Talk:Communist state

Talk:Communist state (archive) Talk:Communist state (archive 2) Talk:Communist state (archive 3)

PLEASE, PLEASE read through the explanations that Tannin, JTD, and I posted on that site. We througholy explain why these so-called characteristics don't belong in this article. I'd do it again, but I have to go and I'm running late.

Aside from that, the content still doesn't even sound like it was written by an adult. "Politburo" is still mispelled and many of the claims are COMPLETELY WRONG; the claim about Communist states being characterized by a command economy sticks out because of contemporary China, Vietnam, Laos and to some extent Yugoslavia and Hungary. I don't have enough time in the day to go through the problems with Fred's text, nonetheless in several minutes. I need to pull myself away from this site now! 172

I was initially puzzled by the reference to politboro being mispelled. "Politboro" is simply a rendering in English of the Russian word politboro, substituting letters of the roman alphabet for the cyrillic alphabet. A translation of the word would be politbureau. A google search for both words gives 214 hits for politboro and 2,500 for politbureau. Fred Bauder 12:29 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

The arguments do not convince. If you believe characteristics of the Communist state do not belong in the entry entitled Communist state, then you are obligated to place that text in its rightful place. Neither you, nor JTD, nor I own the entry. If you believe that there are emendations that need to be made to the text, then do so. Do not simply delete it. Finally, the example you gave of the problems with Fred's text is poor: Fred's text does point out that China moved away from the command economy that characterized it for much of the 20th century. --The Cunctator

No. We are not Fred Bauder's nanny. There is no reason why Fred Bauder cannot create the article. What is he describing is the political workings of communist system. This article is purely about the constitutional workings of a system of government called Communist state as its content makes clear. The content of the article may be relevant in a different article, or with his own creation, which could be linked to this article, as should states which operating the Constitutional state structure of government, pages on communism, pages on critics of communism, etc. Articles on wiki strive to be concerned with a topic, not to have an approach of throw in absolutely anything you want into an article for the fun of it. Linked topics are linked. Fred knows that very well. But he cannot simply dump in irrelevant stuff, no matter how well or badly written, into an article that as the opening paragraph makes 100% clear, is 100% concerned with a political science definition of a constitutional structure, not a general discussion of communISM, any more than 'federal state' is a general discussion of a federal state like the US, or a 'constitutional monarchy' is about a general discussion on royal families and their marriage plans. All that Fred has to do is create a page dealing with the characteristics of a communist-run state, which is a different thing. But he can no more add in a generalised discussion on communISM into this page that he could add in a general discussion on royal marital woes on constitutional monarchy or a discussion of the US treatment of native americans in a page on federal state. That would not be tolerated by users. This cannot be either. ÉÍREman 20:56 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

I note that 172 recently reverted an edit by The Cunctator with the edit comment "reverted. What part of 'political science definition' is Fred Bauder intellectually incapable of understanding? This article is NOT on the topic of communISM but a political science term)". (my emphasis)

I note that I recently criticised 172 for failing to take sufficient care and attention when reverting edits. I'd like to reiterate that criticism, and note that the situation has not improved. The act of reverting should be one of peer review. Please take the time to consider the implications of the word "review". Martin 19:16 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Good point. While I have tried to incorporate useful edits by third parties when I have reverted the article, others have not been so careful. When you revert you need to examine the other later edits in the history to see if someone else has put in something helpful in between the two versions that needs to be saved. Fred Bauder 12:29 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

To Martin especially:

I bypassed the Cunctator's revisions wholesale because he resurrected Fred Bauder's irrelevant postings. If perhaps he made a helpful edit along with that, I'm sorry that I could have possibly blanked it, but in JTD's word's, I'm not his nanny, being incapable of going through his postings line by line.

I simply don't what to lay out this argument, which poor JTD has laid out probably well over a dozen times, over and over again because other users fail to refer to the talk page to find out why Fred's postings keep getting removed before belatedly interjecting themselves into this dispute.

The problem with continued disputes about this article essentially centers on Fred's intransigence and the naivety of users who have decided to restore his material. After user after user agreed that Fred's material was poorly written and irrelevant, Fred continued to post his contents. Fred Bauder's little essay is simply irrelevant to the topic of the page. This is unacceptable since it's critical that an accessible encyclopedia or sourcebook follow generally universal standards of proper location, relevance and definition. In the process, users, like the Cuncator, periodically and belatedly tried to jump into the dispute and revive Fred's poorly written essay, failing to understand the fundamental question at hand, which is the lack of relevance of his polemic on what is nothing more than an article on the structure of a government-type. Something along the lines of Fred's material would go quite well in an article on Communism, which is free to discuss the nebulous and bring in theory, interpretations, and analysis of politics and history. Of course, I say "along the lines" because Fred's postings would require substantial work before they meet the general standards of good historical scholarship (no inaccuracies and limited sweeping generalizations) and the Wikipedia guidelines of NPOV. Once again, his additions are deeply flawed, falling short of basic academic standards of accuracy. His postings also fall short of the NPOV guidelines, being overtly unbalanced and sweeping.

Instead, some users have fallen for Fred's slander against us, thinking that Tannin, JTD, and I represent some kind of Marxist-Leninist vanguard unilaterally trying to force a sympathetic interpretation of Communism to be conveyed in this article. This is an absolute lie (a breif look at my contributions would prove that point over and over again). As an aside, I'd guess that I'm to the left of JTD and Tannin, so this charge is even more ridiculous when extended against them. But I've written acutally written far more on the failures of the centrally planned economy than has Fred on this site, demonstrating that I have no partisan bias. Why the hell am I even defending myself against the idiotic charges of historical revisionism by Fred seriously? Anyway, I merely feel that contributors need to be dedicated to Wikipedia, hoping that it becomes someday a valuable online sourcebook organized according to proper academic standards.

172

Well, 172, if you are not a duck...

"universal standards of proper location, relevance and definition" dictated by who? Until someone appoints you absolute ruler of Wikipedia, you have to operate by consensus just like the rest of us. Since I don't know what you mean by, for instance, "proper location" despite too many years in academia, I think it's a safe bet that few other people do either, in which you should start by writing a Wikipedia policy and getting the multiple thousands of other editors to agree to it. If you want something like Nupedia, where only the anointed experts get to touch an article, you should go work on that instead. To steal a line - while I don't defend Fred Bauder's material, I will defend his right to add it. Stan 03:36 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Stan, I simply refer to all the past comments by JTD and myself going through what we mean too many times. This article has two archieved pages of talk, so please read them. We have addressed this point many times. 172

I did indeed read through the whole archive, but was not convinced by the arguments made, and disappointed by the degree of vituperation directed against a fellow editor. Yes, it's frustrating to deal with bad behavior, but that doesn't justify bad behavior in return. If your arguments are not convincing, then you need to find better arguments or - dare I suggest it - propose a compromise. Stan 04:44 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Then do some research of your own and you'd find that what we are saying is substantiated. But please don't come here and beat a dead horse. Will you people ever let JTD or me focus on something else other than Fred Bauder's terrible prose? 172

How I wish I was in the House of Commons, because what I want to say right now is: "The righteousness of the right honorable member 172 is inspirational. I wish that one day I could achieve his clarity of purpose and surety of superiority." Heck, I guess I did say it. --The Cunctator

I'm not the only one making this argument. It's just that all the people who acutually know a thing or two about history and politics and actually know what the hell we're talking about are making this argument along with me. After laying out the arguments so many time, there's nothing left to do but to tell people to do their own research.172

The problem here is that other people also know what they are talking about (and have years of experience interacting with partisans such as yourself). I do not for one moment doubt that your beliefs are deeply and sincerely held and that you believe that the various facts I have set forth are just stale repetition of old propaganda lies. However, this is an encyclopedia, not an excercise in diplomacy or political correctness. People who use this encyclopedia need the straight dope, not some sanitized version of reality that as it relates to the communist state has no more substance than a fairytale. Fred Bauder 12:29 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, so basically you're saying that anybody who disagrees with you doesn't know anything about history or politics? A comforting belief I'm sure, but it's a hallmark of real scholars that they know better than to be quite that sure of themselves. How are you going to cope when people do their own research and come to opposite conclusions anyway? Also, I'm still waiting to see the authority you're quoting that defines the "universal standards of proper location, relevance and definition"; as someone who purports to be knowledgeable about what encyclopedia articles should and should not include, it should be no problem for you to quote an authoritative source from which you derive your superior knowledge. Stan 23:02 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Please, don't misrepresent me either. I'm just saying that there's nothing else I can say. I think we have laid out everything we can state to demonstrate that this content doesn't belong here. I'm just saying that it would be easier if you people researched this subject so that I don't have to cite an entire sourcebook. 172

Since you seem unable to mention even the name of this "entire sourcebook" so that I can know what to go look at, I must conclude that your additions have no sounder academic basis than Fred's. In fact, since Fred is apparently responsible for the only reference to a published academic work that has been added to this article, he has already done an infinitely better job of documenting sources than you have. His contributions have problems, but at least he knows Wikipedia policy enough to cite his sources. Stan 23:53 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Stan, that is a misinterpretation of the further reading section. I have not read the book or used it in preparing my material. If I cited a source as a reference it would be in the reference section. None of us have tried very hard to cite references here. Fred Bauder 12:29 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Well, if my explanations don't suffice, then I refer to those of JTD and Tannin. 172

Please Fred, don't add in words that in a certain context appear POV and to readers undermine the credibility of whatever facts you have added in. Words that in one context if explained and contextualised can be NPOV in a different context, particularly when used as a sweeping generalisation, can come across as POV. How you say things is as important as what you are saying. The word 'totalitarian' in the context you put it in undermines the credibility of the whole paragraph you added to, because in that context it can be read as editorialising and judgementalising. You don't have to say it if it is implied or linked elsewhere, and it is, in the article and in linked articles like the one you are working on. Careful use of language and not overdoing it can strength the credibility of what you write with the reader. Generalised statements like that in that context can all to easily look to the reader like propaganda and undermine all the work you do elsewhere. Be cautious, careful and unemotional in your use of words and you strength the power of what you write immeasurably. ÉÍREman 01:20 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

I put totalitarianism in the first paragraph of the article on Hitler and authoritarianism in the first paragraph of the China article. In both cases I belive the links were properly placed in the article and appropriatley emphasize factual information. It is those who remove such a link that call their credibility into question. Fred Bauder 12:29 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

When you say "cautious, careful and unemotional in your use of words" you mean like when you called for the banning of Fred for his vandalism? --The Cunctator

Fred, Yugoslavia was not a satellite state of the USSR. Tito followed a very independent policy, to the fury of Stalin who tried to control him. Some others too on the list are debatable too. ÉÍREman 02:12 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

That mistake was added by someone else. Fred Bauder 12:29 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Depends on who you ask, and what criteria for "satellite nation" you use. E.g., in the National Geographic, "Through the decades, it resisted Nazi Germany and under the Communist dictatorship of Marshall Tito, managed to hold the Soviet Union at bay as a non-aligned satellite nation while, at the same time, constructing a productive national economy." Your say-so does not make it so. --The Cunctator

Good change, Tannin. ÉÍREman 02:12 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Thankyou, JTD. I've been tied up with other things these last few days, and coming back to this entry I'm pleased to see that it has become a truly excellent one. Those few tiny changes I made just now were pretty much the full extent of what it needs. Tannin 02:21 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Cunc, I have no wish to mess up your work. And I don't care which particular title you want to have the political science entry under, as opposed to the general history and characteristics entry. I suggest that you take your work over to Communist government. If you don't want to do that, then suggest an alternative arrangement that can still preserve this excellent entry, and yet not mess up whatever it is that you want to do on a related subject. If you want me to, I'll put some time into disentangling the two competing versions, so that your work is not wasted. Tannin

I trust you'll make an honorable attempt to work with me. If you haven't noticed, my work has not been to contribute content, but to work on editing and integrating the content that is already there. Is there any justification other than personality for having two separate entries? I don't see it. When I integrated the text of the two entries, they didn't seem that far apart. The only real effort was in organizing the ideas coherently (i.e. the section headings) and putting the negative and positive aspects (such as poverty + universal health care) together, instead of as opposing sides. --The Cunctator

There is a difference between the two topics. As I wrote on Cunc's talk page just now, it is the difference between a simple (and relatively straightforward) exposition of the formal and semi-formal mechanisims of government in communist countries (which are not, I think, particularly difficult to agree upon) on the one hand, and the vast and often subjective practical consequences of communist rule. (Which are highly controversial, and an entirely different kettle of fish.)

Yes, indeed, and efforts to somehow minimize this great stinking pile of dead fish is what is at issue. Fred Bauder 12:29 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

We could try to unite these two quite different things in a single entry, but it would be horrbly difficult and confusing to do so. Why, if uniting seperate but related topics is a good thing, do we have seperate articles for B-29 Superfortress and Bombing of Tokyo in World War II?

Quick question, are you people aware that there is an article on a constitutional structure, like confederation, federal republic, or monarchy? Anything about poverty in those articles? User:172:172

Are you aware that there is an article on Communism?
There is no article on confederation.
The monarchy entry lists specific examples of monarchies in practice.
Communism is both a political and an economic theory, and thus it is appropriate to discuss the economy of the Communist state.
Thank you for pointing out the missing information in the articles. I've tried to add some text about the economic implications of such political structures, and encourage you to do so too. --The Cunctator

THIS IS NOT AN ARTICLE ON THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC THEORY OF MARXISM-LENINISM. THIS IS AN ARTICLE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATE STRUCTURE OF A COMMUNIST STATE!!!!!! READ THE ARCHIVED PAGES SO THAT I DON'T HAVE TO REPEAT WHAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

ALSO, SITE OWNER JIMBO WALES AGREES THAT FRED'S CONTENT DOESN'T BELONG IN THIS ARTICLE (SEE THE MAILING LIST), SO YOUR EFFORTS TO INSERT FRED'S (PERHAPS YOUR) POV COULD GET YOU BANNED.

As I said before, your shouting is rude. You also have a deep misunderstanding of Wikipetiquette, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, and Jimbo's role. I hope you will consider improving your understanding. --The Cunctator