Talk:The Crisis of Democracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Books (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Speedy Deletion[edit]

This page is merely a rewording of material on the Trilateral Commission page. Sailingfanblues (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This deserves it's own page[edit]

Far from being a re-wording of Trilateral Commission, the document is a distinct and noteworthy text. Some of the criticism of the Trilateral Commission comes from direct criticism of the report but that's far from a re-wording. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This decision has been made by the appropriate administrator. While I understand your interest in maintaining this page (as its creator and a Chomsky fan), the document is question just isn't that independently notable from the trilateral commission. A reader interested in learning more about The Crisis of Democracy could do so from the TC page and then be linked to both the original and Chomsky's critique. To avoid an edit war, I will ask another admin to come through to settle this matter. Sailingfanblues (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Crisis of Democracy Arbitration[edit]

Crisis of Democracy Redirect Arbitration[edit]

Initiated by Sailingfanblues (talk) at 17:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Involved parties[edit]

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Diff. 1
  • Diff. 2
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Link 1
  • Link 2

Statement by {Party 1}[edit]

While I sympathize with CartoonDiablo's wish to maintain this page (as he is its creator and primary editor), I find it irrelevant outside of the extant Trilateral Commission entry. Even with its recent expansion, it is merely a description of a report discussed, cited and linked to on the TC page. More, there are some serious NPOV issues; as written the entry is a conduit for its own criticism. (Notice also the tag 'See Also: Anti-Democratic Thought.) Administrator Graeme Bartlett has already decided that this should become a redirect page to the TC. When I did so, it was quickly reverted by CartoonDiablo. In defending this revert, CartoonDiablo provided no new evidence for its relevance, but rather a sheer conviction of its importance. To be frank, I believe this page exists merely to bolster the critical standing and importance of Noam Chomsky--it literally has almost zero importance outside its criticism by that figure. So as not to get into some kind of edit war, I am bringing this to arbitration. I look forward to your decision. Sailingfanblues (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I see now that this page can work. My apologies for the incorrect arbitration request. I look forward to working on this. Sailingfanblues (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by {Party 2}[edit]

I want to say I greatly appreciate the attempt at dispute resolution as I still have to add some information. As I see it, the main arguments against it are that A) it's not noteworthy, B) All the information is covered in the Trilateral Commission article and C) it's actually a NPOV violation to promote the work of Chomsky. To these I say:

A) It has been influential on the Carter administration as people like Brzezinski have written publicly, B) there is considerably more information on it especially with regards to the summary and C) it might have come of that way prior when he was the only source in the article but it was not my intention and isn't the case now.

The other concerns like including "Anti-democratic thought" in the See Also I think were NPOV violations on my part and I'll try to fix them. I believe it is worth it's own article and hope we can make it a good one. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by {Party 3}[edit]

Arbitration is too premature at this stage as dispute resolution has not yet been attempted. More appropriate would be a merge discussion. I declined a speedy delete and suggested that redirect could be appropriate. However since this is a different topic, the book instead of the event, a separate article is quite possible if there is enough material. If not then the content could be merged. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I would not consider it a NPOV problem to have works of Noam Chomsky as articles, as he is a famous writer. Any POV problem would be how the article is written. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)[edit]