Talk:Henry M. Jackson: Difference between revisions
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
It is not Censorship. I am removing POV slander against the late Senator. |
It is not Censorship. I am removing POV slander against the late Senator. |
||
--[[User:8bitJake|8bitJake]] 20:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC) |
--[[User:8bitJake|8bitJake]] 20:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC) |
||
:You greatly misunderstand what "POV" means in Wikipedia. What's POV about the '''fact''' that Wolfowitz worked for Jackson, and says that Jackson influenced his political beliefs? I see you don't dispute that this is a notable fact, and don't dispute that this fact is verifiable. You thus have no basis for removing it. -- [[User:FRCP11|FRCP11]] 21:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:21, 30 May 2006
Free to SubAmericanise
New Deal Democrats borrowed a lot from Fascism and Communism, and were quite right to do so. The system would not have survived if it had hung on to what it was when Roosevelt got elected.
Both the USA and USSR were intent on imposing their own system on the rest of the world. There was no intention of allowing anyone to live differently from the USA in the long term. The USA prevented elections in Vietnam because the Communists were likely to win them. Democracy was never respected when it involved people choosing to move away from the USA.
New Deal Democrats also had no wish to end the domination of society by people who were mostly white, mostly male and almost all rich.
As the main article says, this does flow very naturally into Reaganism. Except Reagan depended heavily on white-racist votes in the formerly solid Democratic states of the US South. 'Neoconservatives' are embarrassed by this, of course. They want everyone to be an identical 'unit of the individual'. But that is the reality.
'Free Market' is also misleading. The USA has kept the vast mass of subsidy, guarantee and regulation that the New Deal imposed. The 'neoconservatives' show no faith in their own creed when it would cost them money if it were not so. No one said 'let the market find its own level' in 1987, when a crash threatened to bring down the system. Only when it comes to taking things away from poor people is regulation suddenly wicked.
'Classic Capitalism' failed in the early 1930s. What the New Deal created used to be called the 'Mixed Economy' and should still be called the 'Mixed Economy'.
I comment on wider matters because the main article does. I take it to be written by some of the 'Henry Jackson Society' crowd. Fine, so long as they allow 'right of reply'.
--GwydionM 19:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport name change
I changed part of the content to accurately reflect what actually happened in the above-referenced name reversion by the politicians. This came right out of his biography by Kaufman.
1. The actual name of the airport is Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. "Sea-Tac" is just a nickname everyone calls it.
2. The public was actually against changing the name back. They loved Scoop. It was business leaders, civic leaders & politicians in the two cities (Tacoma in particular) who were afraid of losing convention business without the name of their city in the airport title.--Hokeman 04:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Democratic Party denunciation
8BitJake, please provide a source for the bit about the Democratic Party denouncing the neoconservative "posthumously adoption" of Jackson's legacy. You saying it happened is not verifiable. (And please, please tell me that they used better grammar than that...) -- Jonel | Speak 23:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Jackson was not a Neocon
Senator Jackson was not a neo-conservative and the neocon appropriation of his legacy did not happen in his lifetime and we don’t know how he would have reacted to it so I don’t see a point of mentioning the Neocons in this article on Senator Jackson. I propose removing all references to them from this article and will do so.--8bitJake 20:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- I will restore them if you do so. It's an important part of his legacy. Even today, Wolfowitz calls himself a Scoop Jackson Democrat. -- FRCP11 20:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
You should mention that on the page on the Neocons. Since Senator Jackson was NOT a neocon it has no place on this page. I am fully prepared to fight and win this edit war. I don’t give a rats ass what Wolfowitz calls himself that does not change one damn but that Senator Jackson was not a neo-con. --8bitJake 20:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nowhere does the page call Jackson a Neocon. It correctly states that he was influential in the Neocon movement. This is a historical fact that is relevant to Scoop Jackson, and belongs on his page, as well as on a Neocon page. It's notable, verifiable, and you give absolutely no reason for deleting it. -- FRCP11 20:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
It sullens his image and it is tantamount to revisionist historical slander and it has no place in a NPOV article. If you want to mention it go do it in the neocon page. NOT HERE! Go look at the official bio on the Henry M Jackson Foundation website. There is not one mention of him being a Neocon. --8bitJake 20:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
RFC
As you can see from the disputed edit, the text a single editor wishes to censor from the article is both notable and verifiable. The editor's argument against including it is the argument that Jackson was not a neoconservative himself, which may or may not be true, but is irrelevant to the fact that Jackson's political philosophy was highly influential over the modern neoconservative movement by the accounts of outside observers as well as neoconservatives themselves. -- FRCP11 20:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
It is not Censorship. I am removing POV slander against the late Senator. --8bitJake 20:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- You greatly misunderstand what "POV" means in Wikipedia. What's POV about the fact that Wolfowitz worked for Jackson, and says that Jackson influenced his political beliefs? I see you don't dispute that this is a notable fact, and don't dispute that this fact is verifiable. You thus have no basis for removing it. -- FRCP11 21:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)