This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Arguing with Idiots article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I changed the tone of the article a little, it seemed to be drifting to the right a little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.116.48 ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I've cleaned this up a little but, placed in an infobox, and put an external links. Jzxpertguitarist ( talk) 21:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
This should be mentioned in the article. PokeHomsar ( talk) 17:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
We have a couple of NPOV issues with this section, primarily it does not present Beck's point of view and provides no context for the statement, which is required by our WP:NPOV policy. I also question the weight given and utilizing a criticism section with regard to WP:NPOV#article structure. Morphh (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
If you are going to put in this biased criticism, then you should at least set up the context of what he ACTUALLY said, to at least make it somewhat NPOV. And since ThuranX can't abide the context being inserted, I deleted the whole thing. Josh ua In gram 00:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The list for the Top Ten Bastards was very messy. So I put a wikitable to organize the list. Jzxpertguitarist ( talk) 22:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Is anyone willing to argue with a straight face that Beck didn't blow this one? Jimintheatl ( talk) 18:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
In particular, look at August 24 and 25th. Here's a summary;
Heard a report from the Committee of 11 on Slave Trade Article VII, Sections 4, 5, and 6 (no interference with slave trade, capitation taxes in proportion to census, no navigation acts without 2/3 vote in each House). Committee recommended prohibiting interference with slave trade until 1800, keeping Section 5, striking section 6 and permitting a tax to be imposed on migration. Agreed to reconsider debt provisions and interstate commerce clause (Article VII, Section 1).
Took up Article IX, Sections 2 and 3 (controversies among states, controversies arising from conflicting land grants). Agreed (8 - 2) to strike both sections. Took up Article X, Section 1 (Executive). Agreed on one Executive but defeated four different methods of electing the President including by the people (9 - 2) and by electors (6 - 5). Took up Article X, Section 2 (Executive powers and duties). Ordered adjournment at 3:00pm for the future.
Saturday, August 25 Approved (10 - 1) debt provision. Defeated (10 - 1) motion to include common defense and general welfare clause in Article VII, Section 1, Clause 1.
Took up Article VII, Section 4 (slave trade) (see also July 23, August 8, 21, 22, 26, and 29).
Agreed (7 - 4) to change from 1800 to 1808 the prohibition on Congress (New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia voting against). Approved (7 - 4) "The migration or importation of such persons as the several states now existing should think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Legislature prior to the year 1808."
Madison stated, "twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves." He also "thought it wrong to admit into the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men."
Approved import tax not to exceed $10.00 per person.
Approved Article VII, Section 5 as reported. Postponed Article VII, Section 6.
Continued on Executive powers in Article X.
Defeated (6 - 3 - 1) motion allowing appointment to Federal offices by State Executives in Article X, Section 2.
Good luck. I;ll cross my fingers.....
Okay, here I sit with the actual book, having read it twice. This is my RS, the book itself. Let me try to describe this to you. In this specific chapter, he has little excerpts of the Constitiution with a small paragraph after it. It is the whole constitution, just cut into specific sections. It is supposed to look like he cut the Constitution into pieces, with the pieces taped onto the page with scotch tape, and he highlights a specific phrase. In this specific part, he has the following:
Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
Now, he has the words "not exceeding ten dollars for each person." highlighted. His response, to this specific phrase, is as follows:
"That's right, the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here. Not anymore. These days we can't ask anything of immigrants--including that they abide by our laws."
Now, I realize that that's not what Keith Olbermann or Media Matters wants you to think, but this is what Beck actually said, straight from the book, so this is pure and without my input. Looking at it that way, it certainly doesn't look like he was wrong to me. Jim, do you still think he blew this one?
JOSH
UA IN
GRAM 05:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
And you need to stop calling me an idiot. Seriously. If, according to you, I'm not entitled to my own opinion, and/or entitled to challenge your opinion, without being ridiculed or attacked, then maybe you should read WP:ATTACK. I realize that I made personal attacks on you in the past, but not for your opinions. I made personal attacks on you for your need to unilaterally remake this article to what makes you feel better, without first discussing your changes with the other editors of this article first. I still contend that it is not okay to do that, not without proof, and you still have no proof of your own assertions. If I'm the idiot here, then I hate to think of what that makes you. JOSH UA IN GRAM 21:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The consensus we are talking about (it's pretty clear from Morphh's statement above, but I'll repeat it for you), is this:
Assuming Jim is correct, the changes by him to the content is still inappropriate based on our
NPOV and
OR policies. The Media Matters criticism (which is a questionable
RS in itself) provides the view that he misinterpreted the constitution, and we then present what Beck wrote. To state as fact that he is wrong assumes that he's trying to provide an accurate interpretation of the clause, which it doesn't appear to be - it was the lead to a punchline. In any case, we have three editors (a consensus of the editors involved) that disagree with the the changes. At this point, these changes should not be included. Movement to include them would first require a discussion that satisfies the concerns with regard to policy.
Morphh
(talk) 2:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Does that clear it up for you?
JOSH
UA IN
GRAM 19:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
For those of you that aren't as into revisionist history as Jim seems to be, here is the actual consensus:
Blowing it or not is nothing you or I should be concerned with. You can not insert the content presenting your opinion. It is his POV and for neutrality, it needs to be included without bias.
Morphh
(talk) 19:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Jim, it appears you are doing
WP:OR. Where is a source saying this?
Soxwon (
talk) 20:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Your opinion is your own, you don't have a
WP:RS saying such, therefore it consitutes
WP:OR.
Soxwon (
talk) 20:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
*sigh* I agree with you Jim and don't doubt his interpretation is wrong if it's as wacky as the bit of Common Sense that I could slog through. However, you still need a reliable source saying that Beck is misinterpreting the source before you can say it, otherwise it's
WP:OR.
Soxwon (
talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
We already have the criticism in there regarding this section. It's not a matter of lacking the pov that he misinterpreted the clause. It's a matter of POV balance, and not stating an opinion as fact, regardless of a reliable source. To this point, the statement "criticized the book for praising Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution" is opinion regarding "praise" and needs to be rewritten to reflect that.
Morphh
(talk) 20:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Later in Arguing with Idiots, Beck writes: "Article 1, Section 9 had allowed twenty years of further slave trade, a length of time that many Founders hoped would be sufficient for the South to wean itself from the horrendous practice. But even after the importation of new slaves stopped in 1808, the South was so dependent upon slavery that it was unwilling to let it go." [Arguing with Idiots, Page 294] It's not our place to say Beck was wrong, but if you find a reliable source, we can state their opinion that Beck is wrong, which is what we have already done with Media Matters and Keith Olbermann (although Keith's opinion is from an unreliable source and should be removed). The only thing we can do on Beck's pov and balance is to just provide the context and statement from Beck regarding the particular statement, without opinion as to it being correct or incorrect.
Morphh
(talk) 23:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The consensus is that you should leave your
original research and
opinions off of this page. So, per the consensus, what you are doing is
vandalism, and will be reverted and reported as such.
J
DIGGITY
SPEAKS 03:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like Morph and Soxwon to weigh in here. I'm not sure either would feel comfortable having Josh speak for them , as he has done an about-face on the issue. Both Sox and Morph have acknowledged that Beck misconstrued the Const. prov.(his intent is what is undetermined) Mind readers need apply.
Jimintheatl (
talk) 03:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Keith Olbermann
[1] and the watchdog group
Media Matters,
[2] criticized the book for praising
Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution . In the specific section of his book they refer to, Beck argued that "the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here. Not anymore. These days we can’t ask anything of immigrants — including that they abide by our laws."
[3]
This is the most neutral way to put it, in my opinion. You have the people criticizing him (with links to exactly what they said, so there is no confusion as to the issue at hand), you have a link to the exact clause that they are criticizing him for (without a Wikipedia declaration that that specific clause protected the slave trade), and you have Beck's actual, word-for-word statement. No opinions, no negative or positive statements about the book, or Beck, or his critics. People can follow the links if they want to know more, just like Wikipedia should be. I'm going to go ahead and change the page to say this. Morphh or Soxwon, if you don't concur, feel free to change it back, and we can talk about it some more.
By the way, Morphh, I just wanted to let you know that I wasn't trying to take anyone out of context, I was just trying to pull every statement that had one of you saying that your personal opinions didn't matter, and neutrality did. If it came off that way, I apologize to you, and to Soxwon.
And as for whether or not I agree with Beck on this one, I don't think Beck meant this literally. I think he meant to use it to illustrate a point about how today's society is entirely too tolerant of illegal immigrants. I will say that I agree with that sentiment. If you are breaking the law, whether you are speeding or murdering someone, you should be punished. If that means you leave the country, too bad. If you want to come here legally, please come and stay for as long as you want, just do it legally.
J
DIGGITY
SPEAKS 15:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
[1] shows imposition ny New York State of a "head tax" and found unConsitutional at the time (circa 1882). Since then, Congress has, indeed, imposed a "head tax" on immigrants. The New York impost was not on "slaves" and appears, indeed, aimed at all immigrants. Nor was the US the only nation with a "head tax" -- Canada in 1913 charged $500 for a Chinese person to enter. [2] Such taxes were, indeed, common, and not specifically tied to slaves in most places. Massachusetts as early as 1692 restricted immigration of "paupers" and the like. [3] states that high imposts on Negroes were made in order to deter the slave trade, and not to facilitate it. Thus the entire question does not admit of simplistic answers, other than Mr. Beck was wrong to imply we do not have current immigration taxes. Collect ( talk) 12:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
References
Okay, stop edit warring, folks. Discuss the issues here on the talk page. Consider this your WP:3RR warning; if further warring or reverts happen, the user(s) will be blocked. tedder ( talk) 18:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
What are some ways that we can expand this article without, a) making it look like a promo, and b) violating some kind of copyright law? Any constructive ideas? JOSH UA IN GRAM 18:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
We cannot say that Olbermann and Media Matters "criticized the book for praising Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution," without explaining the basis of their criticism. There is no need to inform readers which interpretation is correct and we lack RS to state which one is correct. Readers can follow the link to the clause and decide for themselves. Also, Media Matters should be mentioned before Olbermann. The Four Deuces ( talk) 18:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Both Media Matters and Keith Olbermann criticized Beck for praising Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Beck had said that the clause meant that the Founders "felt like there was a value to being able to live here" and lamented: "Not anymore. These days we can't ask anything of immigrants -- including that they abide by our laws." However, Media Matters and Olbermann maintain that the clause prohibited Congress from outlawing the slave trade before 1808 and capped taxes on the slave trade at $10 per slave.
(out) It is clear from the context that we are reporting the opinions of Media Matters and Keith Olbermann. The problem with qualifying the term "to praise" is that it would imply that Beck was denigrating the constitution, and his book was a work of satire. The Olberman reference is actually from his television show and is relevant to the reception the book received. The best sources for critical review of the book would be constitutional scholars and failing that reviews by mainstream literary critics, but unfortunately they do not exist. The Four Deuces ( talk) 22:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
After looking at Jim's unblock request, I wonder if maybe he has a small point...the phrase, "...criticized the book for comments, which they suggest..." Perhaps we should be a little more specific? Suggestion:
Keith Olbermann [1] and the watchdog group Media Matters for America [2] criticized Beck for his comments concerning Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution. In the chapter titled The U.S. Constitution: Lost in Translation, Beck wrote, "the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here. Not anymore. These days we can’t ask anything of immigrants — including that they abide by our laws." [3] Media Matters and Olbermann claimed that this comment from Beck praised and endorsed the slave trade. [2] However, later in the book, Beck called the practice horrendous and described how the clause further extended the legalization of the slave trade: "Article 1, Section 9 had allowed twenty years of further slave trade, a length of time that many Founders hoped would be sufficient for the South to wean itself from the horrendous practice. But even after the importation of new slaves stopped in 1808, the South was so dependent upon slavery that it was unwilling to let it go." [4]
Does that look better or worse? J DIGGITY SPEAKS 20:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
References
Apparently, Jimintheatl is back with his version of the article, which was repeatedly rejected by the majority of editors on this page. Does anyone wish to change their minds about their previous decision? (For the record, I don't. I think it's as good as it's going to get as-is.) Also, I'm not sure Tiger Woods qualifies as an "issue discussed," since there is a grand total of twenty words about him in a list. However, it's not POV or anything stupid, so I'm not all that worried about it. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 04:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Quotation: "... played by Beck dressed up in the uniform of a Russian Commissar."
Sorry, this is wrong.
The uniform Beck wears on the cover of the book isn't Russian. And so it can't be the uniform of a Russian (better: Soviet! - this is also wrong) Commissar. It's a German sergeant's (German: "Unteroffizier") uniform (German:"Dienstanzug") of the Transmission and Signal Corps (German: "Fernmeldetruppe") in the German Army (German: "Deutsches Heer"). But: Not the hat and not the medals. This stuff isn't German. Maybe Russian, maybe not. An PDF-information about uniforms and dress codes in the German Armed Forces: [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.202 ( talk) 15:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.
Guys, THIS IS A WEST GERMAN UNIFORM, I am waering it, and everyone who is or was in the German (East or West) Army sees the HUGE difference. I dont know the rules of wikipedia, but I feel offended by this cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.21.74.159 ( talk) 00:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Is it necessary to say "The last 25 pages are citations of the various facts he uses to support his positions, from hundreds of sources, along with websites and links to various pieces of information", considering that a lot of books have citations/endnotes/references/bibliographies? It seems a bit like the article's trying to say "Beck provides references to prove he's not making stuff up". -- AdamSommerton ( talk) 02:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm nominating the current text by Keith Olberman and Mediamatters be deleted per WP:COATRACK. I calculated it and 47% of the article is dedicated solely to a relatively minor mistake in the book. To quotes excerpts from WP:COATRACK:
An article might have a disproportionately large "criticism" section, giving the impression that the nominal subject is hotly contested by many people, when in fact the criticism is merely selected opinions. This, too, gives the reader a false impression about reality even though the details may be true.
In this case the criticism- while not in its own section- takes up nearly half the article. WP:COATRACK says:
When confronted with a potential coatrack article, an editor is invited to ask: what impression does an uninitiated reader get from this article?
and with this article how is the reader not to assume the book is replete with errors when half the article is devoted to pointed out errors? Thus I'm moving to remove such content until the time has come(if ever) when this article is much larger and such text only takes up a smaller percentage of the article. Ink Falls 23:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
"There are no reviews out there" they said. I googled "Arguing with Idiots book review" and my first click was here. Didn't read the whole thing, but here's a good excerpt: Beck covers all the bases in the book, from defending Capitalism to the nanny state and universal health care. Twelve chapters cover the bulk of the disputes between liberal/progressive/socialists and libertarians and conservatives. This is no dull, academic recitation of facts either. Using his inimitable style, “the fusion of entertainment and enlightenment,” Beck infuses this book with humor, satire and cutting sarcasm that keeps the reader chuckling and giggling while simultaneously stimulating them into the occasional “Amen, brother” ejaculation.
Beck plays the Interlocutor and schizophrenically plays the “Ideeot” foil for his analysis and debunking of the common stupidities of the well-indoctrinated lumpen proletarian. “So not only do you not want to penalize oil companies, you actually want to help them make even more money by letting them slaughter innocent polar bears and arctic seals,” whines the Ideeot. Whereupon Beck proceeds to shred the vacuous argument in detail. This is the specious-claim/authoritative rebuttal format of the main text of the book, and it’s a very effective way of demonstrating the idiocy of the Left’s propaganda by using their verbatim nitwit arguments against them.
Here, here are some more.(god finding those was easy) Ink Falls 21:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Is not this book quite fanatic? Too much on the right - politically, without real facts.. By the way, who (what kind of person) could buy this book? Are there so many conservative members of Tea party in U.S.? Well, it reminded me lot of Michel Moor in same way but from the opposite political spectrum. Also bestseller.. 90.180.174.151 ( talk) 07:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Please look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Army_dress_uniforms_of_Bundeswehr. There you can see, this is the uniform of a german sargeant. (rank can be checked on the wikipedia pages of the Bundeswehr and the Nationale Volksarmee. Only one detail shows for sure, which uniform you can see there. The west german sargant does not have a lacing around the collar. So, if this would be a east german uniform, there would have to be a white lacing. An example of the uniform of an east german sargeant you can see at http://media.photobucket.com/image/nva%20unteroffizier/iannima/NVA%20Slides/MilHonAK74a2.jpg. There you can see the white lacing around the collar.
It is right, to look for references, but wikipedia should show the truth, not what a notable person meant to be the truth. So if we discover a reference to be clearly wrong, we should show the truth, not, what someone thought to be the truth. Thw1309 ( talk) 00:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I've just reverted this edit, which would have added a note with unsupported editorial observations about the specifics of the uniform.
Pages viii and ix inside the book contain a slightly zoomed-out copy of the cover photo which shows a bit more of the uniform. The cap is show, and has a hammer and sickle cap badge similar to the one shown here. The cap itself looks very similar to the "Russian Militia Officer Uniform Visor Hat Cap" shown here except that the portion immediately above the visor is colored black and has what looks like a silver or silver-gold colored cord, and the aforementioned cap badge is placed above that part of the cap -- on the front part of the crown where the exampled cap has a different insignia. Also, he's wearing what appears to be a Jubilee medal "60 Years of the Armed Forces of the USSR" (see the Orders, decorations, and medals of the Soviet Union article). One row of ribbon decorations is fully visible and another row partially visible (six visible ribbon decorations in all), but I have not tried to identify them. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC); copyedited to de-garble, fixing errors due to netbook keyboard glitches and lousy proofreading Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Arguing with Idiots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Arguing with Idiots article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I changed the tone of the article a little, it seemed to be drifting to the right a little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.116.48 ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I've cleaned this up a little but, placed in an infobox, and put an external links. Jzxpertguitarist ( talk) 21:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
This should be mentioned in the article. PokeHomsar ( talk) 17:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
We have a couple of NPOV issues with this section, primarily it does not present Beck's point of view and provides no context for the statement, which is required by our WP:NPOV policy. I also question the weight given and utilizing a criticism section with regard to WP:NPOV#article structure. Morphh (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
If you are going to put in this biased criticism, then you should at least set up the context of what he ACTUALLY said, to at least make it somewhat NPOV. And since ThuranX can't abide the context being inserted, I deleted the whole thing. Josh ua In gram 00:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The list for the Top Ten Bastards was very messy. So I put a wikitable to organize the list. Jzxpertguitarist ( talk) 22:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Is anyone willing to argue with a straight face that Beck didn't blow this one? Jimintheatl ( talk) 18:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
In particular, look at August 24 and 25th. Here's a summary;
Heard a report from the Committee of 11 on Slave Trade Article VII, Sections 4, 5, and 6 (no interference with slave trade, capitation taxes in proportion to census, no navigation acts without 2/3 vote in each House). Committee recommended prohibiting interference with slave trade until 1800, keeping Section 5, striking section 6 and permitting a tax to be imposed on migration. Agreed to reconsider debt provisions and interstate commerce clause (Article VII, Section 1).
Took up Article IX, Sections 2 and 3 (controversies among states, controversies arising from conflicting land grants). Agreed (8 - 2) to strike both sections. Took up Article X, Section 1 (Executive). Agreed on one Executive but defeated four different methods of electing the President including by the people (9 - 2) and by electors (6 - 5). Took up Article X, Section 2 (Executive powers and duties). Ordered adjournment at 3:00pm for the future.
Saturday, August 25 Approved (10 - 1) debt provision. Defeated (10 - 1) motion to include common defense and general welfare clause in Article VII, Section 1, Clause 1.
Took up Article VII, Section 4 (slave trade) (see also July 23, August 8, 21, 22, 26, and 29).
Agreed (7 - 4) to change from 1800 to 1808 the prohibition on Congress (New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia voting against). Approved (7 - 4) "The migration or importation of such persons as the several states now existing should think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Legislature prior to the year 1808."
Madison stated, "twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves." He also "thought it wrong to admit into the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men."
Approved import tax not to exceed $10.00 per person.
Approved Article VII, Section 5 as reported. Postponed Article VII, Section 6.
Continued on Executive powers in Article X.
Defeated (6 - 3 - 1) motion allowing appointment to Federal offices by State Executives in Article X, Section 2.
Good luck. I;ll cross my fingers.....
Okay, here I sit with the actual book, having read it twice. This is my RS, the book itself. Let me try to describe this to you. In this specific chapter, he has little excerpts of the Constitiution with a small paragraph after it. It is the whole constitution, just cut into specific sections. It is supposed to look like he cut the Constitution into pieces, with the pieces taped onto the page with scotch tape, and he highlights a specific phrase. In this specific part, he has the following:
Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
Now, he has the words "not exceeding ten dollars for each person." highlighted. His response, to this specific phrase, is as follows:
"That's right, the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here. Not anymore. These days we can't ask anything of immigrants--including that they abide by our laws."
Now, I realize that that's not what Keith Olbermann or Media Matters wants you to think, but this is what Beck actually said, straight from the book, so this is pure and without my input. Looking at it that way, it certainly doesn't look like he was wrong to me. Jim, do you still think he blew this one?
JOSH
UA IN
GRAM 05:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
And you need to stop calling me an idiot. Seriously. If, according to you, I'm not entitled to my own opinion, and/or entitled to challenge your opinion, without being ridiculed or attacked, then maybe you should read WP:ATTACK. I realize that I made personal attacks on you in the past, but not for your opinions. I made personal attacks on you for your need to unilaterally remake this article to what makes you feel better, without first discussing your changes with the other editors of this article first. I still contend that it is not okay to do that, not without proof, and you still have no proof of your own assertions. If I'm the idiot here, then I hate to think of what that makes you. JOSH UA IN GRAM 21:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The consensus we are talking about (it's pretty clear from Morphh's statement above, but I'll repeat it for you), is this:
Assuming Jim is correct, the changes by him to the content is still inappropriate based on our
NPOV and
OR policies. The Media Matters criticism (which is a questionable
RS in itself) provides the view that he misinterpreted the constitution, and we then present what Beck wrote. To state as fact that he is wrong assumes that he's trying to provide an accurate interpretation of the clause, which it doesn't appear to be - it was the lead to a punchline. In any case, we have three editors (a consensus of the editors involved) that disagree with the the changes. At this point, these changes should not be included. Movement to include them would first require a discussion that satisfies the concerns with regard to policy.
Morphh
(talk) 2:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Does that clear it up for you?
JOSH
UA IN
GRAM 19:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
For those of you that aren't as into revisionist history as Jim seems to be, here is the actual consensus:
Blowing it or not is nothing you or I should be concerned with. You can not insert the content presenting your opinion. It is his POV and for neutrality, it needs to be included without bias.
Morphh
(talk) 19:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Jim, it appears you are doing
WP:OR. Where is a source saying this?
Soxwon (
talk) 20:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Your opinion is your own, you don't have a
WP:RS saying such, therefore it consitutes
WP:OR.
Soxwon (
talk) 20:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
*sigh* I agree with you Jim and don't doubt his interpretation is wrong if it's as wacky as the bit of Common Sense that I could slog through. However, you still need a reliable source saying that Beck is misinterpreting the source before you can say it, otherwise it's
WP:OR.
Soxwon (
talk) 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
We already have the criticism in there regarding this section. It's not a matter of lacking the pov that he misinterpreted the clause. It's a matter of POV balance, and not stating an opinion as fact, regardless of a reliable source. To this point, the statement "criticized the book for praising Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution" is opinion regarding "praise" and needs to be rewritten to reflect that.
Morphh
(talk) 20:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Later in Arguing with Idiots, Beck writes: "Article 1, Section 9 had allowed twenty years of further slave trade, a length of time that many Founders hoped would be sufficient for the South to wean itself from the horrendous practice. But even after the importation of new slaves stopped in 1808, the South was so dependent upon slavery that it was unwilling to let it go." [Arguing with Idiots, Page 294] It's not our place to say Beck was wrong, but if you find a reliable source, we can state their opinion that Beck is wrong, which is what we have already done with Media Matters and Keith Olbermann (although Keith's opinion is from an unreliable source and should be removed). The only thing we can do on Beck's pov and balance is to just provide the context and statement from Beck regarding the particular statement, without opinion as to it being correct or incorrect.
Morphh
(talk) 23:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The consensus is that you should leave your
original research and
opinions off of this page. So, per the consensus, what you are doing is
vandalism, and will be reverted and reported as such.
J
DIGGITY
SPEAKS 03:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like Morph and Soxwon to weigh in here. I'm not sure either would feel comfortable having Josh speak for them , as he has done an about-face on the issue. Both Sox and Morph have acknowledged that Beck misconstrued the Const. prov.(his intent is what is undetermined) Mind readers need apply.
Jimintheatl (
talk) 03:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Keith Olbermann
[1] and the watchdog group
Media Matters,
[2] criticized the book for praising
Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution . In the specific section of his book they refer to, Beck argued that "the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here. Not anymore. These days we can’t ask anything of immigrants — including that they abide by our laws."
[3]
This is the most neutral way to put it, in my opinion. You have the people criticizing him (with links to exactly what they said, so there is no confusion as to the issue at hand), you have a link to the exact clause that they are criticizing him for (without a Wikipedia declaration that that specific clause protected the slave trade), and you have Beck's actual, word-for-word statement. No opinions, no negative or positive statements about the book, or Beck, or his critics. People can follow the links if they want to know more, just like Wikipedia should be. I'm going to go ahead and change the page to say this. Morphh or Soxwon, if you don't concur, feel free to change it back, and we can talk about it some more.
By the way, Morphh, I just wanted to let you know that I wasn't trying to take anyone out of context, I was just trying to pull every statement that had one of you saying that your personal opinions didn't matter, and neutrality did. If it came off that way, I apologize to you, and to Soxwon.
And as for whether or not I agree with Beck on this one, I don't think Beck meant this literally. I think he meant to use it to illustrate a point about how today's society is entirely too tolerant of illegal immigrants. I will say that I agree with that sentiment. If you are breaking the law, whether you are speeding or murdering someone, you should be punished. If that means you leave the country, too bad. If you want to come here legally, please come and stay for as long as you want, just do it legally.
J
DIGGITY
SPEAKS 15:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
[1] shows imposition ny New York State of a "head tax" and found unConsitutional at the time (circa 1882). Since then, Congress has, indeed, imposed a "head tax" on immigrants. The New York impost was not on "slaves" and appears, indeed, aimed at all immigrants. Nor was the US the only nation with a "head tax" -- Canada in 1913 charged $500 for a Chinese person to enter. [2] Such taxes were, indeed, common, and not specifically tied to slaves in most places. Massachusetts as early as 1692 restricted immigration of "paupers" and the like. [3] states that high imposts on Negroes were made in order to deter the slave trade, and not to facilitate it. Thus the entire question does not admit of simplistic answers, other than Mr. Beck was wrong to imply we do not have current immigration taxes. Collect ( talk) 12:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
References
Okay, stop edit warring, folks. Discuss the issues here on the talk page. Consider this your WP:3RR warning; if further warring or reverts happen, the user(s) will be blocked. tedder ( talk) 18:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
What are some ways that we can expand this article without, a) making it look like a promo, and b) violating some kind of copyright law? Any constructive ideas? JOSH UA IN GRAM 18:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
We cannot say that Olbermann and Media Matters "criticized the book for praising Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution," without explaining the basis of their criticism. There is no need to inform readers which interpretation is correct and we lack RS to state which one is correct. Readers can follow the link to the clause and decide for themselves. Also, Media Matters should be mentioned before Olbermann. The Four Deuces ( talk) 18:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Both Media Matters and Keith Olbermann criticized Beck for praising Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Beck had said that the clause meant that the Founders "felt like there was a value to being able to live here" and lamented: "Not anymore. These days we can't ask anything of immigrants -- including that they abide by our laws." However, Media Matters and Olbermann maintain that the clause prohibited Congress from outlawing the slave trade before 1808 and capped taxes on the slave trade at $10 per slave.
(out) It is clear from the context that we are reporting the opinions of Media Matters and Keith Olbermann. The problem with qualifying the term "to praise" is that it would imply that Beck was denigrating the constitution, and his book was a work of satire. The Olberman reference is actually from his television show and is relevant to the reception the book received. The best sources for critical review of the book would be constitutional scholars and failing that reviews by mainstream literary critics, but unfortunately they do not exist. The Four Deuces ( talk) 22:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
After looking at Jim's unblock request, I wonder if maybe he has a small point...the phrase, "...criticized the book for comments, which they suggest..." Perhaps we should be a little more specific? Suggestion:
Keith Olbermann [1] and the watchdog group Media Matters for America [2] criticized Beck for his comments concerning Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution. In the chapter titled The U.S. Constitution: Lost in Translation, Beck wrote, "the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here. Not anymore. These days we can’t ask anything of immigrants — including that they abide by our laws." [3] Media Matters and Olbermann claimed that this comment from Beck praised and endorsed the slave trade. [2] However, later in the book, Beck called the practice horrendous and described how the clause further extended the legalization of the slave trade: "Article 1, Section 9 had allowed twenty years of further slave trade, a length of time that many Founders hoped would be sufficient for the South to wean itself from the horrendous practice. But even after the importation of new slaves stopped in 1808, the South was so dependent upon slavery that it was unwilling to let it go." [4]
Does that look better or worse? J DIGGITY SPEAKS 20:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
References
Apparently, Jimintheatl is back with his version of the article, which was repeatedly rejected by the majority of editors on this page. Does anyone wish to change their minds about their previous decision? (For the record, I don't. I think it's as good as it's going to get as-is.) Also, I'm not sure Tiger Woods qualifies as an "issue discussed," since there is a grand total of twenty words about him in a list. However, it's not POV or anything stupid, so I'm not all that worried about it. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 04:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Quotation: "... played by Beck dressed up in the uniform of a Russian Commissar."
Sorry, this is wrong.
The uniform Beck wears on the cover of the book isn't Russian. And so it can't be the uniform of a Russian (better: Soviet! - this is also wrong) Commissar. It's a German sergeant's (German: "Unteroffizier") uniform (German:"Dienstanzug") of the Transmission and Signal Corps (German: "Fernmeldetruppe") in the German Army (German: "Deutsches Heer"). But: Not the hat and not the medals. This stuff isn't German. Maybe Russian, maybe not. An PDF-information about uniforms and dress codes in the German Armed Forces: [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.202 ( talk) 15:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.
Guys, THIS IS A WEST GERMAN UNIFORM, I am waering it, and everyone who is or was in the German (East or West) Army sees the HUGE difference. I dont know the rules of wikipedia, but I feel offended by this cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.21.74.159 ( talk) 00:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Is it necessary to say "The last 25 pages are citations of the various facts he uses to support his positions, from hundreds of sources, along with websites and links to various pieces of information", considering that a lot of books have citations/endnotes/references/bibliographies? It seems a bit like the article's trying to say "Beck provides references to prove he's not making stuff up". -- AdamSommerton ( talk) 02:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm nominating the current text by Keith Olberman and Mediamatters be deleted per WP:COATRACK. I calculated it and 47% of the article is dedicated solely to a relatively minor mistake in the book. To quotes excerpts from WP:COATRACK:
An article might have a disproportionately large "criticism" section, giving the impression that the nominal subject is hotly contested by many people, when in fact the criticism is merely selected opinions. This, too, gives the reader a false impression about reality even though the details may be true.
In this case the criticism- while not in its own section- takes up nearly half the article. WP:COATRACK says:
When confronted with a potential coatrack article, an editor is invited to ask: what impression does an uninitiated reader get from this article?
and with this article how is the reader not to assume the book is replete with errors when half the article is devoted to pointed out errors? Thus I'm moving to remove such content until the time has come(if ever) when this article is much larger and such text only takes up a smaller percentage of the article. Ink Falls 23:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
"There are no reviews out there" they said. I googled "Arguing with Idiots book review" and my first click was here. Didn't read the whole thing, but here's a good excerpt: Beck covers all the bases in the book, from defending Capitalism to the nanny state and universal health care. Twelve chapters cover the bulk of the disputes between liberal/progressive/socialists and libertarians and conservatives. This is no dull, academic recitation of facts either. Using his inimitable style, “the fusion of entertainment and enlightenment,” Beck infuses this book with humor, satire and cutting sarcasm that keeps the reader chuckling and giggling while simultaneously stimulating them into the occasional “Amen, brother” ejaculation.
Beck plays the Interlocutor and schizophrenically plays the “Ideeot” foil for his analysis and debunking of the common stupidities of the well-indoctrinated lumpen proletarian. “So not only do you not want to penalize oil companies, you actually want to help them make even more money by letting them slaughter innocent polar bears and arctic seals,” whines the Ideeot. Whereupon Beck proceeds to shred the vacuous argument in detail. This is the specious-claim/authoritative rebuttal format of the main text of the book, and it’s a very effective way of demonstrating the idiocy of the Left’s propaganda by using their verbatim nitwit arguments against them.
Here, here are some more.(god finding those was easy) Ink Falls 21:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Is not this book quite fanatic? Too much on the right - politically, without real facts.. By the way, who (what kind of person) could buy this book? Are there so many conservative members of Tea party in U.S.? Well, it reminded me lot of Michel Moor in same way but from the opposite political spectrum. Also bestseller.. 90.180.174.151 ( talk) 07:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Please look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Army_dress_uniforms_of_Bundeswehr. There you can see, this is the uniform of a german sargeant. (rank can be checked on the wikipedia pages of the Bundeswehr and the Nationale Volksarmee. Only one detail shows for sure, which uniform you can see there. The west german sargant does not have a lacing around the collar. So, if this would be a east german uniform, there would have to be a white lacing. An example of the uniform of an east german sargeant you can see at http://media.photobucket.com/image/nva%20unteroffizier/iannima/NVA%20Slides/MilHonAK74a2.jpg. There you can see the white lacing around the collar.
It is right, to look for references, but wikipedia should show the truth, not what a notable person meant to be the truth. So if we discover a reference to be clearly wrong, we should show the truth, not, what someone thought to be the truth. Thw1309 ( talk) 00:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I've just reverted this edit, which would have added a note with unsupported editorial observations about the specifics of the uniform.
Pages viii and ix inside the book contain a slightly zoomed-out copy of the cover photo which shows a bit more of the uniform. The cap is show, and has a hammer and sickle cap badge similar to the one shown here. The cap itself looks very similar to the "Russian Militia Officer Uniform Visor Hat Cap" shown here except that the portion immediately above the visor is colored black and has what looks like a silver or silver-gold colored cord, and the aforementioned cap badge is placed above that part of the cap -- on the front part of the crown where the exampled cap has a different insignia. Also, he's wearing what appears to be a Jubilee medal "60 Years of the Armed Forces of the USSR" (see the Orders, decorations, and medals of the Soviet Union article). One row of ribbon decorations is fully visible and another row partially visible (six visible ribbon decorations in all), but I have not tried to identify them. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC); copyedited to de-garble, fixing errors due to netbook keyboard glitches and lousy proofreading Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Arguing with Idiots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)