Talk:Popular sovereignty
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|---|
| /Archive 1 |
[edit] Worldwide coverage
Hello everyone. This article focuses too heavily on the American context. I'll add some international coverage when I get the chance (and please consider doing so yourself) but, in the meantime, the section on the United States also needs to be shortened. It might be a good idea to create a new article titled "Popular sovereignty (United States)", and move most of the section's current content to there. – SJL 01:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- An example of what you propose was done with the article Secession which led to the creation of Secession in the United States. In the case of popular sovereignty in the United States, there is a general political and philosophical use of the term, and I believe that should stay in this article, combining it with other views on the subject from philosophers, political scientists etc. from other nations.
- What should be spun off would be a separate article on Popular Sovereignty, as a political issue in the United States from roughly 1846 to 1860. Unless someone objects, I will go ahead and create the new article and transfer the relevant material, which would be the last six paragraphs of the section "History and use of the term". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- Sounds good to me. I have some concerns about the content of that section – it reads, especially in the footnotes, like a term paper – but I'll take that up with the person who made the contribution. – SJL 16:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Developing a broader article and spinning-off some of the U.S. coverage, as suggested here, would be a vast improvement. At the time I revised this article in the Spring, it seemed a potpourri of unverified notes on the development or use of the idea of popular sovereignty. My concern at the time was that its coverage of the American context seemed to shift between 1) the content of the American doctrine, 2) the efforts to implement a scheme of popular sovereignty and 3) the political rhetoric of popular sovereignty. The revision was designed to address the confusion about the various uses of the doctrine in the American context.
- The gap in the international coverage was one that pre-existed the U.S. revisions. In the process of making those revisions, the few international references (excepting those in the introductory paragraph) were finally deleted as not verified or a simple statement of a point of view. The intro paragraph, which was similar to what is the current introduction, seemed fine as far as it went. It really did not take the reader far except to link them to other articles on some of the thinkers who addressed the idea. The article provided little on the content or context of the development of the idea of popular sovereignty. Of course the problem is finding someone with the background and interest to address generally accepted interpretations of the development and use of the doctrine of popular sovereignty in a world-wide context. I hope JSL is not having second thoughts about taking that project on.
- Creating a separate article on "Popular sovereignty (United States)" as proposed by Tom (North Shoreman) is a promising idea. It seems he proposes that this section would focus on the use of popular sovereignty as political rhetoric in the U.S. I look forward to reading what he develops. It seems a solid solution to resolving confusing references to popular sovereignty as a doctrine versus its application or misapplication as a political tool.
- As for where the article stands at present, I offer several observations:
- First, in the second paragraph there are statements by Americans describing ideas of popular sovereignty. Should this paragraph be moved so that it appears under the United States section? These American expressions of the idea are not equivalent to those set forth in the first paragraph. The cited American expressions are taken from efforts to apply the doctrine of popular sovereignty to a specific political problem in the U.S. Unless there is an objection, I would propose moving them under American sub-section, unless some other editor finds that American politicians James Wilson or John Jay are within the ranks of Hobbes, Locke or Rousseau in the development of the idea of popular sovereignty.
- Second, until Tom (North Shoreman) or another editor spins off some of the American material into a separate article, would it be useful in the section designated by JSL as "United States" to restore the sub-headings? I think this will be easier on the reader, until such time as the changes are made to the article as a whole. At that time we could address the sub-headings in terms of how the article has been re-organized.
- Third, JSL notes some concerns about the notes to the 1846-60 section on the United States. Should this be addressed now or should we wait until the separate entry on "Popular sovereignty (United States)" is created (and to the extent those concerns still exist at that time)?
Rushlite (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Update
I have made some changes:
- I changed the name of the section on the United States to 'Popular sovereignty in the United States', and moved most of the information that was provided there to a new article by the same name.
- I removed the second paragraph from the lead and pasted in on the talk page of the new article so that it can be incorporated into the main text there.
I will expand the general base of this article when I get a chance, but I have some other projects on Wikipedia that I am giving priority. If someone else is able to get started now, though, please do! By the way, it's SJL, not "JSL". ;) – SJL 04:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality
I added the NPOV tag because of this sentence: "Popular sovereignty expresses a concept and does not necessarily reflect or describe a political reality."
There was a reference cited, but the sentence is an opinion, and a reference does not help to legitimize it, since it is not a fact. For the person who added that sentence or any person who wishes to defend it, *in what way* does it not reflect or describe a political reality? That seems nonsensical to me. Please explain. It won't make sense to most people, and it doesn't seem coherent enough to be included in the opening paragraph of the article. 66.69.194.16 (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Seems like some countries which are decidedly NOT democratic are using the concept to legitimize the rule. A notable example is China, where a prominent member of the central committee of the Chinese Communist Party has written a book titled Democracy which argues that since the chinese people had and continue to consent to be ruled by the Communist Party, therefore China has a true democracy. Ridiculous but true. So I think some such disclaimer about the use of this concept is warranted. Kotika98 (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
