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

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Requested move

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]
  • 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]

A parallel move of Category?

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

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]

External links modified

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_House_resolution_on_persecution_of_the_Rohingya_people_in_Burma"