User:Wgfinley\Instantnood Advocacy\Evidence Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Working place for evidence to be presented in the Instantnood arb case.

Contents

[edit] History

To discuss the current disputes between the People's Republic of China (PRC)[1] and the Republic of China (ROC)[2] would require much space and decades of rehashing that is not necessary. It is important to identify that difficulties in this case are presented by the policy of deliberate ambiguity[3] by which these governments themselves and other governments refer to and interact with each other. Equally important is that naming conventions for these entities have been hotly contested from the UN, to the World Trade Organization, to the International Olympic Committee[4] so for Wikipedia to also encounter these issues is not surprising.

Similarly, the debate on NPOV naming conventions for the geographical and political entities in "China" is as old as Wikipedia itself. During the origins of the debate[5] which led to the current NPOV China Naming convention (please note an older version is linked here to demonstrate the convention as it existed before attempts to modify it as part of this dispute), a clear division in consensus materialized -- those who insist that NPOV must be maintained and the naming convention should be the paramount consideration and those who believe that method is tedious, confusing, and not in keeping with common names.

[edit] Creation of the NPOV China Naming Convention

Up until this point most of the discussion is taking place on Talk:China but moves to Wikipedia Talk: Naming conventions (Chinese). In November 2002 there is finally some movement in the dispute when Fred Bauder puts forth an idea that would form the foundation of the current NPOV China Naming convention:

Wikipedia entries should avoid taking sides on issues such as the status of Taiwan and Tibet. In particular the word China should not be used to be synonymously with areas under current administration by the People's Republic of China or with Mainland China. The term "Mainland China" is a non-political term to be can used when a comparison is to be made with Taiwan, and "China proper" is a non-political term which can be used when making a comparison with Tibet. Although the used of the term "Manchuria" is considered by some to be somewhat objectionable when used in Chinese, it is largely considered a non-political and non-objectionable term when used in English.
A decision was made after extended discussion on Talk:China to use China as the title of the article on mainland China (People's Republic). Fred Bauder 12:39 Nov 8, 2002 (UTC)[6]

Agreement is quickly reached that this proposal is the best resolution to the dispute. Beginning at this point several decisions are made that are still in use today:

[edit] Evolution of Wikipedia

At this point discussion on Talk:China is primarily about that article itself. [7] [8] But, we find one comment there of interest regarding the nature of this political dispute and how it applies to Wikipedia:

It is like groundhog day here. The facts regarding definitions are explained. Then people misunderstand or misrepresent them, go off on irrelevant tangents, so the facts are explained again, people come back, misunderstand them, misrepresent them, go off on tangents so the facts are explained again, people come back misrepresent them . . . . oh God, will someone please wake me up from this nightmare!!! ÉÍREman 23:21 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC) (Monty Python should make a film of this page. It is surreal enough!) [9]

This points out the interesting nature in the evolution of Wikipedia and the current phase that it is in. There are established norms and conventions within the community that are formed by the current group of users. Time passes and new users come who either aren't aware of those norms and conventions or don't agree with them and pursue avenues to have them changed. This is only natural and beneficial. However, in order to prevent Wikipedia from becoming controlled by individual blocks of users at a time those norms and conventions need to be difficult to change. This is the absolute central theme to the requirement of consensus to change established policy [10].

This is also the central point of our case and why we believe the Arbcom needs to intervene in this matter. Continuing from Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines:

Most policies and guidelines are thus enforced by individual users editing pages, and discussing matters with each other. Some policies are also enforced by temporary blocks (notably as a mechanism for dealing with vandalism) by admins. In extreme cases the Arbitration Committee may make a ruling to deal with highly disruptive situations, as part of the general dispute resolution procedure.[11]

We are of the belief that the Arbcom needs to intervene in this case to prevent this issue from becoming Groundhog Day again and again in the future.

[edit] Lull Before The Storm

Harmony on the naming of articles and use of terms ensues at this point. Most of the discussion on naming conventions relates to translation of terms into English, style, usage and other matters not part of the political dispute. Three archives of now long conversations are created [12] [13] [14] and all talk of the dispute has now left the current discussion page.

Occasionally someone will stumble into Talk:China looking to discuss the naming convention but is quickly referred back to Wikipedia Talk:Naming conventions (Chinese).


[edit] Groundhog Day

Groundhog Day for this dispute actually begins on December 8, 2004. It is started, interestingly enough, when an anonymous user (or one who didn't sign their name, it is difficult to tell as this talk page is now archived) wants to change the way the articles are named.[15] Jiang who has been a frequent participant in the conversations going back quite some time refers this user to the adopted convention.

Late in January Insanthood and others start a project to bring categories and articles into compliance with the NPOV China Naming convention.[16]. His proposals aren't met with broad support but discussion and consensus building on them continues to take place.

A brief lull ensues but is introduced again a couple of months later in February 2005 by Curps who states the NPOV China Naming convention contains POV statements.[17]. A rather lengthy and heated discussion erupts. Jiang tries to direct the discussion and inform about previous discussion regarding the convention.

Curps has exited the discussion at this point but decides to just change sections of the policy himself [18] [19] but gets reverted twice [20] [21] and isn't heard from again until the end of March.

At this point jguk enters the fray. I ask for some patience here as diffs are unavailable since the conversation has been archived but it important to point out some of his statements and how he goes about entering the discussion. Therefore, these quotations will be from the earlier link ([22]) but will be quoted inline.

The term "Republic of China" is little used and little understood. I admit I was thoroughly confused when I first came across the articles dealing with "Taiwan". The first principle in good article writing is not to confuse the reader. We have one generally understood term, "Taiwan", and one little understood term, that is confusing, "ROC". As to which one we should use - it's obvious - "Taiwan", as it's the only term that is generally used! jguk 19:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We should point out that at this point the convention has been in place for a little over two years without any development or movement. Looking at these comments it's difficult to distinguish it from comments made previously when the convention was adopted:

Probably, most people that want to refer to the country People's Republic of China will link to this page, as China is the name by which it is commonly known. The "PR of" part is usually only added in formal use. As far as I can judge, most of the articles linking to China also intend to link to the PR (or perhaps the "old China") but few or none intend to link to the ROC, which is better known as Taiwan - that article is also located at Taiwan.
I propose to:
* put the PR of China's article at China
* put a redirect at People's Republic of China to China
* put a redirect at Republic of China to Taiwan (it probably already exists)
Jheijmans 07:12 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)[23]

Again, the assertions are the same -- Taiwan is the common name and the article should reflect that, this view was thoroughly debated in 2002 and the convention was reflective of that debate.

Here also jguk tries to make accusations of bias concerning the convention:

The precision you are referring to is generally of little importance to most articles on Taiwan. There is no need to deliberately overemphasise the non-Taiwan bits of the ROC to claim that articles are better named as ROC. Let me make this clear - I have never seen the term "Republic of China" or "ROC" used here in the UK. If I were to ask most people here what the capital of the Republic of China is, I imagine most would answer "Beijing". Please keep articles titles where a worldwide readership will expect to see them. Please do not confuse. And please do not keep overemphasing the difference between Taiwan and ROC, which only seems to be important in American politics and nowhere else! jguk 10:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This comment demonstrates a clear lack of understanding about the consensus that was reached to adopt the convention, American politics were never mentioned in the discussion.

[edit] Dispute Spreads

This isn't the only conversation ongoing however, now the conversations are across a few different topics and efforts including renaming templates [24] and a stub-sorting project [25]. The persons in the debates are usually the same and the positions are the same. What is being debated is the convention itself and almost none of the discussion is on the convention's talk page.

It is now early March and Instanthood tries to reframe the issue again on the convention's talk page. This conversation has since been moved to a separate talk page [26] after no responses to his proposal on the debate. At this point all hell breaks loose.

SchmuckyTheCat now enters the fray and opens by stating he believes the convention's preferred term of "Mainland China" is " absolutely meaningless semantic drivel. It should be removed from the naming conventions."[27]. Again, a reference to the convention as opposed to the proposal of complying with the convention.

Huaiwei states that each of the changes requires discussions of their own [28]. This is clearly the impetus for Instantnood to create the polls later on which are mentioned in jguk's filing of arbitration.

Schmucky offers some more opposition to the convention.[29].

jguk enters his vote [30] asking "how long will it take for Instantnood to realise he's in the minority here." A clear show of disrespect for his position.

The only remaining opposition references the convention's methodology, one I have demonstrated was quite vigorously debated and hashed out for the better part of a year and left to exist in peace for more than two years, as "ugly and cumbersome" [31].

Finally, there are several supporters of the proposal which I will not include diffs on but in contrast to inflammatory language such as "semantic drivel", "when will he realise he's in the minority" and "ugly and cumbersome" they reflect respect for the consensus reached in establishing the convention and the need for accuracy.

[edit] Attempts to Change Convention

In mid-March Schmucky introduces an exhaustive proposal in the form of "statements" he believes are consensus and for members to list if they support or not.[32]. Members start making comments about their positions on the various statements listed[33]:

  • Statement 1 is rejected, no indication of support.
  • Statement 2 is an even split.
  • Statement 3 is generally endorsed.
  • Statement 4 only has one vote with most comments stating it is confusing.
  • Statement 5 is generally opposed.
  • Statement 6 is rejected.
  • Statement 7 is rejected.

Not satisfied, with no consensus to change the convention jguk decides to add the NPOV tag to the middle of the convention[34] with a comment stating that he believes ROC should just to be referred to as "Taiwan" [35] clearly ignoring the comments made on Schmucky's "statements" above.

[edit] Edit War on Convention

While Schmucky's "statement" polling is underway Jiang makes edits to the policy [36] and explains in the talk page [37] in an effort to try to reach a consensus on changing the policy. Despite this attempt Schmucky decides to reinsert the NPOV tag [38] without discussion.

Xiong makes his entrance into the discussion by moving mass sections of the a discussion page he created entitled Talk:PRC vs ROC[39]. He is reverted three times by Ran [40] [41] [42] who asks him to stop [43] as well as by Jiang [44].

An anon revises the convention without discussion [45] and is reverted by Jiang [46] who noted there was no discussion. The same user makes a series of edits [47] [48] [49] with Penwhale making a partial revert [50].

Instantnood makes some suggested changes and marks them with comments [51]. One section again gets marked with the NPOV tag [52] but is reverted by Jiang [53]. Schmucky puts it back [54]. Schmucky also goes about changing and merging categories without any consensus and apparently without regard for the outcome of his "statements" that he considered to be consensus forming.[55]. Ran points out the lack of consensus [56] and the fact that Schmucky didn't sign it. Which brings us to the current status of the dispute.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/g/f/User%7EWgfinley_Instantnood_Advocacy_Evidence_Workshop_284b.html"