Talk:Politicide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Politicide is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

[edit] Kimmerling's book

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

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)

citing his book as a prime example is inherehent pov. Amoruso 10:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Rewrite & sources

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." --Philip Baird Shearer 12:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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