This is an archive of past discussions. 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)
Sure. Just do it whenever you can. (and if you're available, any input here is welcome) igordebraga≠ 04:51, 18 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)
Several people have now contributed to the discussion per my request. Would you please join in and provide your thoughts on the issue?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Make Your Move (song)
nominate
) 05:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Quick tip
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
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
RE:Call My Name (Third Day song)/GA1
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)
Getting to this today. :) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
A special and rare (for me anyway) bestowment
The Burkie Barnstar
Awarded for your stalwart support and indefatigable defense of the group of editors known as
As to WikiGrail, I'd be happy to sign up. When does the competition start, and is there anything I can help with? ToaNidhiki05 16:36, 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
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Behind These Hazel Eyes
Thank you for the review. It was helpful. :) —
talk
) 03:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Lionelt has given you a McDonald's
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.MONGO 17:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Next time, just put "See explanation on talk page" or something. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:48, 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.
Finally, I am rather irritated you started an RfC without asking anybody about it. ToaNidhiki05 17:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
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. ToaNidhiki05 22:26, 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?MONGO 11:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
DYK for East to West (song)
nominate
) 10:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 March newsletter
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
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.
You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated
DR goes to Wikimania!
00:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Until the Whole World Hears
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On assumption you must've mis-clicked, I've rolled it back. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
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. :( ToaNidhiki05 16:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Ahh, thanks! No worries. MBisanztalk 18:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
DYK
Hi your new article looks good for DYK, but we need you to review another one for QPQ. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:19, 15 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)
DYK for Miracle of the Moment
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Maybe you would be interested in the discussion going on here:
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". --BoguSlav
04:25, 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 April newsletter
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:
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
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)
Fantastic work you are doing here on Wikipedia.HotHat (talk) 23:27, 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)
Please see [2]. Thanks, – Lionel(talk) 01:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the cite webs are done. Please review and mark as done at FLC. Thanks!!! – Lionel(talk) 09:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The best list in the pedia just failed FLC. Thanks for your efforts! If at first you don't succeed... – Lionel(talk) 04:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
HELP ME PLEASE
Go look at my talk page one editor is trying to get notable stuff deleted from this encyclopedia.HotHat (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Do you think this one is notable at all?HotHat (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Jesus, Friend Of Sinners
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
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! Royalbroil 01:45, 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. Royalbroil 03:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
DYK for The Hurt & The Healer (song)
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
You may now want to have your say here about One Sonic Society.HotHat (talk) 00:05, 23 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)
Will you look here, and tell me what you think!HotHat (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Vandalism?
Why did you call my edit to 9/11 conspiracy theories an act of vandalism? It was in good faith and I gave a perfectly reasonable explanation for it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Undone (MercyMe album)
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
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
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,
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)
Help Desk talkback: you've got messages!
Hello, Toa Nidhiki05. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk. Message added SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
RE:Notice
I will be watching it for now, and will comment later.HotHat (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
DYK nomination of List of 2000s Christian Songs number ones
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk
) 03:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Article alert
I just wanted to update you on these "Losing" and "Me Without You", which will most certainly be targeted by a certain editor.HotHat (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Look
Dear Toa Nidhiki05, I need you to look at chart notability at Notability (music).HotHat (talk) 07:03, 5 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.
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.
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
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. ToaNidhiki05 00:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
No it doesn't. Check the definition of
talk
) 00:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Read
WP:OTHERSTUFF. Other Wikipedia articles do not matter. Your claims are not substantiated and fly in the face of the current RSes used. ToaNidhiki05
00:29, 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
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. ToaNidhiki05 00:44, 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.
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. ToaNidhiki05 01:12, 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?
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
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.)
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. ToaNidhiki05 13:05, 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
.jpg)
.svg){kind=link}