Talk:Democracy (disambiguation)/Archive 1

message: This archive contains all Talk through the end of June, 2006 - please do not edit it directly.
----
Is this really necessary, given that the various types of democracy are explained in the main democracy article and we also have a template box for it? -- Nikodemos 11:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because not only are there many approaches to democracy, but also other uses for the term 'democracy'. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 16:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

message: You claim these are unimportant, but in the bottom-up democracy you failed to provide criteria of importance.  Don't be dogmatic -- give reasons. Skovoroda 21:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Claim of unimportance

message: Moved here for talk:
Democracy is spoken about in three spheres: economic, social, and political. See democracy (economic), democracy (social), and democracy (political).
*Economic democracy implies that everyone has access to subsistence.
*Social democracy implies that everyone has access to public institutions.
*Political democracy implies that everyone has the right to vote.
:Two questions, this appears like original research, but may not be, could someone please cite? And, if not, could someone please explain why this should be on a disambiguation page, it probably belongs in an article instead.  BruceHallman 03:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't touch the material before because I thought it _might_ be useful.  However, as a discussion, it more likely belongs in democracy. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 04:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democracy is spoken about in three spheres 

message: To avoid more unsuccessful back-and-forth as above, I'm suggesting an informal straw poll for anyone stopping by.  I've worded this as categorically as possible, so that any significant "Disagree" may help us understand where Bruce is coming from.  It isn't designed as a vote  - just to see if there is any other support for all or part of Bruce's position.  I broke it into three pieces in case some people (for instance) agree on the first two points but not the third. - David Oberst 16:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) Why are disambiguation pages for experts like political scientists?  Disambiguation pages are for confused readers.  Regardless, the intro to First Party System reads ""The First Party System is the term historians give to the political system... ", and obviously that political system is the early democratic system used in the United States.  BruceHallman 18:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 2) I don't understand your second question  BruceHallman 18:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 3) Eccentric view?  I see ambiguity that causes confusion which needs disambiguation.  Pure and simple, that is Wikipedia policy.  Indeed, you appear eccentric because you steadfastly refuse to answer my question asking that you state your criteria for link inclusion on disambiguation pages.  BruceHallman 18:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll on "Party System" articles

message: The above straw poll is inherently flawed until we can agree on the criteria for inclusion in a disambiguation page.  I ask again:  David Oberst and JW1805, what are your criteria for inclusion in a disambigation page?  BruceHallman 17:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be a list of generic types of democracy.  What additional information do you need for this to become clarified? —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 17:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stevietheman; Your criteria appears to be different than the Wikipedia criteria.  The bottom line, is whether there is an ambiguous term.  In this case, for some readers, there is ambiguity.  Disambiguation pages are clearly not for list of generic types as you espouse.  BruceHallman 17:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree in that I don't find any ambiguity whatsoever.  When somebody is looking up democracy in a general sense, the odds that they are looking for something like the U.S. centric First Party System will certainly be extremely low (it would be like looking up rabbit and expecting to see Bugs Bunny as a disambiguated choice).  In fact, this may also apply to some other terms currently in the list.  Further, what I "espouse" is normally the case on disambiguation pages for terms like this--A disambiguation in this case would normally lead to other terms with the word 'democracy' in them--your terms don't meet that test.  I vote that these "party system" terms be permanently extricated. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 18:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter that you find no ambiguity, you are pretty smart.  What matters is that some readers are confused.   Actually, democracy is a highly ambiguous term.  It is common in the United States for people to believe that the 'democracy' today is almost sacred, and identical to 'democracy of the founding fathers' and democracy is an idealized static thing.  Indeed, democracy of the founding fathers was a changing democracy over time.  These confused readers (who are not you, because you appear to understand) can benifit from having the term 'democracy' disambiguated to resolve their confusion.  BruceHallman 19:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you are thinking in terms of "See also" rather than disambiguation.  Disambiguation only applies to terms with the actual word 'democracy' in them--that is the way it's treated in the Wikipedia (from what I've observed the past two years).  But you appear to want people to link to a closely related subject, and that's what See also's are for.  I think the best compromise here would be to link to these systems from "See also" or create an umbrella article (like "Historical systems of representative democracy in the United States") for these systems and again, link to that from "See also".  Note that when I said "extricated" before, I meant to remove them from the main disambiguated list, but showing them in "See also" seems to make sense and would be acceptable to me.  I think it would solve all of our concerns in one swoop. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 21:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am receptive to a 'see also' section as it could certainly be useful with a topic so deeply ambiguous as 'democracy'.  Stevietheman wrote: "Disambiguation only applies to terms with the actual word 'democracy' in them...".  This is flatly not true.  Disambiguation applies to situations where there is ambiguity and confusion.  As I have explain, and can explain some more if needed:  Certain people with an American conception of democracy, wanting to research 'democracy' are thinking of an idealized concept of democracy based on the 'democracy of our forefathers'.  These people may not realize it, but the 'democracy of our forefaters' is best described in the First Party System article.  That confusion is real, and has no bearing if the word 'democracy' exists in the article or not.  To some readers the 'original', 'pure', 'ideal' democracy in the United States is what they desire to find when they search on the word 'democracy', and that article is [[First Party System].  BruceHallman 23:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have a disconnect here.  I am referring to how disambiguation works in the Wikipedia versus what I think is your fuller definition of disambiguation.  That's fair.  However, don't be surprised if there is resistance to disambiguating to terms that don't contain the original ambiguous term ('democracy' in this case) or very similar looking term that people link to.  But even outside of that discussion, I honestly don't see the intellectual point of disambiguating from democracy to First Party System, as this, again, is a system for representative democracy in a period of U.S. history.  It's not a type of democracy.  (As an aside, I'm an American, and I've never heard of anyone speaking of a "democracy of our forefathers", so given my education level, it can't be that common.)  Therefore, a "See also" as I described before makes sense. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 02:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've made my position clear.  I am opposed to how you want to use this disambiguation.  In fact, it appears the prevailing view is to do something similar to what I described.  Nobody is trying to exclude the information you want to push.  It's just a matter of formatting.  How about going along with the majority here, and let's bring this quibble to a close, ok? —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 14:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With due respect, your position is clear and it does not match Wikipedia policy.  I too would like to settle this matter.  To this end, can we discuss and agree to which policy criteria we should follow?  I disagree that 'name in the title' is the pertinent policy criteria to follow.  Rather, 'risk of confusion' is the correct policy criteria.  BruceHallman 15:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further clarity: I hold that there is scant (at best) risk of confusion.  And further, the terms you want added would appear in "See also".  Let's just go with this. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 15:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, this conversation is jumping around.  First, it appears the foundation of the dispute, which is: What criteria should we use for inclusion in the disambiguation page, is now resolved?  I understand this because you now are arguing that there is 'scant risk of confusion'.  Therefore, do we all agree that the criteria is: Resolving confusion?  BruceHallman 17:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  I think you are implying that absence of limitations for disambiguation means there are none.  I disagree with that.  There is a prevailing use of such pages in the Wikipedia, and that's what I'm going by.  It almost seems as if you are more interested in "being right" with respect to interpretation of guidelines than just working with us to produce useful content for the Wikipedia--I sincerely hope this isn't true.  Careful, good solutions have been presented here. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 01:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Second, I like the idea of a 'see also' section.  Though I am curious how we should decide what links go in that section, and which links stay in the disambiguation section.  I have asked this question before, without an answer, and I ask again.  BruceHallman 17:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have answered before about what should go in the dab section.  What goes in the See also is related terms that don't get put into dab. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 01:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: My opinion is that a Systems of representative democracy article would likely cross the line into  original research.  BruceHallman 17:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion for the article's name was just that, a suggestion.  Whatever term you believe to be encyclopedic for grouping these terms is OK by me. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 01:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding your opinion that there is scant (at best) risk of confusion.  I cited several examples of likely confusion of that type, and could cite hundreds more.  You have basically just described your personal opinion.  BruceHallman 17:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, this is a canard either way in that it's just not pertinent to what we should do here (in other words, that was essentially a throwaway opinion, because it doesn't matter either way).  It's a matter of presentation, and the prevailing approach is to only include dab terms that include the same or similar term that's ambiguous (in this case, 'democracy' or 'democratic').  To me, the prevailing approach is stronger than a guideline's definition of disambiguation, especially since it keeps dab pages to a reasonable focus/size. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 01:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, please recognize that I'm not an expert on this certainly narrower subject, and that my suggestion for a title was just that, a suggestion.  I'll take a look at it, but I can't promise much, as my background is too weak on what for many is an esoteric area of political history.  I was just mainly interested in ensuring that this dab page was properly wrought.  Certainly, Bruce Hallman appears to know a lot about those topics, so I assume he will want to contribute a lot.  At any rate, from the sound of it, it looks like you are making a great start of it. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 01:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I just wanted to note that the way this is going, the new umbrella article (while certainly a wonderful development) will still not fit well as a disambiguation of democracy, and it might even be stretching it to include in "See also", although certainly, this article would be naturally linkable from History of democracy (linked to from here), each of the constituent systems (First Party System, etc.), political party, Politics of the United States, List of political parties in the United States, etc. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 02:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course, it is premature to speculate whether I can 'gain' consensus without establishing the basis for inclusion:  What is the critera for inclusion of a topic on a disambiguation page?  BruceHallman 14:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we've already been crystal clear on the point of the criteria for inclusion. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 15:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the criteria for inclusion? 

message: From MoS:DP#Individual entries:
* Unlike a regular article page, don't wikilink any other words in the line, unless they may be essential to help the reader determine where they might find the information. For example:
**"Dark Star", a song by the Grateful Dead
**not: "Dark Star", a song by the psychedelic rock band The Grateful Dead
--Usgnus (I forgot to sign before Usgnus 06:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guidelines are not sacrosanct.  The article was fine as it was.  But alas, I won't revert. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 05:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)