Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Discussion of interest

Members of this project may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Religion and the abolition page

The Abolition page takes one possible way of talking about abolitionism, a mere historical list that accounts when slavery was banned in various places. This avoids the difficulty of the argument of evangelicals vs deists/agnostics.

Crimes against humanity always promote weird split ideas. Europe mostly banned slavery within its borders by let's say 1500, and moreover a person, even a person of 'lesser race' could not be a slave in many European countries. Yet outside, the lesser races were 'blessed' by inclusion via slavery.

As to slaves offshore, there was a debate. For example, the Catholic Church was split as to whether these men had souls and whether they could be enslaved. Over the course of about 500 years, the Church rocked back and forth as liberals and conservatives succeeded one another in power. What actually happened historically was that the Barbary Slavers had taken about 2 million people from England, France, Spain, Italy, Greece and Circassia to be slaves in the Middle East along with their burgeoning African trade. The English and others simply took up this trade when they developed naval might, because slaves were the goods that African Empires offered them.

In the period say 1730-1830 roughly, the Europeans learned that some lesser races -the Indians and Chinese, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists- had produced works of thought that greatly exceeded anything Europe had produced. There was acceptance, interest, rejection and reaction. (There still is. You find many, many Arts academics who know nothing of,and have no respect for, Eastern thought. The Guardian recently produced a list of 'the 100 greatest non-fiction books in history' that was just about all Europeans and Anglophones of 1700-2000 with barely anything outside Europe or not written in English. Even Classical civilizations got barely a nod. And the British say they are the greatest literary nation in history when they can't even come close to the Chinese.)

Anyway anyway. When slavery was abolished, every mainstream church except the German Lutherans were in favour of slavery (just a bit later in Australia, the German Lutherans were the only ones that did not accept and process aboriginal child abductees - slaves in all but name). I don't know if it affects it that these churches were all setting up lucrative child-kidnapping exercises in Europe at the time. The people that were against it were the Quakers and Evangelicals, and the people that didn't dare go public about their religious views, but were anti-Christian or anti-church. Abolitionism was greatly enhanced and empowered by people like Rousseau and Voltaire and Franklin. My point is that these Deists and such had huge power. The Evangelicals and Quakers were mostly powerless. Pitt, a Deist or Atheist, hived off the job of promoting abolitionism onto Wilberforce, a nobody. The actual power came from Pitt - and Fox, probably the most left-wing leader ever to sit in an English parliament. People had to be careful what they said. For example non-Christians were not allowed at Oxford or Cambridge until about 1870 or so. These men had to hide their beliefs.

A lot of these anti-church people hid behind the Evangs and Qs and abolitionism was basically about attacking church power, I believe. I can see that the churches were making a lot of money out of supporting slavery somehow. I can see how it would be channeled in the present day but I can't get my hands on it back then. Now it is the same. Churches have become right-wing, and their voices of skepticism about Climate Change are supported by massive money from people like the Koch brothers. It's the same process.

On the Wikipedia page about Christianity and anti-slavery there is or was the ridiculous statement that abolitionism was something that 'could only have come about within Christianity'. I pointed out to them that Jainism, the Han Court, Buddhism and the Upanishads had forbade slavery 2,300 years before. The great support of slavery was Islam and Christianity paid a large part too.

Christianity has somehow hijacked the debate and made out the dialogue as the exact opposite of what really happened. It is the same with Women, Children, and Human Rights, which the churches opposed with gritted teeth all the way while the anti-Christians pushed it. This shocks me. As a devout Buddhist, I expect Christian churches to be full of people of genuine spirituality. I know and like one bishop of Melbourne. The Anglican church has been most helpful with my projects. But then, the people I know mostly represent liberal tendencies that are being suppressed in a conservative Church.

So to sum up, my inclination is to rout out this whole page on Abolitionism and design a whole new one. We need to completely change the way this period is seen. The way it is being presented is wrong.

It is the same with Early Christianity. It was very cosmopolitan. Jerusalem was a bustling cosmopolitan city, probably as multicultural as it is now. Buddhist monks for example would have often passed through there and the Christian monks are undoubtedly based on them. Jerusalem was not the east of the west, it was the west of the east of the third most populated area in the world (after India and China).

Abolitionism requires a great deal more research, because I didn't know that slavery had been banned within so many European countries much earlier, and I have to find out what religious influence was on that. Five years ago I wold have dived right into it. But now I am old and so ill that the best I can do is make the suggestion. You who really understand European History will no doubt see that I am but a tyro in these matters.

Indigocat (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Indigocat (talk • contribs) 18:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC) 

RfC of interest

The following RfC may be of interest to members of this group: [1]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about article "SNC-Lavalin affair"

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair#RfC about the first sentence, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. We could really use some outside input. – Anne drew 19:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC

Invitation to participate in an RfC at Talk:Antifa_(United_States)#RfC to add a new section ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC of interest

The RfC located here may be of interest to the members of this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC of interest

this RfC may be of interet to the members of this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Office holders and their change

What are current practices (and opinions) about references to holders of offices where change is probable? Wouldn’t be wise to fetch names and links from Wikidata (e.g. using {{LinkedLabel}})?

Two cases where the currently dominant system of “hard-coded” wiki links performs poorly:

• Politicians mentioned from multiple articles. How many spurious links does Special:WhatLinksHere/Theresa May contain today, more than a week after dismissal?
• Offices not of great interest for English Wikipedia (but probably of some interest for the international community). Ex.: vandalism discovered (and reverted) by me only accidentally.

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Technical standards

A new WikiProject has been proposed where your knowledge and competence could be very useful.
You are invited to join the discussion about this proposal: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Technical standards. Thanks. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Multiple requests and discussions of interest

There are multiple requests for move and other discussions open about naming of some articles about communism that might be of interest to members of this project:

• The discussion is somewhat centralizing at: Portal talk:Communism#Marxism–Leninism called Communism
• Previous and parallel discussions are, in creation order:
  • Talk:Communist state#Requested move 31 July 2019 (31 July, closed)
  • Talk:Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes#Requested move 31 July 2019 (31 July, closed)
  • Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes#Requested move 31 July 2019 (31 July, closed)
  • Talk:History of communism#Marxism–Leninism called communism (August 3, open)
  • Talk:Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes#Requested move 14 August 2019 (14 August, open)
  • Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes#Requested move 14 August 2019 (14 August, open)
  • Talk:Communist state#Scope of the article (14 August, open)

Thanks. --MarioGom (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

RM of interest

A request to re-title an article which may be of interest to members of this project is here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Human rights for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Human rights is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Human rights until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of interest

A discussion which may be of interest to members of this project can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

A formal request has been received to merge: New Conservatism (China) into Neoauthoritarianism (China); dated: 17:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC). Input from interested editors' is requested >>>Here<<<. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 17:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Pitchfork, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Right-libertarianism and its place within libertarianism

There is a discussion happening at Talk:Right-libertarianism about whether to rename or delete or merge or otherwise make major changes to that article, which seems to me that it is really about libertarianism more generally and so needs eyes from a wider selection of editors than just those who happen to be watching that article. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

How do we decide if legislation that's in a U.S. House committee is notable

Any major legislation that's on an interesting topic like drug policy or gun control will tend to be reported on in national media, but is that enough? Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a somewhat gray area. On the one hand, most bills never make it to becoming law, and if an article was written about them early on, it becomes clear soon enough that they had a flurry of coverage, followed by an eternity of oblivion. That's part of the reason for some of the goals behind WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, in my opinion. Sometimes, even a failed bill truly does have continuing coverage, and important, long-term, lasting effects, such as for example, the continued attempts to repeal the U.S. Affordable Care Act, which are clearly notable. See WP:NEWSEVENT, including WP:DEPTH, WP:LASTING, and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.

Personally, I think RECENTISM is a systemic bias of being human, and whatever happened just now, seems more striking and important. A few weeks later, we can hardly remember what all the excitement was about, if we remember the events at all. So, I'd be very cautious about writing about bills in committee. I think we should also count multiple articles that all cover the same event in the same way, as one source, not multiple sources. To write about a bill still in committee, I think it has to somehow really stand out from the pack, and give a strong impression that it meets some of the criteria of notability that point to a likelihood of lasting importance and ongoing coverage. I look forward to hearing what other editors think about this. Mathglot (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Зенитная Самоходная Установка: The short answer is: no it isn't enough per Mathglot. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Though I agree basically with the principle of NOT NEWS, sometimes at least providing a link to what we should not fully cover, or fully yet cover, can be appropriate. This can perhaps often be best dealt with by a list, not articles, though the number of possible items seems to imply we still need to be selective. DGG ( talk ) 09:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Legislation doesn't have to have a high chance of passing to be important. For example, one of the reasons there are so many different pot legalization bills being introduced is that different presidential candidates want to seem like they're showing leadership on this issue. So for example, Cory Booker has his Marijuana Justice Act; Tulsi Gabbard has her Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act, Kamala Harris has her Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, etc. From a political standpoint, it could end up having an effect on elections. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• For the purposes of full disclosure, this discussion came about as a result of the creation of several articles by Зенитная Самоходная Установка, which I prodded during my NPP activities. DGG left a comment on my talk page regarding the possibility of creating a list article. This led to my feeble attempt, which can be found at Cannabis legislation proposals. I think that as a general rule, pending bills are not notable. All this is based on WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NOTNEWS, as well as several of the other rationales mentioned above. In addition, in general I don't think that list articles of failed or pending legislation is a good idea as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. However, that being said, I think there are times when a social movement is taking place when a list article might be appropriate. For example, failed laws regarding the temperance movement which led up to the passage of prohibition, or vice versa, the repeal of prohibition. I'm not pleased with my list article, this field not being my forte, and I wouldn't be hurt if someone nominated it for deletion, but I felt compelled to at least give it a shot.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it shouldn't be a list; maybe it should be a narrative. And then everything in the narrative can be given its due weight. But, that can require more research sometimes. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 11:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Considering that there will be a continually increasing number of items that will need to be added, as well as changes in status of the individual items, a descriptive text here would be very much more difficult to maintain--and also very much harder to organize, or for people to find a particular bill. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Lists of endorsements

We have a number of very long lists of endorsements of candidates. Many of the entries in these lists are primary sources - tweets by the endorsers themselves, for example. As we tick over towards the next US election cycle, I think it would be worth establishing a guideline for endorsement lists that follows Wikipedia's content policiees: no inclusion unless there is a reliable independent source to establish the truth and significance of the endorsement. I doubt anyone in the world cares if a party hack tweets support for the party's candidate in any particular race, this is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information, right? Jon Favreau (speechwriter) tweets endorsement of $DEMOCRATICCANDIDATE: Nobody is surprised, nobody cares. Jon Favreau gives an interview to the NYT in which he endorses some specific policy platform of $CANDIDATE: Interesting and encyclopedic. Simply listing every party-aligned individual who self-publishes support for any candidate is not encyclopedic, and can safely be left to the campaign website itself IMO. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for members' input on merger

stalled debate regarding a merge of Anarcho-tyranny into Samuel T. Francis as a neologism invariably invoked in reference to its originator. Could use third-party opinions. Articles tagged. >>>Discussion Here<<< czar 02:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC) Samuel T. Francis

Next election notability

Need your thoughts on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(events)#How_soon_can_someone_post_about_the_next_election? Thanks. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)