Talk:Public policy/Archives/2013

Comment
Lack of NPOV in this article!?!? The word "should" all over the place is rather alarming.

"...some general rules of thumb about how this should be accomplished" --- according to whom?

"The government should be subject to law..." --- according to whom?

And so on. The whole article looks like one big giant non-neutral POV. I'm baffled.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.114.118 (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2003 (UTC)

Agreed: this article is not with the spirit of Wikipedia!
I'm a graduate student of public policy -- and yes, I agree, this particular page needs some editing to make it more inclusive of many points of view. I'll see what I can do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.201.177.13 (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2004 (UTC)


 * This article should be a short, concise article of what public policy is. Currently it is an essay saying that public policy is undefinable (it still has a lot to say about something it can't define), and a plug for an academic's book. This should be a short overview of what public policy is (ie. government making laws, lobby groups presenting views), and should have some examples of thinktanks and government school (eg. Kennedy School of Government). For an example of what this could be like (only with more info) is public administration. Harro5 July 4, 2005 07:14 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'm studying for a public policy final and I'm using Wikipedia to help. Many articles are good but this one is rediculous! First of all, any article that starts with semantics, and not a clear definition is going nowhere. I had a recent experience with this on the latin america article. This page is like one long-winded debate of what one guy thinks public policy is, and not only is that not in the spirit of Wikipedia, but the his intra-personal debate isn't even that good. We need a public policy major to delete this whole thing and start anew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oregonrains (talk • contribs) 17:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * According to Dherendra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.87.237 (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a very sad article. It is quite scary when the definitions comprise over half of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.95.104 (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the article and definitions on Public Policy is concise and i believe it helps a lot for those who are not familiar with the topic..great job!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.160.26.72 (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is getting worse. Time for a re-write perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.100.80 (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Dherendra Ashutosh Vishal(DAV) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.87.237 (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I put a short blurb about the public policy process into the article. It is not very well-written, but I do not have a great deal of time right now (studying for master's comps in public administration and public policy).  I think an effective starting point for an article on Public Policy is first focusing on the Policy Process.  What do others think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikejoyce (talk • contribs) 21:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Too Much To The Right
I can see that this article was edited to fit a libertarian/conservative view point. While those of you on the right/center-right are entitled to your views, please keep this article about public policy neutral. While I'm a progressive communitarian myself,I wouldn't edit this article to fit my views either. This article should strictly be about the technical details of public policy, not how one ideology or movement would like it to be.

Save your rantings about the "free market" and "small government" for Republican/Libertarian blogs or GameFAQs. ~Leaf Cable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.48.25 (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

some ideas and proposals
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daaz (talk • contribs) 12:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The theoretical frameworks of the policy process are various. the one here proposed (stage euristic) has been subject in the last decades to a lot of criticism. i would suggest to add to the phasic model the other ones developed by other scholars (see: sabatier, 1999, theories of the policy process
 * 2) I would add a well organized-bibliography
 * 3) I would clean up the external link. there is too much confusion: links to research institues, masters, schools, etc. moreover, there are already pages on public policy schools
 * 4) last, in the actual "external links" there are some "masters" which have have absolutely no "policy approach", but, on the contrary, a managerial one! WE MUST AVOID THIS CONFUSION!!!

Let's merge this article with "Policy"
I propose that this article be merged with Policy. There is a substantial overlap in the content (check the outlines), and "Public Policy", is the largest subcategory of policy out there, and usually the one that comes to people's mind when they think about "policy".

Further, most of the content in this "Public Policy" article isn't actually specific to governments, except for the fact that the definitions and terms come from books whose primary focus is government policy.

There's just no need to have two separate articles that are 80% the same. I say merge.Gokmop 16:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: It looks like this merge was actually carried out in July 2007, and this article was a disambiguation page until it was reestablished as a separate article in March 2009. Antony–22 (talk/contribs) 03:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Article review for TC 850 by Alison
Although not a bad thing, a very short article. Has a good feeling of an encyclopedia. Not many references so maybe more research needs to be done. As a person who is not very interested in public policy, it still was able to provide good information.

Reads very neutral. I think it would be easy to be very one sided with this topic but it seems to stay on course.

There are not a lot of references but still a good amount of information. I would verify references, just to make sure.

It was put together nicely put together. Not a fun topic for me personally to read, but still informational. I think if more research was done or more references were found, it would improve it a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Football1502 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

American Public Policy does not equal Public Policy
This article is (almost) exclusively about American (USA) Public Policy. It ignores the rich history of European public policy and public policy concepts, let alone the much less documented public policy from the rest of the world. 203.109.208.252 (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)