Talk:Civil service
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Civil service article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Roman Empire
editI think it would be beneficial to add a subsection in the history section about the Roman empire civil service related to the growth of it. NinjaAccountant (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
bureaucrats
editThis word is inappropriate because of its ironic, pejorative meaning. I take the article as trying to describe the work of government officials without implying criticism or imputing motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.232.78 (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Brazil
editThe article's introduction, after describing the concept development in China and the UK, states that towards the end of the 19th century most nations had tests or exams to enter the civil service. I got curious and learned on an academic paper that Brazil took some more time to adopt this model, so I inserted some historic perspective on Brazil's section. The rest of it, while not wrong, is badly phrased, and perhaps I may take some time to work on it. Iporã (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Why does an article nominally about a service immediately become one about Civil Servants?
editSerious work needed! The article as it stands fails to deliver on the most basic test: to do what it says on the tin. If, after telling us about civil servants, it described their function, it might be of some use. But it doesn't even do that.
Can anyone at least prefix the first para of the lead with some relevant text and add associated body content, please? Possibly compare and contrast with Executive (government). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)