 | This article was nominated for deletion on 6 August 2015. The result of the discussion was merge to Follow the money. |
Money Loop Chart OR edit
Trift: The problem is that opinions, while notable, need to be sourced to people not "a Wikipedia editor." You can't just make a chart of your own personal feelings and put it in an article; see Wikipedia: No original research. As for "money loop", that term needs to be sourced to a reputable source - and preferably not just once if it's going to be bolded as a main synonym of "Money trail." I don't even think they're the same thing, anyway; "money trail" is generically referring to who paid who, while money loop is more a statement about corporate welfare and patronage. SnowFire (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
You: Opinions, while notable, need to be sourced to people not "a Wikipedia editor." Me: OK, but not when presented as "hypothesized" for example only. Other numbers, even algebraic C, B=M*C, P=B-C, ..., might work here, too. I just pulled these numbers from news accounts, years ago, and use them here only because they make a presentation that's already internally consistent and plausible.
You: You can't just make a chart of your own personal feelings and put it in an article; see Wikipedia: No original research. Me: I can, I think, but only as a plausible example, not in any sense as "truth" right? People make up examples in WP, all the time, to help illustrate an idea, using routine mathematical calculations. Add more quibble words, if you like, to emphasize that it's only an example.
You: As for "money loop", that term needs to be sourced to a reputable source - and preferably not just once if it's going to be bolded as a main synonym of "Money trail." Me: Granted, a neologism, as you say, therefore no bolding, etc. However, it's perfectly good, modern English as nouns may now function as adjectives, in this case as short for "looping, recursive money trail." "Money trail" is another example of this.
You: I don't even think they're the same thing, anyway; "money trail" is generically referring to who paid who, while money loop is more a statement about corporate welfare and patronage. Me: There's no doubt who paid who in this hypothesized example: Congress > corporate-connected contributors > political campaigns > Congress... At each connection (">"), "value received" strengthens and enables the next connection. A money trail connects not only individuals, but groups, too. Same's true of a money trail that loops back upon itself. Trift (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ, "Trift", could you be any more obvious? Drmies (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- The chart is the invention of the posting editor and the cites added are simply synthesis. While I agree with the contents of it, this is still not appropriate for wikipedia and the author should feel free to publish it themselves on their blog or another such site. 173.109.119.57 (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Is writing or drawing inventing? You might have a point if something were synthesized here, but nothing is. It's a visual mnemonic for "money trail" that's all, no "truth" is presented with which to agree. Published numbers are used for convenience. See discussions above. -Trift (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Here it is for further consideration. -Dawakin (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, thanks. I guess we won't hear from Triftie anymore. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- ^ Michael Parenti, "Politics: Who Gets What?" Democracy for the Few, 7th edition, International Endowment for Democracy, NY, November 24, 2004.
- ^ New York Times, September 1, 2000; and CTJ Update, April 2000.
- ^ Janice Shields, Corporate Welfare and Foreign Policy (Washington, D.C.: Interhemispheric Resource Center, 1999).
- ^ Donald Bartlett and James Steele, "Corporate Welfare," Time, November 9, 16, and 23, 1998.
- ^ Mark Zepezauer and Arthur Naiman, Take the Rich Off Welfare (Tucson, Arizona: Odonian Press, 1996).
- ^ Janice Shields, "ENDING (CORPORATE) WELFARE AS WE KNOW IT", BUSINESS & SOCIETY REVIEW, SUMMER 1995.
The subject of this discussion was removed by an IP, now added back with discussion title. Tertius51 (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Metaphor? edit
This article is horrible. "Riders on the money trail"? In almost 30 years of reading about crime, corruption, and politics, I've never once heard that term before. And then the metaphor continues through the entire rest of the article. It sounds like it was all taken from one source, verbatim? Like an author used that metaphor in an essay or book and the 'editor' just copied and pasted it into the article. Also, all of the 'external links' below it are for reporting scandal/fraud. The article is more of a call to action and, maybe even a political piece, than an encyclopedia entry? Khallus Maximus (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)