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

Michael Grimm silly season

Sometimes I wonder -- see the "new" editors fighting to put in the extended content at the Michael Grimm article. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You should watch out, accusing other editors of sock puppetry → [1] - especially since all of the editors involved clearly have been editing the article before → [2] - while your edits are not that NPOV, after all → [3]

@TFD: "... don't know anything about Grimm, but incidents like this deserve little attention, unless they are seen as part of a pattern, receive on-going extensive coverage or have significant consequences. None of those conditions apply, and ..." →

"In 2011, The New Yorker Magazine reported that Grimm had been the subject of an internal investigation into allegations he abused his authority as a FBI agent in a nightclub in 1999. According to the article, written by Evan Ratliff, the incident resulted from a dispute between Grimm and his date's husband. A former NYPD officer working as a bouncer at the time said that Grimm remarked about the husband, "I’ll fucking make him disappear where nobody will find him." Grimm reportedly then returned to the nightclub twice, pulled out his gun once, and brought FBI and NYPD officers the second time." → [4] --IIIraute (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The IP had made one, and only one, edit -- which was to revert to what had been thoroughly discussed at AN/I in the past. I think a person who makes his very first edit to make a revert can be described as "new" but YMMV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The relevant policy is neutral point of view, not verifiability. The weight of an allegation is determined by the extent of its coverage. The weight of the New Yorker article is established by the degree of coverage it has received in other publications and the details should only be included to the extent they have been covered in other publications' reporting on the New Yorker article. One benefit of using secondary sources is that should be able to include any reaction to the allegations. Also, any mention of the allegations should summarize them, rather than present them in detail. So one might write, the FBI investigated allegations that he had an argument with someone and threatened them with a gun, but he denied it and the FBI has refused to comment.

We need to ensure that the article reflects what reliable sources say and does not emphasize stories that the media ignores.

TFD (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The Grimm/Scotto incident received worldwide news coverage - more than enough reliable secondary sources are available → [5] --IIIraute (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Rothbard/McCarthy

Hi TFD. I must say I don't believe you read the Epstein source. (who could do that in 2 minutes.) Which part of my edit do you believe is not supported it?

A few quotes:

"While Chodorov was a reluctant supporter of McCarthy, Rothbard was an enthusiastic one."

"Rothbard felt that because almost everyone who McCarthy went after worked for the federal government or the military, they were fair game, and hence his red-baiting was voluntary." Steeletrap (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should add Rothbard's later belief that McCarthy had a negative influence because he led conservatives to support the Cold War. But his support for McCarthy's red-baiting (a tactic which, if you are unfamiliar with McCarthy, amounted to publicly accusing people of being Communists on the basis of little evidence, in order to purge them from positions of social prominence) never wavered. Steeletrap (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You do not mention in the edit that Rothbard later turned against McCarthy. And Rothbard's relationship with right-wing populism (he is even mentioned in The New American Right) is too complex for how you present it. Rothbard made an interesting comment, "Did Professor X propound a new theory the other day? No need to study it, or even refute it. The important thing is that Professor X ten years ago joined the American Committee for Spanish Children, which was praised by the Daily Worker, etc." One may question whether McCarthist tactics should be used in politics, but it is a bad guide for writing a neutral article. TFD (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your view that Rothbard's endorsement of McCarthy's tactics is "too complex" for Wikipedia is not supported by policy. Steeletrap (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not say it is not too complex for Wikipedia, I said it was too complex for how you present it. TFD (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong. On this subject, as with all others, Rothbard's reasoning is admirably clear and simplistic. Rothbard wanted to stick it to the Commies, and McCarthy's tactics for doing this were compatible with the non-aggression principle. As Rothbard says, McCarthy was just going after federal employees. Rothbard never regretted the McCarthyite tactic of hounding the Communists, destroying their reputations and purging them from government. Indeed, he celebrated McCarthy as late as 1992. But he did lament the means for which McCarthyism was employed: i.e. to stir up support for the Cold War. The Cold War was not compatible with the non-aggression principle. Similarly, the war fought by the Netherlands against Nazi invasion violated the non-aggression principle. The only government in history to have fought a war compatible with the non-aggression principle is The Confederate States of America. Are you familiar with the thought of Rothbard, or the non-aggression principle? Steeletrap (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

So your argument is that because he turned against McCarthy for the wrong reasons we should mislead the readers into thinking he continued to support him, because it is more important to discredit Rothbard than to correctly write about him. That btw is exactly the tactics that McCarthy used. And as you noted earlier, it was McCarthy's tactics, rather than his ideology, that Rothbard admired. TFD (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Then we are in agreement. According to the RS, Rothbard oppposed McCarthy's ideology regarding the Cold War. However, he supported his tactics against alleged "Communists" in the government. How about you do the honors and restore this to the historical revisionism section? Steeletrap (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You need a reliable secondary source. A working paper on a blog by an undergrad best known for attacking an African American woman while he was drunk is not rs. TFD (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That is Epstein's background? Wowzers. That provides reason to question whether LvMI publications are RS. Steeletrap (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

We also have Raimondo, however, as an RS for Rothbard's praise of McCarthy. I will add that later. Steeletrap (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

As TFD has iterated, Rothbard's opinions on McCarthy and McCarthyism were not in any way constant over time, as the paper cited makes clear. The idea that Wikipedia should be used in any way to over-simplify his complex and changing positions is not really the best use of the encyclopedia. This general tendency towards oversimplification verging on demonization, I find quite disturbing. Cheers. (adding my two cents) Collect (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

What is your source for the view that Rothbard's view on McCarthy was inconsistent. he seems to be quite consistent in his support for McCarthy's tactics (calling out alleged Communists and getting them fired, etc) but opposition to his ultimate aims (ginning up support for the Cold War). Steeletrap (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Try the Epstein paper for starters -- yes, I did read it, and it does not support the claims you appear to wish to make using it. Were I on my own user talk page, I might tell you what I think of misuse of sources. Collect (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Another problem is that Epstein wrongly attributes a speech quoted in Viereck's "Revolt of the Masses" to Rothbard, when it is by George Reisman. (The footnote in Epstein's paper actually says that.) He also uses articles by Rothard, such as "In Defense of Demagogues", that do not mention McCarthy to show he supported him. You need to use rs. Unfortunately, they do not go into the depth you would like, and the correct approach then is to leave out what cannot be reliably sourced.

BTW there was an interesting story several years ago when the Iranians, who were developing ties to Chavez, decided to honor Che Guevara. And they told their people that at the heart of his radicalism was a deep commitment to God. That's the problem with using partisan writing. Partisans try to iron out differences. So Rockwell tries to recast Rothbard as an evolution skeptic.

TFD (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goethean (talk • contribs) 22:16, 5 March 2014‎

See

recent edits at Antisemitism in the United Kingdom. Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Favorite betrayal criterion

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_March_19#Favorite_betrayal_criterion, as you have commented in prior deletion discussions related to this article. Homunq (࿓) 02:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Fractional Reserve Banking

Hi,

Can you take a look at Fractional Reserve Banking? Thanks. — goethean 19:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Socratic Barnstar

Wanted to see who I was discussing with (on the neocon talk page). Looked up the Socratic Barnstar from user:writegeist. er? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)