Talk:Free to Choose
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Free to Choose article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Plans for cleanup
[edit]I'd like to help improve this article. As the current templates note, it could use some expansion and it could use some cleanup.
Based upon the principle of WP:Bold, I could just go ahead an make some major changes. However, I intend to propose changes here first (except for routine cleanup). I note the article is not getting a lot of page views, nor does it have many people watching it, so I do not anticipate that proposals will get vigorous discussion - I hope I'm wrong.
Current observations:
Citations
[edit]The largest single section is called "citations". I'm not exactly sure what it is; my speculation is that someone perused the book and listed some of the books, papers, or documents discussed in the book. It is not a list of the footnotes in the book, as there are many more footnotes than this list. It is not even a selected subset of the footnotes. For example, Naders "Unsafe at any speed" is not in any of the footnotes, although it is mentioned in the book.
The list was originally added by an IP. Nothing wrong with an IP editing, but the edits to the citations section were the IPs only edits ever, so it is not possible to query the original editor, who might shed more light on the matter. Subsequent edits to that section did not add or subtract items, merely copy edited or wiki-linked them.
I propose to remove this section. Without a clear explanation of the inclusion criteria, it sounds like OR. (Even with clear criteria, it could still be OR, but conceptually, one could devise some rule that might pass muster.)
Removed material
[edit]Citations section
|
---|
|
References
[edit]The current article has not a single reference. My goal is to follow WP guidelines, and add references. I see that a recent edit to the article removed a claim that the book supported decriminalization of drugs. A proper removal, as I don't see such a claim in the book. Had the article been better referenced, it would have been easier to note the problem.
Expansion
[edit]The article doesn't say much about the book or video series contents. The overview section is largely a discussion of the creation of the series and book, as well as the format. The overview section contains perhaps two sentences discussing the content. The position advocated section does have more coverage of the contents, but the entire section is only four sentences. I'd like to hold of major revamping of those two sections at the moments, as they are both summary sections, and concentrate of further discussion of the contents, following the ten chapter approach, then return to rewrite the summary and overview.
Technical Points
[edit]- The book illustration is the 1990 version, rather than the original 1980 publication. I'd like to use the original version.
- The lede contains the ISBN; I don't think this is standard.
- The date in the lead is given as 1980, but the ISBN corresponds to the 1990 version.
- The overview refers to the 1980 date, but the page count does not match the 1980 book.
- The info box has a different page count than the main article.
- The info box refers to the 1980 publication date, but shows the 1990 cover and the 1990 ISBN.
- The infobox page count is right for the 1980 version, but it lists 1990 in parentheses.
--SPhilbrickT 01:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Broadcast on public television
[edit]I'm sure my edit adding a prominent mention in the lead that Free to Choose was broadcast on public television will be considered vandalism by this article's more regular caretakers...so I thought that I should add a brief explanation:
When I picked up my copy of the book, I was floored when I read the tagline at the top saying (approximately) that it was "based on the smash PBS hit"; I immediately hit up the Wikipedia article to see the whole story -- how it was funded, how the Friedmans justified it, how PBS justified it (though that would be easier), how funders justified choosing PBS (or how they felt about it being the only place that would take it if that were the situation)...but unfortunately, none of this information was available.
So, I'm hoping that perhaps we can get a dialogue going that will eventually lead to this relevant and highly interesting information being added to the article.
Thanks, Justin 72.86.124.192 (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Start-Class Book articles
- WikiProject Books articles
- Start-Class television articles
- High-importance television articles
- WikiProject Television articles
- Start-Class Economics articles
- High-importance Economics articles
- WikiProject Economics articles
- Start-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- Start-Class Philosophy articles
- Low-importance Philosophy articles
- Start-Class social and political philosophy articles
- Low-importance social and political philosophy articles
- Social and political philosophy task force articles
- Start-Class Libertarianism articles
- High-importance Libertarianism articles