User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2017/July

you commented

So please see - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn&diff=789334514&oldid=788472205 Govindaharihari (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Time to simmer down

Please cut out the misrepresentations and personal bs. It's beneath you. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree heartily with the first sentence. Example: "Both David A. and Hob Gadling concede they are not" is not true. I never even mentioned Bill Maher or his views. You remind me of creationists I debated. They had the same flimsy relation with the truth as you do, inventing fantastic ideas about what I believe from totally unrelated statements of mine. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Informed sources see more of a comparison between creationism and anti-Islamophobia and in fact there is an overlap. In both cases the approach is to begin with a belief and then seek evidence to support it, ignoring adverse evidence as manufactured. There are of course a number of atheists who are highly critical of Muslims as well as creationists who support tolerance of Islam.

Your statement was "the Islamic part of the world has severe problems, and largely needs reform" magically turns into the totally different statement "Muslims are evil" when "quoted" by the Control-Left." That seems to me to be a tacit recognition that the Left (by which I assume you mean liberals) do not for the most part share Maher's views on Islam. Are you now saying that most liberals disagree with the SPLC on anti-Muslim groups?

TFD (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

"Informed sources see more of a comparison" This paragraph is just confused and has nothing to do with anything.

"That seems to me to be a tacit recognition that the Left" Well, your "seeming" is wrong. The "Control-Left" or "Ctrl-Left" (a term coined by Maajid Nawaz, as a counterpiece to "alt-right" [1]) refers to a specific type of people who see themselves as "liberals" but are actually authoritarians. They want to control other people's thoughts and behaviour. For them, it is not enough, for example, to fight racism, you have to fight racism is a specific way determined by them, otherwise they call you a racist, as recently happened to Bret Weinstein. Anybody who disagrees with them is in danger of being demonized, such as Nawaz himself. The SPLC is part of the Control-Left, the Evergreen College, and postmodernism in general. Also you, I think.

"Are you now saying" No, I am not saying that. I am saying that you routinely misrepresent what people say, sometimes in order to pretend they agree with you, sometimes in order to make it easier for you to demonize them.

I made no statement about what "the Left" or "liberals" think, because, having no statistics about that, I have no idea what those groups think in their majority. I wouldn't even know how to define those groups without making an arbitrary decision. I live in Europe, and from here, nearly all American politicians are somewhat right-wing. (I cannot think of a Republican politician who does not hold totally loony ideas that would be unacceptable here in civilized society.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I had not been aware of the term "Control-Left." It seems though that Nawaz was speaking about Jeremy Corbyn and Momentum rather than the SPLC. TFD (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Cut the shyster tricks!

"he is clearly saying as you admit that the SPLC considers him a hater"

No, I do not "admit" it. One can only "admit" something if that something counts against one's own standpoint. That the SPLC considers French a hater is obvious. The point was whether he himself considers himself a hater - that was your claim. Your claim was false, and I contradicted you. You slickly and slimily skipped the refutation, avoiding an apology, pretending you did nothing wrong, and on top of that, claimed I "admitted" something. When you are in court, such pettifogging is probably tolerated, but there is a reason lawyers are despised. It is because they often behave like you did. Wikipedia thrives on honesty, and I get the definite impression you do not belong here. I hope you get banned indefinitely soon. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Policy clarification

Taking your SPLC suggestion to heart, I've posted a suggested clarification to the policy. See, Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Noteworthy opinions vice reliable sources -- suggested changes. The clarification is needed because there are clear differences between the reliability sources for factual information and the noteworthiness of sources and viewpoints for opinions Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. It's time for me to take a Wiki-break. So I'll reply later. Good night. – S. Rich (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your participation at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard lending your expertise regarding WP:SYNTHESIS.

Perhaps since you already commented on the page about the article, you could give your wisdom at one subsection up at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Is_it_original_research_to_cite_a_source_as_evidence_for_the_absence_of_something_.3F ? Sagecandor (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Not getting it. (Examples: [2] [3] [4]). Your expertise would be probably better than my words to provide clarification to the situation about Wikipedia site policy like WP:SYNTHESIS. Sagecandor (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Now in main article text, at [5]. Sagecandor (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn on immigration/single market

Hi, you commented at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#Corbyn's views on immigration opposing the content I added. I have added further sources and also content on non-EU immigration, is this content acceptable to you now? You might also be interested in the discussion just below that on Corbyn's views on the Single Market. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see it, can you provide a link to your edit. As discussed on the talk page, we cannot use Corbyn's statements and newspaper editorials to determine his position on immigration. Your edit says that Corbyn says there will still be some immigration from Europe but limitations as well. That's basically what 100% of people accept, but your edit implies there is something distinct about his position. TFD (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I suggested another possible paragraph lower down on the talk page here. "we cannot use Corbyn's statements and newspaper editorials to determine his position on immigration" - I don't follow, what else would we use? The discussion on the single market is here: Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#Corbyn on the single market. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources. For example, the broadsheets normally run comparisons of the different party leaders on the issues at election time. They are preferable because the writers are expected to be familiar with this information and present it in an unbiased way, focusing on what is important. For Wikipedia editors to match this level of accuracy, they would have to read through all of Corbyn's speeches, writings and interviews and also be familiar with the issue of immigration into the UK in general. They would have to know the context in which Corbyn was speaking and whether it was consistent with other things he said. But that requires synthesis of different sources. Furthermore, we would need to provide due weight, requiring us to reflect the coverage in reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)