User talk:Rrius/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Same-sex marriage

Hi, you voiced your opinion on this, about the inclusion of the Coquille Indian Tribe. Please do so in the new debate. Thank you, CTJF83 chat 10:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Harriet Harman

Hi, I've responded to some of your concerns about the article in the article's talk section. Basically I totally agree with everything you've stated and I'd really like to say thanks for all the effort you've had to put into trying to mrestore key parts of the article. In fact there are far more problems than you suggest. I'm working to try to improve the article and any input would be appreciated --Shakehandsman (talk) 06:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll check in a bit. -Rrius (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see some recent changes at List of United States Senators in the 111th Congress by seniority. You're the expert, not me.—Markles 16:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hatnotes

I want to let you know that I removed the otheruses hatnote you recently put on Ganymede (moon) per WP:NAMB, which is a part of WP:Hatnote. Basically, since Ganymede is a disambiguation page, it's pretty much impossible to get to Ganymede (moon) unless you specifically want the article about the moon. Therefore, a hatnote isn't necessary. I just wanted to tell you for future reference. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I figured it would be helpful because of the asteroid. I can imagine someone getting to moon in error, but whatever. -Rrius (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Rrius! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 943 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Kyle McCarter - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Umm, see this diff. -Rrius (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Canada & Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

We're having a wee bit of problems at those articles, due to a very bold IP account. He's even refusing to respond to anyone at his IP talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So I saw. I figured I'd help out since he seems to think everyone should bend to his will. -Rrius (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

He's likely heading towards a block, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think so too, and said so in my edit summary. Somehow, I don't think he'll listen, or that he even cares. -Rrius (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 24hrs & promises to continue his current behaviour, after his block expires. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That should be grounds for increasing the block to 48 hours. -Rrius (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I reckon it'll be extended, unless he retracts that threat. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you see the latest? -Rrius (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's too bad his trip ended after his brother got'em blocked. Talk about bad timing. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That's just bad luck. -Rrius (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, things will be different after tomorrow. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Kennedy box

You're right to restore it, I let myself get trolled on this one I think. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I know the feeling. I actually don't think we need them on any page, but I know I'll never win that one. -Rrius (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's borderline at best, but there are succession box zealots out there who think up these things and don't let go ... Wasted Time R (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Hi, would it at all be possible for you to get a better picture of the Hull House for me?? CTJF83 chat 07:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Brown Talkpage

The IP is a blocked editor who repeatedly adds anything derogatory to the talkpage he was a blight last year and is continuing on his dynamic carphone wharehouse ip, Granville was his name, nothing he adds to the talkpage is worthy of any discussion. One of his issues is that he adds repeatedly that brown is autistic, would you mind if I archive it now? Off2riorob (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have tagged him for you if you look here you will see the same same discussion from june he was blocked for that autistic claim. Off2riorob (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know. Go ahead. -Rrius (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, he is annoying though, if you see me doing something that seems a bit strange feel free to ask me what I'm up to, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Virginia's At-large congressional district#Order & consistency

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Virginia's At-large congressional district#Order & consistency. —Markles 13:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Template: English, Scottish and British monarchs

Gotta sign-out for the night. See yas all tomorrow. GoodDay (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I was considering reverting the Template to the status quo, but it'll likely get reverted again. Jeepers, they (Tharky & DrK) didn't (and still don't) have a consensus for their change. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I loved Drk saying no one was saying precisely what Tharky spent last night saying. -Rrius (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't understand why they don't see the confusion, the new template is creating. Tharky & I have been locking horns on these templates for quite some time. He won't let go of that "they were monarchs of Grea Britain" argument. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Has he ever asserted evidence that any of them other than James I, not to mention all of them, claimed to be King or Queen of GB? -Rrius (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

He usually goes by the British Royal Website, which does use 1603 as the merging point. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought everyone understood that royal.gov.uk is of little value as a resource. As I pointed out last night, it says they were monarchs of the United Kingdom from 1603 forward, which is clearly ridiculous. Usage of "United Kingdom" from 1707 to 1801 is debatable. -Rrius (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

He claims there's books to support his argument. The sources I can find are the ones used at Acts of Union 1707 article, plus my 1989 F&W encylopedia set. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

And does he ever cite and quote them? -Rrius (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm embarassed to say, I can't remember. 'Tis best for ya to ask him & inform him that his arguments are being discussed here (as he'll want to defend them, I suppose). GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think we're discussing him, but the merits of his argument. If he cares to fill in the details at the template talk page, that's fine, but I'm not going to host a tangent of the discussion here. I'm just not in the mood for one of those debates in multiple forums. -Rrius (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Howdy Rrius. My cut/paste doesn't work, would you be able to copy either DrK's or Tharky's proposed templates & place under my last post there? GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. -Rrius (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I just need a copy of either of their proposed templates & have it placed under my last post at the talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

When you say your last one, do you mean your last one whenever I finally do it or after a specific one? If the latter, give me the diff for the one you want it under. -Rrius (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, the bottom of the talkpage will do, under a GoodDay's proposal section heading, then I'll tweak it to what I'm buzzing about. GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Done! -Rrius (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A big thanks to you Rrius, a compromise has been reached. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'll have to mosey on over and see what happened. -Rrius (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

When Tharky & I can come to an agreement on the British Isles' monarchial histories, it's a beautiful sight. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Gordon Brown

Wowsers, they'll have to call him Gordon 'knock'em down' Brown. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Cameron will have fun with this on Wednesday if the aftermath of the cellphone throwing accusations is anything to go on. -Rrius (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Cameron will be singing "Down, down, down, Brown is going down". GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I archived your that Christmas box from your talk page. MiszaBot doesn't archive threads that don't have timestamps, so it would never have gone on its own. -Rrius (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Herman's Hermits will come out with a new hit. Something like Mr Brown is gonna beat your daugther. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! Walking about, even in a crowd, well, he'll punch her out. Makes a bloke feel so proud. -Rrius (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yea, thanks for yours and GD's support yesterday. Off2riorob (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha! I'd forgotten we were even having that discussion! -Rrius (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No prob Off2riorob. What did I do? GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

And it's bad, bad Gordon Brown, baddest man in the whole damn town--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Only this but it was appreciated, the account got indef'd today. Off2riorob (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Opposers of Healthcare reform in the USA...

...are gonna have a field day, now. Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams is having heart surgery in the USA (not Canada). GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Good lord. President Obama, Rahm Emanuel, and Congress deserve every bit of bad news with as badly has they've managed the legislation. -Rrius (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Scott Brown

Wowsers, Harry Reid & the gang must be trying to delay the swearing-in, as long as they can. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No, they scheduled it up for 5 EST. Since they need Biden to show up and Brown to show up and whoever is escorting Brown to the well to show up, they probably won't start until 5 or shortly thereafter. I mean, Biden has other things on his schedule, and Brown probably has a pretty busy day. Can you help me police Brown and Kirk and some related pages until the changeover actually happens? -Rrius (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I see you already are. Thanks! -Rrius (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

US Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, finally. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there some reason you reverted Scott Brown to Paul Kirk? Brown is the current senator? (75.69.241.91 (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC))

Where are you talking about? Unlike some people, I waited until Brown actually took the oath of office. -Rrius (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to fix up the image at 111th United States Congress, it currently show 60, 40. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I added him on after he was sworn in, and then you, perhaps in error, reverted my entry.(75.69.241.91 (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC))

Where are you saying you added him? -Rrius (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Kerry's page read that he served with Kirk, Brown had already been sworn in, so I added him. Shortly thereafter it said that he currently served with Kirk. I looked in the revision history and according to that you reverted my edit, so that it read kirk again. (75.69.241.91 (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC))

(edit conflict) Look again. I only reverted one thing: At 21:15 UTC (an hour before the oath), I reverted IP editor 76.19.219.50's edit of 21:00 UTC. I'm afraid you have the wrong guy. -Rrius (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Its no big deal, in any case. (75.69.241.91 (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC))

It kind of is. If I made a mistake, I'd want to apologize, but I think you are just mistaken. -Rrius (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Yeah you're right, as I started the edit my intention was to space it, but I got more ambitious when I saw the redundancy on the last lead sentence. - RoyBoy 01:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just got excessively annoyed. I'm sure it was really something else, but hell if I remember what. -Rrius (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:IP edits at Scott Lee Cohen

{{Tb}} -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hanky panky NY Governors

Jumpers, first it's Spitzer & his prostitute. Now it's Paterson having a closet fling (or sabateurs making it up, to get Paterson out of the gubernatorial race)? Ravitch, stand by for possible promotion. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeez, can you imagine. The lieutenant governor they had to go to court to establish could actually be appointed taking over as governor? Good grief. -Rrius (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, he'd be one of the oldest NY Govs to boot. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Goodness, what if he took over, then died? Malcolm Smith, the Temporary President, would take over, leaving a 30–30 Senate to pick a new Temporary President. I suppose Malcolm would appoint a new lieutenant governor, but I'm guessing that person wouldn't get a vote on that. We could see a repeat of last summer. -Rrius (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Holy smokers. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

LKL: No closets in the Gov's Mansion? Err, Paterson may've boo booed. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a new piece in this story? -Rrius (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it's the last I've heard of things (LKL show). GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

U.S. State segment on sovereignty

Good afternoon - I am brand-new to Wikipedia editing, so if I am using this incorrectly please let me know. I was the person who made the change earlier today in the U.S. state entry on sovereignty vested in the American people, not in either the federal or state governments. I believe, if I read the edit history correctly, that you exercised the "undo" feature and marked it with a comment essentially asserting that this was not germaine to the entry. I would most respectfully disagree, as the issue of sovereignty as vested in the people as a whole and not retained in any form by the states or the federal government was at the root of the American Civil War, where the final role of states in the Union was determined and ratified by the SCOTUS decision Texas v. White. The rest of the existing entry reads in a way that suggeste a "delegation of sovereignty" argument relying heavily on a specific and contested interpretation of the 10th Amendment. That, in turn, suggests to me that the difference in our opinion of this entry may rest in a difference of political philosophy. This, then, suggests that rather than engage in editing and counter-editing indefinitely, we should seek whatever mechanisms of objective outside review Wikipedia offers. Does this seem reasonable to you? Thank you for your time and attention Justin(History) (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand what the sentence means. The first sentence of the article says, "A U.S. state is any one of 50 federated states of the United States of America that share sovereignty with the federal government." That is absolutely correct. It is also correct that the people are the ultimate sovereign. While that seams to be a contradiction, it is explained by the fact that in a republic, the people are sovereign, but transfer that sovereignty to a government, which rules by their consent. They do so because, for one reason or another, they have decided not to engage in pure democracy. So when we say that the national and state governments "share sovereignty", we are talking about the sovereignty delegated by the people, not something originates with the governments jointly or separately.

Far from being based on "a specific and contested interpretation of the 10th Amendment", that is fundamental to understanding [representative democracy]]. In fact, the discussion of the transfer does not attempt to rely on the Tenth Amendment; you are merely misinterpreting the paragraph. The only reference to the Tenth Amendment you could be referring to is not at all "specific and contested"—it says, "all powers not delegated to the U.S. government nor prohibited to the states are retained by the states or the people." That is not an interpretation, but a paraphrasing of the the Amendment's text actually says. Instead of somehow explaining delegated sovereignty (and I still don't understand how you came to think that's what t does), the role of the sentence is to set up the following sentence, which lists areas of responsibility generally considered to be within the ambit of the states (while noting that the feds do fund and regulate even in those spheres).

The Civil War was not fought to say that the state governments had no sovereignty. Rather, it was fought to deny that states have the right to secede without the consent of the national government (well, really, over slavery). Put in terms of sovereignty, the national government fought to deny that the states, using the sovereignty entrusted to them, could withdraw the sovereignty entrusted to the United States. Texas v. White says nothing like what you accuse it of saying. -Rrius (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This is Justin - I'm not sure I'm formatting this reply correctly, so please bear with me and let me know if I make a formatting error. Sovereignty by definition can neither be divided nor transferred. It is the final authority in any system of government. For America, that final authority is the American people, not either of our primary levels of government as you say. Those governments, state and federal alike, draw their authority from the consent of the people, not a delegation or transfer of that authority. This is the primary reason the Union is indissoluable, for the entire American people would have to consent to its dissolution, net merely those people in a single state who might want to secede. That is in fact the issue over which the Civil War was fought - the secession of the southern states might have represented the will of their (free) people, but not the will of the American people as a whole. That is the core idea articulated by Chase in Texas v. White, and why he concludes by saying not that secession is impossible, but merely something that cannot be done unilaterally. The consent of the national government is relevant only in so far as it represents the consent of the sovereign American people as a whole.

The idea that the states retain sovereignty and delegate a portion of that sovereignty to a national government was the animating idea at the root of the failed Articles of Confederation, and repudiated during the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. In effect, the final defense of the idea of sovereign states was the idea of unilateral secession, as articulated by Jefferson et al in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which formed the core of the state sovereignty argument until it was defeated in the Civil War and formally repudicated in Texas v. White. Since the Civil War, the struggle in our federal system has been between those who value states' rights (not state sovereignty) as expressed in the 10th Amendment, which also espouses the idea of unenumerated rights for the American people. Given that the 10th Amendment and the Elastic Clause are in appearent conflict, we've relied on the actions of the Congress and the Supreme Court since then to draw the fine line.

In essence, the idea that states are still sovereign, as they were under the Articles of Confederation, leads inevitably to the idea that states, as the sovereign final authority in that system, could secede. No soveriegn entity can be forced to remain within a compact or confederation. For the Union to be made indissoluable, or "more perfect," the majority of the Founders had to abandon the idea of sovereign states and turn to the idea of sovereign people.

However, the gap between our positions is the gap that articates the different ends of the modern American political spectrum. The "state sovereignty" resolutions appearing in many state legislatures today are the hallmark of what is generally accepted as conservative political thought, as is the idea of delegated state sovereignty. The idea of soveriegn people who neither transfer nor delegate their sovereign power to either the state or federal government is at the core of ideas that often clash with conservative views. My concern in editing the U.S. state entry earlier today was to clarify what I held to be the common legal and political understanding of sovereign people, just as your concern in undoing my edit seems to me to be your intent to clarify what you held to be the common political understanding of sovereign states and delegated sovereignty. Given that this gap exists, I still think we should seek whatever outside decision-making process this format offers for this kind of disagreement on fundamental political theory. Do you agree? Justin(History) (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Justin

Your first assumption is that sovereignty is indivisible. That is not the understanding that underpins American political thought. I am not disputing that the union is indivisible, and I really wish you would stop trying to rely on that as somehow supporting your argument. Texas v. White has nothing to do with anything. You refer to the states not having sovereignty under the Constitution as they did under the Articles of Confederation. What you don't understand is that the notion of sovereignty lying with the people did not originate with the Constitution. The same was true under the Articles. So, when Chase wrote in Texas v. White that "Under the Articles of Confederation, each State retained its sovereignty...", he was referring to the transferred sort of sovereignty.

You also seem to assume that I believe that the states granted sovereignty to the national government. You could only believe that if you didn't actually read what I wrote. I said that the people granted sovereignty to both. Your further dismissal of state sovereignty is muddled, bizarre, and wrong. Texas v. White said absolutely nothing about state sovereignty. Part of your argument hinges on the assumption that "No soveriegn entity can be forced to remain within a compact or confederation." Aside from being baseless, it ignores the fact that when sovereignty is divided between the whole and its parts, they must stay together until the ultimate sovereign decides to withdraw its consent from one of them.

Even scholars working for the Congress recognize that state have sovereignty.[1] Moreover, that sovereignty is necessary to understanding why states have sovereign immunity. Most importantly, the idea that both states and the federal government have sovereignty is enshrined in case law. See, e.g., Bartkus v. Illinois.[2] Not even the minority in that case argued that states don't have sovereignty. Modern case law continues to recognize that states are sovereign entities. Your view, while interesting, simply has no basis in law or fact. -Rrius (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

More cases:

• Alden v. Maine (1999): "Rather, as the Constitution’s structure, and its history, and the authoritative interpretations by this Court make clear, the States’ immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the States enjoyed before the ratification of the Constitution, and which they retain today (either literally or by virtue of their admission into the Union upon an equal footing with the other States) except as altered by the plan of the Convention or certain constitutional Amendments."[3]
• Hans v. Louisiana (1890): "This is the general sense and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every state in the Union."[4]
• Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996): "That presupposition, first observed over a century ago in Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890), has two parts: first, that each State is a sovereign entity in our federal system..."

To the extent the dissents in those cases address the point, they treat the fact that state and federal governments are sovereign entities as axiomatic. -Rrius (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

--You are correct in that I appear to have misunderstood your fundamental argument, something I am actually quite glad to see. However, the differences between us seem to spring from two quite different understandings of the meaning of the word "sovereignty." At a guess, I would assume these are the differences between the meaning of the word in constitutional case law and its meaning in historical political theory. As a scholar of early American thought, I speak to the meaning of the word as it was used through the colonial, revolutionary, and early Republic era to Reconstruction, and your quite excellent sampling of case law speaks to a meaning within the last century or so of post-Reconstruction law. From your use of it, I would gather the word has come to mean something other than indivisible final wellspring of authority in a political system, but rather a collection of legal rights and privileges accrued to a level of government, such as your reference to "sovereign immunity."

--However, from your use of rather strong pejoratives - "muddled, bizarre, and wrong" - I would gather this is also a matter of some personal importance to you, which I can respect within limits. Allow me to explain my initial concern in editing this page. The idea of state sovereignty has historically been the wellspring of secessionist thought, as well as rather shameful episodes of resistance to desegregation a century later. The idea of states rights, while also used for ill, does not allow for interpetations like nullification and secession. Those who advocate for the latter, even in today's American political thought, do seem to see the idea of sovereign states as meaning what their ideological ancestors believed it meant in the first half-century or so of independent America. To leave in the popular mind's most iconic encyclopedia evidence that can be shifted to support things like the myths of a Texan "right to secede" is to fuel ignorance with our nuanced disagreement over historical versus legal word meaning. I came to this concern back-tracking where claims I had encountered for a "right to secede" came from, and stumbled over three points of concern in Wikipedia. Two I've edited - with a narrow specific quote about Texas v. White's final decision on the issue of secession - without any contestation. The larger issue of sovereignty, however, has obviously triggered contestation, and fairly passionate contestation at that.

--My question then is this. What edit can we agree to that leaves your position unmangled yet addresses my concerns about the propagation of older ideas of "state sovereignty = right to secede?" How, in short, can we see to it that those that disagree with our consensus of an indivisible American union do not use our semantic spat as a wedge to build popular support for the erroneous claims of those who wish to use activism and referendum to seek independence for various states? My suggestion would be the inclusion in the existing entry of a nuanced discussion (brief as it can be) of what sovereignty does mean today, that leaves no doubt that it does not mean "supreme political entity entitled to freedom to depart." Something along the lines of:

--"Although ultimate sovereignty rests with the American people as a whole, the U.S. Constitution saw the people delegate this sovereignty to both the federal government and the states as part of an indivisible union."

--Would that work for you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin(History) (talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No, because that is not the point of the sentence. The point is that both states and the national government have sovereignty. Something that, despite your allegations, is something the Founders recognized. It is part of the reason the the Constitution was ratified by conventions in the states rather than the legislatures. To the extent you are concerned that state sovereignty would be confused with a right to secede, the concern is already addressed by the sentence as it stands. It was never the case that people believed that the term "state sovereignty" meant that. What they did believe was that the states had granted sovereignty to the national government and could take it back.

A few housekeeping points. I put these not to be rude, but because I am trying to be helpful. There is no need to indent with hyphens. It is unnecessary and distracting. Also, your contributions are much too long. As a result, they are ineffective. I am not alone in not fully reading such long entries. I shouldn't have to work harder because you refuse to edit. I gave you one long response where I read your entire contribution, but I'm done with that. Finally, sign your posts by adding ~~~~ at the end. -Rrius (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

People did in fact believe that the term "state sovereignty" meant the right to secede. Though never the majority opinion nationwide, it was a key element in American political discourse from Ratification to the Civil War. The Founders themselves divided on the question. Modern secession advocates from Alaska to Texas to Vermont use the same argument.

I do regret that you feel this discussion has been burdensome, and will therefore terminate the thread and work to address my concerns other formats. As this is your page and my contributions have been too long for it, I will remove my contributions tonight or tomorrow unless you object.Justin(History) (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaking the part for the whole. They believed that state sovereignty included the right to secede, not that it was the right to secede. That is the question that divided the Founders and, more importantly, various others since. I did not say the discussion was burdensome, but I pointed out that your contributions are too long. -Rrius (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The whole includes that part, unless you specify that it does not. That's the problem with the entry as it stands now - without a disclaimer emphasizing to those who see "state sovereignty" as including the right to secession that it does not, it can be used to support that position.

Do you or do you not want me to remvoe my material from your page?Justin(History) (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I see where some of the misapprehension comes from. I thought I had already changed the sentence to get rid of the claim that the states transferred sovereignty. I've been having weird problems with Wikipedia using Chrome today that result in my edits not being saved; perhaps that is what happened. In any event, check it out and let me know what you think. And no, there is no reason to remove anything from this page. I'm not sure why you ask. -Rrius (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not see the changes before I read your post above, but I do now (which may be because I cleared cache and wiped temp files to be sure I was getting a good refresh). That does remove the part I was most concerned about - thank you. My position would be that we should add a specific comment on indissolubility of the Union as a proactive negation of the claims I've seen floating about, but I gather you feel that would be out of place. What do you think of a footnote that adds "The sovereignty of states discussed in this section does not include the right to secede"?

I ask because of the concern you expressed about length. The discussion formats I come from - both professionally and personally - value comprehensive answers far more than brevity, but you've pointed out that this format does not follow that pattern. Because I don't know this format, I was basically asking if the proper etiquette here was to offer to return your page to its previous appearance.Justin(History) (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You didn't see the changes because they weren't there. Somehow it didn't save. Oh well. Secession is dealt with in the article, so it is ripe for being dealt with in the lead, I just don't think it belongs in the particular sentence at the beginning that you initially chose. I also think it would be confusing to get into a discussion of sovereignty and secession in the lead. Perhaps it would be best to add something about admission and secession together. Let me know what you think. -Rrius (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Linking admission and secession is a good idea, and the sovereignty discussion can be extremely brief. My first thought - and I'm not wedded to this - would be to add a short fourth paragraph after the one that begins "Over time" that packages a word on secession through the idea of admission. Something like, "New states may join the Union with the consent of Congress, though no such addition has occured in over half a century. New states, once approved, hold a status no different from any other states, with the same responsibilities and rights as pre-existing states. The union between the states is perpetual, however, with the balance of sovereignty between federal and state government established by the people leaving no room for unilateral secession." That more or less echoes the section on secession below in a much shorter form, and draws on the conclusions reached by the Pavković/Radan work cited in that section as well as Texas v. White. What do you think?Justin(History) (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article, and should not contain new information. The current lead is not perfect on that score, but with regard to admission and secession, there is body text to work with. That said, how about, "Congress may admit new states "on an equal footing" with existing ones as it has done 37 times; however it has not done so in more than 50 years. The Constitution is silent one the question of whether states have the power to unilaterally leave the Union, but that question is generally regarded to have settled in the negative by the American Civil War and Supreme Court precedent." -Rrius (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That look mostly quite good. My suggested edit - "Congress may admit new states "on an equal footing" with existing ones as it has done 37 times; however, it has not done so in more than 50 years. The Constitution is silent on the question of whether states have the power to unilaterally leave (or "secede from") the Union, but the Supreme Court has ruled this to be unconstitutional, a position animated by the outcome of the American Civil War."

Given that what I believe to be the controlling precedent is pretty direct and clear I think we can be equally direct. I think you're quite right to link that decision to the Civil War, though - from a historian's perspective, without that conflict the answer would likely have been different or at least remained vague.Justin(History) (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've corrected two of my typos and added a parenthetical to your edited version. If you're fine with it, go ahead and add it, and we'll see what the rest of the world thinks. -Rrius (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It looked good, so I've added it into the page. If I make some newbie mistake on the actual format, please feel free to just correct it. It was good working with a fellow warrior in the eternal war on ignorance - thank you for your time!Justin(History) (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Off2riob

If you wish for diffs of anything, you only have to ask, and I will be glad to provide them. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 22:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I managed to track down enough to figure out that I don't care. My point was that it was ironic you would fail to provide diffs in or other useful links in, and disruptively edit over, a comment where in you accused Rob of doing the same things. -Rrius (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

PIIGS (Economics)

Just a note to say I just realized I tweaked your edit there. My sincere apologies if you find it at all inappropriate for "that" reason. I'll also add that my remarks elsewhere, although they seem to be hitting 'you' are intended for the ideas strictly contained within the prose - I probably should have used the original entries as my example. In hindsight, my use of your revert (which nicely highlighted the major points I needed to refer to for my argument) unintentionally emphasized you. It was probably counter-productive as it likely needlessly alienated a potential moderate force. C'est la vi. :) _99.144.243.71 (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what comments you are talking about. You did make a few mistakes. First, the lead should be a summary of the article. As such, it generally should have references because references should already be contained in the article. Second, references should be contained in <ref> and </ref> tags. Third, only one reference should generally be enclosed in each pair of ref tags. Finally, You should not duplicate sources without a good reason. If the claim is particularly controversial, a second or third reference can be helpful, but that is not the case here. -Rrius (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance you recently left me on my talkpage - your point about continuity is clear, sorry for getting too carried away and thank you for stepping in and correcting the mess I seemed to have made of the move.99.144.243.71 (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Good job

I must admit, your edit was far superior, both to mine and the version that I first came across. Good job. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry I was snippy; it was rather late when I edited. -Rrius (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom GA review

A review to see if Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria has started, and has been put on hold. Suggestions for improvement are at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/GA2, and are mainly to do with coverage and neutrality, and building the lead section. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is one of our most high profile and popular articles, attracting an average of over 11,000 readers every day. You have made more than 30 edits to the article, and so you might be interested in helping to make the improvements needed to get it listed as a Good Article. SilkTork *^YES! 12:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

PIGS (Economics)

.75, your opinion is unsupported by references or reality. It is not an ethnic slur, it is not in general use, and it has nothing to do with catholicism. 99.144.243.71 (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a well known ethnic slur [5], the fact that some guys at the City think it is funny or clever to disguise it as an acronym does not change it at all. As for the Catholic part, I'll take it that you are not familiar with the last 400 years of history between England, Ireland, Spain, Protestantism and Catholicism. Ethnicity, religion and racism tend to be mixed up with rebellions and wars between those countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.2.207.75 (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the article is limited to its particular use in terms of economics. If you think it has a broader context, create a new article. The answer is not to make this article about that broader meaning. -Rrius (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm even willing to help you with creating that article, if you'd like. -Rrius (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: PIIGS AND OTHER PORCINE STORIES…I’m not sure this has anything to do with religion or dietary laws or with “Nordic” City snobs patronizing Southern Europeans… It’s just a ‘porte-manteau’ easy-to-remember financial term used by traders and economists on both sides of the Atlantic.Re: the “Proposed Corrective Policies” paragraph I’ve started in the article on PIIGS, that DINDRAITHOUM DUDE KEEPS ON ERASING ALL ADDITIONS to the article (including mine). He’s adamant this is some kind of “linguistics” orientated article about the acronym’s semantic roots or something, and DOESN’T WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE REAL/UNDERLYING TOPIC IS THE CURRENT DEBT CRISIS IN SOUTHERN EU COUNTRIES…..I’m at loss for words: the man simply doesn’t want to understand! Anyhoo, merci for your help! Moorehaus 23:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

honest comment

At the very least I can always expect from you a fair and npov comment, I respect you for that, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

mail

I have sent you an email, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 12:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Reputations of states (copied from User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 5)

Hello, AussieLegend. I've been wondering for a while whether Australian states have reputations the way American ones do. Texas is known for its guns and for being big. New Hampshire is known for being fairly rugged and libertarian, but its neighbor, Vermont, is known for being fairly leftist. Iowans are all supposed to be honest, straight forward, and hard working. If the states don't have such reputations, do the cities? If so what are those reputations, state and city? Thanks for helping or even just reading this. -Rrius (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying earlier, but this one got away from me. I had to think about it a bit and draw on the past 50 years..... There are no definite reputations but there some generalised opinions about different states but they do vary considerably. You could ask 100 people and get 100 different opinions. Some of the more common ones that I've heard are:

States

• Queensland has a superiority complex, it thinks it's above the other states. However, for "fun in the sun", it's generally regarded by most to be the best place for it. Of course we don't tell the Queenslanders that. Queenslanders are the fastest drivers in Australia.
• New South Wales is often called Newcastle, Sydney, Wollongong after the three main cities. Ironically this usually comes from residents of NSW who don't live in those cities because they feel that these are the only places that the state government seems to care about. People in Newcastle and Wollongong think that Sydney is the only place that the state government seems to care about. NSW drivers can't drive above 100km as it's well known that doing so will turn your car into a killing machine, except in Sydney. Newcastle drivers are the worst drivers in the country.
• Queensland and New South Wales are known through the rest of the country for their interstate rivalry.
• Australian Capital Territory (usually called the ACT) is known for its hot air. It was created specifically for the national capital and the pollies there generate enough hot air to dry every piece of clothing in the world several times over.
• Victoria considers itself the cultural capital of the world. The other states know it as the crime capital of Australia and there's about a 50:50 split on whether it is the cultural capital. It's a bit of a joke really, which is ironic because there's also a 50:50 split on whether or not Victorian comedy is funny. (It isn't) Victorians are the worst drivers in Australia. Victorian police are known for being gun-happy.
• Tasmania is still known as the "apple isle", even though it doesn't produce as many apples as it used to. Tasmanians are often called "two headers" and there are always jokes about how everyone in Tasmania is related to each other. Tasmania is also the "missing state". For a long time, stencils of Australia, especially the plastic stencils used in schools only included the mainland. Even some maps excluded it. Tasmanians don't need to drive. You can walk everywhere.
• South Australia is known for its wine and culture.
• Western Australia is known for ..........ummmm ...... there must be something. The state is 2 hours behind the eastern states and 1.5 hrs behind the central states so there are often jokes about that. Like Queensland, some Sandgropers (residents of Western Australia) have a superiority complex, claiming that WA mining supports the country. It really is a world of its own.
• Northern Territory (usually called "the NT" or sometimes, incorrectly, "the Top End") is known as being remote and pretty laid back. Northern Territorians drink more beer per capita than anywhere else in Australia. (or probably even the universe)

Cities

• Brisbane is often referred to as "Bris Vegas", an allusion to "Las Vegas". No comment.
• The Gold Coast is a popular tourist destination and, for a long time, people outside QLD joked about it being a suburb of Tokyo, as there was (is?) a lot of Japanese owned development. Some of the street signs are in both English and Japanese.
• Novocastrians (people from Newcastle) are rabid Australian Labor Party supporters. The ALP could announce that it was going to kill everyone in Newcastle who voted Labor and they'd still win the next election.
• Sydney and Melbourne are rivals in almost everything. Melbourne is known for its crappy weather (four or more seasons in a day). Melburnians like to point out that Sydney has a higher rainfall than Sydney but Sydneysiders like to respond by pointing out that Sydney's rainfall occurs in bursts throughout the year while Melbourne's occurs as constant drizzle. Melburnians were upset when Sydney got the 2000 Olympics. Sydney doesn't like Melbourne being declared the most liveable city. Like I said, everything.
• Melbourne takes pride in being the capital city of the cultural centre of Australia. That's one of the few Victorian jokes that is funny. Melbourne is the worst place in the world to drive.
• Adelaide is "the city of churches". Nobody there stays up past 12 (midday, not midnight).

I really can't think of anything else right now. I hope that helps a bit. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks! That's exactly what I was looking for. -Rrius (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)