Talk:Psephos

message: Margana, please assume good faith: not only does my being Australian have nothing to do with my reversions, I need not have commented here to have followed and understood the situation. This situation, by the way, is clearly unhealthy - you cannot continue to defy consensus, and other editors should not be forced to continually enforce it. Therefore, I suggest that unless your disruptive actions (which are blatant) cease, the matter be brought to arbitration.--cj | talk 12:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's of course just a coincidence that almost everyone who reverts on your side is Australian. And yes, before you take part in an edit war, you should join the discussion; anything else is disruptive. And no, this talk page shows there is clearly no consensus, so no one is "forced to enforce" anything. As to arbitration, that is only the last resort in dispute resolution; feel free to bring the matter to an RfC. Margana 14:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are a budding conspiracy theorist. Xtra 12:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from personal attacks.  Not only are they against accepted Wikipedia custom, they detract and distract from the value of the discussion. And don't argue that this is not a personal attack either, as the article Conspiracy theory states, the term is a disparagement. In any case 'what someone is' is not cogent to the discussion and is of negative value.  Remember, our goal here is to create a good article that is up to wikipedia standards.User:Pedant 22:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ArbCom?

message: The site reflects Carr's views and does not claim to be politically neutral, specifically stating "There have been no genuine elections in Cuba since 1948," denying them under Carr's view that the elections under the communist government are not worthy of being described as such.
This sentence states Carr's view and the exact embodiment of that view on Psephos, and the italiced word has been added per Carr's comments below.
To deny means: 
#To declare untrue; contradict
#To refuse to believe; reject
#To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow
The site by implication declares them to be false electins, refuses to believe in the existence of a democratic election there, and refuses to recognize the election that does occur. That's 3 for 3.
I'm opening an informal straw poll: Please sign if you've been involved in this so that we know where everyone stands. The goal (and I think requirement for this to be resolved here) is 0 oppose. If you do oppose, edit the above minimally to reach your needs and post that with your opposition. Thank you.
;Support
#Support per the fact I'm proposing it. --Wslack (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your thoughts about what his purposes are do not belong in the article. If I was to say "Metal does not exist." and that quote was put beside the words "Metal does exist." there would be a clear implication of me being stupid. That is POV, plain and simple, whether or not I am wrong about metal's existence. In the same way, your desire indicates a wish for clear POV. That does not belong in this article. Your expressed desire for POV has caused you to see a (what I believe to be neutral) compromise sentence as "making excuses," in my opinion. With Carr's new statement, do you still see reason to oppose this? --Wslack (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, I offered my personal thoughts about Carr's view to show that your personal thoughts may not be the only explanation. Far from wanting to put my thoughts into the article, my point was that yours do not belong there. And, well, if the facts are such that people may draw certain conclusions, that is not POV. The article about Hitler will mention things that are bound to reflect poorly on him. That doesn't mean it's POV. So, if you actually say a stupid thing like "Metal does not exist", or "There are no elections in Cuba", you can't complain that those statements, compared to the reality, will make you look stupid. NPOV only means that the article should not explicitly call you stupid, or put up speculation that would imply you're stupid; but if verifiable facts don't reflect good on you, it's your problem. As to Carr's new statement, it remains to be seen if he actually changes his site thoroughly. As of now, I would just change the example from Cuba to Laos. Margana 12:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, that's better. But Cuba was just one example; will you make the same change with respect to the other countries whose elections you have denied so far (e.g. Laos)? Margana 00:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise Sentence 

message: I am disgusted. For months we've sought a way of compromising on the use of Cuba as an example of Psephos not being politically neutral. Now that we finally have a resolution, Margana has suddenly decided that Cuba isn't a good example any more. All of a sudden it has to be Laos.
Margana, you have shown your hand. You do not wish to improve this article. You are only here to have a good long argument and upset people.
Snottygobble 23:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't suddenly decided that Cuba isn't a good example anymore. It isn't a good example anymore because Adam has suddenly changed his Cuba page - but apparently he did so only in an attempt to avoid the embarrassment of having his POV pointed out in this article; presumably he thought I was only interested in Cuba and would then drop the matter. But since he has not changed anything else, the site as a whole is as POV as before, only that Cuba is no longer the best example. And this POV should be pointed out in the article, which is a vast improvement to this ridiculously biased article as written by Rebecca on Adam's dictation. For example, I only just found out that "Matthew M. Singer of Duke University" - a formulation which suggested that this person is a member of the faculty - is in reality just a student at that university, hardly notable enough to justify such a lengthy quote. And yet, this person is apparently the only basis for the contention that the site is "noted" for various things. Hence my "citation needed" tags; if no citations are forthcoming, I will remove the unsourced claims. Margana 00:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That there's no choice in Cuban elections contradicts all other reliable sources; I quoted Britannica on this page before. You seem to think there can't be meaningful choices if there's a single party; but there are even countries with no parties at all which have meaningful elections. There's a choice between individuals. Margana 12:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Only in the final round there's one candidate, but the nomination process at the local level is competitive, and ultimately voters can still vote against the chosen candidate (he needs 50% support to be elected). Oh, and if the fact that candidates are unopposed means there's no election, I wonder why you speak of the "2000 presidential election" in Iceland, saying "The incumbent, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, was re-elected unopposed" - isn't that a contradiction in terms by your definition? If there's no choice between multiple candidates, it's no election, right? Margana 13:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And in Cuba other candidates were also free to contest the nomination. The candidates are not simply handpicked by the party, and as I said, in the general election the people have the option to reject candidates they disapprove of. So there is plenty of choice, but your rigid anti-Communism doesn't let you acknowledge that. Margana 20:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Laos