Talk:Position paper

The following citation provides another use of position papers as used by the European Commission, in the area of air quality:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/legislation/assessment.htm

OBSERVER-A, 19 MARCH 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.161.118 (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This can hardly be construed as a correct and complete article on what a Position Paper is.

I don't have the time to write the article but a good basis would be here:

http://homepages.uhwo.hawaii.edu/~writing/position.htm

Merged

Hello,

I merged the article into the MUN page and kind of started a new one about the "real" position paper. I'm not too sure about the stub category I chose. I just couldn't find any one that suited better.

Do you think it's too small for a stub?

André Neves 13:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs work

Additional sources needed; context needs to be provided.

Past edits on this article have focused only on position papers (PPs) as related to the Model United Nations. Scope should be dramatically expanded to cover:

general concept of PPs
categories of PPs such as political, scientific, corporate, academic, etc
famous or infamous PPs (and significant events affected by them)
relation of PPs to similar documents such as white papers

That should do for a start. -- Low Sea (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to expand the focus and met with partial success; more information on position papers in the business and political spheres would improve the article. --Frostyservant (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added information and citations on political, academic, and corporate usage. I'm not sure scientific is a distinct catagory from academic in this setting. The relationship to white papers and green papers is included but needs a citation... I can't find one. Famous position papers are obviously harder to define than famous white papers as they are (often) less official and less definitive. It think the above are now adequately addressed. Other opinions?Oboler (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly notable

I have removed the notability tag from the stub. It's a topic that obviously has plenty of independent reliable sources available and therefore there is no reasonable doubt as to the topic's notability. Vassyana (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Position papers vs. white and green papers

The lead sentence of the article currently says, "A position paper is an essay that presents an opinion about an issue, typically that of the author or another specified entity.". The final sentence currently says,"In government, a position paper lies somewhere between a white paper and a green paper in that they affirm definite opinions and propose solutions but may not go so far as detailing specific plans for implementation.{{Fact}}

One UNA-USA guide currently cited in the article describes a position paper in that setting as "an essay detailing your country’s policies on the topics being discussed in your committee."

Some results of a google search for "position paper" "white paper" "green paper" show several cases of a white paper sparks one or more green papers, which then lead to a position paper.

I suggest that the final sentence be stricken and that the lead sentence be redone as a short paragraph something like the following (please correct or tweak):

“

A position paper states the opinion of the writer or the policy of the publishing organization regarding a particular issue. In government, and in other large organizations, position papers often result from analysis and synthesis of one or more green papers produced within an organization proposing policies regarding a particular issue. Green papers are often generated in reaction to white papers analyzing particular problems and solutions.

”

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Position paper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for //homepages.uhwo.hawaii.edu/~writing/position.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for //www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=457147

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]