User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2011/February

Freedom

I'm copying this from Talk:Libertarianism since it's not about article content. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You guys are still missing the point. Libertarianism is about "freedom". TFD (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What definition of "libertarianism" are you presuming in this statement? What good is "freedom" if I can't get society to help keep people from stealing the apples from the trees that I planted because there is no way for me to claim the land I planted them on as my private property? What kind of freedom is freedom without the ability to own property so that you can do something with it, like grow apple trees in order to sell apples? Without private property there can be no freedom. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Bingo! All libertarians believe in freedom, their only argument is about how it is best achieved. Private property or communal property? TFD (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I understand that broad definition of libertarianism, and I know there has been some usage of that meaning in English in the past, and it's still used that way in other languages, but, it's very rare in modern English sources to refer to those in the communal property camp as unhyphenated libertarians. It's an obscure use of the term (in modern English), and yet that's the topic of this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you assume that "freedom" is the ultimate goal of every ideology. In fact it is only the primary goal of libertarians (and perhaps liberals). Libertarians of course disagree in how that can be achieved. You, for example, believe that private property is essential to achieving freedom - other libertarians may disagree. But conservatives and socialists do not care, because they do not see freedom as the ultimate goal. TFD (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've made no assumptions about other ideologies. But I think I understand what you're saying, that not all ideologies make freedom the top priority, and the family of ideologies that do that can roughly be described as "libertarianism". I understand that, but that's a very general and relatively obscure use of the term in modern English. It's so obscure, that nobody can find a source to support the statement that groups opposed to property rights are referred to as unhyphenated/unqualified "libertarian". It is used much more commonly, almost universally, certainly dominantly, to refer to a more specific ideology based not only on property rights, but also on the understanding that property rights are essential for freedom. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No libertarians oppose property rights. The issue is whether land, which all libertarians believe is originally in common ownership, can be converted into private owenership. If a pioneer who settles empty land claims ownership, then he deprives the community of their property rights. TFD (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

doesn't the "community" only come after the pioneer settles the land? are you saying ll respect property rights of the individual, as long as the individual has purchased the deed from the community? Darkstar1st (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

According to Locke, land was owned by the community, but in America, which was terra nulla, because it was uninhabited, one could acquire title to property by mixing one's labor with it. He used this argument in order to justify ownership of land by English aristocrats, challenging the view that they were vassals of the Crown. Of course in America, that meant that the London company owned all the land, because they put their slaves and indentured servants to work on improving the land. TFD (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

so do ll support private ownership of land by an individual? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

AE report

An AE request has been submitted[1]. --Martin (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Fascism

Thanks. I'm mainly just trying to dump stuff from the main article, but I'll look into that. Maybe the contents should be merged. We also have "Definitions of fascism" and "European fascist ideologies", so it's a bit messy overall.--FormerIP (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk

I am trying to be polite here, but you are making it difficult to communicate. Please explain why you believe I have argued that Progressivism developed into Liberalism. Liberalism came before Progressvism, and is completely different, and I have made this clear, so you should not continue believing this.

Also, are you still standing by your statement that "The theory that progressivism developed into the New Deal is not acceptaed by any serious historians. In fact it developed into modern American conservatism. "

I need to know what you are believing. I feel as though I have explained well enough that you should understand that they are not the same, but you seem to still be arguing this. Do you still believe Progressivism developed into modern American conservatism?AerobicFox (talk) 05:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I responded on the article talk page. In Beck's show, he talks about the "Progressive Movement", which he implies includes both the 1900-1920 progressives and modern progressives. In fact they are two separate groups. TFD (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

separate movements with separate goals or beliefs? if so, which? Darkstar1st (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources drawing a connection between the two? No, only Beck and Jonah Goldberg do that. TFD (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have not stated a connection from early Progressives to Modern Progressives other then that the early Progressives became modern Progressives.

If you are referring to a connection to the left then I suggestion you go here:Progressivism#Liberalism. The two are on the same end of the political spectrum, and nobody makes the arguments that you are arguing against, I certainly haven't argued this.

"separate movements with separate goals or beliefs? if so, which? "

Progressivism is different from Liberalism. They are not' the same. As I have stated they are separate movements.AerobicFox (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The term "ptogressive" is used to describe (modern U.S.) "liberals", although more often it refers to the left of the Democratic Party. But it is not a continuation of 1900-1920s progressivism, which developed into (modern U.S.) "conservatism". TFD (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Tree of Origins

A. Progressivism:"Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies. The movement grew out of the 'Social Gospel' of American pietist millenarianism in the 1820s."

1. 1920's-Progressivism in the United States: "is a broadly-based reform movement that reached its height early in the 20th century and is generally considered to be middle class and reformist in nature."

B. Social Liberalism:"In 1883, Lester Frank Ward published the two-volume Dynamic Sociology and formalized the basic tenets of social liberalism ..."

1. Modern American liberalism: "is a form of social liberalism developed from progressive ideals such as Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, John F. Kennedy's New Frontier, and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society."

C. 1950s- Modern Conservatism in U.S.:"The modern conservative movement is often identified with the ideas in Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind, published in 1953."

Progressivism is still around. Liberalism is divided between the classical liberalism(myself) and social liberalism. Modern American liberalism derives from the social liberalism. Progressivism in the U.S. derives from Progressivism. Conservatism in the U.S. has always sort of been around, but the specific movement and ideals can be traced back to the 1950s, and has nothing to do with Progressivism.AerobicFox (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out misinformation in other articles - I have removed some of it and asked for sources in others. TFD (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I see you have removed was this "The movement grew out of the 'Social Gospel' of American pietist millenarianism in the 1820s.", and I would like to inform you that the social gospel movement had a huge impact on the Progressive movement which is still seen today, for Christ sake they invented the term social justice which is still used and part of the Progressive movement today. Perhaps wording it down from "grew out of"(although that would not be very far off) to influenced by. Your contention that this is a theory way outside of the mainstream is ridiculous on its face. You continue to make up your own history and tell me that your ideas which are neither supported by historians or even fringe theorists are the "mainstream". Progressivism grew into the modern progressive party. Modern American liberalism grew from social liberalism, and the modern conservative movement in America took the form it has today in the 1950s. These are supported by anyone, left, right, historian, politician, and you are probably the only one to ever argue that Progressivism grew into Conservatism. I will fix changes you have made to these articles, so please don't keep theorizing about how political parties have developed, and stick to what sources have said. AerobicFox (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You may believe whatever you want to but no historians say that progressivism developed into modern progressivism. In fact it developed into modern conservatism. TFD (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think a book somewhere just spontaneously burst into flames at that comment. I'm tired of talking as well, and too lazy to bother with finding a source to continue this argument..AerobicFox (talk) 07:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson is the father of modern conservatism, are you sure tfd? he created the federal reserve and income tax which modern conservatives like ron paul are trying to abolish. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Progressivism was associated with both major parties, but more particularly the Republicans, who governed the U.S. for most of the progressive era. By the 1930s Republicans associated with Progressivism were considered conservative, because of their isolationism and opposition to the New Deal. Prominent progressives included Herbert Hoover and Robert Taft. Wilson in fact rejected part of the progressive reforms, prohibitionism, and his liberal internationalism became neoconservatism. The belief that the federal government can and should legislate personal morality remains strong among conservatives to this day.

The New Deal drew upon ethnic minorities, big city machines and the Southern states, none of which had provided any support for progressivism.

As John McCain said, "We are the party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan".

14:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

what is the main ideological difference between the progressive era, and modern progressives? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if any serious writer has bothered to write a comparison, so I can only rely on my own observations. It might be a stretch however to describe either as an "ideology". Their attitudes on prohibition, racial equality and religious tolerance were certainly different. Progressives did not support social welfare programs. TFD (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There are no serious ideological differences, and if you are comparing Progressives of the era to modern progressives based off of policy then it would be correct to say they are different, but why compare policy instead of ideology. Ideologically Progressivism hasn't changed much since its introduction and their ideology has not become conservative ideology.AerobicFox (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ideology from Brittanica: "Actually there was not, either in the 1890s or later, any single Progressive movement. The numerous movements for reform on the local, state, and national levels were too diverse, and sometimes too mutually antagonistic, ever to coalesce into a national crusade. But they were generally motivated by common assumptions and goals—e.g., the repudiation of individualism and laissez-faire, concern for the underprivileged and downtrodden, the control of government by the rank and file, and the enlargement of governmental power in order to bring industry and finance under a measure of popular control."

These "commons have remained very similar to this day"

From Progressive living.org, the first site google brings back for a search on progressivism after Wikipedia.

"Many of the issues of concern to Progressives 50 or 100 years ago remain just as important today."

Progressivism is not a set of time specific policies. It is a spirit of general reform that has followed the basic tenets outlined by Brittanica to this day.AerobicFox (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You may believe whatever you choose. However no serious writers share your beliefs and you have not provided, and cannot provide, any that do. TFD (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No serious writers?

William J. Atto
Ph.D., M.A., B.A., University of Arkansas, a top tier research institute
Classes taught: AHG 505 The Progressive Era
Research Interests: Nineteenth-century America, particularly the political, military and religious history of the antebellum period.

Ronald Pestritto
Ph.D., M.A., Claremont Graduate School
B.A., Claremont McKenna College
Courses Taught: AHG 502: The American Founding, AHG 505: The Progressive Era

Check page two of American progressivism: a reader

"Nonetheless, we do contend, emphatically, that progressivism can be understood as a coherent set of principles with a common purpose. The differences among progressives over issues such as reforming the party system were, in the end, differences over particular means, not over fundamental ideas of what government ought to be... ... It is because of the coherent set of principles that characterizes this movement that leads us to think of it as an "-ism" as much as we think of it as an "era". The meaning of progressivism, and its profound relevance for American politics today, transcends any boundaries that might be placed upon it by a particular set of dates or figures. Progressivism and the ideas that constitute it are alive and well today... One cannot comprehend progressivism without paying close attention to the particular events and figures of the Progressive Era..."

See also Why Progressivism is Not, and Never Was, a Source of Conservative Values

An article by Ronald Pestritto about how though some conservatives look at Progressive Era policies and agree with them, that the philosophies underlying them are completely different, and that conservatives should not confuse their similar policies with Progressive Era progressives with the philosophy of Progressivism.AerobicFox (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I read the article from the Claremont Institute. The author argues that conservatives should not look to the Progressives as their predecessors. The writer expresses a minority view and there is no indication that it has received any acceptance outside the libertarian movement. They do not say that Progressivism developed into modern liberalism, nor do they deny that modern conservatism developed from Progressivism, merely that their values differ. I found the Pestritto/Atto intro - their views seem to have received no acceptance except from Beck and Goldberg. TFD (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You didn't textbook that I linked to though? Page 2? That's where I got the original quote from.

Progressive groups like American progress.org discussing the roots of Progressivism in the Progressive Era. here.

Actually if you go to any Progressive website and go to there history section they will all give you the history of the Progressive Era.AerobicFox (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

American progressives also claim that they are the heirs of Jefferson and are the only ones who support the Bill of Rights. Do you agree with them? TFD (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Going somewhere

I am hoping this will lay out what I am trying to say:

Early 1900s: raid growth, development, and urbanization has disillusioned many people to the ability of the constitution and traditional government institutions to address concerns like poverty, poor factory working traditions, exploitation, etc.

1920s: Various groups believing similar, but occasionally contradictory beliefs set about to try to address these problems. A common thread amongst these groups was the belief that the founders could not have conceived of a modern world, and so could not have addressed the problems arising in modern times, and also that America needs to move away from laissez fair policies and the government needs to start ensuring fair play(breaking up monopolies, etc)

These groups have since been named under the umbrella term of Progressivism, because they want to progress beyond old traditions and try to forge ways to address new problems. In this Progressive era many fundamental changes occurred like welfare and the New deal which have since become a part of American tradition.

Conservatism is the philosophy that traditions must be maintained(conserved), that change should be slow. Conservatives agree with Progressive policies of the 1920s, because those policies survived a long period of time, and have now become a part of tradition.

The philosophies of Progressivism and Conservatism have nothing to do with policy. They are contrasting philosophies, one advocating quicker change and progress, the other slower change and tradition. When working harmoniously the Conservatives prevent some Progressive policy from passing, while Progressives get some policy enacted. The policy that Progressives do pass though becomes a part of tradition, and conservatives in the next generation will embrace it while rejecting the new ideas put forth by the current day Progressives.

Fundamentalist conservatives like Beck want to go all the way back to the beginning, the founding fathers, and he does not like any changes that have arrived since Progressivism began in modern times. Modern day Progressives are similarly not at all interested in supporting reform of the past, they want new reforms. Glenn Beck is very controversial, because of his extreme dislike of Progressivism and distrust of Progressives, because he believes the New Deal hurt America, and because he does not believe in Global Warming. While in fact there is no real coherent Progressive movement, nor has there been at any time, Progressivism is defined as just sort of a spirit of reform with a few coherent beliefs. Modern day Progressives are called Progressives because they follow the philosophy of Progressivism, the same philosophy that the progressives of the Progressive era followed. Glenn Beck dislikes the progressive philosophy, and his attacks on the Progressive philosophy have made him controversial. He didn't link past and modern Progressives to one another though, modern Progressives took their name from past Progressives, and wear it proudly, and every Progressive website you go to will discuss the Progressive era.

Please respond with a detailed response, and at the very least give your beliefs so that we may discuss. I guarantee you I had my political philosophy developed long before Beck ever came around. My brother, a Progressive and a fan of the Social Gospel who has led Bible study groups and spent large amounts of time in highschool researching political philosophy. He got the Reagent Scholarship to UC Berkeley, and he is the one who introduced me to political philosophy, and from who I have developed my own beliefs concerning classical liberalism. If you try to do some research on this area then you will find that Progressives subscribe to Progressivism, just like the people in the Progressive Era. It is a perfectly fine political philosophy. Please try to understand where I am coming from.AerobicFox (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact that progressives today and progressives 100 years ago were reformers and today's progressives took their name from the earlier movement does not mean that they there is historical continuity between the two or that they have the same views. Progressivism developed into conservatism with leading progressives, e.g., Herbert Hoover, Al Smith, leading the opposition to the New Deal. The New Deal was not a continuation of progressivism.

We may also compare progrssivism with the UK, where similar reforms were introduced under William Ewart Gladstone. The Gladstone liberals reacted to later Liberal reforms by joining the Conservative Party. Margaret Thatcher was the heir to Gladstone liberalism.

TFD (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I am defining Progressives as those who choose the Progressive school of thought. The progressives of today similarly choose that political ideology with the progressives of yesterday and this is why progressives organizations include the history of the progressive movement on their sites. Since you seem to be arguing something different, about policy and not ideology, I see no reason to continue arguing as our views are no contradictory.AerobicFox (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact, the views expressed by Charles A. Beard, who re-interpreted American history, went out of fashion in the 1950s, although his foreign policy ideas are popular with Pat Buchanan and other conservatives. His belief that America was a republic, not a democracy, and his opposition to American entry into the Second World War are not shared by most modern progressives. TFD (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That is not being argued by anybody.

Progressive philosophy: "repudiation of individualism and laissez-faire, concern for the underprivileged and downtrodden, the control of government by the rank and file, and the enlargement of governmental power in order to bring industry and finance under a measure of popular control."

In the 1920s progressives accomplished this by breaking up monopolies, establishing welfare, etc.

In the modern day progressives accomplish this philosophy by promoting universal health care, single payer option, increased financial regulation, increased aide to low income families, etc.

It is viewed without any arguing from anyone that the philosophy is the same, and that is why the progressives of today call themselves progressives, and state the roots of their origins in the Progressive Era. Progressivism is just a general philosophy arising out of modernization to improve the government that was invented in colonial days to fit in better in modern times and address the needs arising from urbanization of the citizens through a more active role. There are many differences between the policies that were supported by progressives 90 years ago, and the policy being supported today, but that is true of every political philosophy. The times change and policy changes according to them, but what has remained consistent is the desire to adapt government to modern times and use government to protect the citizens from exploitation through regulation, the community taking care of people, etc. Progressivism isn't a term that refers to a set of policies, especially since progressives have often times been divided into many groups and held different views on what policy to use, it refers to the philosophy that progressives share which is to reform government to the modern day and use it to protect the citizens.AerobicFox (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You have taken the quote out of context and the source is a high school textbook, which generally oversimplifies matters. Even so, your source does not say that progressivism was a "general philosopy". The history that you believe is non-mainstream. I have the same discussions with editors who believe that 9/11 was an inside job, Obama was not born in the U.S. and aspartame is killing us all. I thought that you have difficulty understanding the texts, but bascially you have a rigid view that cannot be influenced by discussion or facts. However, I am interested in understanding why people hold views such as yours, and find the conversation interesting. TFD (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

what context does "enlargement of government power" belong here? 9/11 was an attack by subjects of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Who cares where he was born, the next election will be held in 20 months. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

All U.S. governments have enlarged government power. The similarity of your view with is that it is a conspiratorial and therefore cannot be dispelled by rational discussion. It is a belief rather than an opinion based on evidence. TFD (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

what context does "enlargement of government power" belong here?

It does not belong. Progressives do not wish to enlarge government power for the sake of enlarging government power. Progressives believe that modern society needs government intervention to ensure fair play, e.g. government regulation, and to protect the citizens, e.g. universal health care. Beck believes these are fringe views, but I do not. TFD seems to believe that believing in Progressive values is fringe, but he would be on Beck's side with side with that.

"You have taken the quote out of context and the source is a high school textbook,"

It is from Brittanica, and here is the full quote:

Origins of progressivism

Never were superficial signs more deceiving. Actually, the United States already was in the first stages of what historians came to call the Progressive movement. Generally speaking, progressivism was the response of various groups to problems raised by the rapid industrialization and urbanization that followed the Civil War. These problems included the spread of slums and poverty; the exploitation of labour; the breakdown of democratic government in the cities and states caused by the emergence of political organizations, or machines, allied with business interests; and a rapid movement toward financial and industrial concentration. Many Americans feared that their historic traditions of responsible democratic government and free economic opportunity for all were being destroyed by gigantic combinations of economic and political power.

Actually there was not, either in the 1890s or later, any single Progressive movement. The numerous movements for reform on the local, state, and national levels were too diverse, and sometimes too mutually antagonistic, ever to coalesce into a national crusade. But they were generally motivated by common assumptions and goals—e.g., the repudiation of individualism and laissez-faire, concern for the underprivileged and downtrodden, the control of government by the rank and file, and the enlargement of governmental power in order to bring industry and finance under a measure of popular control.

This is very non-ambiguous

This is an article from Center for American Progress the biggest Progressive group in America, and in it it describes in detail the origins of the progressive movement and it's continuance today.

"What is progressivism?

Progressivism at its core is grounded in the idea of progress—moving beyond the status quo to more equal and just social conditions consistent with original American democratic principles such as freedom, equality, and the common good. Progressivism as an intellectual movement emerged between 1890 and 1920 as a response to the multitude of problems associated with the industrialization of the U.S. economy—frequent economic depressions, political corruption, rising poverty, low wages, poor working conditions, tenement living, child labor, lack of collective bargaining power, unsafe consumer products, and the misuse of natural resources.

"As a philosophical tradition, progressivism in its most complete form developed as a “new liberalism” for a new century—updating the American liberal tradition from its Jeffersonian, small-government, republican roots best suited for the agrarian economy of the nation’s founding era to a more democratic and modern liberalism capable of checking rising corporate power. The original progressives argued that changes in the economy’s organization required a more complete understanding of human freedom, equality, and opportunity that Jefferson championed so persuasively. Progressives believed that formal legal freedom alone—the negative protections against government intrusions on personal liberty—were not enough to provide the effective freedom necessary for citizens to fulfill their human potential in an age of rising inequality, paltry wages, and labor abuses. Changed conditions demanded a changed defense of human liberty."

With the rise of the contemporary progressive movement and the election of President Barack Obama in 2008, there is extensive public interest in better understanding the origins, values, and intellectual strands of progressivism. Who were the original progressive thinkers and activists? Where did their ideas come from and what motivated their beliefs and actions? What were their main goals for society and government? How did their ideas influence or diverge from alternative social doctrines? How do their ideas and beliefs relate to contemporary progressivism?

The new Progressive Tradition Series from the Center for American Progress traces the development of progressivism as a social and political tradition stretching from the late 19th century reform efforts to the current day.

"aspartame is killing us all."

A hyperbole, but aspartame is bad for you.

I believe that last bolded quote should explain to you that Progrssivism is an ongoing philosophical and intellectual movement.AerobicFox (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You say that progressivism is an updating of the liberalism of Jefferson - do you believe that? do you believe that progressivism is the true interpretation of the American constitution? So you do believe in the aspartame conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

"You say that progressivism is an updating of the liberalism of Jefferson - do you believe that?"

I have not said that. That was all a quote up there from the American Center for Progress.

"do you believe that progressivism is the true interpretation of the American constitution?"

Progressivism is not an interpretation of the constitution. It is an influential political tradition in America recognized by every single person, academic, politician, pundit.

"So you do believe in the aspartame conspiracy theory."

I was not aware it was a conspiracy theory, and was reporting what I have heard from others. After glancing over the article I do not believe it is bad for you.

"I don't know if any serious writer has bothered to write a comparison, so I can only rely on my own observations. "

Again I redirect you to this: The Progressive Intellectual Tradition in America by the Center for American Progress, the biggest progressive advocacy group in the country. It details the origins of the progressive tradition and its development and influence today.AerobicFox (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Today's progressives say that they are the heirs to the founding fathers and the progressive tradition. You reject the first claim but accept the second. In other words, you accept their claims inconsistently, depending on what you wish to believe. TFD (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Princeton conference on "The Progressive Tradition: Politics, Culture and History"

A conference at Princeton discussing the progressive tradition in America. Also I have requested a third opinion here.AerobicFox (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

did you say my description of 911 was conspiratorial? or were you referring to my statement no one cares where barrack was born? progressive have always supported raising taxes, "war to make the world safe for democracy" and opposed laissez-faire, conservatives have always supported lowering taxes, staying out of foreign wars {do not get confused by neocons who are social conservatives, like huckabee or bush}, and laissez-faire. are you sure progressives were the forefathers of conservatism? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

So you put some conservatives, e.g., Huckabee and the neoconservatives into the progressive tradition. Calvin Coolidge was also a progressive. You may actually support some of the progressive reforms - female suffrage, primaries, recall elections, term limits, referendums. TFD (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Third Opinion

This discussion has mutated into a non-encyclopedic content dispute. Both of you should consider WP:NOTBATTLE and WP:SOAPBOX. Wikipedia is not a place to exchange opinions and beliefs beyond general content discussion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

ok, sorry. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be true if it were not for TFD editing articles to promote his non-accepted by anyone personal views of the subject on related articles. If he actually believes what he is arguing then it could result in very strange and harmful edits to many political articles. That being said I am tired of arguing with, and feel worn down by the lack of any knowledge on the subject and defiance to generally accepted beliefs.AerobicFox (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You should read mainstream sources about history, which is all I am reflecting. TFD (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Conservatism

what are the requirements to add something and not have it taken out? Encyclopedia91 (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE#The Four Deuces

I'm trying to see if this AE case could be closed. The comment of yours that was criticized by Martintg was this one:

"While I have sympathy for Martintg's ethnic nationalism, articles must be written from a neutral point of view, not a right wing extremist ethnic nationalist POV" (1 February 2011, at Talk:Occupation of the Baltic States)

Responding to Martintg's AE complaint, you said ""My comments were about the POV of the quote that Martintg presented rather than his personal point of view."

This seems to be passing the buck to Prof Lauri Mälksoo of the University of Tartu, who now (according to you) must be the author of a POV quote, possibly "The annexation - since it remained illegal - did not create any extra rights to the annexing power, the USSR", since this is quoted in the comment just above yours.

This is hard for me to swallow, since the scholar being quoted sounds like a middle-of-the-road guy, has received a Konrad Adenauer doctoral fellowship, etc. See the abstract of his thesis. I think this AE complaint might be closed if you would make certain assurances about the language you will use in the future, but first I would like to hear if you object to my summary of the case. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at User_talk:EdJohnston#Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states.

So you are sticking with the view that Mälksoo holds a 'right wing extremist ethnic nationalist POV?' Can you supply diffs to show that reliable sources also make that judgment about Mälksoo? What is baffling to me is that occupation followed by 'illegal annexation' seems like it may have almost the same legal significance as simply occupation (from the standpoint of international law). Yet you seem to think that makes Mälksoo a far-out right-wing guy. It might seem excessive for me harp on one edit summary, yet you also recently came up with 'reverse pro-fascist edits' which has to be seen as attacking the user who made them, who was again Martintg. And you edit very frequently about right-wing politics. Whether the ethnic Russians should continue to be citizens of Estonia is a whole other question, and your characterization of Mälksoo looks to be free-wheeling synthesis. (Feel free to supply diffs showing that he favors the deportation of Russian-speakers from Estonia. I think you won't find any). Malksoo comes up with such wildness as "after the almost universal adoption of the Kellogg-Briand Pact “the illegality of forcible annexations ... has been a presumption in international law”. See a complete article at [2]. If this episode concerning Mälksoo shows what your typical language is going to be from now on, an editing restriction should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

    More discussion at User_talk:EdJohnston#Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states.

I am continuing here, because I still don't see a response to my question above. (Though I did see a hint that you would moderate your tone). Are you still asserting that Mälksoo holds a 'right wing extremist ethnic nationalist POV?' Please note that this is not a calm, objective phrase that is merely attempting to describe. If you are really sticking to this implausible line, it suggests that AE should take some action like what they just did in a WP:ARBAA case. Requiring people to supply links to reliable sources for any charges they may make about others' views. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Closed

I have closed the above AE without action at this time. Please keep in mind the concerns raised; there were a couple comments after your final comment as well. In particular, please remember that targeted discussion of sources and edits works better than general argument or discussion of editors. You might find it refreshing to focus your editing on more non-controversial articles for a while. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

re. Mass killings under Communist regimes

Thank you for notifying me about 1RR; I'll pay more attention to that. But I have already been reverted by someone who thinks that "Eastern Europe and Africa" can be paraphrased as "some Eastern European and African countries" [3]. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

A Question

There are various definitions for Communist Terrorism if this is the case, then why so far I have been unable to find any sources that do this? Tentontunic (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware at that time of Drake's definition, which was not included in the article. TFD (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe you have misunderstood the question put to you. There are various definitions for Communist Terrorism Why have you not mentioned these other definitions? Tentontunic (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

See: "Drake's typology does not appear to be standard. The term "Communist Terrorist", or "CT", normally refers to insurgent groups in the Malayan emergency. TFD (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)" TFD (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No it does not, the term has been used to describe actions all over the world, a fact I pointed out on the article talk page. Having looked over the articles archives it is obvious that discussion on this matter with you is pointless. Tentontunic (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

AN/I notice...Aspartame

A complaint has been filed at AN/I located here. Since only two editors were notified, I'm placing a notice on the pages of all editors who have commented at Talk:Aspartame controversy in recent history. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

left wing terrorism

Please stop implying that I am biased. It's offensive and untrue, and certainly does not assume good faith. I have tried to have numerous terrorism related categories deleted with some but not much luck. If I'm more active in this article, it's because there seems to be a significant amount of criticism. I'm not interested in wasting huge amounts of time fighting a battle that I'm not going to win. Yes, other articles have problems. Why have you chosen to spend so much time defending this article? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Your AE request

In relation to your AE request, I have invited you to give reasons why you should not yourself be sanctioned for slow-motion editwarring as per the diffs provided by Tentontunic.  Sandstein  14:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh please. WP:STICK Writegeist (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

[4] Please stop doing this. You removed the additional citations needed template Remove RefImprove tag - all poorly referenced sections now referenced or removed which is obviously not the case. Try to source them before addition please. Tentontunic (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

debate on Christian terrorism discussion page

Can you believe this guy, i had just about enough, this is so frustrating, should i call for arbitration? what is your advice? Eli+ 15:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

MKuCR Arbitration enforcement request against Fifelfoo

You may have some interest in the MKuCR related Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Fifelfoo Fifelfoo (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Your thoughtful comment

Hi, TFD! I just wanted to take a moment to convey my gratitude for your kind comment at ANI just now. You're perfectly right, of course, that I wanted to make that rather disjointed talk page easier to follow. I really appreciate that you took the time to speak on up my behalf and say so. Thanks!  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind sending me a quick e-mail? You can send to me as my Wikipedia username, all in lowercase, and all one word, @gmail.com. I'd like to be able to add some possible (?) evidence to the SPI you started, but don't know whether it's relevant, and would like your opinion before I do that. If you do e-mail, feel free to do so from a single-use/throwaway account if your usual e-mail account is personally identifying in any way. ( I never disclose any personally identifying info online, myself. ) Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that hadn't occurred to me. Thanks.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

What the heck?

Hi TFD. I see Helloannyong let the SPI you initiated roll to archives just now without responding to the info you provided to demonstrate that the user you identified had, in fact, been the IP user for whom the rangeblock had been instituted. Further, it's my understanding that the block ran just a week only because blocking that active IP range was problematic, that it produced a lot of "collateral damage". My impression from looking at the archived ANI thread you linked to was that everyone would have liked to indef the editor. So now he's back, with no apparent consequence for all that disruption, merely because he finally created an account? Do I have these facts straight, and if so, is there any recourse at this point? ( No talk page stalkers on this question, please; it's for TFD. ) You can reply here, as I've temporarily watchlisted this page. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, also, I presume you saw my post there about the ranges having been block previously, in ( I think ) Sept 2008, and July 2009? One of these days I'll have to learn how to follow the details of such things and learn how to sleuth out history for badly behaving IPs, but I posted that info there so you ( or the clerk, which would have been more appropriate, imo ) could figure out if they were relevant to Eridu at all. Collect wrote that they weren't, but I'm not likely to rely on his judgment alone in this. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You look up the past cases, is what you do. Which is what I did. "Wiki troll" is well-known, and was not a political contributor. Collect (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, Collect, for noticing that "no talk-page stalkers, please" request. Good form.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I happen to note when I am directly or indirectly personally attacked, which means I am not "stalking" anyone at all. Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "talk page stalker" is not a pejorative term on Wikipedia. If you feel (again) that you've been personally attacked, take it to ANI. Meanwhile, please allow TFD to respond on his own talk page without interference. You've banned more users from your talk page than anyone I've ever heard of doing, so you should understand the request well-enough.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Three to be precise. AN/I is not the place to deal with telling folks that SPI has searchable archives, so I do not know what to make of that comment. "Talk page stalker" means dealing with subjects with which one has no involvement - I would suggest that using my name in a post constitutes "involvement." Meanwhile, TFD has not so asserted a desire thatI not give simple statements of fact here which answer your question. Have a great day. Collect (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The result surprised me. Collect is right though that the earlier block of the range had nothing to do with the editor at Right-wing politics - they just used the same service provider, which is why range blocks are rarely used. Also, Collect is not the same editor who used the IPs. You could contact HelloAnnoying or SlimVirgin, and of course if the conduct that got the IP blocked and the pages protected, then one could go to ANI or ArbCom. TFD (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, TFD. The result surprised me, too. I do understand that Eridu is the only editor who's been under discussion recently that has contributed from those IPs. I think this whole tangle could have been very easily avoided, though, with a little more candor and a whole lot less "Help! Help! I'm being attacked!", but we, each of us, have our favorite songs, I'm sure.

The remark I made above about needing to learn how to "sleuth" out misbehaving IPs had to do with the fact that I didn't understand (1) how to find a current or previous rangeblock that applies to a particular current anon/IP contributor, or even (2) How the rangeblock specification notation is used. I still don't understand point 1, but I do understand point 2, now that I've reviewed WP:RANGE and the MediaWiki help page on rangeblocks. Could you just give me a quick clue, though, as to how you discovered all the other IP addresses that Eridu had used in his previous life as an IP-only editor?

I presume you clued in to at least one of those when he made an edit while accidentally having logged out, and then corrected the signature for that post to his new Eridu-Dreaming named account. But I don't understand how you were able to associate that one IP with the long list of others he's edited from. I know this is (for now) a done deal, btw; I'm just using this most recent case as an example. Or was it SlimVirgin who did that heavy lifting, to find the related IP addresses, in the ANI thread you cited at the SPI? I wasn't quite sure from the ANI page. In either case, could you point me to a help or doc page that gives one an idea about how to go about that, if you know of any? Many thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)