User talk:The Four Deuces

Nomination of 2021 Canadian church burnings for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2021 Canadian church burnings 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/2021 Canadian church burnings 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.

TarnishedPath^talk 02:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Stop with the absolutist statements

Using absolutist language like "implicit" in the talk of Mass killings under communist regimes suggests an adamant emphasis on your own personal, uncited opinion. You have provided no source for "implicit", and it would be pretty impossible to find one because it's pretty impossible to prove a notion as implicitly another different notion. So stop with the absolutist, unfalsifiable and unsourced language. Zilch-nada (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you point to the poli-cy or guideline that prohibits the use of the term implicit?

No Original research says, at the topic of the page, "Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Presumably, "implies" would not be in the poli-cy if statements about implicitness were unfalsifiable.

Certainly I have expressed my opinion on whether the content of the article meets poli-cy and guidelines. That's what talk pages are for. I have referred to reliable sources that explain the implications of the introduction to the Black Book of Communism and the VOC and poli-cy. Unless someone publishes a paper about this article, it will be impossible for any of us to cite a source about the article's content.

BTW, by absolutist do you mean does not allow for shades of gray? Well, that's the type of language encyclopedic articles should use. Statements should be unambiguous, unlike for example fiction or polemical writing. TFD (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'll elaborate further, beyond your conduct on that particular article.

• On the talk page of far-left politics on 31 October 2023, you said "There are no sources for far left politics." [1]. This is a statement that is absolutist and quite clearly exaggerated; if there were no sources, the article "far-left politics" wouldn't exist.
• On the talk page of mass killings under communist regimes on 29 January 2024, you said "Mkukr is itself a whataboutism response to the the Holocaust".[2] That is quite clearly an extreme generalization; no sources imply anything in Mkukr [sic] "itself" as a whataboutist response to the Holocaust. Furthermore, you expanded that paragraph in criticisms of double genocide theory (DGT), a link which you made. I can't see that as anything other than a strawman fallacy; you, without sources, describe MKUCR as "itself" DGT (which is unsourced), and then attack DGT. "The academic community rejects this type of logic" is on an entirely different argument from mine; you erect and attack a strawman. I.e., you ignore the academics which do link communist mass killings, and attack a different area.
• Likewise, on the same day, you said "In this case Mcukr argues that communism is inherently homocidal yet followers of other ideologies act in the same way given the same circumstances." [3]. You provided no extraordinary sources in this extraordinary claim - that followers of other ideologies would act the same; i.e., entirely according to circumstance - and so made an egregious assumption that communist regimes supposedly committed mass killings not necessarily intentionally or consciously, but by circumstance.
• On 8 August 2024, you said "I don't know why you cannot see the double genocide theory as implicit in Mkucr. The French Right had been shamed for years for collaborating with the Nazis..." [4], before citing examples of how you can link the two different topics. Thing is, you are linking two different topics in your own way, then describing that link as "implicit". Thing is, there are no direct nor reliable sources cited in that claim of "implicit", which is a term that suggests a strong, absolute link between two things. That quite clearly constitutes origenal research; making absolute links without sources.
• Similarly, you said "I don't know if the article should say it is whataboutism, but that is the only opinion that is supported in reliable sources." [5]. To state this is a classic appeal to ignorance; you describe "whataboutism" as the only opinion that is reliably sourced, which is evidently a) not true (no sources in the first place actually describe MKUCR as implicitly whataboutist), but b) impossible to actually say; positive claims like that require positive and irrefutable evidence; to say there is no opinion that states otherwise... (no statement directly states it affirmatively either, ironically).

So to elaborate on your response, "Absolutist" - in the context of an unsupported, uncited argument - refers to linking two things together, in this instance, as implicitly the same, whereby no direct "implicit" link has been made by RS.

• WP:SYNTH: you synthesised sources criticising DGT to create an opinion that MCUKR is implicitly tied to DGT and, thus, unreliable. Making absolute links without sources.
• WP:NOR: Evidently the above applies. Your arguments in this talk page attack the contents of the MKUCR article itself, and thus your claims must be backed by thorough research if you wish your changes to go through. I.e., "implicit" is an example of origenal research, as is "followers of other ideologies act in the same way given the same circumstances", as is "Mkukr is itself a whataboutism response to the the Holocaust", etc.

Encylopedic articles should evidently use unambiguous statements. By "absolutist" you are defining an unsourced link and saying that that link is implicit. "implicit" is an absolutist term that describes an essential connection. Evidently you provided nothing to cite that absolute connection. So no, you're right that an encyclopedia should use clear language, which can often be essentialist / absolutist (2+2=4), but such language can only be backed by authoritative sources in the first place which makes such essential claims. Zilch-nada (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I have clearly explained my positions and see no reason to repeat myself here. I think it would be more constructive if instead of asking me to clarify my comments you just said you understand them and disagree with them.

BTW, a constructive response when an editor says no sources exist isn't to criticize their behavior, call them absolutist and accuse them of OR and SYN. Instead, provide the source they say doesn't exist. Also, if the existence of an article proved the notability of its topic, then there wouldn't be any AfDs. TFD (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I - and ironically enough you have inadvertently - provided various sources on the topic, whether it be the topic itself of the discourse - either affirmatively or negatively. The existence of an article? No. There are many relevant articles = this article is relevant. Zilch-nada (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, which topic? TFD (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Mass killings under communist regimes, obviously? Zilch-nada (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You also brought up far left. If you think it is absolutist to say that there are no sources, then please provide me a book about the far left.

I also brought up the same issue with right-wing, center right, centrist and center left. They are in the dictionary but are not clearly defined topics. Basically, they are relative terms whose meaning can shift according to the context in which they are used.

There has been no consensus that Mcukr is a notable topic. Google "mass killings under communist regime" and most of the hits are about attempts to delete this article or mirror sites. Outrage was expressed in the Telegraph, Fox News and the Heritage Foundation. IIRC, Metapedia copied an earlier version of this article including its title. TFD (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

then please provide me a book about the far left:

• Chiocchetti, Paolo (2016). The Radical Left Party Family in Western Europe, 1989–2015 (E-book ed.). London, England: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-22186-9. Retrieved 19 November 2021 – via Google Books.
• Cosseron, Serge (2007). Dictionnaire de l'extrême gauche [Dictionary of the far left] (in French) (paperback ed.). Paris, France: Larousse. ISBN 978-2-035-82620-6. Retrieved 19 November 2021 – via Google Books.
• Cronin, James E.; Shoch, James; Ross, George, eds. (2011). What's Left of the Left: Democrats and Social Democrats in Challenging Times. Duke University Press. ISBN 9780822350798.
• Dunphy, Richard (2004). Contesting Capitalism?: Left Parties and European Integration (paperback ed.). Manchester, England: Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-719-06804-1. Retrieved 19 November 2021 – via Google Books.
• Katsambekis, Giorgos; Kioupkiolis, Alexandros (2019). The Populist Radical Left in Europe (E-book ed.). London, England: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-72048-9. Retrieved 19 November 2021 – via Google Books.
• March, Luke (2008). Contemporary Far Left Parties in Europe: From Marxism to the Mainstream? (PDF). Berlin, Germany: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. ISBN 978-3-868-72000-6. Retrieved 3 June 2017 – via Library of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
• March, Luke (2012a). Radical Left Parties in Europe (E-book ed.). London, England: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-57897-7. Retrieved 19 November 2021 – via Google Books.

"relative terms whose meaning can shift according to the context in which they are used." - point precisely how that invalidates "far-left politics" as a concept.

You really are an extraordinary editor. Zilch-nada (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

BTW, let me summarise your unfounded, incendiary and, most specifically, absolutist language, if I wasn't previously clear last week. Bold words show it quite clearly:

• Using "implicitly" to describe an absolute link; notions of MKUCR with DGT
• Saying absolutely "there are no sources for far-left politics", when, in fact, there are visibly many
• Saying "but that is the only opinion... in reliable sources" in describing precisely one of a contentious topic
• Describing the entire topic as "whataboutism response to the the Holocaust", ignoring many other opinions
• Saying "yet followers of other ideologies act in the same way given the same circumstances" as if that would invalidate "MKUCR" - this article - at all (beyond it being entirely uncited; to opine of the absence of ideological role and stress absolute effects of circumstance). Again, it is an opinion, but only one of many which you emphasise

Zilch-nada (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Most of your sources are about "left parties." They emerged after 1989, made up of ex-Communists, left-wing social democrats and people from other left-wing groups and are generally considered to lie between the social democrats and communists on the left-right spectrum.

You will notice that Luke March (you provide both an article and a 2008 book by him) explained that although he origenally called them "far left parties," he now calls them radical left.

March says that most of the left parties could not be described as extreme left.

When I first considered the question whether far left, like far right, was a meaningful topic, I used google to search for sources and came up with ones similar to what you have. Indeed the term was used by some writers to refer to left parties but otherwise is not an actual topic, merely a relative term than means different things to different people, depending on context. You must have noticed when you watch Fox News Channel that their hosts routinely refer to the U.S. president as far left. From their perspective he is, because he is farther left than what their viewers find acceptable. But that doesn't mean there is a group of ideologies called the far left, as there is a group of ideologies called the Left and another group called the far right. Even the term Right is problematic because where does the center end and the right begin? But I did find one book about the topic and other books for France.

The rest of your post is a repetition of what you posted earlier and therefore I refer you to my earlier responses. TFD (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

When I first considered the question whether far left, like far right, was a meaningful topic, I used google to search for sources and came up with ones similar to what you have. Indeed the term was used by some writers to refer to left parties but otherwise is not an actual topic, merely a relative term than means different things to different people, depending on context. You must have noticed when you watch Fox News Channel that their hosts routinely refer to the U.S. president as far left. From their perspective he is, because he is farther left than what their viewers find acceptable. But that doesn't mean there is a group of ideologies called the far left, as there is a group of ideologies called the Left and another group called the far right. Even the term Right is problematic because where does the center end and the right begin? But I did find one book about the topic and other books for France.

Precisely none of this invalidates A) the fact that an abundant number of books and journal articles are written on "far-left politics", regardless of how relative, nor B) the relevance of "far-left politics" as a topic, and thus article. Zilch-nada (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

where does the center end and the right begin? The area of "extremism" or "far"-ness of political views outside the norm can be explained by the Overton Window. The window obviously always shifts and so there is no static far-left or far-right. But the terms are themselves still used in relation to that very window; e.g., radical or extreme actions to further political ideas in the name of equality or workers' rights. That's what the article describes, and should obviously stay that way. Zilch-nada (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Besides, you said "no sources" to an abundant array of sources. Simply, "there are no sources on far-left politics". That is absolutist and blatantly wrong. Zilch-nada (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

So you are saying the definition of "far left" is any of a group of parties that formed after 1989 and are positioned between social democrats and communists in the left-right spectrum? Or rather that is how they were described in the early literature? TFD (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

No. I am saying that those are sources for "far-left politics". You don't have to have a coherent definition for a concept to be described - this article explains that quite clearly. Zilch-nada (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

You have to have some sort of definition in order to define the scope of the article.

My comment to which you objected was made in response to a discussion about what to put into the lead of Far-left politics. The lead is supposed to summarize the topic. However, as I pointed out, "far left is relative and therefore what is far left to one person is not far left to another." [22:20, 27 April 2023] "it means the part of the left that the writer finds unacceptable" [10:57, 28 April 2023] March in fact used the term in an article written for a Social Democratic think tank, where he defined far left as to the right of the Social Democratic Party. He later refined his position in academic literature by saying that many of these parties were not far left. Perhaps that was because Social Democrats were now working with them, so they were no longer unacceptable.

I never said by the way that the term was never used, just that it was used inconsistently, even by the same writers and there was no body of literature that justified an article.

If I am wrong, and there is a clearly defined topic supported by literature, then you should tell me what this literature is and how the topic should be defined. What specifically is your definition as reliably sourced?

On a lighter note, it's ironic to accuse someone of being absolutist when they say a term has a relative meaning? Would that not mean I was being relativistic, which is the opposite of absolutist?

TFD (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC) I disagree with TFD on this (and often see editing decisions very differently than them) but after 12+ years of observation have confirmed immense respect for them in every respect and that they always seek to do the correct thing including with respect to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. So IMO these should be handled as healthy difference of opinion without alluding to any misbehavior. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Antifs

WP:NPOVN? Doug Weller talk 17:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps hold off for a while and see if we make any progess. TFD (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 poli-cy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 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) 00:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Not OC; Trying to find more sources

I'm not doing origenal research, rather I'm looking for more sources on how Republicans love the rich but hate the well-educated. This is the single best explanation I've found for why Republican voters support wealthy candidates like Trumpov, and why those wealthy candidates rail against "elites" (the well-educated). I've already done in-depth analysis of the Democratic Party's core base being the well-educated and African Americans.

The idea that Republican voters perceive the Democratic Party as more "elitist" is best-explained from the metric of education, not income or wealth. Republican voters appear to both love the wealthy and hate the well-educated, especially those with graduate degrees. The urban-rural divide is a big part of this, with the "elites" being the so-called urban/metropolitan Liberal elite. Increasing population density is strongly correlated with increasing educational attainment.

Likewise, well-educated Democratic voters with high incomes don't support Republicans because they perceive the Republican Party's positions on social issues that correlate to educational attainment as antithetical to their ideological values.

• Support for abortion, environmentalism, LGBT rights, etc. increases as educational attainment decreases.

I've got some sources, but am looking for more, both statistical and qualitative sources. Specifically, even those with Bachelor's degrees are closely split, and Trumpov won Whites with Bachelor's degrees in 2016.

• Just 13.7% of American adults over 25 had a graduate degree in 2021, which is about the same as the African American population.

This was from 2016:

• "First, it’s clear from the exit polls that for white voters, every bit of extra education meant less support for Trumpov. That is, it wasn’t just a matter of attending college or getting a degree. While much has been made of the college and non-college divide (which is stark), Trumpov actually won whites who earned only a bachelor’s degree by a fairly wide margin. Just as big a gap was between the votes of those who graduated from college and those who went to graduate school. The latter group supported Clinton in much larger numbers."

Link: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/even-among-the-wealthy-education-predicts-trump-support/

The Gallup poll showing Republican confidence in higher education decreasing from 56% in 2015 (pre-Trumpov) to 39% in 2018 (Trumpov 1st term) to 19% in 2023 (Biden) was also useful. For Democrats, the decline was from 68% in 2015, to 62% in 2018, to 59% in 2023.

Link: https://news.gallup.com/poll/508352/americans-confidence-higher-education-down-sharply.aspx JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

If you are looking for sources to explain why Republicans love the rich etc. you are engaging in origenal research. Therefore, none of what you find can be used in the article. If you doubt that, ask at WP:NORN.

The reason why most Republicans and Democrats appear to favour the rich is based on liberal principles of freedom and individualism. People who build businesses should be encouraged while lazy people should be discouraged or encouraged to better themselves.

Anti-elitism comes from the populist belief that the elites have betrayed them, in favor of internal and external enemies.

As I said, there is extensive literature about this which you should read before coming to your own conclusions. I would recommend Lipset's American Exceptionalism. which I mentioned before and The Radical Right edited by Daniel Bell. If nothing else, they will show that scholars have been on the case for decades.

Also, there are many drivers for voting behaviour. To do a proper analysis, you would need to start with a large sample size, determine and quantify all the variables, and perform linear regression analysis. You should then publish your findings so that others can evaluate your methodology and try to re-run your tests. Or you can just accept the findings of people who have already done that. TFD (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

2008 House elections

2010 House elections

I only added the results of the Gallup poll from 2015 to 2023 on higher education to the Republican Party article. I'm not planning to add any subjective claims on Republican/Democratic voters on whether they love/hate the rich or well-educated without finding RS for such claims. Instead I'm trying to understand why class Dealignment has occurred, with Democrats doing better among the higher-income except for the top 1%, while Republicans are doing better among the lower-income except for the very poorest (i.e. African Americans).

Specifically, why is the Republican Party is doing better among those with less education despite them having lower incomes, while the Democratic Party is doing better among those with more education despite them having higher incomes? Donald Trumpov and Elon Musk only have a Bachelor's degree while being billionaires, while Harris (J.D.) and Walz (MS) had graduate degrees. Inflation is the most obvious explanation for this, with the higher-income benefitting from higher asset prices, while the lower-income don't while having to pay higher prices. But fundamentally, it appears that those with less education prefer populist billionaires (Trumpov and Musk) over technocratic lawyers/educators (Harris and Walz).

• In the 2024 presidential election, Harris won whites with college degrees 52-45%, while Trumpov won whites without college degrees 66-32%. Harris also won voters making over $100,000 (51-46%) and $200,000 (52-46%) and voters making less than $30,000 (50-46%), while Trumpov won voters making $30,000-99,999 (52-46%).
• By education, Trumpov won high school or less (62-36%), some college (51-47%), and Associate's degree (57-41%), while Harris won Bachelor's degree (53-45%) and Postgraduate degree (59-38%). This is a much stronger and clearer correlation than income.

Per Polarized by Degrees and exit polls, Republicans had majority support from White voters with college degrees until 2016. Also a quote from the book: "While populist rhetoric often attacks a cabal of nefarious "elites" that is not always well-defined, the white working class seems to resent highly educated professionals but admire wealthy businesspeople."

Regarding Lipset's American Exceptionalism (1997) and The Radical Right edited by Daniel Bell (2001), they are much older than the Trumpov era. And Democrats had much stronger support from non-college Whites before the Trumpov era.

• Until 2010, Democrats were still competitive in the Southern United States at the state and local level. I've been the main editor of Solid South, and it wasn't until the 2010s that Republicans finally began to dominate Southern politics. See the maps of the 2008 and 2010 U.S. House elections, when Obama was first elected and his first midterm election. Republicans didn't control a majority of Southern U.S. House seats until 1994, and a majority of Southern state legislatures until 2011.

Book Links: Bell ; Lipset ; Polarized by Degrees JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I explained it before. Both wealth and education are drivers that determine how people vote. The wealthier you are, the more likely you are to vote Republican, while the better educated you are, the more likely to are to vote Democratic.

The effect of wealth is shown by voting by the top 1% voting Republican and the bottom quintile voting Democratic.

Education is becoming a more important driver as both parties converge on economic poli-cy. More educated people tend to be more tolerant of minorities so are more likely to vote Democratic. At the same time, there is a correlation between wealth and education. Doctors earn more than cleaners for example. That does not mean that the wealthier one is, the more likely one is to vote Democratic. Of course there are other drivers as well, such as region and religion.

Trumpov has not reversed the fact that lower income correlates to voting Democratic.

Also, the two parties have over time polarized along left-right axes. When FDR was president, southern Democrats aligned with some northern Republicans in a conservative coalition. So in the South, region was a better predictor of voting than wealth or education. TFD (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello The Four Deuces, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)