m Signing comment by 144.15.255.227 - "→"Undocumented immigrants" versus "Illegal immigrants": " |
Herostratus (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 189: | Line 189: | ||
:::::::Does treating people with respect even when they are mistaken or have poor motivations result in better or worse outcomes than when respect is contingent on whether one agrees with another? How often on this very page do we see those who have no time for those with whom they disagree bemoan how their political climate has become exclusionary and insular? [[Special:Contributions/184.96.138.160|184.96.138.160]] ([[User talk:184.96.138.160|talk]]) 19:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC) |
:::::::Does treating people with respect even when they are mistaken or have poor motivations result in better or worse outcomes than when respect is contingent on whether one agrees with another? How often on this very page do we see those who have no time for those with whom they disagree bemoan how their political climate has become exclusionary and insular? [[Special:Contributions/184.96.138.160|184.96.138.160]] ([[User talk:184.96.138.160|talk]]) 19:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC) |
||
{{od}}I'm a little confused about how the discussion over internationalist/nationalist bias veered off into Tony Blair and heroin, but getting back to the principle, here's my take: |
|||
The Wikipedia is an [[Age of Enlightenment]] institution (which is why our references typically are to peer-reviewed or fact-checked sources, rather than consisting mostly of "The Pope himself has said that this is true" or "The leader of our country himself has said that this is true" and so forth, as would have been done in former days -- and still is, in many places.) |
|||
Internationalization goes hand in hand with Enlightenment ideals to some degree. The modern system of international treaties and relations is to some extent an Enlightenment institution. The [[United Nations]] is, in my opinion, an institution consistent with how Enlightenment ideals would be expected to develop. |
|||
And you can't easily separate these things out. If you gather people who are on board with the scientific method, and objectively experienced reality as the measure of truth -- that is, us -- they are ''also'' like to be cosmopolitan in outlook generally. |
|||
OK so: |
|||
{{talkquote|there is a widespread growing divide and polarization, in Europe particularly, between the political leaders, who almost all identify as internationalists, and at least half of the people/voters, who prefer national political sovereignty, as shown in the Brexit vote}} |
|||
But ''none of that matters''. The Wikipedia is not run on votes, and is certainly is not run of votes of people who aren't editors. Enlightenment ideals have ''never'' been all that popular. Very many people are not comfortable with Enlightenment ideas such as letting other people practice weird religions, or say unpleasing things -- or indeed with [[humanism]], of which internationalism is a manifestation. |
|||
But so what? A lot of people are morons. What does that have to do with ''us here''? We are not going to start taking the approach "Well, to be fair, we need to balance the non-moronic material with some moronic material". Not likely to gain much traction here; I'd give it up. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 21:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::How often on this very page have we recently seen persistent accusations of political bias, presented with evasive rhetoric and distortions of fact, framed as leading questions and followed with demands for answers and accusations of censorship? [[Special:Contributions/79.73.246.67|79.73.246.67]] ([[User talk:79.73.246.67|talk]]) 20:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC) |
::::::::How often on this very page have we recently seen persistent accusations of political bias, presented with evasive rhetoric and distortions of fact, framed as leading questions and followed with demands for answers and accusations of censorship? [[Special:Contributions/79.73.246.67|79.73.246.67]] ([[User talk:79.73.246.67|talk]]) 20:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:13, 3 March 2017
"Internationalists" aka globalization promoters effect on Wikipedia
I'm rebooting this discussion because although it is (somewhat) interesting, it appears to have virtually nothing to do with Wikipedia. If there is a Wikipedia angle to be discussed, then by all means let's do it, but if people want to discuss political theory generally, there are better places for it than here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Jimbo, 2 questions.
Globalization only seems to be opposed to nationalism if you're in the developed world. The inflections showing so in that curve are due to taxation of those rich countries' working and middle classes exacerbating instead of compensating for self-interested, rational outsourcing which helps developing countries as much as it helps the first world's rich. Complaining about globalization instead of how developed countries tax their poor and middle class shows a lack of understanding of the facts. Who will join the call for solutions which support first world consumers instead of shouldering them with tariffs and limiting the freedoms to live, work, and employ people where one pleases? 174.16.120.139 (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
AsideGlobalisation basically means putting more power into the hands of transnational bodies, the vast majority of which are corporations. The idea that globalisation is a conspiracy of the political left, as Bannon seems to think, is perverse. To be an internationalist is not the same thing as supporting globalisation. To be an internationalist is to view oneself as a citizen fo the world, and one's country as a partner in the global community of nations. My understanding of old is that internationalism is a leftist or liberal position, based on equity and participation for people, and globalisation is a right or libertarian position based on the obvious extention of the idea of corporate personhood to the point of corporate nationhood. I may have bene wrong about this for my entire adult life. Or Bannon may be a deranged wingnut. Or indeed both. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
You know what, I am absolutely and utterly sick to death of this horseshit. Thank god, I found something that I can comment back to it on like Wikipedia. I understand all the theoretic garble and labels like left and right which are being slapped about everywhere these days, not excluding this conversation. And I do not like to ever stifle objective debate however, you guys are talking about real people here… not graphs, not numbers, not your own life sucking and you not being as rich as you’d like, not moaning about how the world doesn’t seem to be right in your own vision, how YOU are a globalist, how you are an internationalist…. All this horse shit is meaningless when you do absolutely nothing but sit there and talk about it. As a child, I was abused, I did not have a choice in the matter, thus I went into care. It felts like society had left me, no one like you people had been around for me then. But you know what that experience told me something about the REAL world not just how to say big words but it taught me how to mean them. In later life, I fought tooth and nail to get into university and guess what, I got there. I had to not be so pessimistic and discerning about problems of the world and take my finger from my ass and do something, act on my beliefs. Eventually I graduated with a Bachelor of Laws (Hons) And a BSc … now I am a Lawyer who conducts and helps conduct research…. And guess what… I am still bloody young. Like I said, I don’t want to stifle debate but for god’s sake stop talking about people like me as if we are facts and figures behind a charade of academic vocabulary and speak of people like they are people. →
@174.16.120.139: Which concepts more accessible? Its not so much an issue of accessibility as it is promoting the idea of being genuinely decent to one another and understanding that education alone does not give one the key to the universe. There is an amount of personal intimate experience with real world problems required in order to deduct how to resolve them. Many people that I have seen are lost in their own never ending story of personal vanity which dampens their ability to be objective about issues in society because their main concerns are issues with themselves. When you have experienced certain things in life like I have you come to a realisation that pleasures are fickle things which can very easily be taken away. When you have to genuinely fight to overcome adversity in life rather than get lost in endless self-indulgence it becomes apparent that the need to collaborate and be good to one another is all the more vital for survival. I have depended on the kindness and humanity of other people and thus I understand the need for those things to exist in society. But you also come to the realisation that mere talk is cheap and action is absolutely essential in order to produce a quantifiable result. →
|
- What does "rebooting" mean in this context? Do you want the discussion of how powerful interests shape public debate to achieve specific political ends in their favor refactored with more specific references to bias in articles? The sections you hatted already refer to articles several times, and the question about what it means to be neutral when writing about persuasion campaigns remains to be resolved. I'd be interested in your thoughts on those questions, Jimbo, and you never addressed the initial question in the first paragraph to you about BLPs, either. 184.96.138.160 (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Word of advice... Jimbo might take you more seriously if you identify which former/current User you really are, or are we to believe that your single-purpose account just joined Wikipedia for the first time a few days ago? I mean, really. Give the busy man a break. At least he identifies himself by name and leave an "open door". - 2001:558:1400:4:88F0:1C03:C016:9186 (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- I get a new IP address every time I power off my electronics when I leave the house for more than a few hours, and am apparently not the only one who finds the resulting editing experience more pleasant than the alternatives I've tried. 184.96.138.160 (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- 184.96.138.160, I think your question is a good one as well as your observations. Hopefully they will not be ignored. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well, thanks, but one of my questions was to you: if you're writing an article about powerful or wealthy groups trying to persuade people to support a proposal opposed to their own interests, how do you do write about that in a neutral way? Is it possible to write, for example, about the money spent to defend tobacco use after the 1964 Surgeon General's report without implicitly taking sides? 184.96.138.160 (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- 184.96.138.160, I think your question is a good one as well as your observations. Hopefully they will not be ignored. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- I get a new IP address every time I power off my electronics when I leave the house for more than a few hours, and am apparently not the only one who finds the resulting editing experience more pleasant than the alternatives I've tried. 184.96.138.160 (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Word of advice... Jimbo might take you more seriously if you identify which former/current User you really are, or are we to believe that your single-purpose account just joined Wikipedia for the first time a few days ago? I mean, really. Give the busy man a break. At least he identifies himself by name and leave an "open door". - 2001:558:1400:4:88F0:1C03:C016:9186 (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
How does Wikipedia keep reliable sources/articles balanced when you, and most editors are "Internationalists"?
Hi Jimbo, here are 2 of the more obvious Wikipedia angles you demanded.
1: I believe that most Wikipedia editors self identify as Internationalists as opposed to sovereignty prioritizing nationalists. User:Smallbones confirmed that fact in the discussion you just shut down. In addition, many if not most so-called "main stream media" have a corporate affinity with internationalism and often express that affinity within their "news" content. I am thinking that maybe this lopsided predisposition of yourself and most editors in favour of Internationalism is having a seriously damaging effect upon the neutrality of Wikipedia and especially Blps and articles about western political leaders and issues. The censoring of the Daily Mail articles may be a recent example of a trend I worry is taking place. The trend is further obvious in the labeling of many non-establishment media as tabloid or unfit for consideration as reliable sources.
2: Also, as part of the "Wikipedia angle", your rebooting feels like discussion stifling to me, especially since your talk page apparently has some sort of robot which automatically archives topics when interest dries up; something that other editors have complained about. It comes across, to me at least, that its kinda dictatorial (no offence)for you to use the robot and also a rebooting tool to end discussion. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- 1. I don't agree at all. And it is patently absurd to conflate editorial judgment with censorship.
- I'm not conflating, I'm saying that when editorial judgment is in the hands of mostly internationalist minded editors it can veer off into a mild and/or even systemic form of censorship against sources which present content which is on the more nationalist minded spectrum. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- 2. I don't agree at all. It is perfectly appropriate for me to ask that discussion not veer off into unrelated political matters and be firmly rooted in questions about how to improve Wikipedia. Hence the reboot of the discussion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sure it was appropriate for you to ask, but not, I think, to archive when there was still ongoing discussion and unanswered questions to you. I think the political matters are related to how to improve Wikipedia, so maybe we just have a different opinion on that. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Background for the 2 issues: In 2017, there is enormous friction between Internationalists and nationalists worldwide, particularly in Europe....exemplified by Brexit. In addition, there is a widespread growing divide and polarization, in Europe particularly, between the political leaders, who almost all identify as internationalists, and at least half of the people/voters, who prefer national political sovereignty, as shown in the Brexit vote. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- This is a good example of what I mean by veering off into unrelated political matters. You've got to stop doing that. (As a side note: it is absolutely wrong to suppose that the political leaders who identify as internationalist do not "prefer national political sovereignty". If people aren't responding well to your political rants, it may be because they don't make a lot of sense.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think people are responding well to questions I am raising here. Believe me I know a rant when I see one, and it has not been done here by me. Sometimes I do get a bit wordy, I'll admit, in trying to make a point or ask a question that others...you for example..can do in fewer words. I admit I do get energized about any issues I think are important...I am not dispassionate at all about any topics which create or increase conflicts between nations as I had a friend come home in a body bag from a truly senseless war which could have easily been avoided if more citizens/voters had been paying attention and been more passionate about standing up for their opinions. I definitely try to keep my passion in check when I edit here and by and large I do a good job of it....but, if its an issue, I'll try harder to be more concise and less verbose here on Wikipedia. Btw, my attempt with the Attawapiskat went nowhere but at least the suicides have stopped there, I think. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm probably not the only person whose eyes glazed over, and who stopped reading, when you starting talking about "censoring" the Daily Mail. If you're going to use a politically charged, inflammatory term like "censoring", then you should have a basic understanding of what it means. Wikipedia isn't an online discussion forum, despite occasional appearances to the contrary. It's an attempt to create a serious, reputable, and accurate reference work. We therefore have a responsibility to exclude sources with poor reputations for truthfulness and accuracy, or with documented track records of printing fabrications, uncorrected errors, and lies. This practice is not "censorship"; it's a necessary editorial process, to ensure that we're not perpetuating errors and falsehoods, and to ensure that we're upholding our basic contract of honesty with the reader. And now back to our regularly scheduled anti-globalization screed.... MastCell Talk 22:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- I often use the wrong word here or there, but to be fair, I always try to ignore it when someone else uses the wrong or an inflammatory word or two and I try to recognise and respond to the substance and meaning of what they are saying. Regarding the DM, they published this story about the Afghan opium debacle which no other media held Blair accountable for and which may be crucially important to many Brits because over 450 Brits were killed in the Afghanistan mission, and 158 Canadians as well. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Given that Blair was 5 years out of power in 2012, how can he be responsible for that failure? As for the facts, the DM apparently references a report by the UN Office of Drugs and Crime. I suspect the final version of the 2012 report is here - it took about 5 minutes to find. Versions for other years are also online. Of course, the DM does not clearly list its sources, so it's hard to tell. Putting the title into Google News shows plenty of articles discussing the phenomenon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- I often use the wrong word here or there, but to be fair, I always try to ignore it when someone else uses the wrong or an inflammatory word or two and I try to recognise and respond to the substance and meaning of what they are saying. Regarding the DM, they published this story about the Afghan opium debacle which no other media held Blair accountable for and which may be crucially important to many Brits because over 450 Brits were killed in the Afghanistan mission, and 158 Canadians as well. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- See Opium production in Afghanistan for earlier references, many of which received widespread press coverage before that 2012 DM article. Please provide references for the claim that no other media held Blair accountable, a claim which suggests utter unfamiliarity with the British press at best and failing that, deliberate misrepresentation. Please spare us the routine DM rhetoric about "crucially important to many Brits because <insert statistic here, preferably with 2 or more digits>" and remember that Wikipedia is not here to hold British prime ministers to account. Please do not distort the words of others as you did when converting Smallbones' "very many" to "most", let alone represent such words as factual confirmation. 79.73.246.67 (talk) 11:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- If there was any other references that held Blair accountable for this particular reason of his ( to smash the opium trade ) for him sending 450 Brits to their death in Afghanistan, and spending 18 billion pounds there, I am sure you would have found it. Keep looking but there is none which holds Blair to account for this part of his mission. Not only did he not smash the trade, but conversely the opium production and consequential financing of al-quaida skyrocketed during his mission! Your reference to the other articles about opium production never once reminded the public that Blair was not fulfilling this particular war justification objective. If you are so familiar with the British press, then please produce a reference within the content of any of our articles which points out Blair's failure in this regard. Your Smallbones comment that "very many" is not "most" seems deflective from the substance of the matter to me, but if Smallbones asks for a clarification of those words, I will certainly provide it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- I see you cannot justify your claim that no other media held Blair accountable over opium production and Afghanistan and instead try to deflect the burden of proof onto the person that asked you to provide it. This once, I'll give you a clue: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Blair+opium+Afghanistan&ie=UTF-8. Your new complaint that a Wikipedia article on opium production in Afghanistan "never once reminded the public that Blair was not fulfilling this particular war justification objective" suggests you regard Wikipedia as a platform for political campaigning. It is not, despite your unsubtle attempts to use this page for that purpose. Your evasive reponse when challenged on the distortion in your opening, "I believe that most Wikipedia editors self identify as Internationalists ... User:Smallbones confirmed that fact" does nothing to suggest such attempts should be treated with respect. 79.73.246.67 (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Does treating people with respect even when they are mistaken or have poor motivations result in better or worse outcomes than when respect is contingent on whether one agrees with another? How often on this very page do we see those who have no time for those with whom they disagree bemoan how their political climate has become exclusionary and insular? 184.96.138.160 (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about how the discussion over internationalist/nationalist bias veered off into Tony Blair and heroin, but getting back to the principle, here's my take:
The Wikipedia is an Age of Enlightenment institution (which is why our references typically are to peer-reviewed or fact-checked sources, rather than consisting mostly of "The Pope himself has said that this is true" or "The leader of our country himself has said that this is true" and so forth, as would have been done in former days -- and still is, in many places.)
Internationalization goes hand in hand with Enlightenment ideals to some degree. The modern system of international treaties and relations is to some extent an Enlightenment institution. The United Nations is, in my opinion, an institution consistent with how Enlightenment ideals would be expected to develop.
And you can't easily separate these things out. If you gather people who are on board with the scientific method, and objectively experienced reality as the measure of truth -- that is, us -- they are also like to be cosmopolitan in outlook generally.
OK so:
there is a widespread growing divide and polarization, in Europe particularly, between the political leaders, who almost all identify as internationalists, and at least half of the people/voters, who prefer national political sovereignty, as shown in the Brexit vote
But none of that matters. The Wikipedia is not run on votes, and is certainly is not run of votes of people who aren't editors. Enlightenment ideals have never been all that popular. Very many people are not comfortable with Enlightenment ideas such as letting other people practice weird religions, or say unpleasing things -- or indeed with humanism, of which internationalism is a manifestation.
But so what? A lot of people are morons. What does that have to do with us here? We are not going to start taking the approach "Well, to be fair, we need to balance the non-moronic material with some moronic material". Not likely to gain much traction here; I'd give it up. Herostratus (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- How often on this very page have we recently seen persistent accusations of political bias, presented with evasive rhetoric and distortions of fact, framed as leading questions and followed with demands for answers and accusations of censorship? 79.73.246.67 (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
VPNs and Wikipedia
Hi Jimbo. I was wondering if you would like to weigh in on this regarding VPNs and whether a registered user should be allowed to use one while editing Wikipedia.--*Kat* (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Telegraph video
Just wanted to let the readers of this page know about this video the Telegraph recently made about Jimbo, in case anyone here (e.g. Jimbo himself) is interested in watching it. Everymorning (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't like the sound of my own voice so I probably won't watch it!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- DuckDuckGo has search results for why people not like sound of own voice.
- —Wavelength (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
News articles about Wikipedia rarely flattering
Today I saw an article in the Washington Post about our Garfield page and an edit war about Garfield's gender. It got me thinking about the way the media typically shows Wikipedia, and what the WMF can or can't do to fix it. The image painted of Wikipedia frequently in news media (though the WP is a little more accurate here, tabloids won't have such qualms of accuracy) is of Wikipedia as the Wild West, with constant edit war, misbehavior, and general lies. Obviously this is untrue, but the news only reports on negative occurrences. For people who actually edit Wikipedia separating truth from lies is easy, but for the average person I think the WMF has a huge PR nightmare here. Despite that fact that most articles on Wikipedia are well-written and sourced and rarely have silly edit wars like these, the media continually reports every time they do, and people might think it happens all the time. In the minds of many people, I think Wikipedia's reputation has been permanently damaged beyond repair. It will never be a reliable source for many, despite the fact our information is from reliable sources. It will never be citable or relied upon for anything other than getting basic knowledge of a topic. IMO the WMF has done very little to stop this, and has even in some ways encouraged it. Start with the tagline of "anyone can edit". Far from being a selling point, I'd say its the number one reason people don't trust Wikipedia. Really I don't know if the WMF can do anything about this, because it seems too late to sway many people. Do you think there is any way to fix it? Pinguinn 🐧 18:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Please see WP:PERENNIAL#Prohibit anonymous users from editing. You might also look into what has happened with alternatives requiring real name registration,[1] vetting,[2] extreme vetting,[3] or other forms of exclusion. Sadly, Conservapedia is doing about a hundred times better than Citizendium and Scholarpedia combined, measured by edits per day. 184.96.138.160 (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- I would like to see the media completely ignore vandalism, as it just makes the problem worse by giving people ideas of how to vandalize. A few other things I think journalists writing about WP should do are listed here. Everymorning (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's not so much about IP users or so-called "anonymous" editing. IP editing is in fact not anonymous, but accounts are unless you disclose your identity on them. What I mean by criticizing the "anyone can edit" is that anyone can register an account and edit thousands of pages. Semiprotection and extended confirmed protection exist, but a small fraction of articles use them. I can go edit an article right now on complicated mathematics, despite knowing nothing about it. I'm not arguing for more editing restrictions,but maybe the WMF ought to tone down the constant trumpeting of their everyone can edit slogan. Pinguinn 🐧 19:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Here's the irony of that article: The only way they knew about this edit war was by monitoring our | page protection requests. The edit war wasn't exactly particularly loud or hard core. It's just a mildly persistent editor (or two) with a phone and a chip on their shoulder. A candidate for WP:LAME but not really worthy of the Washington Post's attention. or so I would have thought.--*Kat* (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- @*Kat*: Actually we have two pages here Garfield (character), and the Garfield page you linked to (and which I protected); on the first one, the brouhaha was much louder. Lectonar (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- To the contrary, this is exactly the type of Fake news, by misrepresentation and reporting something that's of zero importance, that the Washington Post publishes every day and this is a great example of why it should not be held in such high esteem by so many editors here, imo, at least not anymore. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- We used to just call this 'tabloid news', 'sensationalism'.. And yes, the Washington Post has a habit of doing some 'sensationalised' hit jobs once in a while. To call it fake news, seems a bit sensationalist in itself however. There is plenty of actual fake news that I'd rather reserve that term for. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Back in the 1970s when print news thought its competition was color television instead of the Internet, almost all big newspapers started running "lifestyles" sections with absolute pablum non-news "human interest" stories such as these. They never recovered, and the problem is not limited to any one publication or political perspective. Have you seen the cheesecake Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller runs? 184.96.138.160 (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- We used to just call this 'tabloid news', 'sensationalism'.. And yes, the Washington Post has a habit of doing some 'sensationalised' hit jobs once in a while. To call it fake news, seems a bit sensationalist in itself however. There is plenty of actual fake news that I'd rather reserve that term for. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
"Undocumented immigrants" versus "Illegal immigrants"
Jimbo, I noticed where the term "illegal immigrants" was changed to "undocumented immigrants" in Marine Le Pen's Blp. I'm thinking that for an encyclopedia, "undocumented" is too vague as it could mean a legal immigrant who has lost their documents. Also, the term "undocumented immigrants" is a whitewashing Weasel word as it implies, by its vagueness and benignity, that no crime has been committed. It would be easy to just use whatever term is in the source, but, I think the traditional "illegal immigrant" is necessary for an encyclopedia for factual clarity purposes and to differentiate the group from legal immigrants. What do you think? Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Try discussing it on the article talk page. 79.73.246.67 (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- You misunderstand. I am only using the Le Pen article as an example. I am asking whether we need to have one phrase to use consisdently in our editing, unless its a quote, and I am suggesting we should and that that term should be "illegal immigrants" for clarity and neutrality puroposes. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- The technically correct term is probably illicit, not illegal, as it's not a criminal offence in France as far as I can tell. The largest single group of "illegal immigrants" in the UK is American students overstaying their visas, according to an article I read last year. Is that "illegal" as in big-scary-Muslamic illegal? Guy (Help!) 11:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Guy, you have formed an insulting, to me, false opinion. We took in 50,000 legal Syrian refugees in Canada last year and aim for another 40,000 this year. All under our Liberal Justin Trudeau led government. I am proud to say I am a LONG time member of the Liberal Party of Canada and I support everything we do to help any refugees, including muslims. I actually do not think I have ever seen a scary muslim. Your inference is offensive and you owe me a huge apology ! I simply feel that here on Wikipedia we can be the most useful by being reality grounded and not fall onto either side of the current polarization, which I think is largely an internationalism/nationalism polarization. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- We should follow the common usage of reliable sources, as it is not our job to take a position on such matters. Wikipedia is not a battleground. And I second the suggestion that this be discussed on the article talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Great! What is the common usage ? Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- I guess I should use a yahoo exact phrase search...hold on. 2,500,000 "illegal immigrants" and 1,320,000 "undocumented immigrants". So does that settle it Jimbo ? Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Jimbo WalesYou misunderstand. I am only using the Le Pen article as an example. I am asking whether we need to have one phrase to use consisdently in our editing, unless its a quote, and I am suggesting we should and that that term should be "illegal immigrants" for clarity and neutrality puroposes.Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Seems like a bit of a misnomer as undocumented and illegal are not the same thing; one can enter a country legally and overstay, making one illegal but not undocumented, such as a British perosn entering the US on a tourist visa and staying beyond its expiry date but still having a legal passport. An undocumented immigrants implies having entered the country illegally without documentation such a Honduran person entering Mexico illegally. Which makes what Jimbo says entirely correct. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Good point; both examples fit the "illegal" word but both do not fit the "undocumented" word. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Probably the neutral way would be to use the term relevant to the statement or conversation using it. If it is about presence of immigrants which is in violation of the laws of that country, the term "illegal" is probably most appropriate for that statement / conversation. If it not and about lack of documentation, undocumented would seem more appropriate. North8000 (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'd agree with that. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- I have no idea what view you think I have formed, I was merely pointing out that the last article I read on the subject said that the largest single group of illegal immigrants in the UK is American students overstaying visas. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Seems like a bit of a misnomer as undocumented and illegal are not the same thing; one can enter a country legally and overstay, making one illegal but not undocumented, such as a British perosn entering the US on a tourist visa and staying beyond its expiry date but still having a legal passport. An undocumented immigrants implies having entered the country illegally without documentation such a Honduran person entering Mexico illegally. Which makes what Jimbo says entirely correct. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)