User talk:Argyriou/Archive5

Archive of discussions on general political subjects. This archive will be added to as I get around to cleaning up my main talk page.

Re: Ron Dellums edit

Thanks. I think it must be in the height of the DoS attack by users of different source that I slipped my eye. If I am wrong just feel free to revert my reverts. --WinHunter ^(talk) 00:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Democratic Party (United States) edits

(copied from my talk page at User talk:Deville)

Why'd you revert "social democracy" to "social liberalism"? "Social liberalism" is generally a U.S.-centric term which means supporting the sorts of social positions the Democrats do, without reference to being economically liberal or conservative (or to being a foreign-policy liberal or conservative). In Europe, most of the parties whose platform is closest to the Democrats tend to call themselves "Social Democrats". The article social liberalism is rather confused, though the statement Social democrats believe in the moral right of the majority to regulate everyone and everything. Social liberals see democracy and parliamentarianism as mere political systems which legitimize themselves only through the amount of liberty they promote make it seem that the "social liberal" label should apply more to a tendency within the Republican Party rather than the Democratic Party, as that statement makes social liberalism sound much more capitalist than the Democrats.

This is a good question. I could be convinced that social democracy is a more appropriate label for the Democrats than social liberalism (BTW, you're right, that article is a bit opaque). But if you check my edit summary you'll see that my main objection is that the change makes the sentence no longer make sense. As written, one point of that sentence is to contrast the two liberal philosophies mentioned with classical liberalism. In any case, I'm ok with you rewriting the sentence and putting a appropriate link to social democracy, but I definitely think that simply making the change social liberal --> social democracy makes the sentence weird. In short, I've no objection to a reference to social democracy given that it fits into the article. Sound good? --Deville (Talk) 00:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually

The Anarcho-Capitalist page is already disputed, as you will see in the gray box in the anarchism article. Someone keeps removing the POV tag from the page when it is quite obvious from the talk page that it is a disputed article. that is another obvious indication that that article is NPOV. why don't you send a message to the person who keeps removing that appropriate tag. is that person you? thanks for your concern, Blockader 20:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that some anarchists don't believe that anarcho-capitalism is actually a species of anarchism is not proof that the anarcho-capitalism article is written from a non-neutral perspective. Go read WP:NPOV, and show me where the article is displaying a non-neutral POV. There's an old dispute on the talk page, after which the article was cleaned up significantly. There's an existing dispute on the talk page over whether AC is A, but that dispute is reported in the article. Argyriou 21:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

More on Ron Dellums

Regarding your comment on my talk page: please re-read my edit summaries and the talk page (over the last few months) for the article. Also, I find it strange that you would use the term "vandalism" for my reverting to an older version to restore information that was part of the article being listed as a candidate for a good article, while not immediately restoring the dozens on in-line links. In any case it's been cleaned up now. And you might think twice before long-time editors of vandalism. Please see Wikipedia:Civility for more. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 17:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Boston Tea Party

Howdy, I noticed that you and I seem to post in one or two articles dealing with progressive issues in political science/sociology. There's currently a debate beginning in Boston Tea Party as to whether the article should include the category [1]. It meets definitions set in the articles Terrorism and Definition of terrorism, however, there are several self-proclaimed patriots who watch BTP who refuse to recognise the fact. The simple criteria for terrorism generally seem to be intimidation or destruction of property in order to change public policy or public opinion while a state of war has not yet been declared. Some users would rather use recent acts of terrorism as a yardstick, rather than using a firm definition, and hence lose their ability to discuss matters calmly. Would you be able to pop in to the Talk page and join in the discussion? Thanks much, samwaltz 04:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

human rights in cuba

Hmmm it seems like someone is yanking his chain: [2]

Cite.php changes to Neoconservatism

Your changes to Neoconservatism are losing the links to the references. Please read up on how to do Cite.php references - the full details of each citation should be given between the ref tags the first time (and a name element used if the reference is used more than once), so that the references section automatically displays all the details without needing two sections to do it. Argyriou 19:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll be glad to do it in a way that preserves links. Because this article already had a large reference section, I didn't want to adopt that style, but there are a few ways to split the difference, I'll adopt one of those. - Jmabel | Talk 20:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Republican Party Page, Perot Edit

Okay, I guess there's a dispute here. I recently edited a section on the Republican Party page because it was stated that Perot drained Republican votes. This was a GOP talking point for eight years, and no one has presented any evidence that it's true. In fact, the Democrats claim that Perot drained votes from both sides; if anything, in '92, he seemed to take a larger share from Clinton (the "change" vote). You edited the page, supposedly "removing POV" to restore the orignal (biased) contention that Perot drained Republican votes. Neither of us, it should be noted, has cited any source. I'm editing the page again, to suggest that this is an ongoing debate (which, apparently, it is). Fair enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.133.128 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 19 September 2006

I think your revised edit is much more fair than your earlier edits. I've seen estimates that, aside from voters who would have not voted (or voter for other third-party candidates), Bush 41 would have received from 50% to 80% of Perot's votes, had Perot not run, though neither the Ross Perot article nor a quick Google search turned up anything so definitive. If I run across reliable citations for any of those, I'll add them to both the Republican Party (United States) and Ross Perot articles. Argyriou 13:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Republican Part Page Recent Revert

Cross-posted to my (72.229.133.128) talk page, on which you recently wrote:

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Republican Party (United States). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Argyriou 21:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, this was my first full revert of the section, so I hardly think I'm in any danger of violating anybody's policy.

Moreover, I reverted only as a salve for the violence being done to political discourse and the English language. If you start ruining articles, you can fully expect your work to be reverted.

I did what I did because the article had been edited to boast such phenomenal writing as:

"On social issues, Republicans believe there should be a "safety net" to assist the less fortunate which, compared to their opponents, favors a greater degree of private funding, less expense, and stricter requirements for eligibility."

I dare you to diagram this sentence. The antecedents are so hilariously out of place that the sentence ends up "compar(ing)" "the less fortunate" to Democrats ("their opponents"). Similarly, the sentence states that a "safety net" favors "less expense." A safety net, being an abstract concept, cannot favor anything. Republicans can favor things, certainly, and that's what the sentence is trying to say--but if you diagram the sentence, you'll notice that it involves the "safety net" ITSELF favoring all sorts of things!

As if that weren't enough, safety nets are NOT a "social issue." Restributing wealth (via social spending) is, by definition, an economic issue. "Social issues" are things like flag burning and abortion. This is just a childish and rudimentary misunderstanding of public policy.

To continue:

"Since 2001, the party has demanded much stronger accountability in the public schools starting with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001."

Can accountability be strong? I posit that it cannot. That's like saying that a certain form of energy has a "stronger renewability" than other forms--it's simply an abusrd thing to write. Clearly, one can propose a "stronger system of accountability" or one can make "a stronger push for accountability," but accountability itself cannot be "stronger."

Aside from those sections, the only major changes my revert involved were restoring the number of signatories to the Kyoto Protocol (Wikipedia policy suggests that factual, cited evidence should never be deleted) and deleting the unsourced claim that a majority of Democrats oppose the Protocol; it also involved reverting a POV edit which changed the word "aggressive" to "strong."

If you have another take--that is, if you think that important, well-written content was destroyed during the revert--I will be happy to listen to your side of the story. Alternatively, if you can explain why terrible writing, unsourced claims, and fact suppression is important to protect, I'll be happy to stop reverting. Let me know.

Your POV edits to ACORN

Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. In particular, do not remove references to material such as court documents which don't support your POV. Jerimee 02:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, no commentary or personal analysis to Neoconservatism

Howdy, Argyriou. I received a message from you "Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Neoconservatism." - I did not add any commentary to Neoconservatism, I just made the existing items Ira Chernus, war of all against all, and Peter Steinfels in the article Wikilinks. Not sure where the confusion originated. Have a good one. -- 201.51.228.217 201.51.228.217 20:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Neoconservatism

MacDonald's position is his position (and that of many others, including mine). Whether you consider him a reliable source or not is irrelevant.

Look through the history of the Neoconsrevatism article - there seems to be a consensus that MacDonald is not a reliable source for anything. Argyriou (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The "consensus" is little more than the usual bullying tactics that call to mind schoolyard namecalling. Where are the concrete charges? But to get back to the point of my edit: The position of MacDonald, AdBusters, and others is A POSITION that this section completely leaves out. Regard that David Duke's position -- I sincerely hope that you don't find him any more credible -- and those of others with transparent agendas (e.g., David Brooks) are left in.WashCali 02:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Would you be interested in a meetup in San Jose? I was thinking late summer of 2007. Let me know if you would be interested - I'm not trying to recruit you for the planning of it, just trying to take a temperature. I'm not interested in spamming talk pages, so I'm feeling out semi-local parties before I do anything. In case you don't see the connection right away - it was at that Afd. Cheers!Nina Odell 16:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Republican Party is far-right

By global standards, the Republican party is a very far-right party, and those are the standards that wikipedia is created under so that there is a sense of perspective throughout all of the political articles. I can see you donate to extreme right-wing organisations, so I hate to break to you the kind of people you're supporting. You've already been told about posting authoritarian POV rubbish in articles, and I will be informing an administrator of your continued arrogant vandalism. Accuriser198557 22:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If you believe the Republican Party is of the same sort of ilk as the Aryan Nations, you need a severe perspective adjustment. Now go away. Argyriou (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

troll deleted

My Grandfather was an African-American, and life-long Republican. There are plenty of black Republicans who will never stop being so because it was the party of Abraham Lincoln. Many Libertarians are Republicans too - not because they agree with everything the Party says, but because they agree with most of it. We live in an imperfect two-Party-heard-only system. Until that changes, compromises are all we've got. That said, please stop harassing this user on his talk page. Thank you in advance. NinaOdell | Talk 01:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Neo and Paleo Templates

It has been deleted. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Templates for deletion

I notice you want Template:911tm potentially to redirect to Template:911ct. I think, if you want to ensure that, you ought to consider statimg an opinion about 911ct, which may well be deleted in this process, too (just above in the tfd process). Fiddle Faddle 17:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if {{911ct}} gets deleted or not. It does have its use: it says "Warning - this page describes, and possibly promotes, intellectual nonsense of the highest order. Do not take anything on this page seriously.". Argyriou (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Parties labeled as extreme right ....

Honestly I was expecting some editor might do this. I agree with the deletion but not with your reason, its just that such a list would be impossible to maintain in a non-pov/non-or way. - C mon 20:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned the POV issue in a post on the talk page, replying to the article's creator. I think there was some value in having the list within the Far right article, so long as people don't keep trying to add Republican Party (United States) to the list. I don't think there's any value in having it as a separate article, particularly with the modified title. And what's with the horrid “” quotation marks in the title? Argyriou (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Your POV tag isn't accompanied by enough specificity to allow constructive discussion

You have tagged the homeowners association, POV. Since there has been no prior discussion of the bias you allege, you need to describe what you consider unacceptable about the article — and to address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that you allege to be problematic. — Rico 04:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually read the discussion in Talk:Homeowners association? My allegation is that the article places WP:Undue weight on criticisms of HOAs, without any counterbalancing points of view presented. Argyriou (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I read the discussion on the talk page in its entirety before commenting here.
However, when you tag something POV, and there has been no prior discussion of the bias you allege, you need to address the alleged problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that you allege to be problematic.
Please do that.
I eliminated the specific phrasing you declared to be "weasel words," and therefore, problematic. -- Rico 05:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I did. Aside from the weasel words issue, I noted that there is almost no information presented from sources other than those which see HOAs as a problem. The solution is to find sources which aren't derogatory. I'll work on that, but it may take some time. Argyriou (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to read about weasel words, because you are using the phrase incorrectly. What I will not allow you to do is make massive changes without discussion. They will be reverted back. Your separating racial discrimination from conlaw section doesn't make any sense. Also, the issue belongs wtih the introduction it has. Therefore I have deleted your destructive edits, and restored the original.Jance 14:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Rudeness

Your rudeness on the HOA article isn't going to get you very far. I restored the inappropriate changes you made to the Conlaw section. Also, the CAI is a lobbying group. You can call it a trade group, but it is a lobbying group. Jance 14:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you see as "rudeness". I'm also a little puzzled by your statements about what you've restored, as the only change I see after my last edit is to remove the "racial discrimination" heading and put that paragraph back in "Constitutional challenges". CAI is a lobbying group, but that's implied by calling it a trade association - all trade associations are lobbying groups. Mentioning that it's a trade association, and that it's a lobbying group, and putting a note regarding the reliability of the reference is unjustified piling-on. Statements by the AARP or the ACLU are just as questionable, as both of those groups are also lobbying groups, yet their reliability is not questioned. Argyriou (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

question

You asked for on this: "Most gated communities, usually called guard-gated communities, are staffed by private security guards, often with CCTV and other electronic aids." This is one of the purposes of gated communities - security (or at least the illusion thereof). Why is this a 'far reaching' claim? It is a fact, although I have not heard the term, "guard-gated community".Jance 02:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm seriously skeptical of any numbers related to "gated communities", because the numbers I see thrown around don't make sense unless condo complexes are included, and most condo complexes of which I am aware are gated, but not guarded, even in new complexes in areas in and around Oakland (CA). Even some of the more posh housing developments around here only have a single guard to check in and out delivery people, contractors, etc., while the residents all have automatic gate openers in their SUVs, and their kids have keys, if there even is a locked pedestrian gate. So unless someone's willing to provide a citation that any significant portion of "gated communities" have live security, the "most" will have to go. Argyriou (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

However, that wasn't one of the more "far-reaching" claims made in the article, even if it is directly contradicted later in the article. Things like Especially in China, the trend towards gated communities is accelerating, in response to changing laws and economics., the whole discussion about Brazil, particularly Some even have schools for the children so that they will only need to leave the community after the first five years of elementary school., the really outlandish claim that in China, all new residential developments are required to be gated., and the discussion about bans on gated communities in Canada are all pretty far-reaching things to say without any citations. Argyriou (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Association_of_Members'_Advocates/Requests/February_2007/RicoCorinth

This AMA case has now been accepted. Since you have been named as an involved party, please add your opinion(s) on this issue to the aforementioned case or at my desk. —Pilotguy go around 00:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in feeding the troll, so I will not respond to this. RicoCorinth's behavior was hostile and aggressive, and his statement of the facts is so incomplete as to be laughable. I'd suggest you look through the appropriate histories, then counsel Rico on civility and appropriate wiki behavior. Αργυριου (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's understandable you're upset, and I realize this incident was not too recent. However, I would ask that you please explain the situation from your standpoint, as I only have one side of the case to work with here. You can do so via E-mail if you prefer. I don't see any trolling occurring here as neither of you have been blocked for such actions. —Pilotguy go around 23:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi - on behalf of Pilotguy, as a fellow advocate of his and sometimes advice giver with regards to advocacy, I would urge you to take up Pilotguy's offer of contact, be it via email or onwiki, so that this saga can, at last, be put to rest. If you are concerned about violating WP:DFT (the citiation of which can be a violation of WP:AGF in itself!), I'd still urge you to have a word with Pilotguy offwiki (email or IRC), where he'll at least be able to have your side of the story to give context in advising his advocee on future behavoir (etc). The only way that disputes like this get solved is by engagement in a controlled situation - simply ignoring the other side, and refusing to get involved citing WP:DFT, is a Bad Thing, as it can only brew discontent. Nearly every dispute on WP can be solved though our dipute resolution, so please, get involved and clear this up! Thanks, Martinp23 22:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just replied, via email, to PilotGuy. Αργυριου (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Userpage edit

It was a slip of the hand and a click of the wrong rollback button while new-page recent changes patrolling. Sorry about that. Best, IronGargoyle 20:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources for zombietime

Hi there - Some concerns on zombietime. Little Green footballs in a non RS V blog that can't be used as a source, and zombietime itself can not be used as a source for claims like email threats - that is primary sourced OR. - 20:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk • contribs) 12:15, 14 March 2007

There is no rule against using primary sources as references. Αργυριου (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

McCarthy, McCarthyism

I am inviting all recent editors of Joseph McCarthy to comment on a current dispute. User:KarlBunker, in his stated view out of concern for WP:NPOV#Undue weight, has reverted, deleted, and selectively reinstated factually accurate sourced information that I have added. I contend he is in error. Please see the discussion at Talk:Joseph McCarthy. Thank you. Kaisershatner 17:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That entire page is a disaster. It's mostly a hit piece on Senator McCarthy. It's full of lies and distortions. It needs to be completely re-written. The problem is that there a a few editors that refuse to allow any kind of sources that are not left-wing. I had to fight just to get William Buckley's book, McCarthy & His Enemies listed as a reference. It kept getting deleted. Also, the "Ongoing Debate" section is incomplete and misleading. There are many people who were correctly identified by McCarthy as security risks that this section ignores. What a mess. Jtpaladin 17:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In general, I agree with you, but I'm limiting my involvement in Wikipedia, as I concentrate more on Citizendium. Αργυριου (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Occidental Quarterly

How do you suggest it be characterized? When the label "white nationalist" is used, it is yanked as NPOV violation; when I tried a less controversial "ultraconservative," you yanked it with a comment I don't understand. Do we just let it lie there with no description of the source (unlike most of the links on that list)? --Orange Mike 00:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying earlier. Given evidence that Occidental Quarterly may not be wholly white-nationalist, I made sure to place the author's name in the reference, as Kevin MacDonald is a white nationalist, as the article on him makes clear. I suppose you (or someone else) could remove the reference on the grounds that Kevin MacDonald is not a reliable source. Αργυριου (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Somebody already did so (not I). --Orange Mike 21:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Contact

Argyriou, are you open to chatting by email for working on some articles together? Let me see if this makes sense: Kegoh emeh ellinas. Does that make sense? :) Jtpaladin 23:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I know what that means, but I don't actually speak or read Greek very well at all. I am open to discussion of articles by email, but I must warn you that I've become less active here, and just don't care so much any more. Αργυριου (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Here's my email: redacted. I'll leave it posted here until you contact me. I would just like to confer with you regarding working together on mutual articles of interest. Please send me an email. Thank you. Jtpaladin 14:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Homeowner Associations

Hey Argyriou,

I want to help you edit the entry on homeowner associations. The article is badly slanted towards anti-hoa sentiments, and I would like to tip that scale back towards neutrality. I work for an organization in California that educates homeowners in common interest developments (a non-profit), so I am familiar with the subject.

Since I'm new to WP editing, I want to avoid making a terrible faux pas if possible. I have already added a link to my organization (the Executive Council of Homeowners). While there are many useful links on the site, I would be happy to take it down if the majority of the website seems too commercial.

I personally would never want to live in an HOA. They are fraught with problems, but not enough to completely demonize the whole system.

Is there a way that I can weigh in to stop the onslaught of non-neutral contributions?

Taz80