User talk:Miguel~enwiki

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or drop me a line. Cheers! --maveric149

Given your conversation with User:JoeM, you may be interested in helping to improve common sense conservative.

Hey Miguel! Thanks for pointing out the spider/FooBar inconsistency on my User page, well spotted! ;-) Nice job on self-organization, the page is looking pretty respectable. Perhaps we could suggest it go on the front page in the "New articles", as some of them have been there for a few days. -- Lexor 21:34, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Salut Miguel. I appreciate your work on Jean-Marie Le Pen. I have no idea how to get people to agree that the Le Pen article is NPOV. In a certain sense it's a test for Wikipedia NPOV policy. The problem with le Pen is that there many people have some irrational sympathy for him. Obviously Anthere is not of suporters but she feels that the article fail NPOV. I've tried to write some facts with references and avoid as much as possible judgement. But with Le Pen facts will give a rather negative feeling. Strangeless it seems nobody has found positive facts to balance the article. Except the fact that le Pen studied at the university and voluntered for Algeria and things like that... When you read what le Pen write or say.... well it stinks (to say the less), and everything that le Pen say is said with extreme care because there are laws in France that that prevent the expression of Nazi, racist or anti-Semitic ideology. Very few people will say "I agree with le Pen" but they believe there's something positive because le Pen is "against current establishment". That's the key of the problem with fascism : this is mainly irrationnal. I have searched for fact or quote to balance the article I can't find anything. I remember when le Pen was the guest in "Le Tribunal des Flagrants Délires" (a radio show on France Inter where personnalities were judged by humorists) while all other guest showed some sense of humor (even Arlette Laguiller made some good jokes). I can't remenber any good joke from le Pen. My conclusion is we don't have to try to convice anyone. We should go on feeding the article with documented facts and let's see what happen.

Ericd 00:41, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi Miguel, just noticed that you marked the addition of a sentence to the Talk:Albert Einstein page as a 'minor edit'. If that was an accident, ignore me, but if not then I'll just let you know that generally, minor edits are supposed to be things like adding a wikilink, fixing a wiki, spelling, etc. Adding a comment is never a minor edit. Later, Isomorphic 08:08, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Radical centrist?

Hi Miguel, I noticed you made a change to the radical centrist page, but I couldn't figure out what, exactly. Perhaps you can clarify on the talk page? Drernie 00:47, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Anarchism

Dear Miguel, your modification to Anarchism's section on information technology changes was most excellent and improved the paragraph immensely. Thanks, User:fifelfoo 3 March 2004

Dear Miguel, I disagree with your removal of some of the historical events from the "see also" section at the bottom. (3.58 and 4.01 5 March). I am tempted to revert them! I think its useful to put the series of events in a context, or to fold them all into either functioning anarchies and / or history as a group. The importance is having links to major events in one place in relation to one another. Fifelfoo 22:10, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

why be hostile?

I think we both want what is best for the article. One of the things that is good for the article is for us not to be flaming one another. I want the article to make sense to you, to me, and to completely uninformed readers, and well as partisans and experts. IMO NPOV is achieved when nobody can reasonably dispute what is said. Clearly that is not the case at this time, on these articles.

Clearly you don't understand that I don't think your objections are reasonable.

I do understand that, but I do not agree.

I probably came across badly by assuming bad faith. I appologise. I am begining to get the impression that you are not so much intentionally trying to misinform as that your usage of terms is so idiosyncratic as to be nearly meaningless to me.

My usage of terms is not idyosincratic, it is mainstream outside your own segment of the US political spectrum.

I fear you are correct, particularly in regards to the EU.

Fear? Why do you find that idea threatening? And it is not in regards to the EU, but also most of Latin America and the whole 3rd world, for that matter.

I admit my relative ignorance of these ideologies. I am sincerely trying to learn about them. Thats one reason I love encyclopedias, is that I love to learn. Another reason I love them is that they are a bastion of objective truth.

If you don't know about these theories, by your own admission, then how can you honestly claim that the article is misleading?

Because it fails to inform me, and it uses terms in a way I cannot reconcile with references.

We have gone to extreme lengths, in anarchy, anomie, quoting the CIA World Factbook and the Oxford English Dictionary... Maybe you should expand your list of references?

Please, lets do everything within our power to do what is best for the article, and leave our political and other differences aside. I feel strongly that it is possible to work with those you disagree with, and even that divergent POV can assist the article in becomming NPOV by satisfying all sides. Please accept my appology for my agressive demeanor, and my word of good faith in wishing to work towards a quality article we can all be proud of. If we can't work w/o hierarchy to make this a quality article, it certainly doesn't augure well for anarchism in general. On the other hand... :) Sam Spade 04:21, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are a moving target, every time anyone addresses your unfounded concerns you come up with another equally unfounded concern out of nowhere.

It makes me sad that you feel my concerns are unfounded. Do you sincerely prefer to leave me (and my segment of the US population) uninformed?

They are unfounded because your single complaint is "what you wrote fails to convince me" or, equivalently, "this is totally opposed to my POV".

Your problem is that the content of the article is so contrary to what you believe to be correct that you cannot possibly fathom the notion that the article might already be describing legitimate political theories in neutral terms. Educate yourself! — Miguel 17:05, 2004 Mar 5 (UTC)

I am quite confident of my ability to learn. Learning is perhaps my primary goal in this existence, or at least a necessary part of my primary goal. It is the very attempt to educate myself (by reading the disputed articles) that caused the current trouble. I am reviewing outside sources, and I am becoming steadilly more educated. I understand that you do not wish to be a part of informing me. I also understand that I have upset you. I ask you to reconsider your decisions, but I also accept that you likely will not, and I again appologise for all unpleasentries, misunderstandings, accusations and awkward moments I may have caused. Believe me that I have been at all times sincere, and that I am sincere now in wishing you well. Sam Spade 20:50, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you want to educate yourself, why not start with A People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn? I guarantee you it will be diametrically opposed to what you learnt in civics class, but please don't claim the book is Orwellian, because then the bottom will drop on your credibility.

I am not quite so confident of your ability to learn things that are contrary to what you already know (which would then force you to reevaluate what you know). You sound a lot like a common-sense conservative. Nothing wrong with conservatism IMHO, but there is no way to argue rationally against "common sense". If you don't agree with my description of your position you need to change your attitude and manners a little. In particular you need to stop seeing communist double-speak and Orwellian conspiracies everywhere and give people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they're onto something. — Miguel 01:38, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for deciding to continue to communicate. Secondly, things are much more complicated than you seem to be suggesting ;).

My politics to not fit into any catagories that I know of, with the possible exceptions of radical and populist, which are broad. I took this test and it told me that I am left/authoritarian. I do believe in common sense, but I disagree with essentially every position presented under "common-sense conservative", and I am neither a republican or a neo-con.

While I may have been impolite (I again apologise for assuming bad faith), my objections to the articles remain. My current impression is that those who believe in these Marxist/Anarchist type philosophies are sincere, and are also sincerely mistaken. I have been discussing this with everyone willing (and my friends are quite a bit more diverse than you may assume), and I have found a concensus.

It would appear that the lust for power and greed innate in the human spirit is not taken into account by those who ascribe to these "anarcho-communist" ideologies. Incentive is removed, as is the entreprenuerial spirit, both vital components of sucessful economics. No explanation as to the method of distribution, nor the removal of the means of production, nor the method of extracting labor is made.

I will look for your book, but do not assume it will be the start of my education on this subject. I have been studying Anarchism since I was less than 10 years old (reading encyclopdias has always been a hobby of mine:). I have had dozens of anarchist and/or socialist friends. I have read the Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels. To be frank, I think my "ignorance" of how these theories are supposed to work (other than by leading to Totalitarianism) is based on overwhelming documentation, not from a lack of it.

I too am idealistic. I see a need for mandatory medical care, housing, work, and guidence for all. I also see a need for freedom, incentive, entreprenuership, and hierarchy. And I see a need for God. The need for focus on God in all things is disregarded in communism. God guides us to share what we have, and to care for others, not Marxism. Marxism only decieves, providing opium dreams of utopia to distract from the decent into stalinism.

I would like it if you did not leave the anarcho-communism pages. If it does not distress you over much, I would like you to be a part of its repair. I in no way intend to remove what I see as POV or propoganda. Rather I intend to word it in a NPOV manner, and evaluate it coherantly with legitamate, verifiable criticism. I am no bigot, no partisan. I want only coherent truth, verifiabity, and an article we can all agree with. :) Sam Spade 02:22, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)