Talk:Public management

made some minor edits. Still think it goes on too long about international monetary system. 71.87.179.156 01:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very long and weird entry. I've taken out references to international Jewish bankers "owning" the Federal Reserve -- and a lumping of Henry Kissinger with Hitler and Stalin -- but I fear much of this entry should be revised. I lack the expertise to do so myself, but invite someone else to! ConDissenter 20:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Writer(s) seem to get lost and wander into some ideological reasoning. I96danma 14:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, most of this article is very politicaly loaded and fails to inform one of what "Public Management" really is. Instead the author of this article bounces from tangent to tangent. The author also needlessly policisises the article and the very subject of Public Management. I would recoment a complete re-writing of this article.--Discott (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Severe NPOV

I removed most of the sections that bore little relation to the topic of "Public Management". Criticisms of fractional reserve banking, international capitalism, transnationalism, central banking, corporations or democracy belongs on other pages, not this one. Given that the great majority of the page was this unrelated "criticism", it seems there was very little directly related to the presumptive topic of the page, and needs fleshing out. PJayC (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. While I am not totally unsympathetic to some of the author's contentions (specifically, wealthy and powerful business interests corrupting democratic governance), I haven't seen an entry this severely POV in a while. Worse yet, much of it bears little actual relevance to the actual topic at hand! This article needs a major overhaul. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 07:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self reference

I removed this as self reference:

It is notable that there is, at present, no Wikipedia entry on public management via the marketplace and that it is debatable whether the entries on Smith and Hayek adequately discuss their reasons for advocating the market mechanism and how it was/is supposed to work.

Hopeless

This article is hopeless in its current state and seems to have been more or less like this for a while (although much of the more egregious parts of the entry have been removed or modified). Perhaps there could be a collective effort to revise this with a concentration on important theorists such as Herbert Simon.