User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2021/August

Thoughts on 2021 Cuban protests and miscellaneous

Really trying to improve summarizing but still trying

I think it is a shame you did not take part to the article or discussions, including RfC, for which I suppose now you can not do that because I am talking you about it (I do not think you would have changed anything, but I still wished you took part and wish you will in the future because you always offer good insight), and I can imagine why you did not do it. Even though I am still fan and support Wikipedia, there are still several problems that, while are certainly expected, they really disappoint you and make you feel down and like nothing will change. Unless the case is not controversial and so obvious, RfCs et al. still take too much at face value the "per source" argument, which in turn lead many users to support the first(s) user(s) to provide sources, which in many cases are cherry picked rather than represent a proper sample of all reliable sources (as you do), which in turn lead those to base them on voting, even though they are not voting and should only be based on all our policies and guidelines. Even when sources may do actually support it, we still try to reduce it to a single label rather than reflect the diversity of wording used by sources, and compromises are not always followed, as are my proposed ones for 2021 Cuban protests.

Okay, I will try to keep this short, though at least I will try to format it in several short-as-possible paragraphs to make it easier for you to read it and follow me. Even though you did not, or will not (in light of this comment of mine), take part to it, I still would like to hear your thoughts because I can tell that the few times we may disagree, you are in the right, so if you tell me I am wrong on something, I know I can trust your neutral judgement. All that actually made me stop for several months to edit and even follow discussions, and I mostly edited sport-related or random articles, until this one. I did not even dare to check Crimes against humanity under communist regimes and Mass killings under communist regimes (but also Antifa (United States), Cultural Marxism, War of 1812, etc., and I imagine and hope you did not give up and continued, and will continue to do so, to fight for policies and guidelines to be actually followed and respected), and the more time it passed, the more I did not dare to check them (I was not pinged either) because too much may have changed and I really do not like losing out any news, so the more time it will require for me to go back on edits and talk page to see what happened and changed. I will have to do it though.

Finally, our last discussion here was about a sentence which was not supported by the given source at Nordic model. I remember you simply asked me to remove it but I never did and did not reply to you about that in light of my aforementioned break. My reply would have been that I did not want to remove it outright because first I wanted to see if I could reword it to use your summarization (the Sweden Social Democrats saw the welfare state as a necessary development for socialism, or something like that), and second if you could link me the sources which led you to summarize it as that, both to remove the unverified sentence and to read them myself because I found that analysis you summarized really interesting and in my view also the most accurate one. Just like I loved, and agree with, your summarization of Communist states analysis by Michael Harrington.

Davide King (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I can't remember the original source I found, but the SDP leader said that socialism "would not be created by brutalized...slaves [but by] the best positioned workers, those who have gradually obtained a normal workday, protective legislation, minimum wages." (Branting, 1906.)[1] The linked page also mentions that party wanted to help workers in the here and now and the later Fabian-style argument that the policies were steps on the road to socialism. What I objected to was the view that they saw the welfare state and mixed economy, which has been called social democracy, as an end goal.

One of the contributors to the Cuba discussion thinks that Cubans want an American invasion. That's been a theme since they they invaded Quebec in 1775. They say that war is God's way of teaching Americans geography. If I missed this discussion, don't worry, it will come up again and again, just the locations will differ.

The article seems alright to me. I don't know the significance of the demonstrations and will wait and see. They seem to have died out. While I am sure the Biden administration would like to invade, they can't even muster a few loyal allies and a token "coalition of the willing." But it's early days.

TFD (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much! "What I objected to was the view that they saw the welfare state and mixed economy, which has been called social democracy, as an end goal." That is exactly what I thought too, and which is why actual social democracy is confused with any conservative, Christian democrat, or social liberal supporting some form of mixed economy, either because they oppose unbridled capitalism, to dissuade workers from overthrowing capitalism, or both. What you stated is the difference between a social democrat and someone who only support some policies also advocated by social democrats for different reasons. So I did try to improve the Nordic model article, let me know what you think. "One of the contributors to the Cuba discussion thinks that Cubans want an American invasion. That's been a theme since they they invaded Quebec in 1775. They say that war is God's way of teaching Americans geography." Why I am not surprised at all?

I agree. I just think there is a double standard, which is similar to that of 'Communism', the Prague Declaration, the double genocide theory, the general perception, etc. as I explain in my longer comment here, so as to not overwhelm your talk page. Davide King (talk) 04:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

For classification of political parties, I prefer using the familles spirituelles. It classifies parties according to origins, international affiliation, policies/ideology and name. So the Labour parties in the UK and NZ share the same name, claim to be democratic socialists, originated from the labor movement and were members of the Socialist International. We don't get anywhere by trying to subdivide them into socialist and social democratic categories since we don't have objective criteria to do so. While both parties have occupied various spaces on the left-right spectrum and have a range of views among their members, they have remained within the same spiritual family, whether one calls it socialist, democratic socialist, social democratic or democratic socialist/social democratic.

For example, Labour UK nationalized the coal industry because it was necessary in order to increase production to fuel economic recovery. Labour NZ brought in rogernomics because the alternative was state bankruptcy. In both cases they were pursuing socialist objectives of improving the standard of living for working people. But some editors see these policies as goals in themselves, and say the first was democratic socialist while the other was social democratic. They confuse the policies that parties pursue with their ideology.

TFD (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I remember you mentioning this, and I actually like it and agree with. I am just annoyed by people removing its socialist history and conflating it with the mixed-economy (which originally also included some forms of planning, alongside markets, rather than just regulation and interventionism) advocated by some other politics to their right. I also like your examples, which again are correct and it is a shame they are so often confused, or act like only the right-wing faction defines it, like one faction is socialist and the other it is not, even though both purse socialist objectives and are part of a socialist party, or that 'socialism' has been abandoned when it is not just an economic system, it is not just the centralized command economy it is often conflated with. Both the left and right are guilty of this for different reasons, and both are wrong in denying its socialist character, the former because they have a different interpretation and the latter because they want to deny socialist contributions to the post-war model and social-liberal paradigm (capitalism good), so as to reduce it only to 'Communism' (socialism bad).

"But some editors see these policies as goals in themselves, and say the first was democratic socialist while the other was social democratic. They confuse the policies that parties pursue with their ideology." That is so true. Both could be called 'democratic socialist' or 'social democratic' but there is this unnecessary deep distinction which is unwarranted. Back in the late 19th century and early 20th century, the reverse was true; 'social democrats' also included communists and revolutionary socialists, while 'democratic socialism' mainly included reformist socialists who wanted to purse their socialist objectives through the parliament and democratic government. Like social democracy is the ideal society to be pursued as the socialist objectives you mentioned and democratic socialism is the means, and vice versa.

I still find useful a distinction between the two, mainly as traditions and their different origins (England/Germany) within the broad socialist movement, because democratic socialism is also applied to some communist parties, or some of the means for the same socialist objectives, but they are not mutually exclusive and can be seen as different interpretations or mode to pursue their socialist objectives. So both socialist and Left parties follow social democracy, and I dislike that the former is called 'social democracy' and the latter 'democratic socialist' to imply who knows what big difference and deny the former socialist credentials, like the former is 'capitalist' (good) and the latter is 'socialist' (bad). But the real distinction should be between social democracy (socialist) and liberalism.

It is funny because I am to the left of the Third Way or Rogernomics, but I can still understand why they did that. Stagflation reduced the appeal of 'socialism' in the Soviet Union, 68 failed, in countries like Sweden the Meidner Plan failed, and the socio-demographic changes, while there was a shift towards the neoliberal paradigm, I can see why they had to move to the right, or more accurately that the political centre moved to the right, in order to regain power and purse their socialist objectives through different means, and how it was better to reduce mentions of 'socialism' since it was understood to mean the Soviet Union and the command economy. The problem was that even after their collapse, the latter point remained true, and rather than develop new socialist alternatives to 'Communism', all forms of 'socialism' were rejected because they were all assumed to become 'Communism.' Davide King (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on this edit? And should "Revisiting the Nordic Model: Evidence on Recent Macroeconomic Performance" even be used? I used it because I thought that is what it was saying but that has been removed and has no use. Is not "as part of a move towards free-market capitalism and the private sector", by which I mean the more Anglo-Saxon or liberal model and the neoliberal paradigm shift, an accurate statement? Either way, I think it should be explained in short why "the traditional model has been in decline in some areas, including increased deregulation and the expanding privatization of public services." In the body, we say: As of the 1990s, the Nordic identity has been explained with cultural, not political factors, but politics has been re-entering the conversation on the Nordic identity. According to Johan Strang, cultural explanations benefits neoliberalism, during whose rise the cultural phenomenon coincided. Strang states that "[t]he Social Democratic model, which was still very much alive during the Cold War, has now been abandoned, and other explanations for Nordic success have been sought to replace it." Davide King (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Julian Assange

The topic did receive coverage in the Washington Post. I wrote that in response to a comment just above saying there was no coverage and another editor edited my comment to make it look like I was saying no instead of yes. NadVolum (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

NadVolum, I know, but the policy requires coverage in "the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Only if the body of mainstream media had picked up the story on the wire services could it be considered DUE. While in some cases that means keeping out relevant, important information, it's the policy. TFD (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

You said "it hasn't in mainstream media" so I thought you didn't know and hadn't seen that correction above. Others might take that as meaning no mainstream media has covered it. NadVolum (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. TFD (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Peerage titles and honorifics: MOS amendments

I have made a proposal to amend the MOS at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Peerage titles and honorifics amendments; you might be interested to contribute to the discussion. DBD 14:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Question

How did you get that notice to display on the top menu bar (little red icon with a number in it) after you responded to my talk page comment? Inf-in MD (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Inf-in MD, see Template:Reply to#Or don't use!. Substitute username with the name of the user you want to alert. TFD (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Is it recommended to do that when replying to users in discussions? Inf-in MD (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Usually not. It's a matter of judgment. It's useful if you want to make sure another editor knows you replied or if you mention another editor who is not part of the conversation. Since you are new, I did not know if you were following the page. TFD (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. This has been very useful. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not mad at you, more just legit curious

Even hypothetically, if some guy shot and killed my sister, friend, godmother, celebrity crush or whoever, how would "exposing" him by echoing an already vast majority of reliable sources in saying what he wants to say about that even possibly work as vengeance? I know more "appropriate" ways to hurt an enemy than helping him admit he was right, you know. Anyway, if you'd rather not give me any radical ideas, don't worry about it, we're not what I'd consider enemies. You, me or whatever you want to call him. We're just all mixed up in something pointlessly overdramatic. You want a link to a real good comic book about a very angry dog? Just ask, partner, and it's yours! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

News reports are read and forgotten while Wikipedia articles are meant to be read for years. If you wanted to know about the Watergate scandal for example you would be more likely to read the Wikipedia article than to read the Woodward and Bernstein articles written at the time.

As you know the officer has received unwanted attention from extremists and no doubt will for years to come. His naming in this article is likely to increase that attention. If one accepts the decision not to prosecute him, then the attention is unwarranted. There's an ethical issue in whether to expose him further.

Different cultures balance the right to know and the right to privacy. In the U.S. for example, prison services list their inmates with their full names, DOB, gender, race, convictions, sentences and release dates. Other countries withhold that information in order to protect privacy. Since the dispute is based on values, one cannot argue that one or the other is correct. However since Wikipedia articles are based on published information, omitting a name is not concealing information, since anyone can delve into the sources or conduct google searches.

Is your opinion that the officer acted wrongly or would that make any difference to your position/ I noticed you deleted a number of names in the article, which indicates that you think in some cases names should be omitted. Personally, I have no position on whether the officer acted properly, because I don't know enough about the facts. I am however willing to accept that the findings were correct, at least for purposes of this article, unless there are prominent opposing views in reliable sources.

TFD (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you're overestimating the number of vengeful racist stalkers who rely exclusively on Wikipedia for selecting their victims. The cat is well and truly out of the bag here. If Facebook, 4chan and YouTube didn't help this hypothetical horde catch the bird, and CNN, Fox and AP couldn't get them any closer to whatever they might do to a veteran police marksman if they find him, this drop in the bucket sure won't. It just makes us look weird and outdated at best to name the person involved in one end of a famous shooting and not the other. At worst, it seems like we're not letting a black man speak up for himself and set the record straight on his own justified homicide case. You can't just find people by knowing their name from online. If it were that easy, everybody would simply hunt down everybody, especially famous political figures. And yeah, it was justified, from his perspective at the time. Actually effective at deterring what he perceived as a larger threat behind Babbitt, too. But that doesn't mean killing a woman is ordinary, or no big deal, or better than killing a leftist rioter. It certainly is far more impactful than any number of "deadly insurrectionists" not killing publicized particular people like Pence and Pelosi. Anyway, I'm getting too old for this shit. If you want to read up on Harry Hotdog, you know how to Google him, have fun! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)