Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Shining Path/Pre-mediation archive

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.

Contents

AAAAA's interference in my request

I wish to note here that in response to AAAAA's editing of this request [1], I cut and paste the specific prohibition against editing the RfMs of other users in AAAAA's talk page [2] Six hours later, he violated the rule. [3] I will seek arbitration if he does it again. --Descendall 03:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I also wish to note that I am completely open to compromise on this issue. I think that there is likely a rational middle ground that all of us could agree upon. I think that we won't reach it unless we have a disinterested mediator help us reach a concensus. I have written the request in the most neutral terms possible, and I hope that we can proceed with this and, as they say in Spanish, encontrar un camino intermedio. --Descendall 04:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Issue to be mediated

  • As per Descendall, the ISSUE to be mediated is:
    • Whether the article should begin with the official name of the group in bold, which is the Communist Party of Peru, or whether it should begin with the name that most English speakers use when referring to it, which is Shining Path. Please note that this is not a dispute on where the article should be; everyone seems to pretty much agree that it should be at Shining Path.
  • As per AAAAA, the Descendall is already tilting the question to the answer he is looking for. This "issue" should read:
    • Whether the article should begin with the name (in English) that most people in the world use when referring to it, which is Shining Path (English for "Sendero Luminoso"), or whether the article should begin with the name this group wants to call itself, which is the "Communist Party of Peru", considering that there are several other Peruvian political groups that refer to themselves with the same name(see Communism in Peru). Please note that this is not a dispute on where the article should be; everyone seems to pretty much agree that it should be at Shining Path.

Swedish Wikipedia

They seem to be fighting this out on the Swedish Wikipedia as well. Contrary to the description on the project page, sv:Perus kommunistiska parti now redirects to sv:Den lysande stigen rather than vice versa. sv:Användare:AAAAAA seems to be involved in this over there. I would appreciate if User:AAAAA would either acknowledge or deny whether this is him, since the user names are so similar, but not identical. - Jmabel | Talk 19:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The entire thing seems to be a little crazy. Obviously, the English wikipedia page should direct to whatever the Swedish wikipedia page actually is. Where the article is located on the Swedish page is, to paraphrase a line from a rather lame song, nobody's buisness but the Swedes. I have absolutey no idea what the group is called most often in Swedish becaue I don't speak a word of it. If AAAAA does know what the group is called in Swedish, he's certainly allowed to discuss it on the Swedish wikipedia. Also note that I changed the way that the issue is phrased since the article seems to be going back and forth now. --Descendall 19:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe that there is an active Shining Path cell in Sweeden trying to make Shining Path appear as the real "Communist Party in Peru"--AAAAA 04:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • As per AAAA, this question is ALSO tilted in a way that let's Descendall get the answer he is looking for.
    • It should read: "Whether the article should link to sv:Den lysande stigen, the correct Swedish wikipedia page for the group, or if it should link to sv:Perus kommunistiska parti, a redirect page." Furthermore, SOMAN is also imposing his will in the Swedish Page, and reverting from Shining Path to Communist Party of Peru.--AAAAA 02:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I've left a message at AAAA's Swedish talk page. Essentially it boils down to that the usage of the name of the group is somewhat different in Sweden than in the English-speaking world. The group is called 'Sendero Luminoso' in mainstream media (in Spanish, name is not translated into Swedish), but the name PCP is commonly used in the propaganda of its Sweden-based supporters. --Soman 09:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Shining Path Political Party?

As far as I know "Shining Path" has not participated in any type of political election, being his unsuccessful boycott of the 1980's Presidential Election the beginning of this trend. How can Sendero state that they are the rightful owner of the name "Communist Party" if they have never register this name in the "Jurado Nacional de Elecciones"? Messhermit 14:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You'd have to ask them that. No one here is claiming that they "own" the name Partido Comunista del Peru, just that they call themselves by that name. Obviously, they aren't registered with the JNE, the same way that the Kurdistan Workers Party isn't registered with the government of Turkey. In many countries, there is no registration process at all. That doesn't mean that there are no parties. --Descendall 15:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
That is true, but once again, that does not mean that they should monopolize the name "Communist Party". Peru and the International Community know of their existence because of the name "Shining Path". Calling it in other way would definitely confuse the reader that is not aware that "they claim" to be the "Communist Party". They may like it or not, but "Shining Path" is their de facto name. Messhermit 15:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
"Shining Path" is what they are most frequently called in English, so I support keeping the article at Shining Path. However, I just don't buy the argument that because there are other parties in Peru that use somewhat similar names (noteable the Communist Party of Peru - Red Fatherland and The Peruvian Communist Party), we can't use Communist Party of Peru. In fact, most countries have multiple communist parties. Nepal probably has about 25. We still give the official names of all of those organizations, however. I think we should do the same here. --Descendall 15:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Not only that, but remember that they have never used the name "Communist Party" legally. If we state that they are the "Communist Party", then what about the other political parties that use that name but have not resorted to the same methods of "Shining Path"? For a reader that does not know this type of things, it will totally confuse him/her and, even worse, it can lead to the generalization that all communist in Peru are related to "Shining Path". At least that's how I see that this whole dispute regarding the name is rather POV. Messhermit 17:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Using that logic, it'd make just as much sense to stop calling Partido Comunista del Peru - Patria Roja the communist party to avoid any confusion. If fact, it'd seem even better, since that organization actually uses Patria Roja as a name. Yet no one seems to be proposing that. Are you similiarly concerned that, say, the crimes of the RIRA might get grafted onto the CIRA? Or that the crims of the CIRA might get attributed to the PIRA? Or that the PIRA's crimes might be attributed to the OIRA? Or that the OIRA be confused for the actual original Irish Republican Army? Or that that group be confused for actual modern Army of the Irish Republic? Of course not. These groups might have similar names, but anyone who takes the time to read the first paragraph of any of the articles I just linked to would be able to figure out that they're not the same. --Descendall 17:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring

AAAAA's constant reversions to his preferred version are really getting old. It seems he is less interested in working this out than in forcing his desired version upon the rest of us.--Cúchullain t/c 21:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Something that It does not makes sense: if the paragraph that claims that "Sendero Luminoso" is the "Communist Party" is disputed, then how come is in the article? I believe that is the main reason why AAAAA keeps reverting the article. After all, having the controversial paragraph at the beginning of the article does not help the mediation at all. Messhermit 20:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Because AAAAA refuses to even discuss it on the talk page. I haven't reverted in a while, and I probably won't. Keep in mind that Cúchullain himself seemed to want "Shining Path" to be in the lead of the article rather than Communist Party of Peru. The difference is that while Cúchullain and I may disagree with each other, we aren't being ridiculously obstinate.--Descendall 20:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know the details of who is in favor or who is against, but it is clear that the whole dispute is centered around the opening paragraph. I simply don't believe that by stating The Communist Party of Peru (Spanish: El Partido Comunista del Perú) helps in the mediation at all. The article was in pretty good state before this dispute, so it would be simpler to lock the article to a version before all this was started. If the change is made, then the paragraph is stated. If not, then nothing happens. Messhermit 01:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually I think the article was in pretty bad shape before the dispute. Look at how many citations and corrections were made in the mean time: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shining_Path&diff=77666946&oldid=75482468 Some of us are working constructively on the page. Others are not. --Descendall 02:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Back to the name

One more thing: as far as I know they claim to be the "Communist Party - something else", not just "Communist Party of Peru". Another thing, only pro-Soviet communist parties use the "Communist Party of Country" label... I find it really hard to believe that Sendero would use the same structure. After all, they followed a more Maoist than Soviet line. Messhermit 20:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You're simply wrong about this. As far as I know, none of the editors of this article has ever advanced the notion that they don't call themselves "Partido Comunista del Peru." Keep in mind that the Comintern dissolved in 1943, way before the Shining Path was formed. Not only that, but all sorts of Comintern parties used names other then "The Communist Pary of _____." The Balkan Communist Federation, the French Communist Party and the South African Communist Party leap to mind. --Descendall 20:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
So they have the right to monopolizing the name "Communist Party of Peru" here in Wikipedia?. Messhermit 01:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
No. --Descendall 02:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
By the way, if you really think that only pro-Soviet and anti-Chinese communist parties call themselves "The Communist Party of _________," you might want to check out this article. --Descendall 02:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has suggested having them "monopolize" the name (unless someone made this suggestion "passing through". Certainly no frequent contributor has made that suggestion. So that is a straw man. Indeed, I think there is a clear consensus among contributors to keep the article at Shining Path. The issue is entirely about the wording of the first paragraph. This is comparable to the question of what we put in the first sentence of Napoleon I of France. Right now, that article begins "Napoleon I Bonaparte, Emperor of the French, King of Italy, Mediator of the Swiss Confederation and Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine", which I think is fine, but I don't think anyone would propose moving the article to Napoleon I Bonaparte, Emperor of the French. I certainly wouldn't (though a redirect from there might be OK). - Jmabel | Talk 15:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a straw man that a couple of editors insist that I actually advocate no matter how many times I say that I don't. I've gotten so sick of it that I don't even really bother answering anymore. --Descendall 17:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello?

So is anything at all happening on this? - Jmabel | Talk 00:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

God only knows. The request for mediation on Richard Nixon was accepted two a half months before this one is, and it still doesn't have a mediator assigned to it. Did anyone catch that article in The New York Times about wikipedia being an especially slow-moving bureaucracy? I have no idea why I am reminded of that article right now. --Descendall 00:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
What was it that Shakespeare said about "the law's delay"? - Jmabel | Talk 23:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)