User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2015/November

State capitalism
Can you expand on the "rv POV edits" edit that you made on state capitalism? My edits were not POV; I was trying to shorten the lead and make it flow better in order to make it more readable. Vrrajkum (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

French, British & Canadian monarchs
I wonder. Since we've got Monarchy of Canada, will someone create articles French monarchy in Canada & English and British monarchies in Canada, for the pre-1867 time. Maybe someday, who knows :) GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't forget Russian monarchy in Canada since they once claimed the West Coast. So users reading about Russian exploration will not have to go to the List of Russian rulers.  TFD (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Russian monarchy in Canada, cool. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, the UK had dozens of "Commonwealth Realms," all of which have equal justification for list articles, then are the numerous dependencies and subnational units, so conceivably we could have over 100 articles all listing English and British monarchs. TFD (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wowsers. Don't suggest that the UK had dozens of Commonwealth realms ;) GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto French monarchs - with multiple dependencies (mostly now officially "part of France" but not such historically), Italian monarchs, Danish monarchs, Japanese monarchs (multiple areas),  Portuguese monarchs, Spanish monarchs (multiple dependencies, protectorates, etc.), Belgian monarchs ... how many do we need? Collect (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

GD's explanation
My apologies, TFD. It was necessary for me to delete our discussion at my talkpage, due to its topic. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I wanted to reply that now the Governor General in Council has ordered the Act into effect that we would need a source saying there was a good possibility it would be nullified by the courts before we can question that the changes are in effect.
 * Anti-smoking laws were also challenged in courts when they came in, but we would not have said they were invalid until all possible challenges had been resolved.
 * Also, whether or not the law is valid, the position of the government is that the Queen of Canada is whoever happens to be the Queen of the UK. And who inherits the throne is governed solely by UK law, just as it is for all the other Commonwealth Realms with the possible exceptions of Australia and NZ.
 * TFD (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I just don't understand the resistance to re-writing the paragraphs at Monarchy of Canada, to reflect that the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, has been in force, since Mach 27, 2015. Even the Succession act article itself, says it's in force. I've no problems with including mention of the pending Quebec court decision. GoodDay (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. Say it is in force.  I have nothing against mentioning the challenge but am against giving it undue emphasis.  Currently it seems to say that there is a major likelihood the legislation will be overturned.  TFD (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's quite simple. You both keep talking as though the Succession to the Throne Act 2013 contains some provision that states it changes the succession. It does not. It only assents to the succession bill (note, not the act) that was then in the British parliament. The only "proof" then that the succession changed in Canada is not that the Succession to the Throne Act 2013 was enacted, it was only Rob Nicholson saying the succession was changed, based upon the idea that Canada has no succession laws, the preamble to the Constitution Act 1867 requiring the Canadian monarch to just always be whomever the British parliament says is Britain's monarch. Among other matters, that opinion is being contested. And if either of you want to be flippant about "wacko" legal professors, you still have to recall that the government of Quebec is with them in fighting this. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  04:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It already has changed the succession. If it hasn't? then all 16 realms still have male-preference. GoodDay (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What? -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  04:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The change from male preference to agnatic royal succession, can't come about in any of the Commonwealth realms, without consent of all Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The consent was given. But, the requirement for consent isn't really binding beyond a promise. As Justice Rouleau in the Ontario Superior Court said, the relationship between the realms, when it comes to the person of the monarch and succession, is like a treaty. There's no power that's going to stop a country from altering its laws. Plus, the abdication in 1936 already demonstrated that the law very much can be inconsistent between the realms.
 * Anyway, this is getting off topic and I don't want to hijack TFD's talk page. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  04:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's how I understood the Perth Agreement. But yes, this is TFD's talkpage & he likely wants it back :) GoodDay (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I give up, TFD. Apparently, Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 is toothless & the Canadian royal succession is still male preference primogeniture. While the other Commonwealth realms are full agnatic primogeniture. GoodDay (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

An Australian editor, gave me some good advice on my talkpage, a few weeks ago. It's best that I start following it. GoodDay (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Jeepers, Monarchy of Canada is a difficult article to edit. GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Holodomor origin and use
Hi, I'm sorry I referred to the topic in question as a 'conspiracy theory' - I need to learn to censor myself better on Wikipedia. :-)

In any case, I can share my experience with the word growing up in the Soviet Union in the 1980-90s. I was aware of the term ('Golodomor' in Russian transliteration) as the "the great famine of early 1930s throughout the Soviet Union, predominantly in the Ukraine, but also in Southern Russia, due to the policies of collectivisation and de-kulakization." There was no connection or comparisons to Holocaust in my mind at that time, in part because the term Holocaust was not in use in the general discourse, nor was the Final Solution much discussed. It was as if WWII happened but Holocaust did not. (Yes, I knew of Baby Yar but it was not entirely clear that it were the Jews who were killed in the great massacre). Thinking back on this it seems really weird.

Now, the term Holocaust in Russian is much more common. However, the two words look and sound differently in Russian - Gogolomor and Holokost; so that's why (with my background) is hard to see a connection, although I'm more aware now of how it became a political rather than just a historic term.

Hope this clarifies my perspective. Again, sorry about the choice of language on the Holodomor Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC) .

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Monarchy of Canada
I think I may depart the Rfc. Mies' attitude there, is becoming unbearable. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

BTW: The Canada Act 1982 question. Just ignore it, I was a tad confused when I asked it & meant to pose the question to Mies & Qex. GoodDay (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - In the third paragraph of your RSN post, you wrote 'representative', instead of 'residences'. GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done. TFD (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

British National Party at WP:ANI
You should have received a notification through the Notifications extension, but anyway, here's a formal notification that I mentioned you in a topic started on the administrators' incident noticeboard. I am looking forward to your reply there; thanks! odder (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)