Talk:There is no alternative

Telecommunications Information Networking Architecture

TINA is an acronym for Telecommunications Information Networking Architecture. TINA was a joint initiative of the telecom industry to combine telecommunications concepts with IT concepts.

What does this sentence have to do here when the page is supposed to be about the political slogan and there's a redirect from "There Is No Alternative" pointing here? It's confusing.

89.247.85.50 22:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Alternatives There Are

So at the moment, for some reason, Local ownership import substituting is listed as a possible alternative, but none of the rest of the large number of proposed alternatives to the so-called neoliberal consensus is mentioned (Parecon and so on and so forth). The current shape of the article looks pretty strange to me, but I don't know which way to push it. Anyone else got any opinions? --Oolong (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

NPOV?

Hello, everyone! I'm concerned about this paragraph:

According to TINA, economic liberalism is the only valid remaining ideology. However, as is usually the case with propaganda there is little substance behind this statement. Alternatives exist, such as the social market economy which unites the freedom of choice provided by capitalism with the societal and social responsibility of socialism in order to create a utility maximising alternative.

It has no references and seems like a violation of NPOV to me. It clearly casts this idea in a negative light, describes it as propaganda, and describes the merits of an alternative as fact. That seems like a partisan political position. Perhaps a cleaned-up version might say instead "Thinkers like [X] have criticised TINA, arguing that there are alternatives such as [Y] or [Z]", with clear academic references for [X], [Y], or [Z].

Thank you for checking over this! 220.237.96.111 (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The article clearly needs good sources to make these claims, and ought to make these claims in a neutral way, with reference to the sources for claims of opinion or reckoning. Could use more work. We could add "citation needed" tags to flag things that need sourcing, for instance. I'll do that a bit right now. SageRad (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)