Talk:Political impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hungary[edit]

We should present the new legislation fairly and neutrally. The principal points of the new law are the following ([1]): 1. The Governemt (not the Prime Minister!) is authorized to rule by decree to the extent it is necessary to diminish the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic till the end of the pandemic. 2. Not elections, but by-election are suspended till the end of the pandemic. 3. The Court of Constitution can make judgement through electronic communicaiton (without holding formal sessions). 4. The authorization is indeed indefinite, because we do not know when the pandemic ends. Of course, we can present PoVs claiming that such an emergency authorization is incompatible with democracy, but we cannot presents PoVs as facts. Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that Human Watch Rights explained why the above legislation constitutes an "authoritarian takeover". I think the above measures are logical steps. I would like to understand what are the dangers for me (I am staunch supporter of one of the opposition parties.) Is it possible that my imprisonment is necessary to diminish the consequences of the pandemic? Or should I demand by-elections during the pandemic? Or should I demand that the Parlament grant plenary powers to the Government until the end of the pandemic twice in a month or in each month or in every third month? So I would be grateful if an expert could summarize the Human Watch Rights' concerns about the above measures. Borsoka (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jon698:, could you please summarize the legislation fairly and neutrally? We are not here to present PoVs as facts. I referred to a neutral summary of the law. Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: I have fulfilled everything that I need to do per WP:BURDEN. EVERY reliable news outlet and multiple human rights organizations has stated that Hungary's laws are authoritarian. Now the burden is on you to provide sources for your claim that they aren't. - Jon698 (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I referred to a Hungarian reliable source above hours ago - to a Hungarian news websit. Do you think we should prefer summaries of journalists who do not speak Hungarian about a law published in Hungarian? What is obvious for a native speaker of Hungarian, that ALL sources of the article published in English on this subject contains the SAME errors - suggesting that they can be traced to ONE common source (I listed the errors above). If we want to follow our community's basic policies, especially WP:NPOV, we should first present the legislation as neutrally as it is possible. Afterwards, we should, of course, present all relevant PoVs, including the ones stating that the Government's plenary power is unprecedented, dangerous, authoritarian, etc. Borsoka (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One sources from a Hungarian site with dubious connections to the government < Human rights organizations. - Jon698 (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked more into that source you brought up and upon a quick search of their Wikipedia page I found this:

"In February 2014, Pro-Ráta Holding Zrt, a company close to Lajos Simicska, a businessman often described as a "Fidesz oligarch", but later a fierce enemy of Orbán, signed an option to buy Index from Spéder, unknown to Index's employees.[30] After Simicska fell out with Orbán in 2015.[31] and several businesspeople still allied with Fidesz started showing interest in purchasing Index" "After Fidesz's overwhelming victory in the 2010 elections, Spéder's close relationship with several figures close to the party meant that many at Index started fearing increased political influence.[24][25] This culminated in Péter Uj resigning as editor-in-chief after 11 years in September 2011[13], later citing the firing of one of Index's employees after an article critical of Viktor Orbán as the cause of his exit." - Jon698 (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please find further sources: [2], [3], [4]. Borsoka (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC) (Just a side question: do you really think that a Hungarian newspaper dares to incorrectly summarize the provisions of a law which is published? I think your experiences with newspapers must be really unique.) Borsoka (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tommancs (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC) a — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommancs (talk • contribs) 15:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC) Tommancs (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC) We should not allow to publish point of views here. 444, HVG and Nepszava are all left, liberal newspapers. They are heavily anti-goverment and tend to misinterpret laws on purpose and present their point of views as facts. (I have to add that pro-goverment newspapers also do this, of course just the other way around...) Anyway, the law can be read by full extent here: https://net.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=A2000012.TV&celpara=&dbnum=1 If one reads it, word by word, just as I did, one can conclude the following regarding this dispute: 1. The Governemt is authorized to rule by decree to the extent it is necessary to diminish the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic till the end of the pandemic. (As one member already said correctly above.) Not Orban, the goverment. The head of the goverment happens to be him, but that's how a government work, they all have a head... 2. The general elections are not suspended, as a matter of fact they are constitutional, so no law can suspend them anyway. Only special, so called by-election are suspended till the end of the pandemic. These elections are in case of a premature vacancy of the chair: dying, resigning, etc. 4. The authorization is indeed indefinite - logically, since we do not know when the pandemic ends. I have to add, that in. Hungary, the ruling Fidesz party already has two-third majority. So if this law weren't infinite, they could prolong it anytime anyway. Normally the Parliament decides when the emergency is over in which the government already have not just majority, but 2/3 majority. Now also the government can say when the emewrgency is over. IT IS THE SAME. The only reason why it's safer to have an indeinite one: in a worst case scenario, there can be many seats empty because of the pandemic, the Parliament may not have quorum, which can leave the country ungoverned. This law prevents this from happening. 5. Spreading fake or untrue news in general can't end up in prison sentenctes. Please READ the corresponding law. The criminal code was modified so that openly spreading untrue or fake news to the public THAT BALK THE FIGHT against the pandemic can result even in prison sentences. Huge difference.[reply]

We cannot use the text of the law to present the law as per WP:NOR. Yes, 444, HVG and Népszava are leftists, but they are reliable sources for WP purposes, so we can refer to them to present the law itself. Borsoka (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tommancs (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)We could use them if they were not misleading. But they are, in this case. Not only exaggerating, but making false conclusions. You are Hungarian, read the law by yourself, if you don't beleive me. Then, after you read it (only a few pages), please specify the points were my arguments are incorrect. (They are not.) I didn't say to copy the law anyway, I said we should only state something which is the law, and not 444's, HVG's or Népszavaz's OPINION. Or, why didn't you state the opinion of Origo or 888 for example? Both sides have opinions, we should only use the law itself as a source, not leftist or rightist newspapers.[reply]

I do not read Origo or 888. We cannot use the law itself, because it is a primary source and WP:NOR, a basic principle of our community, does not support the direct use of primary sources. Borsoka (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tommancs (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)That's sad. Basically 888 and Origo are the biggest pro-goverment newspapers. Reading only leftist newspapers and using them as the only source surely won't help Wikipedia having a politically-neutral articles which its should be. I always read newspapers from all sides. But it doesn't matter. Luckily, we only have to read the law itself which is cyristal clear.[reply]

@Tommancs:, the law is presented neutrally in section 1. Impact on international relations under the subtitle 1.1 Hungary because it is first mentioned there. We do not need to duplicate the same info twice. Please, stop restoring the duplication. Borsoka (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tommancs (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC) Fair enough about the international section. However, at least we should refer to the that paragraph here as well, since not everybody reads an articel from the very beginning to the end. This law obvisously had impacts on national politics, so if we don't want to duplicate - which is reasonable, and I understand - I insist we must make a link to the upper section, something like this: "Read more on the Coronavirus Protection Act / authorization law here" or something like that.[reply]

There is a link to the main page about the pandemic in Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

195.38.98.143 (talk) 08:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Of course, there is a link, but that's not the point. That has nothing to do the impacts on the national politics. That doesn't solve the issue I presented. Anyway, the section in question has been modified again. Almost okay, but it says "The law also suspends all elections and referendums for the duration of the emergency." which is not true. Only by-election were suspended, so I corrected that. Tommancs (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)The above post is mine.[reply]

@Keepcalmandchill:, if you watch Christiane Amanpour's short interview with Péter Szijjártó, you will hear that Amanpour specifically referred to reports in Washington Post and other mainstream newspapers about the Hungarian government's unlimited authorization and the closing down of the Hungarian Parliament. I have not questioned the reliability of Amanpour's summary. If you think she did not summarize correctly the reports, please mention it (of course, based on reliable sources). On the other hand, Szijjártó specifically referred to these news when talking about unfounded reports. Since the government's authroization is not unlimited and the Hungarian Parliament continues its sessions in the usual way, we cannot claim that Szijjártó's words were only "claims". Borsoka (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: Please do show the interview transcript and which part you are referring to if you want it to be apart of the discussion. But you are probably mistaken in thinking that she accepted those conclusions. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The interview transcript is in the reference, but I can again show it: [5]. You have to listen only the one third of the interview (Amanpour in her introductory remark refers to Washington Post's report of the end of democracy in Hungary, in her third remark specifically refers to her knowledge of the closing down of the Parliament). Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to edit[edit]

You are cordially invited to edit Draft:Mismanagement of the 2019-20 COVID-19 pandemic. Calmecac5 (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poland delayed the 2020 presidential elections[edit]

As per official electoral website, wybory.gov.pl, the bolded text says:

The applicable law deprived the National Electoral Commission of the tools necessary to perform its duties. Therefore the National Electoral Commission informs the voters, electoral committees, candidates, electoral administration, and local government units that the elections on May 10th 2020 cannot be conducted.

The map on the page should be updated accordingly. Unfortunately, I don't know how to edit .svg files. --37.248.157.80 (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do we think about splitting this page?[edit]

What do we think about splitting this page - One page to keep track of the impact of politics overall, and another to keep track of individual political figures who have gotten the virus? KConWiki (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good, it's currently way too long. Could also potentially split it into political impact and impact on elections. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Way too long, no need to list every single "public" individual ever infected[edit]

This article is way too long & WP:BLOATED. There is absolutely no reason to include a list of every single "politician and public figures infected with COVID-19" in the entire world (sections 5 & 6). If it impacted national politics, it should be in the "Impact on national politics" section; if not, it's trivial and does not belong in the article. Also, the sections on the impact on the United Kingdom (3.15) & impact on U.S. elections (4.23) are too long. (And not sure why "Impact on national politics" is a separate section rather than being part of "Impact on national politics".) Yaakovaryeh (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, this article is very long. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should be condensed by better thematic grouping, not subdivided by nation every single time. For example, "Impact on politicians and public figures" could be simply written in paragraph prose, mentioning nation as appropriate, rather than excessively, repetitively split into short (sometimes single sentence) sections for every nation. Alternatively, nation could be a primary determinant of sections, with nation-specific impacts on politicians, elections, internal politics, etc. succinctly summarized in a single subsection, and content heavily deferred to sub-articles like COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil or Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on politics in Malaysia, rather than spreading nation-specific content across multiple disjunct subsections. --Animalparty! (talk)
  • @FormalDude: OK. In that case I will have to expand and update the Impact on politicians and public figures section using the data you have deleted Leijona1824 (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude:, Yes. You were right in removing the section "politician and public figures infected with COVID-19", WP:NOTCATALOG fits here. I am not sure as to why @Leijona1824: then went ahead and (am assuming) added that information in the section of 'Impact on politicians and public figures'. In my opinion, that whole section is redundant and it is a major contributor to this article being over the size limit.
Having sections for national politics, elections and international relations makes sense, but not this section of impact on politicians (who are just individuals). Why? COVID-19 is not a novel disease anymore, over 200 million people have been infected. What makes politicians more important than other people to have them listed here? Their infections and/or deaths are more fitting to their individual articles (if those exist) than on here. We do not have a list of celebrities infected with COVID-19 for the articles on Impact on Cinema or Entertainment. I am not sure why this section is needed at all, it contributes very little for readers. Maybe the size could be drastically reduced by listing only heads of states and not every minister or second/third level politicians or it should just be removed altogether. Opinions requested, @Yaakovaryeh:, @Blubabluba9990:, @Animalparty: •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 01:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be removed altogether; it's not beneficial for the reader. As Shawnqual said, impact on individuals who are politicians is not particularly relevant give the ubiquity of the pandemic. ––FormalDude talk 01:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We also have List of deaths due to COVID-19. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe I stated this in my original comment.Yaakovaryeh (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even see a need for listing heads of states, unless it had an impact on the country in which case it should be in the other sections.Yaakovaryeh (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

Thank you @FormalDude: for bringing attention to the issue and removing the section as per consensus reached here. @Leijona1824:, Please note the consensus reached here and refrain from either reverting and/or re-adding the section or its information on this article henceforth. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 09:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did Burundian President Pierre Nkurunziza die of Covid-19?[edit]

Is President Pierre Nkurunziza really the first sitting world leader to die of Covid-19? The Burundian government denies it. Closest relatives also don't seem to admit it and the sources used in references could not be named. Otherwise, I move for eSwatini PM Ambrose Dlamini to be recognized as such. Leijona1824 (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Leijona1824: I agree the sources are not strong enough to declare him the first world leader to die, only that he may have been the first. Additional source: [6]. ––FormalDude talk 22:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_impact_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic&oldid=1212748777"