Wikipedia

Talk:United States House resolution on persecution of the Rohingya people in Burma

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Requested move edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago46 comments9 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to United States House resolution on persecution of the Rohingya people in Burma, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Urging the Government of Burma to end the persecution of the Rohingya people and respect internationally recognized human rights for all ethnic and religious minority groups within Burma (H.Res. 418; 113th Congress) → House Resolution urging the Government of Burma to end the persecution of the Rohingya people – WP:CONCISE. We don't need to use a monstrously long full official title; also "(H.Res. 418; 113th Congress)" is not a part of the official title anyway, and it hardly seems like there will be another article at this title requiring disambiguation. bd2412 T 20:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

  • Comment, this seems like a no brainer and yet:
the monstrously long full official title: "Urging the Government of Burma to end the persecution of the Rohingya people and respect internationally recognized human rights for all ethnic and religious minority groups within Burma" gets "About 45,100 results"
while: "House Resolution urging the Government of Burma to end the persecution of the Rohingya people" gets just "2 results" here
Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
the similarly titled: "US Resolution urging the Government of Burma to end the persecution of the Rohingya people" gets "About 22,400 results"
and "United States resolution urging the Government of Burma to end the persecution of the Rohingya people" gets "About 19,900 results"
(These are unusually formatted titles but share some commonality with: United States resolution on Armenian Genocide concerns Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution where:
"United States resolution on Armenian Genocide" gets "About 37,800 results"
"Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution" gets "About 111,000 results").
Suggest, either the "US..." or the "United States..." titles. I think that a consistent use of titles starting "US" might be appropriate given potentially long following texts but I'm British. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
The problem is that it is not a "United States" resolution in the sense of the entire U.S. government propounding it (or even all of Congress propounding it). This was passed in the House of Representatives, and only in the House of Representatives, with no participation from either the United States Senate or the executive branch. What I have proposed, I think, is a common sense title that accurately identifies the resolution for what it is, a House Resolution, no more, no less. bd2412 T 13:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment: How about United States House of Representatives condemnation of the Government of Burma? Although the resolution title does not have the word "condemn", it does accuse the Government of Burma of persecution, which is a condemnation. How hot is the sun? (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
    I don't want it to look like we are putting words in the mouth of the House, though. They could be urging the Government of Burma to end persecution being carried out by a third party. bd2412 T 22:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
    The text of the resolution directly accuses the Government of Burma of the persecution. The language is "the House of Representatives calls on the Government of Burma to end all forms of persecution", so they certainly did not mean persecution by a 3rd party. How hot is the sun? (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
    The text does not reference condemnation, though. bd2412 T 23:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
    I refer back to my original statement that an accusation of persecution is a condemnation. I'm sure at the time some newspapers would have used the word "condemn", but because several months have gone by, it's hard to perform a search. How hot is the sun? (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
    Here is a reference that uses the word "condemn". How hot is the sun? (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
    That's fine for including as a reference in the article, but using the first complete grammatical clause of the actual title is still more accurate. bd2412 T 00:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
    Wikipedia has a goal that article names should be concise. The House of Representatives doesn't have such a goal in how they title their resolutions. Therefore, although it would be preferable to use the resolution title in the article title, if the resolution title is too unwieldy you've got to do something else. While you cannot use your own judgement, as that would be original research, you can use words used by secondary sources. How hot is the sun? (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
    Conciseness falls lower in the hierarchy of naming conventions than WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, both of which are better accomplished with a shorter form of the official title. Of course, if there is evidence that the subject has a different common name, that is definitely something to be considered. bd2412 T 00:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
    I would make the argument that WP:COMMONNAME doesn't really apply here since the resolution got very little press attention, there is no common name. As far as WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, condemnation should be recognized as the consquence of "urging an end to persecution". How hot is the sun? (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
    Condemning the government itself and condemning the actions of the government seem like two different things to me. Does the text of the act express an intent or desire to overthrow the government? There are some actions of just about any government that might be condemned, even when the government in question is a close ally. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not sure there is any distinction between condemning the government and condemning the actions of the government. As for your other point regarding a close ally, yes, you could condemn a close ally but what point does that make? In general though, unless your close ally made something so aggregious, you would normally use the word "criticize", or "disapprove", or something along that line. How hot is the sun? (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
    I seriously doubt the resolution includes phrases saying "we condemn the government of Burma because ..." There is a distinction. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
    You don't have to doubt, you can read the resolution - but nobody is saying that the resolution contains the word condemn. If you properly read the discussion you will see that the point I am making is that the language of the resolution amounts to a condemnation, and I was able to find a reference that said that the resolution is a condemnation. How hot is the sun? (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Suggest US House of Representatives resolution on ethnic and religious rights in Burma. Seems consistent the current title and descriptions in sources. Who made the resolution, or does the urging, is important to be in the title, the parenthetical H.Res... is not sufficient, not sufficiently recognizable to an international audience, and it belongs in the title-proper. It was only the lower house, not the congress, not the government. US (an acceptable abbreviation of United States of America) and Burma are critical elements in title, given prominence at start and end. At 78 characters, this remains a long title, but is much better than the current. If further disambiguation is needed, from similar resolutions, disambiguate parenthetically by date of the resolution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Criticism of details of the nominator's proposal:
"House Resolution". This is too US-centric. "House Resolution" appears to be an odd proper name, local jargon?
I think "ethnic and religious" is more fundamental to the issue than "Rohingya people". Ethinic and religious encompasses the concerns of the Rohingya, and the resolution is more broad than the concerns of the Rohingya people.
I don't think "urging" and "to end" needs be in the title. These are details of the resolution, it is not topic-defining that one is "urging to end", as opposed to "pleading to address". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
I think the words "Government of Burma" must be present in the title, since this is what the resolution is directed towards. How hot is the sun? (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Possibly. However... "ethnic and religious rights in Burma" are reasonably understood to be a matter of of the Government of Burma. In international parlance, "Nation" is generally understood to imply "The Government of Nation", otherwise their communication would feature tedious counts of "Government of". Were this resolution by the entire congress, it could be titled US resolution on ethnic and religious rights in Burma. It is understood that resolutions, like war and sanctions, are done by governments in the name of their nation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
The fallacy in the statement It is understood that resolutions, like war and sanctions, are done by governments in the name of their nation. is that wars and sanctions are official actions whereas the resolution is non-binding, so it is therefore not even made by the government -- it was made by the United States House of Representatives only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by How hot is the sun? (talk • contribs) 05:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
I do think that it is important to include the Rohingya people in the title - if you read the text of the legislation, this particular group is mentioned 28 times in the 25 paragraphs of the resolution. There are precisely two paragraphs which do not reference that specific group, and those two address Muslims (which, the Resolution mentions, the Rohingya people happen to be). bd2412 T 02:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
If you want to include Rohingya people, which I understand, scripting a title is so much harder. It is hard to drop POV connecting words, like urge and end. Dropping them is desirable. Some brain storming below. Feel free to re-order, add to, or take a selection to further discuss. I think the following are important: "US"; "resolution", "persecution" and "Burma", with flexibility about the subject of the persecution. "Government" and "House of Representatives" may be desirable but dispensable. Government is implied on the part of Burma. The House is understood to speak on behalf of the USA. Some brain storming below. Feel free to re-order, add to, or take a selection to further discuss. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
list courtesy of SmokeyJoe. How hot is the sun? (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much, SmokeyJoe, for taking the time to think and write all these different options. My favorite is choice (f) with the slight modification to United States House of Representatives resolution addressing persecution of the Rohingya people in Burma. Should there be another such resolution in the future, we could add a parenthetic (2014) to the title. How hot is the sun? (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, in all cases, "US House" can be expanded to "United States House of Representatives". I mildly favour the more concise US House, but that is mild. (f1) is certainly acceptable and a big improvement on the current. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Suggestion. As a Resolution's title and/or description may be lengthy, would placing it in the first sentence/paragraph of its article under an article name that follows the pattern "United States House of Representatives Resolution 3px|NNN [or perhaps "…no. NNN" or "…#NNN"?]" be more manageable/consistent..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • SmokeyJoe, Your compilation of possible names is very thought provoking. From a non US perspective I would favour a combination of option (h) and (a) to produce:
US House of Representatives resolution urging the Government of Burma to end the persecution of the Rohingya people
or
US House of Representatives resolution: Urging the Government of Burma to end the persecution of the Rohingya people
I think that this may provide all the information necessary for the understanding of us foreigners :)  while remaining faithful to genuine title content.
An alternative that I considered was:
Urging the Government of Burma to end the persecution of the Rohingya people (US House of Representatives resolution)
(I also think I may have provided misleading content by presenting: "House Resolution urging the Government of Burma to end the persecution of the Rohingya people" gets just "2 results"
This should have been presented as: "House Resolution" AND "urging the Government of Burma to end the persecution of the Rohingya people" which gets "About 1,040 results").
Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
I cannot take credit for the list -- the credit belongs to SmokeyJoe. How hot is the sun? (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
On a pedants note, the resolution can either be described as "addressing the subject/topic of persecution" or it can be described as "addressing the Burmese Government". I think it's a linguistic stretch to say that it's actually "addressing persecution". Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

—That's what we have to choose from, based on what our one source, which covers House doings in intricate detail, calls it. Is there any coverage of this resolution in sources whose mission is broader coverage than just the business of the Congress? Wbm1058 (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

"United States House resolution" gets "About 4,110,000 results"
Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Definitely support source identification at the start. This is a "Sam said X" article. "H.Res. 418; 113th Congress" reads like indexing code. In case of future need for disambiguation, "(2014)" is easier for more readers.
"United States House" feels very recognizable internationally for the US HoR, and appears frequently used in titles elsewhere.
Prefer this form, carrying less of the detail of the resolution in the title. It better keeps with WP:NPOV. "Urging to end" carries excessive emotion for identifying this topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Also of note is Template:Infobox United States federal proposed legislation which has instructions under "name": "The "popular name" of the bill. This is usually found in Section 2 of the bill. Also called the "short name" of the bill. The short name or popular name is assigned by Congress. (If possible, the name should be followed by a template leading to the bill's text on WikiSource or the Library of Congress' site)" I did not find a Section 2 in the Urging bill. We should be aware that we may be taking on its role in legislature. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Support, the current title is ridiculously long. JIP | Talk 05:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

A parallel move of Category? edit

At the present the article under discussion is in Category:United States congressional resolutions. Should this be moved to Category:United States house resolutions ?

Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

  • Some Congressional resolutions are passed by both the House and the Senate. Technically, any resolution passed only in the House is a House resolution, a resolution passed only in the Senate is a Senate resolution, and a resolution passed by either (or both) is a Congressional resolution. If we had more articles in these categories, we would have individual subcategories for House, Senate, and joint resolutions. bd2412 T 13:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
bd2412, If I've understood you right the contents of Category:United States congressional resolutions can be described as:
  • United States House resolutions, resolutions passed by the United States House of Representatives,
  • United States Senate resolutions, resolutions passed by the United States Senate, and
  • United States congressional resolutions, resolutions passed by both the United States House of representatives and the Senate.
If suitable I will place this text as an explanation in the category.
Of course it would make things a lot simpler for everyone if they just accepted British rule again :)
Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
I would actually say that Category:United States congressional resolutions is the supercategory, and should contain as subcategories Category:United States House resolutions, Category:United States Senate resolutions, and perhaps (if there are enough) Category:United States congressional resolutions passed by both houses. bd2412 T 18:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
That looks like a great improvement. I'd suggest a slight rewording the last subcategory to a longer form: Category:United States congressional resolutions passed both by House and Senate. The Wikipedia article United States Capitol has headings including: The House and Senate Wings, House Chamber and Senate Chamber. The site:www.senate.gov the word "house" is used with frequent reference to the "White House" and to the "House of Representatives" and to a lesser extent to an "upper house". I'm not saying that I'm not missing something here. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
That sounds good to me. There is no process required to make subcategories, of course. bd2412 T 11:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  Done at least as far as to create the three sub-cats. I also cheekily slapped a { {Container category} } template on the Category:United States congressional resolutions "supercategory despite doing very little to empty the category of contents. This is really in the lazy hope that someone will come along that has more knowledge of the subject than me. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Questionable notability edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

I think Wbm1058 may have hit the nail on the head. The reason we are struggling with a proper title is that this resolution wasn't covered much by secondary sources. It was passed by a voice vote that got very little attention. I propose we make this article a section in the Human rights in Burma article. How hot is the sun? (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

  • There is also Persecution of Muslims in Burma, which notes that most Muslims are part of the Rohingya people. bd2412 T 16:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
    Persecution of Muslims in Burma would probably be a better article to move this information into. How hot is the sun? (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
    The "Background" section is completely superfluous (five citations on the fact that Burma is also called Myanmar?), and much of the procedural stuff is not particularly notable either. bd2412 T 16:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • With the least bit of secondary source coverage, this article deserves mention in both articles, Human rights in Burma and Persecution of Muslims in Burma. I don't think this article should be deleted, or smerged, for lack of notability. The content would not be appropriate in the above mentioned articles. WP:Notability exists mostly to stem promotion and cruft, this is neither. Per WP:NOTPAPER, there is room to cover every internationally significant resolution. As long as this article adheres to WP:NPOV, I think it is fine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
    I don't agree with your premise that "WP:Notability exists mostly to stem promotion and cruft". While that is one function of the notability policy, I don't think this is the only purpose of the policy. Congress normally passes hundreds of bills each session, most of which are not notable. The only way to measure what is and what is not notable is to use secondary sources. What makes this particular resolution even less notable is that it was passed by a voice vote. I see no need to have a standalone article for this resolution. Mentioning this resolution in the Persecution of Muslims in Burma article and/or the Human rights in Burma article would be sufficient. How hot is the sun? (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
    Actually, I think we could turn this around and make it into an article on the U.S. response to the persecution of Muslims in Burma. All we would really need to do is expand the lede beyond Congressional action. Apparently, Obama has also spoken against this persecution. bd2412 T 22:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
    Broadening like that sounds very good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
    This may be an acceptable option, depending on how much material is out there. If there isn't much material, then the US response to the persecution of Muslims in Burma should obviously only be a section within the article Persecution of Muslims in Burma. How hot is the sun? (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • This is essentially a US government (or rather segment of) response to the issues in Burma, a fairly run of the mill situation that is normally addressed in the greater issue's page. When we cut out the background section, the content on the article's actual subject is fairly concise. Perhaps inclusion in the Burma–United States relations would be a good idea?--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Regarding @How hot is the sun?:'s original observation, and while not making a personal comment on "notablity" I think it may be interesting to note stats.grok.se for the article. While it isn't unviewed, I'd suggest that we are the main people currently viewing it :) I'd also speculate that its currently extraordinary title may be a reason for some of the hits. Just commenting. I think that my !Vote would probably still be Keep. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States House resolution on persecution of the Rohingya people in Burma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_House_resolution_on_persecution_of_the_Rohingya_people_in_Burma&oldid=1171114018"