User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2010/July

US Conservatism

On the talk page, it seems like you're basically saying that US conservatism really only came about in pretty modern times. If that's the case, do you have ideas on why the article covers so much other stuff from past eras, which may not have even been considered "conservatism"? BigK HeX (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

see the UCLA Law Review article

Answering your question here, (wanting to be sure you see it, as it is confusing to read the 2A talk page which gets cluttered with interwoven discussion threads) For an analysis of the "post-heller" court rulings, I recommend reading this article[1] in the UCLA Law Review which describes the experience in federal courts of the court cases that have been ruled upon in the post-Heller time period. It describes that a common thread in most of the rulings is the focus on the "presumtively lawful" words from Heller. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Armaque in armatos fumere jura finunt

In honesty, I can't read the language "Armaque in armatos fumere jura finunt", do you have a third party translation and analysis?

I am presuming that you presently have the Cramer book in your hand and are reading it whole and in context. (Is this correct?) Personally, I have only started reading the book by Clayton Cramer, and my initial impression is that his writing style rambles as he has tried to bring together hundreds of citations in footnotes documenting a lot of "on one hand we see this" and "on the other hand we see that". Yes, one of the "on one hand" things he briefly touches upon is the Laws of Cnut while in the same chapter he mentions the 1328 Statute of Northampton as being "on the other hand", plus many more "other hands". As near as I can tell, the big picture hypothesis that Cramer is trying to prove (which he summarizes on pages 1 and 2 of his book), is that there is both a militia service tradition seen in European history, plus a tradition of individuals being armed for the purpose of defending against tyranny. The viewpoint that is (mostly) missing is the issue of personal self defense of hearth and home. I think that Cramer is presenting both the militia theory and the insurrectionist theory viewpoints of English History as precedents to a "right to bear arms", as being viewpoints which he says are not mutually exclusive. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking me now.

This should not be a discussion of "my view" versus "your view", nor should it be a discussion of the "true view".

Plainly, there are a bunch of conflicting points of view seen in reliable sourcing about the English history precedent to the 2A. I tried to itemize the four major POVs here[2], indicating which authors have described each of the POVs. The four significant POV themes are: 1) militia tradition 2) insurrection against tyranny 3) self-protection 4) gun control. Each of these have been written about to a significant extent. We should draft an English history section that describes these without bias. We should avoid censuring any POV just because editors dislike it as not being TRUTH.

Both Hauskalainen and AnonIP are adamant that any point of view that doesn't agree with their preferred point of view must be fought vigorously. Hopefully other editors can agree that we must include the various points of view which we see, even those that may not match our personal POV. Are you siding with Hauskalainen and AnonIP, or are you willing to support inclusion of each of the significant POVs seen in reliable sourcing whether or not it matches your personal POV? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I am confused what you mean. Cramer (see pages 1 and 2 of his book) describes two POVs. The insurrectionist and the military service traditions, which he says are not mutually exclusive. The gun control POV is solidly discussed in the book by DeConde. The weakest POV (measured in numbers of sources) is the self-defense POV. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 00:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

See DeConde starting at page 11[3] with the sentence: "Meanwhile efforts in Europe to exercise some form of control over guns expanded in correlation with their availability". Through to page 14 where he asserts[4]: "the Bill of Rights reinforced traditional selective gun control". See also the prior page where he critiques the interpretation of the Bill of Rights presented by Joyce Lee Malcolm.

I agree that we should stick with saying that Author #1 says this and Author #2 says that, etc. One likely problem will be that that both AnonIP and Hauskalainen believe that Antonin Scalia's dicta written in Heller is the preeminent source. Unfortunately, I don't see much third party sourcing that says that England has a tradition of a right to arms for protection of person, hearth and home. And, Hauskalainen's quotation from Blackstone bother's me because he wants to add his editorials (and ellipsis) telling us what Blackstone's intent should be. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

One other thing: Yesterday you wrote that on page 19 of Cramer that he is making an argument of common law origin "in ancient Germanic tribes for whom arms bearing was a right and a duty of free men." I have that book in my hand now and the opening of that sentence is: "Like many other civilizations founded on warfare, the Germanic tribes...". The tells me pretty clearly that Cramer is arguing that the Anglo-Saxons "military service" tradition is an important precedence to the 2A. Cramer does go on and argue that in addition to the "military service" component that there is also an "individual right" component too. Yet, for the largest part his argument of the individual right component appears to be built on the tradition of opposing tyranny hypothesis. He does mention the self-defensive hypothesis later, and indeed he also mentions the gun-control hypothesis too (pg 25). SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The term "gun control hypothesis" is mine, and I am fine with not using that term. The issue I see in multiple places, including Cramer on page 25, and DeConde on pages 11-14 (plus several other places which I have described before) is that the English tradition of using arms laws to control classes of people is described as precedent to the some of the intent behind the drafting of the Second Amendment. As Cramer puts it "The use of arms control laws for reasons of economic exploitation will reappear when we explore the Black Codes and the Presser v. Illinois decision in later chapters." These "Black Codes" have to do with the issue of slaves bearing arms, and the use of militia slave patrols. This 'slave control' theme (or as Cramer calls it, economic exploitation) of bearing arms is linked to origins of Protestant exploitation of Catholics by both DeConde and by Cramer. I am not saying this is the "major POV" seen, but it is a significant POV seen in the sourcing. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

section break

What Salty doesn't get is that HIS version of militia service, where that right is limited to government sanctioned militia members, is contrary to insurrection theory. The militia service argument flows from the right of men to band together for self defense, i.e. group defense as opposed to individual self defense. That right to group self defense is not "given" by rulers, it is inherent. The US Supreme Court rightly called HIS version of the Second "worthy of the mad hatter.

If the Second read "A well educated citizenry, being necessary for a a free State, the right to keep and read books, shall not be infringed" instead of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" per the Salty POV, only those already well educated can have books. A clear case of "mad hatterism".71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi and thank you

Thank you for your suggestion about merging the two articles Social populism and Populism but this has already been discussed and has been ruled out by the administrator: User:Chzz.

--HelpingHandTalk 10:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, The Four Deuces. You have new messages at Thehelpinghand's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi TFD, I am not sure whether you are aware there is an IRC Channel for help and advice on their there was a four way conversation between myself, User:Chzz and a few other administrators to rule out a merge. Please contact Chzz at his talk page by clicking there. Thanks a lot.

--HelpingHandTalk 18:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

AFD

Note that the article you AFD'd is nothing like MN's "exaggeration" article. If you think that this article is OR, it would be really nice if you explained why you think so. I pretty much tried to use the same standard I'd use in any other article. Guettarda (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Tags

The fact that you have not actually joined the discussion over the tags [5] makes me wonder why you continue to revert [6] said tags back into the article? Perhaps you`d be good enough to explain your reasons for keeping the tags in the article? mark nutley (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh!

Maybe because Wikipedia is the only tertiary source in the world that has an article on this subject.

For some reason, I just burst out laughing when I read that. BigK HeX (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Tags Again

You brought the tag reverting issue to ANI and as such you no doubt are aware the decision by the admin there was to not put the tags back. His exact wording being Agree; restore them only if you can provide clear reasons for doing so on the article's talk page; This you have spectacularly failed to do. Will you please self revert oe should i open the case again? mark nutley (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It seemed to me that the discussion on the use of sources merits it's own discussion. If possible, would you be interested in seeing whether your comments may keep the discussion more streamlined, if shifted over into the "Discussions of #2" subsection? BigK HeX (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Mass killings under Communist regimes

I have nominated Mass killings under Communist regimes, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (3rd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ouch ... Radek's direct involvement in the EEML is being pointed out now. BigK HeX (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

So? It's not like I'm trying to hide the fact that I was on the mailing list. While, as I've said before, the mailing list went too far in some respects and broke some rules, this happened mostly out of frustration with the general incompetence one encounters on the Wikipedia all too often - but everyone on the list acted with what they thought was the best interests of the encyclopedia, and tried to ensure core Wikipedia policies like NPOV and OR and the fact that articles should be based on reliable sources. TFD keeps making stuff up that just isn't true in this respect. Any single editor of the former EEML, no matter how censured, has done a lot more to improve this encyclopedia than he has. He has no business criticizing them, especially not to score cheap rhetorical points in absence of solid arguments.radek (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

@radek: I actually posted this comment to TFD in sympathy of those implicated in "the EEML" debacle. You and I may not see eye-to-eye on the current issue, but I can still feel sympathy for your position, given this new development in the discussion. BigK HeX (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Noted, thank you.radek (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey TFD. You don't owe me any favors or anything, but I was hoping that I could plead with you a bit to maybe delete your last EEML comment, just in the interest of peaceful advancement of the article and AfD... or maybe just reduce it to stating that "you disagreed with the original page move" or whatever. If you would consider it, then thanks a ton! BigK HeX (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I will take it out. But I want to be clear about this. It was not my idea to change the name of the article, it was radek's and the e-mails are available to show this. TFD (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don`t know much about this eeml thing, were did the e-mails come from? mark nutley (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You can read about the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list. TFD (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm vaguely aware of the EEML issue, but, all the same, I thank you for reducing the tension! BigK HeX (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The editor here describes a lack of Marxist viewpoints. BigK HeX (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

AzureFury

FYI, he deleted my comments on the talk page of the article [7]. This is unacceptable and borderline vandalism. I appreciate your input on how to deal with this disruptive user. AlexanderPar (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The Four Deuces vs TFD confusing

Obviously I've run into you lots of times before and now just realized that the Four Deuces in the Histories is the same as TFD in your signature. It's really helpful to keep User names consistent. But from now on when I run into you I'll just clarify that on the talk page so others are not similarly confused :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk page reverts

Just curious why I've had my talk page comments reverted ...? BigK HeX (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Modern Liberalism

Reverting vandalism and inappropriate content-blanking does not fall under 3RR. In the future, please be more understanding of the policies you strive to uphold. Thanks, Badger Drink (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Apology

please forgive my past transgressions, your contributions benefit WP. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Multiple sections

TFD, do you not think opening so many threads at once is a little confusing? Why are we not discussing one source at a time? Can you please hold off on creating more until we have finished with the ones already out there? thanks mark nutley (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Edited your comment

Here Please don`t say stuff like that on a talk page about a BLP, thanks mark nutley (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

How to establish the relative prominence of viewpoints?

I am not going to get in any way involved in this, not even in this discussion. However, I will point you to a reliable tertiary source, that answers the specific question of the relative prominence of viewpoints. Note however, that even this document only discusses the prominence of viewpoints only among Western scholars. You may also want to check out this for some background information. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)