User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2018/November

Head of State

TFD, it's off-topic at the Monarchy of Australia article, but do you have evidence that the term "head of state" comes from Samoa or Singapore? The Oxford English Dictionary records it as early as 1873.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Those are the earliest uses of the term in its modern sense I could find. All the nineteenth century references referred to heads of state departments. What is relevant though is that the term was not used when the commonwealth realms were established and was not coined to describe them. We are trying to answer which office (Queen or the governor-general) is most similar to a ceremonial president. TFD (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, The Four Deuces. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Tanya Granic Allen is live

Have at it, if you want to work on it. Let me know if you need assistance with the submission for review when you think it's ready. —C.Fred (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. TFD (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Monarchy of Australia

I notice the following comments in the Talk:Monarchy_of_Australia

• "that we cannot state that one view is the correct one" (they are not)
• "I hope that other editors draw a distinction between facts and opinions" (most do)
• "There seems to be a confusion in this discussion about the difference between facts and opinions." (there isn't)
• When someone said "Smith may be correct", your reply was to say "You were wrong. Now you are saying that since not every single republican or monarchist held that opinion, Smith was wrong." (they were not)
• "If you continue up the page above WP:WEIGHT, it says: "Avoid stating opinions as facts." "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts."
• "you are confusing reliability with bias" (he wasn't)

The people you are responding to with have dealt with this pointless issue for 10 years. They already have RfC after RfC on their side with all the sources lined up again and again and again. They're doing everything by the book, they are backed up by the sources, they have said nothing incorrect and are volunteering their time to help you understand the totality of sources. Please avoid these personal remarks and double check what you are saying against the sources. If you are new to this topic, the people who have been dealing with it for 10 years are compliant with Wikipedia policies. I will write a few notes, regarding the comments you're making to help get matters on track. Travelmite (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I do not see them as personal attacks. I see there was an extensive debate in 2007, now archived at Talk:Monarchy of Australia/Archive 3#Queen is Head of State? and various editors briefly brought up the topic in 2008, but there has been no extensive discussion from then until recently. There is no policy that says an issue raised ten years ago cannot be raised again. I found in going through the earlier and current discussions that most of the arguments revolve around comparing a definition of head of state with the actual roles of the Queen and governor-general. I see that as an incorrect approach, since it appears to violate no original research. Instead, we should not make that determination ourselves, but report what reliable sources say, which is that the issue is disputed. That's my objection and I am sorry if you read it otherwise. TFD (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

My facts are in order, because you're unaware of the most recent RfC in 2016, but this is about discussing your comments towards other editors. This reply is no excuse. If you're unaware that your comments are personal attacks, please be advised that they are. Travelmite (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no RfC in the talk page of "Monarchy of Australia" in 2016. Incidentally, I read through some of your past comments about personal attacks and find your views interesting but not persuasive. I doubt this conversation can have any utility so will collapse it. If you want to provide a final comment before I do so, you are welcome. TFD (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

It's in Archive #17 of the talkpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The warning has been received. Please review Wikipedia:Civility for more information Travelmite (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Teach the controversy

The above post should be here. Editors are advised to not fork off different threads on the same topic.

Since you posted on my talk page, I went to check to see whether you had made a similar posting on the talk page of the editor who wrote the following comment directed to me, which I found unconstructive although not sufficiently so to mention it at the time:

"Have a read about the political technique called Teach the Controversy."

It turns out you posted it. Your link says it is a campaign "to promote the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design, a variant of traditional creationism." Some might see that as an argumentum ad hominem, because instead of questioning my argument you are questioning my motives. Just to assure you, I have no doubt that there is consensus in the literature that creation science is pseudoscientific.

TFD (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The Teach the Controversy technique was devised by a lobbyists and can be employed for any failing position, to continue to create doubt through open debate that wastes time and avoids answering questions or reaching a decision. Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for such a political technique. If you think the comment was aimed towards you, that is completely incorrect and you are mistaken. It was a comment for all editors in general, and several others thought it was constructive enough to thank me for it.

For the discussion you are apart, it is vitally necessary to get back to being impartial editors, and stop being pulled into needless negativity and discord. Please stop writing about other editors in a manner that makes them want to personally defend themselves, for example telling them they cannot separate their opinions from facts. Travelmite (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have never argued that the governor-general is head of state of Australia.

Nobody said you did. The comments are not about you.

You should assume that anyone who disagrees with you must hold a specific opinion. TFD (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not a debate platform. We are trying to sift through academic texts and reliable sources, not test people's opinions. The issue at hand is civility towards other editors. Travelmite (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)