Please feel free to help me edit this article. I have added a section "arguments against".
http ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_education#References
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
I like this quote:
"Since public education is constitutionally mandated by each of the 50 United States[citation needed] (for instance, Article VIII of the Virginia Constitution requires the legislature to "provide for a system of free public elementary and secondary schools for all children of school age throughout the Commonwealth"[2]), its abolition presents a formidable task for anti-education groups."
apparently being against the state-run and tax-funded school system makes us anti-education. >_>
Wikipedia, I coud see that turning into a very uphill and frustrating battle. As soon as you put in an "arguments against" there will be a counter to that and probably edit wars. Besides I think if you want to put it in, "Arguments against Public Education" should be its own article.
Think of it like this, If I had an article on say Communism/ Capitalism/ Jesus the articles are so big and contriversial that I think it must be divided up into as many articles as possible. The main article on Communism should be trying to keep the facts as dry, clear, and in a way short as possible. There should be a large "See Also" section to it though with "arguments for and arguments against type articles" being links. See my point?
Let us look then and see, how they manage their concerns- they for whose cause we are to labor, devote ourselves, and grow enthusiastic
-Max Stirner, The Ego and His Own
That being said I think a full article on "arguments against public education" is a good idea. I think articles like that are part of wikipedia's great charm and one of its great assets.
Somebody beat me to the edit. :) They changed it to anti-public education.
Mark B.: Somebody beat me to the edit. :) They changed it to anti-public education.
Changed what to "anti-public education"?
I'm all for an "arguments against" section, but isn´t it just a little bit tactless to put it at the top of the article? That's one way to make sure that your edits are completely erased and the article locked.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
ama gi: I'm all for an "arguments against" section, but isn´t it just a little bit tactless to put it at the top of the article? That's one way to make sure that your edits are completely erased and the article locked.
I would think it is core to the article. I think any debatable topic should start with a section of arguments for and against.
Wikipedia really puzzles me. online i trash wikipedia, but in the classroom i try to defend it. Because wikipedia is a really quick and easy source for term-papers and essays
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
Don't wanna be a jerk, but the "Arguments against" section needs to have citations and not be so blatantly POV if you want it to stay. Otherwise I can guarantee you that stuff will get deleted.
edit- also, wikipedia is likely to have rules about where an "arguments for and against" section should come, so you won't have to make that decision.
Nick Ricci:Don't wanna be a jerk, but the "Arguments against" section needs to have citations and not be so blatantly POV if you want it to stay. Otherwise I can guarantee you that stuff will get deleted.
I did add a reference. But you think I should make it a note instead? In regards to only half the funding goes to instruction.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap