User talk:Cadr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Libertarianism, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Response left for you on Talk:Begging_the_question. (feel free to) Delete this entry when you have read it. Catskul 17:27, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Hi Cadr, the external link on Harmony toolkit was not really broken. I just used the wrong syntax for the external link which unfortunately added an extra "," to the URL, which caused the problem. I reverted the change and corrected the link, hope everything works now :-) best regards from Hannover, Germany. -- mkrohn 23:11 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

Cool :) Sorry, I should've noticed that...

Over at VfD User:Mintguy mentioned that you had grown frustrated by some controversial edits to some computing articles. In response, there's now a new Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing and Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/Controversial articles to help form consensus on computing topics. Please consider watching the talk pages there and using them to let others know of issues you believe merit peer review. JamesDay 15:49, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Cadr, why do you revert mav's and eloq's moves of the featured article notice in the C programming language article? Please understand that those notices are nowhere as important as the actual content of the articles. Also, those notices are of most interest to editors, not simply readers, thus the notice fits well on the talk page. — Sverdrup 17:31, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No matter. — Sverdrup 17:34, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

CIA edit - You "agree with it, but it wasnt NPOV?" Huh? I would'nt imagine that anyone would want to have an opinion that wouldnt be considered logical, and therefore neutral. "POV" is a euphemism we use to characterise people who appear not to know that their "NPOV" is contradictory to logic, reason, or the facts. Sincerely -SV(talk) 21:03, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, that's not what POV is. A POV is a subjective opinion. I can agree with a subjective opinion while still regarding it as non-NPOV. — Cadr

Hello Cadr, I am Javier Carro. A wikipedist from the Spanish wikipedia. Congratulations for your contributions, specially in the field of linguistics. I am translating your article on Transformational grammar and there is a sentence I hardly understand (specially what is in darker letters):

Economy of derivation is a principle stating that movements (i.e. transformations) only occur when absolutely necessary, where the relavent notion of necessity is the need to check uninterpretable features Could you, please explain me what you mean and write it down at the next website?: [[1]] (that is my discussion board) Thanks a lot. Javier Carro 12:57, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[I've now made a comment on Javier's talk page on the Spanish Wikipedia.] Cadr

I have create a poll at talk:Augusto Pinochet on how to describe the CIA's role in the coup against Allende. Please vote and/or comment. --Uncle Ed 14:20, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] hey

look buddy, I'm enjoying the heck outta this convo, but I think we are getting a bit broader than the purpose of that talk page. I'd be glad to continue to discuss politics or whatever on our personal talk pages, however. Cheers, Sam Spade 18:59, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Chile

You said:

If we're not allowed to call Allende's government democratic, why are we allowed to call it socialist? Let's just call it "elected"

That would imply that he "won" an "election", but there were irregularities. According to the Chilean constitution at the time, the winner required a MAJORITY, not the plurality that Allende actually got. So the Congress made a special agreement with Allende. A better phrase than "elected" would therefore be "congressionally-mandated".

The context is the oft-repeated claim by leftists that a "democratically-elected government was overthrown by America". I would like to avoid having the article provide fuel for this claim. On the other hand, of course, I don't want the Wikipedia to REPUDIATE this claim. When readers come to our articles on Chile, Allende, or Pinochet, they should find enough information to make up their own mind. --Uncle Ed 16:09, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Fair point, although since it is rather subtle, we may as well just avoid saying anything about the method by which the government came to power (as we avoided saying anything about US support for the coup). Still, I think your (implied) political argument is very weak. Whatever the ins and outs of Allende's rise to power, he clearly had more of a mandate than Pinochet, and the US support for the coup was illegal and immoral. If the US had any concern for democracy in Chile before the coup, they certainly didn't afterwards. Cadr

I appreciate your straightforward reply. I hope that we can make the article so that either of us, reading it from our varying perspectives, can say that the article is accurate and well-balanced. I don't think the article needs to AVOID any mention of reports that the US "supported" the coup. I think all parties agree that the US was "in favor of it" anyway.

We should include every assertion, whether widely agreed upon or hotly debated (with its source, of course) -- that:

  • the US provided "illegal" support for the coup, e.g., broke a US or Chilean law; or,
  • that the coup itself was immoral and/or that anyone who "supported" it, even by making favorable comments about it, has done an immoral thing

Fair enough? --Uncle Ed 17:15, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make it clear that when I said "avoid saying anything about X" I meant "avoid saying anything about X in the intro". I totally agree that all these assertions should be in the article, but (I think) we both agree that it's better to leave them out of the intro if it helps to avoid edit wars. On the other hand, my little Pinochet/coup polemic was not necessarily meant to suggest any content for the article, it was just an expression of my view on the matter. Cadr


Cadr, while I understand your desire to keep the C article simple, I'd prefer that the article on C be accessible to all, but also comprehensive and correct. Having gone to the trouble to write the explication of the "hello world" program, that's why I added the comment on atexit, but relegated it a parenthetical sentence.

You're correct that the closing brace is the end of function main, and atexit is invoked after main ends; but you're incorrect in saying that atexit is not mentioned in C books (what books are you reading?), atexit is certainly mentioned in any comprehensive C book, as atexit is defined by the C Standard (at 7.20.4.2 in ISO/IEC 9899:1999). I'd be willing to see you move the discussion of atexit and hosted implementations to a separate paragraph in the explication of the sample program, but I'm not willing to see it arbitrarily removed just because Cadr feels it's too complicated.

I'll hold off a little while on reverting your removal in order to give you time to suggest a compromise. orthogonal 18:45, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

This isn't worth having an argument over really, so I'll just make my case one last time ;) Of course, atexit would be mentioned in any comprehensive C book, but it wouldn't be mentioned in the explanation of a Hello World program. Encyclopaedia articles shouldn't be comprehensive IMHO — otherwise this article would have to be as long as a good book on C. Cadr

[edit] Pinochet

Unfortunately, the problem is not to make you happy, (or any of us, for that matter) but 172, that started his own "sandbox" than only he has touched, and who has not bothered to make any edit in the working intro...I expect that as soon as we try to put this intro he will get back reverting to his own...Cheers, AstroNomer 21:04, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

Do I espy a fellow Scheme programmer? --Smack 22:49, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Are we ready to put the edit war on Talk:Augusto Pinochet behind us now? Won't it be great if we can archive that dreadful talk page and start off on a clean slate? Before my version is posted, I'd like it if you can rewrite and/or expand the footnote section. 172 11:50, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't like the footnote, sorry. Cadr
Well, sooner or later my version's going to be posted (I'll take this to arbitration, which tends to side with overwhelming consensus over a couple of intransigent users, if you chose to continue stalling), and I guess this means that there won't even be a footnote. Is that better for you? 172 12:29, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm confident a footnote would not be popular in arbitration, since it has not been popular anywhere else. You poll question is beside the point (as I have made clear on the discussion page). No-one disputes that the intro is not especially misleading when it has the footnote, but many people just don't like the footnote. My own vote in the poll referred to your earlier, and much better question (you know, that change which you tried to censor). Cadr

[edit] Coy Mistress

I have no problem with your edits, but I do wonder exactly how far one might go in translating the poem's thesis into modern colloquial language and what the result might be.  :-) Dpbsmith 00:29, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pointers are not an innovation

Re your "pointers are not an innovation" edit: To my knowledge pointer types did not exist prior to C. Is this incorrect? I realise machine addresses were used extensively before this time, but pointers are not just machine addresses. Derrick Coetzee 21:20, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Chomsky sources and such

Hey, Cadr -- I've finally got a little time to respond to your question about my opinion of Noam Chomsky as a frequent user of Big-Lie propaganda techniques.

First, I'm not particularly opposed to the causes that Chomsky supports, though I haven't been a fan of many of them since 2001. In particular, I'd like US foreign policy to be motivated less by realpolitik and more by idealism, and think that many of the actions the US has taken which Chomsky criticises (support for Indonesia in East Timor, unconditional support for Israel, various thuggery in Latin America) are entirely worthy of criticism.

But just because I agree with Chomsky on these positions, doesn't mean he's not a thoroughly dishonest rhetoritician. In particular, I find that he seems to be relying on his readers ignorance of history or unwillingness to look up the documents he cites in order to make his points.

For example, in What Uncle Sam Really Wants, he cites the ominous-sounding NSC-68 to warn that American Cold War planners were enthusiastically recommending policies that sound like converting the US into a fascist state:

The policies recommended by NSC 68 would require "sacrifice and discipline" in the United States -- in other words, huge military expenditures and cutbacks on social services. It would also be necessary to overcome the "excess of tolerance" that allows too much domestic dissent.

Well, I went ahead and read NSC-68, and found that while it does lay down a plan for the Cold War (specifically the arms race), it is far, far from a blueprint for a police state:

The democratic way is harder than the authoritarian way because, in seeking to protect and fulfill the individual, it demands of him understanding, judgment, and positive participation in the increasingly complex and exacting problems of the modern world. It demands that he exercise discrimination: that while pursuing through free inquiry the search for truth he knows when he should commit an act of faith; that he distinguish between the necessity for tolerance and the necessity for just suppression. A free society is vulnerable in that it is easy for people to lapse into excesses--the excesses of a permanently open mind wishfully waiting for evidence that evil design may become noble purpose, the excess of faith becoming prejudice, the excess of tolerance degenerating into indulgence of conspiracy and the excess of resorting to suppression when more moderate measures are not only more appropriate but more effective.

The above paragraph is the source of Chomsky's ominous-sounding quotation of "excesses of tolerance" -- someone cherry-picking as much as Chomsky could recharacterize the document as a clarion call against McCarthyism, with its warnings of "the excess of resorting to suppression when more moderate measures are not only more appropriate but more effective" -- or perhaps a secularist manifesto warning about "the excess of faith becoming prejudice". But NSC-68 is neither of those things, and any characterization of it as those would be as dishonest as Chomsky's.

I posted something about Chomsky's distortions of history a while back here: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ccbfb77e.0203251121.2983d09b%40posting.google.com

and here: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ccbfb77e.0203251649.508fd7b9%40posting.google.com

Perhaps I only have a handful of data points, but it seems like every time Chomsky's made a statement buttressed by a piece of history that I actually knew something about, he's omitted significant information, cherry picked, or simply distorted what actually happened. From this, I have drawn the conclusion that he's an odious propagandist who shouldn't be trusted more than -- say -- Rush Limbaugh, Ted Rall, or Ann Coulter. Why should I bother listening to these liars? Knowing what I do about them, they won't persuade me when I disagree with their positions, and I'll only wince when I find them on the same side of an issue as me. It's just unfortunate that the wield the kind of influence that they do in our society.

- Ben 16:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NSC68 is precisely not a blueprint for a police state, and as such supports the point Chomsky is making. Remember that this is an internal document addressing the dangers of democracy for an elite. It is saying that there is a danger that elites, because they live in a democracy, may become excessively tolerant of dissent, but on the other hand they may become excessively intolerant of it, resorting to the crude methods of a police state (i.e. "suppression"). One consistent theme of Chomsky's writings is that the current method of control favoured by elites in democratic socieities is control of public opinion rather than control by force or other coercive methods. Your NSC68 quote backs this annalysis up: it is saying that, on the one hand, elites must be dilligent in controlling public opinion (presumably through propaganda), but on the other hand, they must at least maintain the illusion of democracy, and not resort to violent suppression. Chomsky could indeed have emphasised the less ominous sounding bits of the document, but he is not accusing US elites of trying to gain control through violent means and would agree that they do not generally try to do this; he is trying to show the elite obsession with controlling public opinion.
Look -- read NSC-68. I read it -- the whole thing. In my estimation, using my own judgement, NSC-68 is in no sense whatsoever "an internal document addressing the dangers of democracy for an elite". It's a document put together by people whose job it is to figure out how to defend the country. They look at then-recent aggression by the USSR in Eastern and Central Europe and conclude that the USSR will continue to try to expand. They conclude that the USSR may continue break agreements, and that treaties and such are of limited value. They compare strengths and weaknesses of American democracy and the Soviet system, which is the section the quotation is lifted from. They evaluate possible US responses: isolationism, war, the status quo, or an arms race. They conclude that an arms race -- with its attendant military spending at the cost of postponing spending on other desirable programs -- is the best of these options.
Maybe you disagree with these conclusions. You wouldn't be alone in concluding that the arms race was a less than moral choice, or that it was entirely too cynical to assume that a negotiated settlement with the USSR was impossible. However, in my opinion, anyone who actually puts in the effort to read NSC-68 will find that it bears little resemblance at all to what Chomsky insinuates it is. He's betting that his readers are too lazy to do this, though, and will simply assume that the document backs up his point because he's citing it.
Chomsky doesn't deny in WUSRW that NSC68 is "a document put together by people whose job it is to figure out how to defend the country"; he says:
It called for a "roll-back strategy" that would "foster the seeds of destruction within the Soviet system," so that we could then negotiate a settlement on our terms "with the Soviet Union (or a successor state or states)."
So Chomsky apparently agrees that (some of) the main aims of the document were to do with defense policy (incidentally WUSRW is quite deliberately one of Chomsky's most polemic and least scholarly books, so it's rather unfair to keep pulling him up on details when he's often written about the same things far more carefully elsewhere). I wouldn't challenge your summary of the document's contents, but Chomsky seems correct that some sections of it support his analysis of the control of popular opinion in western democracies. I was wrong to say that the entire document was "an internal document addressing the dangers of democracy for an elite", but don't confuse my ignorance with Chomsky's.
As to Chomsky's notion about elites trying to control public opinion, this is a tautology he tries to sound sinister. Hell, I'm trying to control one little bit of public opinion here, in trying to convince you that Chomsky can't be trusted.
Chomsky agrees that it's a tautology, in fact this is his usual response to people who criticise him as a conspiracy theorist — it's only to be expected that people who have power will try to consolidate and extend it, putting their own interests in front of the interests of the population at large. From an anarchist point of view, all power is open to question, and it is the duty of citizens in a democracy to question the motives of and justification for powerful groups (i.e. elities).
There wasn't anything much of substance in your first usenet posting (at least, no citations and no quotes of Chomsky longer than a few words).


Did you read the bit about the Punitive Expedition? If not, I'll reiterate:
In Chomsky's 9/12 statement, he asserted that 9/11 was the first attack on the American mainlaind since 1812. He even went through a few verbal contortions to ignore Japanese attacks on Hawaii or Attu Island.
I happened to be reading about Pershing's Punitive Expedition into Mexico in 1916. Obviously, it was a response to a direct attack on the lower 48 by Pancho Villa, putting lie to Chomsky's claims about no attacks since 1812. Perhaps more important is asking why Chomsky would ignore it? The parallels to Afghanistan were obvious, so why not mention it? The only reason I can come up with is that he's either ignorant of US intervention in Mexico (unlikely), or intentional misrepresentation of history for rhetorical

purposes.

So why ignore the Punitive Expidition, and Pancho Villa's raid on New Mexico? I have trouble believing that anyone as well-versed in American intervention in Latin America as he is wouldn't know about it. I conclude that Chomsky assumes his readers are too ignorant of US history to call him on it.
Either he doesn't know about it, or he thought it wasn't worth mentioning. I can't say I'm bothered either way; this is utterly silly and pedantic. It's not as if the fact that there had been no attacks since 1812 was a pillar of Chomsky's argument, it was at most a throwaway rhetorical flourish. As you say, it is not as if there would have been any significant advantage for Chomsky in pretending that the events you describe didn't happen. Cadr 19:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Pancho Villa killing 17 people in New Mexico is your big discovery? Don't you think you could find better examples for your pedantic arguments, such as the Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people? Or the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that killed 6 people, which Chomsky mentions just about every time he talks about terrorism [2] ?
The second seems to be based on a misunderstanding. Chomsky didn't suggest that the terrorists were deliberately targetting working people, he just pointed out that most of the victims were such people (I don't have the statistics to hand to say whether or not he is correct in saying this). I agree that it seems to be somewhat irrelavent and (unusually for Chomsky) rather dogmatically Marxist to pick over the social class of innocent victims, but there is no lie to be found here. As for the Palestinians, etc., I presume Chomsky is saying they will suffer as a consequence of US/international responses to 9/11, not as an intentional consequence of the terror attacks. Cadr 18:02, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You're welcome to give Chomsky the benefit of the doubt here, since you (accurately) point out that I'm looking at the terrorists intent, and Chomsky's a bit ambiguous here. I wouldn't, though -- I simply don't trust the guy farther than I could spit him, and I think that anyone who does the work to read history written people outside of the Z-Mag coterie (even just primary sources) would probably come to the same conclusion.
You're making a circular argument. You say you don't trust him because he says things which aren't true, and then you refuse to believe that he might be saying something which is true because you don't trust him. I'm not asking you to give Chomsky very much of the benefit of the doubt, only to assume that if there are two possible interpretations of what he is saying, where one is blatantly false and the other is not, that we should prefer the second. Especially when the blatantly false interpretation would be inconsistent with most of the other stuff he has written, and indeed the facts (e.g. he was correct to say that the Palestinians suffered as a result of 9/11, since it gave Israeli a great excuse to intensify milatary operations; I'm fairly sure he's stated this explicitly elsewhere).
Did you not find the "example that is remote enough so that we should be able to look at it with some dispassion: World War I" to be shockingly selective, and obviously unrepresentative? Doesn't that clash with everything you know about the run-up to WW2 in the US, the UK, and France?
Not sure which example you're referring to.
What's your impression of his "millions dead in Afghanistan due to Pakistan closing the borders" rant? Ben 18:37, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Again, which rant? I haven't read everything he's has written or remembered everything I've read ;)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Begging the question

Cadr, your recent edits to Begging the question are excellent - well done. Banno 06:40, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Universal grammar

Thanks for making my edits to Universal grammar more NPOV. I figured I was probably going to say something too POV in editing them, because it is something I'm opinionated about, but I felt that my edits would at least be better than the contrary viewpoint not being mentioned at all. RSpeer 22:55, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

Coypright violations (ex. Hansung Airlines) should be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems not WP:VFD. I tagged and listed it at copyright problems. This link is Broken 16:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gerund

Hi Cadr. Are you the primary author of the "Gerund" article? If so I would like you to read my comment "Mistake in section 1?" and tell me if you agree. Thanks very much, Zac.

[edit] Economic Calculation Problem

I think that Hayek would probably say his critique applies more generally than to theories that explicitly endorse central planning. After all, even a Tito-ist view of socialism, which endorses decentralization and a significant market role, must also limit the ability of the worker/owners to exchange their equity interests in these enterprises. If a worker/owner doesn't want to own anymore, and wants to sell his equity interest to somebody else, maybe a non-worker, accepting a contractual role at the plant/shop/farm ... is he prevented from that transaction, or allowed? Hayek will say that if a socialist system is to stay socialist over time, it must limit such transactions as that. Yet who does the limiting? Central planners? --Christofurio 19:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

To see why this is false, you only need to turn it round the other way. In a capitalist society, how does one prevent people organising workers councils and creating a libertarian socialist economy? Is this prevented, or allowed? If a capitalist system is to stay capitalist over time, it must limit workers organisations. Yet who does the limiting? Central planners?
If, in a socialist society, it should turn out that a siginificant proportion of the economy was operating within a market system, exchange could be limited in exactly the same way as in a capitalist society: through the legal system. There are many rules and regulations limiting the kinds of transactions allowed in a capitalist economy, but presumably Hayek does not regard these regulations as a form of central planning. Why then should the regulations required to sustain socialism (if indeed any are required) be regarded as a form of central planning? Generally, the amount of regulation required to sustain a particular form of social organisation depends on how much people want it. Cadr 22:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
The most obvious problem with your explanationabove is the word "presumably." You presume too much about Hayek there. Yes, Hayek does regard a variety of the "rules and regulations limiting the kinds of transactions allowed in a capitalist economy" as central planning, or rather as the seed of central planning, a seed that ought to be drowned before it becomes the full tree. He would certainly be opposed, for example, to rules prohibiting people from forming co-ops, or limiting the number that can be formed, etc. He would say that no coercion is necessary to maintain the dominance of the for-profit, equity-traded parts of the system, because that part is naturally better at producing goods and services at a price people will want to pay for them, so it can take care of itself competitively.
I'm not seeking to persuade you of any of that, only to persuade you that you accused him of a particular confusion he didn't commit. You are trying to make a distinction among issues that he (quite reasonably) thought closely connected. --Christofurio 23:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining Hayek's position, which you're right that I know very little about (I've only read the article on him). My only problem with the article prior to my edits is that it appeared to (tacitly) suggest that all forms of socialism relied on central planning of some kind. Obviously, if it was Hayek's opinion that all forms of government required some degree of central planning, but that socialism of any kind would require more central planning than capitalism, this shouldn't be surpressed. However, it should be made clear that not all socialists advocate central planning, or see a socialist society as a society dependant on central organization. You're probably in a better position than me to make a further edit, since you know much more about Hayek. Cadr 08:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's an interesting recent article on the over-all state of the controversy. http://www.gmu.edu/jbc/Tyler/socialistcalcdebate.pdf

[edit] "Leftist" vs. "Left-wing"

In this edit, you changed "radical leftist" to "radical left-wing". By U.S. usage, at least, this turns a relatively factual description into something more pejorative. Is there a reason for this change? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello. Oddly, I find "leftist" far more pejorative than "left-wing". I live in the UK, so perhaps things are different here. But whenever I see someone railing against the left on American websites, they almost invariably use the term "leftist" ("this is typical leftist propaganda...", that sort of thing). Left-wing seems a perfectly factual description to me, but of course people probably have their own perceptions about the neutrality of these terms. I'm not really sure how to decide between the two now, any ideas? Anyway, I was actually trying to make the labeling of his political views sound less critical! By the way, I think it might be an idea to delete "radical", would you be OK with that? Cadr 14:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
"Radical" is pretty operative there: the pre-WWI fascii were pretty out there, basically anarcho-syndicalists.
In the U.S., you'll hear mainly "leftist" whether it is positive or negative, but while an American on the left (especially a socialist) would gladly say, "I'm a leftist", they probably wouldn't say "I'm a left-winger". I did some googling; a great example is Alan Sokal talking about his hoax on the postmodernists: "After all, I'm a leftist too…" [3]; other good examples are member of the Mexican Chamber of Deputies Patria Jiménez, quoted at [4] ("…as a leftist and a lesbian…"; I see we don't have an article on her; we should, probably the most prominent gay activist in Mexico); cartoonist Ted Rall ("… I've gotten more respect from right-wingers than I ever had from the left. Even though I'm a leftist. I think the left eats its own.") [5]; or Lenora Fulani, defending herself from charges of anti-Semitism [6]
Yes, this usage is different between the U.S. and UK. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Could we perhaps just use "left", without either -wing or -ist following it?. Cadr 20:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fodor artcile

Got your message. I was thinking of including something on Fodor's moderate modularism versus massive modularity and the whole debate that has been generated after with Pinker, et al, after The Mind Doesnìt work That Way when I started writing up the article. But the artcile had already gotten so long by that time (almost 60K and I eventually got lambasted for it at Peer Review!!) that I decided that I had to leave some things out.In the last few days, I have sbdivied the artciles into subpages dealing with the various aspects (mental content, propisitional attitues, etc.) in more detail. I have not done this for the last one or two sections though. So I think what I will do is farm those sections out to subpages as well, leaving behind just a general overview and then you can write up a new section on The Mind Doesn't Work that Way (don't call it that though (;) and then we can bth decide where would be the best place to integrate inot the rest of the text (probably just after the secition on "functional architecture"). Or, perhaps, you were thinking of including it into that sepcific subpage?? If so, I would just say go ahead and add it as a sebsection and then I'll take a look at it and discuss anything I think might need changing or expansion or whatever. What the heck, it's Wikeipedia not my private dissertation or something, so go for it. Thanks for brining it up with me though. We can discuss any other changes along the way.--Lacatosias 09:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon edits

(earlier anon edits were mine btw)). Well, I sent it a welcome message to your anon account, so you might want to go over and read it at the very least (0;!!--Lacatosias 15:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WPTL

Hey man, I saw your comments on the Linguistic universal page, have you considered joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics? - FrancisTyers 10:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'm at UEA at the moment, its really cool :) I did my first degree in Software Engineering at Aberystwyth so my linguistic knowledge is limited. My main field of interest is machine translation (I really intend to clean up that page when I have some time). Are you intending to go on to do a masters after your first degree? - FrancisTyers 11:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Yup (regarding PhD) although I have to try and find funding, I'd also like to go abroad so let me know if you know of any good information re: finding PhDs abroad, my ideal PhD would be something in machine translation obviously :) I'm thinking of doing some work on machine translation evaluation for my MA dissertation.
If you're planning to do a masters you should know that if your compulsary lectures/seminars total under 16hours per week (mine current fluctuate between 6 and 10) then you are entitled to Job Seekers Allowance and with that Housing Benefit provided you are trying to find work (and regardless of if you are doing it full time or part time - I'm doing mine full time). I know the money aspect can be off putting when people decide to go on to do a masters, so I thought I'd let you know. Of course generally no-one tells you this. - FrancisTyers 11:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Socialism

Please comment on the suggested wording of the Nazism section at Talk:Socialism#Suggestion. Thanks. :) -- infinity0 22:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, could you look out at the socialism article every so often? User:Sam Spade keeps reverting back to his own version without attempting discussion, and he's the only one who has a problem with the version that's currently on the page. If you see him doing it again, could you please point this out to him? Thanks. -- infinity0 22:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cuba

Hi Cadr, thanks for the input into the Chomsky disputed tag. I wonder if you could take a look at the heavily disputed Cuba page if you have time, and provide me with any thoughts? I would prefer it if you didn't make any edits to the article if you see something you don't like (at this stage at least) there is a very delicate dispute process going on. --Zleitzen 16:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pat8722 RFC

A request for comment has been filed in response to User:Pat8722's behavior on libertarianism. You are encouraged to certify or add your opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pat8722. Rhobite 14:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam to multiple users (13 of them)

Hi. From comments on Sam Spade's RfC, I got the impression that quite a few users, including you, were in favor of an RFAr on Sam, though no one liked, or perhaps had the time, to be the one to post it. If I were to start a request on the RFAr page, would you be interested in signing as an involved party, and/or write a short statement there? I'm asking because if people have lost interest, there's obviously not much point in my doing it; it would merely distress and aggravate Sam unproductively, which I've certainly no wish to do. I wouldn't supply any examples of my own, as I haven't edited any of "Sam's articles" for a long time (couldn't stand it, that's why I stopped), but would basically simply refer to the RfC. It seems to me that anybody who wanted to endorse such an RFAr could more or less do the same, as the RfC is so complete. It's full of evidence, and its talkpage gives a view of Sam's attitude. I believe that it's important for the encyclopedia and the community that the old dog should learn new tricks, but please don't think I want to put the least pressure on you or anybody else to take part in an RFAr if you'd rather not. Bishonen | talk 02:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Americanism pic

"Maybe a picture from Guantanamo itself would be more appropriate."

Yes, sure. I hope I'm not appearing to suppress all recent criticism of the U.S. It's just been hard the last few days as a particular editor seems to want to make the page about Guantanamo and other related controversies. The topic is much broader than that: we have Sam Johnson 250 years ago through Iraq yesterday; we need to do justice both to anti-Americanism's history and the longstanding theory surrounding it, as well as to the recent flare-up in hostility. And yes, there has certainly been a recent flare-up. I don't mind a pic representing that. Marskell 22:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Another user just added a pic to the page as a compromise. I think it's pretty good. Marskell 16:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irgendwer RfC

I've filed a request request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irgendwer and your input would be appreciated. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 05:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Socialism rewrite

Thanks! Coming from you, it means a lot, as I know you to be a tough, careful, critical editor. 172 | Talk 03:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galloway

Can you define how it's not POV to associate Galloway with anti-war and it is POV to remove such an association please? Obviously you can't do this except in the most subjective terms. Here WP falls down... we have a classic case of a socialist editor declaring anything POV that doesn't fit his world view, eg, that Galloway is simply marvellous. MarkThomas 17:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really like Galloway. The anti-war category, as mentioned on the talk page, is not restricted to people who oppose all wars on principle. Galloway is obviously a prominent opponent of the current Iraq/Afghanistan conflict. Please don't try to psychoanalyse me. Cadr 17:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Not pyscho-analysis, just observation - what's with all the socialism if that's not you? Anyway, putting your obvious interests to one side, is it then the case that the big side bar which makes it look as if Galloway is a shining light in the anti-war movement is applicable to anyone opposed to US policy in the middle east? If so, can we add it to Bin Laden's page? MarkThomas 17:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
What's with all the socialism if that's not you?
That doesn't actually make any sense, care to rephrase?
If so, can we add it to Bin Laden's page?
If you can find a source stating that he's part of an anti-war movement, yes you can. Cadr 23:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this last comment of yours just shows how completely out of touch with reality some self-appointed editors are on this thing.MarkThomas 07:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Why? I doubt you will find such a source, at least not a credible source, so in practice you would not be able to add him to the anti-war category. Cadr 09:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade

This arbitration case is closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BA Linguistics

If I'm to take the adjustment from "in progress" to 2006 to you getting your degree then congratulations! If not ignore this inappropriate message. :) - FrancisTyers · 17:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Committee

I'm sorry to have to inform you that your request to join the Mediation Committee was not successful. I encourage you to continue in your efforts to help with dispute resolution on Wikipedia, and to consider running again in the future if you remain interested. If you would like to be considered as a reserve mediator (for those times when we find ourselves shorthanded and are in need of willing and competent volunteers) please let me know. Again, thank you for your interest in the committee, and good luck with your work on Wikipedia. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] linguist assistance

You are listed in the linguist by profession category. Would you please look at the discussion at Talk:Caron? It has been suggested that professional opinions are required to resolve the dispute there.

[edit] Help with possible vanity spammers?

If you have time, could you take a look at Mariano Ristori Morakis..... It's been tagged before but whoever edited after that removed the tags without addressing the problem. I only noticed because I looked at the history after *I* tagged it.

I found it while following a chain that started at Cristian Mac Entyre, which I also had to tag. One or both of these guys appear to be using Wikipedia to plug their artwork, and they are editing a number of pages related to their work in support of this. It would not be such a big deal, except they don't appear to be "notable" WP:BIO.

Will you help by taking a look at either of these articles? I'm only one man (or Antelope)....  ;) --Antelope In Search Of Truth 20:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Question

In the discussion on deleting Jonathan Nissenbaum's article, you mentioned he did his thesis under Chomsky. Could you tell me how you know this? Thank you. 24.203.225.99 01:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd heard it from another linguist, but I can't find a reference, so feel free to remove it. Cadr 10:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering, because I'm a student of his. I've also heard he worked under Marantz. But I guess the only way to find out would be to get a copy of his thesis. (Sure, I could ask him, but I'd feel like a gossip... Which I suppose I am.) Emile 16:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject LGBT studies

Hello! I noticed that your userpage mentions that you are interested in LGBT issues. Would you be interested in joining WikiProject LGBT studies? The WikiProject's been a bit inactive recently and some of us are trying to get it going again. We'd love to have you on board! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prescription

Cadr, I've reverted your change to the linguistic prescription article, as it is too broad a deletion of necessary balancing sentences. I actually think the article was very balanced and became POV only when you removed these. But I might be wrong, so let's talk on the talk page. The point is, the vast majority of people who use and think about language are not linguists, and this article is not about linguistics, it is about the way society as a whole regulates its language use. And society DOES regulate its language use. It's not our place to say that this is wrong, only to report on how it happens. Of course, some prescription is simply lunatic; but a pseudo-linguistic rejection of prescription is also lunatic. Most of us (both linguists and non-linguists - I am the former) occupy the middle ground, and the strength of this article is that it does not yield to the silly polarity of the loonies on both sides. That's what i want to defend it against. Within that framework I'll be grateful for your suggestions. --Doric Loon 11:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simpler syntax

Hi, you added a "confusing" tag to Simpler Syntax. Can you explain what you found confusing so I can improve it? Thanks. Cadr 00:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on Talk:Simpler Syntax. Thanks for your interest! -- Beland 19:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WPTL todo

I recently constructed an attempt at a more organized WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics open tasks template, but I haven't received any responses on the project talk page. If you could take a look at the test: User:Mitchoyoshitaka/WPTL todo and comment on it, I'd greatly appreciate any feedback or criticism! mitcho/芳貴 02:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AAVE

Thank you for this sensible edit to the article. Please keep it on your watchlist, and help revert goofy attempts to add truthiness to it.

I got heartily sick of the whole thing as the result of a quarrel with some character who seriously believes that a couple of remark by Bill Cosby (yes, the fading US TV star) that are part ludicrously misinformed, part stupid and part incoherent are worth more than any number of argued, coherent explanations in books from university presses. But I ought to return to the article, I suppose. -- Hoary 15:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ARI

You might want to look at what's going on at Ayn Rand Institute. ThAtSo 17:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Sorry about my mistake. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 18:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Noam Chomsky article

There is currently a discussion going on at Talk:Criticism of Noam Chomsky (see this). It involves criticism to Chomsky's work in linguistics and considering your analysis in the past for the Noam Chomsky article I think your analysis there would be much appreciated. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 08:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Have a look at Syntax =

Hi Cadr, there are some nightmarish and idiot edits going on in the Syntax article. Want to have a look? I'm about to give up in frustration.AndrewCarnie (talk) 07:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)