Talk:Ruthanasia

Learn more about this page

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

New Zealand: Politics Mid‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Untitled edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

Citation Needed edit

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)Reply

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)Reply

Add topic