User talk:The Four Deuces

Charles III requested move discussion

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Right-wing terrorism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Right-wing terrorism 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 terrorism (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

AlanS^talk 09:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Republican Party (United States)

See [1]. Please stop exhibiting the same kind of behavior you showed during dispute resolution over the Jan 6th attack. Remember what JML1148 told you, (7 August 2023)? You need to WP:AGF. Accusing me of being disruptive and claiming that what I said is somehow offensive on an article talk page is disruptive in itself. Please quit making it personal and stop going off topic. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

You wrote in reply to my comments, "Some editors probably also think the Earth is flat." That is offensive and I asked you to stop doing it. You are making it personal. TFD (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I have politely asked you to stop making accusations about me on article talk pages, so I've done all I can do. If you still think I made an disruptive personal attack on you, you are free to take it to ANI. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

For clarity, I meant no disrespect and it was not aimed at you personally, which I thought was clear. DN (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why you do not think comparing other editors with flat Earthers is offensive? TFD (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Flat Earthers are still just people that happen to disagree with science. IMO there's nothing inherently offensive about a belief that is simply disputed by fairly mundane scientific facts. If you find flat Earth beliefs offensive, I apologize, but that's none of my business. I'm willing to strike my remark if you are willing to strike your accusation of me being disruptive on the talk page, which I find equally offensive. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

In other words you were saying that I am irrational and am editing from an irrational POV. Can you tell me why you don't think that is both a personal attack an assumption of bad faith?

Why did you say, "If you find flat Earth beliefs offensive?" It's not the views that are offensive but being accused of holding irrational beliefs.

My original comment was, "If some editors thought it should be right wing, others center right, others center right to right wing and others think it should be blank, there is no consensus to put anything in." Instead of comparing it to Flat Earth Science, it would have been constructive to say why you don't agree with my reasoning.

If you disagree with someone, don't call them a Flat Earther or write "Balderdash!" Explain why you disagree. Otherwise you are just trolling and should apologize and stop doing it. TFD (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems like you are refusing to acknowledge my attempt to reconcile and choosing to continue putting words in my mouth and then trying to lecture me over them. If I can't convince you to assume good faith, or at least acknowledge your own behavior then we are done here for now. Cheers. DN (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

What words did I put in your mouth? TFD (talk) 06:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Instead casting WP:ASPERSIONS at me on the article talk page, as you did here, I politely suggest that if you, or MonMothma, have any reliable sources that state GRCT "is not really a part of the Republican Party", that you present them on the GOP talk page for discussion. Cheers. DN (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I seem to have failed to communicate what my position is. At no time did I say that GRCT is not part of the Republican Party. At no time did I question that you have provided sources that make that claim. My objection to your position is on to points, neither of which is about whether or not GRCT is part of the Republican Party:

(1) Whether or not to mention that GRCT is dependent on weight. What weight do sources about the Republican Party give it? Here you and others have failed to show that the claim has any weight. The one summary source another editor mentioned, Encyclopedia Britannica, does not mention GRCT in its article about the Republican Party.

You seem to think that because the topic is mentioned in sources about the GRCT, it should be mentioned in the article about the Republican Party. That is contrary to policy. Chuck Norris is a famous Republican but isn't in the article. Why? Because there are lots of famous Republicans and not enough room to mention all of them.

(2) While it is a fact that some Republicans believe in GRCT, as do some Democrats, the degree of support is aa matter of opinion.

The polls provided did not ask respondents whether they believed in GRCT but asked a series of questions based on which they drew a conclusion. As editors, it is not our role to determine whether or not that was a good conclusion, just whether it fell into the realm of fact or opinion. This determines how it should be reported.

For example, the SPLC's classification of hate groups is an opinion. While it is universally accepted, it still must be reported as opinion with attribution. That's clearly stated in Perennial Sources. One editor claimed I did not like the SPLC as a source, which is totally false. My position, which I can document, has always been that it is a reliable source for facts, but its opinions do not have inherent significance. IOW, articles about alleged hate groups routinely mention the SPLC classification not because they are inherently significant, but because reliable sources routinely mention them. IOW they have weight proved by mention in secondary sources.

If articles are well written, they will appear similar to similar articles in reliable sources. Per policy, tertiary sources such as the Encyclopedia Britannica article may help us determine what should be included. Of course we do not have to look at tertiary sources but you must show some objective criteria for proving what you want to add has weight.

I resent btw that you and other editors accuse me of bias in favor of the Republican Party. Other editors have accused me of biases across the political spectrum. But my only bias is that articles present facts and information consistent with policy. In many cases what reliable sources find significant differ from what I do. However I don't try to use articles to correct the biases in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This edit seems like an explicit implicit provocation on your part, in an inappropriate venue no less. If it happens again, I will report it to ANI. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It is not a provocation. My question was why was it an "accusation" to misattribute the posting of the source you provided? An accusation is a charge that someone has done something wrong. What is wrong about posting the link to the EB article? TFD (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Your first accusation was casting the false aspersion that I was misrepresenting another editor's views when I was quoting their reasoning, which happened to be nableezy's explanation. Your second accusation was to falsely claim someone else presented a source I provided "as a matter of fact", after implying they (I) might think there's a "massive conspiracy to whitewash the Republican Party?" by Britannica...You've clearly explained your motivation, as you feel I have "accused you of bias in favor of the Republican Party". I can accept and appreciate the honesty in that admission. The priority is to allow for genuine discussion during the RfC, so if you feel the need to call me out on something, take it to my talk page. If you feel justified in resenting me that's fine, but let's not use the RfC to make a WP:POINT. Agreed? DN (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't recall accusing you of bias in favor of the Republican party during the course of the GRCT discussion. If you can point it out to me, I will consider striking and apologizing. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

You wrote, "They've already made up their mind because "it is not really a part of the Republican Party so much as a belief among some Republicans, politicians and supporters."....Which has nothing to do with what reliable sources say." [23:18, 17 March 2024]

BTW in my opinion, immigration from developing countries is necessary to maintain the U.S. economy and the government should have established an immigration system that would allow immigrants to enter the U.S. safely and enjoy protection while they are there. Immigrants are not stealing jobs from Americans, are not abusing welfare and are not responsible for high crime. Unfortunately, demagoguery against immigration has a long history in the U.S. (and elsewhere) going back to arrival of the Germans in Pennsylvania. It's not something that began with Trump and it's not unique to the Republican Party.

Articles should cover the main points as identified by reliable sources and esclude obscure information. If we both follow that, we will have no disagreements in future. TFD (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I did write that, because they had already voted and they pointed to that explanation which I quoted verbatim. So it isn't a misrepresentation of you, or them. Was this possibly a misunderstanding? DN (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

To put it another way, no sources have been shown or stated thus far that "GRCT is not really a part of the Republican Party", thus it had nothing to do with what (available) reliable sources say. DN (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The posited theory seems to claim that beliefs can somehow be mutually exclusive from the subject expressing said belief in spite of a lack of sources that claim they are mutually exclusive. DN (talk) 03:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

A 2022 study compared belief in 52 different conspiracy theories with support for the two major political parties in the U.S. Significantly, the GRCT was not included, the authors apparently thinking it was less significant than the 52 conspiracy theories used.[2]

How do you decide which conspiracy theories to mention in the article?

TFD (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

By looking at coverage, determining weight by looking at the quality of sources, finding consensus etc...Is that not how we are supposed to determine such things? DN (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The quality of sources does not determine what does into articles, except that only reliable sources can be used. And consensus is supposed to be based on editors applying policy and guidelines.

Other than being reliably sourced, why do you think this information belongs in the article? TFD (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

What do you think I mean by quality of sources? DN (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

(Answer) For the reasons I previously mentioned in lieu of consensus) By the way, it would help if instead of answering questions with more questions, we would at least answer in a negative or affirmative in some form. The constant back and forth just beleaguers progression and understanding. DN (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

My question is, how do you determine what goes into articles other than that they are reliably sourced? If you do not know, then you can never provide a persuasive argument for inclusion. TFD (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The main difference is the level of expertise (WP:Scholarship for example) IMHO, but also the context, the age of said context, are all primary factors within the spectrum of how we judge the quality of sources. An occupational or academic expert on any given subject would be more knowledgeable and therefore more reliable than a reliable but less knowledgeable news reporter, would they not? DN (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue is not reliability, but how we choose what reliably sourced information belongs in the article. There are literally enough sources on Republicans to write hundreds of books. 15.000 books have been written about Abraham Lincoln. But we are not going to therefore describe his presidency in the same detail we do in the article about his presidency.

Why do you think (other than some sources mention it) that the GRCT belongs in the article? TFD (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we should try to discuss it on the article talk page again, instead of here.

If either of us feel the other is making inappropriate remarks, should strike a comment, or needs to make a personal observation, may we agree to do it here or on my talk page? DN (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I see you have already voted. DN (talk) 04:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

There's no reason why we cannot discuss it here.

How do you decide what goes into an article and what doesn't? Don't say that everything that can be reliably sourced must go in, because then the article would run into thousands of pages.

I held off my vote btw to allow edits including myself time to provide evidence that this information was significant to the topic. But since that was not provided, I thought it best to omit the information. TFD (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

You are still making accusations that do not WP:AGF.

"IOW you cannot or will not answer the question"

"You have provided no criteria for determining what belongs in the article. Instead, you counter with RANDOMLINKS: STRAWMAN, WEIGHT, NOPERSONALATTACKS, RELIABLESOURCES, etc., without ever explaining how any of them relate to the issue."

Do you not understand that there is a difference between attacking an opinion, an idea, or an argument, and attacking the person behind it? DN (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Instead of constantly attacking me and providing links whose relevance you never explain, why don't you explain your position and answer the questions posed to you? TFD (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Now you are accusing me of "constantly attacking you"...Are you suggesting I somehow deserve your accusations on an article talk page? I will go into more detail on the article talk page about my rationale, but I don't need you to like it or agree with it. You have admitted that you are using it as an excuse for your behavior, so I think it's about time to get some guidance from ANI on the matter. DN (talk) 06:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples Why don't you just talk about the reasons for your proposed edit? My objections to them are based on my interpretation of policy and guidelines not any personal consideration. TFD (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you disagree that our interactions have had a tendency towards a BATTLE mentality that often becomes blatantly deficient with regard to AGF? It's become somewhat of an embarrassment, as we are are the ones supposed to be setting a better example for newer editors. I know I'm pretty far from perfect, and I want to listen and learn from editors I disagree with like yourself. I've tried to be patient and communicate with you, but it seems I have failed because it still feels toxic at this point. I honestly do not want to bother admins that have to deal with much more serious issues than ours, but I am at the point where I no longer want to participate in discussions or debates when you get involved. That is unacceptable, and there is no shame in asking for help even if it comes with consequences. Frankly, once I provide my rationale on the article talk page I will want a break regardless of the outcome at ANI. DN (talk) 06:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples Why don't you just discuss the areas of disagreement? TFD (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Request

Respectfully, I'm going to ask you to please leave me alone. Especially on the J6 topic. DN (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I only posted to your talk page because the original discussion was closed. I respect your decision not to answer my question.

However, if whatever topics you comment on or make edits to, other editors may comment if they disagree.

My main point, call it trolling if you like, is that there are more than two perspectives on the events of 1/6 and that neither of the two partisan interpretations have much support in reliable sources. Therefore, the fact that members of one side might agree on some things with the other does not necessarily make that the consensus opinion.

Historically, governments have cracked down on civil disobedience following outrages by the far right. But their new tools have largely been used against the Left. That's probably why reliable sources are not unanimously falling in to line with DNC talking points. TFD (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

"You seem to have googled "John Birch Society"+"Republican Party"+"faction" and thrown your hits against the wall to see what sticks."

Your most recent attempt to attack me and ignore WP:AGF is leading me to believe you will never stop. You don't have to like me, but respect is something every editor, that has given their time to this project, deserves. I'm tired of asking you to stop making it personal on article talk pages. DN (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I am very sorry that you feel disrespected, that was not my intention. However, I would appreciate it if you could explain why we should look at the sources your provided rather than the types I suggested. TFD (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)