|
 Archives |
|
|
|
|
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Shearonink (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Hello, I'm Arjayay. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of Neil McLeod (politician). Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Bustamove1! I am very glad to see that you added Template:User Confederate removal and Template:User No Lost Cause to your userpage. Having that in mind, I must ask you to consider endorsing a closely related essay, WP:NOCONFED, in which creation I participated. Of course, this is just a suggestion, nothing more. Cheers! — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 12:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sundostund I appreciate your kind invitation and your contributions to the project page, particularly changes to one highly disputed paragraph. I also thank you for self-identifying as Serbian and and a thirty-something resident of Belgrade. I realize that you did not initiate WP:NOCONFED.
- That stated...
- 1) What are your particular intentions for supporting the project in the context of a racialized ethnostate mentioned in the page?
- 2) Given the content of several of your userboxes, can you very briefly explain your perspectives on nationality, nationalism, and ethnicity, in this and other (shifting) contexts? Further, can you clarify your "individual rights" vs. "human rights"? I inferred present-day conceptions of both.
- 3) I read a copy editor's 1/17 revision summary that included "native american genocides" during "this time period." What are your perspectives on that issue, especially vis-à-vis post-1854 Republican and Democratic partisan ideas, policies, and intra-factionalism, antebellum and postbellum?
- I suppose that I could pose these questions to the page creator as well, but I'll start with you. Of course, you can decline to respond, or only respond to certain questions or even facets of such questions...I'm aware that you may or may not be busy and that my endorsement is only a line for a project that seems to be gathering momentum.
- On an entirely different note---I occasionally study the history of a Serbo-Croatian language, specifically changes and continuities in the national politics of script, i.e., Latin alphabetics and Cyrillic (less so an external severing of Serbian from Croatian). I'm curious about your reasons for supporting an iteration(s) of Serbo-Croatian, distinct from the foregoing questions. Regardless, I wish you well on your wiki-pursuits. Bustamove1 (talk) 07:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Bustamove1, thank you very much for your lengthy response to my message, and for your very detailed questions! I'll try to be as much detailed in my response as possible, as I'd certainly like to give you some answers. Anyway:
- 1) My primary and main intention and motivation for supporting this project is that I am a strict anti-racist, and highly opposed to attempts at historical whitewash regarding slavery and racism as the cornerstone of the Confederacy. Those attempts strive to obscure slavery and racism as main reasons for the 1860–61 secession in the first place, and present the Confederacy and its war goals as something chivalrous and noble. I firmly believe that neo-Confederates and alt-rightists shouldn't be allowed to use Wikipedia as one of their online venues, and should be subjected to the same scrutiny as neo-Nazis and racists of other persuasions. Therefore, I am convinced that WP:NOCONFED should have the same weight as WP:NONAZIS and WP:NORACISTS, and that it should be applied with the same zeal and strictness ad the other two essays.
- 2) As for the content of several of my userboxes, I am opposed to the very concept of nationalism, as I am well aware of all the chaos that various nationalisms created in the region where I live, back in the 1990s, with the scars and trauma from that period still very much visible today. When it comes to nationality and ethnicity, I do believe that people of the same nationality, living in the same circumstances and environment, may have more in common than people of the same ethnicity, living in totally different conditions, and bound only by some vague arguments of "history and blood". Along that line, it could be claimed that, for a successful relationship, it is far more important that two people share character and personality traits, than what their sex/gender is. Regarding my views about "individual rights" vs. "human rights", I would say that the notion of human (or collective) rights was used far too often, in the past and in the present time, as an argument to trample upon the rights of an individual. I just felt the need to reiterate that in one of my userboxes.
- 3) I would say that the notion of "native american genocides", however vague it may be, is correct to some extent. Obviously, Native American nations and tribes once lived in almost every corner of the continent, and that radically changed in the 18th–19th century period. Nowadays, they have only a fraction of their former lands and populations, and it could be claimed that they were subjected to some kind of "indirect genocide" by the incoming white settlers. When it comes to Republican and Democratic partisan ideas, both in the antebellum and postbellum periods, I find it to be a real historical paradox how their policies and ideas changed since the time of the Civil War, up to the present time. Needless to say, and despite being politically independent, I am far more inclined to support modern-day Democratic positions (especially with the obvious intrusion of alt-right in the modern Republican Party). Simultaneously, I am aware that, pretty much, it should be thanked to the historical Republicans that the Union survived in the 1860s, and that the US entered the 20th century as a single nation.
- I hope that I gave you some satisfactory answers and clarifications. It was my pleasure to respond to them, and I can only encourage you to approach the page creator on these issues as well, if you choose so. As for being busy – I am never really busy for Wikipedia-related things. When it comes to your endorsement, trust me – it is not only a line for a project, but a clear sign of being willing to stand behind the ideas espoused in the project, and that is something of immense value. I can only share your hope that this project is gathering momentum, and that its importance will only grow in the future.
- I am very glad to hear that you are interested in Serbo-Croatian language. It isn't so common, for a person coming from an entirely different part of the world. In the region where I live, the issue of language is in the service of petty political issues and purposes, and I have always been disgusted by that. People of this region, basically, speak the same language, not needing much effort to understand each other (not counting some regional differences). I firmly believe that there should be one, official iteration, as it was for decades until the early 1990s. Until that happens again, the world will continue to laugh at us, as we divide our language and invent new ones for political goals, while entire continents speak English and Spanish as a single language.
- In the end, I can only thank you for your good wishes, and to wish you well in your work, both here and elsewhere!
- — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 13:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, Bustamove1. In all honesty, I do wonder about your thoughts regarding my post above, despite its been over a year since our last conversation. I am still looking forward to your comment; of course, I will understand if you are not interested in it. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 09:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your note. At this time, I prefer to neither inquire about, nor have you elaborate on, "have the same weight"; "correct to some extent"; "their policies and ideas changed "; "modern day Democratic positions"; "I firmly believe that there should be one, official iteration, as it was for decades until the early 1990s [presumably until the wars and including script]"; "we divide our language and invent new ones"; etc. I can periodically contribute to wiki-articles on cultural productions from your neck of the woods, e.g., providing comparative historical contexts, drafting a requisite reception section, and starting a translation history subsection for Dictionary of the Khazars. A history of translators, contracts, and translations would provide more contexts for a strict dichotomy, posed or imposed by critics and proponents alike, that Pavic bounded lexical semantics to the world of "dreams" and not to the "flesh of reality." I would welcome you to contribute as well, but I'm quite sure you don't need the invitation. Best wishes, Bustamove1 (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page New Democrats (United States), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That'll teach me to go off half-cocked on something that annoys me at two in the morning. Shangra (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I appreciate your restructuring of the section related to the Clinton administration, with two new subsections: "The New Covenant" and "Bipartisan Bill Proposals and Acts (1992-2000)". However, I am still not sure why you re-added back the Daily Kos; WP:DAILYKOS is considered to be generally unreliable and I think Nichols 2000 is sufficient. Also, where possible, I prefer using secondary sources (hence I used the review of the book) to avoid WP:OR/WP:SYNTH but I am fine with the primary source for the quotes, and thus have both of them as you did. Finally, I think it would be better if we paraphrase them rather than using so much quotes. I know it is not easy, I myself sometimes may still rely too much on quotes because I feel I am not good enough to offer a proper paraphrasing than is not too close to the source's wording. If you feel my paraphrasing was still too close to the source's wording, or that I got something wrong, then by all means let's work together to improve and fix it but I think we should keep it more concise and focus more on paraphrase than relying on quotes, which we can put in the reference itself if you feel that is important.
I did not attribute it to Nichols because from my research that is a common liberal criticism/argument, and in fact Greenberg seems to support Nichols, so I felt it is enough to attribute Greenberg, since Nichols attribute it too; however, that can be changed from "Critics" to "Critics, such as John Nichols" (again, I prefer just "Critics" because it is not just Nichols, or it could even be changed to "Observers" or "Commentators" if it is not controversial to say the DLC's influence diminished), rather than "John Nichols, writing in The Progressive during the Presidency of George W. Bush", which may also be inaccurate since it may have been written towards the end of the 2000 campaign but before Election Day (I am not sure about it but it is possible). For the latter wording, I prefer if we had a secondary reliable source (not Daily Kos) that references the article. Then again, I prefer if we better paraphrase them rather than rely so much quotes.
During the first Clinton administration, the DLC had the most influence during its first two years. According to Democratic pollster and Clinton confidant Stanley Greenberg, Clinton's presidential approval ratings did not start to rise "until he rejected the advice of conservatives of the party" and adopted a more populist and distinctly non-Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) rhetoric on a variety of issues, from tax policy to protecting Social Security. According to critics, the DLC had the most influence in the first two years of Clinton's first term, and that this resulted in the "Republican Revolution" and what has been called "the worst Democratic electoral setback of the century" at the 1994 midterm elections. After 1994, the DLC founded the New Democrat Network, and increased their membership in the House after the 1996 and 1998 elections. By 2000, they included around sixty House Democrats.[move the quotes you added in ref] During a dinner with his Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, who wanted to end corporate welfare, Clinton reportedly told, as recalled by Reich in Locked in the Cabinet, "I have to keep myself from saying it everyday. I shouldn't be out in front on these issues. I can't be criticizing [corporations]."[add quote in ref to provide context] Other critics attribute the 1994 losses to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which raised some taxes, and the Clinton health care plan of 1993, and argued that Clinton further engaged in triangulation policies afterwards, and that those helped him win a second term in the 1996 United States presidential election.
This is shorter and more concise, and may only need some minor word changing if you feel is too close to the sources wording of if there is something not supported by them. Again, other than this, I appreciate your restructuring with the new sections. I forgot to mention in my edit summary the additions from "New Covenants"; as I expanded most of the article myself, I did not think about when I made the edit, so you did a good thing to mention it. Also I did not attribute Boys because he is an expert and does not seem to be saying anything controversial; I would only attribute quotes, for example saying "in the words of historian James D. Boys", as not everything need to be attributed (WP:ATTRIBUTE, "Although everything on Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice, not all material is attributed"), especially if we are saying "A says/argues this" and we reference it to A themselves (unless we are quoting them) rather than B reviewing/summarizing A for us.
P.S. We may add a new section about the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, Gore's shift to the left during the campaign (with liberals saying it helped him overcome the initial 17-point deficit in polls and moderates, like From, arguing that he lost because he was too liberal, an argument also applied in 2004, with liberals instead arguing that the loss was due to Kerry pivoting to the center) even as they reassured their corporate donors behind the scene (Nichols 2000), the 2003 Howard Dean controversy, and in general the loss of influence of New Democrats in the DLC and also how many New Democrats themselves stopped calling themselves "New Democrat" (Ari Berman in The Nation in 2005). The 2008 Democratic presidential primaries should also be discussed like the ones in 2016. With these additions, we should be able to cover to whole New Democrats history. Currently, we only cover the Clinton administration and then we jump to the Obama administration without discussing the New Democrats role, influence (or lack thereof for the DLC from the Clinton years), and actions in the 2000–2004 presidential elections and in the 2008 Democratic primaries.
Davide King (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your note. While I'm not confident that the subsection contains a surfeit of quotations and attributions (not a common concern for New Democrats (United States) unless glaringly obvious and obtrusive), I almost always support attempts to balance precision and (subjective) accuracy with concision, on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Subsection brevity, rather than quotations and attributions in toto, seems to be your principal area of concern. In that regard, earlier today I edited down the subsection to three paragraphs, all roughly the same length as a given paragraph from the main article. The ratio of these New Democrats (United States) subsection paragraphs to the sum of New Covenant (politics) main article paragraphs is now 3:10, or less than a third of the New Covenant main article content.
- I only mentioned Boys because he's the sole academic historian cited in the New Democrats (United States) subsection and in the New Covenant main article. So, I revised that sentence to indicate that he's only one example of an entire school of thought on the New Covenant and associated platforms. In addition, and as I indicated, a pseudonymous author posted the Daily Kos essay a year before the Nichols source. Nichols, then, either did not properly attribute the previous essay or, more likely, he authored both. Hence I cited both and prefer not to evaluate his 2004 decision to post to that specific site (irrespective of the popularity of blogs during that period). I do welcome your aim to add more academic attributions and source material---I would clarify that intention in the context of your foregoing concerns. The editor (not yours truly) who previously added the "white middle-class" sentence to the Presidency of Bill Clinton section sought to address the New Covenant, but the recent subsection content heeded your overarching point on its potential significance. In addition, the "social progress" ideas were connected to the New Covenant, but the latter was more about a dichotomy than the totality of the subsequent Third Way.
- As for your section or subsection proposals: I suggest that you Sandbox first, edit, and then add to the New Democrats (United States) article. Any adds to that article will be subject to review, so I would focus on the proposed (sub)sections and postpone daily copyedits to myriad users' contributions. Your copyedits to my content consisted mostly of paragraph breaks, which I wasn't adverse to, but you may or may not wish to first add another section (your call). The only exceptions would be for reconcilability with extant content, redundant wiki-links and acronyms, etc. Otherwise, you're of course welcome to add whatever you want to the New Democrats (United States) article, within MOS parameters.
- Although more content does not necessarily equate with more knowledge, IMHO it's safe to conclude that your contributions will advance the goals of Wikipedia. The Joan Didion primary source, for instance, yielded insights into the fête politics and (a)social pressures of Democratic partisan embrace of what became the Third Way. I came across a brief reference to it on the New Covenant (politics) main article and inferred that it was yours, but I have to confirm. Peace out. Bustamove1 (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
|
