------------- Original message --------------
On 10/9/05, actionforum@comcast.net wrote:
I'd be more impressed if you could
get fair representation for anarcho-capitalism on the anarchism page,
Currently seems to have a pretty fair three-paragraph summary, and a link to a full article on the subject.
That is not the point, that is after a long edit war, that you seem to think isn't necessary. It is still not up in the introduction as one of the major branches of anarchism. Review the history.
or if you could get Castro properly labeled as a dictator.
The correct description is apparently "Presidente del Consejo de Estado" or just "Presidente", or alternatively "Comandante en Jefe". Nobody seems to be able to get those titles into the article. Instead we have squabbling over whether to call him a "ruler" or a "dictator". Edit warring does not help this, it makes it worse.
Wrong, it hasn't gotten worse, at least Batista is no longer called a dictator, as he once was. That is how much the clique, did not want Castro labeled a dictator. Note that Batista still has a regime, which has been regarded as POV on other pages. Batista did not shoot people trying to escape Cuba, Castro does. The spanish title and a literal translation probably deserves mention in the english version, although probably not in the intro.
Now the late Shah of Iran has similar problems. Somebody keeps trying to run off with "His Imperial Majesty " and "Aryamehr".
Or how about getting what everybody expects to be called
communism, the communist state, and criticisms of it on the communism page.
I'd expect a description of an ideology, and some general history, under an -ism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
For communist states we have an article with the completely unsurprising title "Communist state".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state
For the Communist International, there's an article called "Comintern".
In the english speaking world the cold war was fought against communism, not a stateless, classless system where all property is held communally. It is anarcho-communism not state communism that should be the subsidiary page.
Do you ever try the hard stuff on a page with a clique suppressing
other POVs?
There is a dispute resolution process for the serious stuff, you know.
We would end up having to abjudicate every edit. -- Silverback
On 10/9/05, actionforum@comcast.net actionforum@comcast.net wrote:
------------- Original message --------------
On 10/9/05, actionforum@comcast.net wrote:
It is still not up in the introduction as one of
the major branches of anarchism. Review the history.
It's hardly a *major* branch. But it gets three paragraphs compared to the much better established anarcho-syndicalism which gets seven. But how the anarcho-syndicalism article manages to get by without mentioning the Spanish Civil War and the CNT is beyond me, so I agree that the anarchism articles are a mess.
Wrong, it hasn't gotten worse, at least Batista is no longer called a dictator, as he once was. That is how much the clique, did not want Castro labeled a dictator. Note that Batista still has a regime, which has been regarded as POV on other pages. Batista did not shoot people trying to escape Cuba, Castro does.
Well, do you not see that all you're talking about is a tit-for-tat affair? What does the issue of killing people trying to escape Cuba have to do with the question of whether we call Batista or Castro dictators? Both of them instituted a government by force of arms, so they would both fit the traditional standard. Shah Pahlavi, for that matter, when dismissed by Massadeq, was reinstalled by military force, so I guess we could call him a dictator too. But the editors of the Pahlavi article, for whatever reason, are not squabbling.
The spanish title and a
literal translation probably deserves mention in the english version, although probably not in the intro.
Hmm, let's see:
"Adolf Hitler (April 20 1889--April 30 1945) was Chancellor of Germany from 1933 and Führer und Reichskanzler (Leader and Chancellor) of Germany from 1934 to his death. He was leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP), better known as the Nazi Party."
That wasn't difficult, was it? And here's a familiar chap:
His Imperial Majesty Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (in [[Persian]]: محمدرضا شاه پهلوی) (October 26 1919--July 27, 1980), was the last reigning Shah of Iran to date, ruling from 1941 until 1979. He is also known by the deferential title Aryamehr (meaning Light of the Aryans).
Very controversial fellows, but no problem calling them by their formal titles. Presumably the fellows writing those articles realise that they're writing an encyclopedia, not a poxy little political pamphlet.
In the english speaking world the cold war was fought against communism, not a stateless, classless system where all property is held communally.
I see. Your objection is that the article doesn't employ the same shorthand as the political leaders of your own country (and please, don't try to lump Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain and Ireland in with the USA. We don't like it when you do that).
There is a dispute resolution process for the serious stuff, you know.
We would end up having to abjudicate every edit.
Two determined sets of edit warriors face each other across the wasteland of Khmer Rouge, which until recently had been protected from editing for ninety days out of one hundred. Adjudicating *anything* in those circumstances would be recognised by all involved as a great advance.
On 10/10/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Wrong, it hasn't gotten worse, at least Batista is no longer called a dictator, as he once was. That is how much the clique, did not want Castro labeled a dictator. Note that Batista still has a regime, which has been regarded as POV on other pages. Batista did not shoot people trying to escape Cuba, Castro does.
Well, do you not see that all you're talking about is a tit-for-tat affair? What does the issue of killing people trying to escape Cuba have to do with the question of whether we call Batista or Castro dictators? Both of them instituted a government by force of arms, so they would both fit the traditional standard. Shah Pahlavi, for that matter, when dismissed by Massadeq, was reinstalled by military force, so I guess we could call him a dictator too. But the editors of the Pahlavi article, for whatever reason, are not squabbling.
One could simply cite an authority (or authorities) who believes that Castro fits within the definition of "dictator", and cite an authority (or authorities) who believes the opposite. Then it's up to the reader who they believe.
NPOV will save the world.*
* Presuming people actually read it.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
Stephen Bain wrote:
One could simply cite an authority (or authorities) who believes that
Castro fits within the definition of "dictator", and cite an authority (or authorities) who believes the opposite. Then it's up to the reader who they believe.
True enough, but why bother? It's a characterization that leads us nowhere, and arguing the point in the article only succeeds in making the article less readable I can appreciate that if calling Castro a dictator violates NPOV, so too is using the same term for Batista or the even more deadly Machado. I can draw my own conclusion from the data, I don't need anybody to tell me what conclusions I should draw from that data.
Ec