Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 84: Line 84:


I have found a widespread problem on Wikipedia that I think should be addressed. The official definition of the United States is obviously the fifty states and D.C., yet in the first sentence in the article on [[United States]], it says the country is also composed of its territories. The total population of the US is defined as the fifty states and D.C. There are also endless instances in US law and elsewhere of phrases similar to "the US and/or US territories" showing that the US and its territories are different. There is not one official US government definition including US territories as part of the country, it is only the 50 states and D.C. The much bigger problem is that it is not only in the [[United States]] article, it is in various other related articles, and there are articles of other countries, other countries' territories, and related articles throughout Wikipedia that have definitions and references that differ from the official definitions from the respective governments. There was a mediation discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/United_States which resulted in the opinions of some participants overruling official definitions. But, as I said, I am posting here because the problem is much more widespread than just one popular article. [[User:Led8000|Led8000]] ([[User talk:Led8000|talk]]) 17:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I have found a widespread problem on Wikipedia that I think should be addressed. The official definition of the United States is obviously the fifty states and D.C., yet in the first sentence in the article on [[United States]], it says the country is also composed of its territories. The total population of the US is defined as the fifty states and D.C. There are also endless instances in US law and elsewhere of phrases similar to "the US and/or US territories" showing that the US and its territories are different. There is not one official US government definition including US territories as part of the country, it is only the 50 states and D.C. The much bigger problem is that it is not only in the [[United States]] article, it is in various other related articles, and there are articles of other countries, other countries' territories, and related articles throughout Wikipedia that have definitions and references that differ from the official definitions from the respective governments. There was a mediation discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/United_States which resulted in the opinions of some participants overruling official definitions. But, as I said, I am posting here because the problem is much more widespread than just one popular article. [[User:Led8000|Led8000]] ([[User talk:Led8000|talk]]) 17:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

== Proposal for a New Doomsday Book on Global Climate Change ==

How did we get to global climate change? Who is responsible? Who profited from decisions and actions taken historically that brought us to this point?

One of the major shortcomings in our discussions about climate change is the lack of any mechanism of accountability for those who brought us here, and are still arguing against science. We are constantly told that individuals must be socially responsible to the community, and we must expect to be held accountable for our actions. Yet when have we heard of any individuals being held accountable for inflicting climate change on the world?

Almost never. Discussions quickly turn to the shorthand of corporate names and ignore the individuals who are making and have made destructive decisions leading to climate change. We need to correct this situation if we expect anything positive to be done before it is too late.

The New Doomsday Book Project

In this project, the aim is to compile the names of individuals and their employers who share responsibility for stimulating global climate change since 1945, when the greatest impacts began to be felt (a future project might go back even further). The purpose is to illuminate how we got here, who profited by it, and to encourage individual responsibility for ones actions.

Each named entry will include a brief paragraph describing the role of the individual in stimulating global climate change. This will include individuals managing major energy production industries, such as coal mining and oil production, and major energy utilization industries, such as low miles-per-gallon automobile manufacturers and electric utilities. It will also include top government officials who promoted use of fossil fuels that generate major carbon emissions. Most of the information given will be based on the office held by the individual and the role of the employer in the industry.

Hypothetical example: John Smith, Vice President for Production, 1995-2005, Consolidation Coal Company, during a period when Consol produced over 400 million tons per year of coal burned mostly in the U.S., contributing an estimated ______ tons per year of carbon to the atmosphere.

All information used will be referenced to credible published sources. No rumors, conspiracy theories, or unverifiable allegations.

In future, perhaps those who are concerned their names may appear in The New Doomsday Book will act to mitigate their contributions to global climate change, in the hope those mitigation measures will also be described in the book.

Individuals will be identified by examining government documents and annual reports of major corporations involved in the energy industries of the United States. Members of the governing boards, chief executive officers and vice presidents or their governmental counterparts will be listed in The New Doomsday Book. Names of current corporate officers and government officials will be identified first, then previous officers year by year moving backwards to 1945. They will be arranged in the book in alphabetical order, and indexed by company.

Contributing energy industries will be identified by examination of IPCC reports to determine which sectors of the economy have been most responsible for global climate change. The U.S. Census of Business will be examined to identify individual firms in each economic sector, and their annual reports obtained to identify individual corporate officers. These may be supplemented by SEC filings as necessary. Government officials will be identified during administrations that promoted use of fossil fuels in preference to other energy sources, with mitigating statements included for those administrations that seriously encouraged energy efficiency, conservation measures, and research and development of non-fossil fuels and technologies.

It will be a large, labor intensive task to compile all these names, as it was to compile the original Doomsday Book, and it will not be completed rapidly. It may take years. A topical university research seminar will be created to begin research on IPCC reports, identify relevant sectors of the economy and sources of information about individuals who should be included in The New Doomsday Book. This seminar will draw more specific parameters around the project and identify shortcomings in available data.

Why the Name?

The original Domesday Book was commissioned in December 1085 by William the Conqueror, who invaded England in 1066. The first draft was completed in August 1086 and contained records for 13,418 settlements in the English counties south of the rivers Ribble and Tees (the border with Scotland at the time). It was the first great land survey commissioned to determine the extent of taxes that could be raised, by assessing the extent of land and resources owned in England at the time. It became the principal accounting mechanism for levying taxes to support the new government.

It was written by an observer of the survey that "there was no single hide nor a yard of land, nor indeed one ox nor one cow nor one pig which was left out" of the first Domesday Book. The grand and comprehensive scale on which the Domesday survey took place, and the irreversible nature of the information collected led people to compare it to the Last Judgement, or the “Doomsday” described in the Bible, when the deeds of Christians written in the Book of Life were to be placed before God for judgement. Thus, the name was a reference to the ultimate accountability mechanism.

The Domesday Book provides extensive records of landholders, their tenants, the amount of land they owned, how many people occupied the land, the amounts of woodland, meadow, animals, fish and ploughs on the land (if any) and other resources, any buildings present. The whole purpose of the survey was to estimate the value of the land and its assets, before the Norman Conquest, after it, and at the time of Domesday. Some entries also chronicle disputes over who held land, some mention customary dues that had to be paid to the king, and entries for major towns include records of traders and number of houses.

The original Domesday Book has survived over 900 years of English history and is currently housed in a specially made chest at London's Public Record Office in Kew, London.

Source: The Domesday Book Online, http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/faqs.html#1, accessed April 14, 2007.

The New Doomsday Book of Global Climate Change will attempt to be the most comprehensive mechanism of individual accountability yet prepared on the issue of global climate change.
[[User:Mervyn Emrys|Mervyn Emrys]] ([[User talk:Mervyn Emrys|talk]]) 23:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC) Mervyn Emrys

Revision as of 00:10, 4 November 2018

    Is Trump identified as a "white nationalist"?

    Could somebody else review what's happening at Birthright citizenship in the United States? I'm withdrawing from editing it because I feel conflicted. It just bothers me to no end to in effect say the our President is identified as a "white nationalist." BTW he stated in an interview on video that he would revoke birthright citizenship in the United States by means of an executive order. See, e.g. CNN.

    The paragraph most at issue is: "The aspect of birthright citizenship conferred by jus soli (Latin: right of the soil) is regarded as controversial by some U.S. political figures, particularly those associated with white nationalism"

    The next paragraph talks about Trump and the video complete with refs.

    Trump identifies himself as a "nationalist". Others, e.g. in Pittsburgh, identify him as a "white nationalist." I'm tending to the 2nd POV now. Part of my conflict, I suppose, is that I was born to 2 then non-citizen parents in the US. I'm as American (and as WASP) as anybody. But I'm having difficulty handling this. Any help appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't read the article in question, but I think it is completely wrong to identify Trump as a "white nationalist". Very oversimplified. My personal dislike of the man is well-known, so I can hardly be accused of being sympathetic, but a claim like that is an inappropriate stretch.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: I just went and read what Trump said (just yesterday) about his intention to end birthright citizenship by Executive Order. He may or may not be a "white nationalist" (I stand by what I wrote above on that) but I just wanted to say that he is a complete Humpty Dumpty regarding the Constitution. I will enjoy (in a sad way, though) seeing the elements on the right twist themselves into contortions to support him, while at the same time continuing to allegedly support the idea of an original intent reading of the Constitution. "“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’" - Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "I'm not saying he's a racist. I'm simply saying the racists believe he's a racist". Guy (Help!) 14:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    While that second sentence can be supported with sources, it probably doesn't fit that particular article, per coatrack. Jonathunder (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We have this article Racial views of Donald Trump. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And see Pandering (politics). William Avery (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not calling Trump a white nationalist to say that he has adopted a position promoted by white nationalists. TFD (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't recall suggesting it be added. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still a stretch of "guilt by association". Lots of people (not just Trump) have reasons to argue for a change to US immigration law. As many have pointed out, the US policy of automatic citizenship for anyone born in the US is actually fairly unusual (it doesn't exist in most or all of Europe for example), so the mere fact that white nationalists favor it doesn't make it fair to draw that comparison. You might as well say "The German government under Angela Merkel, in common with German white nationalists, doesn't support the idea of birthright citizenship". I think it's weak writing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thought I'd chime in here. My understanding is that it did exist, at least for a time, in the Republic of Ireland, with the wording chosen specifically to entitle anyone born on the island of Ireland to citizenship; it was meant, in the pre-Celtic Tiger era when Ireland had almost no immigration, to allow Catholics (etc.) in Northern Ireland to claim citizenship of the republic if they so chose, and was (I believe?) amended later because a growing number of people were going to Ireland with the intention of getting free Irish (European) citizenship for their children. I can imagine EU member states not generally appreciating when other member states have such a policy, given the free-movement standards within Europe, and so there would be mutual pressure to change such policies where they exist. (That last sentence is pure speculation on my part, though.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Jimmy, Thanks for the responses but you are convincing me in the other direction. Just for context, I added the paragraph about the video as the first edit to the article in weeks. Next came a bunch of anons making "pending edits" and I approved the one replacing "nationalism" with "white nationalism". I definitely have mixed feelings on this. I was thinking of the Letter to President Trump from Pittsburgh Jewish Leaders from yesterday saying "President Trump, you are not welcome in Pittsburgh until you fully denounce white nationalism." This letter was mentioned in the Washington Post and other sources [1] I do think that qualifies him as a "U.S. political figure ... associated with white nationalism." There are certainly other articles that make that connection same day, different aspect, and the Atlantic in August on "the administration’s constant embrace of bigotry from white-supremacist and far-right groups." There is much more along these lines, especially after the Charlottesville murder last year.
    I checked the OED definition
    white nationalism
    NOUN
    mass noun
    Advocacy of or support for the political interests of white people regarded as a nation, especially to the exclusion or detriment of others.
    (example of usage)‘critics have accused him of stoking white nationalism, racism, and anti-Semitism during his tenure’
    I doubt the OED made up that example today but it certainly fits Trump. The only 2 questions I have on whether this definition applies to Trumps is the part "white people regarded as a nation" (which I believe in American English means "ethnic group") and whether he is doing it intentionally. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Trump is pushing for a redefinition of gender as being determined at birth by genes and immutable. This was the position in the last century - out of interest are there many countries which retain this view? 51.140.123.26 (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How many countries are prone to stupid pointless wars and set up for a draft for "men" but not "women"? Just because someone seems silly doesn't mean he doesn't have a plan... Wnt (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Birthright Citizenship" is not uncommon at all in the Americas, or countries with legal systems based on common law and a history of colonialism. Canada, Mexico, most of South America all have "Birthright citizenship". 138.115.53.126 (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but misleading without context. Countries that used to have birthright citizenship but don’t anymore include France, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, and the Dominican Republic. Ireland's decision is largely because of Man Levette Chen, a Chinese national who traveled to Northern Ireland so that her daughter would be born an Irish citizen. The UK Home Office rejected the application for citizenship, and the European Court of Justice overturned that decision.[2] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of what laws other countries have, the the campaign in the U.S. today to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants is led by FAIR, which the SPLC describes as an anti-immigrant hate group, and their allies. What's a common view in one country may not be in another. If Merkel came out against universal health care, she would be considered an extremist, yet that is the mainstream position in the U.S. Similarly, in the U.S., it would be considered extreme to turn state funded education and health care over to the Catholic Church as in Ireland or to advocate for monarchy as in Australia and New Zealand. TFD (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a source for the claim "the campaign in the U.S. today to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants is led by FAIR"? certainly FAIR lobbies for that, but "led by"? I would think that the Center for Immigration Studies would be a better "led by" target than the Federation for American Immigration Reform -- especially since CIS analyst Jon Feere joined the Immigration and Customs Enforcement of the Trump administration. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I said "and their allies." The CIS is also listed as an anti-immigrant hate group by the SPLC.[3] The two are the best known groups on the list. TFD (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    France, Ireland, New Zealand and Australia still have a restricted version of jus soli though. For example for Australia "a person born in Australia acquires Australian citizenship by birth only if at least one parent was an Australian citizen or permanent resident; or else after living the first ten years of their life in Australia, regardless of their parent's citizenship status". More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli Lucleon (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Trump is white. And he unironically self-identified as a nationalist. So he is a "white nationalist." Check mate, WP debate club!!! Duskbrannigan (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You should send that to Trump's speech-writers. They may be able to use it.
    Trump tweeted a Willie Horton-style video ad today. You can compare the Trump ad and the Willie Horton ad here
    Politico today reported Trump saying “You know the word ‘racist’ is used about every Republican that’s winning,” he told Christian Broadcasting Network’s Jenna Browder en route to a campaign rally in Florida. “Anytime a Republican is leading, they take out the ‘R’ word, the ‘racist’ word. And I’m not anti-immigrant at all.”
    This reminds me of one of Dashiell Hammett's characters seeing a sign in a 1920s bar in Tijuana "'Only genuine, pre-war American whiskey served here'
    "I read the sign and counted the lies contained in that one sentence. I had reached five, with a promise of a sixth, when . . ." (approx.)
    Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is something too glib and altogether deaf in dismissing Trump's appeal as "white nationalism". Have a read of the Asia Bibi blasphemy case article that has been linked from our In The News section for the past several days. To be sure, this article was great news, an amazingly good outcome to come out of Pakistan -- because the woman, after spending over a year in jail for daring to defend her belief in Christianity, was actually acquitted by their Supreme Court based on the non-agreement of the slanders against her. Then the court agreed that she wouldn't actually be released pending a "final review", and even if she was, she'd be banned from ever leaving the country ("because you have to get something to give something") which means she's sure to die anyway. Her lawyer has already fled Pakistan. The awesome three-delegate power of Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan demands it; they have called for the Supreme Court judges to be killed, like Salmaan Taseer's elite bodyguard Mumtaz Qadri killed that governor for speaking up about her innocence. Our article says that 10 million Pakistanis have offered to kill Asia Bibi at the first opportunity.
    While Americans find themselves un-hireable because a decade ago they said 140 characters of alleged racism/sexism/being strange on Twitter, the Silicon Valley companies and even the manufacturers making the flu vaccine you're taking are importing these workers from Pakistan on H1B visas to displace better paid Americans. The so-called "Muslim ban" (Executive Order 13780) says nothing about Pakistan. In a situation like that, it is hard to make a case that Trump is some kind of extremist for whites; to the contrary, he is being vastly more lenient than most Americans would probably prefer if they thought about whether they want these people on their airplanes or in their country.
    That said, I still think this is a sideshow compared to the continuing deregulation of the banks and the gutting of Obamacare. In the end, the next crash, the wiping out of trillions of assets that have been looted by a few rich men and the subsequent mandatory taxpayer bailout of most of them, is going to affect the former middle class worse than any terrorists, no matter how brazen they become. Wnt (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    About Flickr

    Maybe the bot just took it away before you could respond. I don't know: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=866850610#Flickr_is_about_to_die.

    I think this is pretty important. As you do have an open door policy, a simple "ack" would go a long way, even if you think Wikimedia can't or shouldn't have a role in this. I'd just like to know you got the message. - Alexis Jazz 08:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The proposal is Free members with more than 1,000 photos or videos uploaded to Flickr have until Tuesday, January 8, 2019, to upgrade to Pro or download content over the limit. After January 8, 2019, members over the limit will no longer be able to upload new photos to Flickr. After February 5, 2019, free accounts that contain over 1,000 photos or videos will have content actively deleted -- starting from oldest to newest date uploaded -- to meet the new limit. I'm not sure if this counts as a major tragedy, given the large number of dubious quality and dubiously licensed images that have been imported from Flickr to Commons over the years and the time that has had to be spent on sorting it out. In practice, it would affect only free Flickr users who had uploaded more than 1000 images. Overall, it is best for CC images to be uploaded to Commons directly rather than taking a detour via Flickr.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Incorrect definitions and references throughout Wikipedia of/to various countries and territories

    I have found a widespread problem on Wikipedia that I think should be addressed. The official definition of the United States is obviously the fifty states and D.C., yet in the first sentence in the article on United States, it says the country is also composed of its territories. The total population of the US is defined as the fifty states and D.C. There are also endless instances in US law and elsewhere of phrases similar to "the US and/or US territories" showing that the US and its territories are different. There is not one official US government definition including US territories as part of the country, it is only the 50 states and D.C. The much bigger problem is that it is not only in the United States article, it is in various other related articles, and there are articles of other countries, other countries' territories, and related articles throughout Wikipedia that have definitions and references that differ from the official definitions from the respective governments. There was a mediation discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/United_States which resulted in the opinions of some participants overruling official definitions. But, as I said, I am posting here because the problem is much more widespread than just one popular article. Led8000 (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=867148504"