Talk:Work aversion/Archives/2013

This is an archive of past discussions about Work aversion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Homelessness

The following had been added by 98.218.42.10 (talk · contribs) to the section Work aversion#Complications:

Homelessness. It is estimated that 45% of cases of homelessness are caused by work aversion<ref>http://books.google.com/books?lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html&as_brr=3&id=gGCqJic8ms4C&dq=%22work+aversion%22&pg=PA318&lpg=PA318&sig=ACfU3U3V_N4sg_ytCrvZotyN56m1fAZsig&q=%22work+aversion%22</ref>.

The problem with this addition is if you look at the source, it actually states that in a 1987 telephone survey of 293 random persons in Nashville, 45% of those surveyed thought that work aversion was a contributing factor. The source does not state that this was an actual significant cause - only that it was thought to be a cause by a small random sampling used in the survey. As the cited source does not support the statement that 45% of homelessness is caused by work aversion, I've reverted to the original wording of "in most severe cases". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this a joke! this disorder amounts to me saying "i hate work so i must be sick" we should correct this misinfomation24.20.81.86 (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

To those who think the article in insane and / or insulting

Just add to the list of causes, until it is patently ridiculous.

-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.218.230.70 (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This is NOT a "summary of ACCEPTED knowledge" regarding its subject.