This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Latin America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latin AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Latin AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Latin AmericaLatin America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all
list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Dear fellow editors, I propose to remove judges and librarians from the article as - in my opinion - they cannot (should not) be considered political offices (even if a politically active person fills them). It stems from the theory of separation of powers that the judiciary cannot be engaged in furthering the aims of one political party or another, and I simply have no idea what definition of 'political office' would possibly include librarians. Please share your opinions.
ZBukov (
talk) 18:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)reply
As discussed with Zoltqn Bukovsky on
their talk page, the librarians would warrant a removal. What I think is interesting is the role of judges, for example, in the political system. In the UK
the head of the English and Welsh Courts by virtue simultaneously a member of the
House of Lords, which is a legislator. As a result of being the Chief Justice, they are also a law lord which means they have a role to play in the British political system. This means that, as a senior judge in the UK, they also have a role in the political sphere; this could be applied to this article.
What legislative role do American judges have?
ZBukov (
talk) 19:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)reply
My knowledge of the American judicial system is limited compared to the British system. However, I will provide a few, non-exhaustive, points. Supreme Court Judges in the US, for example, are appointed, on advice from the President, by the U.S. senate. This therefore would suggest that the appointment is political as they have been appointed by a legislator. The fact that they are also themselves guided by the U.S. Constitution highlights political affiliation as it itself was brought in by a legislator. And whilst I accpet this is not the same for everything, the website uses
.gov within its html link, suggesting affiliation to the federal governments.--
Chip123456 19:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I also arrived at my conclusion on theoretical grounds, rather than based on an intimate knowledge of US constitutional theory. However, if we understand a politician as someone who advocates one political alternative over others (typically affiliated with a political party) and works towards gaining and retaining political power, than it's clear why it would be alarming if the position of a judge was a political one (since they are expected to be unbiased above all). As far as the person of the appointer is concerned, let me use a British example. The head of your
Forestry Commission is appointed by your head of state, what's more, the commission's website happens to end in .gov.uk (
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/). Does it make the chairperson a politician? And a country's constitution binds every citizen, but that does not turn the citizens into politicians either.
ZBukov (
talk) 21:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)reply
A politician is not the only role, however, which can be considered political. In the case of the Forestry Commision, it is, in a sense, a branch of the
DEFRA environmental department, and so is linked by political affiliation. I think what the question is, that because they are high regarded roles, they inevitably become part of a country's politics. Being linked to politics doesn't mean that they are a politican. Thanks. --
Chip123456 11:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)reply
So just to clarify, are you advocating that judicial positions should be regarded as political offices?
ZBukov (
talk) 11:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I know it's a bit controversial saying so, but I just think senior judicial rules are inevitably going to be an establishment figure if that makes sene.--
Chip123456 15:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)reply
It makes sense, and that statement in itself is uncontested. Where I disagree is that Establishment equals political office. Apart from top judges and barristers, the Archbishop of Canterbury and members of the Royal Family belong to the Establishment too, and so do financiers, industrialists, aristocrats and governors of the BBC. And it would be rather counterintuitive if you defined those as political offices.
ZBukov (
talk) 15:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)reply
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Latin America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latin AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Latin AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Latin AmericaLatin America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all
list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Dear fellow editors, I propose to remove judges and librarians from the article as - in my opinion - they cannot (should not) be considered political offices (even if a politically active person fills them). It stems from the theory of separation of powers that the judiciary cannot be engaged in furthering the aims of one political party or another, and I simply have no idea what definition of 'political office' would possibly include librarians. Please share your opinions.
ZBukov (
talk) 18:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)reply
As discussed with Zoltqn Bukovsky on
their talk page, the librarians would warrant a removal. What I think is interesting is the role of judges, for example, in the political system. In the UK
the head of the English and Welsh Courts by virtue simultaneously a member of the
House of Lords, which is a legislator. As a result of being the Chief Justice, they are also a law lord which means they have a role to play in the British political system. This means that, as a senior judge in the UK, they also have a role in the political sphere; this could be applied to this article.
What legislative role do American judges have?
ZBukov (
talk) 19:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)reply
My knowledge of the American judicial system is limited compared to the British system. However, I will provide a few, non-exhaustive, points. Supreme Court Judges in the US, for example, are appointed, on advice from the President, by the U.S. senate. This therefore would suggest that the appointment is political as they have been appointed by a legislator. The fact that they are also themselves guided by the U.S. Constitution highlights political affiliation as it itself was brought in by a legislator. And whilst I accpet this is not the same for everything, the website uses
.gov within its html link, suggesting affiliation to the federal governments.--
Chip123456 19:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I also arrived at my conclusion on theoretical grounds, rather than based on an intimate knowledge of US constitutional theory. However, if we understand a politician as someone who advocates one political alternative over others (typically affiliated with a political party) and works towards gaining and retaining political power, than it's clear why it would be alarming if the position of a judge was a political one (since they are expected to be unbiased above all). As far as the person of the appointer is concerned, let me use a British example. The head of your
Forestry Commission is appointed by your head of state, what's more, the commission's website happens to end in .gov.uk (
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/). Does it make the chairperson a politician? And a country's constitution binds every citizen, but that does not turn the citizens into politicians either.
ZBukov (
talk) 21:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)reply
A politician is not the only role, however, which can be considered political. In the case of the Forestry Commision, it is, in a sense, a branch of the
DEFRA environmental department, and so is linked by political affiliation. I think what the question is, that because they are high regarded roles, they inevitably become part of a country's politics. Being linked to politics doesn't mean that they are a politican. Thanks. --
Chip123456 11:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)reply
So just to clarify, are you advocating that judicial positions should be regarded as political offices?
ZBukov (
talk) 11:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I know it's a bit controversial saying so, but I just think senior judicial rules are inevitably going to be an establishment figure if that makes sene.--
Chip123456 15:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)reply
It makes sense, and that statement in itself is uncontested. Where I disagree is that Establishment equals political office. Apart from top judges and barristers, the Archbishop of Canterbury and members of the Royal Family belong to the Establishment too, and so do financiers, industrialists, aristocrats and governors of the BBC. And it would be rather counterintuitive if you defined those as political offices.
ZBukov (
talk) 15:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)reply
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.