Talk:Socialist state/Archive 4

PLEASE, PLEASE read through the explanations that Tannin, JTD, and I posted on that site. We througholy explain why these so-called characteristics don't belong in this article. I'd do it again, but I have to go and I'm running late.

Aside from that, the content still doesn't even sound like it was written by an adult. "Politburo" is still mispelled and many of the claims are COMPLETELY WRONG; the claim about Communist states being characterized by a command economy sticks out because of contemporary China, Vietnam, Laos and to some extent Yugoslavia and Hungary. I don't have enough time in the day to go through the problems with Fred's text, nonetheless in several minutes. I need to pull myself away from this site now! 172

I was initially puzzled by the reference to politboro being mispelled. "Politboro" is simply a rendering in English of the Russian word politboro, substituting letters of the roman alphabet for the cyrillic alphabet. A translation of the word would be politbureau. A google search for both words gives 214 hits for politboro and 2,500 for politbureau. Fred Bauder 12:29 May 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * The arguments do not convince. If you believe characteristics of the Communist state do not belong in the entry entitled Communist state, then you are obligated to place that text in its rightful place. Neither you, nor JTD, nor I own the entry. If you believe that there are emendations that need to be made to the text, then do so. Do not simply delete it. Finally, the example you gave of the problems with Fred's text is poor: Fred's text does point out that China moved away from the command economy that characterized it for much of the 20th century. --The Cunctator


 * No. We are not Fred Bauder's nanny. There is no reason why Fred Bauder cannot create the article. What is he describing is the political workings of communist system. This article is purely about the constitutional workings of a system of government called Communist state as its content makes clear. The content of the article may be relevant in a different article, or with his own creation, which could be linked to this article, as should states which operating the Constitutional state structure of government, pages on communism, pages on critics of communism, etc. Articles on wiki strive to be concerned with a topic, not to have an approach of throw in absolutely anything you want into an article for the fun of it. Linked topics are linked. Fred knows that very well. But he cannot simply dump in irrelevant stuff, no matter how well or badly written, into an article that as the opening paragraph makes 100% clear, is 100% concerned with a political science definition of a constitutional structure, not a general discussion of communISM, any more than 'federal state' is a general discussion of a federal state like the US, or a 'constitutional monarchy' is about a general discussion on royal families and their marriage plans. All that Fred has to do is create a page dealing with the characteristics of a communist-run state, which is a different thing. But he can no more add in a generalised discussion on communISM into this page that he could add in a general discussion on royal marital woes on constitutional monarchy or a discussion of the US treatment of native americans in a page on federal state. That would not be tolerated by users. This cannot be either. ÉÍREman 20:56 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

I note that 172 recently reverted an edit by The Cunctator with the edit comment "reverted. What part of 'political science definition' is Fred Bauder intellectually incapable of understanding? This article is NOT on the topic of communISM but a political science term)". (my emphasis)

I note that I recently criticised 172 for failing to take sufficient care and attention when reverting edits. I'd like to reiterate that criticism, and note that the situation has not improved. The act of reverting should be one of peer review. Please take the time to consider the implications of the word "review". Martin 19:16 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Good point. While I have tried to incorporate useful edits by third parties when I have reverted the article, others have not been so careful. When you revert you need to examine the other later edits in the history to see if someone else has put in something helpful in between the two versions that needs to be saved. Fred Bauder 12:29 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

-- To Martin especially:

I bypassed the Cunctator's revisions wholesale because he resurrected Fred Bauder's irrelevant postings. If perhaps he made a helpful edit along with that, I'm sorry that I could have possibly blanked it, but in JTD's word's, I'm not his nanny, being incapable of going through his postings line by line.

I simply don't what to lay out this argument, which poor JTD has laid out probably well over a dozen times, over and over again because other users fail to refer to the talk page to find out why Fred's postings keep getting removed before belatedly interjecting themselves into this dispute.

The problem with continued disputes about this article essentially centers on Fred's intransigence and the naivety of users who have decided to restore his material. After user after user agreed that Fred's material was poorly written and irrelevant, Fred continued to post his contents. Fred Bauder's little essay is simply irrelevant to the topic of the page. This is unacceptable since it's critical that an accessible encyclopedia or sourcebook follow generally universal standards of proper location, relevance and definition. In the process, users, like the Cuncator, periodically and belatedly tried to jump into the dispute and revive Fred's poorly written essay, failing to understand the fundamental question at hand, which is the lack of relevance of his polemic on what is nothing more than an article on the structure of a government-type. Something along the lines of Fred's material would go quite well in an article on Communism, which is free to discuss the nebulous and bring in theory, interpretations, and analysis of politics and history. Of course, I say "along the lines" because Fred's postings would require substantial work before they meet the general standards of good historical scholarship (no inaccuracies and limited sweeping generalizations) and the Wikipedia guidelines of NPOV. Once again, his additions are deeply flawed, falling short of basic academic standards of accuracy. His postings also fall short of the NPOV guidelines, being overtly unbalanced and sweeping.

Instead, some users have fallen for Fred's slander against us, thinking that Tannin, JTD, and I represent some kind of Marxist-Leninist vanguard unilaterally trying to force a sympathetic interpretation of Communism to be conveyed in this article. This is an absolute lie (a breif look at my contributions would prove that point over and over again). As an aside, I'd guess that I'm to the left of JTD and Tannin, so this charge is even more ridiculous when extended against them. But I've written acutally written far more on the failures of the centrally planned economy than has Fred on this site, demonstrating that I have no partisan bias. Why the hell am I even defending myself against the idiotic charges of historical revisionism by Fred seriously? Anyway, I merely feel that contributors need to be dedicated to Wikipedia, hoping that it becomes someday a valuable online sourcebook organized according to proper academic standards.

172

Well, 172, if you are not a duck...


 * "universal standards of proper location, relevance and definition" dictated by who? Until someone appoints you absolute ruler of Wikipedia, you have to operate by consensus just like the rest of us.  Since I don't know what you mean by, for instance, "proper location" despite too many years in academia, I think it's a safe bet that few other people do either, in which you should start by writing a Wikipedia policy and getting the multiple thousands of other editors to agree to it.  If you want something like Nupedia, where only the anointed experts get to touch an article, you should go work on that instead.  To steal a line - while I don't defend Fred Bauder's material, I will defend his right to add it. Stan 03:36 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Stan, I simply refer to all the past comments by JTD and myself going through what we mean too many times. This article has two archieved pages of talk, so please read them. We have addressed this point many times. 172


 * I did indeed read through the whole archive, but was not convinced by the arguments made, and disappointed by the degree of vituperation directed against a fellow editor. Yes, it's frustrating to deal with bad behavior, but that doesn't justify bad behavior in return. If your arguments are not convincing, then you need to find better arguments or - dare I suggest it - propose a compromise. Stan 04:44 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

-- Then do some research of your own and you'd find that what we are saying is substantiated. But please don't come here and beat a dead horse. Will you people ever let JTD or me focus on something else other than Fred Bauder's terrible prose? 172


 * How I wish I was in the House of Commons, because what I want to say right now is: "The righteousness of the right honorable member 172 is inspirational. I wish that one day I could achieve his clarity of purpose and surety of superiority." Heck, I guess I did say it. --The Cunctator

I'm not the only one making this argument. It's just that all the people who acutually know a thing or two about history and politics and actually know what the hell we're talking about are making this argument along with me. After laying out the arguments so many time, there's nothing left to do but to tell people to do their own research.172

The problem here is that other people also know what they are talking about (and have years of experience interacting with partisans such as yourself). I do not for one moment doubt that your beliefs are deeply and sincerely held and that you believe that the various facts I have set forth are just stale repetition of old propaganda lies. However, this is an encyclopedia, not an excercise in diplomacy or political correctness. People who use this encyclopedia need the straight dope, not some sanitized version of reality that as it relates to the communist state has no more substance than a fairytale. Fred Bauder 12:29 May 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * Hmm, so basically you're saying that anybody who disagrees with you doesn't know anything about history or politics? A comforting belief I'm sure, but it's a hallmark of real scholars that they know better than to be quite that sure of themselves.  How are you going to cope when people do their own research and come to opposite conclusions anyway?  Also, I'm still waiting to see the authority you're quoting that defines the "universal standards of proper location, relevance and definition"; as someone who purports to be knowledgeable about what encyclopedia articles should and should not include, it should be no problem for you to quote an authoritative source from which you derive your superior knowledge. Stan 23:02 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Please, don't misrepresent me either. I'm just saying that there's nothing else I can say. I think we have laid out everything we can state to demonstrate that this content doesn't belong here. I'm just saying that it would be easier if you people researched this subject so that I don't have to cite an entire sourcebook. 172


 * Since you seem unable to mention even the name of this "entire sourcebook" so that I can know what to go look at, I must conclude that your additions have no sounder academic basis than Fred's. In fact, since Fred is apparently responsible for the only reference to a published academic work that has been added to this article, he has already done an infinitely better job of documenting sources than you have.  His contributions have problems, but at least he knows Wikipedia policy enough to cite his sources. Stan 23:53 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Stan, that is a misinterpretation of the further reading section. I have not read the book or used it in preparing my material. If I cited a source as a reference it would be in the reference section. None of us have tried very hard to cite references here. Fred Bauder 12:29 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

-- Well, if my explanations don't suffice, then I refer to those of JTD and Tannin. 172

Please Fred, don't add in words that in a certain context appear POV and to readers undermine the credibility of whatever facts you have added in. Words that in one context if explained and contextualised can be NPOV in a different context, particularly when used as a sweeping generalisation, can come across as POV. How you say things is as important as what you are saying. The word 'totalitarian' in the context you put it in undermines the credibility of the whole paragraph you added to, because in that context it can be read as editorialising and judgementalising. You don't have to say it if it is implied or linked elsewhere, and it is, in the article and in linked articles like the one you are working on. Careful use of language and not overdoing it can strength the credibility of what you write with the reader. Generalised statements like that in that context can all to easily look to the reader like propaganda and undermine all the work you do elsewhere. Be cautious, careful and unemotional in your use of words and you strength the power of what you write immeasurably. ÉÍREman 01:20 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

I put totalitarianism in the first paragraph of the article on Hitler and authoritarianism in the first paragraph of the China article. In both cases I belive the links were properly placed in the article and appropriatley emphasize factual information. It is those who remove such a link that call their credibility into question. Fred Bauder 12:29 May 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * When you say "cautious, careful and unemotional in your use of words" you mean like when you called for the banning of Fred for his vandalism? --The Cunctator

Fred, Yugoslavia was not a satellite state of the USSR. Tito followed a very independent policy, to the fury of Stalin who tried to control him. Some others too on the list are debatable too. ÉÍREman 02:12 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

That mistake was added by someone else. Fred Bauder 12:29 May 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * Depends on who you ask, and what criteria for "satellite nation" you use. E.g., in the National Geographic, "Through the decades, it resisted Nazi Germany and under the Communist dictatorship of Marshall Tito, managed to hold the Soviet Union at bay as a non-aligned satellite nation while, at the same time, constructing a productive national economy." Your say-so does not make it so. --The Cunctator

Good change, Tannin. ÉÍREman 02:12 May 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * Thankyou, JTD. I've been tied up with other things these last few days, and coming back to this entry I'm pleased to see that it has become a truly excellent one. Those few tiny changes I made just now were pretty much the full extent of what it needs. Tannin 02:21 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Cunc, I have no wish to mess up your work. And I don't care which particular title you want to have the political science entry under, as opposed to the general history and characteristics entry. I suggest that you take your work over to Communist government. If you don't want to do that, then suggest an alternative arrangement that can still preserve this excellent entry, and yet not mess up whatever it is that you want to do on a related subject. If you want me to, I'll put some time into disentangling the two competing versions, so that your work is not wasted. Tannin


 * I trust you'll make an honorable attempt to work with me. If you haven't noticed, my work has not been to contribute content, but to work on editing and integrating the content that is already there. Is there any justification other than personality for having two separate entries? I don't see it. When I integrated the text of the two entries, they didn't seem that far apart. The only real effort was in organizing the ideas coherently (i.e. the section headings) and putting the negative and positive aspects (such as poverty + universal health care) together, instead of as opposing sides. --The Cunctator


 * There is a difference between the two topics. As I wrote on Cunc's talk page just now, it is the difference between a simple (and relatively straightforward) exposition of the formal and semi-formal mechanisims of government in communist countries (which are not, I think, particularly difficult to agree upon) on the one hand, and the vast and often subjective practical consequences of communist rule. (Which are highly controversial, and an entirely different kettle of fish.)

Yes, indeed, and efforts to somehow minimize this great stinking pile of dead fish is what is at issue. Fred Bauder 12:29 May 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * We could try to unite these two quite different things in a single entry, but it would be horrbly difficult and confusing to do so. Why, if uniting seperate but related topics is a good thing, do we have seperate articles for B-29 Superfortress and Bombing of Tokyo in World War II?

- Quick question, are you people aware that there is an article on a constitutional structure, like confederation, federal republic, or monarchy? Anything about poverty in those articles? User:172:172


 * 1) Are you aware that there is an article on Communism?
 * 2) There is no article on confederation.
 * 3) The monarchy entry lists specific examples of monarchies in practice.
 * 4) Communism is both a political and an economic theory, and thus it is appropriate to discuss the economy of the Communist state.
 * 5) Thank you for pointing out the missing information in the articles. I've tried to add some text about the economic implications of such political structures, and encourage you to do so too. --The Cunctator


 * You have just proved the point. Monarchy is on the broad issue of monarchy. Constitutional Monarchy in contrast is on the constitution meaning of constitutional monarchy. This page is the equivalent of constitutional monarchy, a page on a constitutional system. Fred's page is the equivalent of Monarchy, a broad discursive analysis of the topic that isn't focused on the constitutional definition. Look at the opening lines:


 * Constitutional Monarchy - A constitutional monarchy (also capitalised as Constitutional Monarchy) is a system of government . ..
 * Monarchy - A monarchy is a state ruled by a monarch. A distinguishing characteristic of modern monarchies is that the position of monarch often involves inheritance in some form - although this is not always the case. Both the Holy Roman Empire and the Papacy are examples of elective monarchies. Contrariwise, as in the United Kingdom, the hereditary principle may be expressed and given substance through a formal elective mechanism. The term monarchy is also used to refer to the people and institutions that make up the royal establishment, or to the (nation) state in which the monarchy functions.


 * The first is about a constitutional definition. The second is a discursive analysis of monarchy. Fred's page is the equivalent of the latter. This page is the equivalent of the former. Is that too difficult for you to understand? ÉÍREman 20:28 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

- THIS IS NOT AN ARTICLE ON THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC THEORY OF MARXISM-LENINISM. THIS IS AN ARTICLE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATE STRUCTURE OF A COMMUNIST STATE!!!!!! READ THE ARCHIVED PAGES SO THAT I DON'T HAVE TO REPEAT WHAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

ALSO, SITE OWNER JIMBO WALES AGREES THAT FRED'S CONTENT DOESN'T BELONG IN THIS ARTICLE (SEE THE MAILING LIST), SO YOUR EFFORTS TO INSERT FRED'S (PERHAPS YOUR) POV COULD GET YOU BANNED.


 * As I said before, your shouting is rude. You also have a deep misunderstanding of Wikipetiquette, Policies and guidelines, and Jimbo's role. I hope you will consider improving your understanding. --The Cunctator

- I know that it's rude. So is trying to insert your POV after JTD, Tannin, Tarquin, other users, and I have probably written well over a hundred pages on this page, user pages, and the mailing lists explaining why these poorly written paragraphs don't belong here. And here you come, interjecting yourself in the debate, being a further nuisance. I doubt that all of us could say anything else to convince you; you seem far too dense. So quit being so lazy and why don't you go through all our explanations and do some research to see if we're not all engaging in some kind of conspiracy and making these arguments up ourselves? 172


 * So you've written "well over a hundred pages" that manage not to cite a single published scholarly work. Instead of calling people "nuisances", "dense", and "lazy", why don't you demonstrate that you're different by citing some actual authorities.  Given the absence of citations, I'm beginning to think that I should be reviewing and possibly reverting your unsupported additions elsewhere. Stan 20:26 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Listen, Stan. Quit taking everything that I say out of context. I said that put together many users have probably written well over a hundred pages critical of Fred's work. I did not state that I have alone.

And BTW, if you choose to blank all my postings, I will work to do the same to yours. 172


 * You're right, my mistake - your additions are much less than a hundred pages. I see you're still not answering about the citations though.  And you should feel free to remove any of my material that is not supported by authoritative sources. Stan 20:51 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Mr. Jimbo Wales, the site owner, has made his decision, favoring NPOV, proper location, and basic academic standards with regard to this page:

"His text was everything you [Jtdirl|ÉÍREman] say it is -- POV, and in the wrong location (at best), and partly false (perhaps)."

Please see: http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003113.html

Please do some independent research before coming back to troll this page. 172


 * OK then, finish the quote - he goes on to say "I think that it's worthwhile for everyone (especially Fred, but others, too) to take stock of how this might have been handled more amicably." which includes you. Stan 20:26 May 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * 172, although I have a very high regard for Jimbo's judgement, and have never disagreed with him, he generally has no special authority over the content of pages or edit conflicts among participants in good standing.


 * It seems to me that only part of the conflict here is over accuracy in any basic sense; a good deal of the conflict is over whether this article should discuss the term in a relatively restricted sense, as used by political scientists, or in a more general sense.


 * I suggest that some edit conflicts can be accomidated by a slight reorganization of the article. I suggest that the article recognize that the term "communist state" has been used in different ways by scholars of comparative political systems and by scholars of Chinese, Soviet, etc. history, and also by political scientists more generally, political sociologists, other scholars, and also by journalists and politicians.  I suggest that there be different sections to accomodate different public an academic actors who have used the term.  As long as it is clear, who uses the term in which way, I think many more views can be accomodated without compomising on accuracy and indeed, adding information. Slrubenstein

What you suggest is more a sophisticated essay on word usage than an encyclopedia article. More a gloss on on a dictionary entry. Fred Bauder 00:49 May 11, 2003 (UTC)


 * I also have one request for the political scientists contributing to this page. It would be helpful if the article provided some more context on why political scientists developed and used this classification (in what academic and political context). Slrubenstein

- Good ideas, Slrubenstein. We can all work on it once this page is no longer haunted. Some of those suggestions, pertaining to the relatively restricted sense of the term, would improve this article. 172

-- Stan, what the hell do you want me to cite? The problems with Fred's content? Or why his content doesn't belong here? 172

And BTW, what's bringing you over to this page? Political agendas?


 * I want to see a citation for an authority that says Fred's material doesn't belong in this article. This would be one of very few articles where material that seems relevant (to me) is being deleted for being "offtopic".  If it can happen here to Fred, it can happen elsewhere on subjects dearer to my heart, so I'm interested in the rationale and the outcome.  The specific citation I'm looking for is what authority requires this to be a "definition-only" article - either a "this is the only way to write professional encyclopedia articles" or a "this standard Wikipedia policy page defines the rule".


 * The voluminous ALL CAPS SHOUTING in Special:Recent changes is what got my attention initially, probably wouldn't have noticed otherwise, but once I read the article it seemed that there was a subtle but definite pro-communist slant to it, mostly by omission. Politics is not my first interest, but I'm well-enough read to recognize a certain category of apologetics. Stan 22:57 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

--- Fred, if you do not stop trying to insert your POV into this article, I'm going to request that you're banned by Jimbo Wales. I'm sure that I'd have support, considering that one or more contributors have already done so.

I bet Mr. Wales would consider the request in light of this comment: "His text was everything you [Jtdirl|ÉÍREman] say it is -- POV, and in the wrong location (at best), and partly false (perhaps)."

This comment can be found on http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003113.html.

172


 * He also said that it takes "Two to tango". --mav

-- SL wrote: "I suggest that the article recognize that the term "communist state" has been used in different ways by scholars of comparative political systems and by scholars of Chinese, Soviet, etc. history, and also by political scientists more generally, political sociologists, other scholars, and also by journalists and politicians. I suggest that there be different sections to accomodate different public an academic actors who have used the term.  As long as it is clear, who uses the term in which way, I think many more views can be accomodated without compomising on accuracy and indeed, adding information. "


 * I agree completely and couldn't have put it better. --mav

172, it would do your case more good if you spoke more softly. Stan, your suggestion of a "pro communist bias" is just plain silly - there is no-one here who comes even close to that point of view. (Unfortunately: it would perhaps help balance things up around here if there were; force contributors to think more carefully about their own slanted agendas.) SLR: your suggestion that discussion of the term should be broadened to include its usage by other academic disciplines has merit, I think, but also presents difficulties. The key problem there, as I see it, is that one must be careful not to open the door to wild and poorly informed off-topic rants once again.


 * I agree, and that is precisely why I make this suggestion. Slrubenstein

It is one thing to discuss the way that different specialists have different takes on the usage and meaning of a term, it is another thing completely to wander off into the entire history of a large group of disparate regimes and why they were good, bad, or ugly, not neglecting the huge problem of confounding variables, and the even bigger one of the strong emotional attachment some contributors bring to the matter.


 * Again, I agree and repeat: I believe that being clear about the different scholars who use the term "communist state" differently will protect against this. Slrubenstein

I am inclined to think that this last task is beyond us here on the 'pedia. It would, I think, rate the same degree of difficulty as the Arab-Israeli conflict. Better, much better, to deal here, in this entry, with the uncontroversial matters of definition and organisation, and attempt the "has communisim been good, bad, or ugly, taken as a whole over the years?" question as a seperate task. Tannin

I agree with Tannin. SLR's suggestion is welcome, interesting and thoughtful. However I doubt whether it is practical. The more one strays into analysis of communISM and away from a clinical description of the definition, the greater the likelihood from a 'pro-communist' and 'anti-communist' POV slipping in.


 * I agree that "communism" is the topic of a very different article, and must confess that I have no idea how this point illustrates the impracticality of my suggestion. I agree that what is needed is a "clinical description of the definition" and am arguing that you are doing a poor job of this.  A good clinical description of the definition will not be neither so general as to say "political scientists" -- it will distinguish between poli-scis who do comparative political systems, versus poli-scies who study specific states; nor will it be so narrow as to refer only to "political scientists" as political sociologists, historians, and others also use the term.  And these groups often define the term "communist state," or use the term, in different ways -- a good clinical description will explain how and why. Slrubenstein

That is why this page was designed and shaped to be clinically descriptive. How a Communist state describes a system where unlike in a liberal democracy, a governing elite blurs the distinction between party (which in any system produces the political elite) and constitutional structures, to allow that elite govern through the party rather than constitutional organs of state in a way unthinkable in a liberal democracy. And that they do so because of the theoretical beliefs within Marxism-Leninism about the concept of state and party. That is all that needs to be said. That is all the definition means.


 * According to whom? And don't respond that I am muddying the waters by talking about "communism."  I am not.  I am concerned only with how scholars use the term communist state and I know for a fact there are scholars who use the term in ways other than you. Slrubenstein

It is that simple. Analysis of communISM and what this in practice means is a POV nightmare and there are any number of interpretations. To put bluntly, there is one simple straight-forward definition to the term communist state. There are any number of answers to the question 'how did communism work in practice.' That is why here as elsewhere the two topics are kept separate but linked. This page simply answers the question what. The how, when questions are best served in an article that can be be written at considerable length to explore all the viewpoints.

Re The Cunctator: on a talk page tonight he let slip his real reason for his behaviour. It isn't this page at all. He refuses to accept the manner in which political scientists analyse questions. With monumental arrogance, he believes that his way of throw everything into one article, no matter how many problems he causes, is superior to the way used by academics, political scientists, researchers, historians and people who do this sort of analysis for a living. His edits here are simply part of pushing an agenda. The fact that this page is organised in the standard manner of international research bugs him, because our infallible all knowing Cunctator knows that everyone else's way is wrong, the way by which one rights up research is all wrong, because he knows best. The fact that he has a poor grasp of the facts and a monumental ignorance of how academic research is done don't bug him because he knows best and the entire academic world is going to have to do things his 'superior' way. ÉÍREman 02:48 May 11, 2003 (UTC)


 * This is not Nupedia; if you can't convince the hoi polloi not to edit a page in ways you don't like, you lose. A page named simply "Communist state" is a real lightning rod - and that's without the "vast right-wing conspiracy" in the US being aware of Wikipedia.  What are you going to do when a thousand neocons see this in Wikipedia and decide to "fix it"?  Now, one thing that is done on other articles is include in the first paragraph "This article is about X - for recipes relating to X, see cooking with X", which doesn't guarantee scope limitation, but at least redirects energetic editors elsewhere.  Clearly it's not working to rail at edits you don't like and call for the banning of editors whose edits you don't like; for one thing, you're attracting the scrutiny of other editors, who don't care for your approach of trying to get your way by heaping insults and abuse on people who've done nothing worse than disagree with you. Stan 03:59 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

The curious thing is, Stan, that people have no problem following standard academic approaches on 99% of pages on wiki. It appears that there are only a handful of pages where a handful of people throw tantrums and insist it trying a different way which doesn't work and ends up a complete balls up. Academic standards aren't some snobby way of telling everyone to conform. Most wiki users aren't even aware they are using them. They use them because they are central to our NPOV policy and to all sorts of users are followed because they make sense. They have been tried and tested by hundreds of thousands of academics for centuries, millions of writers, hundreds of wiki users. The rules are simple. Accuracy. Balance. Relevance. I am amused at being called a communist sympathiser. A couple of weeks ago I was accused of being a neo-nazi, because I refused to accept a blatently POV anti-nazi rant in an article. As a gay man, given what the nazis did to gays, jews, Poles, etc I view nazis with repulsion. But as someone who is trained academically to defend standards, I could not stand by and accept a POV rant whereever it came from, even where on a personal level I might have some sympathy for the viewpoint. Similarly, I have been accused by an Australian monarchist of being an Aussie republican, and of being an Assie monarchist by an Aussie republican, all because I refused to accept either side's slanted POV being slotted into the same article that was supposed to be NPOV. Similarly I have been accused of being anti-catholic and a catholic apologist, an anti-semite and a zionist, a woman hater and a feminist, simply because I refuse to accept any one side of an argument to POV an article, even where personally I as a private citizen might share their analysis. Most bizarrely (in editing text elsewhere, not on wiki), I have been accused of being an apologist for the IRA, an accusation that turned my stomach given that the IRA blew the head of someone I knew who was standing practically beside me in a Belfast pub (and left me splattered in his blood and brains).

As it happens, I don't share 172's politics and have clashed with him on the Robert Mugabe page among others. But he is trying to produce a sound, credible page here, the sort of page other professionally edited encyclopædias would feel able to publish without cringing. The version The Cunctator wants to install wouldn't last five minutes in an editorial conference on any of the major encylopædias (even one as right wing as World Book) before being binned as inaccurate, POV-laiden and largely irrelevant. Re the title, if the system is called Communist State what do you suggest we do? Is there a policy somewhere that says 'but don't use a term that Fred Bauder and The Cunctator may find offensive'. It is the formal term that describes one thing and one thing only - a system of government in which state institutions at best are blurred with Party (at worst they are sidelined), a product of the belief in Marxism-Leninism that in effect the party is the state and the state the party. The practicalities of communism and a critique of its successes and failures (in my personal view there are more of the latter than the former) is a different issue, as it is in every other system of government defined. And because it is different (though related) and in particular because there are so many varying analyses, such issues are not dealt with on a definition page but a linked one, a see also reference, a see page 'x' reference, a separate entry in an index, etc. Yes people have an emotional response to the word communist (particularly in the US, less so in Europe or elsewhere, hence the large votes for communist parties (albeit under new names, though everyone knows who the party really is). But an encyclopædia cannot be built around emotional sensitivities. Otherwise we wouldn't have pages on Cunt and Fuck. If the system is called Communist state there is no other term that can be used but Communist state. And people would be well advised to leave their emotional baggage behind them (I have to when writing about the IRA, even though I still have nightmares about washing a twenty-one year old's brains out of my hair and mouth or watching ambulance men trying to find all the pieces of Trevor's skull before they could take his body away) or at least confine them to a page discussing communISM, not one simply describing for those who don't know, what this term means. (BTW, a number of people have said that this article was useful in helping them understand the term. It did not make them pro- or anti-communist. It just let them know what the term meant, and so helped them understand a fundamental fact about communist one party governance when reading about the old USSR or China. Now please can people stop fucking up this article and start doing serious, professional work on what is supposed to be a serious professional encyclopædia. ÉÍREman 05:04 May 11, 2003 (UTC)


 * Wow, Jtdirl. Who was it who recommended: "Be cautious, careful and unemotional in your use of words and you strengthen the power of what you write immeasurably"? Oh, yeah, it was you. Right on. --The Cunctator


 * Until Wikipedia gets some sort of moderation system, I don't think it's going to work to try to impose the level of control that it sounds like you (Jtdir1) would like to see. I appreciate how you feel - there are articles under computer science that are mishmashes of undergrad attempts to regurgitate the class material they don't quite understand yet, and I cringe when I run across them - but it would be very tricky to rewrite those articles so as to discourage future half-informed edits, so I just save my breath.  Any further discussion along this line is more of a meta thing, and I've pretty much made the points I wanted to make, so I'll stop kibitzing now and go back to exploration of the noosphere (that being my real interest in Wikipedia). Stan 05:50 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

-- I know that I said that I'd never touch Wiki again, but someone with a IP address similar to Lir/Vera's attributed a comment to me that I didn't make. 172

tokyo's absolute location
hey people im just a wondering person and i need to know tokyo's absolute location. Can anyone help me? PLEASE~!~?