User talk:R-41

Right-wing socialism

Some tool has pretty much deleted your article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_socialism

The moron hasn't bothered to read most of the sources, since he seems to think that Peter Viereck and Werner Sombart are Austrian School economists. I recall upwards of 40 citations in the article of which only 2 came from Austrian School sources. Arguing with people who are clearly clueless about the subject matter is a drag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.167.225 (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

iraqi people

Sarah,Ninsun,Kubaba,Semiramis and Nazik Al-Malaika All of these women

Sarah wife prophet is sacred in Judaism, Christianity and Islam

Ninsun is the mother of a great king

Kubaba Is the Queen was brought to the rank of gods

Semiramis Is the Queen And the wife of King And the mother of King

Nazik Al-Malaika,Is a great poet and The Foundation School in Arabic poetry

These women are more important than women that you want to put them in the list

February 2012

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Spanish people a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sicily was under the control of Arabic-speaking Saracens and indiginous north-African Berbers (generally considered Caucasians)for about 3 centuries. The Saracens made incursions into mainland Italy (and southern France) as well, and established an emirate in Bari that lasted about 30 years. None of this would have contributed significantly to the "olive complexion" of mainland Italy, and probably little to the complexion of Sicilians either. Italians/Sicilians are a composite of Roman (Latin), Etruscan, Greek and Celtic peoples, together with the indiginous Siculs in Sicily and southern Italy. Incursions of Goths Lombards, and Normans further added to the racial mix. The concept that southern Italians have an olive complexion due to the admixure of African Moorish blood is not historically accurate, and is the typical "theory" advanced by racists. Whether inadvertently or not, your contribution advances a totally racist theory. Many who would read the article would make no distinction between a racist theory and reality. Philantonia (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry if my partial removal of your material, and my comments were offensive to you. I agree that a great deal of the prejudice and hostility exhibited toward Italian Americans has been racially motivated. This had already been clearly stated in the article, since it is an indisputable and important fact regarding the roots of anti-Italianism. My issue is in taking this to the next level and providing a reason for it based on a very questionable racial history of Italy and Sicily. There has been much discussion of this in the literature and the internet, and there is convincing DNA evidence that would counter the argument put forth (by some) that Italians must have strong genetic roots in Africa in general, and in sub-Saharan Africa in particular. I believe Italians and Italian Americans have a right not to be defined (racially or otherwise) by others. We know our own history and have a right to see it accurately represented. The reference you site is not guaranteed to be free of cultural biases toward Italians and Italian Americans, and must be judged against other available sources. My opinion is it simply perpetuates (perhaps inadvertently) tired old and contrived ideas originally advanced to discriminate against Italian Americans. Also, as I stated earlier, anyone reading the article is presented with what appears to be racial reality, as opposed to a racial theory. Philantonia (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

American nationalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nativism

British nationalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nativism

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Far left

Could you please explain your recent edits to Far left at Talk:Far left#Recent edits. TFD (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Pleasde see Far left politics#Political parties. The article is about political parties that are to the left of social democracy and mostly to the right of Communism. Your description does not apply to these groups. TFD (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Racism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Savage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Right-wing socialism

Hello R-41

you have started the article Right-wing socialism, and seem to be its main editor. This article has a big problem: "right-wing socialism" is a term that is almost exclusively used by authors of the Austrian School and their "Ludwig von Mises Institute". Remember, Ludwig von Mises and the Mises Institute are the guys who claim that "Nazism=Socialism". (See here, here and here). While this is an interesting theory about which scholars may argue, it is not acceptable to write a complete Wikipedia article based on this POV. You cannot present a minority theory as if it were fact or somehow authoritative. But as the only link between the very different and distinct movements, currents and ideologies the article assembles is that Jesús Huerta de Soto and Murray Rothbard (who are both exponents of the Austrian School and disciples of Mises) call them "right-wing socialist", the whole concept of the article collapses if you apply the standard of NPOV. --RJFF (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If you take away the Mises sources, it becomes WP:Original research, because only the Mises guys use the term "right-wing socialism" for phenomena like "Conservative socialism" or Spengler's "Prussian socialism". Mises and his disciples tossed all these together with fascism, and Nazism, and Christian social teaching to make their point in proving that "everyone who isn't for free-market (like us) is a socialist". --RJFF (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that it would be more helpful to incorporate paragraphs about Sombart's and Spengler's ideas where they belong: at Conservative Revolutionary movement, instead of trying to establish a term that is only used by Austrian School and Anarcho-Capitalist thinkers (and which reflects their ideology, because right-wing socialism describes exactly the opposite of their free-market libertarian ideals), but not by mainstream historians. --RJFF (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I wanted to propose, too. Explain the Mises group's theory of "right-wing socialism" there (we could keep what currently is the lead section), create an extra article for Conservative socialism, and present the views of the conservative revolutionary thinkers Sombart and Spengler at Conservative Revolutionary movement. So we avoid lumping different terms together in an OR and/or POV way. --RJFF (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Third way

Hello R-41,

I have posed some questions for you at Talk:Third Way (centrism)#Merger proposal. Would you be so kind and answer them? Thank you. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello again,
could you please bring yourself to join the consensus on merging the two articles? Your objections could not persuade me at all. I would feel better if you would agree to the inevitable. I don't want to do this against you. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

HHistory of socialism in Great Britain

Hi, I've read the Ethical socialism article that you're the main contributor to, and it looks good- could probably be expanded more. Do you think you could write a very short section on the History of socialism in Great Britain article? If ethical socialism has been an important ideology in the Labour Party then it's obviously important to the British history of socialism. You could just condense the last two paragraphs of the Ethical socialism article perhaps. Thanks! --Peter (Talk page) 13:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Again: Right-wing socialism

Hello R-41,

as you have been the main contributor to this article, I would be glad if you could join the discussion on how to unbundle the article (as we agree that it lumps together some subjects, that shouldn't be). I have put forward some propositions and I would appreciate if you could comment and help implementing them. Thank you. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for German socialist patriotism

Some articles that you have been involved in editing, German socialist patriotism, Chinese socialist patriotism, Ethiopian socialist patriotism, and Vietnamese socialist patriotism, have been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. RJFF (talk) 02:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

R. H. Tawney article - question

Hi (again). First, I just want to say that your editing has been really impressive - you've created so many articles, all fully sourced (which is almost unheard of). So thanks very much for your work.

Secondly, I have a question, or rather a request, about R. H. Tawney; the Liberal socialism and Ethical socialism articles include many references to him and his work, but his own article includes very little mention of both theories. This is understandable because your articles are new and Tawney's article is relatively short.. do you think, when you have time, you could expand Tawney's article and also include information about his work with Ethical socialism - his article could definitely benefit with the same work that's been put into the articles you started.
Thanks! --Peter (Talk page) 22:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Yes, they are indeed important to Iraqi culture, however the article isn't Iraqi culture it's Iraqi nationalism, and simply, the article already has nine pictures, which are being pushed down to the latitude of the references section. That is the only reason why I removed it. Now, since you have removed it yourself, what is the purpose of this duplicitous message? Adel (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, R-41. You have new messages at Adel Tigris's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Liberal socialism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Equality, Amoral and Rentier

Ethical socialism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rentier

French nationalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to National hero

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Greater Yugoslavia

Hi, R-41. About the case with the article Greater Yugoslavia. There was a discussion on the issue and it was closed with a conclussion: merge to Balkan Federation. Also stop oppening it again. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think, that Yugoslavia was a form of realisation of the ideas for Balkan Federation. However, if you disagree, please, reopen the discussion and wait for the next consensus. At this monment the consensus is for merging Greater Yugoslavia into the Balkan Federation. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: How do you know the picture of the ORJUNA is on Mount Triglav

Hey! It's a famous picture, I know it. Among others, it was published in the textbook by Branimir Nešović & Janko Prunk, 20. stoletje. Zgodovina za 8. razred osnovne šole (Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije, 1996); and in Bojan Balkovec et al., Slovenska kronika 20. stoletja, vol. I (Ljubljana: Nova revija, 1995). Of this I am sure, I would have to look up for the exact pages, though. Cheers, Viator slovenicus (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Plus, if one looks closely, one can clearly recognize the Aljaž Tower on the top of the Triglav. Viator slovenicus (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. When you recently edited Canadian nationalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Québécois (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

swedes

hi , there is a ongoing dispute whenver the swedes should be described as germanic or not , given your exprience and deep knowledge about the subject i invite you to join the discussion on Talk:Swedes#The_Swedish_people_are_a_germanic_ethnic_group thanks 118.168.98.47 (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Nazism

noticed that you make a lot of changes in a short period of time to a few articles. It isn't a rule, but is suggested that you try to consolodate your edits into fewer if possible. Making many edits may get you warned by a moderator. --RichardMills65 (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Right-wing politics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Enterprise and Merit

Christian socialism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Deadbeat

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"Swedes" again

i read your arguments on germans talkpage and the quality and effort is much better than in the swedes talkpage , why is einstein german or jewish more important on whenever swedes are germanic , please continue on the swedes talkpage 220.136.15.205 (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

Hi. When you recently edited Christian socialism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deadbeat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

did you forget about the swedes dispute ?!

did you forget about the "swedes" are germanic dispute ?! read the other "swedes" sections on your talkpage please 118.168.102.38 (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal - a new scope for fascism task force

I have proposed a new scope for fascism task force. Please express your opinion in the task force's talk page. Thank you!

Sapere aude22 (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Right wing

I am watching that discussion but not closely, so thought it might be interesting to just drop some ideas around. You are right that right wing is a term that is not always defending tradition. Consider Nietzsche and the Nazis. But then again they were defending some old things from the left. Maybe in some extreme cases right wing sometimes simply being "being opposed to whatever is left wing"? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Greater Iraq Qassim aims.png & File:Fertile Crescent union Qasim.png

Note: I posted this message on your commons page yesterday.

Hi there R-41. I respect your effort in creating these images; very few people bother contributing anything towards Iraq topics, however, you have misread a source; the 2nd source does not say anything about Qassim 'claiming' Iranian Kurdistan. This is what it says:

It is interesting to note that the attempt on Qasim's life brought measures of sympathy and protest not only from all over Iraqi Kurdistan, but also from the Kurds of the neighboring countries. One such message, forwarded through "the well-known struggler Mustafa Barzani," came from "[t]he Kurdish strugglers in the Kurdistan that is annexed to Iran."
The phrase "Kurdistan that is annexed to Iran" caught on and began to be frequently used by Iraqi Communists as well as by Iraqi Kurdish newspapers. What significance this phrase had and what it portended was not clear. Was this just another cliche enjoying a temporary vogue, or was Iraq preparing to play the role of claimant to neighboring Kurdish lands? This irredentist reference to Persian Kurdistan was rather puzzling.

As highlighted: the phrase was used by Iraqi Communists as well as by Iraqi Kurdish newspapers, not by Qassim or the Iraqi Government.

The italicized line, which was the author musing - as opposed to relating objective information, doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense in the context; How does a fad slogan picked up by the ICP and some Kurdish newspapers have any bearing on the Iraqi Government? They were not part of Iraq's government, they had nothing to do with Qassim.

These images should not depict Iranian Kurdistan.

Also, on the subject of Khuzestan, I haven't checked the reference yet, but I believe that any Iraqi claim on Khuzestan implies only a claim on the lowland Iraqi Arabic-speaking western half of Khuzestan, as opposed to the whole province within its Iranian provincial borders. The northern and eastern parts of Khuzestan are highland areas where Luri is spoken. Adel Tigris (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

20th century history of Iraq articles

R-41, since you regularly edit Iraq articles, could you read the dialogue on my talk page and give your opinion about this matter please. Appreciated. Adel (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, R-41. You have new messages at Adel Tigris's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fascist albania listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fascist albania. Since you had some involvement with the Fascist albania redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). bobrayner (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Fascism section on "Sorelianism"

It was not you, who "accidently deleted it" :) It was me, who moved it to Fascism and Ideology
I did it because the article's focus on ideological aspects makes the article unbalanced. DancingPhilosopher ^{my talk} 09:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Soviet China (1927–1949) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Fourth Encirclement Campaign, Lushan and Fifth Encirclement Campaign

Stewards (paramilitary organization) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Truncheon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Far left

Hello R-41,

please check at least what you counter-revert if you have to. I've changed the structure. There is a section 2. Extreme left and violence, where I've put your Jacobins. You re-entered them, now there's a redundancy. You better revert yourself. If I do, someone might piss me on because of 3RR. The Gus Martin source is misrepresented by you. On page 28, there is no mention of Marxists. Either it's your personal interpretation, or you've cited a wrong page. And do you abbreviate a single page with "Pp." in Canada? It looks quite unusual. I always thought that p. would stand for page and pp. for pages. Am I wrong? Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

SVG

Do you have vector data of files like File:BlankMap-World-1962.png?--Antemister (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Italian Fascism and racism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Slovene and Race

Nationalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alienation

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Problems with merging Soviet China articles

While I definitely think this Soviet China article is very useful in consolidating the history of Red-occupied china 1927-1949 into one article, its not necessary to simply remove the Soviet Republic article. I think it might be artificially consolidating different political entities. A centralized article is a useful organizational tool but it shouldn't come at the expense of forcing historical squares into circles. The differences between Soviet China and the Yenan base-areas were not just formal but also reflected a change in orientation. The post-Long March Chinese Reds never referred to their government as "Soviet" since they wished to play on Chinese nationalism and disown any foreign influences. The term Soviet China is never used for post-1935 base areas. Especially during the World War II period there was a common illusion agreed on by the CPC and KMT that there was one unified Chinese state against the Japanese. There are plenty of examples on wikipedia of one general article covering a large scope, and then more specific articles covering more detailed aspects. Especially in military articles we have articles about wars, campaigns and battles in decreasing size. So I think there is room for both a Soviet China and Soviet Chinese Republic article.

As of now this article seems to be entirely a copy and paste of the Chinese Soviet Republic article anyway. The current Soviet China article is already fairly long only currying the Soviet Republic period. It doesn't make any sense to replace an article on the Chinese Soviet Republic which actually existed and called itself that, with a vague article on "Soviet China", a term that is never used by historians to refer to 1935-1949 Red areas. It also gives the misleading impression that the People's Republic directly succeeded the Soviet Republic when in fact there was a 15 year gap. So perhaps the solution is to focus this article on 1935-1949 Red China or perhaps start new articles on the Yanan base area or Communist resistance bases during WW2. --Gary123 (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I think there are 2 separate issues here. On the issue of deleting the Chinese Soviet Republic article, there is absolutely no reason to do that, even if there ever is a decent article covering Communist-controlled China 1927-1949. Many foreign language wikipedias also have articles. There is no reason why there can't be subdivisions along with the centralized article you proposed. I think the centralized article is a good idea, but it doesn't have to mean gobbling all the specific articles up. As you see the current Soviet China article covers entirely the Soviet Republic and is already very long.

The 2nd issue is using Soviet China for 1935-1949. I have never heard the term Soviet Zone used for it, but I certainly accept that its possible that some sources have used it. Still I think its problematic in many ways and might teach readers bad history. I think it would be very misleading for readers to get the idea that anything called Soviet China merged directly into the People's Republic. The use of the term Soviet China would have been very problematic during the CPC-KMT united front against Japan. After 1935 the Communists no longer claimed to be creating socialism or "soviets" but instead referred to their regime as a New Democracy, meaning that it would unify classes as opposed to a class-based soviet. Its for this reason that in 1949 the PRC was called the People's Republic and not Soviet Republic. See Finnish Democratic Republic and this quote "This government would not be Soviet but a democratic republic. Nobody will set up soviets there, but we hope that it will be a government that we can reach agreement with on safeguarding the security of Leningrad." for an example of the importance in difference between People's or New Democracy and Soviet regimes. In Marxist-terminology a people's republic is actually a step-backward from more advanced class-based soviets. I think its important that people realize that this retreat took place after the Long March, and played an important role in the more moderate and nationalist CPC successes during WW2.

The policy of calling Communist movements "Soviets" was the result of the ultra-left Third Period in which it was imagined world revolution of the 1917 model was imminent and cooperation with other classes and parties impossible. For example the CPUSA called for a United Soviet States of America. The decision for Comintern parties too abandon the term Soviet in the 1930s was a self-conscious one, and geared towards cooperation with other parties in Popular Front against fascism. After the 1930s the only time you will see the term Soviet used on Communist movements is when their enemies accuse them of wanting to sell the country to Soviet Russia.

I think the best term for 1935-1949 Communist China is Red China since that was used by both the Reds themselves and the foreign media.But your original title Communist-controlled is also more accurate than Soviet China. The reason I find it so problematic is that active policy decisions took place which were explicitly based on Red China NOT being called Soviet China, and might have been impossible otherwise.

I did a google books search for China "Soviet Zone" and the only reference that came up was from The Soviet Union and communist China, 1945-1950: the arduous road. And in that book Stalin was using "Soviet Zone" to refer to those territories in China he wanted to secure for Soviet RUSSIA. Which just underscores the point that by 1940s, Soviet meant Soviet Russia and was never used for Communist movements outside Russia. --Gary123 (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

When you say that the Soviets used the term "Soviet Zone" in China, I assume your referring to the reference in "The Soviet Union and communist China, 1945-1950" which you listed as a source and which is the only source I found on google books to use that term. The thing is that in the context of the book, Stalin was warning the USA to recognize Soviet Russian interests in Manchuria. This was actually a bone of contention between the CPC and USSR. One of the reasons that Stalin was so unenthusiastic about Mao coming to power, is that he had already secured such a great deal from the KMT over the Soviet-zone of influence in Manchuria. So as I've said that example just underscores the difference between Soviet (meaning Russian) and native-Communist movements by the 1940s.

The term Red China took on derogatory meaning during the Cold War period when it was used to de-legitimize the mainland regime. However during the period covered by the article, Red and White China was very commonly used to refer to the CPC and KMT occupied areas of China. Having abandoned the term Soviet, CPC documents usually referred to their territories as "Red-base areas". I only proposed the word Red, because historically it was the most direct replacement for the term Soviet.

This is the footnote from Mao's official works "The organizational form of China's Red political power was similar to that of Soviet political power. A Soviet is a representative council, a political institution created by the Russian working class during the 1905 Revolution. Lenin and Stalin, on the basis of Marxist theory, drew the conclusion that a Soviet republic is the most suitable form of social and political organization for the transition from capitalism to socialism. Under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party of Lenin and Stalin, the Russian October Socialist Revolution in 1917 brought into being for the first time in world history such a socialist Soviet republic, a dictatorship of the proletariat. After the defeat of the 1927 revolution in China, the representative council was adopted as the form of people's political power in various places in the mass revolutionary uprisings led by the Chinese Communist Party and, first and foremost, by Comrade Mao Tse-tung. In its nature political power at that stage of the Chinese revolution was a people's democratic dictatorship of the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal, new-democratic revolution led by the proletariat, which was different from the proletarian dictatorship in the Soviet Union. "

I have no problem with your proposal to simply restore the name Communist-controlled China from 1927 to 1949. Again though I still don't see the need to merge the Soviet Republic article. The Soviet Republic claimed to be a legitimate government with its own constitution and recognition as the legitimate government by the Communist world. The post-1935 CPC made no such claims which is what made possible the diarchy as you call it of WW2. There are tons of articles on wikipedia about even more short-lived governments, and I see no reason to delete this one, which certainly has more than enough content, has been widely edited, and is on multiple foreign wikipedias.

I agree with you that wikipedia needs an article on Communist-controlled China from 1927 to 1949, and think its a good thing that you created it. But I don't see why creating a centralized outline page, means that the more detailed coverage of specific areas can't eb covered in more detail in other articles. 1927-1949 is a long period. It doesn't make sense to try to squeeze such a wide and diverse period into ONLY one article. This article is already very long and no work has been done whatsoever to cover the Yanan, Popular Front, WW2 and Civil War aspects of Red-occupied China. Covering all that with proper detail and depth in one article could run hundreds of pages. Its the equivalent of trying to shove every battle and campaign and theater of world war ii into one world war ii article and deleting Battles of Normandy and Stalingrad as redundant.

Right now the whole article is just a copy and paste of the Soviet Republic article except that it misleadingly extends that period till 1949. So merging the articles might seem manageable. But wait until this article actually does cover the entire 1927-1949 period. To cover this period with sufficient depth and detail and also forbid any spinoff articles on more specific periods or aspects will create a mammoth article. The current Soviet Republic article does not attempt to be a history of the Civil War, but rightly acts soley as a government-article covering issues like stamps, flags and administration. A proper article would have to do the same thing for Yanan, and the WW2 resistance pockets, and the territories during the Civil War. Those were all effectively separate governments established in separate geographic areas. So shoving all that together is unnecessary clutter. Theres no need to merge the Republic of Texas into Texas. Take a look at List_of_former_sovereign_states, and you'll see many states which controlled far less territory and population for a far shorter period of time.

Again I like and agree with what your trying to do. I just don't think we should remove good articles that deserve to be here and cover independent information to be removed in the name of tidyness of having everything in one gigantic article. --Gary123 (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your understanding. And I agree with you that there should be a unified article on Communist-bases in China 1927-1949, especially the Yenan 1935-1949 period which is virtually uncovered on wikipedia. And I commend you for taking the initiative in creating the article. I just disagreed that we needed to remove legitimate existing articles in order to create a new one. I look forward to seeing your new article grow and become a valuable contribution to wikipedia. --Gary123 (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

TFD at WQA

I included some diffs of some of his attacks on you at a WP:WQA complaint. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Right-wing socialism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Right-wing socialism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right-wing socialism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --RJFF (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. When you recently edited Fascism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Absolutism and Persians (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

File:RSS India march.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:RSS India march.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

IP talkpage

Please don't make edits like the one you made to User talk:178.222.11.43 (now deleted). That would of course have been an unacceptable personal attack in any situation, but it was considerably worse because you posted it to an IP talk page months after that IP had been active. This talk page is unlikely to ever be visited again by the person you meant to address. Just imagine what would happen if some other, totally unrelated person happened to visit Wikipedia through that IP, and found that attack as if it was directed at them. Please don't do that again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:Fascism

You never got back to me, what's the matter, scared? haha just kidding. You seem to be the only serious editor on Fascism related articles and discussions, good work so far I guess. Say, you're not an actual fascist are you? --JTBX (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Algerian nationalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Algerians

Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Great Terror

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ba'athism

Everything in the ba'athism article is referenced; there is no original research, just check the references.... --TIAYN (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You know one of the sources say that the Ba'ath follows the leninist way of organising society, with the party as the most powerful institutions. The Ba'ath copied the leninist approach; why can't you get that? Its the same sentence because they do the same thing. It is referenced below in the main body of the article. Just read the references. Stop being so stubborn and listen. --TIAYN (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

everything in the lead is referenced in the main body of the text, per WP:LEAD an editor does not need to reference the lead, since what is mentioned in the lead is always mentioned in the main body (in a good article).... And yes, the whole article is referenced. Everything in the article is referenced, everything fucking this is referenced. --TIAYN (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to reference the lead, see Wage reform in the Soviet Union, 1956–1962 and Nikita Khrushchev (both FAs) for instance (they don't reference the lead; its not normal to reference the lead, you may do it, but that doesn't mean other people must...) + the claim that Aflaq supported democratic centralism is referenced in the "Arab Nation" section at the bottom; read the article! --TIAYN (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry mixed up the references again (it happens alot) see;

• p 83 of World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia
• p 44 of Historical Dictionary of Iraq
• p 60 of Syria: Revolution from Above

Sorry. --TIAYN (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well you didn't mention in until, well now that I mixed up the references... While I'm sorry I swear a lot, you can't just say something is wrong with the text without being specific about what the problem is... Even so, another argument; we'll never stop arguing will we? Ah, maybe its for the best :) --TIAYN (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Montenegrin nationalism

The dubious claims are "Montenegrin nationalism first arose in the 18th century that competed with Serbian nationalism." and "Serbian nationalism grew in strength in Montenegro from the 1880s to the 1900s and Montenegrins mainly associated themselves as Serbs." when there really was no "Montenegrin nationalism" (in the sense that Montenegrins are not Serbs) in the 18th or 19th century, and the Petrović-Njegoš and their dukes always professed a Serbian ethnicity, and were adherents to the Serbian Church. This is the first time I've heard the claim that Montenegrin nationalism dates back to the 18th century and that it "competed with Serbian nationalism". Please elaborate. The Montenegrin nationalism is essentially of two variants, the pro-Serbian being the initial ideology (pre-World War II), with Montenegrin nationalism (in the sense that Montenegrins are not Serbs) being a recent political ideology which in the last decades has been pushing for a separate language and church.--Zoupan 18:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

These are crucial points to understanding Montenegrin nationalism, which is quite hard to understand for outsiders. I will expand with sources showing the relation between Serbian and Montenegrin nationalism, and all the in-betweens. Can you complement the claims you added about the age of Montenegrin nationalism? Cheers. --Zoupan 20:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Adolf Hitler

Please note that although you have discussed several changes to this entry, they have been questioned by several other editors. Also, please note that this change, violates WP:Civil. Your recent history suggests that you seem to employ a rather combative stance in your editing, so please be prepared for an ANI if you continue in this way. Malljaja (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The response you left here does not address the two main issues I have raised. The lack of broad consensus how to present the divergent views of historians in the section in question and the amount of text that you have added to an entry that is already too long. If you do not respond to these concerns in the spirit of collaboration and civility, I see no point in further discussing these issues with you. Malljaja (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Scripts

Hi, R-41. As you may have noticed, the Adolf Hitler article uses Harvard-style short footnotes using {{sfn}} templates. The {sfn} template creates a clickable link from the footnote down to the bibliography, but only when the material is properly placed into the templates. The citations in the bibliography must be in citation templates as well, and must have the parameter | ref = harv (or a special template {{sfnRef}} when the document being cited does not have contents in the author field or the year field). The system, when used in conjunction with a script, reveals footnotes that do not have a corresponding book in the bibliography, and also highlights any books mentioned in the bibliography that are not actually cited by the text. You may have noticed me adding and removing material from the citations on the Hitler article to keep this system functioning properly.

I notice you do not have any scripts installed right now; here are some that I would suggest you try out: This material is placed in your common.js

importScript("User:GregU/dashes.js"); 
importScript("User:PleaseStand/segregate-refs.js");var SegregateRefsJsAllowConversion = true;
importScript('User:Cameltrader/Advisor.js');
importScript('User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js'); //[[User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js]]
importScript('user:js/urldecoder.js')
importScript('User:Ohconfucius/script/Common Terms.js');
importScript('User:Ohconfucius/script/EngvarB.js');  //[[User:Ohconfucius/script/EngvarB.js]]
importScript('User:Ohconfucius/script/formatgeneral.js');
importScript('User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js');  //[[User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js]]
importScript('User:Snottywong/diffconverter.js'); //[[User:Snottywong/diffconverter.js]]
importScript('User:Ucucha/duplinks.js');
importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');

If you decide to do this, and have any problems figuring out how to install or use these tools, please let me know. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Croatian Liberation Movement

Hi

I read your note about quality of this article. I agree with you. For the sake of encyclopaedism, I think this article shall be deleted. It is written as a blog with no valid references supporting anything claimed in the article.

I found a number of references supporting your disagreement with the author of this article. If a decision to keep it might be made, then a rewrite of this article must be in line of the true nature of this organization: neo-nazi and terrorist.

--71.178.101.2 (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Seamus (dog)

Seamus (dog), an article which is part of WikiProject presidential elections has been proposed for deletion. Feel free to join the discussion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus (dog) (2nd nomination) HHIAdm (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw your comments on the Seamus talk page about merging the Seamus article with the Mitt Romney article. This was attempted before, and it was an unmitigated disaster. There was an AfD for the Seamus article where the closing admin initially decided the merge the Seamus article with the Romney article. This led to 24 hours of severe edit warring between individuals who believed that the AfD results should be followed, and those who believed that addition of the Seamus incident to the Romney article was undue weight. The admin then modified his decision to no consensus which resulted in a separate article for the Seamus incident. Debbie W. 02:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

SPS/Left-wing nationalism

I've added one souce to support a left-wing ideology in the SPS. It acknowledges it if nothing more. Is that all right? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Added Capitalism Sidebar to article on Class Conflict

I added that article to the Group on Capitalism as well. I completely agree with your Talk Page comment on said article. There is also capitalistic class warefare/conflict from the upper class upon the proletariat or else the USA wouldn't be in the situation it is in today. The appearance of the "Communism Sidebar" in my educated opinion was added by capitalist interests to taboo or stigmatize the current popular, loosely associated Occupy Wall Street movement into the McCarthy-istic witch-hunt that exited during that administration. I'VE ADDED THE CAPITALISM DOMAIN SIDEBAR, and made it a part of the group on Capitalism. Those who might object to the appearance of the Capitalism sidebar will also argue for the removal of the Communism Sidebar.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Oh. By the way, do you know how to format the Capitalism sidebar to the left side of the article? I a relatively new editor. I can do it with images, but can't seem to get that same technique to work on sidebars.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Final Update: I hope.... Upon further investigation, the "Communism" sidebar was added by a "sock-puppet" account, as I suspected, which is now suspended by wikipedia. I'm REMOVING BOTH group domain sidebars. Here's the copy/paste of the edit by the sock-puppet.

(cur | prev) 14:31, 13 September 2009‎ Zonglowe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,240 bytes) (+36)‎ . . (Info box) (undo) --XB70Valyrie (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Just an idea of mine

File:Flag of Yugoslavia (proposed).png

File:Flag0401.png

Is this what you had in mind?

What do you think of this, for example? :) -- Director (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I like the flag better with the ordinary three equal bars, perhaps a larger coat of arms going a bit over the red and blue stripes like the SFRY flag would be good - plus I like the golden trim on the SFRY star on the flag so I would like to see a golden trim on the coat of arms. I know that we have gone over this issue before, but you need to provide evidence that the plain tricolour is viewed as offensive by others. If it is to be used or not it will require a vote on WikiProject Yugoslavia - from there we will see if the plain tricolour seen as offensive.--R-41 (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(lets talk here)

• The plain tricolour is simply out of the question. As I told you, it is the symbol of Milošević's Serbian-nationalist rump Yugoslavia and of the Serbian-hegemonist Kingdom of Yugoslavia. To a Croat or Slovene or Bosniak, even if he isn't outright hostile to the concept of Yugoslavia already (as are most!), it represents exactly the reason why Yugoslavia is unacceptable. If I recall your original designs actually included the Serbian (Byzantine) double-headed eagle xP. I advise you to steer completely clear of anything that could be characterized as hinting at Serbian-nationalism. That's the no.1 thing you must avoid at all costs, and yet that's the one thing you seem to insist on. I'm trying to help you with my knowledge that I have, as a local, of the popular sentiment around here, but I won't repeat myself again.
• As regards the coa
  • the whole problem with using your coa is the fact that it was very complex and didn't look good small. It couldn't be increased in size as, being complex, it would clash with the red and blue. It still can't. If it goes over the red and blue bars it will clash and it won't look good, and with a huge yellow outline over the whole clashy, overstated mess, it might as well be an African flag :P
  • Furthermore, the over-emphasis on the yellow was a decided minus in my view. With blue and red and white already in the flag, over-emphasis on yellow is just excessive. Yes, it has to be there for the fleur-de-lis and such minor details in the coa, but they are hardly noticable when the flag is viewed on the whole. The yellow outline is just a huge minus in my book. Yellow is not a Yugoslav colour - its a colour of communism, and that's why it marred the post-war Yugoslav flag. And that was not a good thing imo: I like this flag better than this one, even though it was crudely designed by the resistance.

As you can see, it is possible to solve all problems by simply having a larger white bar. That way, we can increase the size of your coa - and not clash with the red and blue bars. -- Director (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(Copied here from what I posted on your talk page): I like the last flag you designed with the arms going a bit into the blue and red bars is what I supported having. The previous one you designed may not be easily recognized as a Yugoslav flag because of the wide white bar and in my view it differs too much from the previous Yugoslav flags. Gold/yellow is used on all of the current flags of the successor republics of the SFRY, so it is not a "communist" colour. However the colours you have used appear to be Serbian colour shades of blue and red, I would prefer the standard blue and red as used on the Yugoslavs that has a brighter red and a more navy blue. The issue of 1:2 size versus the size shown here needs to be addressed since all the republics except for Serbia and the disputed territory of Kosovo, currently use 1:2 size flags.--R-41 (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The golden border gives a sense of unity to the shield as it clearly emphasizes that it is one shield.--R-41 (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I will revert any non-consensus changes on your part in the WikiProject Yugoslavia page. None of your custom insignia and flags are acceptable in light of the project's current focus as a historical country project. They may be considered offensive and political (Yugoslavist), and should never be implemented without a consensus among the members. If you believe my position is somehow "WP:DISRUPTIVE", I assure you that you could not be more mistaken. As that is not a Wikipedia article, not only am I entitled to my position even if I had no sources, but the idea that you think should be sanctioned simply for not presenting sources is utterly absurd. As far as I'm concerned, you may feel free to report that wherever you like.

I am sorry to say, in addition, that I am personally very disturbed by this whole affair. I would appreciate it if you kept communication between us at an absolute minimum. -- Director (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Corporate plutocracy

I've renamed Corporatocary to Corporate plutocracy. Since you first suggested it, can you discuss the naming of the article and the differences between the terms at the talk page? - M0rphzone (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW

See [1] for an interesting take on events. Collect (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

R-41, as you and Collect are showing such a keen interest in my user page, I would be delighted to host a conversation with you at my UTP if you wish. Tea and cookies on me. Please be sure to keep the "excess liquids from your kidneys"[2] and the contents of your bowel [3] under control! Writegeist (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't feel like you have the dignity of feeling that you deserved any better insults in response to your behaviour towards me, IRWolfie-, and Collect, though I'm sure you feel that you are superior to everyone to deserve a more dignified insult. Now, I told you to never talk on my talk page. Get off.--R-41 (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Rankovićism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rankovićism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rankovićism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Estlandia (dialogue) 13:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Germans

Could you please provide some academic references on why Ashkenazi Jews are to be regarded as ethnic Germans (other than linguistic ones), as well as references to your latest changes on "Related ethnic groups". Thanks.--IIIraute (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Your edits make it look like German Jews had a large impact on German ethnicity, just because a couple of Jewish German women had intermarried with Christian German men and had converted to Christianity. This is simply wrong, as the influence must be marginal to nothing. Apart from that you have turned the section about ethnicity into one about language. please see: In an ethnic sense, an Ashkenazi Jew is one whose ancestry can be traced to the Jews of Central and Eastern Europe. For roughly a thousand years, the Ashkenazim were a reproductively isolated population in Europe, despite living in many countries, with little inflow or outflow from migration, conversion, or intermarriage with other groups, including other Jews. Human geneticists have identified genetic variations that have high frequencies among Ashkenazi Jews, but not in the general European population. This is true for patrilineal markers (Y-chromosome haplotypes) as well as for matrilineal markers (mitotypes). → [4]. --IIIraute (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Because those marriages have been very uncommon. The source you have given is not relevant as it only gives information about some Jewish women marrying German men, not about their impact on German ethnicity. People from any ethnicity in the world must have intermarried with ethnic Germans, but that doesn't mean that you can include them in a two paragraph section of German ethnicity that covers the heritage of 80 million. Try to introduce your edits to the Ashkenazi Jews article, using the same arguments. You will find, that the Ashkenazi Jews article does not list "Germans" under "Related ethnic groups".--IIIraute (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

A. Yiddish was a dialect only spoken by Jewish peoples. B. What consensus?? C. The source you did provide is none, therefore I will remove it.--IIIraute (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

There hasn't been anything - no vote, consensus or anything else but a vague discussion among some editors. May I quote you: "I've brought up this point since the Wikipedia article on Einstein says that his ethnicity was Jewish. This article states it is about Germans as a Germanic ethnic group, not German citizens. I know that this comment may be viewed with suspicion, I am not some anti-Semitic neo-Nazi trying to deny that Einstein was a member of German society, what I am saying is that although he was a German citizen he is not an ethnic German that is the topic of this article." --IIIraute (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not think you were wrong - some other editors also supported your argument. Maunus intimidated all of you with the political correctness-hammering; I, for example, can trace my ancestry to the 9th century. I know this ethnicity issue is a complicated one. If correct, it shouldn't be a problem to provide some academic sources that support the latest edits. I would also like to see a source that describes Albert Einstein as ethnic German.--IIIraute (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

RFC, no problem. Please do not forget to explain that this is NOT about the infobox, but the Germans → ethnicity section and the influence on German ethnicity as a whole only, as well as the complete rewriting (ca. 65 edits) you did to the article within the last days. This is not about the status quo, but about you, trying to defend your recent edits.--IIIraute (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Please open RFC - you made the changes. --IIIraute (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess that's ok, Thanks.--IIIraute (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't really be bothered to mention it earlier, but although your wording of the RFC introduction is slightly biased, I would like to ask you to refrain from further influencing and let other editors make up their own mind. So we do not need to comment on every opinion.--IIIraute (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Just for a couple of days... until some other editors have contributed.--IIIraute (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's say the paragraph in favour of your argument contains a little bit more "passion". ...that Jews have not substantially influenced the development of the German ethnicity as a whole for example, one could misunderstand that they have not contributed substantially to German culture, etc. Also, there have been lots of arguments against the inclusion. You didn't really bring up the fact of how tiny (in proportion) the Jewish population has been in relation to the rest of the ethnic Germans (also outside of modern Germany), so having a Eduard Lasker picture as only representation of German ethnicity, next to that of an illustration of a Germanic family from 300 AD, I find a bit weird.--IIIraute (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Acceptable it has been all the time, but now it is even better. Thank you.--IIIraute (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought we do not interfere?--IIIraute (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Why not keep the "Germans" article the way it is, for the moment. I do not mind. --IIIraute (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Noticed your comment at ANI

Hi, R-41. TFD isn't an admin, nor is anyone else who's commented so far in the thread you began at ANI to seek an interaction ban. You'll probably see some admin comments there later today, I should think; threads stay there for at least 24 hours after the last timestamped post to them. If you don't see any admin comments, and you still want to hear from admins, you might consider putting a short, boldface request at the end of the thread to say so. Best, --OhioStandard (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Page Citing

R-41, you write worthy additions (even though we may not always agree as to wording). I would ask that you consider that when you are citing one page to only write one p. for that page. And when citing more than one page you will write pp. That is the proper way and will help avoid minor clean up work later. Now if we can get the "Nazism" article in shape it will be a major Italian victory. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Germans/Religion

Religion in Germany → please restore pictures according to relevancy (current & historically):

Religion in Germany (2008)
Roman Catholicism			30.0%
Protestantism			29.9%
Islam			4.0%
Orthodox Christianity			1.6%
Judaism			0.2%
Buddhism			0.2%

--IIIraute (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: reverting two edits

You can go to the page history and click the little round radio buttons at the edit before (that one happens to be mine), and the second vandal edit, and then click the big button "Compare selected revisions". On that screen, there's also an Undo link which allows you to undo both edits (unless someone's already done it, like now). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Merger

No one has said anything about the proposal of: "Protestant Reich Church" into the "German Christians" article. I would probably write on the page that you are going to do the merge within a day or two; and if there is no consensus otherwise, then carefully mend that fork together, so to speak. Kierzek (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

No one has objected so go ahead. After you are done we can check it for ce. Kierzek (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Nigerians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lebanese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Vader quote

Hey. I removed your quote and conclusion about the Emperor not being as forgiving as Vader. It strikes me as WP:OR. The notion of the Emperor being wrathful and a bad guy is already sufficiently covered by the article. --EEMIV (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Confederate States of America

Please don't change the flag during an RfC. I've reverted you. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you mean...

...to make this an article? --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 21:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Democracy

I thought it better that I should discuss this with you here, rather than jumping ahead with any more edits. I note (and agree) that "Democracy is not always majoritarian. There are democracies were [sic] certain groups hold veto power.". However, I fail to see how what I said contradicted this. Indeed, I was quite careful with what I said: "the right to hold some form of political power (though not necessarily sovereignty)" suggests that in a democracy, while some form of political power is granted to the citizen (thought even this is not always the case), it is optional whether these citizens are designated as sovereign or not. I re-emphasise "not necessarily" - meaning possible but not a strictly necessary component of democracy. Likewise, I did not suggest all democracies were majoritarian, merely that democracy is conducted "generally through the form of a majoritarian vote". Once again, I re-emphasise "generally" - meaning as a rule but not always the case.

Do you object to those elements on the grounds that they are misleading (although, as I've indicated above, I believe them to be fairly clear)? If so, I will not reinstate them. I'm merely interested to see your opinion.

Thanks, Gonefishing (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. I don't believe I did equate democracy with majoritarian democracy. I merely pointed out that, of those states that are democracies, they are generally majoritarian or, at least, have majoritarian elements. This is not quite the same thing as saying they are majoritarian. I don't believe you have addressed my remark about sovereignty.

Thanks again, Gonefishing (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just seen your modified response. I didn't set about "promoting any generalized stereotype of what a democracy... 'should be'". I merely stated how many democracies are. As for giving a generalised stereotype of how democracies are, well these are qualified in the greater article. Do you not think it is worth mentioning early on that most democracies are majoritarian? This is not to deny those countries where certain groups hold rights of veto or the (limited) existence of consensus democracies and certainly not its principles. Merely it is observing that most democracies are majoritarian in nature (whether these majorities be simple, absolute or super-majoritarian). What I have said does merely this and nothing more or less.

Regards, -- Gonefishing (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I see. On these grounds, then, I must ask when you intend to remove the part saying "The most prominent contemporary variant of democracy in the world is liberal democracy", on the grounds that it "implies that democracies have a natural tendency to be" liberal? The problem is that you can say this about anything (that it can be misconstrued and has greater implications - these can only be ironed out in the text and, at least to me, doesn't seem to justify ignoring a rather significant fact in the introduction). However, as promised, I will not reinstate the piece as you do object. On a side note, I'm not sure most socialist governments have been Marxist, Leninist or communist. If they have, I imagine it does not tally much more than those of the democratic socialist or socially democratic variants.

Regards, -- Gonefishing (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)