Talk:New Imperialism/Linking to the alternative version from the top of the article

Summary

Events so far...

user:Pizza Puzzle edited New Imperialism.
There was some reversion, further editing, and page protection.
Pizza Puzzle created a temp page at New Imperialism (temp)
Pizza Puzzle added a link to the temp page from the main article
Edit War ensued.

Discussion has been moved here from wikipedia:village pump, from Talk:New Imperialism, from wikipedia:protected page, and from various user talk pages.

And now, on Farscape:

Discussion

to be moved here: previous discussion in Talk:New Imperialism/archive 8

Adding a New page here, don't edit this any longer header has been added to all country pages while the new template has been assigned on a temp page. Authors should improve only the temp pages if there is consensus that the current article is messed up in a way that it should be replaced and not waste their time on an article to be replaced. -- JeLuF 13:21 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That can work where a new draft is being worked on by the community. In this case you have two rival articles and to say to either's that people should work on the other's is dangerous. Everyone needs to calm down here. What we have here are two competent very intelligent users who disagree fundamentally. The main page is very dense and hard to follow unless you know the facts. But then it is a very complicated subject. The Temp page reads better but I think tries to convey a complex story too simply, in the process losing crucial aspects of the nuances.

We need to find a way of turning the current main page into something more manageable. But how I'll be honest I don't know. (This is one topic I really don't know enough about to try rewording. But PP needs to stop putting a link to his temp page on the main page. That simply is not done. We cannot offer readers two alternative viewpoints on any matter. What I have done is capitalised centred and lined the line at the top of the page so that the existence of the temp page cannot be missed. FearÉIREANN 13:48 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have temporarily protected this page to stop this constant attempt to insert a line which as far as I understand is contrary to wiki policy. I am now going to leave a message on pages asking for adjudication. In the meantime I have redesigned the top of this page to highlight the existence of the temp page so that its existence cannot he missed. As I have made clear, I am not a participator in any debate as to the content, as I have made clear above. FearÉIREANN 13:56 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Jtdirl has protected New Imperialism, as part of an "edit war" in which he was part. This is an abuse of his sysop powers. 172 has also previously protected this page (and the talk page) unilaterally.

It is absurd to argue that the temp link is, in any reasonable manner, visible from a talk page. talk pages are only occasionally viewed by some editors. 172 and Jtdirl are intent on censoring my work, going so far as to repeatedly abuse their sysop powers. Jtdirl is most definitely a participator in the debate here.

They are elitist snobs who believe that they are "world experts" and that anyone who disagrees with their views is some kind of vandal. They consistently harass and abuse other users, feeling free to hurl tirades of vulgar insults at will.

I should never have had to create the temp page at all, except they used their sysop powers to attack me and demanded that I create the temp page instead of touching their article. Now that I have created the temp page, they are not willing to allow me to link it so that it can receive its due attention. Pizza Puzzle

What's wrong with linking to New Imperialism/Temp at the top of the article? I know that Pizza Puzzle is Lir, but for the time being we have to treat him like any other unbanned user. Linking to Temp pages in the process of their creation has long been practiced, see, e.g. Ethiopia (I wonder when someone is going to finish that one..). If you think that PP should be (re-)banned, please make your case on the wikien-l mailing list. Otherwise please try to work together to turn this into an NPOV article. —Eloquence 14:12 28 Jul 2003 (UTC) (who has not looked much at the content)

OK, I looked at the alternative page and now I understand 172's concerns. I would not want one of "my" articles (e.g. motivation) to be castrated in such a fashion either. Lir's version might be a start for creating an executive summary of this one (if this one gets too long and individual sections have to be split away), but I don't think it can ever replace it.—Eloquence 14:34 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I am not Lir, please stop with your accusations. What is wrong with New Imperialism (temp)? Since this article is too long, its obvious that we do need an executive summary -- thus the temp page. Pizza Puzzle

Actually, we have lots of long articles, and in general, we wait until they get above ca. 30K and then start splitting off sections and summarizing them briefly in the main article. This is how most of the country pages work. I imagine 172 could agree to such a proposal, but so far you made it look like you want to replace the article with the short version.—Eloquence 14:50 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

For the record, I've been talking about splitting this article into a history of Germany-styles for about a week. But right now, we're all too distracted by the same Lir antics that we saw on this page about six months ago. This is the very page that got Vera Cruz banned! I remember contributors expressing relief at how orderly the flow of recent changes had become once Vera Cruz was stopped from engaging in all-day edit wars on this very page for weeks. 172 15:06 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The last I checked, this article was above 50K. You are absolutely right that I want to replace this poorly written, rambling, offtopic cutNpaste job with a shorter more concise version. Its apparently remained in this state for months, despite the objections of, at least, a dozen editors. This article has received constant criticism since the start of Talk:New_Imperialism/archive_1. Pizza Puzzle

Any link to the temp page on the main article should be in italics, just as for NPOV disputes, disambig notes, and similar editorial comments.

AFAIK, a temp page link is not explicitly against Wikipedia policy, but neither is it explicitly recommended by Wikipedia policy. Common practice varies: some use such links, and some do not. However, it is surely a minor issue, not worth the effort being expended in this edit war, which dignifies neither side.

Our protected page guidelines have for some time recommended that sysops should not protect pages from edit wars that they themselves are involved in. If anyone feels that this recommendation is a poor one, they should discuss the matter at wikipedia talk:protected page. Martin 15:03 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Martin, I didn't protect the page; Jtdirl did. And has not been involved with this page by any stretch of the imagination. 172 15:06 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The edit history clearly shows that Jtdirl has been engaged in the edit war here. Also, 172 did protect New Imperialism and this very talkpage - he did so just a few days ago! Pizza Puzzle

I imposed a temporary protection to ask wiki make a decision on a policy matter, ie, where a temp page is created not as a communal new edition of an article but as a rival to a communally drafted text, should that temp page's existence be advertised on the main text page? I think it is bad policy for an encyclopædia to in effect present a reader with two alternative rival pages. It gives the impression we are offering them two POVs where in fact we are in the business of one NPOV. Because of that, having pleaded with Pizza Puzzle repeatedly not to add in the link yet until a decision had been reached, I protected the page to stop the endless additions of the link simply to allow the community to agree a policy. (BTW PP agreed to start the temp page on the understanding that it would not get linked to the main page until or if it went live. I also redesigned the talk page where the temp page was linked to to give it maximum visibility as a stop-gap but PP still insisted on adding in his link despite appeals to wait a short while until a policy had been agreed. As soon as a consensus is reached (and I have left notes all over asking for opinions) I will unprotect the page. FearÉIREANN 14:40 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

- The liar has abused his powers by protecting a page at which he was engaged in an edit war. This is not acceptable. Pizza Puzzle

Jtdirl has protected New Imperialism, as part of an "edit war" in which he was part. This is an abuse of his sysop powers. 172 has also previously protected this page (and the talk page) unilaterally. Pizza Puzzle

For heaven's sake, Pizza Puzzel. You ask "please PROTECT this page -- This link was agreed to when I was ordered to quit editing this page, instead editing an alternate page", and then when it is protected, you cry about it. What's the problem now? CGS 14:03 28 Jul 2003 (UTC).

I asked that the article be protected FROM JTDIRL not by Jtdirl. Pizza Puzzle

I have temporarily protected the page to ask other users for an adjudication. I am not a participant in the editing of the text in any way and I have made it clear that I respect both 172's and PP's efforts. The question is simple:

Should a temp page that is not a communally edited text but a rival to the main article be advertised as a rival on the main page? If we were saying that everyone was re-writing the temp and the main page was going to be replaced by the rewrite such a mention might be warranted. In this case, it is in effect two rival articles. I question in the circumstances whether it is correct to advertise both rivals on the one page. I have asked PP to desist for a while while this was explored. He has refused and continually reinserted the link to his draft. Pending a resolution of this problem, which I expect will be shift, I protected the page to allow a decision to be made. The issue is not the rival merits of both articles; that is a different article. The issue is simply how to deal with the existence of two rival articles and should the temp be put on the main page as a link?

In the meantime I also redesigned the top of the talk page to increase the visibility of the link to PP's temp page. FearÉIREANN 14:07 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Jtdirl has protected New Imperialism, as part of an "edit war" in which he was part. This is an abuse of his sysop powers. 172 has also previously protected this page (and the talk page) unilaterally.

It is absurd to argue that the temp link is, in any reasonable manner, visible from a talk page. talk pages are only occasionally viewed by some editors. 172 and Jtdirl are intent on censoring my work, going so far as to repeatedly abuse their sysop powers. Jtdirl is most definitely a participator in the debate here.

They are elitist snobs who believe that they are "world experts" and that anyone who disagrees with their views is some kind of vandal. They consistently harass and abuse other users, feeling free to hurl tirades of vulgar insults at will.

The temp page was created, at the request of 172 and Jtdirl; who, now that I have demonstrated how to improve the article, are intent on doing what they can to hide the article and let it die in some obscure unlinked-to portion of the wiki. Pizza Puzzle

How is capitalising, bolding and double-linking a link on the talk page "let[ting] it die in some obscure unlinked-to portion of the wiki"? All you were asked to do was let wiki agree on a policy. You decided "by God I'm putting it on that page whatever anyone thinks." Having appealed and appealed and appealed to you to let it wait a while until a policy has been agreed by everyone, I was forced to protect the page to stop you unilaterally trying to set wiki policy and to let the community decide. It is their decision. I will stand by and support whatever they decide. Will you? FearÉIREANN 14:56 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You are a hypocrite Jtdirl. You and your friend abused your sysop powers to prevent me from editing the page, and forced me to make a temp page. Now that I have made the temp page, you refuse to allow me to create a visible link to it. You can lie all day and pretend your tokenism is fair - but a link from a talk page is not a visible link. Pizza Puzzle 15:01 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

None of this changes the fact that Jtdirl abused his sysop powers, to protect a page in which he was engaged in an edit war. Pizza Puzzle

VOTE HERE

On the voting:

A temp page with an uncertain future that is not a communally edited text but a rival to the main article by one single user should not be advertised as a rival on the main page. PP's temp page was not created not as a communal new edition of an article but as a rival to a communally drafted text.

It's also unfair to all the other contributors who have worked on this article. It's also irresponsible to link such a page to an article that has attracted the kind of peer editing that we've seen on prominent articles, such as WWI and WWII. This is not solely my article, as PP claims. Others have been doing substantial work.

It is bad policy to effectively present a reader with two alternative rival pages. It gives the impression we are offering them two POVs where in fact we are in the business of one NPOV.

But the much larger point is that the idea of two rival articles is a terrible precedent that could go a long way in undermining the integrity of the entire encyclopedia. Right now, the temp page is the work of a single user, touted as a replacement for the community-edited version by a single user. The article New Imperialism was begun over half a year ago and has since been the subject of substantial peer-editing by dozens of contributors. Right now PP's version belongs on the talk page, posted as a proposition by a single user much like a single user has the right to propose any idea on the talk pages, but not on the main pages. The temp page is an idea that belongs on the talk page, not an alternative version for readers. It will not be an alternative until there has been substantial dialogue agreeing to promote it on the very talk page on which it belongs.

Your vote could set off a chain reaction that would entail single contributors establishing alternative articles on many other subjects. One could just say that he dislikes some aspect of the WWII article and then set up a link to a rival version on the main page connecting to his idiosyncratic alternative. This is a dangerous development that could threaten the design of the encyclopedia whereby we have one article for one subject. Who knows, this could be the end of the project. This could be the end of collaboration and the beginning of many articles on a single subject. Collaboration (arguing and compromise) and dialogue on the talk pages is what brings quality to the articles. What enables Wikipedia to function is at stake. Jtdirl is right when he laid out these arguments earlier.

Right now, the talk page where the temp maximum visibility. The article will be split soon once this dispute is put to rest and there's no reason cut out relevant information. This would set a very bad precedent. Jtdirl, a professional encyclopedist, has repeatedly stated that this goes against every principle of encyclopedic design. 172 09:54, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The New Imperialism problem is just spinning with no hope of a conclusion. I am going to start a vote as to whether or not the link to the temp version should be in the current version. CGS 14:42 28 Jul 2003 (UTC).

Voting ends 14:45, July 30th

Link to the temp version in the current version:

CGS
Pizza Puzzle
Graculus (see below)
Daniel Quinlan (only for one week with NPOV link terminology only)
Martin 22:57 28 Jul 2003 (UTC) (what Daniel Quinlan said)
Angela (No harm in a link if accompanied by the normal 'the neutrality of this page is disputed' type comment if necessary.)
Cimon Avaro on a pogostick (anything less would be patently unfair, purely as a matter of principle)

Don't link to the temp version in the current version:

172
—Eloquence (I do not really see replacing this article with the very short temp version as a serious option, and PP does not seem to want to use it as an executive summary only)
FearÉIREANN 16:18 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)~ (As this temp is not a communal new edition about to go live but a rival version whose future is uncertain, putting two alternative articles linking to the main page is non-encyclopædic and makes it look like 2 POV articles are being offered, not 1 NPOV version.)
Evercat - We need a single NPOV page.
Wik (clearly the shorter version has less information; if the 32K limit is a problem, the original article will just have to be split in two, but it's no reason to cut out relevant information)
Wenteng 06:04, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC) On the bottom of the page I point out areas where more content should be added. It would be reasonable to split it up according to the table of contents. Please see the bottom of the page for my comments on areas that, IMHO, deserve attention.

Eloquence, we're not voting to replace the article, and we're not voting on whether the article is any good, we are simply voting to allow it to be advertisted as an alternative or not. I think it has a right to be advertised, especially as PP is being prevented from working on the main version. CGS 16:07 28 Jul 2003 (UTC).

No-one is suggesting it shouldn't be advertised, merely that two rival articles should not be on the same page. No encyclopædia does that and I think it would set a very bad precedent. But it can be listed here (top and bottom of the page if he wants), on PP's own page, and anywhere else. But it should not be listed as a rival article on the main article. That runs against every principle of encyclopædia design. FearÉIREANN 18:31 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't think that PP should be prevented from working on the main version, and I understand this is only a temporary measure until we answer the above question to avoid a needless edit war. Wikipedia follows NPOV -- we try to develop individual articles that are written from a neutral perspective, instead of having separate articles that are written from different perspectives (as Internet-Encyclopedia, Everything2 and other projects do). PP is trying to develop a separate "POV" version and have it highlighted instead of working with other Wikipedians on improving the article. I think there's a slippery slope danger here -- should we allow anti-abortionists to create a separate, more "neutral" version of abortion and have that linked from the main article? Is there a risk that we silently develop into MPOV by allowing this? People should work together, Temp pages are for gradual reorganizations where participants agree on the necessity. If PP wants to develop his own personal version of the New Imperialism article, he should do it on his user page.—Eloquence 17:11 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think this needs a deadline, otherwise both sides won't delcare it over until they've won! Since I called the vote, the deadline can be this time tomorrow? Ok with all? CGS 17:50 28 Jul 2003 (UTC).

I agree we need a deadline but I would suggest about 48 hours from the start of the vote. There are wikipedians all over the planet in different time-zones. I would suggest a voting length of two days and two nights, to cover people on all sides of the planet, allowing 2 days or nights to cover those wikipedians who might be missing one day/night or may not log on every day. FearÉIREANN 18:31 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ok, the deadline is therefore 14:45, July 30th. CGS 18:38 28 Jul 2003 (UTC).

I went out of my way to avoid an editwar, that is why I created the alternate page; since they protected the page to prevent me from even changing a link!!!!!!!!!!!! They are flagrantly abusing their sysop powers to dominate this page. Pizza Puzzle

Calm down. We're voting now, so we will have a solution. CGS 15:42 28 Jul 2003 (UTC).

Well, given that you are trying to remove large portions of the article, I'm not too surprised that you ended up in an edit war.—Eloquence 15:47 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have archived the page - it was at 42K and thus over 10K too big for anyone on Internet Explorer to enter. And I'm sure Pizza Puzzle will want everyone to get a change to vote. FearÉIREANN 16:06 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Can anyone explain to me why the temp article can't just reside in Pizza Puzzle's namespace? I don't see why it can't live at User:Pizza Puzzle/New Imperialism or User:Pizza Puzzle/New Imperialism (temp). I haven't been following the "feud", but wouldn't that solve things? --Dante Alighieri 22:23 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The location of the temp article - in user space or article space - is not an issue here - only the question of whether it should be linked to from this article and (more broadly) whether it is superior. So no, I think that's orthogonal to the issue at stake. Martin 22:55 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Cimon Avaro's 2 cents

I got this on my personal talk page:

It is bad policy to effectively present a reader with two alternative rival pages. It gives the impression we are offering them two POVs where in fact we are in the business of one NPOV. Right now, the talk page where the temp maximum visibility. The article will be split soon once this dispute is put to rest and there's no reason cut out relevant information. This would set a very bad precedent. Jtdirl, a professional encyclopedist, has repeatedly stated that this goes against every principle of encyclopedic design.

It's also unfair to all the other contributors who have worked on this article. It's also irresponsible to link such a page to an article that has attracted the kind of peer editing that we've seen on prominent articles, such as WWI and WWII. This is not solely my article, as PP claims. Others have been doing substantial work. 172 07:15, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I (personally) think the worst thing I could have based my vote on this matter is the relative merits of the pages. Undoubtedly this vote may set a precedent. And purely for that reason, the personalities and the pages goodness or badness should not be the primary considerations.

The primary consideration should be how should we act in a totally "blind" situation where we as a pre-existing fact have two rival pages. One honorable recourse would be to ask for the deletion of one of them.

Another would be to have them have two different, but equally prominent names (though this is an honorable solution, it destroys any claim to providing a unified NPOV). If there is however a concerted effort to deprecate one of these pages, there is (taken blind) a greater chance of giving the impression of rail-roading. If such deprecation of one of the pages is allowed to proceed unhindered, rather than having a claim to a unified NPOV, this would legitimize a claim that we were trying to force a Single POV; just about the only thing worse than two separate POV's

The fact that the /temp addition at the tail of one of the articles is already depracatory, would on the face of it suggest that any and all further hindrances to consideration would be unfair, purely from a "blind" point of view. This to me suggests that some other means should be found to deal with this problem, rather than trying to mop the /temp version under the rug. Respectfully. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 08:26, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

172 asks everyone to reconsider

172 writes on User talk:Daniel Quinlan.

And on user talk:MyRedDice. And on user talk:Angela Martin

You should reconsider your vote on New Imperialism.

A temp page with an uncertain future that is not a communally edited text but a rival to the main article by one single user should not be advertised as a rival on the main page. PP's temp page was not created not as a communal new edition of an article but as a rival to a communally drafted text.

New Imperialism does not appear to be a great example of a communally drafted text. I think rival texts are decidedly non-optimal, but given the edit war, I was willing to entertain a short-term link. Daniel Quinlan 10:54, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It is bad policy to effectively present a reader with two alternative rival pages. It gives the impression we are offering them two POVs where in fact we are in the business of one NPOV. Right now, the talk page where the temp maximum visibility. The article will be split soon once this dispute is put to rest and there's no reason cut out relevant information. This would set a very bad precedent. Jtdirl, a professional encyclopedist, has repeatedly stated that this goes against every principle of encyclopedic design.

We claim NPOV, but that doesn't mean any one article is NPOV. I am less concerned with appearance when there is an NPOV dispute. It may be a bad precedent, but I'm not sure what else to do when a page is so vigorously and confrontationally protected by someone who seems unwilling to work on and coedit the article to solve problems that everyone agrees exist (this is something you seem to do often). I think it would have been preferrable if the involved parties could have solved the issue.

To be fair, on looking at other PP edits in other articles, it does seem that he has an editing style (many rapid changes, even on well-established articles) that makes it difficult for other people to keep up (and is probably safely characterized as really annoying). I'm not sure what can and should be done about that. Daniel Quinlan 10:54, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's also unfair to all the other contributors who have worked on this article. It's also irresponsible to link such a page to an article that has attracted the kind of peer editing that we've seen on prominent articles, such as WWI and WWII. This is not solely my article, as PP claims. Others have been doing substantial work. 172 07:16, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I didn't cast my vote based on PP's outlandish claims. Anyway, if PP fails to produce a better article in a week, I want the link to be moved to Talk. If the main article is substantially improved before then, I would also be in favor of removing the link. Daniel Quinlan 10:54, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't know why User:172 reverted Martin's addition of the user talk:Angela link to the above 172 asks everyone to reconsider section, but I restored it as it was quite factual and I don't know why 172 characterized the factual addition as "censorship". Censorship is something else, but this is a great example of how to write a summary to provoke confrontation and cause bad feelings. Daniel Quinlan 12:02, Jul 29, 2003 (UTC)