User talk:Dhtwiki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

Hello[edit]

Hello God bless Slavic7 (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Political descriptions in the United States article.[edit]

I'm not understanding your active opposition to anything I propose on this. We've worked together well on other issues. Maybe we can reach some kind of agreement on this one. My problem with the current language is that "conservative" and "liberal" mean completely different things in different national/historical contexts and that readers from large chunks of the world will be misled by those orphaned labels, most likely into thinking that Democrats are the free market party in the "liberal" international sense (like the Australian Liberals). Meanwhile "conservatives" can refer to anything from monarchists to theocrats to communists, depending on what part of the world you're in. If we're going to keep "conservative" and "liberal" we need some type of clarifying explanation. What my edit added (to answer your edit summary) was this clarification. Readers from around the planet could see that and go, "Oh, so in America the liberals are the left leaning ones while the conservatives are the center right types" without actually having to use "center left" or "center right" since others objected to those specific terms. I removed the tag because it was added a long time ago by someone for vague, illegitimate reasons (I think they wanted to call Republicans "far right" instead of "conservative" or something inane and partisan like that) and was never connected to an actual talk page section like it was supposed to be. By all rights it should be removed anyway, but I sort of like having it there now since I object to not having some type of ideological explanation there like other important country profile articles do for their politics. Since my concerns would have been addressed, and I've seen no others raised on that segment in months, I figured we could finally delete the tag instead of having "disputed" sitting there permanently. May I ask why you object, and if you'd be willing to reconsider or at least offer an alternative solution? VictorD7 (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@VictorD7: I'm usually grateful for your energetic involvement, but this time I thought you were unnecessarily making an edit that had been a bone of contention, and where I saw no reason for additional wording (never mind my constant complaint that the article is too large already with far too many sources and their CPU-intensive javascript) without discussion, especially when EllenCT, for whatever reasons, has been recently refraining from any further amendments on her part. For that reason, if nothing else, her "disputed" tag should not be removed without discussion, although I don't support what I perceive as her reason for placing it—that Republicans are characterized too leniently by being labeled "conservative". Dhtwiki (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe you summoned Ellen back to the talk page. I know you were just being conscientious, but she's the most disruptive, propaganda driven editor in Wikipedia history, and the article has been chugging along relatively smoothly in her absence the past few months. If she does return it will be your responsibility to take the lead on cleaning up whatever tangential messes she decides to create while there. I've already gone above and beyond the call of duty on that score.
Back on topic, there's no comparison between conservatives (broadly defined, including libertarians) and liberals when it comes to the scope of desired government involvement. Conservatives spend much of their time and intellectual energy talking about the constitution, limited government, individual liberty, and supporting the free market, which is limited government by definition. They view government as a necessary evil. Liberals are more likely to view government as an inherent good, which is why we get Obama giving speeches with themes of "you didn't build that", promoting big, active government as a force for positive change. Liberals want an expansive regulatory state while conservatives spend most of their time complaining about such a regulatory state. Liberals spend much of their energy attacking the private sector ("evil" business men) while conservatives praise entrepreneurs. Liberals don't think regular citizens should be trusted to own firearms (or start countless businesses without licenses, from manufacturing to children's lemonade stands), while conservatives do. Liberals strive to criminalize what they consider to be poor dieting and other lifestyle choices, while conservatives say such things are none of the government's business. Liberals want a much greater percentage of national GDP to be controlled by the government, favoring much higher taxes and spending than conservatives do, ostensibly for the purpose of resource redistribution. Liberals describe tax cuts as an "expense", while conservatives say that they're just letting the people who earned it keep more of their own money. The one area where conservatives do typically favor higher spending, the military, only accounts for about 20% of the federal budget. The other 80% consists almost entirely of items liberals want to expand spending on. That conservatives favor a strong national defense only underscores the more limited role they believe government should have, one mostly limited to its primary purpose of establishing physical security.
My edit used "rhetorically" twice in a preemptive attempt to avoid anyone coming along and claiming that Republicans don't really stand for individual liberty and/or liberals don't really stand for economic equality. That debate aside, both sides undeniably focus their energy talking about and claiming to support those things, respectively. I used it twice because I was bending over backwards to be neutral, listing the same number of items for each side in a mirrored style.
Remember what TVH said about the nature of Wikipedia consensus in the Hawaii discussion. The goal is to at least try to address every editor's concerns to a reasonable degree when possible. My concerns here are serious, informed, and well founded. I'm extremely flexible and can envision numerous solutions, but the status quo is unacceptable. We can't rely on readers to click those links for more information when they've been given no reason to be aware that they should. The segment is misleading in an international context. Isn't there any possible compromise you can find acceptable that would address my concerns? VictorD7 (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Replied[edit]

Hi Dhtwiki, I accept that some of the information added to the page Cartagena, Colombia, needs some citation, but I added info. in different topics on the page, I think some information might be useful and that info. like main urban avenues have no citation because is local information, however, i'm new here, thank you! Ctg15 (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ctg15: Thanks for understanding. The main thing you did wrong was not so much the adding of unsourced information, as there may be plenty of unsourced statements, but the unjustified removal of the "citation needed" template, which called for better sourcing. I reverted all of your edits, though, because they all seemed unsourced, and I didn't want to add to those already there. Everything on Wikipedia is supposed to be sourced in some way, although it often isn't. Also, you'll want to learn to add your talk page replies to the bottom of the page and sign with four tildes (~~~~). Dhtwiki (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

GOCE January drive[edit]

CleanupBarnstar.PNG The Cleanup Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Dhtwiki for copy edits totaling over 12,000 words during the GOCE January 2016 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 23:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Saudi kings religion[edit]

Hi, have you read the Hanbali article? Just a sourced extract from the article: "The Hanbali school was the forerunner of the Wahhabi-Salafist movement.[9] Historically the school was small; during the 18th to early-20th century Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Al Saud greatly aided its propagation around the world.[9]". Also, see this map about Islamic religious schools. I think that with that info its crystal-clear that the members of the Saud royal family are members of that school (Just as the Iranian leaders -Khomeini & Khamenei- are Usuli Twelver Shiites), otherwise that would be stated.--HCPUNXKID 15:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@HCPUNXKID: Where is the source that connects King Abdullah himself with that particular religious identity? As king, and perhaps especially as guardian, he would likely want to be seen as supportive of as broad a range of sects and schools as possible, rather than being identified with just one. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
If you want to state that you think that a concrete source is needed, just say it, but let's be clear, anyone who knows a little about the Saud royal family knows that they are not only officially Wahhabis, but the main worldwide propagators of that religious identity, as its clearly stated with sources on the Hanbali, Wahhabism, House of Saud articles. Even some times the terms Saud & Wahhabi are used as synonyms, as for example on the Ottoman–Wahhabi War article. So saying that Saudi rulers are Wahhabis is not an opinion, but a fact.--HCPUNXKID 16:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
And if you really think that Saudi kings want to be seen as supportive of as broad a range of sects and schools as possible, perhaps you should read the Shia Islam in Saudi Arabia article to change your view...--HCPUNXKID 16:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I had checked the articles for mention of Abdullah, but not Saudi kings in general. You haven't yet pointed to the specific article or source that describes Abdullah as you wished to label him. I also think that the infobox should reflect the text, and I looked for, but couldn't find, some detail on his religious adherence. However, I think such further discussion should take place on the article talk page. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Ehmmm, Its not a personal wish, its a fact. All the articles I put upwards point in the same direction, but still you talk about a specific source. No offence, but it seems to me that you want to avoid including that...--HCPUNXKID 10:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Finally, sources given.--HCPUNXKID 10:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You're killing me, lol.[edit]

In the past you've supported using "center-left" and "center-right". Can you please just indicate your acceptance of restoring those terms? That's all I want out of this discussion. People as ideologically diverse as me, TVH, and Golbez all coming together and agreeing on that point is a big deal, a breakthrough long in coming. You'd still be free to push for total deletion and/or other changes, and, since your support would give inclusion an effective consensus at this point, I'd be done messing with that segment and out of your way. VictorD7 (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)