User talk:QueenofBattle/Archive 1/21/09

My political compass
Another Wikipedian turned me onto this fun website. From | The Political Compass, I am Economic Left /Right: 6.75 (much more economically right than Joe Biden, a bit more than Sarah Palin, but slightly less than Margaret Thatcher) and Social Libertarian /Authoritarian: 2.41 (about the same as Stephen Harper and the Pope, but only a bit more than Barack Obama). Interesting ideologiocal company I keep, I guess...

Texas Rangers article
Are you the editor in charge of the Texas Rangers article? 208.191.153.13 (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There are no "editors-in-charge" on Wikipedia. It is an open forum for all to edit as they see fit, so long as one adheres to the rules of the Wiki community.  Also, just so you are aware, it's very bad form to add items to another editor's talk page at the top; please add questions/comments to the bottom.  Thanks.  Newguy34 (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

So then, what are the rules? The reason I ask is that while the article overall is not as bad as some I have seen here, it does have numerous factual errors that are easily documented.

I do not intend to just go in and edit, because I tried that once before and some guy calling himself oldwindybear, who is obviously a descendant or other wise connected to Bonnie Parker, just got defensive and nasty, and despite my proving that the very documents he cites contradict his claims, noone at this site would get involved make changes. They simply referred me to some appeals process that never responded. every time I made a correction and documented it, he would change it back. A review of his lengthy disputes on the Frank Hamer article is the best evidence of his unreasonable and biased nature. He was repeatedly scolded by site staff for the tone and errors in the article, which is completely manufactured (if he still controls it). I saw his name on this articles discussion, but did not bother to waste anymore of my time reading the details.

I do not have the time for such futility, nor to be a regular "editor" on the site, but I was hoping that maybe things had improved with the website since then. The site has absolutely zero credibility in the academic community because of that type of situation. I would like to help with that on this particular article, but will not be dragged into anymore pointless arguments.

So, do you want to work with me to correct the errors in the Texas Ranger article, or can you refer me to someone who will? 208.191.153.13 (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to help. Because Wikipedia is an open forum, anyone is able to make edits.  Sometimes, those edits are clearly childish vandalism, which the Wiki community is usually quick to revert.  Other times, editors (all of us) have a difference of opinion on the substance of an entire article (or parts of it), which we try to work out on the talk pages of the respective article.  And, often, editors have a particular point of view that they are attempting to advance.  One of the hallmarks of Wikipedia, though, is a neutral point of view similar to an encyclopedia, which is what Wikipedia is all about.  I have found that properly citing any additions, and drawing those additions from reliable sources is the best way to improve articles, which I like to believe is the reason editors participate.  So, let's start with the areas you feel need improvement?  Newguy34 (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. The first error is the assertion that SFA "created" the rangers. In fact, the documented referred to was one in which he offered to personally finance an additional ten men to a pre-approved (by mexican authorities) and pre-existing force of fifteen men under the command of moses morrison. additionally, there is no evidence that the ten men referred to by SFA where ever actually recruited or put to work. furthermore, scholars only acknowledge those groups as being a part of the "ranger tradition" but do not recognize them as having been "real" rangers in the historical sense. they consider them to have been officially formed in 1935. see Robert M. Utley's "Lone Star Justice: The First Century of the Texas Rangers" page 15-19. let's start with that. 208.191.153.13 (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, let me look into the source you cite and I will make the edit, if I agree with your reading. Newguy34 (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked at the reference you cite in Bob Utley's book, as well as accounts of Austin "forming" the Rangers in The Texas Rangers: A Century of Frontier Defense, by Walter Prescott Webb (pages 20 and 21), and The Texas Rangers: Wearing the Cinco Peso 1821-1900, by Mike Cox. Both authors affirm your assertion, as noted in Utley's book.  However, both also confirm that legend and lore point to this event as the first known use of the word "rangers" in frontier defense.  As such, they believe it serves as the support for the popular notion that Austin "unofficially" formed the Rangers.  I have made a few edits to the article in an attempt to reflect this thinking.  Remember, one of the content guidelines of Wikipedia is not necessarily (emphasis added) to document the truth (as truth can be subjective), but rather to document those matters that come from reliable sources.  The general policies of Wikipedia prohibit original research.  Hope this helps; it can be frustrating for those in academia. Newguy34 (talk) 07:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, what is the source for the statement "...they are legally protected against disbandment."? 208.191.153.13 (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 208.191.153.13 (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The historical importance and symbolism of the Texas Rangers is such that they are protected by statute from being disbanded. Under Texas Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 147, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987, "The division relating to the Texas Rangers may not be abolished."  See http://www.texasranger.org/today/abolishment.htm  Newguy34 (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt and courteous efforts. Your understanding of the complexities of historical understanding is impressive. It is often that verification of any sort of "absolute truth" in the historical sense is unachievable, which is why acknowledgment of the relevant complexities is the most accurate method to address such issues.

The reason that I asked about the source for the "anti-abolishment" statement is that I beleive it should be cited directly on the article. This is because that statute came about as the resulted of repeated and significant efforts to disband them. Ranger conflicts with Tejanos over several generations were the catalysts for those efforts. Those conflicts are another area of intense historical complexities, and myths exist on all sides of the issue.

I will get back to you with my next suggestion later this week. Thanks again. 70.2.10.153 (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football December 2008 Newsletter
The December 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football January 2009 Newsletter
The January 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ken Salazar
Salazar expects to be confirmed today --Buaidh (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But, he has not yet been confirmed. Wiki does not predict the future or what is expected to happen, only what does happen.  Let's just wait a bit for it to be official?  Thanks. Newguy34 (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm prescient. Why aren't you, earthman?  --Buaidh (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't beg for anything, not even for the question. Newguy34 (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How about now? Senate confirms 6 cabinet secretaries  --Buaidh (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that history has been made, Wiki can chronicle. Newguy34 (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Guns
Please comment on the article, not the editor. I consider this edit to be a personal attack, but I'll happily take the bait on your talk page. There is no reasonable justification for regular citizens owning assault weapons. None whatsoever. Obama has repeatedly stated that he has no problem with the Second Amendment provide it does not put weapons in the hands of children and criminals. He has also (quite reasonably and sensibly) stated he would like to see the reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You mistake my sarcasm for a personal attack, which it clearly is not. Simmer down with, now, the second "quit picking on me" attempt at portraying my comments as a personal attack.  That one does not agree with another does not a personal attack make.  Now, to your opinion, it is just that, your opinion.  I believe there are many justifications for law-abiding "regular" (as opposed to irregular?) citizens owning assault rifles: a) it is the exercise of a right granted to all citizens under the US Constitution, b) the lawful use of assault weapons protects life and personal property, and c) lawfully shooting assault weapons is fun, and therefore is also an exercise of my rights to "...the pursuit of happiness" guaranteed by the US Constitution.  Class over. Newguy34 (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that shooting guns is fun; however, "the pursuit of happiness" is not guaranteed by the Constitution. It is part of the Declaration of Independence. There is nothing in the Second Amendment about "assault rifles", and if you are suggesting that the existing wording is sufficient to cover them then we can also add tanks, intercontinental ballistic missiles and orbiting laser platforms. As to (b), there is nothing specific in the Second Amendment about defending life or property. The wording vaguely refers to ensuring "the security of a free State", which is more about protecting the nation (either from aggressors, or from itself). You are correct in stating that "class is over", insofar in that I cannot learn anything useful from you. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Que?! I never wrote that the second amendment has anything to do with assualt weapons, only that the lawful use of assualt weapons protects life and personal property.  Mixty-twisty, professor of constitutional law.  You are correct, in that it is the Declaration of Independence (rather than the Constitution) that speaks to my pursuit of happiness.  I choose to agree with Abraham Lincoln, who popularized the now-standard view that the Declaration's preamble is a statement of principles through which the Constitution should be interpreted.  See?  Keep you eyes open, and you might learn a thing or two.  Newguy34 (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How else would you expect me to interpret the following:
 * "[T]here are many justifications for law-abiding [] citizens owning assault rifles: [] a) it is the exercise of a right granted to all citizens under the US Constitution."
 * Your words indicated you thought ownership of assault weapons was a Constitutional right, so you can see why I responded the way I did. I disagree with your assessment that they are necessary to protect life and property - this would have to assume that your life and/or property would be threatened by someone similarly armed - an extremely rare occurrence in all but a few unpleasant parts of the nation. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't possibly understand how and why you think the way you do. Therefore, I am incapable of anticipating how you might interpret the written word.  What I do know is that any sensible reading of my writing recognizes that my statement had three, independent clauses to it, which supporting my assertion that assault rifles are reasonably justified.  Clause a) was re: constitutional rights (and only constitutional rights), clause b) was re: the effectiveness of assault rifles in protecting life and property, and clause c) was re: fun-ness.  I expected that you would not combine all three where the author (me) didn't intend them to be combined, but rather to compliment each other.  Each, standing on its own, is sufficient justification for the possession and lawful use of assault weapons.


 * And, assault rifles are necessary to protect my life, that of my family, and my property. I, and I, alone get to make that determination.  If a bad guy has a knife, I want a gun.  If a bad guy has a revolver, I want a semi-auto gun.  If a bad guy has a semi-auto gun, I want an assault rifle.  Having a "proportional" response in firepower is, tactically, a dumb thing to attempt to achieve.  Should I poll all the bad guys and ask them who plans to break into my house to kill me by use of a) rubber bands, b) sticks, c) knifes, d) revolvers, e) semi's, and f) assault rifles?  This way, can I assure myself that I will have the "right" defensive weapon? Newguy34 (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How likely is it that someone is going to break into your home and threaten you (or your property) with semi-automatic weapons? Unless you live in what we English folk like to call a "shit hole", pretty unlikely I'd imagine. Personally, I would seek to live in a part of the world where I would not feel the need to have a weapon (of any kind) to defend myself. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you don't know. It's more likely that they would break in with a semi-automatic firearm (e.g., the thug favorite Glock) than that they would with no firearm.  I would think that whether one lives in a shit hole or in a palacial estate, both are at similar risk (why would bad guys attempt to rob someone with no money and no stuff?!).  I thought I lived in a pretty nice, safe part of town, but was proven wrong when someone(s) broke into my house and stole a bunch of my stuff.  And, I had an alarm system.  If I or my family had been there, I don't think I'd have been in the mood to hope they didn't have a semi-automatic handgun.  Captain of the Obvious says, "Of course, we all want to live in a world free of violence, but we are left to deal with the world as it is, rather than how we wish it were."  It only takes one time... Newguy34 (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

State Defense Forces
Following text moved to where it belongs:

I am sorry that you fail to understand what a state defense force is. Under 32 USC 109, Congress created these military units so that we would have a reserve force in case National Guards were federalized and deployed overseas. Colorado disbanded its SDF and today there is an illegal group that claims to be an SDF. Just because Hillbilly Bob and his buddies claim to be an SDF, or a Marine unit, or an Army unit, does not make them so. This is Colorado website for the TAG: http://www.dmva.state.co.us/. Show me where the SDF is. Nowhere, because it does not exist. If you continue to use the SGAUS as a source, where even it states that it is a "provisional" SDF, I will continue to re-edit. I am sorry you fail to comprehend that "provisional" in this case means illegal.Todd Gallagher (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We will deal with these comments at your talk page Newguy34 (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you do not comprehend personal opinion. The government says there are only 23 government SDF's. You want to claim that an organization run by Hillbilly Bob is an SDF because a club that he is a member of says he is. And even they say he is a provisional. That is not a reliable source.


 * If I told you there were 51 states because an organization's website said there were, could I post that? Of course not. There are only 23 SDF's in the US.Todd Gallagher (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If there was a reliable source that said there were 51 states, then yes, it is includable in Wiki. The SGAUS website lists Texas, California, Tennesee, etc. as SDF's.  Does that make their website any less of a reliable source related to Colorado?  No.  Let's go to dispute resolution if you want to be dense about this.  Remember, your opinion or the DoD's views on this are not what Wiki is about.  SGAUS qualifies as a reliable source and the information should be included in the article.  And, you might want to lighten up on the personal attacks or you will probably find yourself blocked again.  Newguy34 (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is how reliable your source is. The SGAUS claims that Washington, D.C., has an SDF. Here is what their link to the Washington., D.C., "SDF" states: "The DC Defense Force is not a government entity, nor is it a state defense force as defined by Chapter 32 Section 109 (c) of the United States Code, although it is seeking such status. The DCDF is a purely local organization, and its operations are limited primarily to within the District of Columbia." So much for a reliable source.Todd Gallagher (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Take it to the article's talk page. Your suggestion of what a reliable source is or is not does not meet with Wiki's.  Newguy34 (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)