Talk:How to Argue with an Economist: Reopening Political Debate in Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Books (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Australia / Literature (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon How to Argue with an Economist: Reopening Political Debate in Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian literature.
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance.

Removed weasel words and wordiness[edit]

I've removed weasel words and wordiness which cluttered the article and watered down what was being said. Johnfos (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No - you made no changes, rather it is a simple revert of my changes and returned it to your version where you state the author's opinion as fact. here. It is only the author's opinion - it is not a fact. It may be valid opinion, it may be widely even majority held opinion, and it might be very extensively researched opinion, but it's still opinion and needs to be expressed as such. Your preferred version is (as with many of your articles on books) is in breach of WP:NPOV. If you don't like my actual word choice, you can change that, as long as it maintains it is clear we are showing the author's opinion and not a fact. If you are not satisfied with this (and your other book articles), then I'm more than happy for further comment to be sought. I suggest the AUstralian editor's notice board is a good start. And, I don't know how my changes are WP:WEASEL - have you read that page. --Merbabu (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

Well, I don't really like either formulation. The one by Johnfos does seem to state as fact what is an opinion, albeit a possibly well argued one. The one by Merbabu goes to extreme (discusses, opinion, so-called) in pointing out that these are opinions and not facts and thus dismisses what may well be well argued opinions. One would prefer to phrase the statement in a way that makes it clear that the book is the work of one person while not pushing that down the reader's throat. My preference would be to use a simpler formulation such as:

In this book, Lindy Edwards explores the role of economics in society, as well as the influence of "economic rationalism" on Australian politics. Edwards (or Prof./Dr. Edwards if appropriate) argues that this economic view overlooks important social issues and explains how, in his opinion, it transforms (has transformed?) Australian culture

--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 19:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)