Talk:Foot voting

Merge?
Perhaps this article could be merged into Tiebout model? Szarka (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It should. Volunteer Marek 00:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * They should be kept separate. The foot voting article should cover the general concept while the Tiebout model article should cover a specific concept.  Tiebout's paper has been cited over 10,000 times...so it's certainly notable enough to warrant its own entry and contain it's own section within the foot voting article.  --Xerographica (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * But there's no content here that does not belong in Tiebout's article. In fact there's really nothing here. It's a WP:CONTENTFORK, essentially being used as an excuse to include some block quotes from a couple of people. Remove the block quote and there's nothing here. Unless you can show that this has a reason to exist separately from the Tiebout article, I'm making this into a redirect. Volunteer Marek 01:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And what in the world does it have to do with demographics? The fact it was created by an anon IP with an edit summary I am a genious! (sic) doesn't bode well either. Volunteer Marek 01:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding blockquotes

 * The blockquotes establish that other notable people besides Tiebout have discussed this concept. Have you read any reliable sources on this concept?  In other words, what are you basing your argument on?  --Xerographica (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As I've already said above, I'm "basing my argument" on the fact that once you remove the block quotes there's almost nothing here. There's certainly nothing here that couldn't be simply included in the Tiebout article. Yes, the blockquotes show that Friedman and Hayek made comments along the similar lines but this is irrelevant. First, there need to be secondary sources which discuss "foot voting" in a manner distinct enough from the Tiebout model. I'm not seeing that here. Basically somebody on Wikipedia decided that these were relevant and slapped them in here. That's original research and synthesis. Second, Capitalism and Freedom was published after Tiebout's article and IIRC Friedman actually made explicit references to Tiebout somewhere.
 * Again, this article needs reliable sources and distinct information. Neither of these are here right now. Otherwise, it should be a redirect. Volunteer Marek 02:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Once you remove all the content from an article...suddenly the concept is no longer notable enough to warrant it's own entry? That doesn't make any sense.  Also...you're confusing research with original research.  It requires research to establish whether or not this concept is notable enough to warrant its own entry.  Given that two Nobel Prize winning economists have discussed this concept...I don't see why would you doubt the notability of this concept. --Xerographica (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What content?!? Blockquotes are not content. And you're ignoring what I said. Look, I can actually sort of see how this concept *might* warrant it's own article. The Tiebout model is a specific formalization of this concept but if there are reliable sources out there that discuss it in a broader context then fine. The problem is that there's nothing like that in the article right now. So find reliable secondary sources which talk about "foot voting" in a way which is distinct from the Tiebout model or this becomes a redirect. Volunteer Marek 02:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Blockquotes are certainly content. And in most cases, what a Nobel Prize winning economist says about a concept is going to be of more value to readers than prose from the average editor.  Regarding your ultimatum...can you please explain to me what exactly is your own contribution to the improvement of this article?  Because I'm just not seeing it.  --Xerographica (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They're really not. This is an encyclopedia not Wikiquote. Volunteer Marek 03:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia...not a dictionary. Except, you've removed nearly all the relevant reliably sourced content...and now it's little more than a dictionary entry.  Are you going to build it up into an encyclopedic entry?  Or is your contribution simple to tear down other people's modest, albeit highly imperfect, efforts?  --Xerographica (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed unnecessary block quotes. And no, I'm going to turn this into a redirect. Volunteer Marek 05:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Old merge tag removal
Please note I removed the old merge tag from both this article and Tiebout. The tag had a discussion link for the Tiebout talk (not this page), and no discussion had taken place. If interested editors want to re-propose a merger, I shall have no objection. If this is done, follow merge proposal guidelines. I suggest either starting the discussion afresh below or on Tiebout. Why start a new discussion? The discussion immediately above is not focused on merger. – S. Rich (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Terry Pratchett
This relevant passage was removed from the criticism section. I don't see how this edit improves the article. --Xerographica (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reliable secondary source which discusses this particular statement in the context of "Foot Voting" or the Tiebout model? Also blockquotes should be avoided, and honestly the ones by Friedman and Hayek should be removed as well. For one thing, with blockquotes you start running into copyright issues. Volunteer Marek 01:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you cite the policy that states that secondary sources are required to establish the relevance of a passage from a primary source? If you're concerned with blockquotes and copyright issues...then you should probably head over to the Wikiquote project and start removing quotes.  But if you're genuinely interested in improving this article...then you're welcome to add some reliably sourced prose.  --Xerographica (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ??? WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. Volunteer Marek 02:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please copy and paste the passages from those policies that you think are relevant here. --Xerographica (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

''Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. ''

Actually just the whole section. Basically, you just decided that somehow this passage from a novel was relevant to the topic. That's a classic case of original research. There's no need for this to be in the article. Volunteer Marek 02:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * From the policy...
 * A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
 * Terry Pratchett's passage is a straightforward critique of foot voting...just like it's straightforward that Hayek's and Friedman's passages support foot voting. Also, Hayek's passage is from a secondary source that describes Hayek's support of foot voting.  But you removed his passage and Friedman's passage anyways.  --Xerographica (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * One more time. Sources please. Volunteer Marek 03:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are sources. Are you arguing that those primary sources are not relevant to foot voting? --Xerographica (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, sources which link the quotes to the subject of this article. Volunteer Marek 05:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you telling me that the subject of the passages is not straightforward? --Xerographica (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Look. You need a source which discusses the quote and the topic of this article together. Otherwise it's SYNTH and OR, not to mention the fact that we avoid blockquotes. There's no clearer way I can explain this. Volunteer Marek 05:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You keep saying it's SYNTH and OR but when I asked you to copy and paste the relevant policy passage...all you copied and pasted was this: Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.  Again, please copy and paste the exact relevant policy passage.  --Xerographica (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. Please actually read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Here let me try one more time:

To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (Emphasis on "directly" is not mine but in the policy)

Volunteer Marek 06:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * From the policy...
 * The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources.
 * What position am I advancing that is not advanced by Hayek or Friedman? --Xerographica (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I neither know nor care, but you still need sources which directly support the material. Also, I'm done discussing this. Volunteer Marek
 * How can you say that the addition of the passages count as original research if you aren't even able to articulate or identify what, exactly, is original? --Xerographica (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hayek, Friedman and Pratchett - original research?
The following three passages were removed because of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH...


 * "Is it? I understand you've traveled, Agnes," said Vlad, as she struggled. "So you'll know that so many people lead little lives, always under the whip of some king or ruler or master who won't hesitate to sacrifice them in battle or turn them out when they can't work anymore."
 * But they can run away, Perdita prompted.
 * "But they can run away!"
 * "Really? On foot? With a family? And no money? Mostly they never even try. Most people put up with most things, Agnes." - Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum


 * The second broad principle is that government power must be dispersed. If government is to exercise power, better in the county than in the state, better in the state than in Washington.  If I do not like what my local community does, be it in sewage disposal, or zoning, or schools, I can move to another local community, and though few may take this step, the mere possibility acts as a check.  If I do not like what Washington imposes, I have few alternatives in this world of jealous nations. Milton Friedman, Capitalism and freedom


 * [Friedrich Hayek] put forward his conception of optimal realizable utopia for humanity as he saw it in Law, Legislation and Liberty - "the transformation of local and even regional governments into quasi-commercial corporations competing for citizens. They would have to offer a combination of advantages and costs which made life within their territory at least as attractive as elsewhere…To re-entrust the management of most service activities of government to smaller units would probably lead to a revival of a communal spirit."  He remarked in The Constitution of Liberty on "competition between municipalities," and said in an interview, "I'm inclined to give local authorities power which I would deny to the central government, because people can vote with their feet against what the local governments can do." - Alan O. Ebenstein, Friedrich Hayek: a biography

From the policy...
 * The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources.

Can anybody explain exactly what position would be advanced that is not advanced by these sources? --Xerographica (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes it's original research. Especially the Pratchett quote. The other two as well, though to a lesser extent. At any rate, even then they should be paraphrased not included as block quotes. Volunteer Marek 16:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, where's the original research? For it to be "original" research I have to add some interpretation, spin or analysis that's "original".  My only analysis was deciding that Pratchett's quote is A. relevant to foot voting and B. a critique of foot voting.  That's not original research...it's simply research. --Xerographica (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Whether or not you agree that this is (or is not) OR, you cannot post material unless there is consensus to include it. Sometimes edits are acceptable on their face -- when they are not, as here, they do not go in the article (or any article). In this case, try composing some material without the blockquotes. Post them here and ask for improvements. When other editors agree that specific material is acceptable, then it can be posted to the article. – S. Rich (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Why are you changing the subject? He's saying that the passages are not acceptable because they are original research.  But he has yet to explain what, exactly, is "original".  I didn't write those passages...and I'm certainly not putting my own spin on them.  So why is he accusing me of "original research"?


 * It's one thing for somebody to remove material that they believe to be unacceptable...and it's another thing entirely for them to be able to offer valid justifications for their actions. He has yet to offer a single valid justification for his removal of the passages.  --Xerographica (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not changing the subject. My comments expanded the rationale for keeping the quoted pieces out of the article. (E.g., we do not have a consensus to incude the material.) But to explain further (again), it is true that you did not write the material, but you want to add it to the article. It is your OR to say Pratchett was talking about foot voting. And Friedman and Hayek are problematic because we don't have a clear and acceptable definition of what foot voting is. (Friedman speaks of it as a possibility that few exercise and Hayek was making a hypothetical argument. These references can be used to a carefully limited extent, but not as blockquotes.) Compare – some editor could look at the origins of homo sapiens in the East African Rift and point out how they spread across the world. It would be OR to say "Early homo sapiens were voting with their feet when they moved out of the Rift Valley because they did not like the authority structure of their local groups or they saw better economic opportunities in other locations." There is RS that supports the origins of homo sapiens in the valley and there is RS that supports the fact that they moved out of the valley. But taking that RS and combining it to say they were voting with their feet is wrong. – S. Rich (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You're completely abusing the "no original research" policy. There's absolutely nothing "original" about saying that Friedman, Hayek and Pratchett were talking about foot voting in their respective passages.  If you don't even have a basic grasp of what foot voting is...then please research the topic until you do.  Until then your edits and comments will continue to be disruptive.  --Xerographica (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * – S. Rich (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Add Example?
I was just wondering if people fleeing East Germany into West Germany (before the construction of the Berlin Wall) could be added as an example for foot voting. I don't have any sources relevant on hand but this would be the first example that comes to my mind when it comes to "foot voting". 128.189.223.95 (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)