This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
User:Introman has added the following template to the lead:
This template is inappropriate and should be removed. Please indicate whether you wish to Keep or Remove this template. The Four Deuces ( talk) 14:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Is it true or not that the neutrality of the intro is being disputed? There's your answer. Introman ( talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Introman considers anything that does not agree with his extreme and unsupported POV to be POV. The only person disputing the mainstream view is Introman.
Some people form fixed opinions early in life, usually at the feet of some charismatic leader, and forever after filter all information through these views, believing anything that agrees with their fixed views, rejecting any evidence to the contrary. Others have a genuine interest in the truth, consider new information based on the reliability of its source, and are glad to learn new things. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
(out) Well it is not in fact my opinion that Bush was a conservative but that is beside the point. The Four Deuces ( talk) 17:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
References should not include unnecessary words, such as "for example". When a book quotes someone, the author given in the reference should be the author of the book. Titles should be in italics, indicated by two upright singlequotes at the beginning and end, thus. The page number should follow the title, not the name of the publisher. Two citations should not be combined in a single reference. Where available, the ISBN should be given. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
"Conservatism also attracted white Southern Democrats, alienated by Democratic support of Federal Civil Rights legislation, and evangelical Christians, concerned about what they saw as a breakdown of American morals (from recent Supreme Court decisions which legalized abortion and advocated the seperation of Church and State), to nominate and elect the Republican candidate Ronald Reagan, a self-identified American conservative, as president."
"Subsequent electoral victories included gaining a Republican congressional majority in 1994 and the election of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004."
Rick Norwood keeps deleting the sourced sentence saying, "After losing political influence through the 1970's, and during the economic stagnation of the time, a revival of classical liberalism brought new life to the conservative movement, contributing to the election of Ronald Reagan, a conservative, for President. ("liberalism." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 20 Aug. 2009. Mayne, Alan. From Politics Part to Politics Future. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999. p. 123). The really strange thing is Rick Norwood is putting in his edit summary for the deletion: "rv Ongoing attempt to claim that early liberals were Libertarians. It is not the source that is inaccurate, but his claim that is not reflected in the source." [1] Apparently Rick Norwood is confused, because there is no mention of libertarianism in the statement. Introman ( talk) 19:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I think Introman must, by this time, understand the points we are making, and just refuses to acknowledge the fact. If not, than nothing we say is going to get through to him. There doesn't seem to be any point in discussing the matter further. Rick Norwood ( talk) 21:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
We seem to have disputes about whom to include as conservatives. This largely relates to having an unclear definition of US conservatism. The following seem to be the main theories:
My suggestion is that for pre-1955 we list prominent Federalists, Whigs and Republicans indicating that they are sometimes considered to be conservatives. We also list early statesmen identified by Russell Kirk or other modern conservative writers as conservatives, indicating that the claims are disputed. Verifiability not truth.
The Four Deuces ( talk) 22:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally I do not know of any RS that calls Jefferson a conservative. The Four Deuces ( talk) 22:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
You did more than just change the order. You moved the core conservative beliefs, God and country, to a separate sentence and added the qualification "though not universally". You moved small government, laissez fair capitalism, and supply-side economics to the front, with no such qualification.
Here is what the Oxford American Dictionary says about conservative: "disliking or opposed to great and sudden change". Here is what Encyclopedia Britannica says about conservatism: "political doctrine that emphasizes the value of traditional institutions and practices."
And here is what Barry Goldwater said, in "The Conscience of a Conservative", which speaks directly to your claim that conservatism in the United States is first and foremost about economics. "The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but he is also a spiritual creature, with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man's nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants."
I am going to rewrite the lede with these sources in mind. Please do not revert unless you have sources at least as authoritative.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 18:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't just quote Goldwater. I quoted a dictionary, an encyclopedia, and Goldwater. I will be happy to offer more sources.
Here is Webster's Third New International Dictionary. "The Right -- individuals or groups sometimes professing views characterized by opposition to change in the established political, social, and economic order and favoring the preservation of traditional attitudes and practices and sometimes advocating the establishment of an authoritarian political order by revolution or other forceful means."
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, "Conservatism. In general terms, a political philosophy which aspires to the preservation of what is thought to be the best in established society, and opposes radical change." Later in the same article, "In the twentieth century conservatism has been so preoccupied with the struggle against forms of socialism that many people have made the mistake of identifying conservatism purely with anti-socialism. If this perception were correct then the demise of socialism would also be the demise of conservatism. But in fact there is never any shortage of the kind of belief to which conservatism is inherently opposed. We can be assured that forms of feminism, ecologism, radical democratic theory, and human rights doctrines will, inter alia, continue to provide the kind of political projects which serve as both opposition and stimulus to conservatism."
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia gives a good explanation of the relationship between conservatism and laissez faire economics. Here is it's definition, in its entirity, "Conservatism, in politics, the desire to maintain on conserve the existing order. Modern political conservatism emerged in the 19th cent. in reaction to the political and social changes of the FRENCH REVOLUTION and the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. European conservatism, as formulated by Edmund BURKE and others, emphasized preserving the power of the king and landowners, limiting suffrage, and continuing the ties between church and state. Benjamin DISRAELI exemplified the conservative tendency to resort to moderate reform in order to preserve the foundations of the old order. By the 20th cent. conservatism was being redirected by erstwhile liberal manufacturing and professional groups who had achieved their political aims and had become concerned with preserving them. The new conservatism advocated economic LAISSEZ FAIRE and opposed the extension of the welfare state."
Here is conservative columnist William Safire in "William Safire's Political Dictionary", explaining the difference between economic conservatives and social conservatives. "Economic conservatives frequently disagree strongly with social conservatives, often giving "the movement" a split personality. Social conservatives favor government support of "faith-based" institutions, often frown on gun control, and oppose abortion and same-sex marriage, positions alliteratively summarized as "God, guns, and gays," but these stands were not taken by such Republican political figures as California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani."
I'm not picking these references because they a agree with my views. I'm picking standard reference works and learning from what they say.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I've never claimed that the God/Patriotism crowd was universal. I've always seen a place for economic conservatism in tne lede. But it is not the traditional meaning of conservatism, and none of the sources give it as the first meaning of conservatism. It's still there, it just isn't first, and isn't given undue emphasis. Rick Norwood ( talk) 20:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I guess the question is does "Conservatism in the United States" mean conservatism, as it is practiced in the United States, or does it mean, rather, something in the United States that is called "conservatism", but differs from what is called conservatism elsewhere. I see a lot of common ground between US conservatism and European conservatism, especially on the subject of immigration, but I may be influenced by growing up in the Deep South during segragation. Also, I currently live in Tennessee, and so most conservatives I know are conservatives because they consider it their Christian duty to be conservatives, and in their view, the most important goals for conservatives are to outlaw abortion and homosexuality. I suppose Arizona conservatives are different. On the other hand, without the South, the Republican party would be a minor party. There is a vast gap between the intellectual conservatives and the grass roots conservatives, and I suppose the same is true of liberals. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Good edit, Soxwon. Since I sometimes disagree with your edits, I wanted you to know that I think this one greatly improved the article. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I have better things to do with my time that argue over what famous people go in whose favorite category. But Washington was a revolutionary! Rick Norwood ( talk) 23:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I have restored version 321293605 [6] by Rjensen, reversing edits made by User:Default013 who has been blocked. The Four Deuces ( talk) 15:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Opposition to civil rights laws is standard conservative fare and is not "racism". Rjensen ( talk) 23:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you give an example of a union member who supported George Wallace who identified himself as a leftist? Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Rjensen's edit left the only reference to the John Birch Society as "By 1962, Buckley and the mainstream conservatives rejected the tenets of the conspiracy-oriented John Birch Society." While WP:Weight means that they do not deserve much space, their early role in modern conservatism is notable and they continued to be part of the fringe of the conservative movement. It is confusing to mention that their tenets were rejected without mentioning that they were originally part of the movement. The Four Deuces ( talk) 16:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I dont understand why the first thing you list as conservative beliefs is God. I mean, many do believe in God, but it had nothing to do with conservative politics. I think a more appropriate summary would be conservatives belief in a strong national military, limited government, free market/capitalist economics, and personal freedom. In fact, I would guess that most conservatives would leave God out of it if you asked what their political beliefs are. Only liberals assume we "cling to our bibles and our guns." Baltimore sensi528 ( talk) 15:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC) baltimore sensi528 Baltimore sensi528 ( talk) 15:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
This is the platform of the Republican party, not conservatism. Conservatism is a political philosophy, the negation of ideology. Perhaps Russell Kirk's 10 Principles of Conservatives would be a better foundation for this article.
Conservatism is protean, no doubt, and discussion of its different forms would be good. Discussing particular issues is policy, not philosophy. It's Republican, not conservative. This article is completely off-base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.107.126 ( talk) 18:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Conservatives themselves have never agreed about what it is... In fact, they sometimes gloat about not defining it (Kirk did, Buckley too). Frank Meyer thought this was bad; he was a minority. James Q. Wilson calls conservatism a "mood," and so on. Listing qualities is not definition, either, but it is fair to list here the various positions associated with the various strains of conservatism over time. It may make sense to see libertarianism as one of the basic variants of conservatism, even though Rand and Hayek denied it; Buckley and Meyer disagreed with them. Debates and debates -- the entry needs to reflect them, probably historically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contrarius ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be kind of important to note somewhere that a poll conducted last week (10/21/09) showed that 40% of americans identify themselves as conservative, 35% moderate, 21% liberal. In an article about conservatism in America, wouldnt it make sense to mention it is the leading political philosophy? And it is a gallup poll, not like Heritage Found or anything like that. heres the link, i might just add it myself. Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page). —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
136.160.191.18 (
talk) 18:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
1) You should sign your posts. 2) Your link doesnt' work. 3) Most people are conservative -- people prefer tradition to change.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 21:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Could the types section be reduced? It seems overly long and duplicates information found in other articles. It seems to be more a definition of different terms. The Four Deuces ( talk) 21:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The opening paragraph currently reads as follows.
Setting aside that the first sentence should be a little more descriptive ...
The last two sentences makes some very bold assertions that are not completely explained in the text nor are their citations that adequately back them up (ideally since these assertions are so significant it is worthwhile to include citations in the introduction itself).
That aside, I am not really convinced these assertions really are NPOV. First, associating Conservatism directly with the Republicans in the second sentence of the first paragraph is not very objective (yes, there is a high degree of truth to this but it is not completely true and should not be given top billing). Besides that, describing patriotism and Christianity as pillars of conservative philosophy IMHO is painting a caricature.
The article in general could use some work for neutrality's sake but at least trying to bring some objectivity to the opening would be good. One thing that should be clarified up front is that Conservatism is not a single well-defined philosophy (i.e. be careful about trying to pigeon-hole it).
The following are a few short descriptions of conservatism that are a little more objective.
-- Mcorazao ( talk) 21:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Conservative scholar Clinton Rossiter, "The Giants of American Conservatism," American Heritage 1955 6(6): 56-59, 94-96, names Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, John Marshall, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Elihu Root, and Theodore Roosevelt for the conservative's hall of fame, with John Adams, in Rossiter’s judgment, as the greatest of American conservatives. Rjensen ( talk) 11:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Which, of course, makes that point that most people are both liberal and conservative. Far from being opposites, as they were in the 18th century, in the modern world the liberal belief in freedom and the conservative belief in tradition only come into conflict in a few areas: censorship, marriage, drugs, and war come to mind. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
That is the mainstream view even among American conservative writers. Even Kirk wrote that conservatism in America ended in the North in 1800 and the South in 1865. The Four Deuces ( talk) 21:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The addition of Abraham Lincoln to the list of conservatives is particularly ironic, since in his own time the division was not between liberals and conservatives, but between radicals and conservatives. Those who wanted to free the slaves were called radicals, those who wanted to end the Civil War by allowing the continuation of slavery were called conservatives. In the presidential election of 1864, Lincoln, the Republican candidate, was a radical, while McClellan, the Democratic candidate, was a conservative. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
(out) You still have not commented on my remark that Rossiter did not include Washington and Lincoln in the hall of fame. What he wrote in the article was:
The Four Deuces ( talk) 05:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Glenn Beck and Mark Levin belong here. Sure they're popular but have they really contributed to conservatism that much? At least Limbaugh is notable for bringing conservative ideas to talk radio. 174.124.189.253 ( talk) 19:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
American conservatives strongly support specifically Christian beliefs, not just vague religious beliefs, and they strongly disapprove of modern morality, explicitly modern sexual morality, not just a vague decline in religious unity. On the other hand, certainly American conservatives are strongly anti-communist, and the article needs to say that.
The subject of patriotism is more complex. On the one hand, every political party claims that its members are more patriotic than members of the other party, so to list "patriotism" as a specifically conservative belief is meaningless. On the other hand, "nationalism" is unreferenced. How about "American exceptionalism" as a conservative belief?
I'm going to try to put back what is referenced, or can be easily referenced, and remove what is unreferenced and seems to me doubtful.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The so-called small government conservatives are the tail trying to wag the dog. Note that small-government conservatives also call themselves small-government liberals, and would like to have Wikipedia represent their belief as beliefs held by a majority of right-thinking people, when in fact they are minority beliefs.
Also, please note that under no circumstances can material inside quotation marks be rewritten (except, of course, to correct typoes). Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
An editor insists on changing patriotism to nationalism in the lead because ""Patriotism" is too subjective a term. Nationalism is a more dictionary correct one". However there is no source for this and I have never heard of American conservatives or adherents of any other ideology described as nationalists. The Four Deuces ( talk) 08:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The point is that the article should not be a catalog of all beliefs held by some conservatives, but rather of the most important conservative beliefs, and in this article specifically American conservative beliefs. It may be that all conservatives believe that water runs downhill, but that doesn't make it a conservative belief. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Seregain, which American conservatives do you consider "nationalists"? Which American nationalists reject patriotism? The Four Deuces ( talk) 18:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Nationalism generally involves the identification of an ethnic identity with a state. [1 The subject can include the belief that one's nation is of primary importance. [2 It is also used to describe a movement to establish or protect a homeland (usually an autonomous state) for an ethnic group. In some cases the identification of a homogeneous national culture is combined with a negative view of other races of cultures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuaveArt ( talk • contribs) 21:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
"Patriotism" is not a concrete term. It's an open-ended and opinionated term. If this article is to stay neutral, it will need to reference specific party platforms, not vague sentimental terms like "Christianity" or "Patriotism" which could be argued against just as easily. -- SuaveArt ( talk) 21:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
An ethnic group is a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed.[1][2]
further marked by the researcher Seng Yang in the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness [3 and the recognition of common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioural traits as indicators of contrast to other groups
—Preceding unsigned comment added by SuaveArt ( talk • contribs) 05:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
( talk) 08:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Any person who has ever read or listened to the news knows the tremendous influence of the Christian Right on American conservatism but a few references never hurt> Rick Norwood ( talk) 20:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The "Christian Nation" theme is often used to attack conservatives, and it is reflected in some Fundamentalist literature. It's not mainstream conservatism. President Reagan for example told Norman Lear in 1984 he was "not aware of any 'Christian Nation movement' and I certainly do not support the notion."(Reagan: A Life in letters p. 642). Conservatives usually speak in terms of Judeao-Christian ethics and values. Rjensen ( talk) 20:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The claim that "Christian nation" is used mostly by opponents is contradicted by the web sites I've cited as references. I can list a dozen more conservatives who make the same claim, if you like. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph suggests Conservatives are against gender equality. Do you mean they're against the modern gender equality movement? Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 03:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph suggests that opposition to gender equality is one part of the US conservative movement. For example, conservatives were mobilized to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Source for your example? Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 02:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's what the Britannica on-line has to say, "Although the ERA gained ratification of 30 states within one year of its Senate approval, mounting intense opposition from conservative religious and political organizations effectively brought ratification to a standstill."
Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
OBJECTION! It doesn't explicitly say Conservatives are against gender equality, just the ERA. Therefore, to say otherwise is WP:Original Research. Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 00:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
It says right on Teddy's page that he was the leader of the progressive movement. That contradicts Conservatism. How can he be both the founder of modern Liberalism and a Conservative at the same time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.32.249.24 ( talk) 18:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Everyone is fagits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.121.27 ( talk) 18:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
While I can see the gray over names like Jefferson and Lincoln, I'm not sure how you can argue that Federalists like Madison, Washington, and especially Hamilton were not conservative. They fought for the security of the aristocracy and to preserve the status quo. Soxwon ( talk) 20:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
. Rjensen ( talk) 21:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
(out) It is still a minority view. The mainstream view is that the values of the revolution were liberal, whether they were fighting to change society or to preserve rights that they believed the Crown was infringing upon. However as I said above I believe the article should reflect that there are differing views on this matter. I do not think however that any historians put Jefferson or Madison in the conservative camp, but I may be wrong and would welcome any source showing that they have been considered in this way. The Four Deuces ( talk) 01:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm unable to find "The American Revolution: Revolution Without Dogma" online. I did find "War and Society", but since the subtitle is "The United States: 1941-1945", and since the book does not mention George Washington, except to mention things named after him, it seems an unlikely source. Please provide a quote. Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The American Revolution did not spark a vast social upheaval like those associated with the French and Russian Revolutions. The struggle for independence did not pit one class against another. The men who served in Congress or led the Continental army never sought to restructure society.
Although the shape of American government changed, it was always rooted in traditional practice and principles. Because of this, the American Revolution has been described as a conservative revolution, making it unique among the major revolutionary movements of the modern era.
Soxwon ( talk) 19:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The trouble with listing famous people, without comment, as belonging to this or that cause, is that such a list does not permit the nuances that a mention in the text would allow, e.g. most authorities consider these people to have been on one side, but a few authorities consider these people to have been on the other side, in varying degrees, at various points in their career. Rather it suggests, and seems to be intended to suggest, that all the good people are on my side.
Still, I thank Soxwon for the quote, while noting that it does not say that the various people were conservative, but rather than the American Revolution, uniquely among revolutions, was conservative. But note that the use of conservative in the quoted passage means preserving the class system and the social mores. It does not suggest that the Founding Fathers did not support their new government with tariffs and favor a strong central government over the Articles of Confederation. They also were strongly anti-monarchy, anti-established church, pro freedom of speech, and pro freedom of the press. (The exception to the latter being, of course, the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts.) In short, they were the very opposite of conservative in the sense that the word was used at the time, and to some extent is still used today.
In short, a list does not lend itself to answering complex questions. Such a list should be short, and only include unambiguous and major examples. Please only add names to the list of conservatives if the person in question has said, "I am a conservative." or if a major authority includes their names on a list of important conservative thinkers. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The trouble with listing famous people, without comment, as belonging to this or that cause, is that such a list does not permit the nuances that a mention in the text would allow, e.g. most authorities consider these people to have been on one side, but a few authorities consider these people to have been on the other side, in varying degrees, at various points in their career. Rather it suggests, and seems to be intended to suggest, that all the good people are on my side.
Still, I thank Soxwon for the quote, while noting that it does not say that the various people were conservative, but rather than the American Revolution, uniquely among revolutions, was conservative. But note that the use of conservative in the quoted passage means preserving the class system and the social mores. It does not suggest that the Founding Fathers did not support their new government with tariffs and favor a strong central government over the Articles of Confederation. They also were strongly anti-monarchy, anti-established church, pro freedom of speech, and pro freedom of the press. (The exception to the latter being, of course, the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts.) In short, they were the very opposite of conservative in the sense that the word was used at the time, and to some extent is still used today.
In short, a list does not lend itself to answering complex questions. Such a list should be short, and only include unambiguous and major examples. Please only add names to the list of conservatives if the person in question has said, "I am a conservative." or if a major authority includes their names on a list of important conservative thinkers.
The neutrality tag has been attached to this article for a long time. Does anyone see why it is necessary? The article may need improvement in some areas, but this does not seem to be a problem. The Four Deuces ( talk) 01:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Soxwon: 1) I thought libertarians were economic conservatives but social liberals. 2) There is no "politics" section. Do you mean "Political movements"? If so, I agree it is blather and should be deleted. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I edited the description of Libertarianism Conservatism in the types section to remove bias, it stated that libertarian conservatives were often had "disdain and distrust" of the government, and that many were only concerned with a "single issue". This painted the ideology in a negative light. As a liberal I am not very well versed in other forms of conservatism, and do not feel I have the knowledge many forms of conservatism to safely remove the bias without jeopardizing the segments accuracy. But I do feel that the other segments in the types section also contain bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WildBoer ( talk • contribs) 00:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Like the famous liberals section this section serves no purpose other than to plop together vaguely associated ppl into a group and really is quite useless. Soxwon ( talk) 04:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I think maybe the discussion is getting a little far afield of the original suggestion. I agree with Soxwon in that the "Hall of Fame" and the rest of that section is entirely subjective and not useful to the article. I think that it should be removed. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 18:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I want to be sure we're talking about the same list. You assert that all of these people state that George Washington, for example, was a conservative? Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is an article by Willinz, "Bush's ancestors", [19] where he challenges the view that conservatism began in 1955 and traces it back to the Whigs (and no doubt would group the Federalists with them). Essentially conservatives were the commercial elite who were successful in attracting reactionary lower middle-class elements, ironically by portraying their opponents as elitists. That is basically the Progressive view, and contradicts the US traditional conservatives, who see a link between British and American conservatism. The problem I see is the the dividing line between the two camps. We do not find the same gulf between the two groups as in Upper Canada, where the ideologies of the Family Compact and the Reformers clearly differed. Where for example do Lincoln, Cleveland, Bryan and Al Smith fit? The Four Deuces ( talk) 00:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I started a new section on Academic analysis. [20] I think it is important to show that there are differing views on the existence and nature of American conservatism and believe that this discussion requires broader coverage in the article. The Four Deuces ( talk) 21:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the section on types leads to much confusion once you start reading the detailed definitions of each type. There are additional types (fiscal and social) introduced that were not discussed prior. We end up having way to many types with fuzzy overlapping among them. Are the terms used to name each type known to be in mainstream usage? -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 18:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I've been quickly and repeatedly reverted by user:Soxwon at two articles for adding the following information:
At talk:Modern liberalism in the United States he said I was using this fact "out of context", but the source speaks for itself. Wnt ( talk) 02:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing this up, The Four Deuces. It's something that has bothered me about the way Wikipedia uses "primary source" and "secondary source". Like Wnt, I assumed the article was the primary and the press release the secondary, but your point -- that the original data is the primary and the article is the secondary, makes sense to me.
Wnt is excited by this result, understandably, but he needs to take a few deep breaths. First, it is fundamental to conservative beliefs that a high IQ and too much education turns people into idiots, and so Wnt shouldn't think the research is going to help the liberal cause. Second, this is a study of American adolescents with extreme views, and so is not of widespread application (not important enough to go into the lede of any article). Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm US liberal, not conservative, but I completely fail to see how the following sentence belongs in this article: According to the ASA, "Add Health" data found an average IQ of 106 for American adolescents identifying themselves as "very liberal", compared to an IQ of 95 for those calling themselves "very conservative". So I'm joining the "edit war", unless someone can give a strong justification for why THIS ARTICLE is an appropriate place to quote this fact. ToolmakerSteve ( talk) 03:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
More about why this doesn't seem to fit to me: 1. It isn't the type of fact that is traditionally seen in articles such as this, in Wikipedia, or other encyclopedias. 2. It is a single study, which would therefore need to be in context of a much broader discussion of sociological and psychological factors found to be correlated with conservatism. 3. It is likely to be highly controversial, hence should be dealt with carefully, after discussion with experienced Wikipedia editors. For instance, the typical reader would conclude that the person placing it did so for POV purposes. Hence, it is difficult to place it *here* without a perception of non-neutrality. ToolmakerSteve ( talk) 03:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
And as Rick Norwood mentioned, placing it in the lead of the article is unjustifiable. Don't try to put it there again. Your POV is blatant. ToolmakerSteve ( talk) 04:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
There are two great reasons to oppose the inclusion of this study:
There's also a very interesting quote from the Time piece: But self-identification is often misleading; do kids really know what it means to be liberal? The GSS data are instructive here: Kanazawa found that more-intelligent GSS respondents (as measured by a quick but highly reliable synonym test) were less likely to agree that the government has a responsibility to reduce income and wealth differences. In other words, intelligent people might like to portray themselves as liberal. But in the end, they know that it's good to be the king. Soxwon ( talk) 15:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a little like the news report that many Black teens claim to be socialist. Many of them cannot define the word "socialist" correctly. But Fox News says Obama is a socialist, so they want to be one, too. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Wnt, take some deep breaths. My point was not that the "socialist" article belongs in, but that your "IQ" article doesn't, at least not until the result is confirmed by several sources. Rick Norwood ( talk) 00:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
User:Introman has added the following template to the lead:
This template is inappropriate and should be removed. Please indicate whether you wish to Keep or Remove this template. The Four Deuces ( talk) 14:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Is it true or not that the neutrality of the intro is being disputed? There's your answer. Introman ( talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Introman considers anything that does not agree with his extreme and unsupported POV to be POV. The only person disputing the mainstream view is Introman.
Some people form fixed opinions early in life, usually at the feet of some charismatic leader, and forever after filter all information through these views, believing anything that agrees with their fixed views, rejecting any evidence to the contrary. Others have a genuine interest in the truth, consider new information based on the reliability of its source, and are glad to learn new things. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
(out) Well it is not in fact my opinion that Bush was a conservative but that is beside the point. The Four Deuces ( talk) 17:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
References should not include unnecessary words, such as "for example". When a book quotes someone, the author given in the reference should be the author of the book. Titles should be in italics, indicated by two upright singlequotes at the beginning and end, thus. The page number should follow the title, not the name of the publisher. Two citations should not be combined in a single reference. Where available, the ISBN should be given. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
"Conservatism also attracted white Southern Democrats, alienated by Democratic support of Federal Civil Rights legislation, and evangelical Christians, concerned about what they saw as a breakdown of American morals (from recent Supreme Court decisions which legalized abortion and advocated the seperation of Church and State), to nominate and elect the Republican candidate Ronald Reagan, a self-identified American conservative, as president."
"Subsequent electoral victories included gaining a Republican congressional majority in 1994 and the election of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004."
Rick Norwood keeps deleting the sourced sentence saying, "After losing political influence through the 1970's, and during the economic stagnation of the time, a revival of classical liberalism brought new life to the conservative movement, contributing to the election of Ronald Reagan, a conservative, for President. ("liberalism." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 20 Aug. 2009. Mayne, Alan. From Politics Part to Politics Future. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999. p. 123). The really strange thing is Rick Norwood is putting in his edit summary for the deletion: "rv Ongoing attempt to claim that early liberals were Libertarians. It is not the source that is inaccurate, but his claim that is not reflected in the source." [1] Apparently Rick Norwood is confused, because there is no mention of libertarianism in the statement. Introman ( talk) 19:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I think Introman must, by this time, understand the points we are making, and just refuses to acknowledge the fact. If not, than nothing we say is going to get through to him. There doesn't seem to be any point in discussing the matter further. Rick Norwood ( talk) 21:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
We seem to have disputes about whom to include as conservatives. This largely relates to having an unclear definition of US conservatism. The following seem to be the main theories:
My suggestion is that for pre-1955 we list prominent Federalists, Whigs and Republicans indicating that they are sometimes considered to be conservatives. We also list early statesmen identified by Russell Kirk or other modern conservative writers as conservatives, indicating that the claims are disputed. Verifiability not truth.
The Four Deuces ( talk) 22:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally I do not know of any RS that calls Jefferson a conservative. The Four Deuces ( talk) 22:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
You did more than just change the order. You moved the core conservative beliefs, God and country, to a separate sentence and added the qualification "though not universally". You moved small government, laissez fair capitalism, and supply-side economics to the front, with no such qualification.
Here is what the Oxford American Dictionary says about conservative: "disliking or opposed to great and sudden change". Here is what Encyclopedia Britannica says about conservatism: "political doctrine that emphasizes the value of traditional institutions and practices."
And here is what Barry Goldwater said, in "The Conscience of a Conservative", which speaks directly to your claim that conservatism in the United States is first and foremost about economics. "The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but he is also a spiritual creature, with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man's nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants."
I am going to rewrite the lede with these sources in mind. Please do not revert unless you have sources at least as authoritative.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 18:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't just quote Goldwater. I quoted a dictionary, an encyclopedia, and Goldwater. I will be happy to offer more sources.
Here is Webster's Third New International Dictionary. "The Right -- individuals or groups sometimes professing views characterized by opposition to change in the established political, social, and economic order and favoring the preservation of traditional attitudes and practices and sometimes advocating the establishment of an authoritarian political order by revolution or other forceful means."
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, "Conservatism. In general terms, a political philosophy which aspires to the preservation of what is thought to be the best in established society, and opposes radical change." Later in the same article, "In the twentieth century conservatism has been so preoccupied with the struggle against forms of socialism that many people have made the mistake of identifying conservatism purely with anti-socialism. If this perception were correct then the demise of socialism would also be the demise of conservatism. But in fact there is never any shortage of the kind of belief to which conservatism is inherently opposed. We can be assured that forms of feminism, ecologism, radical democratic theory, and human rights doctrines will, inter alia, continue to provide the kind of political projects which serve as both opposition and stimulus to conservatism."
The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia gives a good explanation of the relationship between conservatism and laissez faire economics. Here is it's definition, in its entirity, "Conservatism, in politics, the desire to maintain on conserve the existing order. Modern political conservatism emerged in the 19th cent. in reaction to the political and social changes of the FRENCH REVOLUTION and the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. European conservatism, as formulated by Edmund BURKE and others, emphasized preserving the power of the king and landowners, limiting suffrage, and continuing the ties between church and state. Benjamin DISRAELI exemplified the conservative tendency to resort to moderate reform in order to preserve the foundations of the old order. By the 20th cent. conservatism was being redirected by erstwhile liberal manufacturing and professional groups who had achieved their political aims and had become concerned with preserving them. The new conservatism advocated economic LAISSEZ FAIRE and opposed the extension of the welfare state."
Here is conservative columnist William Safire in "William Safire's Political Dictionary", explaining the difference between economic conservatives and social conservatives. "Economic conservatives frequently disagree strongly with social conservatives, often giving "the movement" a split personality. Social conservatives favor government support of "faith-based" institutions, often frown on gun control, and oppose abortion and same-sex marriage, positions alliteratively summarized as "God, guns, and gays," but these stands were not taken by such Republican political figures as California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani."
I'm not picking these references because they a agree with my views. I'm picking standard reference works and learning from what they say.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I've never claimed that the God/Patriotism crowd was universal. I've always seen a place for economic conservatism in tne lede. But it is not the traditional meaning of conservatism, and none of the sources give it as the first meaning of conservatism. It's still there, it just isn't first, and isn't given undue emphasis. Rick Norwood ( talk) 20:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I guess the question is does "Conservatism in the United States" mean conservatism, as it is practiced in the United States, or does it mean, rather, something in the United States that is called "conservatism", but differs from what is called conservatism elsewhere. I see a lot of common ground between US conservatism and European conservatism, especially on the subject of immigration, but I may be influenced by growing up in the Deep South during segragation. Also, I currently live in Tennessee, and so most conservatives I know are conservatives because they consider it their Christian duty to be conservatives, and in their view, the most important goals for conservatives are to outlaw abortion and homosexuality. I suppose Arizona conservatives are different. On the other hand, without the South, the Republican party would be a minor party. There is a vast gap between the intellectual conservatives and the grass roots conservatives, and I suppose the same is true of liberals. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Good edit, Soxwon. Since I sometimes disagree with your edits, I wanted you to know that I think this one greatly improved the article. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I have better things to do with my time that argue over what famous people go in whose favorite category. But Washington was a revolutionary! Rick Norwood ( talk) 23:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I have restored version 321293605 [6] by Rjensen, reversing edits made by User:Default013 who has been blocked. The Four Deuces ( talk) 15:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Opposition to civil rights laws is standard conservative fare and is not "racism". Rjensen ( talk) 23:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you give an example of a union member who supported George Wallace who identified himself as a leftist? Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Rjensen's edit left the only reference to the John Birch Society as "By 1962, Buckley and the mainstream conservatives rejected the tenets of the conspiracy-oriented John Birch Society." While WP:Weight means that they do not deserve much space, their early role in modern conservatism is notable and they continued to be part of the fringe of the conservative movement. It is confusing to mention that their tenets were rejected without mentioning that they were originally part of the movement. The Four Deuces ( talk) 16:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I dont understand why the first thing you list as conservative beliefs is God. I mean, many do believe in God, but it had nothing to do with conservative politics. I think a more appropriate summary would be conservatives belief in a strong national military, limited government, free market/capitalist economics, and personal freedom. In fact, I would guess that most conservatives would leave God out of it if you asked what their political beliefs are. Only liberals assume we "cling to our bibles and our guns." Baltimore sensi528 ( talk) 15:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC) baltimore sensi528 Baltimore sensi528 ( talk) 15:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
This is the platform of the Republican party, not conservatism. Conservatism is a political philosophy, the negation of ideology. Perhaps Russell Kirk's 10 Principles of Conservatives would be a better foundation for this article.
Conservatism is protean, no doubt, and discussion of its different forms would be good. Discussing particular issues is policy, not philosophy. It's Republican, not conservative. This article is completely off-base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.107.126 ( talk) 18:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Conservatives themselves have never agreed about what it is... In fact, they sometimes gloat about not defining it (Kirk did, Buckley too). Frank Meyer thought this was bad; he was a minority. James Q. Wilson calls conservatism a "mood," and so on. Listing qualities is not definition, either, but it is fair to list here the various positions associated with the various strains of conservatism over time. It may make sense to see libertarianism as one of the basic variants of conservatism, even though Rand and Hayek denied it; Buckley and Meyer disagreed with them. Debates and debates -- the entry needs to reflect them, probably historically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contrarius ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be kind of important to note somewhere that a poll conducted last week (10/21/09) showed that 40% of americans identify themselves as conservative, 35% moderate, 21% liberal. In an article about conservatism in America, wouldnt it make sense to mention it is the leading political philosophy? And it is a gallup poll, not like Heritage Found or anything like that. heres the link, i might just add it myself. Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page). —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
136.160.191.18 (
talk) 18:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
1) You should sign your posts. 2) Your link doesnt' work. 3) Most people are conservative -- people prefer tradition to change.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 21:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Could the types section be reduced? It seems overly long and duplicates information found in other articles. It seems to be more a definition of different terms. The Four Deuces ( talk) 21:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The opening paragraph currently reads as follows.
Setting aside that the first sentence should be a little more descriptive ...
The last two sentences makes some very bold assertions that are not completely explained in the text nor are their citations that adequately back them up (ideally since these assertions are so significant it is worthwhile to include citations in the introduction itself).
That aside, I am not really convinced these assertions really are NPOV. First, associating Conservatism directly with the Republicans in the second sentence of the first paragraph is not very objective (yes, there is a high degree of truth to this but it is not completely true and should not be given top billing). Besides that, describing patriotism and Christianity as pillars of conservative philosophy IMHO is painting a caricature.
The article in general could use some work for neutrality's sake but at least trying to bring some objectivity to the opening would be good. One thing that should be clarified up front is that Conservatism is not a single well-defined philosophy (i.e. be careful about trying to pigeon-hole it).
The following are a few short descriptions of conservatism that are a little more objective.
-- Mcorazao ( talk) 21:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Conservative scholar Clinton Rossiter, "The Giants of American Conservatism," American Heritage 1955 6(6): 56-59, 94-96, names Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, John Marshall, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Elihu Root, and Theodore Roosevelt for the conservative's hall of fame, with John Adams, in Rossiter’s judgment, as the greatest of American conservatives. Rjensen ( talk) 11:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Which, of course, makes that point that most people are both liberal and conservative. Far from being opposites, as they were in the 18th century, in the modern world the liberal belief in freedom and the conservative belief in tradition only come into conflict in a few areas: censorship, marriage, drugs, and war come to mind. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
That is the mainstream view even among American conservative writers. Even Kirk wrote that conservatism in America ended in the North in 1800 and the South in 1865. The Four Deuces ( talk) 21:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The addition of Abraham Lincoln to the list of conservatives is particularly ironic, since in his own time the division was not between liberals and conservatives, but between radicals and conservatives. Those who wanted to free the slaves were called radicals, those who wanted to end the Civil War by allowing the continuation of slavery were called conservatives. In the presidential election of 1864, Lincoln, the Republican candidate, was a radical, while McClellan, the Democratic candidate, was a conservative. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
(out) You still have not commented on my remark that Rossiter did not include Washington and Lincoln in the hall of fame. What he wrote in the article was:
The Four Deuces ( talk) 05:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Glenn Beck and Mark Levin belong here. Sure they're popular but have they really contributed to conservatism that much? At least Limbaugh is notable for bringing conservative ideas to talk radio. 174.124.189.253 ( talk) 19:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
American conservatives strongly support specifically Christian beliefs, not just vague religious beliefs, and they strongly disapprove of modern morality, explicitly modern sexual morality, not just a vague decline in religious unity. On the other hand, certainly American conservatives are strongly anti-communist, and the article needs to say that.
The subject of patriotism is more complex. On the one hand, every political party claims that its members are more patriotic than members of the other party, so to list "patriotism" as a specifically conservative belief is meaningless. On the other hand, "nationalism" is unreferenced. How about "American exceptionalism" as a conservative belief?
I'm going to try to put back what is referenced, or can be easily referenced, and remove what is unreferenced and seems to me doubtful.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The so-called small government conservatives are the tail trying to wag the dog. Note that small-government conservatives also call themselves small-government liberals, and would like to have Wikipedia represent their belief as beliefs held by a majority of right-thinking people, when in fact they are minority beliefs.
Also, please note that under no circumstances can material inside quotation marks be rewritten (except, of course, to correct typoes). Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
An editor insists on changing patriotism to nationalism in the lead because ""Patriotism" is too subjective a term. Nationalism is a more dictionary correct one". However there is no source for this and I have never heard of American conservatives or adherents of any other ideology described as nationalists. The Four Deuces ( talk) 08:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The point is that the article should not be a catalog of all beliefs held by some conservatives, but rather of the most important conservative beliefs, and in this article specifically American conservative beliefs. It may be that all conservatives believe that water runs downhill, but that doesn't make it a conservative belief. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Seregain, which American conservatives do you consider "nationalists"? Which American nationalists reject patriotism? The Four Deuces ( talk) 18:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Nationalism generally involves the identification of an ethnic identity with a state. [1 The subject can include the belief that one's nation is of primary importance. [2 It is also used to describe a movement to establish or protect a homeland (usually an autonomous state) for an ethnic group. In some cases the identification of a homogeneous national culture is combined with a negative view of other races of cultures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuaveArt ( talk • contribs) 21:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
"Patriotism" is not a concrete term. It's an open-ended and opinionated term. If this article is to stay neutral, it will need to reference specific party platforms, not vague sentimental terms like "Christianity" or "Patriotism" which could be argued against just as easily. -- SuaveArt ( talk) 21:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
An ethnic group is a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed.[1][2]
further marked by the researcher Seng Yang in the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness [3 and the recognition of common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioural traits as indicators of contrast to other groups
—Preceding unsigned comment added by SuaveArt ( talk • contribs) 05:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
( talk) 08:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Any person who has ever read or listened to the news knows the tremendous influence of the Christian Right on American conservatism but a few references never hurt> Rick Norwood ( talk) 20:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The "Christian Nation" theme is often used to attack conservatives, and it is reflected in some Fundamentalist literature. It's not mainstream conservatism. President Reagan for example told Norman Lear in 1984 he was "not aware of any 'Christian Nation movement' and I certainly do not support the notion."(Reagan: A Life in letters p. 642). Conservatives usually speak in terms of Judeao-Christian ethics and values. Rjensen ( talk) 20:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The claim that "Christian nation" is used mostly by opponents is contradicted by the web sites I've cited as references. I can list a dozen more conservatives who make the same claim, if you like. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph suggests Conservatives are against gender equality. Do you mean they're against the modern gender equality movement? Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 03:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph suggests that opposition to gender equality is one part of the US conservative movement. For example, conservatives were mobilized to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Source for your example? Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 02:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's what the Britannica on-line has to say, "Although the ERA gained ratification of 30 states within one year of its Senate approval, mounting intense opposition from conservative religious and political organizations effectively brought ratification to a standstill."
Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
OBJECTION! It doesn't explicitly say Conservatives are against gender equality, just the ERA. Therefore, to say otherwise is WP:Original Research. Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 00:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
It says right on Teddy's page that he was the leader of the progressive movement. That contradicts Conservatism. How can he be both the founder of modern Liberalism and a Conservative at the same time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.32.249.24 ( talk) 18:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Everyone is fagits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.121.27 ( talk) 18:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
While I can see the gray over names like Jefferson and Lincoln, I'm not sure how you can argue that Federalists like Madison, Washington, and especially Hamilton were not conservative. They fought for the security of the aristocracy and to preserve the status quo. Soxwon ( talk) 20:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
. Rjensen ( talk) 21:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
(out) It is still a minority view. The mainstream view is that the values of the revolution were liberal, whether they were fighting to change society or to preserve rights that they believed the Crown was infringing upon. However as I said above I believe the article should reflect that there are differing views on this matter. I do not think however that any historians put Jefferson or Madison in the conservative camp, but I may be wrong and would welcome any source showing that they have been considered in this way. The Four Deuces ( talk) 01:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm unable to find "The American Revolution: Revolution Without Dogma" online. I did find "War and Society", but since the subtitle is "The United States: 1941-1945", and since the book does not mention George Washington, except to mention things named after him, it seems an unlikely source. Please provide a quote. Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The American Revolution did not spark a vast social upheaval like those associated with the French and Russian Revolutions. The struggle for independence did not pit one class against another. The men who served in Congress or led the Continental army never sought to restructure society.
Although the shape of American government changed, it was always rooted in traditional practice and principles. Because of this, the American Revolution has been described as a conservative revolution, making it unique among the major revolutionary movements of the modern era.
Soxwon ( talk) 19:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The trouble with listing famous people, without comment, as belonging to this or that cause, is that such a list does not permit the nuances that a mention in the text would allow, e.g. most authorities consider these people to have been on one side, but a few authorities consider these people to have been on the other side, in varying degrees, at various points in their career. Rather it suggests, and seems to be intended to suggest, that all the good people are on my side.
Still, I thank Soxwon for the quote, while noting that it does not say that the various people were conservative, but rather than the American Revolution, uniquely among revolutions, was conservative. But note that the use of conservative in the quoted passage means preserving the class system and the social mores. It does not suggest that the Founding Fathers did not support their new government with tariffs and favor a strong central government over the Articles of Confederation. They also were strongly anti-monarchy, anti-established church, pro freedom of speech, and pro freedom of the press. (The exception to the latter being, of course, the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts.) In short, they were the very opposite of conservative in the sense that the word was used at the time, and to some extent is still used today.
In short, a list does not lend itself to answering complex questions. Such a list should be short, and only include unambiguous and major examples. Please only add names to the list of conservatives if the person in question has said, "I am a conservative." or if a major authority includes their names on a list of important conservative thinkers. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The trouble with listing famous people, without comment, as belonging to this or that cause, is that such a list does not permit the nuances that a mention in the text would allow, e.g. most authorities consider these people to have been on one side, but a few authorities consider these people to have been on the other side, in varying degrees, at various points in their career. Rather it suggests, and seems to be intended to suggest, that all the good people are on my side.
Still, I thank Soxwon for the quote, while noting that it does not say that the various people were conservative, but rather than the American Revolution, uniquely among revolutions, was conservative. But note that the use of conservative in the quoted passage means preserving the class system and the social mores. It does not suggest that the Founding Fathers did not support their new government with tariffs and favor a strong central government over the Articles of Confederation. They also were strongly anti-monarchy, anti-established church, pro freedom of speech, and pro freedom of the press. (The exception to the latter being, of course, the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts.) In short, they were the very opposite of conservative in the sense that the word was used at the time, and to some extent is still used today.
In short, a list does not lend itself to answering complex questions. Such a list should be short, and only include unambiguous and major examples. Please only add names to the list of conservatives if the person in question has said, "I am a conservative." or if a major authority includes their names on a list of important conservative thinkers.
The neutrality tag has been attached to this article for a long time. Does anyone see why it is necessary? The article may need improvement in some areas, but this does not seem to be a problem. The Four Deuces ( talk) 01:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Soxwon: 1) I thought libertarians were economic conservatives but social liberals. 2) There is no "politics" section. Do you mean "Political movements"? If so, I agree it is blather and should be deleted. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I edited the description of Libertarianism Conservatism in the types section to remove bias, it stated that libertarian conservatives were often had "disdain and distrust" of the government, and that many were only concerned with a "single issue". This painted the ideology in a negative light. As a liberal I am not very well versed in other forms of conservatism, and do not feel I have the knowledge many forms of conservatism to safely remove the bias without jeopardizing the segments accuracy. But I do feel that the other segments in the types section also contain bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WildBoer ( talk • contribs) 00:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Like the famous liberals section this section serves no purpose other than to plop together vaguely associated ppl into a group and really is quite useless. Soxwon ( talk) 04:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I think maybe the discussion is getting a little far afield of the original suggestion. I agree with Soxwon in that the "Hall of Fame" and the rest of that section is entirely subjective and not useful to the article. I think that it should be removed. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 18:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I want to be sure we're talking about the same list. You assert that all of these people state that George Washington, for example, was a conservative? Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is an article by Willinz, "Bush's ancestors", [19] where he challenges the view that conservatism began in 1955 and traces it back to the Whigs (and no doubt would group the Federalists with them). Essentially conservatives were the commercial elite who were successful in attracting reactionary lower middle-class elements, ironically by portraying their opponents as elitists. That is basically the Progressive view, and contradicts the US traditional conservatives, who see a link between British and American conservatism. The problem I see is the the dividing line between the two camps. We do not find the same gulf between the two groups as in Upper Canada, where the ideologies of the Family Compact and the Reformers clearly differed. Where for example do Lincoln, Cleveland, Bryan and Al Smith fit? The Four Deuces ( talk) 00:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I started a new section on Academic analysis. [20] I think it is important to show that there are differing views on the existence and nature of American conservatism and believe that this discussion requires broader coverage in the article. The Four Deuces ( talk) 21:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the section on types leads to much confusion once you start reading the detailed definitions of each type. There are additional types (fiscal and social) introduced that were not discussed prior. We end up having way to many types with fuzzy overlapping among them. Are the terms used to name each type known to be in mainstream usage? -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 18:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I've been quickly and repeatedly reverted by user:Soxwon at two articles for adding the following information:
At talk:Modern liberalism in the United States he said I was using this fact "out of context", but the source speaks for itself. Wnt ( talk) 02:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing this up, The Four Deuces. It's something that has bothered me about the way Wikipedia uses "primary source" and "secondary source". Like Wnt, I assumed the article was the primary and the press release the secondary, but your point -- that the original data is the primary and the article is the secondary, makes sense to me.
Wnt is excited by this result, understandably, but he needs to take a few deep breaths. First, it is fundamental to conservative beliefs that a high IQ and too much education turns people into idiots, and so Wnt shouldn't think the research is going to help the liberal cause. Second, this is a study of American adolescents with extreme views, and so is not of widespread application (not important enough to go into the lede of any article). Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm US liberal, not conservative, but I completely fail to see how the following sentence belongs in this article: According to the ASA, "Add Health" data found an average IQ of 106 for American adolescents identifying themselves as "very liberal", compared to an IQ of 95 for those calling themselves "very conservative". So I'm joining the "edit war", unless someone can give a strong justification for why THIS ARTICLE is an appropriate place to quote this fact. ToolmakerSteve ( talk) 03:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
More about why this doesn't seem to fit to me: 1. It isn't the type of fact that is traditionally seen in articles such as this, in Wikipedia, or other encyclopedias. 2. It is a single study, which would therefore need to be in context of a much broader discussion of sociological and psychological factors found to be correlated with conservatism. 3. It is likely to be highly controversial, hence should be dealt with carefully, after discussion with experienced Wikipedia editors. For instance, the typical reader would conclude that the person placing it did so for POV purposes. Hence, it is difficult to place it *here* without a perception of non-neutrality. ToolmakerSteve ( talk) 03:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
And as Rick Norwood mentioned, placing it in the lead of the article is unjustifiable. Don't try to put it there again. Your POV is blatant. ToolmakerSteve ( talk) 04:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
There are two great reasons to oppose the inclusion of this study:
There's also a very interesting quote from the Time piece: But self-identification is often misleading; do kids really know what it means to be liberal? The GSS data are instructive here: Kanazawa found that more-intelligent GSS respondents (as measured by a quick but highly reliable synonym test) were less likely to agree that the government has a responsibility to reduce income and wealth differences. In other words, intelligent people might like to portray themselves as liberal. But in the end, they know that it's good to be the king. Soxwon ( talk) 15:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a little like the news report that many Black teens claim to be socialist. Many of them cannot define the word "socialist" correctly. But Fox News says Obama is a socialist, so they want to be one, too. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Wnt, take some deep breaths. My point was not that the "socialist" article belongs in, but that your "IQ" article doesn't, at least not until the result is confirmed by several sources. Rick Norwood ( talk) 00:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)