User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2011/January

Loughner and ZOG
Have you seen any specific references to ZOG? I've not noticed anything beyond the suggestion of links to AmRen, which claim not to be anti-semitic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd not trust Fox on this issue - they may be rather too keen to separate Loughner's politics from theirs, and antisemitism would be an obvious divide if they could make it stick. (Then again, if Fox said it was going to snow, I'd pack suntan lotion - RS only for their own opinions) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't watch Fox News, so can't really judge. This side of the pond our news sources are sufficiently varied, and at each others throats, that looking at the same topic on several tends to give a vague idea of what is actually going on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion from talk page
You deleted my comment on a talk page, WP:RSN. This seems very unusual; what was the rationale? Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

An item of interest to you may be present at RS/N
You may be interested in Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.

Thank you, Fifelfoo (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

2nd proposed change in 1953 Iran coup article lead
Hi, I'm doing another poll of editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article on the issue of revising a phrase in the article lead. It's a repeat but I didn't explain it well in the first poll.


 * changing this phrase (which talks about an element in the motivation for US involvement in the coup):
 * from  ... resolute prevention of the slim possibility that the Iranian government might align itself with the Soviet Union, although the latter motivation produces controversy among historians as to the seriousness of the threat.
 * to: the '' ... resolute prevention of Iran falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire".

The reason for the change is discussed here and is, briefly, that the sentence as is doesn't match the rest of the article, (and doesn't match most of the books that deal with US motivation in the coup). The US motivation section gives only one author (Abrahamian) who thinks the US leadership wasn't seriously worried about the possibility that Iran might become a communist country, while listing several who thought cold war motivation of the US was important. An even more thorough examination of the sources dealing with issue is here.

It sound like you are retired but I hope you have time to give it a look see, --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

RSN on Infobase Publishing
I'd be interested in your opinion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard, if you wouldn't mind sharing it. Thanks. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Consider undoing your close of the RfC at Talk:Unite Against Fascism
Hello TFD. Please see my suggestion at AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Your Abuse Response Filing
Greetings! Thank you for filing an Abuse Report for abusive behavior originating from 24.116.219.146. Acather96 (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change 2.1 in 1953 Iran coup article lead
I'm revising the change proposed above as Aliwiki (here) and Kurdo (here) have both made complaints about the proposed changes that I think have merit. Namely, that Iran falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire"[7] should refer to the US administration's point of view and not a statement of fact. The to-be-revised text and revised text are in italics. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Current wording
 * "Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery, the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott. while using Iranian agents to undermine his government. With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower decided to overthrow Iran's government though the predecessor U.S. Truman administration had opposed a coup. "


 * "The tangible benefits the United States reaped from overthrowing Iran's elected government was a share of Iran's oil wealth as well as the resolute prevention of the slim possibility that the Iranian government might align itself with the Soviet Union, although the latter motivation produces controversy among historians as to the seriousness of the threat."

Proposed change
 * "Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery, the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott. while using Iranian agents to undermine his government. By 1953 both Britain and the United States had more conservative governments and the new US Eisenhower administration reversed its predessor's opposition to a coup, fearing that Iran was in danger of falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire". "


 * "The tangible benefits the United States reaped from overthrowing Iran's elected government was a share of Iran's oil wealth as well as the prevention of possibility that Iran might fall under the influence of the Communist Soviet Union. " --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason for the change is the same as the original one and is discussed here

I know you didn't make any comment on my last attempt but I hope you will find this one is a true improvement. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Fascism, an old chestnut, but still...
I have reverted your including a reference to the term "fascism" in the lead to the article on right-wing politcs, as I believe it to be inaccurate and misleading and pandering to the old canard that there is an inextricable or latent link between conservatism and fascism. It's as unfortunate and damaging as making a natural connection between those on the left, and say, Stalin. Best wishes Jprw (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(I copied these comments to Talk:Fascism, which is where they should be discussed. TFD (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The Paranoid Style in American Politics
As you requested, I responded on the article talk page re: my reasons for deleting the Goldwater reference. Its basically a coatrack which has no place in the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Radical Right
Thanks for the invitation. However I decline to get involved in that article at this time.  Will Beback   talk    22:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

MkuCr POV tag discussion
The POV discussion has been dormant for more than two weeks. I intend to remove the POV tag from the article in a day, as the discussion seems to have concluded. If you still dispute the neutrality of the article, a response here or on the article's talk page would be appreciated. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)