User talk:The Four Deuces

Mediation Cabal Case

Hello! There is a mediation cabal case still open in which you are a named party. It also appears the other mediator has withdrawn. Is there still a need for the mediation cabal to deal with this? If so, I would be glad to volunteer and help out. Cheers! -- Lord Roem (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I wish you the best of luck in resolving the issues in alternate ways. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Loughner and ZOG

Have you seen any specific references to ZOG? I've not noticed anything beyond the suggestion of links to AmRen, which claim not to be anti-semitic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd not trust Fox on this issue - they may be rather too keen to separate Loughner's politics from theirs, and antisemitism would be an obvious divide if they could make it stick. (Then again, if Fox said it was going to snow, I'd pack suntan lotion - RS only for their own opinions) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't watch Fox News, so can't really judge. This side of the pond our news sources are sufficiently varied, and at each others throats, that looking at the same topic on several tends to give a vague idea of what is actually going on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion from talk page

You deleted my comment on a talk page, WP:RSN. This seems very unusual; what was the rationale? Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

An item of interest to you may be present at RS/N

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Transaction_Publishers_ever_reliable.3F.

Thank you, Fifelfoo (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

2nd proposed change in 1953 Iran coup article lead

Hi, I'm doing another poll of editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article on the issue of revising a phrase in the article lead. It's a repeat but I didn't explain it well in the first poll.

• changing this phrase (which talks about an element in the motivation for US involvement in the coup):
  • from ... resolute prevention of the slim possibility that the Iranian government might align itself with the Soviet Union, although the latter motivation produces controversy among historians as to the seriousness of the threat.
  • to: the ... resolute prevention of Iran falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire".

The reason for the change is discussed here and is, briefly, that the sentence as is doesn't match the rest of the article, (and doesn't match most of the books that deal with US motivation in the coup).
The US motivation section gives only one author (Abrahamian) who thinks the US leadership wasn't seriously worried about the possibility that Iran might become a communist country, while listing several who thought cold war motivation of the US was important.
An even more thorough examination of the sources dealing with issue is here.

It sound like you are retired but I hope you have time to give it a look see, --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

RSN on Infobase Publishing

I'd be interested in your opinion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Infobase Publishing, if you wouldn't mind sharing it. Thanks. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Consider undoing your close of the RfC at Talk:Unite Against Fascism

Hello TFD. Please see my suggestion at Wikipedia:AN3#User:Snowded reported by User:Cptnono (Result: No action). EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Your Abuse Response Filing

Greetings! Thank you for filing an Abuse Report for abusive behavior originating from 24.116.219.146. We wanted to let you know that the case has been opened and is currently under investigation. Acather96 (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change 2.1 in 1953 Iran coup article lead

I'm revising the change proposed above as Aliwiki (here) and Kurdo (here) have both made complaints about the proposed changes that I think have merit. Namely, that Iran falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire"[7] should refer to the US administration's point of view and not a statement of fact.
The to-be-revised text and revised text are in italics. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Current wording

• "Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery, the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott. while using Iranian agents to undermine his government. With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower decided to overthrow Iran's government though the predecessor U.S. Truman administration had opposed a coup."

• "The tangible benefits the United States reaped from overthrowing Iran's elected government was a share of Iran's oil wealth as well as the resolute prevention of the slim possibility that the Iranian government might align itself with the Soviet Union, although the latter motivation produces controversy among historians as to the seriousness of the threat."

Proposed change

• "Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery, the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott. while using Iranian agents to undermine his government. By 1953 both Britain and the United States had more conservative governments and the new US Eisenhower administration reversed its predessor's opposition to a coup, fearing that Iran was in danger of falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire"."

• "The tangible benefits the United States reaped from overthrowing Iran's elected government was a share of Iran's oil wealth as well as the prevention of possibility that Iran might fall under the influence of the Communist Soviet Union." --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason for the change is the same as the original one and is discussed here

I know you didn't make any comment on my last attempt but I hope you will find this one is a true improvement. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Fascism, an old chestnut, but still...

I have reverted your including a reference to the term "fascism" in the lead to the article on right-wing politcs, as I believe it to be inaccurate and misleading and pandering to the old canard that there is an inextricable or latent link between conservatism and fascism. It's as unfortunate and damaging as making a natural connection between those on the left, and say, Stalin. Best wishes Jprw (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(I copied these comments to Talk:Fascism, which is where they should be discussed. TFD (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The Paranoid Style in American Politics

As you requested, I responded on the article talk page re: my reasons for deleting the Goldwater reference. Its basically a coatrack which has no place in the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Freedom

I'm copying this from Talk:Libertarianism since it's not about article content. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You guys are still missing the point. Libertarianism is about "freedom". TFD (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What definition of "libertarianism" are you presuming in this statement? What good is "freedom" if I can't get society to help keep people from stealing the apples from the trees that I planted because there is no way for me to claim the land I planted them on as my private property? What kind of freedom is freedom without the ability to own property so that you can do something with it, like grow apple trees in order to sell apples? Without private property there can be no freedom. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Bingo! All libertarians believe in freedom, their only argument is about how it is best achieved. Private property or communal property? TFD (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I understand that broad definition of libertarianism, and I know there has been some usage of that meaning in English in the past, and it's still used that way in other languages, but, it's very rare in modern English sources to refer to those in the communal property camp as unhyphenated libertarians. It's an obscure use of the term (in modern English), and yet that's the topic of this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you assume that "freedom" is the ultimate goal of every ideology. In fact it is only the primary goal of libertarians (and perhaps liberals). Libertarians of course disagree in how that can be achieved. You, for example, believe that private property is essential to achieving freedom - other libertarians may disagree. But conservatives and socialists do not care, because they do not see freedom as the ultimate goal. TFD (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've made no assumptions about other ideologies. But I think I understand what you're saying, that not all ideologies make freedom the top priority, and the family of ideologies that do that can roughly be described as "libertarianism". I understand that, but that's a very general and relatively obscure use of the term in modern English. It's so obscure, that nobody can find a source to support the statement that groups opposed to property rights are referred to as unhyphenated/unqualified "libertarian". It is used much more commonly, almost universally, certainly dominantly, to refer to a more specific ideology based not only on property rights, but also on the understanding that property rights are essential for freedom. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No libertarians oppose property rights. The issue is whether land, which all libertarians believe is originally in common ownership, can be converted into private owenership. If a pioneer who settles empty land claims ownership, then he deprives the community of their property rights. TFD (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

doesn't the "community" only come after the pioneer settles the land? are you saying ll respect property rights of the individual, as long as the individual has purchased the deed from the community? Darkstar1st (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

According to Locke, land was owned by the community, but in America, which was terra nulla, because it was uninhabited, one could acquire title to property by mixing one's labor with it. He used this argument in order to justify ownership of land by English aristocrats, challenging the view that they were vassals of the Crown. Of course in America, that meant that the London company owned all the land, because they put their slaves and indentured servants to work on improving the land. TFD (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Radical Right

Thanks for the invitation. However I decline to get involved in that article at this time.   Will Beback  talk  22:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

MkuCr POV tag discussion

The POV discussion has been dormant for more than two weeks. I intend to remove the POV tag from the article in a day, as the discussion seems to have concluded. If you still dispute the neutrality of the article, a response here or on the article's talk page would be appreciated. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

AE report

An AE request has been submitted[1]. --Martin (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)