Jump to content

Talk:Politicide

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kimmerling's book

[edit]

with all due respect to Kimmerling, that's just so unbalanced... Amoruso 11:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not unbalanced at all. I've read Kimmerling's book and this strikes me as a fair one-line summary of his thesis. Palmiro | Talk 20:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
citing his book as a prime example is inherehent pov. Amoruso 10:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? He is an eminent Israeli sociologist and possibly one of the best-qualified people to have written on the subject. I would have thought any respectable and neutrally-minded article would make sure it quoted him. Palmiro | Talk 20:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's an extreme anti Israeli critic so obviously he's not just a neutral "sociologist" and it should be explained it's a narrow view not based on facts if you want to maintain NPOV. Not to mention the passage is neither correctly referenced and cited, meaning it's probably accurately conveying the idea but confusing. It's not clear where the direct quote is and what's the context, it's not clear who says "he believes" and what the quote is. Adding "and his articles" also seems... un-encyclopedic. I also find it very odd that if Kimmerling is the only person to have used this term in this "meaning" then why is it so notable to make the term have supposedly "2" meanings ? It's probably one meaning and the odd reference by Kimmerling and he alone probably not even deserving such undue weight in the article. And if he's not the only one, then surely that section in its current form focusing only on Kimmerling is WP:POV. Amoruso 22:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to get into an unecessary debate, but "it should be explained it's a narrow view not based on facts" is POV. How do you know so if you're so unfamiliar with his work or his relevance? --Clementduval 07:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite & sources

[edit]

As the unreferenced template had been in this article since June 2006, I have re-written the article using sources easily found on the internet. These sources do not suggest that the term "Politicide" has anything to do with the political killings carried out by Stalin (this was a surprise to me), so I have removed that second definition. If someone has WP:Verifiable sources that it is used in such a way then please add the information citing the sources. But until such references are cited I do not think this article should include that definition.

One possible source for such a definition may be Barbara Harff and Ted R. Gurr. because at the moment there is an unsourced sentence in the gonocide article which says: "Barbara Harff and Ted R. Gurr, genocides and politicides are the promotion and execution of policies by a state or its agents which result in the deaths of a substantial portion of a group." --PBS 12:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've found a source myself [1] --PBS 12:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on a concept

[edit]

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about a single concept. According to the lead paragraph, this one is about three concepts all referred to by the same word.

  1. Destroying a political system
  2. Homicide directed at members of a political group
  3. An action which ends one's own political career

The concepts are not at all related except for the word "political". I think this article should be split into three (plus a disambiguation), or else deleted entirely. See WP:NEO for policy on neologisms. Thundermaker (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

[edit]

Another alternative has been suggested -- that this page be changed to a redirect to the Wiktionary entry wikt:politicide. If there are no objections, I'll do that as a placeholder until somebody steps up to do the work to split and DAB these three concepts. Thundermaker (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this redirect - the article had much more useful content than the wiktionary entry does (which only mentions two definitions, for a start). I recognise the problems associated with articles about neologisms, particularly when (as in this case) they don't have one widely-accepted meaning; but that doesn't necessarily mean we're better off without such articles. Perhaps redirecting to wiktionary is the best move here, but I'd like to see more input in the discussion first (if necessary, by bringing it back to AFD). Robofish (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On further thought, an alternate solution here might be to turn this into a disambiguation page. I think keeping the article would still be my first choice, but that would be preferable to a wiktionary redirect, as it would contain more information. Robofish (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each WP article is supposed to be about one concept. So the correct way to do this would be to create 3 concept pages and convert this into a disambiguation page. The redirect was intended a placeholder until we find an editor willing to do that. Wiktionary doesn't have the single-concept limitation (because dictionaries are about words, not concepts), so you could add the missing definition there instead.

The AFD is closed, but we could post a RFC to get more input on this. Thundermaker (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a neologism if the word appears in the Oxford English Dictionary. Which it does as a draft entry in 2006 with two meanings:
  • " 1. The killing or extermination of a particular group because of its political or ideological beliefs; an instance of this."
  • " 2. A course of action which is irreparably damaging to one's political career."
-- PBS (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the main author of the current version of this article.[2] I did consider splitting it into three articles, but there are good reasons why not. The first is that the meanings are related. If you destroy the group physically you destroy the political movement and if you destroy the political movement you destroy the group's cohesion -- two ways for a perpetrator to solve the same problem.
Other problems for us are one meaning (individual politicide) is clearly a dictionary meaning and will never be large enough for a stand alone article. Annihilation of an independent political and social entity, will if developed become yet another POV article, in the Palestinian-Israel Wikiwar. The last one has potential but it is an even more nebulas concept than genocide. So for the time being I would suggest that before this articel is split, then leaving what is there as an introduction, the article could be developed as three section, and when it gets to 32K then splitting it becomes an option. -- PBS (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What happened in South Africa was the destruction of a system, not a movement. And although there were some homicides involved, it was primarily done through peaceful means (economic pressure from outside). So it seems to me that one is a criminal concept similar to genocide and the other two are not.

The article as it stands already has a WP:Coatrack issue with respect to the Israel/Palestinian conflict. The only way it's ever going to get to 32K is if it expands on that basis. While I disapprove of coatracking, I disapprove of non-concept articles more.

Can we move the other stuff (South Africa and political-career suicide) to the Wiktionary entry, with a note at the beginning of this page saying "This page is about the homicide of a group of people with shared political ideology, for other uses of the term see wiktionary:politicide"? Thundermaker (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See citations: The first use of the word is for the destruction of a political system, not the members of the group that support that system. The later definition that you are proposing as the main one is largely based on the work of Barbara Harff and AFAICT is not the primary meaning. In fact of course as I said above the two are two definitions are mixed together, because one way to destroy a political system is to destroy the group who support the system and destroying a group (for other reasons) may result in the destruction of the system they support. -- PBS (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Political suicide"

[edit]

I was just asked by someone in real life to look at this article because they couldn't understand what was meant by "political suicide". The person who asked me about it thought that the reference was to politicians who committed actual suicide (e.g. Budd Dwyer), not to someone who sabotages their career. Perhaps we should be more careful with our slangy jargon; it isn't always clear, especially to younger readers and those for whom English is not their first language. I've added a definition. --NellieBly (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Definitions of politicide. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Definitions of politicide. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Politicide&oldid=978157731"