User talk:Anythingyouwant/2022/July

this edit strikes me as exceptionally poor judgment on your part. Resuming an edit-war mentality and obstruction when you've already had several editors talk about reinstating your TBAN? Please reflect. As to that revert, I pointed you to the page where there are abundant sources for "right-wing" for the Freedom Caucus where it states ""The Freedom Caucus is positioned on the right wing of the political spectrum". I don't think you'd have an easy time justifying your edits under scrutiny. SPECIFICO talk 00:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you disagree with my edit summary, User:SPECIFICO? I only made that edit because I couldn't comprehend any reasonable person disagreeing with that edit summary. But I have reverted since it seems to mean so much to you that we have explicit agreement. If you want to edit WIkipedia, you ought to try to be reasonable, and stop making false claims about NPOV as you did here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing any claim there. SPECIFICO talk 00:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will recite my edit summary: "The opening paragraph of

House Freedom Caucus uses the word 'conservative' repeatedly. So that word is clearly NPOV here." Does that help you answer whether or not you agree with it, or disagree with it? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

"Right-Wing" is utterly uninformative. Their own article says: "It is generally considered to be the most conservative bloc within the House Republican Conference." Since the entire GOP is right-wing, that makes them far-right, and when one examines each member, that's true. Simply saying RW is misleading. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I didn't change it from far-right, nor did I change it to far-right, nor does the article text at

House Freedom Caucus use the term "far-right" (it's in the footnotes though). Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It should be described that way everywhere. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting point. They may well be mainstream in the far-right GOP. Both articles may need a review of recent literature for updating NPOV article text. SPECIFICO talk 00:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The word "far-right" typically means the most conservative relative to the rest of society rather than relative to the rest of a particular group. If it could be used relative to a particular group, then most households in America would include a member of the far-right (and also a member of the far-left). We should stick to the modifiers used by most reliable secondary sources, obviously. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't even mainstream in the GOP. They are extremist outliers, with many of the other Republican congress people groveling and kowtowing to them and Trump. The Overton window phenomenon shows that, with rare exceptions, the entire GOP has slid far to the right. The Dems have hardly budged at all. The GOP used to overlap the center with Democrats, but no longer.

They are far-right, and there are RS that describe them as such, so use those sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)-- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This section started as a section about whether an edit of mine at

Creativity Movement, the Ku Klux Klan, the National Socialist Movement, the National Alliance, the Joy of Satan Ministries, and the Order of Nine Angles. I could likewise list lots of people who are much farther left than the Democratic Party. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Far-right is very often applied to politicians...like MTG,

House Freedom Caucus, and Sedition Caucus. All four articles (including the Jan. 6 article) should describe them accurately and precisely, not vaguely (conservative, right-wing). In this context, the latter two terms tell us nothing more than if we said they were mammals and not dead. Duh! Everyone already knows that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I’d have no objection if the

Creativity Movement, the Ku Klux Klan, the National Socialist Movement, the National Alliance, the Joy of Satan Ministries, and the Order of Nine Angles. That would be just as dumb as saying they’re mammals. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You need to use the article talk page. Editing here is not like a bridge game where you keep making bids and see what happens. You can't insert UNDUE uncontextualized, primary sourced content in an article on which there should be ample secondary discussion of the matter and ample coverage of a range of views and context. If you continue with this, it's not going to end well. Please self-revert your most recent such edit and use the talk page or a site-wide noticeboard. SPECIFICO talk 22:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not edited regarding abortion in about ten years, except for maybe one edit that I reverted. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of your politics and legal content editing promotes POV and UNDUE representations concerning anti-abortion politicians and the legal theories that politicans and judges have used to justify restrictions on abortion in the US. I would be surprised if you don't understand that, but at any rate I'm quite sure that Arbcom or AE or other sitewide discussions would recognize and sanction such behavior. I sincerely hope you will cease and desist. SPECIFICO talk 22:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to reflect on the possibility that your own edits are directed toward promoting the opposite of what you wrongly attribute to me. See Psychological projection. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how you're the one who is in the second decade of your TBAN, and the content I've contributed on the topic has never caused any concern, I doubt that kind of response is going to work well for you at AE or ARCA. SPECIFICO talk 22:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would not know whether the content you've contributed on that topic has caused any concern, because I have not been involved with that topic for over ten years. But I very much doubt it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised to see that the deflection and whataboutism, equivocation and straw-person arguments you deploy on content discussions carries over to your attempts at direct interpersonal conversation as well. I'll just wrap this up by asking you again to undo your most recent edit war reinsertion off the challenged content and seek consensus either locally or at RSN NPOVN or wherever you may choolse. SPECIFICO talk 22:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. The challenged content is perfectly valid. I've just added another sentence to try and address your concerns, such as they are. If you want, start an RFC. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Recommend you read up on

WP:INDENT. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Good day, User:GoodDay, and welcome to my humble user talk page. Sometimes I indent by adding two colons instead of one. Is that what you’re referring to? Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please don't do that. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, for you I will ease back on the colons. 😊 Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your typical obstructionist deletion, with dubious reasoning, was not unsurprising. It's your modus operandi. Bannon's quote was deemed significant enough for use as evidence in the Jan. 6 hearings, and is documented in RS. The CNN transcript of the hearings is good enough on its own, but I also include Media Matters as a ref as it provides more context, and for this type of use, backed up by other RS, it is a RS. Now that you understand the background and significance given to his quote, I trust you will allow RS to rule, rather than your typical NPOV-violating, Trump protectionist, editing style. The most irritating thing is that we have to waste time because of you. It's pretty significant that he already knew that "bloodless coup" (IOW, without the military) was the right description. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Things should be listed as coups because reliable secondary sources say that they’re coups, and because scholarly consensus says they’re coups. Is Bannon a reliable secondary source or a scholar? I already told you that I have no objection to including Bannon’s statement in the article about the Capitol attack. And in his BLP too. I don’t know how many articles I have to like putting it into, to stop you from being nasty to me. 10? 20? Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both media and scholars do in fact call it a coup, I would say your doomsday clock is getting closer to midnight. To get your tban lifted, you promised only to correct a few errors in BLPs occasionally. SPECIFICO talk 10:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you need your memory refreshed: “I would like to get going again in this topic area primarily to correct errors in those articles. If that goes smoothly, then I may proceed to more general editing consistent with the five pillars.” There was no limitation to BLPs, as the topic area includes post-1932 politics aside from biographies. And there was no long-term promise to only do error-correcting either (or even a short-term promise given that I only said I’d start out “primarily” with error-correcting which I did). I hope you’ll stop following me around, and stop making false and harmful accusations, thanks. As to coups, everyone acknowledges Jonathan Powell as a leading expert and compiler of coups d’etat, and he has emphasized that 1/6 rioters were not elite members of the state apparatus.[1] So there’s a split among experts about that issue, and the question is whether the Powell faction is so small that we can say in wikivoice that he’s wrong. It’s not a simple issue, and I’m not committed to one side or the other. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cowspit, Nothing has "gone smoothly" with your edits since you were sprung from the TBAN. Surely you know that. SPECIFICO talk 15:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It sure hasn’t gone smoothly with you, that’s for sure. Can we please get a divorce of some sort? Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was no coup attempt on January 6, 2021. The incumbent US president at the time was Trump, so why would his own supporters try & overthrow him? If the commotion had occurred after Biden took office? then it would've been a coup-attempt. We need to get a final decision on the definition of "coup" & "coup attempt". Heck, the US military didn't attempt anything after Biden took office. Democracy in danger? hardly. The USA has been through a Civil War & Two World Wars. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are the only one who does not understand the meaning of "coup". Trump is not the US Government. You don't seem to understand what it means to overthrow a government. It is not merely to replace a leader, it is to seize power outside of the lawful and constitutional processes that constitute a sovereign state. We are not talking about a rerun of

Mission Impossible or the A-Team. To be blunt, it requires a certain level of background knowledge and understanding to evaluate sources and content for these AP articles. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The military didn't attempt anything against the US government. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck everything you have usually associated with the word "coup". Get out of that tiny box that only sees a "coup" as a military overthrowal of another person in office. Follow what RS say about THIS situation.

Trump tried to "recoup" ("regain something lost or expended") an election he lost by lying about his loss and refusing to relinquish power. He violated the rules of play in the USA and adopted a course of action one has seen in other, usually third world, nations where the one in power stays on after their rightful term of office has expired. What happened here is now being described by RS as a "coup". Start revising your way of thinking, because it no longer applies. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Best we come to agreed upon definition of exactly 'what' a "Coup attempt" is, before we go any further. PS - Sorry Anythingyouwant, for us editors clogging up your talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia, RS usage does that for us, and they are calling Trump's refusal to relinquish power he lost in a proper election as a "coup" attempt and insurrection. The military does not have to be involved, and Milley was already aware of the danger and would not have allowed Trump to misuse the military to violate the proper Constitutional transfer of power. So forget about requiring that a "coup" always has to involve the military. Add that to your traditional definitions for a "coup". On Jan. 4, two days before the attack on the capitol, Bannon, a chief architect of the coup attempt, described the intention of what would happen to be a "bloodless coup". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not use an editors' talkpage, for this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I recommend that people take a good look at the list of external links at the bottom of the coup list. Not to click on those links necessarily, just to look at them. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]