User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2015/March

CT Brevik

Is there a consensus to remove Brevik, do you think? Or not? Capitalismojo (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Liberty

In the article Liberty, a large amount of referenced material has been replaced by "Modern proponents of liberty are known as libertarians." There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page. I think we need a fresh point of view to avoid a revert war. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration

I mentioned you.[1]

Dear0Dear 22:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Josh Matlow article

I responded to what you wrote in Josh Matlow talk page. I'm not sure if posting that or this is correct but no harm in trying. Please give it a read. Aletheia V. (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

new essay

The ArbCom case against me is vexatious indeed - I shall not contend against those who taste blood. The main complaint even includes my essays - so I wrote one which I hope you will appreciate WP:Wikipedia and shipwrights. It would be fun to see how others react, indeed. Warm regards, Collect (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

whilst I am "disabled" from making real edits

I do not recall whether this was previously discussed:

[2] The Legislative Branch of Federal Government: People, Process, and Politics By Gary P. Gershman. This makes a clear distinction between the entire US and "the US proper".

... to retaliate in case of such an attack, or to forestall the direct and imminent threat of such an attack (with the definition of “United States” including not just the U.S. proper, but all territories and possessions of the United States)

Where "US proper" clearly refers to the "electoral US meaning." No other Questia source is remotely "on point" for this exact issue.

What we are left with is a good source for what we already really know - there are two "definitions" at play -- one is the "US proper" def (which is currently precisely congruent with the electoral use for President) and the "national jurisdiction" definition, which is what the UN and international treaties generally deal with for every nation. (specifically not getting into any "disputed occupation/territories/irredentist movement" (whatever) as being beyond rational scope in any encyclopedia article on Wikipedia and certainly beyond anything we can do).

In keeping with Franklin's plea at the Constitutional Convention, might we three agree on this, even f we do not "absolutely agree" that both definitions do have some validity? I note that due to an ArbCom case I am absolutely avoiding "politics" where I am accused of being obstinate about BLP issues <g> (noting the AfD where I was most being assailed is highly likely to result in deletion of what I considered a "list" violative of Wikipedia policies). You may each convey my opinion if you will concur on the mediation page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The source is incorrect about the phrasing in the War Powers Resolution 1973. It actuallly says, "the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."[3] Obviously dependant territories will be treated as part of the administering state for some purposes. The executive of the administering state will administer the administered state, the legislature will pass legislation allowing the administration and the courts of the may review actions of the administration or legislature, depending on the laws of the administering state. For example, the UK government administers the British Indian Overseas Territory, Westminster legislates for it and the House of Lords heard an application for a prerogative writ. (See [R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex p Bancoult (No 2)] 2004.) The BIOT case btw was cited in arguments about recent Guantanamo Bay cases, where it was determined that the U.S. government is restricted by the same parts of the constitution that apply to its other territories. It would be bizarre if an administering power had no ability to administer an administered state, and its executive, legislative and/or judicial authority did not extend there. It could hardly then be called an administering power.

Certainly the U.N. accepts that the U.S. has jurisdiction over the states it administers, but it does not recognize them as part of the U.S.

I do not know why this issue is attracting right-wing editors. It is actually a left-wing view that U.S. has incorporated these territories. Sparrow for example argued that Guanatamo Bay was part of the U.S. therefore Bill of Rights protections of fundamental rights extended there. The Supreme Court rejected that argument but agreed that fundamental rights did apply. But the U.S. government has never claimed Guantanamo Bay to be part of the U.S.

Oddly, no one claims that the unpopulated territories or Guantanamo Bay are part of the U.S., although they have the same status under the U.S. constitution.

TFD (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I asked you each to doubt your own "infallibility" (Franklin's word) - and presented something which is sourced - even if one says the other's sources are "wrong" - just each admit that both views are held, and seek to end the stalemate.

I guess no deal, then? Just look at the world from the other's position for a moment - the debate has gotten beyond silly now -- and I find that I would at least like to get one more topic actually settled with the best compromise I can find.

By the way, Gitmo is held by treaty - just like military bases around the world, so is not at issue - under any definition. "National territory" and "national jurisdiction" are, moreover, standard terms of art, and should not be our stumbling block, in my opinion.

If both of you join the compromise, it will pretty much be accepted.

If neither does, the mediation is pretty much doomed.

This has absolutely nothing to do with "right-wing editors" at this point (as far as I can tell, it never did) - it has to do with understanding that both definitions are, indeed, found, and the best solution is to recognize that fact, even if you are totally sure "the other definition is absolutely, incredibly wrong." Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--Getoverpops (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, The Four Deuces. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Getoverpops (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)