I think the fundamental problem is that several parties to this controversy essentially want an article written from a sympathetic point of view. I suggest that they should have that freedom on Wikipedia with critical views in a seperate article perhaps entitled, China: A crititical view.

The problem are not limited to this particular question but extend to deletion of mention of the democracy movement and of Tiananmen protests.

Fred Bauder wrote: parties to this from a sympathetic that freedom on article perhaps I think this is a very bad idea _for wikipedia_. I think the idea of a website with critical essays written in wiki-fashion is an interesting one, but it isn't right for us.

ant--know that I'm on your side. BTW, have you been made a sysop yet?

Can I ban BigFatBuddha? I've never tried to ban someone, do I need to be a developer? Developers seem to be the people that usually ban people, but I thought it could be any sysop.

What if he's not logged in? And what is your opinion about banning him? Should Jimbo ban him?

I really don't think BFB should be banned. He's obstreperous and an aggressive editor, but I don't think he's malicious. I could be wrong about the maliciousness, but still, we need to get away from the idea we can ban away all our problems rather than working to fix them.

I must state here that Fat Budda has been making many stubs to replace the redirects, which I deeply appreciate.

Don't even think about it. Logged in contributors can only be banned by decree from Jimbo Wales.

climate write, What do you mean, deleted? I'm not sure I understand. The article has no history except for BigFatBuddha's edit, and it is not in the archive of deleted pages. I also don't remember BigFatBuddha being made a sysop -- he's not listed on Wikipedia:Administrators. If he is a sysop, and has bypassed the Votes for deletion page, his sysop status should be revoked immediately. Regards, Erik

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 12:59:38PM -0700, Anthere wrote: climate write, Hello Anthere, Looking at that pages history, I only see one version of the article, which is created by Budda. Since he is no Admin, I wonder how he could have deleted your article. Are you sure you saved it? Regards, JeLuF

I stirred up this hornet's nest by inserting a link to [[authoritarianism and totalitarianism|authoritarian]] into the first paragraph of the article. I think this is a fair characterization of the regime (regardless of what ever other adjective might describe it).

I intend to speak truth. China (and the Catholic church, for another example) are authoritarian. \ It is not merely a matter of the opinion of vague critics. There are objective criteria which if met constitute an authoritarian government.

Fred > From: Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren(a)yahoo.com> > Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org > Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:32:01 -0700 (PDT) > To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China? > > You can't just say "China is an evil totalitarian > country" (I know that's not what you said) or even > "China is a controlling country" because that's an > opinion, not a fact. The communist party in China > might think "We're not controlling or authoritarian, > we just want the best for our citizens", which makes > the comment POV. You could say (in a later > paragraph), "China is critisized for being > [[authoritarianism and > totalitarianism|authoritarianist]]. > > --- Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote: > >> I stirred up this hornet's nest by inserting a link >> to [[authoritarianism >> and totalitarianism|authoritarian]] into the first >> paragraph of the article. >> I think this is a fair characterization of the >> regime (regardless of what >> ever other adjective might describe it).

No, the Roman Catholic church is authoritarian in different ways, for example, one person, the Pope, has the power to issue edits binding upon all catholics. There is a hierarchal structure, an official canon, and discipline applied to those within the hierachy who deviate from the canon. All goes to show that if you change the subject, you change the question and the answer. Fred _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

From: Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org> Organization: Boskonia Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 18:24:20 -0700 To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hell, '''Wikipedia''' is authoritarian under the Bauder definition! One person, Jimbo, has the power to issue edicts (and edits, for that matter) binding upon all users of his system. There is a hierarchical (hierarchal?) structure of privileges, and official canon (NPOV), and if you deviate from the canon, you are excommunicat- er, banned! Stan Shebs wrote: | You'll have to do better than that! - your description applies equally | well to the United States government, and to both the Green Party | and Libertarian Party. And therein lies the problem with attempts | to say a government is or is not authoritarian, communist, or | whatever - those kinds of terms are editorial assessments of a | pattern of objectively observed behavior. Even if 99% of people | believe the assessment, the only truly NPOV thing you can say is | "99% of observers believe the government to be authoritarian". | | Stan | | Fred Bauder wrote: | |> No, the Roman Catholic church is authoritarian in different ways, for |> example, one person, the Pope, has the power to issue edits binding |> upon all |> catholics. There is a hierarchal structure, an official canon, and |> discipline applied to those within the hierachy who deviate from the |> canon. |> All goes to show that if you change the subject, you change the |> question and |> the answer. |> |> Fred |> |> |>> From: Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.org> |>> Organization: Boskonia |>> Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org |>> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:06:19 -0700 |>> To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org |>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China? |>> |>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |>> Hash: SHA1 |>> |>> And the Catholic Church (for another example you used of an present-day |>> authoritarian organization) does any of these things? I can (I have) |>> written letters extremely critical of Cardinal Mahoney that were |>> published -- without interference -- in the free press. Should I fear |>> the Spanish Inquisition? |>> |>> Methinks your definition of "authoritarian organization" is remarkably |>> broad if it lumps the Catholic Church in with the Butchers of Beijing. |>> |>> It makes me wonder how fluid your definition of "truth" is. |>> |>> |>> |>> Fred Bauder wrote: |>> | The criteria are control of the press, repression of political speech, |>> | imprisonment of those who atempt to organize an opposing political |>> party or |>> | a union, etc. |>> | |>> | Fred |>> | |>> | |>> |>From: Vicki Rosenzweig <vr(a)redbird.org> |>> |>Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org |>> |>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:31:58 -0400 |>> |>To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org |>> |>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China? |>> |> |>> |>At 05:16 PM 4/25/03 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote: |>> |> |>> |>>I intend to speak truth. China (and the Catholic church, for another |>> |>>example) are authoritarian. \ It is not merely a matter of the |>> opinion of |>> |>>vague critics. There are objective criteria which if met |>> constitute an |>> |>>authoritarian government. |>> |> |>> |>This concerns me, not because I disagree, but because I don't know |>> |>what objective criteria Fred is using, and because almost anyone who |>> |>promotes a point of view sincerely believes that he or she is speaking |>> |>truth. |>> |> |>> |>The determination to speak truth, while admirable, is not the same as |>> |>NPOV, which is our policy. |>> |> |>> |> |>> |> |>> |>>Fred |>> |>> |>> |>> |>> |>>>From: Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren(a)yahoo.com> |>> |>>>Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org |>> |>>>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:32:01 -0700 (PDT) |>> |>>>To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org |>> |>>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China? |>> |>>> |>> |>>>You can't just say "China is an evil totalitarian |>> |>>>country" (I know that's not what you said) or even |>> |>>>"China is a controlling country" because that's an |>> |>>>opinion, not a fact. The communist party in China |>> |>>>might think "We're not controlling or authoritarian, |>> |>>>we just want the best for our citizens", which makes |>> |>>>the comment POV. You could say (in a later |>> |>>>paragraph), "China is critisized for being |>> |>>>[[authoritarianism and |>> |>>>totalitarianism|authoritarianist]]. |>> |>>> |>> |>>>--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote: |>> |>>> |>> |>>> |>> |>>>>I stirred up this hornet's nest by inserting a link |>> |>>>>to [[authoritarianism |>> |>>>>and totalitarianism|authoritarian]] into the first |>> |>>>>paragraph of the article. |>> |>>>>I think this is a fair characterization of the |>> |>>>>regime (regardless of what |>> |>>>>ever other adjective might describe it). |>> |> |>> |>-- |>> |>Vicki Rosenzweig |>> |>vr(a)redbird.org |>> |>http://www.redbird.org |>> |> |>> |>_______________________________________________ |>> |>WikiEN-l mailing list |>> |>WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org |>> |>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |>> | |>> | |>> | _______________________________________________ |>> | WikiEN-l mailing list |>> | WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org |>> | http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |>> |>> |>> - -- |>> ~ Sean Barrett | John and Mary had never met. They were like |>> ~ sean(a)epoptic.com | two hummingbirds who had also never met. - -- ~ Sean Barrett | John and Mary had never met. They were like ~ sean(a)epoptic.com | two hummingbirds who had also never met. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

From: Stan Shebs <shebs(a)apple.com> Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 18:09:26 -0700 To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China? You'll have to do better than that! - your description applies equally well to the United States government, and to both the Green Party and Libertarian Party. And therein lies the problem with attempts to say a government is or is not authoritarian, communist, or whatever - those kinds of terms are editorial assessments of a pattern of objectively observed behavior. Even if 99% of people believe the assessment, the only truly NPOV thing you can say is "99% of observers believe the government to be authoritarian". Stan Fred Bauder wrote: _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

At 07:56 PM 4/25/03 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote: How did you think they select popes, then?

For values of "trouble" that, to a nonbeliever, translate as "may lose his job if he continues to disagree publicly with his employer." I realize that this is a serious matter to a believer--but nobody is required to belong to this organization, and the pope has no prisons. Yes, there's an official newspaper, but the church does not have the authority to stop the publication of dissenting publications: L'Osservatore Romano has the same status as Ari Fleischer's public statements, not as Pravda in the bad old days [1].

If George Bush decides I am a threat to US security, I can be imprisoned indefinitely without trial. If Karol Wojtyla decides I am a threat to the Catholic Church, he can say so publicly, and I can go about my normal occasions. Yes, the situation differs markedly, but maybe not in the way you're trying to suggest.

And now you're saying "relatively"; are you proposing an article that describes China as "relatively authoritarian", and if so, do you plan to give a scale from 0 to 100, with notes of where other nations fall on that scale?

We get all over those who would deny the holocaust; no reason not to not adopt the same sort of disrespect and impose the same restraints upon those who would deny the sins of Marxism-Leninism.

Exclusion of unfavorable information is not a neutral point of view, but bowing to what is essentially a demand that such information be censored.

From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 00:47:22 -0700 To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China? Jimmy Wales wrote: My complaint about Fred's argument in this is that he compared an event with a philosophy. The sinfulness that may be associated with Marxism-Leninism is not a sin of the philosophy but of those who sought to impose it. Ec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Fred Bauder wrote: What quotes do you have from Marx or Lenin to back that up. Marx was never in power, and Lenin never went half way around the world to impose regime change. Marx, in particular, was probably naïve enough to believe that capitalism would collapse of its own accord. Ec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Please explain what discipline is applied to those within the hierachy who deviate from the canon in the United States government.

Zoe, who is tired of being polite */Stan Shebs &lt;shebs(a)apple.com&gt;/* wrote: You'll have to do better than that! - your description applies equally well to the United States government, and to both the Green Party and Libertarian Party. And therein lies the problem with attempts to say a government is or is not authoritarian, communist, or whatever - those kinds of terms are editorial assessments of a pattern of objectively observed behavior. Even if 99% of people believe the assessment, the only truly NPOV thing you can say is "99% of observers believe the government to be authoritarian". Stan Fred Bauder wrote: binding upon all the canon.>All goes to show that if you change the subject, you change the question and present-day fear remarkably Beijing. speech, another the opinion of constitute an anyone who speaking same as &g! t;> _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l ! mailing list WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/search/mailsig/*http://search.yahoo.com> - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

The determination to speak truth, while admirable, is not the same as NPOV, which is our policy.

From: Ray Saintonge &lt;saintonge(a)telus.net&gt; Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 00:35:22 -0700 To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China? Jimmy Wales wrote: Those who make the specific statement "China is authoritarian", and get flamed for it, cannot validly defend themselves by saying "I didn't know the word was loaded." :-) Ec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

No there is no official body of definition, there is simply what most of us mean by "authoritarian" as the concept is used to refer to certain patterns of behavior. Fred