Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-31 Anti-Sacrilege Act Census Law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Anti-Sacrilege Act State: Closed Requested By: User:Str1977 Other Parties: User:Tazmaniacs Mediated By: Tsetna Comments: no discussion

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-07-31 Anti-Sacrilege Act Census Law 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-07-31 Anti-Sacrilege Act Census Law

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: User:Str1977

Where is the issue taking place?

Anti-Sacrilege Act

Who's involved?

User:Str1977 (myself) and User:Tazmaniacs

What's going on?

Tazmaniacs insists on including a note about the census suffrage at the time the bill was passed, claiming it to be noteworthy. I on the other hand want to remove it, as it doesn't distinguish the administration in question from predecessors and successors (both opposed to that particular bill)

What would you like to change about that?

Remove the disputed passage.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

No problem with your contacting me opnely.

[edit] Mediator response

I'll take this one, fascinating topic and everyone is assuming good faith. I will respond on the Talk page later today after reviewing the state of the dispute. Tsetna 17:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Tsetna, mind if I have a look-in too? I'll leave the major bits of mediation for you, but after my last disaster of a mediation case, I need to slide back in slowly, if that's OK with you. I'll probably just give a brief observation, nothing too over-the-top, and help you out if you need to do anything. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 10:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Recused per personal interest and bias around article. Sorry. Daniel.Bryant 10:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, sounds great. I was sidetracked yesterday, but will start the discussion today. Tsetna 14:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can participate, I think. The issue is being ignored right now. Tsetna 17:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion

The difference between the two versions under dispute is best visible in the following diff [1] (never mind the slight changes instituted afterwards).

I don't think the fact (which is undisputed) that the Ultra government emerged from a political system that involved a census vote is important for understanding this bill. If some scholar argues this it can be included in a NPOV, referenced form. If not, it serves to imply a certain POV (the one Taz explitely stated on the talk page) that a popular government would have acted differently. To that I reply that we do not know what another government would have done under the same circumstances.

The chief point I am making is that the Ultra government is not essentially different from the preceding and succeding governments in regard to emerging from a census vote.

Generally, I prefer if the note is dropped alltogether, but as a compromise I could live with the census being mentioned in a way that does not imply its restriction on the Ultra government and this bill. Such a compromise has been mentioned on the Dahn's user talk page. I don't know how such a wording would look like or even that it can be done, but if possible, this would be the way to go. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the discussion on the Talk page, this issue has been settled. [2] Tsetna 17:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It has not been settled. Taz merely ignored the issue. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

One more try, then! Tsetna 18:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I stand by what I wrote above and hope for replies. Otherwise I must assume that the other side has no case. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I wish to state my point here. The dispute itself seems dismal: if I had known more details on the topic, I would have rephrased the fragment myself to make it (probably) acceptable for both sides. It is a relevant information to state how many electors were involved in voting the law, as I believe it should be for all articles on laws where that information is available (or not obvious in itself). If Str has knowledge of the voting system prior to that (and its similarities with the topic of the article in question), let him make mention of the entire picture instead of deleting the page (answering to the questions: when was it instituted? how did the electorate vary in numbers prior to the voting of the Anti-Sacrilege act? are there any particularities in the respective votes?). The mention is purely encyclopedic, IMO, and it ought to stay in the text in some form. Dahn 18:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Dahn, for replying.

Back in the day, you made a suggestion on Taz's talk page that seems tenable to me.

Well, I see a solution. The guy opposing you views on the basis that they single out the Ultra administration - whereas the electoral law would have been the same for gvts before and after (I assume it is true, since I don't have intimate knowledge). You want to stress that, at the time in question, the majority was artificially silent. In fact, the relevance in indicating the suffrage is: whereas the non-voting majority would have rendered the very topic moot, the voting minority fluctuated. That said, I think the best and equally pleasing formula would be "...unsuccessfully been presented before the Chambre des pairs (Peers' Chamber), which was elected under limited census suffrage in April 1824 etc." (italics stand for added text; btw, I think "Chamber of Peers" is better than "Peers' Chamber"). That way, the relevancy of who was voting is kept, without implication that only the Ultras were electud thusly; it would also not hurt you pointb that, obviously, the Ultras were instrumental in supporting and pushing this bill.

I don't object to information being included but against using it to imply certain things. Of course, as pointed out before, above passage conflates the two Chambers but that can be easily rectified into Chamber of Deputies.

Yes, the administration that proposed this law was elected under census suffrage, but so was the preceding administration and the succeeding administration that revoked the law. BTW, a census suffrage was the standard thing at the time, be it in Britian, Germany, America or anywhere there was something like elections. Also, I never said, as you seem to imply above, that the census was exactly the same, only that it wasn't fundamentally diferrent and that it bears no consequence on this issue.

That the inclusion served to make a point has been clearly stated by Taz on the article's talk page, when he said that a "more democratic" government wouldn't have bothered. (referencing from memory).

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Answer on Talk:Anti-Sacrilege Act. Tazmaniacs 23:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose we continue the entire discussion on the article talk page, if no one objects. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I copy the latest discussion over from the article talk page:

First, I don't understand why Stre1977 wants to remove information, in particular when it is clearly of an encyclopedical nature. He claims I want to include it for ideological purposes; let him believe what he wants. But it is clearly NPOV info, that for some reason he wants to censor. Second, either he hasn't taken the time to look up in a book about the period, or he isn't being honnest. The Bourbon Restoration was characterized by constant gerry-manding. Looking up a history manual, I see several laws modifying the laws concerning the census suffrage (which of course was on going during all of the period, this characterized constitutional monarchy, which lasted until 1848). The Double Vote Act in 1820 (fr:Loi du double vote (1820) changed the legislation laws, making that the most wealthy quarter of the electors allowed to vote voted twice. Thus, 96% of the voters (whom had to pay an annual cens of 300 Francs) voted once, choosing 258 deputies. The remaining 4% (24 000 people) voted twice, choosing an additional 172 deputies (thus the Chamber was composed 430 deputies). Furthermore, another feature favorized rural areas over urban sites, thus favorizing twice the ultras. Thus the ultras' situation was enforced in the November 1820 elections (renewing 224 seats) and the 1821 elections (86 seats). In 1821, Richelieu (who had been called back after the assassination of the duc de Berry) was deported to the left, and replaced by Villèle, whom composed an exclusively ultra cabinet (Corbière in the Interior, Montmorency in Foreign Affairs and the comte de Peyronnet in Justice). The ultras were again renforced in the 1822 and 1823 elections. The manual I have precised that the Villèle government "intervened largely in favor of its candidates through various minor means made easy by the small number of electors (802 in the Finistère, 32 in Corsica) and the authorities' knowledge of whom voted what (despite the theoretical secretness of the vote). It adds that in December 1823, in order to take out completely the opposition, Villèle dissolved the Chamber, leading to the Chambre retrouvée (Chamber found again?): more than 300 seats for the ultras. In order to preserve this absolute majority, Villèle passed the loi de septennalité (7 years Act?) in March 1824, which suppressed the annual renewing of the Chamber by 1/5 and fixed to seven years the legislature. Thus, it is wrong to say that the number of electors remained constant through out the entire period, although of course, since it was a constitutional monarchy until the 1848 revolutions which led to the Second Republic, census suffrage was on all the time. Tazmaniacs 23:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Taz, so now we are back to "assuming bad faith" again. I have no wish to censor and I have repeatedly stated that I am open for alternative ways to include this without implying what you apperently want it to imply. You clearly stated your POV on the talk page and want to include it as fact. Also, you should know that most information as such is NPOV - it is the presentation of it that creates most POV problems. Hence, your point out of details are futile as no one disputes them and if you want to ammend the article on census suffrage, go ahead. I never said that the census never changed or that there were no irregularities or manipulations. But you want to pick this one piece of information and place it here next to a certain law to create the impression that these two things are necessarily connected. I call this POV pushing. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What POV do I want to include as fact? Please be explicit. You are making a whole lot of fuss because you want to remove the sentence concerning the census suffrage & the 100 000 Frenchmen vote (which I took from the historical article used as scholarly source). You then accuse me of wanting to bias the article, and claim that the number of electors remained the same. I've just shown that this is wrong. Tazmaniacs 00:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

From this discussion I believe Str1977 has expressed openness to including the material if the right format can be found, and Tazmaniacs is open to this too. These are the facts as I see them, please correct me if I am wrong.

• There was a census vote during this time period.
• There was also a census vote during the periods before and after this.

From here launch concerns over whether or not including this would bias the article, which is what Str1977 argues will happen. His suggestion is that placing it in the article creates a connection between the law and the census vote. The census vote material comes from Jeanneney, who counts as a reliable source on these matters. It does not appear that anyone is challenging this! The challenge for us is to work this in to the article in a way everyone accepts, I think. Any comments on this overview? Suggests on the sentence or where to put it? Tsetna 16:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You are correct: there was a census vote during this period, before & after. The info concerning 100 000 voters comes from Jean-Noël Jeanneney. Str1977 has argued that the sentence "at that time 100 000 Frenchmen could vote due to census vote" (from memory) was POV and should be removed. He has edit warred on that. Now, if he agrees to include it now, very well! If you think the sentence should be put elsewhere, or formulated in another way, why not? As long as a fact (100 000 Frenchmen had the right to vote), which for once gives numbers which are quoted, is included, so be it! Thanks for your help. Tazmaniacs 23:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

But how shall we include the info?

Tazz, don't try to misinterpret the discussion again. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the other side is unwilling to contribute anything to this mediation, hoping that silence will help the status quo to prevail, I have taken matters into my own hands and had a go at including the information without pushing a POV. See what you think about it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Since no reaction came, I consider this case closed and remove the tag. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I only came across the article since someone linked to it from an article I had created, and have only made a few copyedits. But Str1977's recent changes look fine to me. AnnH ♫ 11:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I find it strange for Str1977 to claim I have kept "aloof" from this discussion, although I have repeatedly stated my arguments in favor of this sentence, which Str has failed to relevantly address. I thought we decided to address the question on the article's talk page, which is what I've done. The issue is not going to resolve itself by the number of times one connects to Wikipedia — especially when dealing with such unabashed removal of clearly relevant & sourced information. Tazmaniacs 22:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this mediation still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 09:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it has been settled at all. I have responded here. AnnH ♫ 18:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not settled as long as Taz is blocking an agreement. Despite his claims above, he has kept aloof from this mediation for a long time (I don't say that he never stated anything) but he has made no attempt at finding a tenable solution, as I have done with my last version. (And this statement goes for this as well as for the article talk page). The sourced information is included in this in a NPOV way, whereas Taz's version wants to highlight a particular interpretation. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

We can't have a mediation if one of the parties refuses to discuss. I'm going to close this case; if it needs to be reopened leave a note on my talk page. --Ideogram 02:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)