or interpreted the source oddly, as you have at other articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not whether I have read the material. This is an editing concern. The tagged sections do not have references supporting them. Including a list of references (or loose quotations) is not putting the bricks into place with citation mortar. The sections are simply one editor's attempt to present various thoughts into the article. The basics of WP:1ST say: "Do not write articles that present your own original theories, opinions, or insights, even if you can support them by reference to accepted work." [Emphasis in the original.] In this case, the references do not serve to support the text in the article. Also, "Please do not write articles that advocate one particular viewpoint on politics, religion, or anything else. Understand what we mean by a neutral point of view before tackling this sort of topic." Each section violates this policy. The thoughts presented lack citations which "directly support the material being presented." [Emphasis in the original.] Re-adding this unsupported material, in violation of NOR, is disruptive. --S. Rich (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You're telling me that I'm doing it wrong...but can you give me a single example of where you've done it right? If you genuinely want to improve this article...then why don't you just do so? Build the article rather than simply tear it down. Improve the article. Make it better. Add more value for readers. But that would require reading numerous reliable sources. So yes, the issue really IS whether you have read the reliable sources. Tell me what the RS say about the subject. Tell me EXACTLY where there's a disparity between what I've added and what the RS say. --Xerographica (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Recognition to creator of this article

Some tough things have been said above about aspects of this article. The Talk page is just the place for such. At the same time, I think the harshest critic would agree that the subject is very appropriate for WP and probably long overdue. Identifying that gap and trying to plug it is IMO a not inconsiderable achievement of User:Xerographica, even at the cost of falling well short of what are likely X.'s own standards and risking the kind of responses as above. Sometimes that's the cost of being WP:BOLD. That's not to condone any avoidable lapses of course but to at least keep them in proportion.

X. has to balance his own priorities & might have enough on his plate to keep way busy in other activities. Still, if time & inclination allowed, X. might be best qualified to improve the article in the near term. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! It's nice to receive some positive feedback for once. And it's even nicer to have another editor recognize where there are substantial gaps that need to be filled. Right now, probably my main priority is going through my database of passages and giving them appropriate tags. Then I'll post them to my user page. Making the passages accessible to other interested editors will hopefully make it easier for them to see, for themselves, the size of other related gaps. Then, with the relevant passages easily accessible...any other interested editors can help fill whichever gaps they so choose.

Trying to share the passages all at once is important because these concepts are so interconnected. For example, in order to contribute the most important and significant information to this article on the benefit principle...it helps to have a firm grasp on the primary objection to the benefit principle...the preference revelation problem...which ties into concepts such as dollar voting, foot voting, consumer sovereignty and taxpayer sovereignty. --Xerographica (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Stop with the passages, and describe what the reliable sources (preferably from multiple schools of economics) say about the connections. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Benefit principle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130114013243/http://hope.econ.duke.edu/sites/default/files/Buchanan%20externalities%20marciano.pdf to http://hope.econ.duke.edu/sites/default/files/Buchanan%20externalities%20marciano.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)