Talk:Private sector involvement

AFD nomination:

I am nominating this article for deletion on the following grounds:

The article appears to be WP:OR. It cites no general discussion of what the term 'private sector involvement' means, but instead cherry-picks sources in order to describe aspects of the Greek government-debt crisis: a subject already more than adequately described in its own article. It also cites no sources whatsoever for much of its content. I have no doubt that plenty of sources using the phrase 'private sector involvement' could be found, but without sources which meaningfully define the term, rather than just using it in passing, an encyclopaedic article not reliant on synthesis seems impossible, and I very much doubt that any clear definition exists, given the many contexts in which the phrase can be used. Governments frequently interact with the private sector, but basing an article about a particular type of 'involvement' cannot be justified based on a particular Wikipedia contributor's own analysis.

If you wish to contribute to the AFD discussion, please do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Private sector involvement. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

(Note: as an unregistered contributor I cannot complete the AFD process myself: I have placed a request at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion asking that a registered contributor finish the process: this may take a little time. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC))

Thank you for the notification. Very specific. Good luck. -The Gnome (talk) 07:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

What this article should be about.

If this article survives AfD (I suspect it is heading towards 'no consensus) readers may be interested to see an alternative version [1] (rapidly reverted by the article creator) which explained what the subject matter was, avoided unnecessary digressions about what it wasn't, and similar digressions on what some people think the proper usage of a common three-letter phrase ought to be. I am not advocating restoring this version without prior discussion, but will initiate such discussion at a later date, along with a proposal to amend the title to make the context clear, per Wikipedia:Article_titles#Precision_and_disambiguation. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Renaming this article.

Per Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision and disambiguation this article should clearly be renamed, as the phrase 'private sector involvement' is used in so many unconnected contexts, and an ambiguous title serves no useful purpose. I'd suggest 'Private sector involvement in sovereign debt crisis resolution', but if anyone has an alternative suggestion to make, please do so. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I wish we could have a better title, in every respect, but per WP:COMMONNAME I'm afraid there isn't much we can do. For instance, the title you suggested is obviously long and unwieldy. An idea would be to have something towards that direction, yet succinct, e.g. "Private sector involvement (state finances)," or "... (finance)." -The Gnome (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

My suggested title is long, certainly. It does however accurately define the subject matter, whereas a parenthetical (state finances) might still leave a reader wondering what the subject is: state finances are after all largely derived from taxation of the private sector. So while I agree that long titles are generally less than ideal, given the choice between brevity and precision, I think precision should take priority. Maybe we should wait to see if other suggestions arrive though. Maybe someone else will find inspiration. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree about letting others contribute. A small note about titles: They don't need to convey everything; when dealing with the same word or words across meanings all we want is distinction. The rest is in the article. For instance, the title "flare (countermeasure)" does not mean much to someone not knowing about heat-seeking missiles, but it's enough to distinguish it from "flare (ship)." -The Gnome (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: "State finances are after all largely derived from taxation of the private sector." Some people would disagree with that, if we're talking about a fiscally and monetarily sovereign state, i.e. almost every state in the world except Eurozone members. Sample objection, here. -The Gnome (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Can we please stay on subject. The simple fact is that entitling the article 'Private sector involvement (state finances)' doesn't adequately inform readers what the subject is. To quote Wikipedia:Article titles, "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". Either offer an unambiguous title, or give a policy-based reason why the article should not have one. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Staying on the subject: I recall proposing that the article should most probably have a better title. I wrote as much right away in my first response here. About ambiguity, I'm simply going by the exact same sentence you quoted: A title such as "PSI (finance)" or something similar seems to be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, i.e. being about and in the field of finance. We do not need to be "more precise than that." I already suggested that a title "does not need to convey everything." -The Gnome (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I suppose it comes down to whether a title should "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article" for someone who already knows the subject area, or someone who doesn't. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Biased Information regarding Greek-Sovereign Debt Crisis

More specifically the following: The PSI was touted as a great success because it gave the Greek economy breathing space, but in reality, it depleted the capital of all Greek lenders,[17] as well as the reserves of Greek pension funds,[18]

The Greek State anually makes substantial contributions to the Pension Funds (since they are public), the amount lost during the PSI was miniscule compared to the income the pension funds receive from the Greek Government. In addition even if Pension Funds did have a risk later. They could be refinanced exactly the same way as the Banks did. The real reason that the Pension Funds were involed in the PSI is because they were holding substantial amounts of Greek Bonds thus "forced" to agree in order for the PSI to go forward. Moreover, Cited Sources for this claim have been proven to be biased in the past.

References