Talk:Ethnic democracy

July 2007
SEE ALSO: Talk:Ethnocracy IF you want to rembed use SOME kind of container, because I just made a mess in Talk:Ethnocracy because of it!--Alexia Death 12:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Most/Some vs Some/Others
Will you stop it! Petri, Digwurren, this is stupid.

Lets Count the sources! The one with most sources is MOST. What do you think!?--Alexia Death 12:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"employees had been specifically imported in the occupation times"
Am I only one unhappy with this wording? 1st, it smacks of slur, people aren't jackets to be imported. 2nd, it's plain bad language. 3rd, it needs to be wikified. RJ CG 14:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Complete mess
This article is full of unreferenced POV assertions and original research. &mdash;Ashley Y 05:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed the Israel section as it is entirely a copyvio of this page. Please recreate the section only with non-infringing text. &mdash;Ashley Y 06:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's ridiculous that Israel is not included here now, as this is the original country according to which Samooha designed his model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.127.222.66 (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph of Estonia/Latvia section
The recent addition to the first paragraph has some issues. Apart from the fact the claims are rather dubious, it makes a rather ORish and simplistic claim that these factors are the cause of the range of view points delineated in the following sentence. --Martintg (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 92% Latvians in goverment structures compared with 60% in general, is ethnocracy;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.177.142 (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Malaysia
I have removed this part of the article:

Disagreement

''There is no restriction on land acquisition by non-Malays. Anyway, Malays and non-Malay "Bumiputera" (indigenous) - means not only Malays - purchase lands at same discount rate (usually 5%). 33.55% of Malaysian Land are "Tanah Rizab (Reserved Land)". These land is reserved to Malays and other indigenous peoples, includes some unexplored and reserved forest. Sultans have power on Reserved Lands due to pre-independence treaty made by the Sultans and central government.'' ''Admissions of university are based purely on meritocracy, and doesn't have anything to do with Malay preference. For foundation of tertiary education, Malays more concentrated at matriculation. Some speculated that Malaysian matriculation are easier compared to STPM (Higher Malaysian Education Certificate), but at same time they used different benchmark. Matriculation have high benchmark admission to public universities and narrowing the choice for tertiary education. STPM (equal to British A-Level) have average criteria and the field scope is very wide. Comparing these 2 different programme is like comparing an orange and an apple. ''

''Even with "series of speculated racial discrimination in education", minority still able to balanced the number of Malays in public universities; nearly 3:2. With the balance population statistic between Malay and non-Malay in public Universities, these speculations are trying to preach that Malays are actually stupids. In private universities, the minority outnumber the Bumiputeras.''

''80% of civil officer are Malays and Indigenous because they are majority, most of their client are Bumiputera and their leader is Bumiputera too. Furthermore, Chinese and Indians aren't interested to be "servants of Government", because they prefer to enter businesses and private sector which have better income.  Common Economic Policy are to help the poorer. Bumiputera are the most poorer race in the nation, in spite of being the majority. This is not healthy to a nation (imagine that English British are poor, while Indian British are richer). Anyway, the execution of current economic policy practically favours only some Bumiputera, especially the "Malay Brahmins".''

Immigration policy doesn't have anything to do to preserved Malays majority, but like any other nation, for applying as permanent residents, ones should able to speak the official language - Malay language.

I believe this is the same person which I am disputing with. The reasons for it are the same as what he/she had done in - See: Talk:Ethnocracy 'Malaysia' section. MalaysianPhilosopher (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have also added the NPOV tag on that section. Please discuss anything here, and do not remove that tag. MalaysianPhilosopher (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism
I have also removed this part because of plagiarism (direct copy)

'''Since the early 1970s Malaysia has become an ethnic democracy, although democratic institutions are weak. The system was reconstituted in the 1970s as an ethnic democracy. Since the shift in regime, the state has been identified with the Malay majority. It institutionalizes Malay dominance, Islam as a state religion and Malay as a state language. Immigration policy is designed to preserve a Malay majority. State preferential treatment of Malays in admission to the universities and state civil service and in certain economic ventures is instituted as a common policy. Restrictions are imposed on land acquisitions by non-Malays.'''

Someone should re-write have re-write it properly and do you think this is an example of original research?

MalaysianPhilosopher (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Others
This list is very short, and in reality there are plenty of countries in the world that could fit the definition... Pretty much most of Europe (or all of it excluding Switzerland, Belgium, Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina and or set of city states... and all of these except Switzerland could be considered ethnic democracies in a broader sense as ethnic including one or more ethnic groups in the dominant group and excluding the rest). Is Poland not the state of Poles, Romania the state of Romanians and so on? Romania and others, yes, provide levels of rights for minorities, and this is included in the definition of an ethnic democracy notably. Outside of Europe (even if we count Russia and Turkey as primarily European) we have plenty of titular ethnic states, as this is more or less "the default". As long as they are democracies, why are they not considered ethnic democracies when they more or less state it right out in their names? --Yalens (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Apartheid South Africa & UDI Rhodesia
Both of these surely were the classic Ethnic Democracies?! South Africa in particular, saw the Nationalists eliminate black voting rights in 1948 when they imposed Apartheid. There was also a clear difference in the way White opponents and Black opponents were treated. White opposition parties continued to seek election in a whites only parliament (the United South Africa party in the 1950s/early 60s)and the Progressives (1965 onwards) both held seats and were allowed relative freedom to oppose & protest against Apartheid. Compare that with Nelson Mandela & ANC which ended up in Prison. Likewise in Rhodesia saw white opponents of UDI & minority rule enjoying freedom of expression due to their ethenticity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.238.50.136 (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Ethnic democracy. 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100602193044/http://www.ecmi.de/download/working_paper_13.pdf to http://www.ecmi.de/download/working_paper_13.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100602193044/http://www.ecmi.de/download/working_paper_13.pdf to http://www.ecmi.de/download/working_paper_13.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100602193044/http://www.ecmi.de/download/working_paper_13.pdf to http://www.ecmi.de/download/working_paper_13.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ethnic democracy. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080504025222/http://www.developmentandtransition.net/index.cfm?module=ActiveWeb&page=WebPage&DocumentID=586 to http://www.developmentandtransition.net/index.cfm?module=ActiveWeb&page=WebPage&DocumentID=586
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110902020851/http://web-static.vm.ee/static/failid/249/Citizenship_Sept2009.pdf to http://web-static.vm.ee/static/failid/249/Citizenship_Sept2009.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

NPOV issues
This article presents a non-neutral WP:POV in that it ignores the viewpoints of scholars who either problematize or dispute the extent to which an ethnic democracy can actually be democratic, or who regard this classificatory label as useless or non-explanatory altogether. The article presents a single camp's views, namely a camp of scholars who believe (1) that the term "ethnic democracy" is a useful term for political science in the first place; (2) that "ethnic democracy" is different from "ethnocracy" and "Herrenvolk democracy"; and (3) that there are no fundamental contradictions between the democratic and ethnocratic impulses of a purported ethnic democracy, or at least that any such contradictions are not fundamentally more vexatious or antagonistic than other contradictory principles in other democracies. This is flatly at odds with the body of literature on this subject as a whole, in violation of WP:DUE; there are plenty of scholars who dissent on the above points, and it isn't even the case that the views presented straightforwardly as fact in this article are a majority view, nevermind a consensus view of the sort that would justify the current wording of the article: a litany of veritably controversial statements presented uncritically and without attribution in WP:Wikivoice). In fact this is even at odds with the sources the article presently cites, which themselves are frequently borderline polemical, and thus invariably cite the views and arguments of those they disagree with. This article, by contrast, does not even acknowledge such positions. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)