User talk:FLetch

Hi FLetch, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions to the coolest online encyclopedia I know of =). I sure hope you stick around; we're always in need of more people to create new articles and improve the ones we already have. You'll probably find it easiest to start with a tutorial of how the wikipedia works, and you can test stuff for yourself in the sandbox. When you're contributing, you'll probably find the manual of style to be helpful, and you'll also want to remember a couple important guidelines. First, write from a neutral point of view, second, be bold in editing pages, and third, use wikiquette. Those are probably the most important ones, and you can take a look at some others at the policies and guidelines page. You might also be interested in how to write a great article and possibly adding some images to your articles.

Be sure to get involved in the community – you can contact me at my talk page if you have any questions, and you can check out the village pump, where lots of wikipedians hang out and discuss things. If you're looking for something to do, check out the community portal. And whenever you ask a question or post something on a talk page, be sure to sign your name by typing ~~~~.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing! --Spangineer (háblame) 04:32, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Agricultural policy

Hi, I have a problem with section heading arguments for.. and arguments against. While I am reasonably happy that the 'arguments against' are in fact what it says, I am not happy at describing the section 'arguments for' as such.

A number of things listed are aims and objectives which governments seek to carry out. To say that a certain aim is sought, is not to say that this aim is good. Saying that these are 'arguments for' implies that things in this section explain why agricultural policy is good. Economists might (and do) argue that self-sufficiency in food is an illusive aim and in practice does not confer a benefit. Well, the 'against' section makes this point about whether the policy really works. But the 'for' section is not exactly constructed to say why policies are good. Rather it goes through a list of the sorts of things which make up agricultural policy, good and bad. It does suggest that certain governments consider these aims desireable, but a neutral observer might not. Some of the policies indeed are contradictory...protected markets are likely to lead to expensive food. So inherently, what one government thinks is good, another thinks is bad.

So conceptually I see the sections as first one listing policies and reasoning for them, second containing criticisms. It may be that this scheme leaves an opening for a third section, but I don't see there is enough material to put in it. Rather there should be a rounded discussion in both sections so that all points are covered.Sandpiper 01:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good concept for the structure of this issue. First, a discussion of *possible* rationales for policy and then, a criticism of them. Clearly, this criticism needs to be tightened up and then expanded to other areas, such as higher prices for developed world consumers, especially poor ones.FLetch 16:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just found your replies. I have already found that an edit of 3 words,never mind 10, may lead to 2000 words af argument on whether they should or should not be included. So i am still unsure what should be considered minor edits. Flagging small controversial changes as minor is not unknown here, it seems.