User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2010/March

Liberalism sidebar AGAIN

Deuces, the liberalism sidebar has once again expanded its lists even though the code did not change. This is the sidebar from hell. I've tried everything I can think of to fix it...but nothing worked. The fate of the world is at stake Deuces. If you know how, fix that freaking sidebar please.UberCryxic ^(talk) 18:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Final stages

I replied in the talk page. Time is of the essence now as I plan to nominate the article in the next few hours. Let's do a final brainstorming session. Try to monitor that talk page frequently during the next few hours. See my latest reply to you first though.UberCryxic ^(talk) 03:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Deuces please reply quickly if you're here. Thank you.UberCryxic ^(talk) 04:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied.UberCryxic ^(talk) 04:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

British National Party

Hi there, I was just wondering why you felt it necessary to revert my edit to British National Party. WP:EXTREMIST advises against using the word Extremist/Extreme which I changed to "controversial" to try to make the article more NPOV, yet you reverted it back to "extreme". Let me know if you think it should stay as Extreme DharmaDreamer (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just thought I'd let you know I've suggested some resolutions on the BNP talk page DharmaDreamer (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

John Birch Society

We've had several disputes related to this one. In other words, we've had disputes about how to interpret sources. My general strategy is to try and determine if the weight of the reputable sources leans in one direction or another. I don't doubt that you can find reputable sources shunning that label for the organization, but there are also many reputable sources, wonderfully presented by Will in the talk page, calling them those names. It's a tough choice either way, but I think far right should stay where it is.UberCryxic ^(talk) 03:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Nasty Housecat's talk page.

Mediation

HI, I've proposed Mediation as a method of resolving the BNP debate, I've noticed you haven't been active on the page lately but if you're willing to participate can you please edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-03-09/British_National_Party stating you've agreed to mediation. Thanks DharmaDreamer (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Social liberalism

You took out a sentence and the term "center-left" in trying to correct my error, if that's what you were doing. I'm fine taking out "political" in front of ideology (it was something cosmetic meant to clarify things). But the other changes...if you want sources, I'll get them. Plenty of them. But they shouldn't be removed so blatantly (especially since that sentence contains only link to liberalism in lead). I'm sure we can come to some sort of understanding here.UberCryxic ^(talk) 02:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

BNP

Deuces, since you've been heavily involved with this article from the start, what do you think my proposal to say in the lead that the BNP is a far-right political party in the United Kingdom frequently identified by political scientists as being an extremist organization? Take a look at what's going on over there and let me know what you think.UBER ^(talk) 21:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is currently protected because a full-blown edit war preceded your recent comments on my talk page. I am fine with the current first sentence, but I also think it could use some improvement. See the talk page for my proposal.UBER ^(talk) 05:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

???

Deuces, the resurgence part in Social liberalism is something you agreed to just a few weeks ago. If something has changed since then, please take it to the talk page and we can discuss it there. You have no right to remove relevant and cited material.UBER ^(talk) 05:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And I apologize for removing the sentence cited to de Ruggiero. It's back in now.UBER ^(talk) 05:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Deuces, before you decide to go rogue, please do remember that Wikipedia has strict policies that you might want to consult, like this one. You were the only person in the debate over the Liberal Democrats that refused to accept a version of the lead sentence including the term "center-left." You clearly have no consensus for your changes and I have absolutely no idea why you would blatantly tamper with what you yourself know is a very sensitive issue.UBER ^(talk) 02:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And on social liberalism: you were asked in the talk page to provide the passage that said the New Deal was not social liberalism. Instead of blatantly reverting sourced text, why don't you tell me how it shows that I'm wrong? I'm willing to listen and to change the lead, but you yourself need to add sources for the version that you want.UBER ^(talk) 02:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Well Deuces, since you brought up the issue of views, let me mention something about it in this talk page. I honestly have no idea what your views are, and I don't really care either. I have noticed, however, that you seem to be in categorical denial when it comes to identifying any strand of liberalism as belonging either to the left or to some part of the left—even though liberalism founded the left and was the main champion of left-wing radicalism for a century after the French Revolution. Now, I have no idea where you're getting this warped view of reality. Perhaps you've read De Ruggiero a little bit too much. The man wrote several eons ago. Liberalism has moved on, and you might want to do the same.UBER ^(talk) 02:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
That part in Contending liberalisms does not support either your version of the lead or what you're saying in the talk page, but either way it could be negated by numerous other reputable sources.UBER ^(talk) 02:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
For social liberalism, I'd be willing to agree to the following early part for the lead:

Social liberalism is an egalitarian ideology that believes the function of the liberal state is to supply individuals with the opportunity for useful work. The right to work and the right to a living wage are considered as real as the right to person and property, while unemployment and low wages are considered to be a reproach to the justice of society. It conceives the rights of the individual as harmonious with those of the community, and defines the first in terms of a common good and the second in terms of the well-being of individualsUBER ^(talk) 03:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
We can source both my reference and yours at the end of the first sentence. Effectively speaking, providing individuals with useful work and extending personal rights and freedoms to them is (roughly) the same thing (since, according to social liberals, rights and freedoms don't mean anything without that ability for work and economic prosperity).UBER ^(talk) 03:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok ok. Enough talking points. What do you think of my proposal above?UBER ^(talk) 03:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh and on the Liberal Democrats: I'm not going to allow you to invent history. Go back to the talk page and you'll see Haldraper, Sparrowhawk, and Fences all agreed to insert my proposal. You were the only holdout.UBER ^(talk) 03:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Where we live is not important, so please drop that. As for the Lib Dems, I was referring to the final conversation about my proposal. You were the only who rejected that version. Some of the people you mention didn't even participate in that discussion.UBER ^(talk) 04:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of my proposal above for social liberalism?UBER ^(talk) 04:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Social liberalism

Why do you refuse to accept the compromise I offered on social liberalism? It's essentially your definition (which, by the way, you're still not citing) with the added phrase "egalitarian ideology."UBER ^(talk) 02:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The first two sentences in my version of the lead are sourced. What I meant was that your first sentences were not. You have a reputable source classifying them as an egalitarian ideology. We put that phrase in there and then everything else can be yours. It's a fair deal.UBER ^(talk) 03:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've partially reverted myself in the lead, implementing the proposal above. We get to keep the statements from both sources this way. Please accept this deal. Any other version and we would have WP:OR and WP:WEASEL problems.UBER ^(talk) 03:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
De Ruggiero was a great historian, but that source is ancient and it's scary that you still want to use it. I would update your library. You still keep refusing to discuss my proposal.UBER ^(talk) 03:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Refer to this source too. It includes egalitarian and we can cite it as well. My offer is still valid.UBER ^(talk) 03:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well my "new version" is entirely your version with the term "egalitarian ideology" tacked on. I absolutely agree that positive liberty was the impetus for those sociopolitical changes, but liberty as so construed by social liberals is critically connected to equality and social welfare, so it wouldn't be a mistake at all to label social liberalism egalitarian, as numerous scholars have.UBER ^(talk) 16:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Another problem I had with your introductory sentence is that it just started off saying "Social liberalism holds that..." We don't really tell people what it is. Is it a belief that holds those positions? A worldview? Ideology? Ok these are all words for roughly the same concept, but we need to make that explicit. The article should start off saying something like "Social liberalism is an ideology [or some other term] that believes [etc...]".UBER ^(talk) 16:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, the current lead does not mention positive liberty at all. Mine did.UBER ^(talk) 17:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with using the word freedom, but the current lead does not even do that.UBER ^(talk) 17:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

JBS

Radical right instead of far right at the same spot in the lead? Are you fine with that?UBER ^(talk) 03:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

1953 coup

Thanks for taking an interest in the 1953 Iranian coup page. It so needs insights of the type you have offered. Skywriter (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Argie bargy

I don't support war of any kind, so the answer would be neither. Off2riorob (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Liberalism

Hi, I'm reviewing Liberalism and History of liberalism. Apparently you're interested in the issue. Can you help me with the first criteria(i.e. prose quality and MoS criteria), due to the fact that I'm not a native speaker.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)