Talk:Dignity taking

Cpommment

Timetrent asked me to comment on this:

I almost took it for parody. I don't think the concept of pseudoscience applies in the social sciences (except physiological psychology), because there is no stable standard. But this is pseudo-academic. , a pretense at scholarship,. It's a real but unnecessary word. The concept is known in ordinary language as "shaming", overlapping with "persecution" , "repression" and "conquest." Even within the social sciences, there's a relatively well accepted "depersonalization" The difference is that most of these terms apply also between people, as distinct from the state or state-supported agents towards people. Almost anything a state or a group acting as a state can do or permit in a hostile way towards individuals would fall within its compass , so there's potential for an essentially infinite number of academic articles. . The list of example is oversimplified and immature to the point that it needs rewriting, by which I mean reducing to a list with links to our articles.

I at first thought the article would be an example of right-wing bias, as conservative academics use "taking" to mean taking property for public use, taxation, and regulation.(I picked these 3 terms because they are specifically listed as permitted in the US Constitution). It turns out to be the opposite , fashionably academic left-wing. The first example is Israeli dispossession of the Bedouins; it omits what most people would think the most obvious in recent times, the Nazi destruction of Jewish people and property and dignity. It omits the Nazi destruction of the Roma. It includes the repression of Poles by the Soviets, omitting the repression by the Soviets (and Czars) of the Jews --and many other people. and the Poles.It gives something relatively minor from the PRC, but omits their treatment of the Uighurs and Tibetans . . It omits any number of notorious historical examples, including the most obvious: the Crusades, and the expulsions of the Jews and Muslims from Spain, Portugal, and other Christian countries.

The references only look impressive. They are almost all derived from two special issues of periodicals, presumably sponsored by the proponent(s) of the use of this term. Almost nothing from these publications is cited in google Scholar. And, though the sponsors obtained papers form a number of notable and almost notable people, the papers they contributed to these special issues are among the least cited of their career, generally by several orders of magnitude. I think most academics would recognize this as implying that the sponsors asked their acquaintances, many of whom contributed something out of friendship, but something trivial. . DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Recreation of a deleted article?

This article was created in 2019, however was deleted (idk who, why or when) and from the first edit (the page creation) the creator said "First draft of article on Dignity Takings (academic concept)" so @Aequitas217: did you meant to make this into a draft article instead of a full article? Bcz if yes, then either delete this page and make a draft article at Wikipedia:Article wizard or move this page to a draft page, (Draft:Dignity Taking). Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)