Talk:Cronyism

Roxanne Edits 22:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Shouldn't there also be a mention of meritocracy in here somewhere to add perspective and depth as to what these terms are being defined against? The criticism of both cronyism and nepotism is ultimately about equality of opportunity isn't it, as referencing these paradigms implies that there is an ideal form of competition or capitalism in play.....an idealism that may not exist across the board? (game theory) Twining 202[reply]

Uhm, can you give the etymology of the word? Just curious....

I looked the root word (crony) up in the Dictionary of Word Origins. It says "Crony originated as a piece of Cambridge University slang. Originally written "chrony," it was based on Greek Khrónios 'long lasting,' a derivative of khrónos 'time' (source of English chronicle, chronology, chronic, etc.) and seems to have been intended to mean 'friend of long-standing,' or perhaps 'contemporary.' The first recorded reference to it is in the diary of Samuel Pepys, a Cambridge man: 'Jack Cole, my old school-fellow. . . who was a great chrony of mine,' 30 May 1665.

Should the link to George Bush really be there in 'See also', seems open to speculation?

-->Thankfully the link to George Bush was removed. Rather biased to link solely to him. Any other president can probably accused of the same.

Additionally, Cronyism shouldn't be merged with Neopotism. While they may harbour similiar definitions in theory, they're unique in their contextual use.

Perhaps having nepotism as a "see also" would make a lot more sense. Do you think so? --Jacquelyn Marie 22:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I absolutely agree with you, Jacqui.

I likewise agree, keep the concepts seperated, though linked

I agree with Jacquelyn, the concepts (especially cronyism's slang origins) are unique enough to have separate definitions, but the articles should be linked. Wisgary 02:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems there's agreement that cronyism and nepotism are different concepts, I'm removing the merge request. Telso 19:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The comments about Harriet Miers should probably be edited down to factual comments befitting an encyclopedia. It is true that Harriet Miers is considered a "crony" and that the news story is so important that it is worth mentioning here. But historically, there have been a very large number of Supreme Court justices who had no prior judicial experience. That didn't make them unqualified. For example, John Marshall, considered the most historically significant Chief Justice, had no judicial experience and had argued only one case (and lost) before the Supreme Court. The traditional standard for whether or not someone is qualified for the federal bench is the ABA rating, which hasn't come out yet for the Miers appointment.

The last part referring to Alberto Gonzales does not seem NPOV. Because the definition of "qualified" isn't necessarily explicitly stated, saying that Gonzales is "qualified" honestly doesn't mean anything to me.

The new version is much better.

New version

I've cleaned up the section on examples, but feel there needs to be more info on the Toronto example. What happened here? Currently there is no context, but merely what reads like a wild accusation. Some proof please. Harro5 06:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there needs to be discussion of cases outside of America. What about Saddam appointing his sons to powerful positions, or the constant claims about African governments being corrupt? I even know of cases in Australia involving our PM John Howard. This has the potential to be a first-rate and expansive article. Harro5 07:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re George Galloway

Using the allegations against UK member of Parliament, George Galloway, as an example of cronyism is flawed on several counts:

Semantically wrong. It is the appointer, rather than the appointed who is guilty of cronyism. The allegation is that Saddam gifted Galloway, hence it would be Saddam who was guilty of cronyism.

Wrong offence. The allegation is that Galloway received income illegally in violation of UN resolutions. That would be bribery or corruption but not cronyism.

Unsubstantiated. The allegations have been answered by Galloway in a US congressional hearing. His accusers have not produced any evidence to support their claims nor have they continued to pursue their case.

I would recommend deleting the reference to Galloway entirely. If you want a recent UK example, consider the Hinduja Affair (http://www.rediff.com/us/2001/jul/17uk3.htm). This is substantiated, in that several government ministers resigned, and is well-documented.Oscar Bravo 13:28, 9 December 2005

--> The whole of the para 4 under "cases of..."is irrelevant. The Galloway reference is irrelevant, as is the Kofi Annan, surely that would be better placed in a nepotism article. Is this just a case of a frustrated Republican?

The neutrality

I do not see any neutrality issues on this page. Cronyism is biased in and of its self. there for, to say that it is biased is an oxymoron. there can be no marits for cronyism, so its not biased to say it is maritless. Roxanne Edits 22:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]