Talk:Ruthanasia

Untitled
I have greatly expanded this. I wonder whether it is right that this should be under the title Ruthanasia, which is, after all a pejorative and hardly NPOV reference to the process. Perhaps this should be merged into an article on Ruth Richardson, and ruthanasia just directed to that, or stubbed simply to refer to the term, and cross referenced to the other article.ElectricRay 15:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Pejorative is a highly subjective term. In its own way the third way can be considered so too. Whilst laissez-faire is a term that no politician with any hopes of centrism would mention even if it aptly fits their policies.


 * I'm in favour of keeping it as Ruthanasia, it's well cemented in NZ political lingo. Its neutrality is unquestionable - the ACT Party openly promotes it and sought Richardson to run for them whilst Labour scorns it; that's as neutral as politics ever gets! -- Greaser 01:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Citation Needed
Why has someone (or is it a machine) put Citation Needed by some annotated quotes (eg Ken Douglas). Since the quote is headed by the name of the person who made it, why has it been tagged 'Citation needed'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.198.145.187 (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not enough to have the person who said the quote. While it's probably correct - we have no way of knowing that the quote is not simply made up if it's not referenced. Ballofstring (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)