User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2014/February

Arbcom talk evidence thread

Hello TFD. I am surprised and disappointed that you have been making false disparaging remarks about me on this thread, here [1]. These comments are going to be read by Arbcom who have little prior knowledge of the AE articles and who will rely on the writings on the Arbcom case pages for facts and context with which to interpret evidence. I'd appreciate it if you would strike the statements you later acknowledged to be false. I view you as an editor who cares about policy on WP and certainly one of our most important policies is to be civil and not to misrepresent other editors' work here. If you think I've misunderstood what happened on that thread, please help me to understand better. Otherwise, please do the right thing and help dial down the personal tone of what should be a discussion of content and policy. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably better to continue the discussion here. Before replying could you please read Rothbard's article, [http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html "Right-Wing Populism" (1992). In 1991, Duke was able to obtain the Republican nomination by abandoning the KKK platform and running on a populist conservative/libertarian platform. That is accepted as a fact not only by Rothbard, but by observers across the political spectrum.

What is in dispute is the sincerity of the conversion. As Rothbard wrote, "...the Establishment...refus[es] to believe in the sincerity of David Duke's conversion."

When you say "Rothbard endorsed the right-wing populism of former KKK leader David Duke", you are implying that he supported the explicit racism of the KKK. That is a guilt by association argument used ironically by right-wing populists themselves. McCarthy used the tactic and today the same sort of people try to user the fact that Obama knew Ayers to link him to terrorism.

Of course, as Rothbard says, the mainstream did not accept that Duke had changed. Duke though set a pattern for the far right to take off their jackboots and put on blue suits. Hence the relative electoral success of neo-fascist parties such as the BNP. In fact there is an interesting video here in which BNP leader Nick Griffin, standing beside David Duke, explains that the far right should use "saleable words". "Nobody can attack you on those ideas."

If there were an anaylsis of Rothbard's essay in a rs, it might say something like this. "Duke was able to win the Republican nomination by using language that would resonate with conservatives and libertarians, rather than the old language of the Ku Klux Klan, which was explicitly racist. However this "conversion" was insincere and made for tactical reasons. Rothbard wrongly accepted the conversion at face value. Rothbard's tactic of reaching out to "rednecks", both in this article and in his later support of the Buchanan campaign, were seen by many as a betrayal of libertarianism. For others it was merely confirmation that the libertarian movement was inherently reactionary."

Unfortunately the sources are not there, and OR prevents us from writing that. As you are no doubt aware, even the best-sourced most neutrally worded statement about right-wing populism in America is likely to be challenged if there is a 0.0% chance that it could put them in a negative light, so only edits that meet content policy are likely to last long. However, with your qualifications, there is nothing stopping you from publishing an article about the relationship between Duke and Rothbard. Then we would have an rs.

TFD (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the reply. If you'd been as clear on the initial discussion threads, we'd have saved a lot of back and forth and to be frank a lot of chatter from other editors who are not as knowledgeable and thoughtful as you. Just to be clear, I have never stated or even come close to insinuating that Rothbard was a racist or that he loved racism. From what the reliable sources tell us, it appears that he found it useful to build support for his far broader movement by courting many diverse constituencies, and some of those may have been hard-core KKK types. But we don't ask any institution, political or academic, or even the Red Cross to shun contributions from those whose views may be problematic. Anyway, my only remaining concern is that we not inflame or confuse the situation on these contentious articles. Part of that is taking the time to be clear and complete, and another important part is not to think or speak in terms of groups of editors. For example, I've several times been referred to as part of some sort of hydra or collective with Steeletrap and/or MilesMoney when in fact the record is quite clear that there is no more correlation among our views as there would be if the views of e.g. Carolmooredc and Srich or Binksternet were compared.

That's my 2 cents. Thanks again for the clear reply. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

FWIW

Santayana may be right. [2] Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's see if they end up topic-banning everyone. TFD (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Whats the santayana reference to? Gaijin42 (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." TFD (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

You say that "Holocaust deniers explicitly deny the holocaust." Just to clarify: Are you saying that if a scholar were to write: "I am agnostic as to whether the Nazis intended to exterminate the jews", that this person would not be engaged in "Holocaust denial"? Steeletrap (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Whether someone is a holocaust denier is up to rs not me. You said that they do not deny the holocaust and I pointed out that they do. Like tobacco, evolution and global warming deniers, they may be moving to create doubt instead of outright denial. But Barnes and Martin do not say they are agnostic about the holocaust, they do not write about it or even that period of time. They claim that Roosevelt lied American into war, just as they said happened in WWI, Korea and Vietnam and revisionists would later claim happened in Iraq, created doubt in the official story which the far right would exploit in challenging whether the holocaust happened. They are two legacies. Some people might question whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, others may claim 9/11 was an inside job. Your error is believing that anyone who doubts whether Saddam Hussein had WMDs thinks 9/11 was an inside job. In fact both the claim that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and 9/11 truth are conspiracy theories, while the mainstream view is that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs, but al Qaeda was behind 9/11. TFD (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello TFD. I'd be interested to hear your response to the question Steeletrap asked, which is much more straightforward than the issues you addressed above. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 04:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see the first sentence I wrote. "Whether someone is a holocaust denier is up to rs not me." TFD (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

That is an evasion. It is also true that "whether flat-earth theory is pseudoscience is up to RS", but that is an evasive answer to the question: "Is flat-earth theory pseudoscience"? Steeletrap (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, you have expressed strong views in the past on issues that are also "up to RS"; e.g. whether David Duke's 1991 campaign was a racist campaign or (your view) was not racist. You strongly maintain that the campaign wasn't racist, and therefore that it was tendentious of me to include 'former KKK Grand Wizard' by Duke's name in a description of the candidacy. However, virtually all mainstream sources (on the Left and the Right) disagree with you on this. They emphasized the connection between the KKK past and the watered down racism/nazism of the 1991 "equal rights for whites" platform (a plank Rothbard specifically endorsed, though he may not have realized he was excluded from Duke's "Germanic" definition of "white"). Nonetheless, you think it is tendentious to do what RS do, namely describe Duke as 'former KKK grand wizard'. Steeletrap (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap, you can make assertions about what rs say, but you have not presented them. And it is pointless to examine primary sources and interpret them, since Wikipedia does not allow original research. It is not my "strong view" that the Duke campaign was not racist, but it is my view that rs said he ran on the same sort of platform as conservatives would which btw is what Rothbard said. TFD (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that the overriding problem with these articles is the subjects are only marginally notable. If for example, an active politician or a media personality were a denier, there would be ample RS from which to cite that characterization. The problem is that for some articles a group of fans and followers come to WP and work on those articles. In many cases they lack a broader understanding of the subject or they lack the context with which to evaluate sources. They overestimate the notability of the subjects. They quote sources who are not really independent or they cling to unique sources which they locate with great difficulty (for example Sharon Presley's interview with a Milwaukee columnist before a talk Presley gave in Milwaukee years ago) and then there's no other source which uses the same words or which addresses exactly the same subject matter. The fans may earnestly believe that these one-offs are good sources. However, it's clear to me that with notable subjects and noteworthy events there would be many RS from which to choose. SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree and notice that Volunteer Marek made a similar comment. They should work on these articles at the LvMI wiki, where policies on OR and POV would not pose the same constraints. Even for people where there should be articles, such as Rothbard, the sources are pretty thin. They could even, if written properly, become top searches for these people, especially if the Wikipedia articles were deleted. TFD (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Scientific American

I am confident this review does not exist, based on library records I have access to. Can you please provide the link that you are referring to? Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Nazism article addendum

Hi,

I saw your sig on the Nazism talk page, which is why I bother you here now. I've proposed linking to the "Geopolitik" page as an addendum to the page, but not being a reg user, I can't edit. I'd be grateful for a thumbs up/down evaluation of the proposal. If down because not relevant enough, OK. If down because poorly written, OK; pls suggest (or undertake) improvements. If up, pls insert edit. A third option, btw, might be to include the link to Geopolitik under the "See also" heading. However, by working it into the text as proposed, the subject appears in its proper context, I think.

TiA!

T

85.166.162.202 (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you

There is a Talk:Soviet_Union#formatting on the Soviet union talk page that may be of interest to you. Anignome (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)