User talk:Student7/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Politics

I just merged Politics of Florida into several articles, mainly Government of Florida. In response to your (Government of Florida) talk page comments, should budget sections go into the politics articles? What all does politics entail? Int21h (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

On a related note, is politics a sub-article of government, is it vise versa, or are they at the same level? Should a summary of the politics article be included in the government and vice versa? (I am partial to yes.) Int21h (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"Politics" are on the same level as "Elections" and "Government." No more than you would include elections in politics or government in elections, should one be subordinate to the other. They "see also" each other.

The problem is that American editors (particularly) confuse "Elections" with "Politics" because the media tells them that dozens of times every day. Elections are us casting our votes and someone tallying them and someone winning the election. Pretty much it for citizenry in a republic. The rest of government is performed in "Politics" in the nation's or state capitol. Legislators try to get around each other and the executive to get what they want, which is law enactment (and enforcement, presumably). The citizens have nothing to do with that, though the media tries to convince us otherwise.

The type of stuff that should go into Politics of Florida are statutes constructed by the government once it is elected. So Florida has no income tax (maybe not worth mentioning = non-action), a controversial "stand-your-ground" law. Under "History" in the Politics article, that Katherine Harris cast Florida's electoral votes for Bush, once the appeals were exhausted, thus casting the deciding votes in the 2000 election; a strong water monopoly by the government, term limits, an anti-Catholic Blaine Amendment which the voters retained during 2012, and differences from other states, as we run across them.

I admit that voter-passed initiatives like supporting the Blaine amendment language probably goes under "Elections" because the voters really did pass that one, not the government, per se.

Following this strictly, helps keep nearly all controversy out of "Government" articles, surprisingly little controversy under "Politics' - we know what is different about a state's government and can often agree on it and find reliable cites. This leaves "debaters" arguing over the language in "Elections." But the election results are in and really non-debatable with reliable cites. Trying to import material from "Government" and, particularly "Politics", brings about unnecessary arguments and edit wars. e.g. "They voted for/against him/her because of a strong/weak stance on abortion." S/he won. "Abortion" is usually a legislative task. Politicians can rarely enact their promises or failure to promise. "Elections" says the vote was x to y. Period. Can give arguments/grandstand in person's bio. But at least we confine arguments to one article and it doesn't messily spill out into the other two. Student7 (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you feel this way (I feel the same, mostly). Another reason I ask is because the politics sidebars, you know, the ones that discuss the government of a jurisdiction, always link to politics articles. I fear that the politics article may be, de facto, the landing article for these subjects (government, elections, politics, law). The sidebars have been particularly worrisome for me in this regard, as they seem to impose politics as a landing article. That's why I was wondering about having an introductory/summary paragraph/section on the government. I also think it may be hard to understand the politics of a jurisdiction without understanding its government structure.

IMO it seems only recently that we have been consistently separating politics from government, and most national articles have done a poor job differentiating (See Politics of Russia for a particularly horrible example I've had to deal with) and separating the two. But I have, as a rule of thumb, tended to stay away from the politics articles because of their proneness to conflict, so I've not really had to deal with these problems.

There is also the problem with the British meaning of "government" to mean only the executive. I think there is a growing acceptance of the usage "Governance of", but it is still rare (I'm possibly the only one doing it, like with the Governance of Kosovo, LOL). This only reinforces the usage of politics as the master article. We need to decide this before we can separate e.g. Politics of Russia from its not-just-the-executive government.

I am also concerned with how to treat federal states. To what extent should a "government of" a federal state discuss subnational entities? (Assuming "federal" isn't in the article title.) Should the national article speak of the subject in general, inclusive terms, discussing issues that are integral to understanding the nation, but may not be of federal concern? (Same question for politics, law, and elections of articles.) Its easier to think about when considering the US or Germany, but what about countries like Russia, where much less is known about the relationship between the federal government and the constituent republics? This kinda ties into what to do about conflict states, where the government is not agreed upon, such as my article on the Governance of Kosovo. Int21h (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad you tend to agree. I think most people have gone along with this logic. It only gets a bit blurry with referendums and it seems to result in less warring (IMO).

There is a U.S. state article which had quite a few people working on it, and is a fair article, I think. Avoids elections separate from the fact that elections are held, and skips "politics, since there is no way one can generalize. Does this help answer the question? Might it help in (say) Mexico or Russia? I watch a couple of small states in Mexico. None in Russia. So the rule is (I think), that US states are pretty independent (theoretically). How would this pattern fit in, if at all, with French "departments" which are "homogenous," in theory? It would be nice to skip long explanations which are similar for each state. I suppose a subsection with a "main" link and a brief summary.

A collateral problem to the above, is the fact, which cannot be ignored, that all of this rolls up into a high level "Politics" category, thanks to Plato or somebody.

I am not about to argue in their article, but I would tend to disagree with the Brits separating the Commons from "Government." I've worked on more than one former European colony, which included parliament in "government. But I'm not about to beard the lion in his den!  :) Just the cabinet and monarchy seems a bit short-sighted to me. Student7 (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. I have been mulling over this conversation, the issues involved, my response, and what exactly I'm going to do about it, for the last couple weeks.

I have always been a little weary of the "U.S. state" articles, to be frank. I understand their purpose, but I have been of the opinion for quite some time now that we, quite frankly, don't know very much about these governments, much less know enough to start making generalizations, although the solution to that problem has always been more articles and more information, not to attack those articles. As for foreign places, yes, I see the logic in generalizing, as much of the information we will initially discover will probably be generic in nature, and yes, I see how the same logic applies to the US. My main misgiving is that it adds yet another layer of indirection, and that those types of articles have not been properly integrated into the other articles (i.e. the specific sub-national unit articles.) But I think I'm coming 'round. Good point. I never really thought of it as a solution to the federal problem, and yes I think it may contribute towards non-federal sub-national entities as well. I will try and bare this in mind in my future editing.

So is it settled that these subjects are sub-categories of politics? Are you of this opinion? If so, how strongly do you feel about keeping stub sections for government and law out of the politics article? (Like I said, I'm still partial to having stub-sections in the top level category article, especially as it is a top level landing page.)

And as for the "government" as executive issue, this is enormously problematic that needs a solution immediately. Like I mentioned, I have settled on a "Governance of" naming scheme, but sooner or later we must integrate this with those articles which have chosen "Government of" to mean the same thing (everything not just the executive). Are we going to convert everything over to "Governance of" and "Government of" and have a hatnote explaining the difference, or are we going to have some articles use "Government of" and "Executive of" and some use the other (with or without hatnotes?)? Int21h (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Can I also assume that you agree that budget information should go into the politics article (not in government)? I intend on making an effort to push such information out of the government articles into the politics articles in the near future. I also am mulling over pushing out the politics sections out of the government articles; if government is a sub-category of politics, I think such information just clutters up the page. Int21h (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I would rather keep all stub sections on article where we know where we are going, out of other allied articles. It makes it easier IMO, to "start off right" rather than trying to argue it somewhere down the line. I confess to having created a lot of idiotic "Politics" articles for just this reason. The articles are lame and often stub-y, but I don't have to argue separation later.

Haven't run into "Governance of." If it were the US, I would avoid it, or try to merge with "Government." Maybe some Brit countries would prefer it to "Government?" I realize there are real-life situations where this is "hard" to do. But why have too many articles on the Government. The US has ample high level structure, I think.

Yes, current (or even historical) budgets in "Politics." The fact that the legislature/parliament/congress is obliged by the constitution to produce an annual or biennial budget might be entered for general info under "Government of.."

"Government.." pages are so much cleaner and non-controversial without politics.

I think the "Government" is more than the executive in all countries, even tyrannies. The fix may be in for the judges, but they still appear to render judgements, and there are many judgements they make that the tyrant really doesn't care about, and is happy to have someone else make the decision! Student7 (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concern about mixing politics with government and law, but I still think that if politics is a top level category article, that those subjects (government and law) should be mentioned in that article. If politics is indeed a higher level category, then those other articles (government and law in particular) are not "allied", but "subsidiary". There should be a path from a high level topic to a lower level, subsidiary, topic. This would also have an impact across the board, as I would think in that case government and law should be removed from the state infoboxes' "Topics" section, as they would be covered by the politics link in the "Society" section. Et cetera et cetera. This hierarchy, if it indeed it is agreed upon by the community, is important. It gives editors the ability to do fuzzy wikilinking; they can just wikilink the politics article, sure in their mind that readers will be able to navigate to articles about government, law, etc. And it would appear that, internationally, politics is the top level ("landing") article. I doubt it will be a point of contention in the politics articles. I should also note that practice, as I know it, is to mention lower level topics, not higher level topics; so politics articles would mention government and law, whereas the latter would not mention politics (and stay "clean"). I should mention most national articles are employing this solution, that government is mentioned in politics articles.

As for the Government issue... This difference causes major headaches. Sooner or later a naming scheme will need to be agreed upon. Otherwise it will be hard to link between articles. (Imagine an infobox that links "Government of" articles.) And its not just a Brit issue; its a European issue, effecting also those nations dominated by European countries and/or British English (on pretty much every continent except the Americas, where US domination is key). This is a major issue which will need major Wikipedia editors involved for a satisfactory solution. And it is related to this issue of government being a sub-category of politics. Int21h (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I always "see also" Politics of, Elections in, Government of, in all three articles. This way, they fit nicely into the national matrix of the US. Template for each state article (which kind of governed my thinking as well. Someone else came up with this organization long before I did!).

As far as "rolling up" goes, it's kind of like "rolling up" goat into (eventually) multi-celled creatures. I may not need this at the low level. Linking mammal may do the job in the article about goats. I hear what you are saying about "law", which is interesting. But it would mean a universal name change. Some Mickey Mouse in the legislature might not result in any law. Impeachment, for example. Constitutional, but not a new statute. Resolution against member x. Maybe outside the constitution, but they are just annoyed, for some reason, by member x. I would hate to create too narrow an article that would, in turn, spawn another article, called "Politics in..!" So far, having Politics at the low level, involving only the legislature (or large city council, I suppose), has been relatively pain-free. So I am inclined to support the original layout. So what I have presented as "my" idea/layout was really someone else's (probably many someones) idea/layout.

It's the Greek philosophers, Plato (supposedly recording Socrates) and Aristotle, that have mapped out the field of knowledge. As you are aware, English is sometimes inadequate for expressing exactly what is meant. The Greeks had three names for the English word "love", for example. I do not know how to outline rhetoric, art, literature, epistemology, justice, virtue, politics, education, family, militarism, Physics, Metaphysics, Poetry, Theatre, Music, Rhetoric, Government, Ethics, Biology, and Zoology. But these tend to be at the "top of the chain" regardless of what word English employs for whatever the "bottom" article is named. The names may seem ambiguous, because English is ambiguous. That does not mean that we should employ both meanings at the lowest level. It may mean that we don't have another easily understood word to separately describe both the entire scope of government, and the interaction between politicians. Student7 (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Antalya

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Antalya&curid=361527&diff=587764566&oldid=587695331 You asked for a source and I provided one. A respected publication used the very nickname the original editor offered. So then you changed your rationale to suit the desire to impose your will. That is edit warring. This is not the first time I have seen you do this. Next time take it to the talk page. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The citation http://www.europeanbusinessreview.eu/page.asp?pid=754 states that "it is well known as the “tourism capital” of the country." It does not suggest that the name is a "nickname" but simply furnishing information about the city. The article Antalya is often hyped to promote the city as a tourist destination, which is not the objective of Wikipedia. Student7 (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The statement is hardly overhyped given numerous sources on the internet placing it 4th in the world. That Antalya is a tourism capital does reveal interesting information about the city and that is what the articles are supposed to do. Your derogatory comments about the article are not supported in the text. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)