User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2009/May

Talk on Populism

The Four Deuces, thanks for you response, I have made a new response on the talk of the populism article. Waiting for more discussion on this, respectably, Lususromulus (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for YouTube cat abuse incident

An editor has asked for a deletion review of YouTube cat abuse incident. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. WikiScrubber (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The Reform Party of Canada was not a fascist movement

Hello The Four Deuces, I noticed that you said on my talk page that you think that the Reform Party of Canada was fascist. This is inaccurate, the Reform Party did not involve nationalism, it did not advocate a single-party state, and it did not advocate dictatorship, nor did it advocate major government intervention into social and economic affairs as fascists do. The Reform Party was a populist, neoliberal, and stauch social conservative movement. The Reform Party's staunch social conservatism in opposing government funding for multicultural programs, seeing official bilingualism as not making sense to Western Canada, its hostility to special status for Quebec (as opposed to equal decentralization of powers to all provinces as Reformers called for), opposition to gay rights, combined with hosility to immigration was what caused extremists to rally to the Reform Party. Preston Manning was a naive conservative populist idealist who opposed the progressive reforms and legislation of the federal government from 1960s and onward based on his belief that equality for all Canadians could be achieved through other means than multiculturalism, bilingualism, etc. Manning had too much trust that there could be a conservative and laissez-faire alternative to the progressive reforms that could achieve the same objective on inclusiveness. He was gravely mistakened, as the Reform Party was swamped by people who not only opposed government-sponsored bilingualism and multiculturalism, but who opposed Francophones and cultural diversity itself. Manning did not accept homosexuality as being normal, but otherwise he did repeatedly attempt to gain support from minorities for the Reform Party. I have a copy of his book The New Canada which demonstrates both in words and in pictures that Manning was not a bigot as some have assumed. In the book, there is a picture of Manning meeting with personal friends of his at Fort Chip, one of the friends was an aboriginal woman. Also, in the book Manning mentions that the Reform Party challenged the official bilingualism of English and French in Canada by showing its flaws in not representing other large linguistic groups in Canada by sending out Reform Party pamphlets written in Ukrainian to the large Ukrainian Canadian community in Western Canada. In addition, the Reform Party had multiple visible minority candidates in the 1997 Federal Election, in which many were elected and given prominant positions in the Reform Party such as Rahim Jaffer, Gurmant Grewal and Inky Mark. So the Reform Party was in no way a fascist movement, it may have been a far-right populist conservative movement however.--R-41 (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Claim that arguments with "viscious attacks" are normal in the real world of debate

User:The Four Deuces, you have to realize that viscious attacks made in arguments are never constructive. Yes there are people in the real scholars in the world who engage in viscious verbal attacks on fellow scholars, but just because they are scholars, this does not mean that they are good scholars. Jonah Goldberg wrote a badly written book called "Liberal Fascism" in which he tried to claim that modern liberalism was related to fascism by denouncing the left as conspiring to place fascism on the political right. In an interview for Salon Magazine, Goldberg was ripped apart by an interviewer who calmly and rationally asked him questions about his views, the interviewer included mentioning quotes by scholar Stanley Payne and quotes by Benito Mussolini himself, to challenge Goldberg's argument. Goldberg had no good responses, and got defensive and hypocritical in his responses. This is an example of an intelligent and rational interviewer tearing apart the arguments of an irrational scholar. When I criticize something, I never try to make it personal with viscious attacks, I provide constructive criticism, including recommendations for improvements by someone who has made a mistake, rather than just putting them down, which is an inconsiderate thing to do. I follow the dialectic and rational thinking of the character of Socrates in Plato's The Republic, who thinks through everything rationally and accepts errors on his part, corrects them, and eventually develops a concise conclusion. The other character in Plato's Republic whom I do not admire is Thrasymachus, who does what you claimed is natural: viscious argument. Thrasymachus in The Republic is a type of sophist who believes that all arguments are won by forcefulness and that people must be aggressive in their arguments and passionately defend their positions against any criticism. In The Republic, Thrasymachus' arguments are destroyed by the deep thinking and constructive criticism of Socrates who rationally points out the flaws of Thrasymachus' irrational beliefs. Both you and User:Collect are behaving like Thrasymachus, you two appear more interested in winning an argument rather than attaining real knowledge by willing to accept that your views may be partially or completely mistakened. Such overconfidence in personal beliefs can lead to an unintended humiliation when the facts against your views are overwhelming. I was once humiliated on Wikipedia when I attempted to demonstrated on the Fascism article that fascism was totally connected to social conservatism, I passionately defended myself but it was no use because the evidence against a total connection to social conservatism was overwhelming. I learned from that experience and others and now I am less stubborn in accepting when I make mistakes. As I said to Collect, a person can win every argument through cleverness or visciousness but that does not make them a knowledgeable or wise person. A person who loses multiple arguments but always learns something from them is a wise person. Visciousness is irrelevant to arguments and only intensifies unnecessary tension. Constructive criticism in arguments is useful because it gives a sense of trust to the person on the other side of the argument - as they will not be angry or suspicious of your intentions or actions if you calmly point out flaws in their arguments and encourage cooperation to find a solution to a dispute. I suggest you read The Republic by Plato, it provides excellent examples of the successes of rational argument by Socrates while showing the failure of emotion-driven arguments by Thrasymachus.--R-41 (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean to be condescending. If User:Collect is using unreliable sources, then by all means point that out, but don't put him down. I told User:Collect that he should be willing to accept that he is mistaken and that he should not be drawn into arguments with someone who diametrically opposes what he is saying. I judge that User:Collect is a right-wing person because of the material he has added about left-wing fascism. I judge that you are a left-wing person because you have pointed out that many scholars see fascism as right-wing. I am a centre-left social democrat, but I don't let my political views get ahead of my desire for knowledge. From the sources I have read, fascism has many socially right-wing ideas involving social hierarchy of nations and races as well as preserving class hierarchy, patriarchy, other traditional social values, and rejection of notions of egalitarianism. However on economic issues, many fascist policies were much more left-leaning including substantial social welfare programs, government-sponsored public works projects for the unemployed, government-funded recreation and entertainment facilities for the working-class, and in the case of Nazi Germany's government-funded KdF program: government-subsidized vacations for workers and the creation of the "People's Car" {Volkswagen} by KdF as a cheap vehicle which all German citizens could be able to afford. So as you can see, a right-wing person can be accurate in pointing out that fascists' economic policies were left-leaning while at the same time a left-wing person can be accurate in pointing out that fascists' social policies were right-wing. This is a point which I have mentioned before to both you and Collect, as it shows that both of you may be correct on certain issues even though you disagree on certain things.--R-41 (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop using my talk page to argue with User:Collect

As said in the headline, please stop using my talk page to argue with User:Collect over points on fascism, I consider that to be very disrespectful.--R-41 (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

revert

I object to your 100% rejection of even non-controversial edits to the Conservatism article. It reflects quite poorly on you to make such changes as refusing to allow additional references etc. Thanks! Collect (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Our conversation

This edit is virtually inexcusable. As I wrote when I reinserted my comments, bring whatever you think is controversial to public attention. Do not delete other people's comments, especially in the talk section. Thank you.UberCryxic (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As you requested, I've changed the analogy. Now it's about Area 51 and aliens. A much less sobering subject than the Holocaust.....thank you for your cooperation.UberCryxic (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy message

It appears like you were discussed at length here, in an invitation for another editor to join an edit war you were involved in. Ikip (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

History of the term "liberal"

To merge or to delete, that is the question. As you rightly pointed out, a deletion nom would produce lots of promises to fix the article and then we would end up with something like the last round of "improvement", which largely consisted of copy-paste moving information over from the liberalism article. I was thinking merge because it's maybe a little easier to build consensus to a merge than a deletion, and since most of the good information is already there anyway, there's not that much to merge. Right? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC Collect

Could you give your impressions of Collect at his RfC based on your interaction with him at Fascism (include other if there is any thnx). The RfC is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect Soxwon (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think your recent contribution should go on the RFC page rather than the talk page.Mattnad (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think both sections, perhaps edited for continuity, should be included. The talk page information does not official contribute to the RFC unless they are on the project page (if I understand things right). You may want to consult with Soxwon and/or iKip for formatting and perhaps some advice on what to move and how.Mattnad (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Right Wing

Alright, it seems the IP was a former editor named Bobisbob, and I'm not sure of his sources. What do you think? Soxwon (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Politeness

The feeling is mutual, I assure you. You may disagree with the sources, but please do not claim that I have not presented any.UberCryxic (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

collect

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#edit warring by collect and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --Brendan19 (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

you mention ongoing problems w/ collect in the fascism article. could you please provide diffs to show that he is/has been creating problems/edit warring/etc. since the RfC? our lack of showing diffs as evidence since the RfC seems to be holding back some of the arbitrators. thanks. --Brendan19 (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Louis Hartz

Thanks for the recommendation. This definitely sounds like a book I want to read. On the other hand -- so many books, so little time.

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect

My account refers to Introman, he was the only one they talked to before they put Fascism in as "evidence." The fact you were only contacted after I insisted on contacting other involved parties is an example of why I say the process was flawed. Soxwon (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, rereading it I can see how it could be misinterpreted (probably should have included Introman by name). Soxwon (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

apology

I apologize for any editwars I may have had with you, and shall continue to avoid them. Meanwhile, let's get the RfC to have more inoput. Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Conservative Psychology

I think I may have finally gotten the section pretty well balanced. Can I get your opinion? Soxwon (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Liberalism

I had noticed the NPOV tags. After giving it some more thought I guess they do adress the points though I still think it is weasel-worded in some places the tag can go. Soxwon (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Modern American liberalism

Why don't you explain your reverts instead of accusing me of a crime that you're just as guilty of? Raymond Dundas (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I had hoped Raymond Dundas had come to understand the difference between referenced and unreferenced editing. I will look the article over. I think there are enough of us who care about information rather than propaganda to keep the article sound -- though goodness knows it needs work. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've had a chance to look over the article. It looks good. The Tom Paine references are a valuable source. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)