Talk:Hyphen War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I thank the contributors who have added information to this article.

I have gone back to the name "Hyphen War," since that's what it's usually called in English. (And, secondarily, the punctuation mark at issue is a hyphen.)

I've taken out the thing about "moot" in case anyone has a problem. But be careful -- the word "neuter" means to castrate an animal! Mwalcoff 30 June 2005 08:19 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

It seems to me that this page was moved through a cut-and-paste rather than through a proper page move. Am I correct in that interpretation? Guettarda 30 June 2005 08:20 (UTC)

Obviously you are entirely correct. :-( --Mormegil 30 June 2005 08:30 (UTC)

My apologies. That was my first time doing that, and I thought I was following the instructions in the help section. I hope I haven't caused any trouble. Mwalcoff 30 June 2005 16:13 (UTC)

No matter. An interesting article, anyway :) 140.247.39.39 30 June 2005 18:20 (UTC)

Thanks. Hey, do you think this article is appropriate for Wikipedia:Unusual Articles? Mwalcoff 2 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)

[edit] copy-editing technicality

The Hyphen War was the conflict between ...

The Hyphen War was the name of the conflict between ...

If writing about the conflict itself, rather than about the name of the conflict, I would consider the first format above correct. But the opening of this article writes about the name of the conflict. When writing about a term rather than using it to write about what it refers to, it should be italicized. Moreover, unless the word "The" is part of the name, I think it shouldn't be there. Consequently I've included it within the italics as part of the name. Michael Hardy 18:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Communist dictatorship"

An anonymous user (User:200.85.112.116) has twice changed "Communist dictatorship" to "Socialist system." In a message on my talk page, he said that the Czechoslovak state was never really Communist, and that the word "dictatorship" is biased. I responded on his or her talk page that for better or worse, the English language has come to accept "Communist" as a word for the type of government that the Soviet Union and its satellites had, and that that wording is used throughout Wikipedia. Also, there is no serious debate among people familiar with the country that the government of Communist Chechoslovakia between 1969 and 1989 was a dictatorship, and to use a euphamism like "system" would be like referring to the "so-called rotation of the Earth" to appease flat-Earthers.

Any additional opinions would be appreciated. -- Mwalcoff 00:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. You have explained it correctly and "Communist" is used in this sense in Czechia and Slovakia as well (of course). On the other hand, using "socialist" is not wrong either. Juro 00:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The point here is that socialist system is not an euphemism but the correct term, and using it avoids the problem of giving a certain position as unique. It was a system as the sociopolitical and economic structure of the state was -at least nominally- socialist. You said me, Mwalcoff, that here in the English Wikipedia you have Communist state, but let me remember that there is also Socialist state, apparently created to fix in some way the use of biased and incorrect terminology. The discussion can be centered on wether that socialist system was or not a dictatorship, but this article and its discussion page is not the place and I'm not talking nor arguing about that, just about a concrete phrase that can have a minor change and gain neutrality and correctness. --200.85.112.116 15:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The Socialist state article is just a disambiguation page. You have to go to Communist state to get to the page that talks about the Soviet Bloc. I know that according to Marxism, the Soviet Union and its satellites were still "working toward communism," with a lower-case "c." However, they were run by Communist parties. So it is appropriate (as well as in line with the vast majority of English-language usage) to refer to the countries as "Communist" states, with a capital "C."

I don't understand what your modus operandi is here. You change the wording, then say that this is not the place to discuss it. If you think the words "communist dictatorship" should be discouraged throughout Wikipedia, say so on a style-guide talk page. But you edited this article, so we need to work out the dispute here.

The important aspect of the sentence at issue here is that there was not that the economic system of Czechoslovakia changed from socialism to capitalism had ended — in fact, that would take some time — but rather that the power monopoly of the Communist Party had ended. It was the end of dictatorship, not the end of socialism, that allowed the name of the country to become an issue. Attributing it to the fall of the "socialist system" is misleading. -- Mwalcoff 23:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, you've changed your point now, but I see this one more valid. Supposing that we can't fix English's bias and must mantain the adjetive Communist, we still can avoid the dictatorship characterization; you know, imposing one-side views in terminology in an article that doesn't talks about differences over which terminology to use isn't precisely NPOV. What about Communist government or Communist rule? The sense is clear, and it can point to Communist state if you mind. --200.85.112.116 00:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If other people are offended by "Communist dictatorship," I would agree with changing it. But so far, you're the only person who seems to object to it. Maybe you should try an RFC and see what others think? -- Mwalcoff 00:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What would you have to object if it said Communist government instead? What is the problem, why so much persistence in defending a biased and, what is more, unnecessary characterization? This is my last comment on this, I don't work for the KGB and if i'm not even registered here is just because I believe that the English Wikipedia has no possible fix. Nevertheless, I would really appreciate if you can publish a RFC in order to bring more people here. --200.85.112.116 02:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)