Talk:Emancipation (disambiguation)

Untitled

I put a {citation required} on the "Spiritual" section entry, although it isn't exactly the right tag. A disambiguation page should have short entries leading to articles, not a mini-essay like this, but offhand I couldn't find an appropriate article to direct readers too. Can anyone think of where "spiritual emancipation" should refer to and replace the text with a link, please? - David Oberst 07:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proportional Representation

I've reverted the Emancipation disambiguation page once again. First, a disambiguation page isn't the place for mini-essays (see MOS:DAB). More importantly, the use of "emancipation" in your text seems to be somewhat unique - I'm not aware that it is standard usage to consider citizens of countries with proportional representation systems more "emancipated" than those without, for example. Unless you can provide some standard citations of this usage, I suspect that you have run afoul of Wikipedia's "no original research" requirements (see WP:NOR). Also (and my apologies if English is not your first language), but some of your wording ("can start to participate as they are without adjusting to the one or two parties in control", or "being able to be as one is") is both difficult to understand, and reinforces the impression that one is reading the writer's personal views, not an encyclopedia article.

Finally, it is considered impolite to cry "censorship" (as you have in both your revert summaries) to simple disagreements over article content. Regards - David Oberst 23:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I am the "Mr. Virgo" referred to in your cryptic edit summary[1], but I have removed the "proportional representation" entry from the Emancipation article once again. Before restoring it, please provide citations to this usage - textbooks using the term in this manner, significant use of the term "emancipation" by groups advocating PR, etc. - David Oberst 20:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Oberst,

I forgot whose quote it was, but it goes something like this: the problem is not that people lack knowledge about certain issues, it is the knowledge they have and consider correct when it is not correct, that is the problem. Please look up the explanation of the word Emancipation in the best source available to all: the dictionary (even the one provided by wikipedia should suffice). You will find, without any problem, that I have communicated very straight-forwardly with you all this time.

I cannot educate you any better than by pointing you to the dictionary. The Webster dictionary clearly states with the word emancipation: to free from restraint, control, or the power of another. All this applies to the political platform. You seem to have gotten the picture with 'suffragettes,' but, forgive me for giving my honest opinion, otherwise you are drawing a blank. I read that you are Canadian, and in the wiki Proportional_representation I read that several Canadian provinces are considering changing the system to deliver full representation instead of winner-takes-all. I don't know if that is why you want to erase the input (when and if you don't like that to happen), but please, educate yourself before you erase. Emancipation points to a process of ultimately becoming equals (an ideal we may never be able to reach, but the process of emancipation can go on for a real long time). I remember when women were starting to wear pants that that was considered a form of emancipation; that what was first considered not-possible (in fashion: not-done) has now become possible.

The pen-ultimate form of emancipation is that of political emancipation; the political platform is the platform that matters most in emancipation because this is where you (or your self-elected representative) are allowed to sit around the table of decision makers or not. In district elections, limitations exists collectively on who can sit around the table of decision makers, limitations that do not exist (to that extent) in proportional systems.

North-Americans often think of emancipation only as belonging to those people who were set free, not those who obtained equal rights. The Voting Roghts Act of 1965, for instance, was an important step that helped emancipate many African-Americans in the voting booth.

While colloquially one term may conflict in meaning with the same term used in another part of the world - particularly a problem in world languages like English and French - it should be considered a given for users of these languages that such colloquialism exists. In our world today, the Netherlands is considered the nation that politically delivers the most freedom to its voters [[2]].

FredrickS 23:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted once again. Instead of unneeded lectures attempting to educate, please provide citations of common usage of "emancipation" such that it needs a pointer to "proportional representation" on the disambiguation page. If indeed "the Netherlands is considered the nation that politically delivers the most freedom to its voters", and this is due to proportional representation, and the process is commonly referred to as "emancipation", I have no doubt that this important fact will be documented in numerous textbooks or other sources that you can provide. Any number of activities might be argued as constituting "emancipation", but if the term is not commonly used in that context there is no need for Wikipedia to disambiguate it. For instance, Canadian soldiers may have helped "emancipate" the Netherlands, but as the word is not commonly used there is no need for a link to the Liberation Day (The Netherlands) article, nor indeed to the Women's trousers article.

Forgive my skirting the borders of sarcasm, but I notice I am not the first "North American" whose knowledge you have deemed insufficient and attempted to improve, and I would suggest that you refrain from doing so in the future. Similarly the rather ridiculous speculation that my reasons for "erasing your input" is some sort of attempt to keep Canada bound in the shackles of non-proportional representation and, presumably, lesserly emancipated.

I will attempt to enlist other editors to provide their views on the entry. - David Oberst 00:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emanicipation does not in mainstream usage include PR, there are many reasons why that is the case and why User:FrederickS' arguments are faulty. I had started to write these down, and then I realised that it is pointless. Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing political viewpoints. Frederick is making the mistake of trying to explain why emanicipation should include PR, this is the wrong place for that. Argue it in a reputable newspaper and have them publish it, then we can talk about changing this redirect page. Until then, it's better to concentrate on building an Encyclopedia than it is to try and push particular POVs. CaptainJ^{(t | c | e)} 01:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand, I see no rationale for including the PR material. If the advocate for such material can provide references that demonstrate a wide usage of "emancipation" to describe PR, then I and others can take a look at it. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 01:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, first. Your continued erasures of my input, and my attempts to reinstate what I consider vital and common knowledge (see suffragettes, which you left standing) has made me angry at you, and now I have made you angry at me with my language. Not a good way to continue a conversation. I do indeed find North-America a place of battle, even that of language, with words becoming the reasons why something is included, for instance in Wikipedia, and why some information is not included. And that battle makes me want to throw up my hands in the air and say: why battle about what is not important. I prefer to refer to the dictionary to make people open up their eyes to the real meaning of a word, often much broader than just the familiar context.

I have no objections to you asking others to help figure this one out. Since you now allow suffragettes as one of the entrees in this now very list-like looking wiki-page, I am already impressed that the concept of political emancipation has not been erased by you (not meant to be cynical, just an observation).

What I found in a half an hour search on political emancipation, shows me how much it is the paramount feature I consider it to be. If this wiki-page needs a remake, I suggest placing the feature of political emancipation back in the top again. However, I am not a must-win person, I want to find common grounds that hold truths everyone recognizes or can recognize.

[[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] [[11]] [[12]] [[13]] [[14]] [[15]] [[16]] point 2.6 [[17]] named in the same breath. [[18]] [[19]] [[20]] [[21]] [[22]] [[23]] [[24]]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.5.41.120 (talk • contribs) . (at User_Talk:FredrickS)

You seem to misunderstand - I'm not saying that people don't refer to "political emancipation", or that some people (yourself included; I'm agnostic and uninterested for purposes of this article) are of the opinion that more "political equality" may result with proportional representation. However, the connection between the two is an opinion, and it is not one that is commonly expressed with the phrase "emancipation". A Wikipedia disambiguation page can be thought of as a "what was the person looking for when they searched on this phrase" - it is not a place to list possibly related concepts. I (and others, apparently), don't see evidence that people calling up "emancipation" are in search of the proportional representation article as such. I don't "approve" of the suffragettes listing - my assumption was that it was added because the women's suffrage movement was commonly referred to by some variant of the term "Women's Emancipation". I didn't exhaustively go through your list of links, but some of the ones I looked at seem to merely contain the words "emancipation" and "proportional" on the same page - for instance the PBS page on South Africa[25], where Nelson Mandela is quoted as saying they have "achieved our emancipation", and later on the South African Embassy notes that the initial elections will be held on a proportional basis. Mandela is hardly claiming that the emancipation was dependent on the format of the subsequent elections!

I suggest you read WP:DAB on disambiguation pages (even assuming "Proportional reperesentation" was a valid disambiguation link, the additional mini-essay on voting systems would be out of place). One could find any number of references to, say, George Bush being called a "warmonger", and I'm sure many people believe this to be as self-evident as you do your PR/emancipation terminology. It does not mean that a hypothetical disambiguation page for "warmonger" should have a link to the George Bush article. Another example would be the Freedom disambiguation page. Perhaps an article entitled "emancipation (political)" is needed (which would be linked to from this page). Should you wish to create such an article, however, I would advise it would need to coherently cover all (and actual) usage of the term, and wording like "Proportional representation delivers the greater version of emancipatory options" would still be rejected by almost all editors as WP:POV or WP:NOR.

As at least two other people seem to think this is not a proper disambiguation term, I will revert this back a second time. Should you continue to change it, please be careful not to run afoul of the [[WP:3RR] provision. - David Oberst 04:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Followup by FredrickS

[moved into proper chronological order by User:Oberst] On Political Emancipation [[26]] On Political Emancipation [[27]] On Political Emancipation [[28]] On Political Emancipation [[29]] On Political Emancipation [[30]] On Political Emancipation [[31]] On Political Emancipation [[32]] On Political Emancipation [[33]] On Political Emancipation [[34]] On Political Emancipation [[35]] On Political Emancipation [[36]] On Political Emancipation [[37]] On Political Emancipation [[38]] On Political Emancipation [[39]] point 2.6 On Political Emancipation [[40]] named in the same breath. On Political Emancipation [[41]] On Political Emancipation [[42]] On Political Emancipation [[43]] On Political Emancipation [[44]] On Political Emancipation [[45]] On Political Emancipation [[46]] On Political Emancipation [[47]]

Dear fellow wikipedians,

In case you missed the entrees I provided yesterday, here they are once more. They all provide a clear use of the combination Political & Emancipation. When Googling [|both words quoted together] 62,200 entrees appear. That should suffice to place that combination on the map for good. And they are not all about suffragettes. Among other political forms of emancipation, Proportional Representation can be placed in this context, and some of the entrees indeed deliver evidence for that context. Since my background is different from yours, I want to let you in on my surprise when I learned that the word emancipation was used in the context of the abolishment of slavery. I was not familiar with the use of the word emancipation in such a context, and I had to reason why one would use the word in such a context. To help you understand my amazement about the word use I have to pull you back to the original meaning of the word. Here is Webster's information: [1615-1625; < L emancipatus (ptp. of emancipare) freed from control, equiv. to e- E- + man(us) hand + -cip (comb. form of capere) to seize + atus - ATE]. As you can see, there is already a conflict in this explanation itself in that one explanation is 'release,' while the words on which it is built are 'hand' and 'to seize.' To seize in one's hand and to be released may end up being one and the same result, but the action belongs to two different sides. To release is done by the master, to take control is done by a person him- or herself. I have the feeling we are battling this word between the real meaning (to take in one's own hand) and the colloquial version you are more familiar with (from the perspective of the boss). Please note that the translation of the root is 'to seize' and not 'to cease.' In other dictionaries I found that part translated into 'to take.'

For me, to help understand why the word emancipation was used in the context of the abolishment of slavery, I had to make two steps. The first step was that it was the title of a proclamation, the second step was that from that moment on former slaves could now start to emancipate themselves (take matters in their own hands). Only then did the combination of the word emancipation with the abolishment of slavery make sense. You will have to apologize me for being European, for I was not confronted much with the results of slavery; Europeans mainly benefited from it, and slavery was something done far away from home (at least in 'modern' times). As such, I was not aware of the word emancipation in the context of slavery. I only used it in the original version: to take control oneself. When women started wearing pants, it was not because they were now released from the restrictions of having to wear dresses, it was because they themselves decided what they should wear. Since they decided that for themselves one can call that emancipation. When women received the right to vote, exercising that right is the actual emancipation. In a political context, staying home and not vote does not make an emancipated women, because emancipation requires participation (indeed, the translation of this word also contains the -cip (to take) aspect. To take part.

The dictionary leaves the actual meaning hanging between what you are familiar with (to release) and what I am familiar with (to take in one's own hand). Even when I consider my explanation to be more accurate (since the power exists on the side of the person who is emancipated), I have no problem when others consider their version to be more accurate. The truth can be known when viewed from many directions.

I grew up with the word emancipation being placed in a socio-political context. The many entrees I provided show-case that socio-political context. The combination between proportional representation and the level of emancipation is not made up by me: it existed already. It is not a novel use of words.

As a separate argument, since I am not an original English speaker (though I speak five languages), a good number of the entrees found in Google show an internet destination outside of the English language (Russian, for instance), and while I found Proportional Representation in connection with political emancipation with British or Anglo-American entrees as well, in this globalizing world, and with the use of English as a global language, familiarities that may be considered colloquial should all be accepted. I cannot blame you for not understanding the emancipatory effect of proportional representation if you have never experienced it. In Europe, Britain is the only nation that is still a two party nation - the awareness is only slowly growing. Nevertheless, the European elections taking place in Britain are now proportional, the parliaments of Scotland and Wales are proportional. Other former British colonies have changed their system as well, like New Zealand, in 1996. Australia has implemented some changes of proportional nature (though not extensive). As described earlier, five Canadian Provinces are talking about it. Only after implementation will you experience what you have been missing. In this world today, a disproportional number of nations with district elections have British roots.

Sorry, guys, political emancipation and proportional representation are two hands on one belly. I am reverting the wiki-page once more with two reasons on my side:

The Dictionary
The many entrees I found for Political Emancipation, with Proportional Representation rightfully one of the subject matters indicating emancipation.

Please, argue your side before erasing the entree again. I am listening, but the argument that you are not familiar with the use of this term in this context appears to belong to you. What do you have, other than your familiarity of the word, with which I have no problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FredrickS (talk • contribs) 2006-06-12 16:25:25

You need to provide a reliable source that emancipation means those things you say. A new argument by you is not allowed in Wikpedia. See Wikipedia:No original research.Ultramarine 17:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also requested a non-involved admin (see here) to stop by clear up for Fredrick (or me) what seems to be an obviously unsupported disambiguation entry. - David Oberst 17:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:FredrickS whenever I see long arguments like yours on Wikipedia, I switch off. I checked out the first couple of you references and they didn't even mention Proportional representation (to say nothing about their quality). please provide two or three good references from reputable news outlets or peer reviewed journals that explicitly say proportional representation is a form of emanicipation. They should not need any further explanation from you. If they do, then the references aren't explicit enough. CaptainJ^{(t | c | e)} 19:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Also, I am unsure of the use of emancipation in relation to suffragette. I don't think a suffragette is a form of emancipation. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 20:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to make the least amount of comments as possible. However, I do not believe that the truth is served by chopping up words in as many little compounds as possible, and create an individuation of words understood differently depending on geographic colloquialism — and then not communicate about that. Language and proper communication does involve the links between words. Especially when colloquial users differ on the meaning of a word.

Therefore, and for your information (and I assume much to your surprise) here is the online dictionary definition of the top-dictionary of the Dutch language for Belgium and the Netherlands). Translation follows immediately: eman·ci·pa·tie (de ~ (v.), ~s) 1 streven naar gelijkgerechtigdheid, zelfstandigheid, eerlijker maatschappelijke verhoudingen 2 toekenning van gelijke rechten, gelijkstelling voor de wet.

Translation: emancipation (the ~ (female gender), ~s (indicating plural form)) 1 the strive for equal justice, being independent, more fair societal proportions 2 delivery of equal rights, equalization before law. From Van Dale Online [| right underneath the word Resultaat] You see, for me there is no 'opinion' when referring to political emancipation and political equality. They are one and the same thing for most people in Europe where equality is even more central than freedom (which is rather central too).

I found a similar explanation in several German online dictionaries with an emphasis on equality, and female participation in society. In French dictionaries I was surprised to also see the legal change from minor to adult mentioned in context of emancipation. As you see, the word is different from what people commonly think of the word emancipation on the American continent. With English as the current global language, what others consider to convey with a word becomes an issue - is important, and what better page to describe than on the disambiguity page.

I found many entrees, and for your ease I indicated their location within the text. But be aware, if you look for emancipation only as you know it, you will have a harder time seeing it. For my eyes, it is extremely obvious (no pun intended, just expressing my reality). Some entrees, however, must be obvious both to your and my eyes.

[[48]] on suffrage of blacks, emancipation, and proportional representation. See point 2 in respect to the third paragraph under heading 'Improving Race Relations.'

[[http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:QBKS1l_Yb1EJ:www.diplomacy.edu/Conferen ces/IG/presentations/ClaudiaPadovani.pps+%22democratic+emancipation%22&hl=en &gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&ie=UTF-8]] on 'democratic emancipation.' in yellow. [[49]] democratic emancipation, near bottom of single paragraph. [[http://otrademocraciaesposible.net/foros/viewtopic.php?p=30662&sid=ea08d77 76c1cde301ffa5c7927f4a36d]] sixth paragraph. [[http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:aGkfWa2Mh74J:www.un.org/documents/ga/do cs/55/pv/a55pv14.pdf+%22democratic+emancipation%22+proportional&hl=en&gl=us& ct=clnk&cd=10&ie=UTF-8]] democratic emancipation, used in article of United Nations, in yellow. [[http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:-XZ7QT1R39sJ:www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/pu blicity/moynintro.pdf+%22democratic+emancipation%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8 &ie=UTF-8]] one more on democratic emancipation - in yellow. [[50]] contains the title of a 1894 book called "The Emancipation of the Voter." [[http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:tJ0LfIWMhXkJ:halshs.ccsd.cnrs.fr/docs/0 0/02/86/78/PDF/Oslo%2520paper.pdf+%22electoral+emancipation%22&hl=en&gl=us&c t=clnk&cd=1&ie=UTF-8]] Page 12 in yellow: electoral emancipation [[51]] article 'Bihar in dire need of a brand new political idealogy.' Paragraph eleven.

[[http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/GeeringFOUR/geering four.html]] democratic emancipation (among others), 2nd paragraph under heading 'The Secular World and the Christian Future.'

[[http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:eIZO6gzMnKUJ:archive.co-op.ac.uk/downlo adFiles/college_Paper_No2.pdf+%22electoral+emancipation%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=cl nk&cd=4&ie=UTF-8]] with respect to female emancipation, electoral emanciaption in yellow (one of the last pages).

Canadian entree: [[http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:FfmU1X57YRAJ:www.ocic.on.ca/Bulletins/e Bulletin55_0206.pdf+Fair+vote+canada+%22democratic+emancipation%22&hl=en&gl= us&ct=clnk&cd=2&ie=UTF-8]] democratic emancipation midway entree, in red.

[[http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:_2NiVoAXgWsJ:www.eif.oeaw.ac.at/downloa ds/workingpapers/wp1.pdf+%22emancipation%22+democratizing+effect%22+%22propo rtional+representation%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3&ie=UTF-8]]

[[http://www.idea.int/publications/wip2/upload/3._Enhancing_Women's_Politica l_Participation.pdf]] Point 1.3

I found many entrees of political emancipation involving marxism: [[http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:wYMwrBTOg9sJ:criticalsense.berkeley.edu /morris.pdf+%22political+emancipation%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&ie=UTF-8]] takes a little bit of reading, [[http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/merupert/political_and_human_emancipation.h tm]] here just the first line says enough, [[52]]. I am not a fan of marxism myself, so this suffices to introduce you to that large body of this kind of political emancipation.

You basically barred me (by using words only) from changing anything to the emanciaption disambiguity page (though you are doing it yourself all the time). So, I see myself 'forced' to not change it right now, while I feel I have given you more than enough reason to stop erasing my contributions. I will give you a couple of days to communicate if you are still in disagreement. If not, I will look for the return of my entree by your hand, otherwise it will be done by my hand. If need be, I will seek advice from internationally more versatile individuals (no, there is no pun intended with my words). FredrickS 19:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...briefly, please consider this, as noted by MOS:DAB, "Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term...the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the information they want quickly and easily. These pages aren't for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific article." Paragraphs on the esoterics of proportional voting mechanisms are out of place. Also, you seem to miss the distinction between a) the term "political emancipation", which isn't disputed, and b) "political emancipation=proportional representation", which is an opinion, assumption, original research, whatever term you prefer, and not needed on the disambiguation page. A quick look at a couple of your examples indicate they are of the (a) variety. As I mentioned earlier, some sort of "emancipation (political)" overview article might be useful, although (no offence) nothing I have seen so far indicates you have the writing skills (in English) or interest to create a suitably NPOV article of this sort. I'll try to enlist some more "versatile" editors to give an opinion, including at least one from the Netherlands (here). - David Oberst 21:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch on the Side

I was asked by David Oberst to take a look at this discussion as a neutral Wikipedian from the Netherlands, so let me do that. I'll admit, I haven't read nearly all of what FredrickS wrote, or checked all the links he gave. Like others said, the arguments are just too long. If something can't be argued in a few sentences with one or two citations, it's probably wrong. I don't see why this disambig page should contain a link to proportional representation. The connection between emancipation and PR just isn't big enough. I doubt many Wikipedians coming to this page are actually looking for something on PR, and that would be the (only) reason to provide a link. (The easiest connection between emancipation and PR I can think of, is an article on political emancipation. That can contain a section on PR and it would get a link from this page.)

The entry from the Dutch dictionary (apart from being quite poorly translated into English) doesn't prove anything. The eerlijker maatschappelijke verhoudingen kind of point in the direction of PR, but it's not nearly close enough to warrant a link here. Besides, as CaptainJ said below, it's not the Dutch definition of emancipation that's important here. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 07:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ruud Visser,

I will communicate with you in English, so others can read this as well. Thank you for your reply. I discovered that the Dutch/European version of Emancipation is not understood by my fellow Americans and Canadians. Your remark that the "easiest connection between emancipation and PR I can think of, is an article on political emancipation" seems to fall on deaf ears. I cannot even get the word 'politics' on this page because they consider it an opinion. For me (and at least the Dutch and German dictionary), emancipation is a political word. Just follow the word Suffragettes — which is also my entry — it got pushed and shoved around (and I don't mind to bump heads, as long as both sides learn from the experience), and it shows how uncomfortable North-Americans are with emanciaption in a political context. I will be making a new category this time, for both suffragettes and marxism (for which I found an incredible amount of entries).

As an extra note, foreign languages should be allowed to be included for Disambiguity pages on Wikipedia when we are talking about 'globalizing' languages. Many European articles are translated into English, for instance, and political emancipation gets translated straight into English, as is. When the disambiguity page does not refer to the option that emancipation can be known in a political context then that page is not complete?

Thanks FredrickS 15:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrick,

I don't think it's a matter of Americans and Canadians not understanding (or even acknowledging) the Dutch version of emancipation. The point, as I understood it from the discussion here, is that in English-speaking countries, there simply isn't that much of a connection between emancipation and proportional representation. For that matter, I'm not convinced this connection really exists in the Netherlands. You proved this yourself by being unable to come up with any good references to support such a connection.

You added marxism to the list now (but why link it to Karl Marx instead of to marxism?), but I'm not so sure it should be on here, either. If marxism is to be considered a form of emancipation, than so could communism, democracy and others. But really, neither of them should be here. They are related to emancipation, if you will, but not closely enough to put them on the emancipation disambig page. Again, I think it might be a good idea to create an article on political emancipation, where all of PR, marxism, communism, democracy and whatnot can be discussed in the context of equal political rights. Add a link to this article from the emancipation page, and I think we're all happy.

As for feminism (emancipation of women), I'd sooner put that under a heading society than politics or history. If written, the political emancipation article can also go under society. I'm not yet decided on whether women's suffrage and/or suffragettes should be on this page. I'm inclined to say they shouldn't be, because I don't really see enough of a connection with emancipation.

··· rWd · Talk ··· 17:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruud, I fully agree with you that the American and Canadian context on emancipation does - generally speaking - not contain the link to representation. I have no problem there, nor do I have a problem when you think of emancipation in respect to feminism. The problem is that the disambiguity wiki should include all the important variations of the word, including the political explanation. I found many articles pointing towards emancipation and the political context. These articles were in English, though often pointing towards a European source. However, I did find North American articles placing emancipation in a political context as well.

From the Marxist pages I find the explanation of Political Emancipation as that what: "entails equal status of individual citizens in relation to the state, equality before the law, regardless of religion, property, or other “private” characteristics of individual persons." You must notice the stark similarity to what is described in the Dutch (where no specific reference is found for feminism in the Van Dale online-dictionary) and German dictionaries for emancipation. In these definitions, equality is central in respect to the overall entity - the state.

I would not have placed marxism on the page (not a big fan of it), but they deliver the exact terminology for what I believe is the meaning of emancipation (see origin of that word). And while most Americans and Canadians also do not like marxism, there is at least the respect for the ideology all by itself (and therefore for the terminology used by marxists, the reason why I bring it in, and why it belongs on the ambiguity page).

I found 6,750,000 entries for Political & Emancipation [[53]]

I found 63,600 entries for the combination "Political Emancipation" [[54]]

When two words are used this often, used together portraying a single idea or perspective, then who are we (you and I) to even question whether it should be a separate entry on the disambiguity page? Thanks for your help. I hope you like the solution I (partially following others and your advice) came up with (this time around). FredrickS 18:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrick, I already said in my first reaction that political emancipation should be on this disambig page. I think that with the changes made by you and David Oberst yesterday, the disambig page is such that we can all be happy with it. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 06:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable

This is my last response to User:FredrickS on this matter. I started reading your long explanation , which you decided to provide despite my stating I would be happy with two or three references without explanation. And, I couldn't believe this, not only was there unnecessary explanation, but you quoted foreign language dictionaries as your sources! In case you didn't realise, words rarely have exactly the same meaning in different languages, so that isn't the best thing to do!. And then, to make it worse, your first quotation, still don't explicitly mention PR (I didn't even bother to read the rest). My previous explanations appear to have been wasted on you, so I won't bother with more in future. If you add PR to the disambig page I (and I suspect others) will revert you. CaptainJ^{(t | c | e)} 23:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first quotation [[55]] is about proportional representation.

This link contains the words Political Representation as the header (the beginning to what appears the third paragraph) to the 12 point delivery. It explains what the 12 points are about (the benefits of PR). It is an edited delivery (but not by me), so the reader will understand what this manifest is talking about:

"[Proportional representation's] advantages over the majority vote may be roughly stated as follows:"

(which is then followed by those twelve points). Point number two states:

"2. It secures nearly complete representation of the whole body of voters in plural elections, by permitting each considerable interest of political society to take to itself its just share of representation by its own votes."

Then: in reference to every person being able to elect their own representatives, the (racist) complaint is addressed that blacks would then also get their own representatives. It is referred to later in the third paragraph under heading 'Improving Race Relations:'

"Unquestionably there is a large mass of honest opinion in the country opposed to colored suffrage, and many of those who support it in Congress and out of Congress put their support of it upon the ground of necessity -- upon the ground that in order to secure the fruits of emancipation it is necessary that the emancipated be armed with the power of self defense."

For me, securing the fruits of emancipation by means of proportional representation is a direct link. Thanks for your contribution, though. I have no problem understanding that emancipation means something different for you. The disambiguity page is the location where important variations of a word are placed. This is important for me. For using the Dutch dictionary, please see 'Dutch on the side.'

FredrickS 18:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]