This is an archive of past discussions with User:Toa Nidhiki05. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I think the bot goes the other way - if you pass on the talk, it will add the GA icon on the article page. And after all, as the link above shows, the GAN page asks you to "Replace {{GA nominee}} on the article's talk page with {{GA|~~~~~|topic=|page=}}." igordebraga≠14:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You have The Timeline at Talk:Timeline_of_modern_American_conservatism#Collaboration's talk page.
Geopolitics vs politics issue
You reverted and failed to comment on the talk page about it after nearly a week of it being up there. Are you going to explain why you think geopolitics is better than politics by addressing what I said? Honestly, geopolitics refers to something more narrow than politics and the political impact of 9/11 was broader than geopolitics. Not to mention the subsection immediately preceding the cultural impact subsection was not about geopolitics at all, but domestic politics in several countries.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Please explain at the 9/11 article talk page why "geopolitics" is better than "politics" as "reach a consensus" is not an appropriate reason for reverting, especially when you are not attempting to discuss the matter.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
When you post a multi-paragraph comment on a talk page like this, each of your paragraphs should have the same number of colons/same indentation level. That way people know that all three paragraphs are from you. If you supply a different amount of indentation for each paragraph, people wonder whether you wrote all three, or if someone else wrote the first ones and you added only the last. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 February newsletter
Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was Grapple X (submissions), again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was Tigerboy1966 (submissions), thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were Ruby2010 (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), Miyagawa (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from Ruby2010 (submissions). At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.
The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.
The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I will get to the review tomorrow. In the meantime, maybe you can go through the references again to check for double periods or wrong formatting. Regards, Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
As to WikiGrail, I'd be happy to sign up. When does the competition start, and is there anything I can help with? ToaNidhiki0516:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the 2012 WikiGrail
Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiGrail! The competition has officially begun! Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A judge will then update the main table frequently, which can be seen on the WikiGrail page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at Full Rules. There's also a section on that page listing the differences with the WikiCup. For those currently competing in the WikiCup, note that you can submit your WikiCup content to the WikiGrail. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! Good luck! – Lionel(talk)06:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Lionelt has given you a McDonald's Filet-O-Fish sandwich! Filet-O-Fish sandwiches are very popular during Lent and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Filet-O-Fish sandwich, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of Filet-O-Fish sandwiches by adding {{subst:Filet-O-Fish}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
9/11 revert
Would you please self-revert? I was not claiming there was "consensus" because there was hardly any discussion on improvements as everyone was focusing on the section itself. My edit summary should have been clearer, but I left a comment at the talk page suggesting that I just make those changes giving the lack of unaddressed opposition to the actual changes to allow discussion of the section itself and that is what I meant. If outside editors agree on removing the section then it will be a moot point, but if those outside editors agree on including it then it will need to be improved.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me Toa for butting in here...TDA...you did that edit "per talk"...which generally means there was agreement with others for your edit...but that is not the case.MONGO17:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I reverted for many reasons, a few of which being:
You added 'per talk', which generally means 'per talk page consensus'. There is no consensus supporting your changes; if anything, there is one opposing it.
Your additions are not supported and discussion was still in progress. Your edits are tendentious and arguable beating a dead horse, as you have no support for those changes.
I recognize I should have given a clearer explanation like what AQFK said, but that is the only real issue here as the objections to the content were all addressed. Toa, I implore you to read WP:CON and consider what it actually says. Consensus does not mean "let's take a vote" as Wikipedia is not a democracy, at least not that kind of democracy. Ideally it shouldn't even involve discussion as there should be an unspoken agreement, a gentlemen's agreement if you will, that you don't undo the work of someone else without good cause and only as a last resort. Simply put, reverts should be reserved for cases where normal editing will not address your concerns. If you, or any other editor, has a specific objection to something I did then you should present that objection. Saying "you need our stamp of approval first because we don't trust you to make good edits" is not a legitimate reason and is actually a rather uncivil reason that implies a failure to assume good faith.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Request
Could you possibly post some diffs here to support what you said recently at AN/I? Specifically, I am having trouble finding where he said "'tw*t', 'f*ck off' as well as ad homenim insults such as 'ignorant American'." Thanks in advance for your trouble. For future reference it is always better to back up such statements about users at enforcement notice-boards, as it saves other people the trouble of asking you for them later. --John (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Has the case been re-opened or something? I'd rather not spend the time to find it if it isn't going to affect anything. I might have misunderstood the 'ignorant American' bit, but he did call someone a 'tw*t' and did tell two editors to 'f*ck off' - the latter has been posted in that thread, BTW. ToaNidhiki0522:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
No, but I think at least one of these comments was actually made by someone else. It always shows real class when someone can apologise for their mistakes. On the other hand, if I am wrong or have missed where he said it, it will be for me to say sorry. --John (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Then start apologizing...the diffs are recent and easy to find...do you want them posted here or at a new section at AE?MONGO11:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! Grapple X (submissions), of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's Cwmhiraeth (submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's Casliber (submissions), who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.
It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Merge proposal at Straight Pride
I just noticed that you haven't !voted in the merge proposal section on the talk page. You seem to have an opinion, but probably haven't noticed that a merge proposal is in progress. If you care to participate, do so here: [[1]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite
Hello Toa Nidhiki05. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
Nope. Must have been a mis-click... Again. I'll switch to my iPod account once I've gotten that account to watch all the pages on my watch list. Sorry for the disruption. :( ToaNidhiki0516:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
That was pretty quick. Listed it just now. See my comments before you consider taking it to an FA Review. Also, I see you have like seven articles nominated, it would be good to try and review a few nominations yourself if you haven't.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you would be interested in the discussion going on here: User talk:Boguslavmandzyuk#Alan Hall (musician). I'm getting the impression that the people I am talking to contest the notability of CCM performers and Christian music is not important enough to for any of it's less famous performers to be covered here on wikipedia. Personally, I thought I had cleary established the notability of Allan Hall of Selah), but my claims are being flat-out rejected without any consideration and reasons to say why they are wrong, the sources I provide (which are considered valid in every single article, excpet when it comes to Mr. Hall apparently) are being said to have no value, amidst offensive claims that "The Dove awards are pretty much meaningless". --BoguSlav04:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 23
Hi. When you recently edited Yours (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digital download (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's Grapple X (submissions) remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's Casliber (submissions) was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's Muboshgu (submissions) coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.
65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of bothMatthewedwards (submissions) andGrandiose (submissions), the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, Ealdgyth (submissions) earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article, Dana Boomer (submissions) earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by Stone (submissions) to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. Jarry1250 (submissions) managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.
An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions), for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Charts
How do you find the AC Indicator charts and the Soft/AC Inspirational? I would love to find out how, and to find out how to get the Christian Rock Charts! Just curious, it does not mean I find fault, which I don't.HotHat (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the help! I am just rather dismayed about Billboard in all, but I guess they want to make it hard on you and I. I think that I will start archiving the charts on something!HotHat (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You are co-nominator at the above FLC. It has received multiple comments but none of them have been addressed. Could you indicate to me whether you intend to fix the issues or would you prefer to withdraw the nomination? Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Dear Toa Nidhiki05, The song "Come Home" charted at its peak on the CHR Chart on October 16, 2010, but I can tell you from looking at Academic OneFile that keeps it on file that it was not in the top-25. So, it had to have charted somewhere between the Nos. 26 and 30, and I was wondering if we can get the information from a free source. Because I am not about to pay for billboard.biz, and I don't want or expect you to pay for it either. Your help and assistance will and would be greatly appreciated!HotHat (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I just want to thank you for helping me. Some things never get found in this life, so I guess that we will have to bid this bit of information a farewell.HotHat (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Music barnstar
The Music Barnstar
For your work in developing high-quality articles on some of the best / most popular songs in the Contemporary Christian music genre, I hereby award you the Music Barnstar. I enjoy your work and I've always gotten excited when I saw your article on the main page. Your hard work is appreciated! Royalbroil01:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. Please let me know if you ever need anything or if hear about discussion on CCM topics. I don't know if you take requests or if you'd like to collaborate with me. I'd love to see an article on the album Music Inspired by "The Story" which won the "Special Event Album of the Year" at this year's Dove Awards. I taped the awards show on VHS and there was a performance segment featuring songs from the album. Royalbroil03:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
See, I go look at billboard.biz and mediabase to see what new artist need to get done with the the policies. I love it doing the searching and sleuthing around. By the way, you do great work as well Toa on Wikipedia!HotHat (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is Cwmhiraeth (submissions), whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader, Grapple X (submissions), is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. Miyagawa (submissions) leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by Casliber (submissions), our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.
This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user, Muboshgu (submissions), claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Toa. I noticed that at your review for the FLC linked above, you intended to offer support by using italics. This is sometimes hard for us directors to spot when scanning a large list of noms; bolding works better for this purpose. Would you mind changing it to bold? I don't want to modify anything you did myself, but want to make sure your opinion will be taken into account, and not overlooked. Thanks. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
You can go onto my sandbox and edit! If you want to expand the composition and personnel sections, you more than are welcome to.HotHat (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I have a question, why did you revert the singles discography page? This was fine and done correctly, just asking! I like it, which it has become standard for other bands and artist as well, which have longevities similar to this band. I would go back and create the singles discography if it was me!HotHat (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
See if anything else is needed in Queer (song). (also, thanks a lot for the review - it's been there for ages, I managed to put four more articles in the GAN while waiting!) igordebraga≠02:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Democrats
The Democrats are not just a center-left party, they represent both the center and the center-left in the American political spectrum.
The New Democrats and the Blue Dog Coalition are significant parts to the party and are largely considered centrist, as proven by multiple articles which I cited when I changed the article. New Democrats and Blue Dogs are crucial to getting votes and influence the party's positions.
I'm not making the argument that the Democrats are not "center-left" in the worldwide political spectrum (they are not), but am making the argument that in the US the Democrats are both Centrist and Center-Left because of the significant presence of the New Democrats. Gamer9832 (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Ted, those scholarly journals don't outweigh the fact that the Democrats have a signfiicant centrist faction. Therefore, they must be considered Center to Center-Left. I'm not saying the Democrats aren't center-left, just that they also have a notable centrist faction. Gamer9832 (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The US has a two party system. As a result, both the Republicans and the Democrats have strong centrist groups. If your theory were correct, the Deomocrats would have a vast majority of the congress under their control right now. The statement that they are Center-Left and Center-Right is correct from a pure numerical point of view and a clear observation point of view. Arzel (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Look at these pages for Fine Gael in Ireland, and for the Liberal Party (Canada) in Canada, and the Liberal Democrats (UK) in Britain-- examples of where "Center-Left" doesn't do enough. "Left-Wing" means something completely different than center-left, and is reserved for mostly only truly Left-wing parties. Center-left does not acknowledge both centrist and left-wing factions within a party, but merely acknowledges that it is in the center-left of the political spectrum. Center to Center-left is a perfectly valid description of a party. Gamer9832 (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
You misunderstand again. The Democrats have leftists (Congressional Progressive Caucus, the largest in the party) and centrist (Blue Dogs, a declining group). That makes them center-left. Center left is not a political position but a way to categorize parties as opposed to, say, labeling them as centrist or left-wing. It's the equivelent of putting 'Center to left' or 'center to right'.
In a two-party system one party will have right-leaning centrists and right-wingers and the other will have left-leaning centrists and left-wingers. It's pure math that one is center-right and the other center-left and trends favoring a particular faction occur often and change just as much. Right now the parties favor the more right or left-leaning elements, but in the 90s centrism was more prominent. But they are still center-right and center-left no matter how you put it. ToaNidhiki0500:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
No it doesn't. Check the definition of Centrist for yourself, and Center-left. They are two completely different things. Center-Left simply means left-leaning, Centrist means you are in the center of the political spectrum. To combine them into "Center-Left" is misleading and original research which you did. I'm simply acknowledging that the Democrats have Centrist and Center-Left factions, both of which are significant. Center-Left only describes one of those factions. Left-Wing means something completely different about radical societal changes, which if you have followed politics recently does not describe the Democrats or for that matter 90% of any left-leaning party in any country, if you see their Wikipedia pages. Gamer9832 (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Other Wikipedia articles in this case do matter, as every other page on a political party in every single country on the planet must have a different definition of Center-Left. Check out the Progressive Party of Vermont, which is "Center-Left to Left" (if you go back past the recent edits I made that definition is still there). Examples such as Fine Gael, LibDems in UK. When every other article on the planet has a different definition of how center-left should be used (and they are all uniform), I think it does matter. Also, you're inferring of the meaning of "Center-left" is original research. Gamer9832 (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
No, they don't. Period. Read OTHERSTUFF again. The fact you sneaked similar content onto other articles using just as bad logic doesn't make adding it to this one any better. I would suggest you re-read OTHERSTUFF, find sources that aren't opinion articles, and stop using original research.
As for mine, I'm not pushing an inclusion into the article based on OR. I support the current state of the article and the main reason is the three scholarly citations you conveniently ignore. That alone is reason enough that you're changes aren't correct. ToaNidhiki0500:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I've agreed that I haven't found any scholarly articles, and until I do that, I won't change either page. You're inferring of the definition of "Center-Left" again is pure original research, you seem to assume that the articles on US political parties are different than any other article, which is incorrect and is again, Original research. Your self-definition of center-left and your defense of it is inane and is the definition of what Wikipedia meant by "Original Research". Nobody else, not even the other editor, Arzel, has disputed my claim. Maybe you should look up the definition of "Center-left" in the dictionary and see what it comes up with. I've checked and I don't see your definition. Gamer9832 (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
They aren't in that we almost always - with the exception of authoritarian parties such as China's Communist Party or the Nazi Party - choose political positions based on the political scale in that country, not the world. In the US two-party system one party is center right and the other is center left. My 'stupid' position (that's essentially what you mean by 'inane') is the accurate meaning of the term even from a grammatical point of view. ToaNidhiki0501:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The reason I called it 'inane' is that it's self-defined. The US has two political parties, yes. But that doesn't mean we automatically categorize as Center-Left and Center-Right. There are more than 2 sides to each argument, multiple factions to each party. Last time I checked, the US doesn't have a separate definition of "center-right" or "center-left" than the rest of the world. If we followed your logic, why not categorize each party Left-Wing and Right-Wing, wouldn't that be better? Gamer9832 (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
If the two parties in the us were clearly Left-wing and Right-wing then there would also be a clear viable center party. Occasionally we do have some that fall into that realm, but it is uncommon. Arzel (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
That was my point. The US operates under a 2-party system, with each party representing a broad set of ideals that can't just be characterized as Center-left, which clearly does not mean "a combination of the centrist and left-wing elements of a party" but means that a party is leaning towards the left politically, two completely separate and different things. The Democrats clearly have two factions: the Progressives, who are center-left (they don't promote Socialism or even Social Democracy, so the CPC can't be characterized as left-wing, whereas the Green Party, can be)-- and there are the Centrist Democrats, such as the New Democrats and Blue Dogs, who still influence party policy greatly and can be considered a substantial part of the Democratic Party. These Centrists don't identify as Progressive but as centrists. That's why the description "Center-left" does not do justice to fully describe the Democratic Party. Gamer9832 (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Your biggest problem is the mistaken belief that Progressives are center anything. The Progressive wing of the Democratic party is on the left. The Blue Dogs are the center-left of the party. Arzel (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Arzel, you did original research right there. I can show you multiple articles ( I think even Toa might agree with me here) that the Blue Dogs are the centrist faction of the party. The Progressives aren't left (by consensus everything left-wing in the United States is Social Democracy, which the Progressives do not promote as an ideology.)Gamer9832 (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Once again, pure original research. There are three sources for center-left and none for what you want to put. That's pretty definitive. ToaNidhiki0513:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
You ignored the conversation, again-- I already told you I'm not changing the page until I find more reputable sources, although I support TFD in removing Center-left altogether, because its not definitive. My point is that your self-definition of "Center-left", as a combination of the centrist elements and the left-wing elements of the party, was completely incorrect, false, and made up. Your scholarly articles do not support your "self-definition" of the world Center-left. They just acknowledge that the party is a Center-left, or otherwise, left-leaning party in the US. Gamer9832 (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Evidence for Democrats Argument
( I reposted this from a statement in the talk page)
Democrats are Center to Center-Left (Scholarly Journal Evidence)
I have found three new pieces of evidence from scholarly journals that clearly states that the Democratic Party has centrist and liberal factions
Source 1
Citation: Hale, Jon F. Political Science Quarterly. The Making of the New Democrats, 1995. pps. 207-229. "Second, insofar as Democrats in Congress are roughly split into liberal and centrist wings" - 229
"The 1984 Elections convinced centrist Democrats that a broader effort was needed to redefine the party"- 212
"it was part movement for those elected officials specifically interested in moving the party message to
a more centrist position- 216
"The second group consisted of elected officials with centrist records more interested in seeing the DLC become a
substantantive movement-- a force within the party to change its national identity" - 216
"To fulfill its mission as the centrist "ideas movement" within the Democratic party, the DLC became a more complex
and permanent establishment after 1988" - 219
"the DLC has fleshed out a liberal-leaning platform couced in soothing centrist rhetoric for a party that has been
unable to do so"- 224
"Second, the DLC developed a message, agenda, and set of policy alternatives that had the potential to serve as the basis
for a centrist presidential candidacy" - 228
Source 2:
Citation: De Velasco, Antonio. Centrist Rhetoric: The Production of Political Transcendance in the Clinton Presidency, 2010.
"Clinton used centrist rhetoric to advance a case for political transcendance"
"Clinton suggests two things that would be required to make centrist rhetoric work for his own party" "Indeed it is in how the center is invoked to advance a contrast between a losing, fringe Democratic Party of the past
and a winning, centrist Democratic Party of the future"
"issue to Clinton's centrist identity"
Source 3
Citation: Medvic, Stephen K; Old Democrats in New Clothing? An Ideological Analysis of a Democratic Party Faction, Franklin and Marshall College (link to scholarly article: http://ppq.sagepub.com/content/13/5/587.short) "I attempt to determine whether New Democrats are ideologically distinct from their more traditional (i.e. liberal) colleagues. The results indicate that they are"
"Reinventing Democrats claims that the dlc sputtered in its early years when it shunned conflict with the liberals, thrived in the early 1990s when it embraced conservatism, and triumphed when it planted Clinton -- its hand-picked standard-bearer -- in the White House. The dlc, Baer contends, made the Democrats newly viable, but as a centrist rather than a liberal party."
We now have five articles that do not say that the Democrats are a center-left party, versus two articles that do-- which is enough to draw a line that the defining the Democratic Party is "Center-Left" is incorrect, and supports TFD's claim that the defining of the Democrats as Center-Left should be removed altogether because there is no consensus among scholarly journals. It goes even further to state that the term "Center to Center-Left" is the best term to define the Democrats.
There is more evidence to come. I think this clearly proves that the Democrats are not a Center-Left party (which does not mean a combo of the centrist and center-left factions of a party, but means left-leaning) but are both a Centrist and a Center-Left party.
Gamer9832 (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
With these pieces of evidence I can conclude that the Democrats can be defined as a center to center-left party. Gamer9832 (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
You contridict yourself in the same sentence by saying that "center-left" has no meaning yet the Democrats are Center-Left and Center. The Democrats have those on the Left and those in the middle, just as the Republicans have those on the Right and those in the middle. In general the Democrats are Center-Left and the Republicans are Center-Right. Arzel (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Again, look at the Wikipedia page for the definition of Center-left, which means left-leaning. Search it up in any dictionary and it will be the same (if this doesn't convince I am sure I can find a scholarly article that says this as well. My contention is that the Democrats have two separate factions, Center-Left(Liberal) and Center. I have four scholarly articles that prove my point. You can't say that the Progressives are Left-Wing, that in America is used for Socialism and Social Democracy, which the Democrats even at their leftest do not support.Gamer9832 (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
(from your comment on the talk page) I support compromise but I beg to differ. I'm not synthesizing anything, as you claim. I'm only trying to get evidence to back up my statement (these were my conclusions based on the evidence). Based on that, Toa, you couldn't "synthesize" (say they promote a similar viewpoint) from those 3 scholarly journals you cited-- what you are doing is hypocritical and completely absurd. Isn't the point of getting scholarly journals is to back up our claims? It's funny that once I got scholarly evidence, you immediately dismissed it as "synthesis". Read the articles for yourself. Read them. Gamer9832 (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, as I mentioned on the talk page, if you can argue that making a definitive conclusion based on the four articles that I cited is "synthesizing" then you shouldn't be "synthesizing" info from the three articles that you cited (one of which happens to not even support your opinion). If that's true, you don't know how to write a research paper or how Wikipedia articles are written (They are based on facts from the scholarly articles (otherwise known as secondary sources) that you were praising so much before, but now a topic you seem to dismiss, again, because it's convenient for you to dismiss it. Gamer9832 (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
You should read the articles I cited--- they all point out the same thing-- the Democrats have a Centrist faction. Don't accuse me of something (like Synthesis) in case you have a case. I think I'm capable of understanding what synthesis is. If you want to make assumptions about the articles I cited (and I gave you 4) you should read them first. They all say that the Democrats have a Centrist faction, separate from the Liberal faction. Gamer9832 (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg)
.svg){kind=link}
