This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Westphalian system article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 14 February 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Westphalian sovereignty to Westphalian system. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Taking to talk as requested by @ Iskandar323:. As I see it, the page is burdened by a proportionality issue of excess quotation relative to the body size of the page overall. Block quotes in particular have always been a grey zone of MOS:QUOTE, as lifting a paragraph from a copyrighted source is never preferable unless absolutely critical for understanding. They should not and, due to plagiarism and copyright concerns, cannot be used gratuitously.
Although the Kissinger quote may be argued to be helpful in explaining the concept here from the perspective of the individual's practice in international diplomacy, the Gardner quote on the historical Peace of Westphalia is tangentially relevant to this page only in terms of establishing that some scholars contest the accuracy of equivocating the political concept with the historical conditions of the titular peace.
However, the principal arguments of this trend have already been highlighted, rather throughly, already by the second paragraph in the same subsection. The maintenance of the Gardner quotation therefore does not seem relevant, it does not add any further context which is not already expressed by the preceding paragraph. As there is a separate page on the Peace of Westphalia itself, the utility of a block quote on this page here, which only serves to repeat the perceived deficiency of equivocating the titular historical treaty with the concept, does not appear to be necessary. Sleath56 ( talk) 18:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Thank you for your feedback and comments, especially Iskandar323! I have another proposal, I will make it below. This one is withdrawn. Onlk ( talk) 08:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Westphalian sovereignty →
State sovereignty – I think
National sovereignty or
State sovereignty would be a better title for this topic. Not only the title, also the structure of the article should be slightly changed. But I would like to hear other opinions on this proposal first before changing anything.
Onlk (
talk) 09:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. With due consideration that the proposer was involved in sockpuppetry. ( non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 09:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Westphalian sovereignty → Westphalian system – I see now that this article is more about Westphalian systemm of international relations and not only about the state sovereignty. In almost all wikis (exept eswiki and ptwiki which have just translated from enwiki) have the article about the Westphalian system. Not only the title, also the structure of the article should be changed. All types of soverignties are much better covered in a broad concept article soverignty. Onlk ( talk) 08:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Efforts to curtail absolute sovereignty have met with substantial resistance by sovereigntist movements in multiple countries who seek to " take back control" from such transnational governance groups and agreements, restoring the world to pre-World War II norms of sovereignty. [1]
While this may be valid, up to a point, it is undue in the lead, and needs balance, for example the US has never been subject to any international criminal oversight (E.G. war crimes tribunals) and very few states that were nominally subject to international treaties have honoured them in cases of egregious widespread systemic violation of human rights. (Simply, I would argue, those states that don't follow their own laws, or make laws contrary to natural law, are not going to follow moral precepts from outside without compulsion, or a change of government.) All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough 21:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC).
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Westphalian system article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 14 February 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Westphalian sovereignty to Westphalian system. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Taking to talk as requested by @ Iskandar323:. As I see it, the page is burdened by a proportionality issue of excess quotation relative to the body size of the page overall. Block quotes in particular have always been a grey zone of MOS:QUOTE, as lifting a paragraph from a copyrighted source is never preferable unless absolutely critical for understanding. They should not and, due to plagiarism and copyright concerns, cannot be used gratuitously.
Although the Kissinger quote may be argued to be helpful in explaining the concept here from the perspective of the individual's practice in international diplomacy, the Gardner quote on the historical Peace of Westphalia is tangentially relevant to this page only in terms of establishing that some scholars contest the accuracy of equivocating the political concept with the historical conditions of the titular peace.
However, the principal arguments of this trend have already been highlighted, rather throughly, already by the second paragraph in the same subsection. The maintenance of the Gardner quotation therefore does not seem relevant, it does not add any further context which is not already expressed by the preceding paragraph. As there is a separate page on the Peace of Westphalia itself, the utility of a block quote on this page here, which only serves to repeat the perceived deficiency of equivocating the titular historical treaty with the concept, does not appear to be necessary. Sleath56 ( talk) 18:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Thank you for your feedback and comments, especially Iskandar323! I have another proposal, I will make it below. This one is withdrawn. Onlk ( talk) 08:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Westphalian sovereignty →
State sovereignty – I think
National sovereignty or
State sovereignty would be a better title for this topic. Not only the title, also the structure of the article should be slightly changed. But I would like to hear other opinions on this proposal first before changing anything.
Onlk (
talk) 09:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. With due consideration that the proposer was involved in sockpuppetry. ( non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 09:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Westphalian sovereignty → Westphalian system – I see now that this article is more about Westphalian systemm of international relations and not only about the state sovereignty. In almost all wikis (exept eswiki and ptwiki which have just translated from enwiki) have the article about the Westphalian system. Not only the title, also the structure of the article should be changed. All types of soverignties are much better covered in a broad concept article soverignty. Onlk ( talk) 08:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Efforts to curtail absolute sovereignty have met with substantial resistance by sovereigntist movements in multiple countries who seek to " take back control" from such transnational governance groups and agreements, restoring the world to pre-World War II norms of sovereignty. [1]
While this may be valid, up to a point, it is undue in the lead, and needs balance, for example the US has never been subject to any international criminal oversight (E.G. war crimes tribunals) and very few states that were nominally subject to international treaties have honoured them in cases of egregious widespread systemic violation of human rights. (Simply, I would argue, those states that don't follow their own laws, or make laws contrary to natural law, are not going to follow moral precepts from outside without compulsion, or a change of government.) All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough 21:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC).