Talk:Democracy (disambiguation)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This archive contains all Talk through the end of June, 2006 - please do not edit it directly.

Is this really necessary, given that the various types of democracy are explained in the main democracy article and we also have a template box for it? -- Nikodemos 11:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because not only are there many approaches to democracy, but also other uses for the term 'democracy'. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 16:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Claim of unimportance

You claim these are unimportant, but in the bottom-up democracy you failed to provide criteria of importance. Don't be dogmatic -- give reasons. Skovoroda 21:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Democracy is spoken about in three spheres

Moved here for talk:

Democracy is spoken about in three spheres: economic, social, and political. See democracy (economic), democracy (social), and democracy (political).

  • Economic democracy implies that everyone has access to subsistence.
  • Social democracy implies that everyone has access to public institutions.
  • Political democracy implies that everyone has the right to vote.
Two questions, this appears like original research, but may not be, could someone please cite? And, if not, could someone please explain why this should be on a disambiguation page, it probably belongs in an article instead. BruceHallman 03:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This was actually next on my todo list, thanks. The mini-essay lines are of course not appropriate on a disambig page. Economic democracy is currently a complete mess, but in theory is a needed article that would be well disambiguated here. The problem is that someone with knowledge of the historical usage of "economic democracy" will be required to write the needed overview article. See the Talk page there for some notes I made. - David Oberst 03:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't touch the material before because I thought it _might_ be useful. However, as a discussion, it more likely belongs in democracy. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 04:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Weeding the links

I'm trying to reduce the number of links on this page to make it more useful for people actually trying to disambiguate the word "democracy".. As noted by MOS:DAB, "Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term...the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the information they want quickly and easily. These pages aren't for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific article." In that vein, I'm proposing removing the entries for First Party System, Second Party System and Third Party System. These are terms that do not contain "democracy", nor are likely candidates for articles people were intending to locate directly by entering "democracy". Unless someone has strong objections I'll remove these as I clean up this disambiguation page.

There are others that are in somewhat grayer area - perhaps there is some way to organize in named sections to make navigating this page easier than it is now. The above links could even be kept, although I suspect that there might be any number of other articles which might arguably be included in the future. - David Oberst 22:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed First/Second/Third as proposed. I did a pipe-rename of "Parliamentary system" to "Parliamentary democracy" - both terms are in use, and "democracy" seem more appropriate here. I shortened the "Westminster system" - for details people can visit the article. There might be a case for combining this with the "Parliamentary" entry, in a two-fer, especially since "Westminster" wouldn't be a normal disambiguation term.
I've also removed bioregional democracy. I'm actually trying to make some sense of that mess of an article, and anyone restoring this entry is under penalty of reporting there to play devil's advocate for its continued existence!
There might also be a case for removing further entries like "sortition", as per the disambiguation guidelines above, and indeed a better way of organizing the current laundry list might be possible. - David Oberst 04:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

History of democratic systems in the United States.

I feel quite strongly that the history of evolution democracy in the United States very much needs to be disambiguated, as many readers of the encyclopedia will come to the disambiguation page to learn of and to study the history of democracy in the United States. For this reason, I have added back in the links to the First,Second and Third Party system articles about democracy in the United States. BruceHallman 17:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As the quotations from MOS:DAB I posted above seem to indicate, a disambiguation page is not a study guide or crystal ball, but suggestions on which specific articles a user may have been looking for when entering the disambiguation term. While American political history may be a significant part of the history of democracy, and these three links a significant part of American political history, it is not the place for a disambiguation page to try and lay out all these possible connections, and I don't think these links are significant enough to warrant an exception and have them salted in manually. There are probably a number of other articles that could be plausibly included under the same reasoning, making this page even harder, not easier, to navigate. The main Democracy article should clearly point to any appropriate subpages for a history of democracy, and the United States entry to the political history subpages, and if these chains don't lead the interested reader to appropriate articles it is they that should be fixed, not the disambiguation page. Anyone else? I'm likely to try removing them again this weekend otherwise. - David Oberst 18:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  1. A reader has the question in his/her mind: "I want to learn about democracy in the encyclopedia."
  2. Navigation to: democracy
  3. Woops! That is not the type of democracy I wanted, I am interested in the democracy that John Adams cared about.
  4. Hmmm, scan down the list of Democracy (disambiguation)
  5. Oh! I need to read the article First Party System
Please explain how your proposed deletion of First Party System helps that reader. BruceHallman 19:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Now replace "John Adams" and "First Party System" with "Lord John Russell"/Reform Act 1832, or any number of pairs that might be relevant to people wanting to "learn about democracy", and the page quickly becomes even more unwieldy than it already is. This is just the sort of example I meant in my "not a study guide or crystal ball" remark. In passing, I'd note that your hypothetical seeker of knowledge would still be in a bit of a pickle, since they are looking for the democracy "John Adams cared about", but would have to know that Adams lived "in the United States from about 1792 to 1820" or was a "Federalist". I could be wrong in my understanding of the normal purpose and style of disambig pages - it appears there is a project devoted to disambiguation wonks (Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation), and if you'd like (and there aren't enough active editors here with opinions), we could try recruiting some views there. I would note, however, that there is an existing history of democracy article, and this should be improved as necessary to be a main point of departure to significant articles. - David Oberst 20:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation the bottom line is: resolving ambiguity. For whatever reason, there are a couple dozen types of democracy articles in Wikipedia. The First Party System is a real and specific type of democracy which has an article in Wikepedia. Hence, ambiguity that should be disambiguated. Your goal trying to avoid being 'unwieldy' by ignoring ambiguity isn't wise. Ignoring ambiguity doesn't make it go away. BruceHallman 20:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In general, I suspect that this is not how most disambig pages would handle this sort of situation, and I'd question the degree of "ambiguousness" (in the MOS:DAB sense) involved in some of these phrases vis a vis "democracy", as opposed to the "study guide" concept of the page. More specifically, I don't think that something like the "Third Party System" is a "type" of democracy for the purposes of this page. These are descriptive terms apparently applied to distinct periods of American political history; these periods may involve notable developments such as the extension of the franchise, etc., but the terms themselves are not describing some sort of distinct sequence of different democratic systems. There was no dramatic alteration in the American political system in the 1890's as the "Third" era ended and the "Fourth" began - these are useful labels for historians, but not separate types of "democracy" requiring top-level disambiguation. There would be an even better case for entries for French Fifth Republic, French Fourth Republic, etc. (or an "Articles of Confederation" period for the US) as they are actual changes in the system of government, but we don't refer to a "fifth republic" type of democracy, etc.

I'll put a {disambig-cleanup} tag on the page, and try and enlist some more opinions. - David Oberst 21:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This ambiguity might not be apparent to everyone, or you. But, it is a clear ambiguity to some. That is: The question of 'democracy' in an American (U.S.A.) sense. There are lots of people who consider or fail to understand that 'democracy' has evolved in the U.S.A. over time. In other words, they think or speak of the 'democracy' of the Founding Fathers, with reverence, but without awareness that their democracy has evolved over time. The Wikipedia collection of democracy articles does a pretty good job of explaining the evolution of American democracy over time. The single word topic 'democracy' carries with it a great deal of real ambiguity with respect to the types of democracy that have existed in America over time. This is the ambiguity that really should be disambiguated, through the inclusion of the First Party System, etc.. in this disambiguation page. I can appreciate your instinct to want to 'tidy' this away, but the encyclopedia would endure a disservice if we did. Without the disambiguation of the various types of democracy practiced in the U.S.A. over time, the reader would find it much more difficult to understand this topic while using this encyclopedia. BruceHallman 15:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, in wikipedia terms, ambiguity refers to the phrase, not the concept. The core idea is to resolve multiple articles possible from (in this case) the actual phrase "democracy", not provide a study guide to all major articles on the concept. See WP:DAB for phrasing such as:

  • Disambiguation serves a single purpose: to let the reader choose among different pages that closely relate to various meanings of a particular term (some of which might logically utilize said term in a titular fashion). The considerations of what Wikipedia is not are not magically invalidated for disambiguation pages. Disambiguation pages are not intended for games of "free association." Please use them carefully and only when needed.
  • Disambiguation pages are not search indices.

As I mentioned, under your scenario any number of political history articles for various democratic countries would also qualify for inclusion. I'm fairly certain this is clearly not the way disambiguation pages work, but I'm posting a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation for more comment. - David Oberst 16:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


You call attention to: "Disambiguation serves a single purpose: to let the reader choose among different pages that closely relate to various meanings of a particular term". That is exactly the case occuring with the First Party System, etc., articles in relation to the other 'democracy' articles in Wikipedia. BruceHallman 17:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
In short: There are several articles in Wikipedia that describe 'democracy' in relationship to 'democracy' as practiced in the United States of America (and other similar). This ambiguity needs to be disambiguated. Your urge to 'tidy up' does nothing to help disambiguate this ambiguity. BruceHallman 17:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The bottom line: there is ambiguity here that needs disambiguation. David Oberst has not really made a good case that there is not ambiguity. A simple desire 'to tidy' or for 'weeding' is not the criteria to apply. BruceHallman 19:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave it until we get some other visitors (I'll try posting in other places including the Style RFC). I would point out that "articles in Wikipedia that describe "democracy" in relationship to democracy as practiced [in America]" would be faults to be corrected in any such (unspecified) articles, not inherent ambiguity in someone entering the term "democracy" as a search. Again, I would suggest that the history of democracy article, sufficiently improved, would be a proper place to start cascading to whatever significant overview articles are appropriate, including something like "History of political systems in the United States" (or whatever), which would summarize and link to the specific article for each period. - David Oberst 20:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that you do not deny that this ambiguity exists. You just say that the ambiguity is only important to certain subset of people interested in a certain subset of types of democracy. Isn't that true for every person seeking help from disambiguation pages? I argue that indeed, people interested in 'democracy' as practiced in America will enter 'democracy' as their search term and be greeted with this Wikipedia ambiguity. (Are not Americans notoriously ethnocentric?) It is this subset of Wikepedia readers that should not be denied the benefit of disambiguation. You argue that they should be denied benefit of disambiguation. BruceHallman 22:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, should there be links to dozens of other articles on various distinct eras in the political histories of other countries? Or is this "American ethnocentrism" a unique enough problem to require special disambiguation. While awaiting the (apparently slow) arrival of any other dab-wonks, do you have examples of other good disambiguation pages which provide this sort of multi-level studyguide approach? Everything I've seen and read on disambiguation pages indicates they are not created in this manner, and the "democracy=American political history" connection doesn't seem to be the sort of concept that would normally be listed on such a page. The war (disambiguation) page doesn't link to any specific war article, even though one of them may indeed be what a number of people are looking for. - David Oberst 02:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with David Oberst. The First Party System, etc. entries are out of bounds for this disamb page. They are historical periods concerning political parties in the US, they are not really "types of democracy" This is not a "history of democracy" page, it is a disamb page. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Please, David Oberst and JW1805. What is your criteria for your decision? Isn't the critera: whether a significant number of readers due to ambiguity and confusion? Indeed a signifiant number of readers will enter the search term 'democracy' when they acutally are wanting to find the democracy best described as First Party System, etc.. Neither of you two editors have yet explained your criteria, beyond 'tidy up' or 'weeding'. In good faith, I expect that you can explain your critera. BruceHallman 13:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A possibility or move information into other articles

Hey everyone,

I've come over from WikiProject Disambiguation in the hopes of helping out with this massive disambiguation cleanup probject.

Here's the way I see it: we want to be able to direct people to whatever type of democracy that they're looking for. However, that is not quite the purpose of this specific of disambiguation page. While disambiguation pages should be used to clarify any usage of the term in question ("democracy", in this case), and while many of the entires currently on the page are valid uses of the term, including them all on the disambiguation page makes it incredibly overwhelming.

The situation is not as bad as it seems, though! There is already a great template, which I think is valid to be placed on the page - already, that takes care of a large number of the links. Although it does not include descriptions of each type, trying to include all such descriptions make the disambiguation page stand as it is. I suggest leaving that box in, and definitly including the links to Democracy (which should be linked as the primary topic anyway, Democracy (varieties), and History of democracy. Those three articles all cover a broad range of democracy topics, all of which are linked to from this disambiguation page. While it may not be the ideal situation to everyone, it stands that this disambiguation page needs to be substantially cleaned up, and that will allow it to happen.

Another really good option for this page is the inclusion of the See also section. Many of the democracy articles do seem to be valid, but aren't directly related to disambiguation from the term "democracy". With the See also section, they can be included, but can be somewhat separated, narrowing the page down ever more.

Into more specifics, here is what links I see being kept:

and of course:

In the "See also" section:

In a much better way, I'd love to see a large number of these democracy articles covered in Democracy (varieties) - it seems like an appropriate article, and would cut down on a lot of the linkage. That would be more of a long-term goal though, probably. I may actually do this at some point, but definitly not now. Another big thing that will help with the page is substnatially cutting down the descriptions, which should not be hard at all. Still not perfect, but the suggestions should at least help. Let me know what you think. -- Natalya 12:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your offer of help. Can we agree as to the criteria to apply? Both you and David Oberst seem to bring your personal opinions of 'how it should be', and if we are to collaborate can we agree to Wikipedia:Disambiguation as setting the policy? Then, the changes that we decide to make can be measured against a policy rather than against a person opinion? BruceHallman 13:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. Wikipedia:Disambiguation (as well as the Manual of Style for Disambiguation Pages) are very good guidelines to follow. For above, all that has been separated out so far was taking out all the links that are contained in the Template:Democracy, and then moving the articles not directly using the term "democracy" to the See also section. The See also section on disambiguation pages is covered at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation_pages)#The .22See also.22 section. I hope that by following the style guidelines, we can make this a very easily navigable disambiguation page. Just remember, though, that even the manual of style mentions breaking the rules if it will help (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation_pages)#Break rules) -- Natalya 14:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem I see with using your criteria of 'the term "democracy"' is that a significant number of readers, specifically those with a desire to use Wikipedia as a resource to investigate 'democracy' of the (USA) American conception will miss out from the benifit of disambiguation of the ambiguity of the Wikipedia articles First Party System, etc.. Also, I do not see that your criteria of 'the term "democracy"' is found in the policy pages. Instead, the policy pages critera actually boil down to: "is there significant ambiguity". I see definite and significant ambiguity with the First Party System, etc. pages which should be disambiguated in the democracy Wikipedia context. Also, the First Party System, etc. pages clearly meet the 'Confusion' criteria and therefore, also, should be disambiguated for that reason. BruceHallman 15:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Natalya, hopefully you are but the first recruit here (please invite more) - I can't see much difficulty in getting some sort of consensus. A couple of notes. First/Second/Third Party System etc., are not "types" of government or democracy (like parliamentary democracy or direct democracy) - they are descriptive terms used by historians to break up American history into eras, based mainly on developments in American political party systems, etc. While some of the events in these periods (expanded suffrage, for instance) certainly are related to democracy, it isn't as if, for instance, people in the 1890's were saying "hmm, until recently we were using one system of goverment (Third), and we've now changed to this other one (Fourth)". I'm creating an overview article (User:Oberst/History of political party systems of the United Statesto help organize these a provide something will let them be linked into the American political and history series, but I don't really see that as being a needed link for "Democracy" either; even on Bruce's assumption, the proper link would be to whatever overview article most directly covers American constitutional theory, checks and balances, and whatnot. Bruce so far hasn't addressed whether he sees the "democracy=American history" as some sort of special case, or whether there should also be entries to other countries' political history articles, and which ones.

The situation seems similar to having a "football (disambiguation)" page, which includes a link to NFL. While NFL may indeed be the article eventually judged by a certain group of readers entering "football" as the most useful to them, or even the article they intended to go to by typing "football", "football" is not ambiguous with "NFL" in the Wikipedia sense. Personally, I can't see "democracy" and "American political history" as any different, except in the "study guide" or "predictive search engine" sense - if the usage can gain consensus and an appropriate target article, fine, although I suspect it would not, and it would almost certainly be controversial.

Also, there are any number of articles with "democracy" in the title, and one of the reasons I was hoping to bring this page more in line with Wikipedia standards was to leave the task of listing and organizing these to overview articles like History of democracy, etc. For instance, parliamentary democracy is in the disambiguation list, while Westminster system is in "See also". However, "Westminster democracy" is a not-uncommon formulation as well[1] [2] - should it be given a redirect and moved up? Similarly, multiparty democracy is actually a redirect to multi-party system; two-party system could probably just as easily have a redirect two-party democracy and be included. Again, overview articles are probably a better place to explain and organize these distinctions.

Here are just a few of the other "democracy" articles found in a quick search. While some are probably trivial, others may have as good a claim as, say, anticipatory democracy. determining criteria as to which ones are included seems like a huge amount of work and a potential POV swamp, and increases the page back again.

Regarding David's statement: "Personally, I can't see...". Whether you see it personally is akin to 'original research', and should be avoided. Which criteria are you using, personal or Wikipedia policy? BruceHallman 19:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Answering David's question, whether the my concern is just American: No, it is not. I am trying to identify ambiguity that needs to be disambiguated, and my criteria would apply to other democratic systems too. BruceHallman 19:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I am interested in the idea of creating of a 'see also' section on the page. What criteria would be used to determine which Wikipedia articles would be included in the 'see also' section and which should not? BruceHallman 19:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
David wrote "...increases the page back again" as if this a negative consequence. Why? For instance, if the page is made artificially short, as you advocate, it would likely fail to disambiguate ambiguity, isn't that also a negative consequence? BruceHallman 19:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Before we get carried away with listing every article with the word democracy in it, let's remember Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists - this disambiguation page should not be an arbitrary list of all the articles including the term democracy. A way that content on a disambiguation page has been described before that makes a lot of sense is "If someone searched for the term "democracy", what articles could they possibly be expected to be looking for?". The first part of Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Deciding to disambiguate essentially says this. However, in this case, it could be valid that they are searching for any of the numerous types of democracy that have been listed above.

Before we work on the disambiguation page, I'd like to explore the option of expanding Democracy (varieties) (or creating an entirely separate page) that functions kind of as a disambiguation page for types of democracy - a paragraph or so (or less) on each type, with it linked. That way, this disambiguation page will not be out of control, and the different types of democracy can all be linked. Does this sound feasable to anyone? -- Natalya 11:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The origin for this dispute is that David Oberst and I disagree whether First Party System, Second Party System, Third Party System (which are types of democracy that have been practiced in America) should be included in the Democracy (disambiguation) page. This is not a dispute whether we should be listing every article with the word democracy in it. You call attention to this policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists, which describes that disambiguation is needed when there is 'significant risk of confusion'. There is signifcant risk of confusion with the First Party System, etc.. BruceHallman 13:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Natalya, By the way, I like your idea about using Democracy (varieties) for types of democracy, I will try to find some time to help with the work on that. BruceHallman 14:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
If they are types of democracy, and someone could be seen searching for "democracy" and meaning one of the systems, then First Party System, Second Party System, and Third Party System are appropriate to go on the page. Whether they go in the main part of the page or the "See also" section depends on whether or now they are directly about democracy or just related. I don't know the specifics of the topics, so I won't assume which is more appropriate. -- Natalya 18:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Natalya, I appreciate your explanation. I have described above the nature of the confusion when some readers search on 'democracy' while actually meaning to search for First Party System, Second Party System, and Third Party System. It does indeed occur, though only for a subset of readers who have the conception of democracy in an (USA) American sense. Regardless, that is a significant number of readers who could benifit from disabiguation of this ambiguity. BruceHallman 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, these are not types of democracy. They are labels to divisions of US history created by historians, and are defined by distinctive changes in the party political system. See my recent conversation with Rjensen, a heavy contributor to these articles. Note that the "fifth" period only goes to 1966, with presumably a sixth after that, and since the "first" begins in the 1790s there would implicitly be one or two "zeroth" periods for the Revolutionary and [Articles of Confederation] periods. Obviously the US didn't go through eight "types" of democracy, none of which could be applied to any other country. I'll see if I can find some other editors for confirmation.
As a clear example, look at the Third Party System article. This period ends around 1896. There is an economic depression (Panic of 1893), Populists "take over" the Democratic party and promote Bimetalism, McKinley defeats Bryan, goes to war with Spain, etc. These may make a good dividing point for analyszing history, but nothing happened during the 1890's to somehow change the "type" of democracy in America, and these are just that, periods in American history.
Natalya, sorry if I wasn't clear - I wasn't suggesting adding every article with "democracy' in the title - on the contrary, I was pointing out that there are a great many, and that if the existing approach is kept there will be more candidates, not less, for inclusion. Right now this is sort of a combination of regular disambiguation page plus a List of articles containing or relating to the concept 'democracy' type of thing incorporated. I'm not sure this is the best approach for a single disambiguation page given the wide usage of the word "democracy" with such a large number of descriptive adjectives. - David Oberst 20:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

David Oberst wrote: "these are not types of democracy" This is no doubt true to many people. So what? To a significant subset of readers it is not true. Why deny the benifit of disambiguation to that subset of people? BruceHallman 21:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I am endorsing Natalya's approach, as it holds eminent reason, and it follows the prevailing use of disambiguation pages in the Wikipedia. All this issue boils down to is formatting, as there is no apparent debate that the terms Hallman wants to add are related (they are related), but just a matter of where to place them. Natalya's approach is fair, useful and rational. I might add more terms with the word 'democracy' to the top list, but that's the only thing I would change. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 15:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll on "Party System" articles

To avoid more unsuccessful back-and-forth as above, I'm suggesting an informal straw poll for anyone stopping by. I've worded this as categorically as possible, so that any significant "Disagree" may help us understand where Bruce is coming from. It isn't designed as a vote - just to see if there is any other support for all or part of Bruce's position. I broke it into three pieces in case some people (for instance) agree on the first two points but not the third. - David Oberst 16:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

    • 1) The First, Second, Third, Fourth Party System, etc. are time periods in US history, in this case defined based on events and changes affecting broad party political trends, created by historians for analytical purposes.
    • 2) They are not designed to describe distinct "types" of democracy, and links to each are not needed on this disambiguation page.
    • 3) Setting aside these articles, there is no need for a link directly to any article specifically describing the American political system on the general "Democracy" disambiguation page.
  • Agree with all three. - David Oberst 16:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree as well. The U.S.-centric period-based developments are really just subsets of how representative democracy developed in the United States--things like this simply don't belong here where we are looking for somewhat generic types of democracy. However, if there was an article on History of representative democracy in the United States, they would be a perfect fit. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 17:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


  • 1) Is an incomplete statement. While the labels describe 'time periods' the labels also describe distinct types of democratic sytems. It is the omitted second defintion of these labels that causes the 'ambiguity', therefore causing the need for disambiguation. I agree that the first defintion, favored by David Oberst, would not need disambiguation. But just because one meaning is not ambiguious does not mean that all meanings are not ambiguous. BruceHallman 17:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 2) I agree, but I am not asking for this anyway.BruceHallman 17:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 3) There is a need because some readers searching on 'democracy' are confused and are intending to search for historical types of democracy. Why exclude a subset of readers just because they are interested in American democracy? Indeed, every reader that seeks help from a disambiguation page belongs to some subset or another! BruceHallman 17:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Bruce, for your #1, can you provide some sort of authoritative citation showing that political scientists use these divisions to define actual types of democracy, or democratic systems? For #2, does that mean you feel a link to a page like this could replace the First/Second/Third entries? (I'd still oppose). For #3, this seems to be an eccentric view of Wikipedia disambig pages - can you give another example of one that links over such a wide chain of assumptions to a target article? - David Oberst 18:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


1) Why are disambiguation pages for experts like political scientists? Disambiguation pages are for confused readers. Regardless, the intro to First Party System reads ""The First Party System is the term historians give to the political system... ", and obviously that political system is the early democratic system used in the United States. BruceHallman 18:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
2) I don't understand your second question BruceHallman 18:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
3) Eccentric view? I see ambiguity that causes confusion which needs disambiguation. Pure and simple, that is Wikipedia policy. Indeed, you appear eccentric because you steadfastly refuse to answer my question asking that you state your criteria for link inclusion on disambiguation pages. BruceHallman 18:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the criteria for inclusion?

The above straw poll is inherently flawed until we can agree on the criteria for inclusion in a disambiguation page. I ask again: David Oberst and JW1805, what are your criteria for inclusion in a disambigation page? BruceHallman 17:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This should be a list of generic types of democracy. What additional information do you need for this to become clarified? —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 17:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Stevietheman; Your criteria appears to be different than the Wikipedia criteria. The bottom line, is whether there is an ambiguous term. In this case, for some readers, there is ambiguity. Disambiguation pages are clearly not for list of generic types as you espouse. BruceHallman 17:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree in that I don't find any ambiguity whatsoever. When somebody is looking up democracy in a general sense, the odds that they are looking for something like the U.S. centric First Party System will certainly be extremely low (it would be like looking up rabbit and expecting to see Bugs Bunny as a disambiguated choice). In fact, this may also apply to some other terms currently in the list. Further, what I "espouse" is normally the case on disambiguation pages for terms like this--A disambiguation in this case would normally lead to other terms with the word 'democracy' in them--your terms don't meet that test. I vote that these "party system" terms be permanently extricated. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 18:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter that you find no ambiguity, you are pretty smart. What matters is that some readers are confused. Actually, democracy is a highly ambiguous term. It is common in the United States for people to believe that the 'democracy' today is almost sacred, and identical to 'democracy of the founding fathers' and democracy is an idealized static thing. Indeed, democracy of the founding fathers was a changing democracy over time. These confused readers (who are not you, because you appear to understand) can benifit from having the term 'democracy' disambiguated to resolve their confusion. BruceHallman 19:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that you are thinking in terms of "See also" rather than disambiguation. Disambiguation only applies to terms with the actual word 'democracy' in them--that is the way it's treated in the Wikipedia (from what I've observed the past two years). But you appear to want people to link to a closely related subject, and that's what See also's are for. I think the best compromise here would be to link to these systems from "See also" or create an umbrella article (like "Historical systems of representative democracy in the United States") for these systems and again, link to that from "See also". Note that when I said "extricated" before, I meant to remove them from the main disambiguated list, but showing them in "See also" seems to make sense and would be acceptable to me. I think it would solve all of our concerns in one swoop. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 21:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I am receptive to a 'see also' section as it could certainly be useful with a topic so deeply ambiguous as 'democracy'. Stevietheman wrote: "Disambiguation only applies to terms with the actual word 'democracy' in them...". This is flatly not true. Disambiguation applies to situations where there is ambiguity and confusion. As I have explain, and can explain some more if needed: Certain people with an American conception of democracy, wanting to research 'democracy' are thinking of an idealized concept of democracy based on the 'democracy of our forefathers'. These people may not realize it, but the 'democracy of our forefaters' is best described in the First Party System article. That confusion is real, and has no bearing if the word 'democracy' exists in the article or not. To some readers the 'original', 'pure', 'ideal' democracy in the United States is what they desire to find when they search on the word 'democracy', and that article is [[First Party System]. BruceHallman 23:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we have a disconnect here. I am referring to how disambiguation works in the Wikipedia versus what I think is your fuller definition of disambiguation. That's fair. However, don't be surprised if there is resistance to disambiguating to terms that don't contain the original ambiguous term ('democracy' in this case) or very similar looking term that people link to. But even outside of that discussion, I honestly don't see the intellectual point of disambiguating from democracy to First Party System, as this, again, is a system for representative democracy in a period of U.S. history. It's not a type of democracy. (As an aside, I'm an American, and I've never heard of anyone speaking of a "democracy of our forefathers", so given my education level, it can't be that common.) Therefore, a "See also" as I described before makes sense. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 02:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Stevietheman, I don't understand you. Actually, I am refering to disambiguation as described here in Wikipedia: see Wikipedia:disambiguation. I am not using a 'fuller definition'. You also probably would appreciate if I find it disconcerting that Wikipedians use a limited definition which you describe as: "...don't contain the original ambiuous term", which is not actually part of the official policy. And, again, you appear smarter and better educated, so you are not confused by this specific amguity about 'democracy'. So, it is irrelevant that you 'have never heard'. Try a Google search "democracy forefathers" and you get half a million hits, including many at the top that reflect the exact ambiguty to which I refer. See [3], [4], [5], [6], and hundreds others. These websites were written and are read by people that likely initially would think of the word 'democracy' and use it as their search term in Wikipedia when what they acutally want to find is an article about democracy best described in the Wikipedia First Party System article. BruceHallman 13:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line Wikipedia policy: "When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate." I agree strongly. But, in this case, there is risk of confusion. BruceHallman 13:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made my position clear. I am opposed to how you want to use this disambiguation. In fact, it appears the prevailing view is to do something similar to what I described. Nobody is trying to exclude the information you want to push. It's just a matter of formatting. How about going along with the majority here, and let's bring this quibble to a close, ok? —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 14:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
With due respect, your position is clear and it does not match Wikipedia policy. I too would like to settle this matter. To this end, can we discuss and agree to which policy criteria we should follow? I disagree that 'name in the title' is the pertinent policy criteria to follow. Rather, 'risk of confusion' is the correct policy criteria. BruceHallman 15:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Further clarity: I hold that there is scant (at best) risk of confusion. And further, the terms you want added would appear in "See also". Let's just go with this. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 15:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Even though I think a great compromise approach has already formed, in the spirit of cooperation, I thought of another approach that Hallman might like. If he created an article like Systems of representative democracy which would include a discussion of the First Party System and the ones the follow in the history of the U.S. as well as named systems from other countries, I think it would make perfect sense to include such an article in the top disambiguation list. How much fairer could we get than doing it this way? —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 16:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this conversation is jumping around. First, it appears the foundation of the dispute, which is: What criteria should we use for inclusion in the disambiguation page, is now resolved? I understand this because you now are arguing that there is 'scant risk of confusion'. Therefore, do we all agree that the criteria is: Resolving confusion? BruceHallman 17:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
No. I think you are implying that absence of limitations for disambiguation means there are none. I disagree with that. There is a prevailing use of such pages in the Wikipedia, and that's what I'm going by. It almost seems as if you are more interested in "being right" with respect to interpretation of guidelines than just working with us to produce useful content for the Wikipedia--I sincerely hope this isn't true. Careful, good solutions have been presented here. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 01:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Second, I like the idea of a 'see also' section. Though I am curious how we should decide what links go in that section, and which links stay in the disambiguation section. I have asked this question before, without an answer, and I ask again. BruceHallman 17:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have answered before about what should go in the dab section. What goes in the See also is related terms that don't get put into dab. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 01:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
My opinion is that a Systems of representative democracy article would likely cross the line into original research. BruceHallman 17:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
My suggestion for the article's name was just that, a suggestion. Whatever term you believe to be encyclopedic for grouping these terms is OK by me. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 01:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your opinion that there is scant (at best) risk of confusion. I cited several examples of likely confusion of that type, and could cite hundreds more. You have basically just described your personal opinion. BruceHallman 17:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Basically, this is a canard either way in that it's just not pertinent to what we should do here (in other words, that was essentially a throwaway opinion, because it doesn't matter either way). It's a matter of presentation, and the prevailing approach is to only include dab terms that include the same or similar term that's ambiguous (in this case, 'democracy' or 'democratic'). To me, the prevailing approach is stronger than a guideline's definition of disambiguation, especially since it keeps dab pages to a reasonable focus/size. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 01:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Steve, I've actually started an umbrella article for these entries, to make it easier to reference them generally from the American history and political series. The draft is at User:Oberst/History of political party systems of the United States (Steve, feel free to help create the remaining summaries). The title is just a placeholder, but it certainly would not be "History of representative democracy systems of the United States"! Again, these are not multiple types of representative democracy - they are periods defined by major changes in the balance and fortunes of the political parties, which is what the historians who created the terms were interested in using to analyze American history. They were not enumerating "types of democracy". Notice that the "First" period starts when parties begin to form, excluding 1776, the Constitutional Convention, etc. The periods break at points where existing parties expire, or major shifts in strength or composition of existing parties. This is most clearly seen in the 3rd/4th breakpoint - it is so defined as the older Civil War concerns fade, the Populists and Byran "take over" the Democrats, and segues into the 4th with McKinley/Republicans. There is no new "system of representative democracy" established during the 1890's! The 4th/5th break is not at the direct election of senators and women's suffrage but the major realignment in party support with Roosevelt's New Deal in 1932, which makes perfect sense in a set of divisions defined by the party environment. 1968 seems to be given as the end of this period, again, roughly the end of the "New Deal" voting alignment, but hardly ushering in some definitive change in the "type" of democracy in the US. - David Oberst 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, please recognize that I'm not an expert on this certainly narrower subject, and that my suggestion for a title was just that, a suggestion. I'll take a look at it, but I can't promise much, as my background is too weak on what for many is an esoteric area of political history. I was just mainly interested in ensuring that this dab page was properly wrought. Certainly, Bruce Hallman appears to know a lot about those topics, so I assume he will want to contribute a lot. At any rate, from the sound of it, it looks like you are making a great start of it. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 01:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to note that the way this is going, the new umbrella article (while certainly a wonderful development) will still not fit well as a disambiguation of democracy, and it might even be stretching it to include in "See also", although certainly, this article would be naturally linkable from History of democracy (linked to from here), each of the constituent systems (First Party System, etc.), political party, Politics of the United States, List of political parties in the United States, etc. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 02:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I never intended it to be a link here - I just thought it would be useful to tie the various articles together, and as a one-link destination from things like Politics of the United States. As I've said before, I don't think Bruce will be able to gain consensus for his "democracy=American political system" disambiguation - I can't see any similar precedents on other disambig pages. It might be argued that people entering "anthem" or "president" really mean The Star-Spangled Banner or George W. Bush, but wikipedia doesn't do that sort of linkage, as you've also pointed out. David Oberst 03:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, it is premature to speculate whether I can 'gain' consensus without establishing the basis for inclusion: What is the critera for inclusion of a topic on a disambiguation page? BruceHallman 14:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe we've already been crystal clear on the point of the criteria for inclusion. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 15:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)

From MoS:DP#Individual entries:

  • Unlike a regular article page, don't wikilink any other words in the line, unless they may be essential to help the reader determine where they might find the information. For example:

--Usgnus (I forgot to sign before Usgnus 06:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC))

Guidelines are not sacrosanct. The article was fine as it was. But alas, I won't revert. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 05:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)