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

noticeboard protocol

In order to contribute to a discussion (Spanky and Our Gang & sources) on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard which was started a week or so ago and has been archived, may I cut & paste that archived discussion to the top of the current list on that noticeboard and then make my comments, or should I add my comments to the discussion in its archived location. Can you answer this for me on my talk page please? Emhale (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

You appear to be edit warring and violating NPOV policy in classical liberalism. Please review our NPOV policies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV Thank you for your cooperation. Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You might want to review WP:3RR because both of us have had exactly 2 reverts in the past 24 hours. I notice that not only are your edits grammatically incorrect but that they show a disregard of Wikipedia policy and a lack of understanding of the subject matter. I set up an RfC in order to attract the attention of other editors to your edits and expect that they will ensure that the article remains neutral and informative. TFD (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's you that needs to review even what a revert is. Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Also apparently edit warring and violating NPOV (leaning left) in Progressivism--216.114.194.20 (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Also, see WP:3RR#3RR exemptions: "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." While I removed your unsourced additions once, you have re-inserted them three times. TFD (talk)

hall monitor

plz limit your comments about etiquette to the users discussion page or appropriate notice board and file a complaint. your suggestions to other editors have been deemed inappropriate material for the libertarianism discussion page. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I reminded another editor at Talk:Libertarianism, "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." The talk page has 30 archived pages because you and other editors continually discuss your personal views of the meaning of libertarianism. This is not the place to discuss your personal political views. TFD (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

correct, i read your comment, and by doing so, you made an error. in the future plz take it to the user talk page, or file a complaint. what you consider discussing personal views many other editors consider useful discussion within the talk page guideline. what is agreed by all who have commented so far, is your comment was a disruption and inappropriate. plz do not disrupt the talk page again. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The editor wrote, "The question is about libertarian schools of though that advocate retaining limited additionl government functions in place, such as a minimal social safety net. Some posters pointed out that this is a substantial group. Is or isn't this a variant of Minarchism?" This has nothing to do with improving the article, makes no reference to text in the article or sources, and is "general discussion of the article's subject". Please help to keep the talk page on topic. TFD (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

your opinion the material is not referencing the article is not shared by other editors there. if you feel so strongly about it, blank the comment, and make a report, otherwise plz stop disrupting the talk page. wp has very clear procedure to remedy the issue you contest which you choose to ignore or perhaps unaware. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What changes to the articles was the editor proposing, and what sources did he present? TFD (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

answer my question 3 sections above about lew, and i will be happy to answer yours. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

American Left

You removed a lot of sourced material. I'll restore my version, and then remove any material that is not sourced. YOu are familiar with Busky's having been a state/national officer in SPUSA since 1978, I presume?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read the article about the Progressive Labor Party (United States), which you still seem to confuse with an antiquarian curiosum. This confusion impairs your understanding and editing about SDS. I am very concerned that you have failed to have investigate whether you are mistaken and then to repair your misunderstanding, despite repeated and clear warnings. Can you explain why you continue spreading confusion in willful & prideful ignorance?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You mention both the PLP and the SLP on the talk page,[1] and my reply was about the SLP.[2] I did confuse them at NPOVN and will fix that, but that was not the neutrality issue. Note that I did not edit the SDS article nor did I confuse the two in the American Left article. (See for example two sections I wrote, American Left#Socialist Labor Party and American Left#Progressive Labour Party.) Also, please avoid making personal attacks against other editors. TFD (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it! Last week, I made a slip of "Draper" for "Drucker", which then spread contagiously. Sorry for my irritation.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it seems that peace had been restored. Thanks for your criticisms that helped improve the articles.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite

This packed so many boo-boos into a tight space that I can't let it pass, even though I should:

>>Communists and Socialists split over entry into the First World War and the Russian Revolution. Communists left the Second International and set up the Third International. The Cold War started thirty years later. TFD (talk) 06:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

1. The American Communist movement started, more or less, in February 1919 with the circulation of the Left Wing Manifesto. World War 1 ended in November 1918. Therefore, it's not right to say that they "split on the war."

2. The Socialist Party of America was strongly supportive of the Russian Revolution at least up through the trial of the Socialist Revolutionaries in Soviet Russia in 1922. It absolutely can not be said that Communists and Socialists split on that issue either. The real causes of the split were varied — matters that were ideological, cultural, generational, and related to control of the party apparatus and party finances.

3. The rank and file membership of the Socialist Party of America voted by referendum to join the Third International and a formal application letter was submitted. It was left to the Cominern to tell them that they couldn't.

4. The 2nd International essentially collapsed in 1914 with the outbreak of the war. Communists didn't "leave" it because it was moribund.

5. There has been an ongoing Cold War between the Soviets and their supporters on the one hand and their opponents on the other from the first days of the revolution; bitter from the spring and summer of 1918. See First Red Scare.

best, — tim Carrite (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(I have replied on your talk page.) TFD (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Communists and Socialists in the U.S. did not split in 1919 over entry into the First World War. Almost all the pro-war Socialists had left the party in 1917 and 1918. The leader of the SP's Right Wing, Victor Berger, was indicted for his anti-war activities, while Morris Hillquit, a leading centrist, was a co-author (with the future Communist leader, Charles Ruthenberg) of the SP's St. Louis Manifesto against American entry in April 1917, and an anti-war candidate for Mayor of New York in November 1917. See James Weinstein's The Decline of Socialism in America, 1917-1925.—— Shakescene (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the groups internationally. It is common to distinguish between communists and socialists. In fairness, many socialists opposed entry into the First World War, including the U.S. and Canadian leaders. That does not mean that the Zimmerwald Conference (1915) played no role in the socialist/communist split. TFD (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

And what, exactly, does that have to do with my position that depiction of active "Communist" and "Socialist" parties of the American left as a rigid dichotomy is a cold war era anachronism? Carrite (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(I have replied on your talk page.) TFD (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles should reflect sources, whether or not this is a rigid dichotomy/cold war anachronism. TFD (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles should reflect sources?!? What does that have to do with anything? What we are talking about here — or at least what I was talking about until you came off the talk page and bopping around on my user-talk page — was whether it makes better sense to list contemporary political organizations alphabetically or according to a rigid Communist/Socialist dichotomy. That's it. You disagree? Do it on the article talk page. I've got no interest in continuing this dialog, which is clearly a waste of time. You're not going to convince me, I'm not going to convince you, that's fine. Carrite (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)