Talk:Property redistribution

Extremely POV
This is extremely POV. It is almost completely at odds with the one thing resembling a reference that is provided, the entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that is provided as an external link. In particular, it makes no mention of the possibility of unjust baseline distribution, which forms a significant portion of that article. Also, I find bizarre the uncited claim that "Property redistribution policies are usually promoted (in democracies) by claiming that more socially stratified economies are more just." No doubt that increased social stratification has been the effect of recent U.S. taxation policies that have redistributed wealth to the upper 1%, but I can't remember ever seeing an argument made that this was on the basis of "justice". All arguments I've ever seen for property redistribution policies being just have been ones that advocated the opposite goal, reduction of social stratification. - Jmabel | Talk 20:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: Mike18xx moved Redistribution (which is now a redirect) to Property redistribution, claiming the term redistribution to be POV, euphemism and propaganda. The older versions of this article (can be seen in the history of Redistribution) were a bit "POVvy" in favor of redistribution, and now Mike18xx has moved the article and changed it into a clearly anti-redistribution POV article. - Béka 21:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you lying, or just stupid? I said no such thing over at Redistribution.--Mike18xx 22:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for this, but it remains a fact that the current version of this article is very POV. Béka 22:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how inclusion of counterargument logic (after the pro arguments, linking to social justice, no less) magically transforms an article from "a bit POVvy" to "very POV", as opposed to POV transformed to neutral (since it now contains both pro and con.--Mike18xx 02:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing the link to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry doesn't make my arguments, stated above, go away. Nor does removing the "NPOV" tag magically make the article neutral. - Jmabel | Talk 22:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Removing any tag related to a content dispute without having reached a consensus is vandalism, and will be dealt with as such. Mike18xx, I've restored the NPOV tag you removed, and advise you to avoid personal attacks on other contributors and work with facts and good sources, rather than your opinions.  —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Pablo, if you hadn't been in such an all-fired rush to beat me down all over Wikipedia after some shoulder-chip-wearing dude interrupted your busy schedule with entreaties to hose an opponant, you might have taken the time to realize that my latest edit (which you nuked!) had reinstanted the Standford Encyclopedia reference -- which was Jmabel's listed objection above.--Mike18xx 04:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Guilty as charged. I only saw you removing the NPOV tag twice among protests by other users. The timing may have confused me, being as preoccupied as I am while forging other dark plans. :) My revert was wrong. My warning above was untimely but strictly correct. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit-war over having an npov tag on the article, but the fact remains that the issues I raised have not been addressed. The fact remains that while the Stanford Encyclopedia is now linked, the statement cited to it is in direct contradiction to what it says. As far as I can tell on reading it, nowhere does it say that "more stratified economies are more socially just", nor anything of the sort. - Jmabel | Talk 22:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The ball's on your field. Restoring an improperly deleted tag is not edit warring. If the article has serious POV issues, it should have the NPOV tag on it, but if you feel this can be settled without it, it's fine. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have now corrected the statements that I consider to be misleading paraphrases of the cited sources. I'll probably get back to working on this article more seriously at some point, but I have dealt with the three issues I found objectionable. - Jmabel | Talk 02:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Merger?
Is there any interest here in merging this with "Wealth redistribution" to form a "Redistribution (economics)" article?-- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 01:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)