Talk:Democracy (disambiguation)

message: There is an ongoing dispute about POV and the correctness of moving "(qualified) term" mentions to a separate article. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 20:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment: Democracy (disambiguation)

message: Perhaps if we would discuss the criteria to use for inclusion on the disambiguation page we could find agreement?  I believe the criteria should actually be: Is there potential ambigutiy for a subset of readers who might benefit from disambiguation.  BruceHallman 20:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What David Oberst 20:40, 31 July 2006 said.  His position is the primest example of a perfect response that you ever should expect to receive on the matter.  I think the case is virtually closed, and this is now somewhat an obvious matter. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 21:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: David Oberst's 20:40 reasoning requires that the word 'democracy' be in the title.   One, that reasoning appears to be arbitrary and non-standard.  Two, that is not the criteria he used in his 'major revamp' and some explaination appears to be needed.  BruceHallman 21:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority of all but one has decided what to do in this matter.  But we can wait for further comments via the RFC and see what happens.  I feel I have already adequately explained in multiple previous responses why your oft-repeated but never agreed with position is incorrect here in the Wikipedia. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 21:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I believe that disambiguation pages are meant to resolve potential ambiguity.  You describe my belief as 'incorrect here in the Wikipedia'.    BruceHallman 22:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have re-read your prior responses, and you never have answered my question (in a way that doesn't require mindreading), as to what critera you believe should be used.  I am sure that if we can negotiate and agree on what criteria to use, we then can resolve our dispute. BruceHallman 22:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll defer to David Oberst and Natalya, who have been much more articulate than I could be on this issue.  I will no longer personally discuss this with you.  I honestly believe you already understand what the majority position is and why it is.  It's time to let this one go. — Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for inclusion in the disambiguation page 

message: This should a disambiguation page, using the guidelines at WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB. What it should not be is a list of every type of democracy - that is covered within the democracy and democracy (varieties) articles. This page is just a navigational aid... /wangi 22:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, a comment I really should make is the discussion above is pretty hard going and disjointed - somebody coming from RfC or the notice board trying to help out... Well, it's the deep end. /wangi 22:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you wangi, I agree with you that this page should be just a disambiguation page.  I don't understand why so many disambiguation links need to be deleted out, ignoring genuine ambiguity.  David Oberst, would you please explain why you insist on deleting so many links?  Democracy, in truth, is not a 'tidy' thing.  In some parts of the World, when people think 'democracy' they are imagining something different than people in other parts of the World.  The role of disambigution for 'democracy' involves trying to understand and serve these global readers.  Our duty here is to accomodate the global, not less.  A short disambiguation page, with an illusion that something ambiguous can be made tidy, suffers from Systemic bias.  Indeed, wars have been fought over ambiguity over the meaning of the word.    BruceHallman 14:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a disambiguation page, not a list of democracy topics. The first four links on the page link people expecting to read about a type of government or decision making process. Thank you mam, they're directed to where they intended to go. The rest of the page tries to match up what other folk are expecting to find when they enter democracy... and remember too that the primary topic page is at democracy, this dabpage is just a quiet corner - most folk looking want to be at democracy and they get there without ever seeing this page. Thanks/wangi 14:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not want this page to be a list of democracy topics.  It is simply wrong for people to restate what I want and then fallaciously dismiss me.  Also, it is wrong to simply deny that we have a disagreement by deleting the POV dispute box. It would be much better to discuss the points of disagreement and find a resolution.  BruceHallman 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I accept this criteria for inclusion  "When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result?"   Deletion of 95% of the links far exceeds that critera.  BruceHallman 17:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't - the current democracy articles listed cover the topic, there is no need to duplicate a large ammout of content from them here. Are you really trying to say that people, for example, search for "democracy", come across the main article, ignore it, click on the dab link when they're actually looking for specific articles such as representative democracy, direct democracy, or even Soviet democracy? /wangi 18:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I really believe that some readers, when they think 'democracy' are actually thinking of a type of democracy better covered in another Wikipedia article besides democracy.  BruceHallman 18:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This should be a dabpage 

message: While there are no POV issues or anything major that is out of whack with what a disambig page should be, I note two remaining, minor issues:
*History of democracy is probably not a proper disambiguation of 'democracy', as a history of a term isn't really a disambiguation.  This would make a great, very pertinent "See also" however.
*Democracy (varieties) and List of democracy articles should be merged into Kinds of democracy.  "Kinds of democracy" (as a whole and not its parts!!!) is an obvious disambiguation of 'democracy'.
— Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are presently four items for the 'political/social' type of democracy.  The first being the self referential Democracy, the second History of democracy doesn't meet the  'When a reader presses GO'  test.  And for numbers 3 & 4 you now suggest that we merge them?  Ironic, I think.  Because, without any entries to resolve ambiguity, I guess, editors must believe that there is no ambiguity with the search term 'democracy'?  If not, please explain the lack of 'political/social' disambiguation links.  BruceHallman 17:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've said already, what's currently here provides full disambiguation coverage.  What I'm talking about in this thread is what will make that coverage more concise.  There's no need for an extended list of all variations of "political/social" democracy on this page.  That's what other pages are for.  Perhaps one day you will provide us one example of a disambiguation page that meets your individual opinion on what they should be.  Barring that, this disambiguation page is designed in the same manner all other such pages are designed.  Again, I defer to John Oberst's and Natalya's comprehensive explanations.  That will have to suffice.  Perhaps you will want to start a wider discussion about what disambiguation pages should be, but this certainly isn't the venue for that. — Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me.  Thanks! — Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree that my concept of ambiguous is different than the existing Wikipedia practice.  I am willing to whittle down the original list of thirty to some compromise greater than the three you propose.  Are you willing to compromise?  BruceHallman 19:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A compromise that selects some qualified democracy terms over others?  That's not POV?  When I originally drafted this page, I thought I would select the few most applicable qualified terms that people might be looking for.  However, with my current understanding, I now know this was incorrect.  We're guiding the user to two pages (that will probably be merged) that shows them all the qualified democracy terms.  Nothing is being hid from anyone.  Therefore, the problems you imagine that would be healed by compromise don't exist, and your band-aid will only prime this page for future conflict. — Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stevie - you started this page?  Now we have a scapegoat... :) - David Oberst 19:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What would make this page perfect

message: If most of the individuals in the consensus and BruceHallman, who is opposed to the consensus, will agree to mediation, by signing this section, I will go through the process of launching mediation on Monday, August 5, 2006 or soon thereafter.  If it doesn't appear that we can get the proper signatories to mediation, I will instead seek binding arbitration (most likely before the end of next week).  Please sign below if you will join the mediation. Thanks everyone. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please re-read what makes a consensus.  I don't think the prerequisites have occured to justify calling the status quo a consensus.  BruceHallman 21:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your version of consensus is actually minoritarianism, where a single holdout can prevent a group from its natural consensus.  1) All your questions were answered (not to your liking, but indeed answered), and 2) You were the only person opposed to the consensus or status quo (whichever term you desire).  This matter is documented as having been discussed in multiple circles on the same points.  And the simple, fair questions posed to you to actually help you make your point were denigrated.  This is documented.  If you really wanted to resolve this in a proper manner, you would have done one simple thing to get things moving positively: tell us, out of the terms you want to re-add to the list, which are not subtopics of the predominant (top) version of the term 'democracy'. As you should know, subtopics of any other listed term don't belong in the disambiguation list.  Arguably, we shouldn't even be listing links to varieties or types (per David Oberst) like we have in the "status quo" version either, but that's an issue for refinement.  I suspect though that you can't or will refuse to find an example of what I'm fairly asking for.  I came to the conclusion that I had little choice but to push forward with the proper Wikipedia processes for resolving this. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stevie, please point me to where you have answered my question: What criteria should we use to determine whether a page should be include on the disambiguation page?  Natalya answered that question, .  I agree with Natalya, do you?  BruceHallman 23:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not every single person supporting the "status quo" is required to answer your questions to your satisfaction.  But even so, I already did on multiple occasions.  We'll cover this in mediation.  At any rate, you will agree that subtopics of democracy don't belong, correct?  Since you didn't tell me one example from the list (of what are really subtopics) that should belong, I assume you concur that none of them belong. Therefore, that's proof that you're knowingly wasting our time.  If you can't give us one example of what should be there and why, you have no argument. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stevie, not to say that you haven't already answered the question, but directing Bruce to where you have answered it will not only be not all that difficult, and will likely resolve a lot of the going back and forth between the two of you. -- Natalya 23:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Natalya, I appreciate your intervention, but I think you don't realize he's already asked and I've already answered several times already.  This is what's known as a game.  I refuse to play. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree it's a shame.  But Bruce won't lay out his criteria for inclusion beyond his vague notion, and won't provide examples for same, and keeps reverting the dab page back to a version that clearly violates WP:DAB (apparently he chooses to ignore "What not to include" and other text in favor of one sentence that he misinterprets).  On top of this, I am tired of having to explain over and over again what I would include and exclude (due to his persistent repetition of the same already answered questions, which frankly has given the appearance of game playing), while he just hangs onto his vague notion without any details or examples.  Based on the behavior we've seen repeated, I really want to jump to arbitration and get a final ruling, but the fair dealer in me wants to try the mediation committee first.  As somebody who appears to be a supporter of democracy, Bruce seems to display a distinct difficulty of accepting (vast) majority rule, especially since our consensus is not only quantitative but clearly qualitative as well.  At least three of us have now laid out our cases in quite a detailed manner, and Bruce's position remains vague after all this mess.  Should we jump to arbitration? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 06:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I see of the arbitration page, they'd likely reject it for not trying mediation, or being of the nature of a content dispute.  I'm actually a bit surprised someone protected the page - Bruce's tags and revert haven't risen to the level of major disruption you see on some pages.  I'd suggest saving any further debate on old issues until you hear from mediation.  Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to bed with a lady named Margaret Drabble. - David Oberst 08:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your input on that.  I didn't know if arbitration was a proper next step or not as I have never had to even go as far as mediation on anything before.  I do believe however that Bruce has been disruptive, as he has been changing the page against the wishes of the consensus, oftentimes sneakily out of turn and without explanation for any of the terms he adds back, and as you (and I) say, has us going in circles, which in my book, is game playing, and therefore, disruptive. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation or Arbitration

message: *Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I join the mediation

message: To allay David Oberst's concern about wasting the MEDCOM's time, I have opened a case with the Mediation Cabal.  I think we should await their presence here before proceeding with any more discussion or actions. Thanks. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I am not mistaken, basically every mediator appreciate it when the parties in dispute find a way to resolve their dispute without intervention.  My question posed below is a simple, yet important, question. Perhaps you might reconsider and offer an answer?  BruceHallman 15:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also recently asked simple, important questions of you that have gone without an answer.  Is that fair?  Are you the "chief questioner" and "never answerer" of this page? Perhaps that is why we require mediation. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry for not individually answering your group of recent questions.  Let me try to answer them here.  In essence, you asked me to show examples of pages I wish to disambiguate, based on the 'when a reader presses go' criteria.  I did provide one example of that type, the 13 year old child, from a country with a parliamentary system of democracy, could easily use the search term 'democracy' when actually expeciting to find an article about pariamentary democracy.  When I offered that example, I recall, you replied that it violates your 'top level' rule.  BruceHallman 13:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I could provide other examples, but that seems futile if they must meet your 'top level' rule.  We should first discuss your 'top level' rule, and I am willing to hear your reasons that the 'top level' rule must be used, I may simply not understand your reasoning.  BruceHallman 13:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If I have not answered other important questions of yours, please re-ask or point to them, I promise to try to answer.  BruceHallman 13:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you arguing then that "parliamentary democracy" is not a subtopic (therefore, related term) of democracy?  It's not my rule I'm arguing, it's a part of WP:DAB guidelines.  I would appreciate it if you stop referring to this as something I have made up. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation Cabal has been contacted