Talk:Static analysis

As the discussion over at dynamic scoring indicates, this term is used in the fashion described here only in the context of US budget policy disputes. The distinction in physics between statics and dynamics is totally unrelated to what is presented here. I've tried to give a reasonably NPOV description of how the term is actually used. I deleted all the non-budget examples, which were all irrelevant and mostly incorrect. Much of the article read as if it was taken straight from the Newt Gingrich site given as the only link - material of this kind should be quoted and attributed, not reproduced as fact. JQ 08:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No longer sounds like (or is) a diatribe :) ... now has properly attributed quotes from a wide variety of sources, from many fields and perspectives. Mr Pete (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear

As it is now, the article is unclear enough that I tagged it as such. I don't know anything about what kind of analysis is being talked about, or what "scoring" means. I think the article needs to start with a bit more context. - furrykef (Talk at me) 09:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Cleanup

hi i think it may be clearly defined through economic

I've added quite a bit of additional reference material that balances what is presented, and demonstrates that while the term itself is not yet used across the political spectrum, the underlying principles have an historical bipartisan basis. In that sense, it can hardly be termed pejorative, so I've also removed the pejorative link.

It's also true that I can only find references using this term with respect to economic policy, not just "US budget policy disputes" but the larger and more academic discipline of economic policy. I.e., "US budget policy disputes" is a subset of the larger topic of economic policy, whether in the political or business context, for example. Mr Pete (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]