Talk:William Harold Hutt: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
reply to Hektorza |
punc; additional comment |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:Your definition of "apartheid" is not the one in common usage. Go read the [[apartheid]] article. Apartheid was a legal policy of involuntary racial segregation. Hutt opposed it. It is always "feasible" (def: "capable of being accomplished or brought about") to end a policy, just as surely as it is feasible to bring about a new policy. [[User:DickClarkMises|DickClarkMises]] 15:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
:Your definition of "apartheid" is not the one in common usage. Go read the [[apartheid]] article. Apartheid was a legal policy of involuntary racial segregation. Hutt opposed it. It is always "feasible" (def: "capable of being accomplished or brought about") to end a policy, just as surely as it is feasible to bring about a new policy. [[User:DickClarkMises|DickClarkMises]] 15:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
:: 1) The origin of the term "Apartheid" was the one of a political slogan of the National Party. It was later turned around by the opponents. That came handy since in English it sounds more like (a-part-hate). With other words it became a dysphemism. The official or legal term is "separate development". Common Usage, especially a deceptive one, should not be a criteria for an encyclopedia. 2.) Segragation was certainly part of the policy of separate development. It was however also in place previously. I'm aware that Hutt oppose it. 3.) Any policy or dismissal is always more or less feasible. A policy (or its dismissal) is certainly not feasible, if it leads to millions of refugees or genocide. It is always simple to say what you don't like and why. However oppinion is only worth anyhting, if it can demonstrate a better alternative. I don't see were Hutt has done this. <small>—The preceding comment is by [[User:{{{User|Hektorza}}}|{{{User|Hektorza}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{User|Hektorza}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{User|Hektorza}}}|contribs]]) {{{Time|29 April 2007}}}: ''[[Wikipedia:Signatures|Please sign your posts!]]''</small><!-- {{unsigned3}} --> |
:: 1) The origin of the term "Apartheid" was the one of a political slogan of the National Party. It was later turned around by the opponents. That came handy since in English it sounds more like (a-part-hate). With other words it became a dysphemism. The official or legal term is "separate development". Common Usage, especially a deceptive one, should not be a criteria for an encyclopedia. 2.) Segragation was certainly part of the policy of separate development. It was however also in place previously. I'm aware that Hutt oppose it. 3.) Any policy or dismissal is always more or less feasible. A policy (or its dismissal) is certainly not feasible, if it leads to millions of refugees or genocide. It is always simple to say what you don't like and why. However oppinion is only worth anyhting, if it can demonstrate a better alternative. I don't see were Hutt has done this. <small>—The preceding comment is by [[User:{{{User|Hektorza}}}|{{{User|Hektorza}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{User|Hektorza}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{User|Hektorza}}}|contribs]]) {{{Time|29 April 2007}}}: ''[[Wikipedia:Signatures|Please sign your posts!]]''</small><!-- {{unsigned3}} --> |
||
:::Not to put too fine a point on it, but what does this have to do with writing an encyclopedia article |
:::Not to put too fine a point on it, but what does this have to do with writing an encyclopedia article? Wikipedia is not a purveyor of [[WP:NOR|original research]], and must rely on [[wp:RS|reliable sources]] for its content. Currently, this article includes very little information about Hutt and South African apartheid. It only notes that he was vocal in condemning the policy, and that he wrote a 1964 book about the issue. Interested readers can decide Hutt's merits for themselves based upon their own persual of his book. If you know of any notable third-party critiques, they may be useful here. Simply critiquing Hutt's work ourselves, though, isn't what we are doing here. Just to be clear, there is certainly room for discussion of the conflicting (notable) policy perspectives on apartheid, but the room for such content is at [[apartheid]]. [[User:DickClarkMises|DickClarkMises]] 15:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 15:35, 29 April 2007
 | Economics Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
"Apartheid" (scientific term: separate development) What feasible alternative did Hutt have to offer?! Unsigned comment by User:196.25.255.214.
- Your definition of "apartheid" is not the one in common usage. Go read the apartheid article. Apartheid was a legal policy of involuntary racial segregation. Hutt opposed it. It is always "feasible" (def: "capable of being accomplished or brought about") to end a policy, just as surely as it is feasible to bring about a new policy. DickClarkMises 15:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- 1) The origin of the term "Apartheid" was the one of a political slogan of the National Party. It was later turned around by the opponents. That came handy since in English it sounds more like (a-part-hate). With other words it became a dysphemism. The official or legal term is "separate development". Common Usage, especially a deceptive one, should not be a criteria for an encyclopedia. 2.) Segragation was certainly part of the policy of separate development. It was however also in place previously. I'm aware that Hutt oppose it. 3.) Any policy or dismissal is always more or less feasible. A policy (or its dismissal) is certainly not feasible, if it leads to millions of refugees or genocide. It is always simple to say what you don't like and why. However oppinion is only worth anyhting, if it can demonstrate a better alternative. I don't see were Hutt has done this. —The preceding comment is by Hektorza (talk • contribs) 29 April 2007: Please sign your posts!
- Not to put too fine a point on it, but what does this have to do with writing an encyclopedia article? Wikipedia is not a purveyor of original research, and must rely on reliable sources for its content. Currently, this article includes very little information about Hutt and South African apartheid. It only notes that he was vocal in condemning the policy, and that he wrote a 1964 book about the issue. Interested readers can decide Hutt's merits for themselves based upon their own persual of his book. If you know of any notable third-party critiques, they may be useful here. Simply critiquing Hutt's work ourselves, though, isn't what we are doing here. Just to be clear, there is certainly room for discussion of the conflicting (notable) policy perspectives on apartheid, but the room for such content is at apartheid. DickClarkMises 15:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- 1) The origin of the term "Apartheid" was the one of a political slogan of the National Party. It was later turned around by the opponents. That came handy since in English it sounds more like (a-part-hate). With other words it became a dysphemism. The official or legal term is "separate development". Common Usage, especially a deceptive one, should not be a criteria for an encyclopedia. 2.) Segragation was certainly part of the policy of separate development. It was however also in place previously. I'm aware that Hutt oppose it. 3.) Any policy or dismissal is always more or less feasible. A policy (or its dismissal) is certainly not feasible, if it leads to millions of refugees or genocide. It is always simple to say what you don't like and why. However oppinion is only worth anyhting, if it can demonstrate a better alternative. I don't see were Hutt has done this. —The preceding comment is by Hektorza (talk • contribs) 29 April 2007: Please sign your posts!