Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:55, 19 January 2007

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.

New rewrite

Certainly, your new rewrite is better than your previous rewrite. I'm not sure that it is an over all improvement, but I'm will to work with you rather than start a reversion war.

I do not mind your movement of the history section. Your rewrite of the introductory section has a lot of repetition between paragraph one and paragraph two. I'm going to try to combine the two into one paragraph, so that the table of contents is visible, on an average full page screen, from the top of the page. We'll take it from there. Rick Norwood 21:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to combine the first two (sorry about "to" for "two" in the description of the change) paragraphs. I think it would help if you said what it is you want to achieve by your changes. I have moved economic conservatism ahead of religious conservatism. Rick Norwood 21:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Rick, first of all, thanks for the spirit of your reply. It is of course my opinion that my changes improve the article, but everyone almost always thinks that about what they write. Where I can point to specific differences, I think for example the new version defines A.C. more by what it IS than by what it is against, and also makes more of a point that it includes all of these different types of Conservative views, again by pointing out what they are, not by describing what they are against. I think your changes are good, there was certainly too much repetition in my first two revised paras- please attribute to time pressure. Finally, I'm not entirely sure if it's true that AC was in part a response to the Women's movement, but I'll read up on that and see. The list of groups included should probably have some sort of nod to "limited government conservative" which is not really included in social, economic, and religious. Kaisershatner 02:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

And my guess is from the way you frame the definition and debate on the issues, you are not a conservative nor particularly sympathetic to conservative views (maybe I'm wrong, but either way the way you write about Conservatism suggests it). Of course, you need not agree with anything about it to write or edit the article, just as my personal politics aren't relevant. We should strive for an objective, fact-based, definition and history, etc., stripped of as much judgment and opinion, which is after all the whole point of NPOV. I look forward to sharing the project with you. Kaisershatner 02:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Opening section

I think the opening section is very good. I like that it points out that there are several types of consevatives. My one issue is with the evangelical protestant part. There are a lot of Catholics that consider themselves conservative. I don't have any numbers, but I'd guess that a majority of regular-mass-attending-Catholics would tell you that they are conservative, rather than liberal - it's the abortion/euthanasia issue.--Kevin 03:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a good point - I'll try to change the language. Kaisershatner 15:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm a conservative Catholic and yes, true Catholics are conservative. Liberalism is actually a condemned heresy of the Church. (albeit the definition has changed a bit in recent times, but the foundation of liberalism is still the same (ie relativism)).

Removed text

Talk:American Conservatism/removed

I cut two large paras, maybe more, about Burke and conservative history (non-American). They are already detailed in the main article about Conservatism and are slightly relevant, in that this article needs to have definitions of terms like "social conservative," but it was mostly off-topic - please let me know if I've overdone it. I pointedly left one large para that specifically talked about the application of these ideas in the US because it was actually about American conservatism. Kaisershatner 15:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

These cuts definitely improve the article. Rick Norwood 16:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I like what you are doing, but am a little concerned that the changes are coming too thick and fast. Maybe you should let things settle for a day or two, and see what the reaction is, before making more major changes. Rick Norwood 16:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't see your note. I restructured just now but will leave it alone for a while, see the following section: Kaisershatner 16:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Stumbling in on this article after the new year, I very much appreciate the work compared to how I remember earlier versions. However bullet point #3 in the "platform" section (via Kirk) is in stark contrast to the ideals of most American conservatives (for substantiation, compare to Reaganism, an archived column at the Wall Street Journal), and seems to be a holdover from the discussion about Burke. I will remove this bullet, though it seems improper to misquote Kirk by omission. A better solution might be to revert my edit and clarify this difference with other Western conservatives in the end-section. Opusaug 06:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring Nov 10 2005

I restructured the remaining paras into the following general outline

• Introduction (define American conservative, brief overview)
• History of Amer conservative, w/subsections by era
• Definition of "conservative" and types of ideologies included
• Criticism and other topics

I think it might make sense to have a shortened Definition section to precede the History section, but Rick Norwood is right, things are going fast, so I'll sit back for a bit and await collaborative input. Thanks for your patience with me. Kaisershatner 16:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Series templates

Okay, so which needs to change, the Conservatism template or the Liberalism template? I have here what the Conservatism template would look like in the (cleaned-up) liberalism style. I haven't done the reverse yet. What do you guys think? Or should we scrap both and start over? - ElAmericano | talk 04:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I like the Conservatism one better because it is tighter & takes up less space at the side. I think each should include a link to the other, however, entitled "Alternative views" or something, so someone reading about Conservatism could hop over to see what the other side thinks, and vice versa. Kaisershatner 14:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I had thought about a cross-link, as well. Are the two direct opposites, or do we need other views under Alternative views? - ElAmericano | talk 23:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we're screwed either way - if you imply they are direct opposites, as above, someone will say "the opposite of conservative is progressive, not liberal, and the opposite of liberal is elitist" or something. Not my view but I can imagine some conflict. "Alternative views" avoids this but introduces the problem of what to link to - ie just "liberalism" or also "anarchism", "communism", etc. I think the latter is a more resolvable problem, but I may be wrong in both or either cases. Kaisershatner 15:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Your quote above is from a comment I made some time ago. I'm pleased that it is remembered. However, here we are talking about American Conservatism and American Liberalism, and while they are not opposites, exactly, any more than the Sharks and the Jets are opposites, they are opposed. Certainly if the Liberal template is changed to reflect the Conservative template, I won't be the one to object. Rick Norwood 15:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Branches of conservatism

Section 2.5 seems to repeat much what has gone before in section 2. I think it can be either cut, or else combined with the earlier sections which discuss the same subject. Comments? Rick Norwood 00:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Cut it, unless you think the Joseph de Maistre/Catholic origins stuff should be salvaged or moved upward. Otherwise just kill that para, it's redundant. Kaisershatner 20:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Differences between "cultural" vs. "social" conservatism?

The descriptions of these two branches, under separate headers, are almost identical. If they are synonyms for the same branch of conservatism, they should be merged, or a better attempt to explicate their differences should be included. I also find it highly dubious that a branch of conservatism which is described in their section as seeking to expand federal power can lay particular claim that tey regard originalism as important above all else, when so much of their Federal program would likely be struck down under any genuinely originalist jurisprudence. Simon Dodd 15:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I came to the same conclusion independently, and just tried to merge these sections. Kaisershatner 15:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Originalism and "decidedly fairweather" support

Rick, first let me say that I think we're doing pretty well at keeping this article neutral, and I appreciate the general tone of your edits has been markedly different (in my opinion) than the earlier variety, which I had thought were rather strongly condemning of Conservatism in general. So, thanks. About the "originalism" section, however, the wording (NB the conservative support for originalism is decidedly fairweather, as... (I'm paraphrasing)) - to me is pretty strongly non-objective language. I understand it's your view, but it's not the only view - some conservatives have always been originalists, others may be opportunistic, etc., but I think it's a mistake to write in a conclusion that all Originalist support from Conservatives is essentially non-ideological and opportunistic. Accordingly, I toned down the language (and made the issue a subsection, as a side note). Respectfully, Kaisershatner 15:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Stealth Conservatives

Sorry I accidently clicked on minor edit when I saved, I realize it wasn't minor, by bad. -- Jbamb 15:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Social Conservatives

I'm not sure that the turning to the federal government thing is so justified. In the case of NCLB, the federal government is already in the business of education funding and standards setting. In the case of gay marriage, if one state recognized, all 50 have to (full faith and credit clause), and searches on the basis of national security are for national security. I think this playing out in the federal system is not necessarily by the nature of social conservatives but the subsuming of issues to the federal level. Before Roe, abortion was a state issue and there were no calls to make it a federal issue. Educational standards and school choice wouldn't be federal issues if it weren't for federal courts getting involved. I thikn the turning to the federal government is more a result of the feeling that it is the federal government and/or the federal courts that aren't letting the localities do their own thing, not because they favor expansionist government by design. -- Jbamb 15:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

From quigonpaj...

Concerning this edit, he writes in an email to me, "Perhaps something like this would be better: Proponents of economic liberalism conservatism attribute the unparalleled economic boom of the early 1980s to the late 1990s to these policies, although this is a disputed claim. Paul Volcker's monetary policy of disinflation, begun in 1978, culiminated in 1983 when Volcker and the Fed released the monetary supply and inspired huge GDP growth that year. Also, GDP growth in the 1980s as a whole was only average by historical standards, and within the expectations of the normal business cycle. Furthermore, the claims of the efficacy of supply-side tax cuts should also be taken within the context of massive budget deficits accrued during that time, and the fact that taxes were in fact raised six times. Or something like that."

So what do you think? He gave me permission to bring it here, but was a little concerned it wouldn't get discussed. So...??? --LV 21:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

follow up

Guys, forgive my boring offering. Despite its snarkiness, my original post was just intended to provide a little balance and context to what I thought was a speculative and partisan attribution. I tried to soften it a little bit, per Voldemort's request. Quigonpaj 22:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit

I find the following confusing, and I am tempted to revert it, but I would like to give the author a chance to explain.

"The Loyalists of theAmerican Revolution were political conservatives, but they left. The mainstream of American conservatism in the U.S. thus traces to thr Founding Fathers, of whom the most important for conservatism were the Federalist followers of Alexander Hamilton. They spoke for the propertied interests and the upper classes of the main cities. They envisioned a modernzing land of banks and factories. On many issues American conservatism also derives from the Republicans who followed Thomas Jefferson, and especially John Randolph of Roanoke and his "Old Republican" followers. They idealized the yeoman farmer, and stressed States' Rights and small government. In the 1830-54 period the Whig party counted most of the conservatives, such as Daniel Webster, though John C. Calhoun made significant contributins to the theory of minority rights. The Republicans of Abraham Lincoln was the ideological heir of the Whigs, and to some extend of both Jefferson and Hamilton."

1) Many loyalists remained in the US. 2) Here, it seems conservatives favor business and industry. 3) But in the next sentence we have conservatives idealizing the yeoman farmer. Did the meaning of the word change? If so, why and how? 4) The last sentence is unclear. Is the author claiming that Jefferson and Lincoln were conservatives? 5) The author should also fix the errors in spelling and grammar.

Rick Norwood 13:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is moving on without my concerns mentioned above being addressed, so I've restored the earlier version. It needs a rewrite, but a better one. Rick Norwood 14:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• I made the additions. Most loyalists left and those who stayed were no longer political leaders. Conservatives certainly did favor business and industry (we're talking Hamilton and Clay). The idealization of the yeoman farmer was a powerful factor--and still is among rural conservatives, not to mention the Nashville agrarians. The last sentence says GOP was heir of Whigs and Hamilton (ie pro-business) and Jefferson too (Gettysburg Address). The point is there are a lot of threads to conservative history. Rjensen 14:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Then you need to make this clear. The paragraph as it stood contained false implications (that all loyalist left -- I would want to see data to believe that even a majority left) and statements that, without further explanation, seem contradictory. I agree that a rewrite is needed, and I hope you can supply one that is clear and contains references. Rick Norwood 14:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• • I made some changes. There are already Wiki articles on the Loyalists and all the other people mentioned, which give full references. Are there any facts you dispute? Rjensen 14:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It's looking much better. I've done a light edit.

I still have a problem with the last sentence. "The Republicans of Abraham Lincoln was the ideological heir of the Whigs, and to some extend of both Jefferson and Hamilton." Aside from the problem with agreement of subject and verb, it is not clear if you are saying that Lincoln himself was a conservative or that the Republican party in Lincoln's day was conservative. Either way, this seems doubtful. Certainly Lincoln did not support states rights! Nor did he support the upper class, most of whom looked on him with contempt. Unless you can provide a reference for this (other than the fact that both parties claim Lincoln in their political rhetoric) I think this sentence will have to go. Rick Norwood 14:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Doris Kearns Goodwin makes the point repeatedly in Team of Rivals about the direct lineage of Lincoln Republicans and the Whigs. The inclusion of Jefferson and Hamilton in the sentence is a contradiction in more ways than one.--Buckboard 09:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• • If the conservatives give up Lincoln they are left with Vallandingham. Yes indeed the upper classes supported him and vice versa. (look at theStrong diary for example.) As for states rights--Lincoln did take that one down ten notches, where it remains. Anyway that is a problematic area for conservatives (look at Schiavo case and Kelso case last year, and Oregon suicide case--conservatives OPPOSED states rights there.)

The most recent rewrite still seems confused, and more interested in claiming that conservatives are really good liberals -- opposed to slavery, in favor of the environment, never opposed immigration -- instead of presenting the history of American conservatism in any coherent and intellectually honest way.

As the article states, modern American conservatism is a loose coalition of diverse groups who have banded together to achieve what none of them could achieve separately. Thus some conservatives are willing to give up states' rights if it allows Christian values to be the law of the land, while others are willing to give up a balanced budget as long as they get a tax cut.

There really is an American conservative movement, based on preserving the class structure, the rights of property, free enterprise, opposition to immigration, limited federal government, states' rights, protestant Christianity, the traditional family, and a strong military; opposed to welfare, taxation, homosexuality, abortion, birth control, sex education, labor unions, women's rights, and the United Nations. Rick Norwood 18:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There's an American Communist Party too--but as homogenous entities influencing broad swaths of followers, neither is relevant in 2006. We live in a "pick your poison" age--it is THE hallmark of the age--and conservatives are not required to support "preserving...opposed..." in all those categories to obtain their "membership" in the "movement" today. Class structure, racialism (you left this one out, didn't you?), and opposition to immigration are particularly obnoxious concepts to many conservatives...what it was sixty years ago I cannot say with authority because I was not alive then. App. "coherent and intellectually honest" will never be achieved in your view until the views of yesterday are tied irreovcoably to the views today--but that ain't gonna happen. Tar the people of the past, but don't tar me with that brush.--Buckboard 09:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

remove false statements

There are a number of false statements in this article. I've removed one, a statement that Reagan (like Thatcher) decreased the size of the federal government. In the last year of Carter's presidency, the US federal government spent 590 billion. In the first year of Reagan's presidency, 678 billion. In the last year of Reagan's presidency, 908 billion. (Amounts in constant 2004 dollars.) Source, The World Almanac. Rick Norwood 14:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting way of looking at it. I can cite the beliefs of a former GOP Senator who is the Dean of the Haas School of Business who notes that government size - not the budget, mind you, simply size - shrunk. . I'd rather look at the size of government when making this claim, not the size of the budget. It may turn out that it's still a "false statement," but we need to be careful. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well the dean says: "As president, Reagan was known for lowering government, but in fact the size of government once again increased." That's pretty vague and not enough to work with. How should one measure the "size" of government? In any case people who say RR reduced gov't need some clear, simple evidence. Rjensen 14:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree the statement needs to go--the same as I'd be opposed to lowered budget increases being termed "budget cuts". Keep political debating language--and claims--on the talk pages and out of the articles.--Buckboard 09:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The size of the government ought to be measured relative to the size of the economy. A nation like American can have a tiny federal government that seems enormous in terms of budget simply because of the size of our economy. The same with deficits, debts, and other absolute numbers. A $100 billion deficit means nothing. Are we talking about a $100 billion in an economy worth $200 billion, or six trillion? Huge difference. Same with size of federal budget. Also, how does the size of American government compare to other industrialized nations? Bjsiders 12:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Kauffner edit

Thanks. Your edit makes the apparent contradictions of the previous version much clearer. Rick Norwood 13:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

For control of Congress by the Conservative Coalition, I gave the dates 1937-49 and 1951-61 based on control of the House Rules Committee, the most important leadership body at that time. (The Coalition retained control of the House Appropriations Committee until 1963.) The current version of the article gives 1964 as the end date, persumably because that is when the civil rights filibuster was broken in the Senate. But filibusters are always the tool of the minority, not the faction in control.

That the Coalition was out of power in 1949-50 might seem like a detail, but I think it helps explain why Trilling had such a negative view of conservatism in 1950, as cited later in the article.

With the restored text, we're back to problem I mentioned earlier. To trace the "mainstream" of conservatism from the Federalists through the Whigs and to the Republicans implies that these parties were more conservative than the 19th century Democrats, which is simply not the case. Kauffner 10:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Kauffner

I think the conserv coalition was in power in 1949-50, when it blocked all of Truman's Fair Deal proposals. The 19th century section gives about half its speace to Dems (Jefferson, Randolph, Calhoun, Copperheads, Cleveland) Rjensen 10:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Several Fair Deal proposals were passed: the minimum wage was raised and bills were enacted on slum clearance and old age pensions. Certainly no major conservative bills were enacted.

I noticed that later in the article it says that the 1964 election ended the control of the Conservative Coalition. If that's what you believe, then the end date for CC control should be 1965, since that's when the Congress elected in 1964 first met. Of course, that would make the 1964 Civil Rights Act the product of a CC congress.Kauffner 14:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Kauffner

I think the passage of the 1964 CR bill in summer marks the breaking of the coalition. The Coalition sometimes could pass bills over a presidential veto, but not in 49-50. But they were more interested in blocking bills (and they blocked most major ones. 100% power is too much to expect in Congress. The slum clearance bill counts as a Fair Deal measure but it was supported by Taft. Social Security expansion by 1949 was not opposed by conservatives. The minimum wage bill that passded was actually the GOP bill. It adjusted the 1937 rates for inflation but stopped the Fair Deal plans to dramatically expand the law. Rjensen 15:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

As you like, but in my view the only thing conservative about Congress in 1961-64 is the Senator Robert Byrd was filibustering the civil rights bill. Kauffner 19:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Kauffner

I like the Kauffner edit, but now there are extreme statements by Rjensen inextricably mixed in with it, which are obviously not NPOV. An article should not argue against itself. I hope that Kauffner will rewrite some of these, especially those in the introduction. While he is about this mission (should he choose to accept it): "American conservatism in the U.S." is redundant.

Also, Kauffner wrote: "By 1950, American liberalism was so dominant intellectually that author Lionel Trilling could dismiss contemporary conservatism as "irritable mental gestures which seeks to resemble ideas." " Of course, direct quotes should not be changed, but did Lionel Trilling really write "gestures...seeks"?

Rick Norwood 15:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

if people want to specify sentences they think are NPOV it would help. :) Rjensen 19:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What about race

The article needs a par or two on race and civil rights -- anyone want to volunteer? I added a full bibliography. Rjensen 16:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Rapid edits

We have had more than 40 edits already today by just two people. Leaving aside the question of the quality of the edits -- and I find some good, some bad -- this is too much change too fast. One solution would be to revert the whole thing back to where it was at midnight yesterday -- in fact, I think that might be best. But I would rather see some kind of consensus reached. Rick Norwood 20:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• • If there is something you don't like please be specific. I worked hard to make some of those edits, and I enjoy interaction that has the goal of improving the article. Rjensen 20:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think the wise thing to do is to let the edits sink in. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Besides, I think wiki is about editing. If new editors think that they can improve upon what's here, then they are invited to edit. Let's make forward steps, not backwards ones.--RedJ 17 23:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Concur. It needs to be looked at in context--as a whole. Let it stay in the ground awhile and see what blooms.--Buckboard 09:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't any of you see the irony in a conservativism article being subject to rapid change? -- Rpresser 19:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC) (a liberal)

Strong statement

"The Founding Fathers created the single most important set of political ideas in American history, known as republicanism, that all groups have drawn from."

-Nice try. I don't think so.

Really? No other set of ideas is as important in American history as republicanism. And the Founding Fathers created republicanism -- they didn't borrow it from the Ancient Romans? And all groups have drawn from republicanism? All? The group who staged Woodstock? The American Communist Party? All?

Rick Norwood 20:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Yes really to all the first questions. (read Gordon Wood's books.) The definition of an extremist group is one that rejects republicanism. Rjensen 20:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the word "created" is the issue here. Sarcasm aside, I agree with the criticism.--Buckboard 09:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

To say that the definition of an extremist group is one that rejects replublicanism is on about the same level as saying the definition of a nonhuman is anyone who disagrees with me. At least you didn't put it in the article. Rpresser 19:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm serious about the definition of extremist group = anti-republican. Why do you disagree? Rjensen 20:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree because it's obviously bullshit minimization and devalidation of opposing viewpoints. All you have to say now when anyone disagrees with you, as you undoubtedly will now about me, is that they are (I am) an extremist. Next you'll be chanting "Either you are with us or against us" and branding anyone who won't submit to an anal probe at LAX as a terrorist.

At least that's how it sounds from your very short and sound-bitish definition. I remain open to the possibility that you could explain yourself, particularly by deliminating the words "extremist" and "anti-republican", to the extent that you might seem less rabid. Rpresser 21:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The American system is based on free speech and free assembly to protest--EXCEPT when the goal is to overthrow the republican system. Extremist groups reject the republican value system. Rjensen 22:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

1)Question: Do you want to overthrow the government of the United States by force or violence? Answer: That's a hard choice, let me think a minute.

Republicanism is a form of government, not a value system. It seems to be a pretty good form of government, but, as philosophers from Aristotle on have observed, it falls apart as soon as the people realize they can vote themselves free money. It is now in the process of falling apart, and it will be interesting to see what form of government replaces it. I favor Colosus, the Forbin Project. Rick Norwood 22:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"Judicial Activism"

The introduction contains this entry in the list of American Conservative ideologies:

"Opponents of "judicial activism" -- that is, judges broadly interpreting laws and applying them to situations which the original framers of the law did not anticipate, or broadly interpreting the constitution to overturn laws that do not violate the letter of the constitution."

My problem with this statement is that I believe it misrepresents what conservative jurists stand for and what they oppose. No reasonable person believes in not "applying to situations which the original framers of the law did not anticipate." Certainly an originalist must apply the true meaning of the constitution to circumstances that the founders did not anticipate. In A Mater of Interpretation Justice Scalia defends this idea, which he calls "import originalism," as the only legitimate originalism.

The phrase "do not violate the letter of the constitution" also troubles me as it seems to imply that such laws do violate the spirit of the constitution as it was originally intended. Again I turn to an example given by Scalia, not because his opinions are unique but because I have the book on my lap: Scalia refutes the idea of "strict constructionism" as following the letter of the words on the page with the example of a hand-written note. The note is not literally speech, nor is it press (published words), but it is clearly within the perview of the constitutional rule as it was originally intended, as evidenced by the textual and historical tradition of understanding of the phrase.

In this context "judicial activism" (are the scare quotes really needed?) is seen as the redefining of constitutional powers through both the New Deal court's refusal to hold certain economic laws to original constitutional limits, as well as later courts' decisions to overturn laws without a convincing connection between the original intentions of the framers and the decision reached by the court.

A possible solution would be to replace the current bullet point with two. Perhaps something like this:

• Advocates of conservative judicial philosophies, such as original intent, original understanding and strict constructionism.

• Opponents of anti-majoritarian judicial action -- that is, judges rejecting laws passed by Congress or interpreting old laws in new ways.

A distinction such as this would seem to avoid innaccuracy and would also reflect the information in the section below. --Isra1337 01:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

That is more precise language and I agree with it. I think we can wikilink some of those terms. -Will Beback 08:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Red (White?) and Blue

Phocion, the paragraph has been supported with references. I can supply many more if needed. If you don't like the wording, why not fix it. I like your rewrite of the introduction, (except for excessive use of and/or). Rick Norwood 13:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I too think that the red/blue county mappings of this stuff is more interesting than the state. But laying out that:

• homogeneous communities ... tend to vote Republican
• heterogeneous communities ... tend to vote Democrat
• some homogeneous communities ... tend to support Democrats

is not drawing a poignant, logical relationship between American Conservatism and homogeneity/heterogeneity. The reference to Mr. LaMasters' blog post specifically calls out the nature of people from all views to 'self-segregate' to locales of like-minded people. The only conclusion I draw is that homogeneous communities tend to vote with greater margins of victory for the prevailing opinions of their citizens (be it Rep or Dem) - which is not very enlightening.

Concur on 'and/or' observation. thanks. – Phocion 22:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Note spelling

Please note that "heterogeneous" is the correct spelling. Rick Norwood 12:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

intro pov

• Classical liberals or libertarians favoring a free market economic system and opposing the extent to which the federal government became more interventionist during the New Deal and the Great Society programs in American history.

"extent to which the federal government became more interventionist during the New Deal and the Great Society programs" = limited government.

• Social conservatives seeking to defend traditional values. For example, those who disagree with a constitutional interpretation that creates a right to abortion or initiatives to redefine marriage as being anything other than a union between a man and a woman.

Intro should not have position statements--specifically the ones that are criticized since that is POV.

• Religious conservatives favoring the inclusion of intelligent design and creationism, and abstinence-only sex education in the public school curriculum, and religious displays on public lands.

Again the broad specrum would be the inclusion of religious ideas in the public sector.

• Fiscal conservatives who seek the corresponding lower taxes that should come with limited government and who often condemn deficit spending in periods other than national emergency.

alomst the same as #1

• Those who support an active foreign policy that promotes the spread of democracy around the world. For some, this includes means up to and including military intervention or nation building.

Liberals support foreign policy that spread domcrary as well, and sometime military intervention. Not specific.

• Those who do not recognize the United Nations as an authority over the United States and reject participation in foreign wars without clear national interests at stake.

The UN does not have authority over the US! who is writing this crap? In fact, it may be a shocker, but the US has veto power.

• Supporters of states' rights.
• Opponents of judicial activism -- that is, the philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their finding new constitutional violations or rights that are contrary to original intent or legal precedent.

Support judicial restraint is in the affirmative. Follow NPOV guideline.

ER MD 23:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand some of your complaints.

"extent to which the federal government became more interventionist during the New Deal and the Great Society programs" = limited government.

Are you saying that this phrase is a NPOV violation? If so, on what grounds? I don't see any POV violation in that statement.

Liberals support foreign policy that spread domcrary as well, and sometime military intervention. Not specific.

So? This isn't an article about liberals. Liberals and conservatives can support the same policies, why is this a POV violation if they do?

Support judicial restraint is in the affirmative. Follow NPOV guideline.

How would you phrase this? These statements also seem like pretty factual and accurate descriptions of what conservatives claim as their worldview and policies. Where is the POV? Bjsiders 14:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The Into had POV elements such as the "UN as an authority over the united states." So I removed those. The intro should be susinct, and the inclusion of only positions that are criticized places undue weight. As an example, religious consrvatives support school vouchers--why would this be excluded and the the abstinence-only education be included? the intro should only have a limited explanation. The body of the article could cover the topics more directly. ER MD 17:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

criticism pov

1) there is not a parallel section in american liberalism 2) this is a distortion of positions. example "hostility toward the freedom to choose religious and sexual views". "Insensitivity to the victims of unrestricted governmental power" huh? what unrestriced governmental power? who are the vicitms? ER MD 20:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted before reading here. I'd suggest clarifying these criticisms, or removing the ones that don't make sense, and adding a section to the liberalism article. I don't think the fact that liberalism is missing a section like this is grounds for its removal here.Bjsiders 20:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Since we're already qualifying the bulleted list with "Opponents of conservatism accuse conservatives of", let's be clear about exactly what those accusations are, since we are making a statement about what a certain group is saying rather than fact. Stephen Compall 20:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I did that to American conservatism#Criticisms; it would be nice if someone would check to make sure I didn't set up a straw man on either side of the debate. (Disclaimer: I am a classical liberal.) Stephen Compall 20:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty good, but no list of criticism of conservatism is complete without the phrase, "tax cuts for the rich" somewhere. Bjsiders 21:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume ER MD wants citations of these criticisms, rather than believing that no such criticisms have ever been made. I'll work to provide some. Help is always welcome. Rick Norwood 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

First, ER MD, note support for the criticism section above. Second, you say conservatives in general do not support lowering of the minimum wage. Here is a quote from a letter in today's newspaper. Kingsport (TN) Times-News, Sunday, June 4, page 14A, "All credible research comes to the same conclusion. Raising the minimum wage hurts the poor." This in reference to a bill currently before the Tennessee state legislature. I quote it because it is current and at hand. I could quote a thousand other sources on the web that self-identify as conservative and oppose any minimum wage.

Instead of just deleting the section in question, why not try to make your point rationally. As best I understand, you want to distance your form of conservatism from the form of conservatism advocated be others. But I have always been careful to say that the criticism I quote is a criticism that some major thinkers have historically made of some forms of conservatism. It is not a blanket criticism of all forms of conservatism.

I've asked you this before, but I'll try again. You delete the entire criticism section. Please let me know what message you are trying to send by doing this.

You talk about my "feelings" about conservatism. My feelings have nothing to do with the issue. All that is at issue is the facts. In fact, some well known people have criticized conservatism. Why is what they say not important? Rick Norwood 21:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Rick, a letter to the editor in Kingsport, TN isn't valid reference material. Please cite the criticisms to reputable sources. One other note on this section is, "Criticisms by whom?" Large POV red flag there. Please include who's doing the criticizing. What's obvious to you may not be to your audience. Thanks. Scribner 22:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I quoted the letter not as reference material, but to show how ubiquitous conservative criticism of a minimum wage is. If you doubt that, do a google on "minimum wage". That quote was only in response to the claim by ER MD that conservatives did not support lowering the minimum wage.

I didn't write the section in question, I don't think. To the best of my memory Stephen Compall wrote the current version. I strongly agree it needs references. I'm working on a whole bunch of different articles right now (also, I have a life) so I was kinda hoping somebody else would provide references. It isn't hard. Here are two places to start: for American conservative beliefs: http://www.afa.net and for criticisms of American conservative beliefs: http://www.pfaw.org Rick Norwood 15:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how quoting one letter is evidence of a uniquitous belief. Bjsiders 15:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Not "uniquitous", "ubiquitous". In other words, the belief is so commonplace that, when challenged by ER MD, I could find an example in the Sunday paper lying on my kitchen table -- I didn't have to go look for one. Rick Norwood 15:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to a good conservative argument against the minimum wage: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n1c.html Rick Norwood 15:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I know what ubiquitous means, it was a typo. The B is right next to the N on a qwerty keyboard. Your ability to find an example in the Sunday paper lying on your kitchen table is not evidence of a widely-held belief. That's like saying, "Everybody in my neighborhood owns a Honda," opening ONE garage door and finding one, and saying, "See? Told ya." The CATO institute is not conservative, it's libertarian. That particular link is also undated, but it reference to a recent State of the Union speech given by President Clinton about upcoming legislation that was passed in 1997, which means this analysis is ten years old and written in response to a policy that long ago became law while the Republicans, ostensibly the conservative party, controlled Congress. I understand the Congressional leadership doesn't necessarily define a movement, but this was in the heydey of the Gingrinch years, the Contract with America years, and the "Republican Revolution" years. If that class of Congress passed minimum wage increases, I'm having some serious trouble accepting your contention that this belief is "ubiquitous" among conservatives. Widespread perhaps, but clearly not enough that the people elected by a bunch of conservatives felt any compulsion to stand up for the conservative stance on it. Bjsiders 16:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

About this darn criticism section ...

Criticisms don't have to be accurate to be criticisms. I can criticize the President because I disapprove of how he demands California condor eggs for breakfast every day. I don't have to be factually correct for this to be my criticisms, it just means I'm an uninformed critic who doesn't know what he's talking about. We are turning the criticism section into a debate over what conservatives really believe, and that's not the point. The critics can criticize whatever they want. If they are criticizing views that conservatives do not actually hold, then fine. Here's my proposed rewording of this section:

Criticism of American conservatism on ideological or philosophical grounds is different from personal criticism of politicians or thinkers who have conservative views. Opponents of conservatism accuse conservatives of

• Catering to the rich by supporting fiscal policies that lower taxes on the wealthy, weaken anti-trust and environmental laws, and by opposing increases to the minimum wage.
• Intolerance for non-traditional lifestyles or personal values systems and opposing life choices as gay marriage and pornography.
• Supporting Constitutional amendments and laws that criminalize these choices.
• Forcing their own value system on others in opposing abortion and euthanasia, and supporting legislation that would enforce those values.
• Opposing government preference for historically disadvantaged racial and social groups, as in the case of opposition to welfare and affirmative action.
• Supporting police powers that interfere with civil rights and privacy rights, as in the case of limitations on the rights of those accused of crimes, and support for broader powers for law enforcement agencies, especially in the area of surveillance.

I think this is a pretty comprehensive list of the charges leveled at conservatives. These charges don't have to be accurate to be leveled, and the criticism page is not the place to post a bunch of "responses" that explain why a given charge is incorrect, inaccurate, or baseless. This entire page is a refutation of those charges, and if an intelligent reader can't figure out which of these are legit and which are not, then the page needs more clarity and expansion. In any case, I think the list of criticisms is fair to include as-is, and could even be expanded along the lines of what I've presented here. Bjsiders 20:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Think about what you just wrote. Basically you are arguing that you can add anything you want because you disagree with conservatism. That is technically called a blog. True you can criticize the topic, but there is no criticism section on american liberalism and people there actively removed that section a long time ago. Of course because of the liberal bias on wiki, it seems that only conservatism gets a criticism section. So issue 1) since there is no parallel section and because it continually is removed from the other article, and 2) since the list of complaints or criticisms is a complete range of issues, its inclusion here is POV and verging on a blog. ER MD 20:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I see your point about how this standard could be abused, but if we limit it to cited criticisms by legitimate think tanks and/or political groups, of which People for the American Way is one, it ought to be workable. The fact that there is no criticism section on American liberalism is irrelevent. Go add one, there's ample material to work with there. If they remove it, then you have grounds to keep removing this one. This is not a blog or anything approaching one, I'm not sure how you make that leap. Bjsiders 22:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Validity of Criticisms

Bjsiders By the way, I agree with you regarding the CATO inferance and your NPOV here is meritable. You wrote, "Criticisms don't have to be accurate to be criticisms." True, but as you know (and you've already pointed out) what's published here has to be accurate, and referenced by reputable sources. WP:NOR

ER MD I agree with you 1000% on the bias on Wiki, with regard to political topics. It's human nature. I've complained about the liberalism site being biased before and yes until more people like you speak out against the bias, it'll continue.

I'm OK with the criticisms here, as long as they're cited. Scribner 21:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

ER MD wrote in support of his most recent blanking:

"conversatives do not support hostility towards religions, do not support police powers that interfere with individual rights, and mostly do not support reduced minimum wage"

If you will read what the criticism says, it does not say that conservatives support hostility towards religions, it says that some people have said that some conservatives are hostile toward non-mainstream religious and social beliefs, such as atheism (G. H. W. Bush says atheists cannot be real Americans) and Wikans (not to be confused with Wikians). As for support of police powers that interfere with individual rights, read conservative web sites about how courts "coddle" criminals by reading them their Miranda rights and supplying them with a lawyer. As for the opposition to minimum wage, I've already supplied a reference for that.

Rick Norwood 22:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC) I agree completely that all of these claims must be referenced. It takes time. Rick Norwood 22:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As I understand ER MD's point, we can claim that "some people have said" that conservatives are neoNazi antiChrist demonspawn who eat puppies and punch old women for fun and oil profits. That doesn't mean that criticism is worth including. That's what I call a Couric citation - where you give your own opinion but make it sound like it's somebody else's by by expressing it via the proxy of anonymous critics that may or may not exist. We need to cite whoever claims these things and we need a standard for what qualifies as a legitimate criticism. To start with, I suggest something along the lines of what I wrote in response to ER MD above. Basically, reasoned criticisms published by legitimate think tanks. Who gets to define "legitimate"? That's a tough call. I'd call People for the American Way a legitimate operation, but not MoveOn.org. We're getting into granularity that is impossible to reconcile among the number of editors these articles have. Any more ideas? Bjsiders 22:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, we've got the two major parties in this disagreement on this page, active, and discussing. Let's stop the blanking/reverting until we hammer something out. Bjsiders 22:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is still a lot of work to be done. Rick Norwood 22:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The Big Picture

I've been trying to pull back, count to 10, take a deep breath, and ask myself this question.

Which criticisms of American conservatism are philosophical rather than personal, important rather than trivial, and long lasting rather than ephemeral. This is what I have come up with.

1. People who believe in the importance of art criticize conservative calls for censorship.
2. People who believe that freedom of religion includes the freedom not to have a religion criticize conservative calls for the introduction of religion into courts and the public schools.
3. People who believe that science offers good answers to important questions criticize conservative attacks on evolution, global warming, carbon dating, and other scientific theories.
4. People who believe that the concentration of wealth is a serious problem criticize conservative efforts to reduce capital gains and inheritance taxes. They claim that conservative politicians always favor the rich.
5. People who believe that the rights of women are more important than the rights of the unborn criticize conservative attacks on birth control and abortion.
6. People who believe that homosexuals should not be discriminated against criticize conservative efforts to pass a constitutional ammendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
7. People who oppose the war in Iraq.

These seven are the most important criticisms of conservatism that come to mind. The last is a problem. In the other six cases, conservatives are supporting past beliefs against new ideas and their critics are supporting new ideas that may overturn cherished beliefs. But even though support for the war in Iraq comes mainly from conservatives, it is hard to understand how that fits in with any conservative philosophy.

If this seems like a reasonable list, then the next step is to find references that, a) these are in fact beliefs held by large numbers of self-identified conservatives and b) that the criticism comes from reasonable people, not from a lunatic fringe. That means at least two footnotes for each criticism. No rest of the wicked. Rick Norwood 23:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Can someone please explain why "criticism" is spelled with an "s" but "criticize" is spelled with a "z"?

No idea why it's spelled with an s, but as most "-ism"s are, I'd guess there's a reason. Okay, onto your list (I've taken the liberty of listing them numbered). I'm not sure many of them are too good. It's a good start, but I'll try to answer some of them. Number 1: Not necessarily. True conservatives support free speech. Possible limits, but American liberals aren't necessarily for total free speech either (many still want the FCC's Fairness Doctrine in place). But in general, conservatives don't care what is made, they care where it is shown. They don't care if pornography is made, they just don't want it all over TV for their kids to see. Number 2: Not the introduction of religion into these things... more the continued use in these things. They oppose efforts to remove these from the public sphere (something American liberals cite falls under the Establishment Clause). But this point, although worded incorrectly, is preety good. Number 3: No, just no. There are plenty of conservatives out there that believe in science. It's the theory of nonoverlapping magisteria. You may be thinking of Christian Fundamentalists, not conservatives per se. Number 4: Yes, very valid. Conservatives follow the free-market theories, helping corporations (including the big ones). Critics see this as harmful to society in general. Number 5: Valid, although worded a tad odd. I'm not sure critics see the rights of women as more important than those of the unborn, and the language "attacks on abortion..." is tricky. Number 6: A constitutional amendment is not really a "conservative" view. A "conservative" view would be that since it isn't enumerated in the original constitution, that it should be letf up to the states to decide (a position held by many conservatives, including the VP last I heard). It's more of a "Republican Party" thing than a "conservative" thing. Number 7: Tricky again. "Conservatives" are split on this issue, so they criticise themselves? Neoconservatives support the war, but paleoconservtives see it as the wrong war. They criticise the neocons for being "interventionalists" (as they see as a "liberal" position). I'm not saying these are the only critics of the war (obviously), but they are there too.

I think the problem is that these issues are not dichotomous. Some conservatives agree with the positions, some disagree. Many of these positions are associated with the current Republican Party, not necessarily conservatism.

In order to not simply critique your ideas, but to help expand, I have thought of a couple of additional areas of criticism. What about critics of the conservative ideals of small government. What do they have to say about the neglect or misuse of the Federal Government? What about the conservative position of closed (or at least greatly strengthened) borders? What do critics have to say about the potential "freedom of movement" abuse or other basic human rights violations? Other truly "conservative" topics?

I have no idea if my response is valid, I am just trying to come up with a better discussion. Thanks. --You Know Who 00:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I always appreciate your input, Lord V. 1. Sadly, American conservatives are not content to censor television, some also support banning books from school libraries, including one you may have heard of about a character named Harry something. While I tend to dislike censorship, I'm not saying that the conservatives don't have a point, I'm only saying they are criticized for it. Yes? No? 2. We agree on a definite maybe. 3. Sorry, but this is a big issue with conservatives in the South. I've mentioned before, I think, the bill introduced in the Tennessee legislature to fire any professor who taught evolution as fact. It didn't pass, thank God (or whoever). These may be strange bedfellows for more intellectual conservatives, but they are very outspoken. Also we have big oil fighting the science of global warming. "Some call it polution. We call it life." And President Bush is an outspoken critic of "global warming" and an advocate of the teaching of "creationism". I don't think there will be any problem in finding references for these beliefs within conservatism. 4. We agree. 5. Help me with better wording, please. 6. Again, this is another issue where Southern (and Midwestern) conservatives would probably not be joined by more intellectual conservatives. It is important that whatever form the final draft takes, it makes clear that these are "some" criticisms of "some" conservatives. 7. I think this one should probably be dropped as too topical and too controversial within conservatism.

Thanks. Rick Norwood 00:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that whatever happens we make sure to stress that this is some criticism of some conservatives. Lemme give 'er another go... 1. Yes, religious conservatives do support the banning of some books (including that rascally Harry character). I think for most conservatives (not just the religious ones) it is more an issue of responsible speech rather than free speech in general. But yes, I'd say rightly or wrongly, they are criticised for what some people see as censorship (I don't think many would disagree that they are criticised, but they might doubt the validity of the criticism). 2. We can settle some of the language later. 3. We may have a battle on this one. Yes, there are obviously those that criticise conservatives for their stance on science. However, this is another of the "how valid is the criticism?" Yes, there are some religious conservatives that actually think the world was made 6000 years ago. But there are many conservatives that laugh and criticise these people too. But from those people's perspective the criticism is ridiculous since the science hasn't been proven (note that I don't know how true this is... just trying to look at all angles). So maybe we'll come back to this one. 4. Close enough for now. 5. Better wording can be developed at a later time... a bit busy after this. Someone else can help too. ;-) 6. Religious conservatives again, not all conservatives. But really, I'd be willing to give this some wiggle room. 7. Tough one. There are valid criticisms against some conservatives on this issue (neocons).

Okay, I totally lost my train of thought. Busy household... stupid kids. ;-) But seriously, I think it is perfectly fine to have a criticism section. This is a good step in the right direction. Maybe be back later. It's too loud to think. Sorry. --You Know Who 01:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll throw my take in here. 1. People who believe in the importance of art criticize conservative calls for censorship. I'd like to see some evidence that conservatives have been calling for censorship. I've seen conservatives call for decency limits on what we broadcoast over public TV, or what kind of popular entertainment we permit minors to buy without parental supervision, but aside from a few individuals I've seen very few conservatives make a stink over passing legislation that prevents people from having access to art that they find distasteful. Conservatives generally don't like that pornography exists but I haven't observed a large segment calling for it to be banned. Only that such things are consumed in settings where they harm nobody else. 2. People who believe that freedom of religion includes the freedom not to have a religion criticize conservative calls for the introduction of religion into courts and the public schools. Again, I'd like to see some citation of conservative efforts to put religion in the courts and public schools. A statue explaining the ten commandments in the context of the history of lawmaking is not a religious symbol any more than Hammurabi's code of laws would be. I haven't heard of any efforts to put religion in public schools, unless you mean creationism, in which case this bleeds over into #3. 3. People who believe that science offers good answers to important questions criticize conservative attacks on evolution, global warming, carbon dating, and other scientific theories. I agree with you on the evolution front, but I question that mainstream conservatives want evolution REMOVED entirely. Most of the conservative think tanks that question global warming challenge the science behind it. I've never heard of conservatives challenging carbon dating. 4. People who believe that the concentration of wealth is a serious problem criticize conservative efforts to reduce capital gains and inheritance taxes. They claim that conservative politicians always favor the rich. This is a legitimate criticism. Conservative fiscal policy does indeed tend to benefit the very wealthy, usually by design. 5. People who believe that the rights of women are more important than the rights of the unborn criticize conservative attacks on birth control and abortion. Again, a legitimate criticism. 6. People who believe that homosexuals should not be discriminated against criticize conservative efforts to pass a constitutional ammendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. I challenge that conservatives call for discrimination against homosexuals. Traditionalists will maintain that marriage is, by definition, man-woman, and so, by definition, gays cannot "marry" because such a union is not a marriage. In any case, I think the gay marriage issue is a legitimate criticism as well. 7. People who oppose the war in Iraq. War is not a conservative value, although a strong defense program is. I think people oppose Iraq because it's a huge friggen mess, regardless of whether it's conservatives who are running it. Bjsiders 02:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Religious conservatives

"*Religious conservatives who favor the incorporation of religious teachings into state organizations, such as the public schools and the courts, and who favor a system of laws based on religious commandments and prohibitions." --True there may be a group that wants to have public schools teach creationism and perevent teaching of evolution, but I think that is a fringe groups. The current legal system is loosely based on all previous religous codes. In fact there is little difference between cristianity, judaism, and islam about some of the main tennets. I think that the more accurate reflection is that of religious conservatives who oppose issues such as the removal of the ten commandments from a couthouse, or eliminating time used in school for prayer. ER MD 08:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Some minor corrections, I don't disagree with your overall point, but your backup facts have the feel of oft-used and well-rehearsed examples, and they're a little flawed in spots: say it is "only a theory" and ... pass over it lightly Well ... it IS only a theory, how else should it be described? And how much attention should we be spending on one theory in one area of biology in grade school? There's a lot of biology that can be taught without understanding evolution in the least.

A jury recently used a Bible to decide a court case. One of the most famous cases you study in law school involves the implied warranty of merchantability, and the case was ultimately decided by the judges reading through a bunch of cookbooks and recipes for New England fish chowder. Depending on the facts and statutes involved in a case, you'd be amazed and the kind of texts that can be referenced. Referencing a Bible could be completely appropriate for a given case.

What message to do you think the display of the Ten Commandments in court is designed to send? The Ten Commandments are chiseled into the walls of the Supreme Court and have been there for quite some time. Bjsiders 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comparison between current version and ER MD version, with comments.

Current version: Religious conservatives who favor the incorporation of religious teachings into state organizations, such as the public schools and the courts, and who favor a system of laws based on religious commandments and prohibitions.

ER MD version: Religious conservatives who oppose the exlusion of religious concepts from public life.

Discussion: The ER MD version is a distortion. There is not, and never has been, any attempt to exclude religion from public life in the United States. At least four states have laws that any office holder must believe in God. No non-Christian has been president since Thomas Jefferson. Every meeting of the Senate and the House opens with a prayer. Christianity is ubiquitous in America, and probably always will be. On the other hand, our courts and our public schools are supposed to avoid supporting religion. This is written into the Constitution of the United States. To describe keeping religion out of the courts and public schools as "exclusion of religious concepts from public life" is a gross exageration.

Criticism section

Current version: Criticism of American conservatism on ideological or philosophical grounds is different from personal criticism of politicians or thinkers who have conservative views. Opponents of conservatism accuse conservatives of

ER MD version: Criticism of American conservatism is often directed at positions taken by the conservative party or the Republicans, which may not actually be consertaive in nature. As an example, entitlement spending accelerated at the fastest rate under George W. Bush. From a fiscal conservative standpoint, deficit spending to expand entitlements is criticized by both liberals and conservatives alike.

Discussion: the current version is careful to point out that criticism of American conservatism should not be confused with criticism of any particular politician. ER MD tries to deflect criticism of American conservatism by using Bush as a scapegoat.

Several people of good will, some liberal and some conservative, are working to make this section more NPOV and better referenced. ER MD's constant blanking is not a constructive approach. Rick Norwood 14:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Few quick points, then back to work... I think the truth is somewhere in between. First, the Constitution does not prohibit the support of religion. It prohibits the governmental establishment of a state religion. There's a difference. (People sometimes seem to forget the whole "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part, but that's beside the point; back on topic... ;-)) "Out of public life" is an stretch. Most critics don't care about it in public life. They just don't want it forced upon them. Conservatives don't want to insert prayer into these things, critics want to remove prayer from these things (as it's already there. You rarely have a case where religion is trying to be inserted, it's more likely that someone is trying to have it removed from somewhere.). But perhaps I am splitting hairs.

I think we do need to stop blanking it, ER MD. That leads us nowhere. I think we need to determine what this list should be made of first. Are we listing anything that critics have said (which could be almost everything under the sun) no matter the validity, or are we listing valid criticisms as determined by fact? --You Know Who 15:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I hate to disagree, Lord V, but the Supreme Court has upheld existing monuments containing the Ten Commandments on historical grounds. The cause celebre in recent years was a judge who bought and paid for a huge new monument listing the Ten Commandments and plunked it down on public property. Conservatives objected when it was removed. As for prayer in public schools, I can only speak from my own experience. When I was in public school, there was never public prayer. So, in my experience at least, attempts to convert my children to Christianity are something new. My daughter, for example, converted to Islam in High School. (I am not a Moslem.) The persecution she suffered was so great that she nearly dropped out of school. (I had to promise to buy her a car as a graduation present to get her to endure the constant taunting.) She wasn't injured, but she did have wastebaskets emptied over her head. So, the introduction of relgion into the public schools is to me both new and negative. Rick Norwood 15:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it's a matter of where, then. In many "conservative areas" (i.e. the South, Midwest), for example, there was prayer to some extent (led by the teachers... i.e. probably unconstitutional). Then people challenged this and it was converted to a "moment of silence", in which, theoretically, students could pray themselves. I feel bad for your daughter. No one should be ridiculed like that. However, I don't buy that it was just because there was religion being supported in schools. It sounds like simply a bunch of jackasses. I am aware of Roy Moore and his case. But I would put forth the common example of prayer before high school American Football games. Or having "under God" removed from the pledge (yes, I know it was inserted back in the 50s or whenever, but it wasn't challenged much then). Or having religious (specifically Christian) symbols removed from other public property (even when it had been there historically) as in the memorial in San Diego (I can't recall the name at the moment, forgive me). I guess perhaps it works both ways? --You Know Who 15:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: The memorial in San Diego is Mt. Soledad. --You Know Who 15:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that "conservative" and "liberal" are both far-reaching terms and it's extremely difficult to generalize. For example, I know there are many conservatives, e.g. Pat Robertson and friends, who are highly critical of separation of church and state and actively support prayer for public schools, and I can also point out at least one group and a pundit or two (Bush spoke here) who actively lobby on behalf of creationism instead of evolution. There are extremists on every issue. Just thought I'd point that out. Moulder 19:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Article name

Although the meaning of conservative and liberal are different in the US from elsewhere, the fact that American liberalism and conservatism are not entirely separate from their counterparts elsewhere would mean that, per general naming conventions (e.g. Prostitution in the People's Republic of China, not Chinese prostitution, although that's a case where "Chinese" is an ambiguous term in addition to sounding crude), this would be called Conservatism in the United States. I suppose the current name is valid, but it seems to set the US completely apart from the norm - and before you make a crack about how far, say, Anne Coulter is from conservatism in, say, anywhere on Earth, I want to add this: You forgot Poland. :) Moulder 16:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's a really good point, I fully support changing the article name to that affect. Bjsiders 16:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please look through the long history of the article. It has gone through about a dozen name changes just in the past year. It was Conservatism in the United States for a long time, and personally I prefer that name, but most of the people who changed the name did not bother to change any of the links, which now link all over the place, and so I would rather keep the name it has now, rather than make an attempt to improve on that. The attempt would fail unless someone is willing to do the huge job of 1) getting all interested parties to agree to the change and 2) fixing all the links to avoid redirects. It's a big job. Rick Norwood 18:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I busted out laughing when I saw in the page history that it was at one point located at "Conservatism in North America" - it wasn't too long ago that the (I think) Prime Minister of Canada made a comment about not wanting an American style of conservatism in their country, or something to that effect. The links can be done with a bot, and we don't necessarily have to fix every redirect right away so long as there are no double redirects.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. To me, hearing the phrase "American conservatism" has connotations of people bombing abortion clinics and protesting against the teaching of evolution and boycotting French products, because it comes across as an us vs them mentality. But as far as interested parties go, do you mean the Republicans and Reform? :P Seriously, if they're interested they should have it on their watch list and respond within a couple weeks or so IMO. Moulder 19:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are a couple things to consider if you want to go ahead with the name change. First, if the person who changed the article here doesn't like your change, he is apt to change it right back. Second, wiki policy really does require the person who makes a name change to fix all redirects right away. Third, the parent article Conservatism has a list of article on the subject. That list would need to be changed. Fourth, American Liberalism, which used to be Liberalism in the United States, should be changed so that parallel articles have parallel names, and all the redirects and lists containing that article have to be fixed. As I say, it's a big job. Don't undertake it lightly. Rick Norwood 20:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't planning to do a unilateral move. I was simply raising the issue to see if there was support for a request at WP:RM, which is what I meant about the people not paying attention. If a vote/poll/survey/whatever they call it these days favored the move, it would be too bad. Moulder 00:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, American conservatives include the people who bomb abortion clinics and people who support the flat tax. Politics makes strange bedfellows. Rick Norwood 20:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to think about this hard first. I think the main question comes down to whether or not there is a difference between the conservatism that takes place in the U.S. and other types of conservatism. If American conservatism is its own vein, it should stay here (see the naming conventions discussion... American X is preferred over X in the United States). If it is the same, then the move would make sense. SO is it the same? --You Know Who 20:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The only unambiguous designation is "The United States of America". All efforts to shorten this lead to a name that is universally understood, but which offends somebody. (United States, for example, may offend people from the United Mexican States (commonly called Mexico).

On the other hand, nobody seems to have any trouble finding "American Conservatism", and people would have trouble finding "Conservatism in the United States of America". You can avoid that by a redirect, of course. But it is a lot of work to bend over backwards not to offend anyone. On the other other hand, I know we Americans are often considered offensively informal in the rest of the world. So, if somebody wants to undertake the job, I won't object.

As for the question of whether American conservatives are really different, do you know any other country where conservatives bomb abortion clinics? Rick Norwood 20:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... while I think it's odd that you would use this as your example of an "American conservative", I can't say that I know of this happening in other countries. Anybody else? --You Know Who 21:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the bombing of an abortion clinic would be more the result of religious fanaticism rather than mainstream American conservatism. Rick did you get that from another bumper sticker, or bubble gum wrapper, or comic book, or tea leaves, or a fortune cookie? Remember, WP:NOR--your POV is off the leash, so to speak. Scribner 01:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You're never going to let me live down that bumper sticker reference are you. Fair enough. No, I would never mention the abortion clinic bomber in the article. I know the difference between the mainstream and the lunitic fringe. I mentioned him as an example of something that, as far as I can tell, just doesn't happen in other countries. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that one main difference between American conservatism and conservatism in other nations is the way that American conservative politicians use religion to win votes, and try to pass laws to enforce religious beliefs -- laws against the teaching of evolution being one example. I think, in other countries, conservative politics has much more to do with economics than with religion. Not so in the US, alas. Rick Norwood 13:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You're saying people from the United Mexican States will be offended by the use of "in the United States" when your solution is to call it "American"? With all due respect, that's hogwash; what irritates people in Latin America is the use of that all-inclusive term (they are Latin Americans after all) as opposed to the nonexistant term for "United States-related", which in Spanish is estadounidence. :)

As for whether it's different, yes and no. There are many similarities and differences between conservatism in other countries and conservatism in the US. That's why the article is about the state and nature of conservatism in the United States (not the United States of America; anyone who claims the USA isn't the primary meaning of United States or is somehow offensive is mistaken). As I said before, the main issue (aside from naming conventions) is that "American conservatism" and "American liberalism" come across as either neologisms or derisive, although I doubt people in other countries scoff and how liberal Americans are. Moulder 00:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I wasn't saying that "America" was a better name than "United States", only that there is no pleasing everybody. Rick Norwood 01:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

criticism section

If a critcism section is to stay, then attack words should be avoided and an NPOV basis explained prior to the "example". Examples:

• "favoring the rich"-- Conservatives do not necessarily favor the "rich" with tax cuts. They favor "tax payers" A criticism may then be levied. But to have Misplaced Pages have the claim of favoring the rich endorses the deception of the left.

The question is not whether conservatives in fact favor the rich, which is not for us to decide, but rather whether a substantial number of people say that conservatives favor the rich, which is backed up by the references. Read the paragraph. It says the latter, not the former.

Phrases like "hostility toward the freedom to choose religious " don't belong.

Again, you confuse the statement "Conservatives are hostile toward freedom..." which the section in question does not say, with the statement "Some critics say that conservatives are hostile toward freedom...", which is backed up by the references.

I'll leave the later topics until references are found to support them. I agree that they need to be supported, but I am taking it one line at a time, in order to be careful, and in order to allow comments on each line before moving on to the next line. Rick Norwood 12:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservatives do not oppose welfare per se, then oppose benefit expansion and perpetual welfare. Conservatives in fact support workfare. So the exclusion of positions is POV. Conservatives do not support police powers that interfer with individual rights for the mere fact of having police powers. The criticism is really the governmental programs to prevent terrorism that is viewed by some as excessive. But phrasing it as "favor of police powers" is POV since it leaves out pertinent information.

Finally there is no section in american liberalism. Establish a parallel section that is NPOV there first and then lets decide if a section is warranted here. In my opinion, this section is merely a soapbox. ER MD 08:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki policy is that "all points of view be represented." If you want to write a "criticism of liberalism" section, and it is well referenced, I will support it. Rick Norwood 12:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Rick: here is an example of a criticism of american liberalism section:

Liberals have often been criticized for unabated entitlement spending on programs that redistubute income to their constituents to the extent that they are behaving like communists. They have been criticized for promoting racism in the selection of individuals for schools or govenment contracts based on race and sex. They have been criticized for having weak foreign policy and capitulating to the whims of international opinion. They have been criticized for making america weaker by opposing security measures designed to prevent terrorism. They have been criticized for destroying the educational system such that children in California do not need to meet even a 7th grade level of mathematics to graduate from high school. etc...

All these points could easily be documented and referenced. Would you argue that this crap belongs in the american liberalism section??? After all it is a point of view and it would be pretty easy to find some nutcase who espouses those beliefs in those words on a webpage. The problem is that the issue is so superficially addressed that it merely becomes a soapbox. Therefore, I will again remove the criticism section. ER MD 20:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:soapbox Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. Misplaced Pages was not made for opinion, it was made for fact.

Capitalize "America", drop the "etc", add footnotes, and I'll support it. These are criticisms that are, in fact, made of American liberalism. They should be in the article, provided they are attributed to widely read sources. Rick Norwood 14:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A section like that is a soapbox--the individual topics are not covered in the article in depth and the superficial criticism only serves to be argumentative and represents a soapbox. In addition, the topic could go on forever and the section would be deleted in minutes if it was inserted into the article. Obviously, even if I felt that those were my beliefs, I would not try to waste time trying to influence people with my POV. ER MD 15:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've finished the work I wanted to do at this time on the Criticism section. I added a reference to Black conservatives who oppose affirmative to establish the fact that many conservatives do oppose affirmative action. Also, I separated the issues of religion and sexuality. I am going to let someone else add a footnote to the section on the rights of people accused of crimes if they want that documented. Rick Norwood 21:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"Hostility toward nudity..."? Some of the section's POV may be a matter of semantics. I expect criticism in a criticism section, but there again, I only speak for myself. Scribner 22:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This one is also good: "homosexuality is banned in many American states." Who are the retards writing this stuff? ER MD 04:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Liberal critics respect the beliefs of others..." is a bad way to put this. Not only is it unnecessary, but it's not provable. The better sentence would read simply "Liberal critics object to particular religious beliefs...." Basically, this section is about criticism, not about the critics. If we want an article on Liberal critics of conservatism, we can make one, but it doesn't belong here. Arathon 15:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hostility toward nudity, even in art, is, sadly, found in some conservative circles, but I agree that it is not a major issue. Homosexual acts are against the law in some states, but those laws are rarely enforced. And I agree with Arathon that liberals do not always respect the beliefs of others as they should. On the other hand, I don't know of any liberals who object to particular religious beliefs -- excepting, of course, those religious beliefs that call for murdering infidels. About a thousand people die in Baghdad every month because they follow the "wrong" kind of Islam. I do object to people trying to use the public schools to teach their beliefs to my children. And, I think if they gave it a minute's thought, they would object to the public schools being used to teach any religionf, because their children might be taught a religion other than their own. Rick Norwood 22:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk Radio

Wiki's got a "Talk Radio" article here ,and it has it's own political radio section, nearly verbatim to one posted here. I'll remove the one here and if someone wants it referenced a link will work. Scribner 06:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk radio has become almost overnight a major conservative phenomenon and has to be discussed. Rjensen 06:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

But I think it needs to state how talk radio has perhaps influenced America to be more conservative (if it has), rather than just a brief history of it. --You Know Who 14:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It is discussed, in the "Talk Radio" article. Do we need more than a link? Blogs have become a means of communicating with and or courting a base here, we'll need to include that too, right? Scribner 15:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Listen to what the people above said. Rjensen: "major conservative phenomenon", Lord V: "needs to state how talk radio has perhaps influenced America". I concur. A brief section on this topic is essential to an understanding of the American conservative phenenomenon. Rick Norwood 15:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree to compromise. Brevity is key. Link preferred. Scribner 16:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith has been shown in this compromise. I dispute the claim that this section be added to this article because of POV/NOR. This article is duplicated.here and does not merit repeating, other than a link. Scribner 04:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Scribner's request for a citation

You have requested a citation for the section on Bush and originalism. I think you and I agree on this one, it is too minor and topical for the article. Certainly, if nobody supplies the requested citation with 24 hours, I have no objection if you delete it.

In fact, I think if the revert war is over, which I certainly hope, that the next important task is to prune the article down to a reasonable size. It still needs to represent all points of view, but it seems to me that there is an awful lot of repetition. Rick Norwood 21:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Content

This article contains disputed content. Several additions were added after a compromise. One of which to the opening paragraph and at least two to the "Criticisms" section.

This article is under dispute, as is and for similar reasons the Conservatism article. WP:POV and WP:NOR

A show of good faith would be appreciated and changes to the article's status of being placed under dispute are vandalism.

A request that all changes to the article be subject to discussion on the talk page prior to reverting or blanking, and it applies to all. Scribner 02:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Scribner has to be explicit about his vague complaints. Rjensen 02:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen's Complaint

Rjensen and I have history, "Ophelia Ford"]. I removed your wholesale POV from the article. Wiki voted you admin powers? Now you're adding POV comments to the opening paragraph of the "American Conservatism" article, that is telling.

On to your "request":

You stated: "only specific criticisms are helpful." I refer you to the Talk Page. Did you read it? You are one of the reasons I disputed the article.

OK, per your request,

Today we discussed a "Talk Radio" section being here...after discussion here's my response: "Agree to compromise. Brevity is key. Link preferred. Scribner 16:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)" That was a compromise, "Link preferred" indicates that I think you're wrong, but I showed good faith and compromised.

Now Rick writes: "In fact, I think if the revert war is over, which I certainly hope, that the next important task is to prune the article down to a reasonable size. It still needs to represent all points of view, but it seems to me that there is an awful lot of repetition. Rick Norwood 21:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)"

Then I write: "Hostility toward nudity..."? Some of the section's POV may be a matter of semantics. I expect criticism in a criticism section, but there again, I only speak for myself. Scribner 22:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)"

Next: In comes Rjensen with this POV edit to the opening paragraph: "Numerous different and somewhat contradictory mindsets and full-fledged ideologies are included under the blanket heading..."

In the opening paragraph, no less.

The other edits were to the criticism page, read it for yourself, and Rjensen, your edit to the opening paragraph is not only not factual but is also POV. Take it to a blog, pal. Scribner 03:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I had hoped that the revert war was over, but evidently it is not, because after being blocked by an administrator for 24 hours, ER MD is back and still reverting.

Hostility toward nudity -- remember Janet Jackson's breast? Because of conservative uproar over that "wardrobe malfunction", the FCC has increased its fines for nudity or sexual content to the half million dollar range. But note that the Janet Jackson incident did not involve sexuality, only brief partial nudity.

contradictory mindsets and full-fledged ideologies does not belong in the article. That is an example of what POV is really all about. Rick Norwood 13:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Rick, is that the example that you bring up? Janet Jackson's breast????? Are you arguing that the "american liberalism" position is that breasts should be viewed on prime time TV without objection? Otherwise, I don't understand the point? Writing stuff like "hostility toward nudity" is just, pardon the expression, so stupid. Who would want to read it? Does somebody learn something by reading your blog-like entries? I understand that you are a liberal who hates conservatives and wishes to smear them as much as possible, but really your opinion belongs in a blog. ER MD 13:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Hostility towards unannounced nudity in a somewhat sexual context on public television broadcasts during the most watched event in the entire world each year" is very different from "hostility towards nudity." Failure to make that distinction is inexcusable. You don't think Justin Timberlake grabbing Jackson's breast and ripping the clothes off of it during a flirtatious dance number does "not involve sexuality?" I think about 90% of viewers would disagree. John Ashcroft's covering of the breasts on the statues of Lady Justice would make for a far better example of "hostility towards nudity" in any case. Who in the hell sees that statue in a sexualized context? Bjsiders 14:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

ER MD, I am always glad to explain any point you do not understand. One criticism of conservatives is their objection to nudity and sexuality in the media. I am not arguing whether this criticism is correct or incorrect, only reporting the existance of this criticism. Bjsiders: I assume your comment about Ashcroft is a joke, yes? Rick Norwood 14:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"-- remember Janet Jackson's breast?" Yes, I do. And I want to thank you for using that example to prove American conservatives "Hostility toward nudity."

Not only is the creek narrow, but the water is extremely shallow. Scribner 14:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I was not joking. If you want an example of conservatives being "hostile towards nudity", Ashcroft is a much better example. Janet Jackson was hostility towards nudity, it was hostility towards ianppropriate nudity, a position that most sensible people can understand, regardless of their political beliefs. To bolster one's view that conservatives are hostile towards nudity in general, you need an example of appropriate nudity that was opposed by a conservative leader. Ashcroft is one such example. Bjsiders 14:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to Scribner: Yes, but keep in mind that only some American conservatives are hostile toward nudity and sexuality. Others are not, but are interested in small government and low taxes. Others are in favor of a strong American military. Conservatives are not a homogeneous group.

Response to Bjsiders: You mean John Ashcroft really tried to cover up the breasts on a statue? I had not heard about that. Rick Norwood 14:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I stand corrected. I checked his article and found this: "In January 2002, the partially nude female statue of the Spirit of Justice, which stands in the Great Hall of the Justice Department, where Ashcroft held press conferences, was covered with blue curtains, along with its male counterpart, the Majesty of Law. It was speculated this change was made because Ashcroft felt that reporters were photographing him with the female statue in the background to make fun of his church's opposition to pornography. A Justice Department spokeswoman said that Ashcroft knew nothing of the decision to spend $8,000 for the curtains; a spokesman said the decision for permanent curtains was intended to save on the $2,000 per use rental costs of temporary curtains used for formal events." Apparantly there's no proof that this is true, so I withdraw the accusation. I picked up the story from the news, I guess that's what I get for believing everything I see on TV. Bjsiders 14:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Rick, duly noted. "Public" nudity does offend some to extreme degrees, as Bjsiders points out. Public nudity offends... Scribner 15:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts and blanking of a section

To whomever continues to blank out the criticism section, will you please refrain and join the discussion? I feel that it's inappropriate to just blank out sections without any explanation, especially when the editors in the discussion page appear to be interested in hammering out what should and should not be there and how it should be phrased. Please leave the section so that we have some source material to work with as we debate and discussion. I am going to revert your blanking once more, and ask that you please talk here instead of just blanking it out. Thank you! Bjsiders 14:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC):

Let me second Bjsiders request. Blanking is not the Misplaced Pages way of dealing with material you disagree with. Rick Norwood 14:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I left a message on his talk page, hopefully he'll see it. I noticed that he blanked out some discplinary action on his page, I suspect he just doesn't realize how things are "done" here and that blanking out information is considered bad form. Bjsiders 15:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

He is doing the same thing on the Conservatism article. I have reported that blanking to an administrator, and I have been reported (twice so far today) for violating the three revert rule by reverting blanking. I have requested arbitration by the Cabal for the blanking on the Conservatism page. It may be necessary to do the same here. Rick Norwood 15:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I try to avoid the 3RR, I'm not always whose revert they count as the "first" so I assume that if I do three, I'll get hit for it. Keep us informed of what happens with your dealing with the admins. I rarely find users who are irredeemable, so hopefully this fellow can be helped to understand why he shouldn't blank stuff out. Or he'll be right and we'll be wrong and we'll all learn something. :) We win either way. Bjsiders 15:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I added criticism of liberal positions in the criticism section. Remember do not blank these opinions--I can easily find some whacked out conservative page that will support those claims. Do you not see how it is POV now? ER MD 15:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not POV to offer a criticism and source who said it. If the source is some whackjob, then the reader can determine this and make up his mind about the legitimacy of the criticism. Further, criticism of liberalism is not appropriate for this article, it belongs in the American liberalism article. I watch that page, too, if you wish to add it, I'll back you up. As I said on your talk page, legitimate criticism, not just stuff you made up to make a point. Bjsiders 15:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow...opinions blanked within minutes!!! And technically these opinions DO belong here because these are potentially conservative points and conservatives have a political platform and they criticize liberals. ER MD 15:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I supported your addition. I agree wtih Bjsiders that it belongs on the American liberalism page, not here, but I thought it was a move in the right direction. Rick Norwood 15:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Rick, I don't think you see the point. There are millions of opinions that can be placed into an article and referenced from the web. Follow the wiki policy of articles in the affirmative. Blind-siding opinions at the end of the article which does not even address the issues mentioned is simply POV. Obviously, BJsiders couldn't handle the POV for more than a minute. ER MD 15:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the reverts, I will continually revert until a few administration says that there should be a section at the end of american conservatism that addresses liberal positions on issues criticizing conservatives of which is not even mentioned in the article. a 3rr block will not do... let admin look at it, if they want endless POV added to the article, let them say so. ER MD 15:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note that we're looking for legitimate criticism of conservative, not just any one of a million opinions. That means the criticism has to address something conservatives can be shown to believe, and there must be some kind of evidence for this belief. For example, "conservative fiscal policy tends to favor the rich more than the poor. Proof: tax cuts benefit the wealthy by 90% blah blah." This is a legitimate criticism. There's a counterargument, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a reasoned and sourced criticism. You will eventually get banned if you continue to revert, there is a policy against such behavior. You are making no effort whatsoever to work with the rest of the editors. Bjsiders 15:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to write criticisms, there has to be a proponent argument and not a blind-side attack. To have conservatism not address such fascinating issues such as Janet Jackson's breast, and then criticize them for being anti-sexuality is a cheapshot and you know it. That is why you blanked my POV insertion... hence, I proved my point. Each individual article, lets say affirmative action should have the debate from the left and the right, but it should not be here in the current soapbox form. ER MD 15:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No, there does not. The article is ALL ABOUT the proponent side of conservatism with one tiny section that articulates criticism of the ideology. If you read this discussion page, I have gone into great detail about why the Jackson exposure incident is not an indictment of conservatism specifically. I provided an example that WAS such an indictment, but my own research proved it to be a false example that I erroneously believed. I admitted as much and withdrew the suggestion. It's not a cheap shot to disagree with somebody. I blanked your POV insertion because it was about liberal ideology, and this article is not about liberal ideology. I've told you at least three times now that if you want to add legitimate criticisms of liberalism to that article, I will back you up on it. Bjsiders 15:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No I don't want to add criticisms of liberalism to the american liberalism article. It would merely be me presenting my soapbox issues. Also there are about a million arguments that could be put forth, and everyone has a different interpretation and therefore, there would never be a consensus. I am not arguing that there cannot be a criticism section, afterall, there is a criticism of socialism article that goes into depth on governmental stucture and economics. But the criticisms there are philosophical and economic, not dumb stuff like "conservatives favor the police state," and "conservatives favor rich people"... Those are stupid criticisms because there is no depth with such superficial arguments. In addition, it would not be appropriate to list every single policy to have a criticism added. Just look at the absolutely retarded wiki entry here Fox News Channel controversies and allegations of bias. Its a fricking blog---makes no sense why this article hasn't been deleted. ER MD 16:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been over most of these points with you before and you've ignored my response and simply continue to restate the above. Please see my previous comments. Bjsiders 16:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Reminder about consensus editing

All Misplaced Pages editors are expected to follow Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. The editors on this page need to review policies and guidelines about article content including WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS. Please review the policies and guidelines about WP:CONSENSUS editing and resolving disputes. Blanking content and repeatedly reverting edits are considered disruptive editor behavoir. Editors that engage in this behavior will be blocked from editing so that other editors can engage in consensus editing. If you want to participate in the writing of this article, you need to stop being disruptive. FloNight talk 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I added back blanked content because it seemed well sourced and at first glance appropriate to article. I added one templ asking for a citation. Please discuss all changes on talk page rather than reverting. FloNight talk 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

talk radio citations

All these sources have a few pages on the conservative dominance of talk radio (but they should not go into the bibliography).

• David C. Barker; Rushed to Judgment: Talk Radio, Persuasion, and American Political Behavior Columbia University Press, 2002
• Stephen Earl Bennett; "Americans' Exposure to Political Talk Radio and Their Knowledge of Public Affairs" in Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Vol. 46, 2002
• Christopher L. Gianos and C. Richard Hofstetter; "Political Talk Radio: Actions Speak Louder Than Words," Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. Volume: 41. Issue: 4. : 1997. pp 501+. Rjensen 01:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen, from a NPOV look at what you just posted: "*David C. Barker; Rushed to Judgment: Talk Radio, Persuasion, and American Political Behavior Columbia University Press, 2002" Does that seem biased and in violation of WP:POV? It is.

This entry of Talk Radio is POV weasel level criticism, as is the the Semantics of Conservatism section, also without citations. Scribner 02:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue was: what evidence is there that talk radio is dominated by conservatives. All the sources make that point. As for Barker, maybe people should read it before announcing its POV? Barker asserts: "Limbaugh will persuade audience members to be more conservative on economic matters but not on cultural matters, to engender greater commitment to the Republican party, to prompt listeners to feel more efficacious and thus to encourage participatory behavior, and to do all of this by framing discussion around the core democratic values of freedom and self-reliance, at the expense of equally salient values such as equality, community, and tolerance." Rjensen 03:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Your words, " The issue was: what evidence is there that talk radio is dominated by conservatives."

Wrong. A request for cite is policy for ambiguous claims. You have admin access. You should know that.

Cite this or don't remove my tag: "Conservatives gained a major new communications medium with the advent of talk radio in the 1990s." Thanks. Scribner 03:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the ambiguity??? What additional cites are wanted--audience research that shows audiences were conservative? date of 1990s???? Rjensen 03:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE Scribner 04:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Try it again Scribner, this time slowly. We're trying to write a serious article so if you have something serious to say, don't be so coy and mischievous. Rjensen 04:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Invalid Content

"Semantics of Conservatism"

This entire section of American Conservatism is committed to author, "Geoffrey Nunberg".

Here's what a search of Amazon.com reveals:

Customers who bought this item also bought:

Going Nucular: Language, Politics, and Culture in Controversial Times by Geoffrey Nunberg F.U.B.A.R. : America's Right-Wing Nightmare by Sam Seder The Way We Talk Now by Geoffrey Nunberg American Theocracy : The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21stCentury by Kevin Phillips State of War : The Secret History of the C.I.A. and the Bush Administration by James Risen

--Geoffrey Numberg belongs in the critisism section, if at all. Wholesale bias and POV drivel.

Here's the title of the one book the entire section is dedicated to:

"Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show"

WP:POV Scribner 05:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The section is now much broader. All the authors in the bibliography are pretty much "biased" -- without them we would have a very short article. Keep in mind this article is for all Wiki users, left right and center. People who dislike controversy or do not want to hear about certain ideas should avoid this article, or at least not try to blank out useful factual information. Rjensen 05:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice edit. Passes my OK on first read. Still, Nunberg reference is POV (whatever, I agree). The numbers on talk radio are great, thanks for the cite. Scribner 05:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The new section on Semantics, Language and Media begins: "The use of language has been a tool used by conservatives (as well as liberals of course) to shape ..." This seems awkward to me, especially the "use ... used" construction. Everybody uses language, so why single out liberals and conservatives. Also, the incorporation of the Talk Radio section seems awkward. I think the section would be better if it were shorter and more to the point. Rick Norwood 15:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Censensus and the criticism section

As of yet, there has been no consensus on the inclusion of a criticism section content. Write here prior to inclusion. ER MD 22:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep the section. Wiki articles have to present all sides of controversial issues, and that includes a fair presentation of criticism. Rjensen 23:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see the ACLU article for a sample of critisism in a article. Inclusion of criticism is fair and reasonable because it applies to all. American Liberalism will also have a criticism section. My concerns are that matters critical to American conservatism be kept in the criticism section, within reason. And, of course that the wording of the section be accurate and NPOV, that's where your expertise comes in, I hope. Scribner 23:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

criticism section again

Criticism of American conservatism on ideological or philosophical grounds is different from personal criticism of politicians or thinkers who have conservative views. Critics of conservatism accuse conservatives of:

First of all, this section is confusing conservative ideology with republican policy. Libertarians are in fact part of a conservative ideolgy yet do you hold many of these beliefs. Futrhermore,

• Conservatism favors monetary policy and limited government and taxation. Claiming that it favors the rich is unencylcopedic even if is source supported just like my fake entry criticizing american liberalism. Claiming tax cuts is only contemporary. As an example, if liberalism supports higher taxes, does this mean that they suppoprt higher taxes all the time? Support higher taxes if the tax rate is 99%. Likewise, conservative ideology may not necessarily support lower taxes if the rate is 1%. Since the tax rate is variable and has changed over time, the only position that true conservatives hold is a monetary policy which incorporates limited taxation and a moderately progressive tax (i.e. when Reagan lowered the top marginal rate). Some conservatives support a flat tax since that is technically "equal protection" under the law. The line "Favoring the rich , with tax cuts " is unintelligent and vacuous. An intelligent line would be that american liberalism supports Keysian economics and/or a demand side monetary policy.

• "weakened environmental laws and lax supervision of existing laws " is a criticism of contemporary public/eniviromental policy. I'm sure that have been issues which conservatives have supported conservation issues, but don't bring that up here... just bring up the fringe environemental groups that argue no new construction anywhere, anytime, are even argue that oil is evil. In fact, I think some enivornmental groups criticize liberal groups for not doing enough. Does this mean that the article should have a criticism section that states they are anti-environment because some radical group says it and hence it must be included in wikipedia? Obviously it is a relative argument and a one sentence here is just dumb. That's why it is a soapbox. If the real discussion is on environmental policy, it should be in the environmental policy article. Not here where there is no section the previous paragraphs explaining conservative ideology and the relative importance of the environment in relationship to economic expasion.

• "Using the power of the government to promote Christianity. ." is a positon of fundamentalist conservatives and is a minority position in conservative ideology. Most conservatives do not support using government to spread christianity. Sure there is the religious right, yet most of them only oppose the exclusion of religious concepts from public life such as opposition to the ten commandments from a court house. Sure most of them favor illegalizing aborotion, but then again some of them do not necessarily favor making it illegal and instead favoring making it rare, and suppopting adoption. This concept should be placed in relevant article such as separation of church and state and abortion. Not here. This entry is blatant POV Put it on the ideological conservative webpage but not here. Do you not understand why this is POV. Yikes, feel like I am explaining this to a bunch of elemtentary students.

• Hostility toward adultery, fornication, and, especially, homosexuality . Huh? This is a religious conservative perspective and is not necessarily of american conservatism. I'm a conservative, I support, civil union, and I think that adultery and fornication should be minimized but I am not hostile to it. The wording is way off from POV and it's inclusion here serves a political point as opposed to a true explanation or criticism of a subset of conservative ideology.

• "Opposition to government preference for historically disadvantaged racial and social groups, as in the case of opposition to welfare and affirmative action. " Actually a sentence that makes sense and is an acurate criticism of conservatism. I am puzzled as to why welfare is in there? Anybody have a good reason why welfare would be included? Makes no sense... people should think before they write. in additon, its superficial acknowledgement here is probably better suited for the affirmative action webpage.

• Wow the "favor police powers" point was removed! I am shocked. I presume that nobody found a reference to conservative acting like nazi's on the internet? Maybe somebody could find that link and write "american conservatives are a bunch of nazis." and of course reference it. (that was some good sarcasm) .. I hope you understood. ER MD 23:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice work on the section. One note, if other valid criticisms are introduced maybe they should be broken into subcategories, as the example on the ACLU page. Again, nice work. Scribner 01:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that it favors the rich is unencylcopedic even if is source supported just like my fake entry criticizing american liberalism. There is statistical evidence that conservative fiscal policy disproportionately benefits the rich because they have a disproportionately large amount of the nation's wealth. Critics charge that conservative fiscal policy is designed with this in mind. Conservatives, of course, insist that this is ancillary to the main goal of freeing capital from the wasteful hand of government. It's still a valid criticism and it's not unencyclopedic to quote it.

just bring up the fringe environemental groups that argue no new construction anywhere, anytime, are even argue that oil is evil. That's not a criticism of conservatism, why would we include it here?

Does this mean that the article should have a criticism section that states they are anti-environment because some radical group says it and hence it must be included in wikipedia? Yes, you could absolutely criticize liberalism for protecting the environment, sometimes at the expense of economic development that benefits humans. I often do criticize it for exactly that. Now, the problem is, as you observed, we're talking about policy here. Is pro-environmentalism really a key component of American liberalism? Maybe. But pro-capitalism and pro-business/pro-growth policies are certainly a key component of American conservatism.

Most conservatives do not support using government to spread christianity. I tend to agree, this is something of a straw man charge, but that's not sufficient to exclude it. If it's as silly and easily debunked as you say, then the reader should have no problem checking the sources and dismissing it. If people want to say stupid things, get out of the way and let them. :)

Hostility toward adultery, fornication, and, especially, homosexuality This is a criticism?

Actually a sentence that makes sense and is an acurate criticism of conservatism. I am puzzled as to why welfare is in there? That puzzles me, too. I can't remember ever hearing a conservative politician call for an end to welfare, except in the sense that some day we want there to be no need for it anymore.

Bjsiders 12:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Rich is a derogatory term in politics, POV here--replaced with upper and middle class, which is NPOV and more accurate choice of words.

"Hostile", changed for semantics.

Ideas replaced with values, more accurate choice of words. Scribner 16:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The section is getting mixed up with contemporary policy--which was my concern from the begining. This section should not be list of opinions, instead it should be criticism about the philosophy as in what is explained in the preceeding sections. Tax cuts are a contemporary issue with the current republicans and not necessarily with american conservatism. As an example, the first george bush raised taxes! Or is our memory short? So writing that they support tax cuts is not necessarily true. What is more accurate is the belief in supply-side economics (monetarianism) as deficit spending to stimulate the economy versus the traditional way in which liberals perceive stimulation of the economy which is Keynesian, or the federal government increasing spending. (Of course, both republicans and democrats fail to save in times of excess--violating their own economic ideology to get elected). The only thing that can be truely stated is that conservatives support limited government in theory (whether that happens in actually is another thing). Liberal theory does not hold that similar belief. Instead they beleive that the largess of the government should be used to attain equality or "soical justice". In addition, with 95% of all federal tax revenue generated by the top 50% of the population, anybody could make the claim that any tax cut benefits the rich, when in fact it benefits all taxpayers. The liberal perspective is that by cutting taxes, less money can be re-distributed to the "poor" in their attempt to attain "social jusctice". Hence, the "favor the rich" or even upper class is not an accurate description. Sure people may perceive it that way and write it down in a news story or opinion peice. The accurate NPOV poistion would be conservative ideology favors limited government and the lowest possible tax rate. ER MD 22:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The line using government to promote Christianity is a fringe belief. Only major criticisms... Remember wiki policy. Most conservative groups are in favor of standards (i.e. no Janet Jackson breasts hanging out)and retention of religious beliefs, call Christmas "Christmas" and not a "winter holiday"--or whatever their line is. ER MD 22:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The social references are vague in their criticisms and do not represent a majority view of conservatives. Will remove, and I don;t think that there has been a consensus for those issues since they are a minority opinion. ER MD 22:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As an example, the first george bush raised taxes! Republicans are not necessarily conservatives. Ronald Reagan also raised taxes, even though he opposed it on principle, because it was at the time the right thing to do. The criticism section says that conservative fiscal policies disproportionately favor the rich because they have a disproportionate amount of wealth. So writing that they support tax cuts is not necessarily true. Find me just one instance of a conservative concensus that a proposed tax cut is a bad idea. Just one.

That is an example of republican policy and not a conservative policy. conservatism does not necessarily oppose increased taxation. that is the point. Again the criticism section is on philosophy and not on republican policy. 162.119.232.101 01:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What is more accurate is the belief in supply-side economics (monetarianism) as deficit spending to stimulate the economy versus the traditional way in which liberals perceive stimulation of the economy which is Keynesian, or the federal government increasing spending. Lowering taxes is an absolutely critical part of supply-side economic theory in most circumstances.

True, low taxation is an aspect of supply-side economics in times of economic slow downs and in times of excess, the revenue generated under conservative ideology is to pay down dept. Now obviously, republicans have not been doing that, which violates a conservative ideology. You are again confusing a conservative ideology with republican policy. 162.119.232.101 01:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition, with 95% of all federal tax revenue generated by the top 50% of the population, anybody could make the claim that any tax cut benefits the rich, when in fact it benefits all taxpayers. I agree with you completely on this, I'm a supply-sider myself, I consider Keynes to have thoroughly debunked by credible economists. But this criticism persists, for whatever reason you want to cite (class envy, political opportunism, whatever), and it is one of the most commonly and frequently lobbed attacks at conservatism, it deserves mention.

Hence, the "favor the rich" or even upper class is not an accurate description. It's a fair and accurate description of the criticism, even if the criticism itself is FUD and obfuscation. It's not a POV problem to quote this criticism, that IS what the criticism is, it's a common charge, it's been discussed and debated ad nauseum, and it ought to be mentioned here. The criticism is NOT that conservatives favor limited government and the lowest possible tax rate. That's what conservatives believe. This section is about criticism of conservatism.

True, again this is criticism of republican policy and not necessarily of the conservative ideology of monetarianism. The objection that liberalism has with this policy is that liberals believe that government has a role to redistribute wealth to create "equality" or correct "social justice." Sice this is the criticism along ideological grounds that can surely be represented, but a simplistic claim of "favor the rich" is vacuous of liberal ideology in its opposition to conservative ideology. Again, expanding the criticism section to any point of view that does not have basis in ideology is a pov representation of arguments. Keep the discussion on an ideological plane as opposed to simple demogogary (or however you spell that word). 162.119.232.101 01:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the majority view of conservatives on the social issues that you removed? You appear to be the resident expert on it.

Bjsiders 22:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the majority view of social conservative ideology is, and I don't think it has been defined. Each individual groups has its own interpretations. Who is to say that one representation is valid and another is not. Simply put, conservatives value a traditional structure of society which unfortunately has changed so much over time that opinions on what is traditional is out the window with multiple different groups claiming that they know what is best for society. A consensus would have to be reached prior to inclusion. I as a conservative offer no hostility towards homosexuality, yet it is included that homosexuality is somehow an aspect of a conservative ideology. Ideologies typically are in the affirmative, as in, "we believe the idea structure of a family is a man and a woman." There are small fractions of people who claim they are conservative, claim that they are christian in behavior, yet do espouse violence against homosexuals. I would argue that the classical interpretation of social values, tradition, and christian values would simply argue for retention of classical constructs of society. 162.119.232.101 01:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not violence against homosexuals that's at issue. It's issues involving marriage, partner-rights, insurance, job discrimination, service in the military, state laws that prevent cities from protecting gays , and a heavy drumbeat of religious and very hostile rhetoric. It's interesting that African Americans are very conservative on the gay issue.Rjensen 02:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa... just thought I'd throw in a comment here. Why wouldn't African Americans be conservative on this issue? Just because African Americans tend to vote Democratic does not necessarily indicate liberal beliefs on all issues. You must look at the Black culture. Masculinity plays a large role in the music, movies, etc. of African Americans. Anyway, just saying. Night. --You Know Who 02:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Most readers know the African American community in fact is liberal on most issues; the article is therefore a heads-up that on this issue they are conservative. Rjensen 07:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen, familiarize yourself with the current debate regarding this section before reverting. Your good faith is suspect. Please talk before reverting or adding content to the section. Thanks. Scribner 07:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, read the bold letters: the criticisms of conservatism as it relates to ideology. So attack the ideology not republican policy--two very different things. ...this is why this section should have never been developed, people just do not underrstand the difference. 162.119.232.101 01:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What is left of the "criticism" section does not contain any criticism, only support for a certain kind of conservative view. I am not sure why so many people have trouble understanding the difference between "some" and "all". Criticism of some forms of conservatism is not the same as criticism of all forms of conservatism. I understand that some of the people who contribute to this article are passionate libertarians, but if you compare the votes won by Ralph Nader with the votes won by George Bush, you can see that small government conservatism has very little influence compared with the "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition" kind of conservatism. To reason that Bush is not a conservative because he is not a libertarian is to deny the reality that American conservatism takes a variety of forms. Rick Norwood 15:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

From Misplaced Pages: Avoid weasel words

"Weasel words are words or phrases that smuggle bias into seemingly supported statements by attributing opinions to anonymous sources."

I hope this is clear. Rick Norwood 15:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

criticism or praise

Conservative advocates had replaced all of the criticisms of conservatism with praise of conservatism. Since the section is titled "Criticism of conservatism", I think praise of conservatism should go somewhere else and criticism of conservatism should go here.

Please keep in mind that for Misplaced Pages to say that some people criticise some forms of conservatism is not the same as agreeing with that criticism. "All points of view should be represented." Rick Norwood 16:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You should read what was written in discussion before making changes. Obviously you don't understand, or do not wish to understand or recognize that the "criticism" section is on philosophy and not on republican policy. Place your critiques in the contemporary republican policy webpage. All you do is try to promote your criticism on the subject. It is vacuous and unintelligent. Your behaviour is sickening, claiming that you wish to seek consensus, follow wiki policy, but do neither then write whatever you want. When someone disagrees, you ask them to debate it first. But when you disagree with someone else, you simply put your POV in. Its obvious that this section will not survive. People do not understand the difference between criticisms based on philosophy and criticisms of contemporary policy. The likes of you and people like user "rjensen" are completely void of integrity. Insertions like "gay bashing"... is a good example. Good job, really makes the subject in depth... Bring it up with an arbcom. As for now I will revert to continued deletions of this section. ER MD 19:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

An admin has specifically indicated that blanking this section is unacceptable behavior. I've restored it as we continue to discuss it here. Bjsiders 19:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The philosophy of conservatism includes supply-side economies, and a key tenant of supply-side economics is that money ought to be freed from the wasteful spending of government to have the greatest impact on the economy. It is fair criticism of the philosophy to say that this PHILOSOPHY favors the wealthy disproportionately as they have the most to gain. This criticism may OVERLOOK that it favors everybody else, too, it overlooks all kinds of stuff and demonstrates gross ignorance of economics, but it is a fair and accurate criticism. Bjsiders 20:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This is really getting stupid. I'd think that there would be a little more intellect on this subject, especially from people so interested in its subject. ER MD 20:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am going to make an effort to include the "philosophical" criticism that you favor, as well as the ACTUAL criticism that critics often repeat. I'll post again here explaining it when I'm done, I hope it satisfies a majority of editors. Bjsiders 20:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of contemporary policy by the republicans belongs in republican party webpage or even more specifically in "contemporary" conservative policy. This is a historical and PHILOSOPHY based article so keep to a philosophy. You can even write that there was criticism that conservatives were slow at adopting civil rights in the 1960s (don't write it in a criticism section--add the entire section to the body of the work), but writing that they favor tax cuts, as explained above, is a pretty stupid inclusion. From reading your talkpage, it seems that all you do is attack conservative issues. Why not try writing an article, or at least write something substantial on an article. I've already written about three to four. Simply throwing your anti-conservative opinion in on random articles is a pretty weak. ER MD 20:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I put together a list of criticisms of conservatism. It's about as softball as I can make it while still including the things that - and this is key - critics of conservatism actually criticize it for. You cannot completely divorce philosophy from policy. Conservatives believe in supply-side economics. Well, supply-side economics is ultimately a collection of monetary and fiscal policies. There's no way to describe it without talking about policy on at least a cursory level. How in the world is it not policy to talk about how conservatives were slow to adopt civil rights in 1960? That was legislation. Why is that legislation fair game but the mere concept of lower taxes is out of bounds? I don't know where you get this idea that I run around attacking conservatism. I'm a conservative-libertarian registered Republican. I love The Corner at National Review and I have a print subscription. I read the Wall Street Opinion Journal. I'm about halfway through with Scalia Dissents right now. Get off this conspiracy of people running around trying to rip up conservatism because they're a bunch of liberal jerks trying push a policy. I don't have much in the way of anti-conservative opinions. Bjsiders 20:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a mistake to try to find criticisms of conservatism so mild that even ER MD will accept them. First, he would have to show some spirit of compromise, but instead he continues to blank what he does not like. To be listed as a criticism of American conservatism, only two things are required. First, there must be a reference that shows that the viewpoint criticised is held by some branch of standard American conservatism. Section, there must be a reference that the criticism is from a legitimate source. Having shown those two things, then the criticism is legitimate and ER MD's blanking merely obstructionist. Rick Norwood 21:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

They're the same criticisms and same references we've had up since the beginning of this, but I've changed the phrasing so that it's clear that this is a criticism of a political philosophy as well as its policy implications. Part of the problem is that ER MD divorces idealogies from policies. I think this is a silly exercise in semantics, but I also think we can make it clear WHY these criticisms apply to philosophy as well as policy. I believe I have done that to the satisfaction of any reasonable observer. Bjsiders 22:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope you're right. Rick Norwood 22:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

the section is getting better, but inclusions such as "tax cuts" agian is a contemporary policy. Conservatism simply argues that taxes be sufficient to cover the expeditures of of a limited government. The real criticism and difference is with liberalism which does not hold limited government as a value. Instead liberalism holds that government can be used for "good" as in to establish equality. Of course the criticism is by modern liberalism and not by classical liberalism which was not established the principles of "social justice" or "equality." My continued reverts here have been because people do not know the difference between the different concepts. People placing that critics argue that conservatism supports "gay bashing"?!?!?! the fact that a minority of people actually do engage in this unfortunate activity is sad, but they are not necessarily the beliefs of conservatives. Likewise, in my fake criticism of liberalism, i wrote that liberals are just a bunch of communists. Now while there may be some liberals who hold communist views, it is not a retained belief of liberalism. Liberalism after all supports free markets in its most traditional sense. modern american liberalsim is different, and they support more regulations, and income-redistribution and that is where there is the disagreement with conservative policy. Sure it is a matter of semantics, but any valid argument has to have some substance as opposed to dumb inclusion lines that conservatism supports "lax environmental laws." These are meaningless lines. Shall I include a line that George Bush created the largest protected environmental reserve just the other day? No since this has nothing to do with ideology or philosophy. In fact, I am having a dificult time understand why you two do not understand this. Finally, once someone agrees as to what "traditional" or social conservatives believe and of their representation in conservative ideology or in modern (contemporary) conservative ideology, then we can have a debate on what aspects of social criticism to included. That being said, I will make some corrections to the entry again. 162.119.232.101 23:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

will fix my typos later... 162.119.232.101 23:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Conservatism simply argues that taxes be sufficient to cover the expeditures of of a limited government." This quote by 162 illustrates why we have so much trouble with this section. Again and again people working on this article equate conservatism with libertarianism. But libertarianism is only one small strain of American conservatism. For example, many people who consider themselves conservative favor increased military spending. On the other hand, many conservatives who don't give a fig about big government/small government care passionately about preventing homosexual marriage. And the fact that many conservatives support lax environmental laws is well documented. In fact, the small government conservatives often want all environmental laws repealed, in the name of laize faire capitalism. The reason we have trouble understanding you is that you use the word conservatism to mean what you want it to mean, and not the way it is actually used in public discourse. You seem to only know about one kind of conservatism, and assume that all conservatives are that kind. But what does that say about reading and understanding sources. They have been provided. Rick Norwood 00:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

so again the problem is defining american conservatism. Does it represent opinions by the religious right or does it represent moderate conservatives? Does it represent the interests of economic conservatives or libertarians? If some of these self-professed conservatives are members of the KKK, would you argue that this be included on american conersatives and write "conservatives supports the murder of minorities." Or claiming that american conservatism supports "gay bashing" as others have put it? The problem is that the "group" of conservatism is an amalgam of different ideas. So the problem becis with definition. If you can't say that a mojority of conservative support "gay bashing" then it doesn't belong. The group that supports "gay bashing" should have the criticism placed on that specific group's page. (i.e. the religious right) Its a slippery slope to claim any criticism as application to "american conservatism". 162.119.232.101 01:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes! You understand. The problem is defining American conservatism.

American conservatism is inclusive. The small government conservatives are only a part, and are not the part that is criticized in this section.

The criticism section needs to be clear on that point: that these are criticisms of some American conservatives, not of all American conservatives.

The same is true in the Conservatism article. The quotes there criticize ancient Greek and Roman conservatives, they criticize French and English conservatives. They do not criticize small government conservatives. Someone else may want to add quotes critical of small government conservatives, but if I wanted to add quotes about small government conservatives, I would add them to the article on libertarianism, not here. This is about those groups of self-identified conservatives who get by far the most criticism, which are the religious right, the war hawks, and the cut taxes but increase spending conservatives. These people are probably not even conservatives by your definition. On the other hand, if you look at the definition of conservatives, you see it is support for either existing or past status quo, which historically has often taken the form of support for the hereditary aristocracy and the established church. Support for small government used to be a liberal ideal, until the small government liberals split from the other liberals over welfare and joined the conservatives. Rick Norwood 13:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are to make criticism on any position, then you have to specific about the argument. Writing stuff like conservatism advocates "gay bashing" is POV. Arguments must have the following: 1)contemporay or traditional 2)the specific group 3)and the context--ie. the comparison with the traditional opposing view. Otherwise everything else is soapbox--as in the way it was written. In addition, specific criticisms about the "religious right" really belong in their own article. ER MD 16:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say above. (I never used the phrase "gay bashing" by the way.) On the other hand, religious conservatism is a major part of American conservatism, and so to talk about American conservatism without mentioning religious conservatism is to ignore what makes American conservatism different from conservatism anywhere else in the world. Rick Norwood 16:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Religious conservatism makes "American conservatism different from conservatism anywhere else in the world" is an unbelieveably naive statement. Have you not heard of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Egypt (the whole middle east), Israel, east asian, southern asian nations??? This is the problem with your edits... I don't think you know what you are talking about. ER MD 18:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigh! The difference between American conservatism and conservatism everywhere else in the world is the combination of a capitalist free market with a religious conservatism. That may exist somewhere else in the world, but certainly not in Saudi Arabia, where one family owns the entire country. Rick Norwood 19:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The reverts are getting retarded. The philosophy is not "supply-side" per se. the philosophy is monetary policy. Liberals believe in fiscal policy as a drive to economic stimuli and to a lesser extent monetary policy. In fact, JFK embraced monetary policy but the party did not move with him. The amazing thing are the errors in this article and in the american liberalism article. Read this quote from american liberalism "After decades of the popularity of modern liberalism inspired by the progressive movement and the New Deal, classical liberalism (previously called simply "liberalism") experienced a revival in the U.S. among some thinkers, with Milton Friedman being instrumental in that regard.."

Here is the referenced article quote: "With modern liberalism seemingly powerless to boost stagnating living standards in mature industrial economies, the more energetic response to the problem turned out to be a revival of classical liberalism. The intellectual foundations of this revival were primarily the work of the Austrian-born British economist Friedrich von Hayek and the American economist Milton Friedman. One of Hayek's greatest achievements was to demonstrate, on purely logical grounds, that a centrally planned economy is impossible. He also famously argued, in his work The Road to Serfdom (1944), that interventionist measures aimed at the redistribution of wealth lead inevitably to totalitarianism. Friedman, as one of the founders of the modern monetarist school of economics, held that the business cycle is determined mainly by the supply of money and by interest rates, rather than by government fiscal policy—contrary to the long-prevailing view of Keynes and his followers. These arguments were enthusiastically embraced by the major conservative political parties in Britain and the United States, which had never abandoned the classical liberal conviction that the free market, for all its faults, guides economic policy better than governments do. Revitalized conservatives achieved power with the lengthy administrations of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and U.S. President Ronald Reagan. Their ideology and policies, which properly belong to the history of conservatism rather than liberalism, became increasingly influential, as illustrated by the official abandonment of socialism by the British Labour Party in 1995 and by the cautiously pragmatic policies of U.S. President Bill Clinton in the 1990s." Once people know what they are writing about I will have better faith inthis process. But the constant edits back to POV by people who do not know what they are talking about is, again, retarded. PLEASE LEARN MORE ABOUT THE SUBJECT BEFORE YOU START WRITTING. Otherwise, you end up with such glarring errors like the one in american liberalism. ER MD 18:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Fiscal and monetary policy needs clarification

There is a lot of confusion with people who do not know the differences between the two subjects. I will work to try and make these things more evident in the next few weeks. As an example that I already mentioned, somebody incorrectly wrote that american liberalism embraced monetary policy which is not true. Here is a quote from JFK on the subject matter of government and taxes (since I did not support my statement above appropriately):

"The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system — and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963. I'm not talking about a "quickie" or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm, to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last five years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incenitives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking. In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures." JFK

Its a pretty good quote since it comes from one of the smartest presidents we have even had... Maybe it should be included in the article. The opperative line is "a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent" which is a supply-side argument as opposed to a more traditional liberal philosophy esposed by Keynes. ER MD 19:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

ER MD's new rewrite

Before reading your latest rewrite, I want to say that I really hope that it is something we can live with. Thanks for rewriting rather than reverting. Rick Norwood 19:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The first part looks good. I made a few minor changes. It does seem to drift off topic, moving from the subject heading "social conservatism" to a repetition of some of the material on economic conservatism that is elsewhere in the article. But that can wait. There was one sentence that I did not understand. Your edit contained the following:

"Economic conservatives support limited government, limited taxation, an income tax, a consumption tax, and "double taxation" such as cpital gains and the inheritance tas."

Is this what you intended? Rick Norwood 19:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The criticism section also looks good, except for some typos which I will fix. But you've omitted the footnotes! I assume this was an oversight, but you need to footnote the economic stuff, which is not my main interest. I'll restore the footnotes to the criticism of religious conservatism. Rick Norwood 20:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

format for criticism section

This section has been populated by some amazingly dumb comments. As an example of a criticism, "Insensitivity to the victims of unrestricted governmental power, as in the case of limitations on the rights of those accused of crimes, and support for broader powers for law enforcement agencies." There is no context. It is simply a soapbox.

Here is my opinion on the format for criticism to avoid POV. (and hence, to avoid the need for me to delete it)

1)specific group that the criticism is directed against.

2)the position in the afirmative that the group being criticized holds

3)specific group making the criticism

4)and the position or beliefs of the group making the criticism.

5)optional rebuttal by #1

Example: Religious conservatives (1-the group) often (because not all of them) believe that the family is the central unit of american life and seek to preserve its integrity. Some religious conservative oppose same-sex marriage because of their belief that it is unnatural and threatens the interpretations of marriage as a religous concept (2-their opinion of same-sex marriage). Liberals (3-group making the accusation) criticize the religious conservatives view on same-sex marriage stating that it is disciminatory and violates civil rights. Some liberals state that the movement, as demonstrated by efforts to make a constitutional amendment, tantamount to hatred (4-the groups criticism). Some, but not all, religious conservatives counter that civil unions are middle ground that preserves legal rights for same-sex couples that does not change the meaning of what they view as the religious connotations in the term marriage. (5- counterargument)

My inclusion:

The cornerstone of modern conservative economic philosophy is monetary policy specifically modifications taken on the supply side. Traditionally, american conservatism supported economic liberalism and limited government, whereas its current application has deviated to an amalgam of limited government and social programs not specifically deliniated in the US constitution (first two sentences are 1 and 2 on the list). Critics, specifically supporters of modern liberalism (3), believe that this structure of fiscal and monetary policy leads to discrepancies in wealth and impedes social justice and equality. (4)

This is perfect context... Who holds the beliefs, what the beliefs are, who criticizes, and what is the content of the criticsim. It could use some word changes though as it is not as precise as it could be.

This puts all criticism into perspective and the more information, the less POV. That is all that I am asking for. ER MD 20:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to any of the above, but I thought that your latest rewrite was a move toward consensus. The idea of starting over from scratch sounds like a return to square one. On the other hand, if you want to do the work, I have no objection, provided everything is referenced.

I've made two small changes in the current criticism section. One is to replace the word "inequality" (or something to that effect) with "concentration". I don't know any Americans who want equality of wealth...that sounds more like communists. Americans want equality of oportunity, which is something else entirely. For example, from the current issue of The Economist: "Americans see wealth inequality as a natural by-product of the American dream."

The criticism I hear most often is that we are seeing a greater and greater concentration of wealth -- where there were once fifty companies, there are now three. The same corporation owns the publishing house that publishes the book, the bookstore that sells it, the movie studio that makes the movie out of it, the television station that carries the ads for the movie, and the magazine that reviews the book and the movie. You may not think that this is a bad thing (I don't know) but it is a criticism often made.

The other change is to mention the push by religious conservatives to have science, especially as taught in the schools, conform to traditional teachings about the creation of the earth and of the human race. As a teacher, this is a subject I care about much more than I do about economics. Rick Norwood 20:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

same problem with list as in criticism section

The same problem exists with the intro: ie. statements that are not specific and are not referenced. In addition, it is POV that some positions are represented while others are not. So the summary is inherently POV. as examples: Social conservatives who seek to defend what they see as traditional values especially regarding gender roles and sexual norms. ---what gender roles are they advocating? what do sexual norms mean? is it even explained in the body of the article? (if not, then it should be removed) Religious conservatives who favor the incorporation of religious teachings into government activities, such as the public schools and the criminal code. --religious conservatives what religion in the criminal code??? I've never hear of the that before. What percentage of religious conservatives support the aformentioned facts? Supporters of a strong American military. -- okay, but also not explained in the body of the work. Supporters judicial restraint and opponents of judicial activism. -- fair statment. Supporters of states' rights. --not discussed in the article. Philosophically, conservatives have attacked Cultural relativism and postmodern critiques, insisting instead on the existence of objective truth. --huh? again this is not even in the article. the positions and terms are not explained. a one-liner here is not appropriate. ER MD 19:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The sexual norms that they advocate are a definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman, and the limitation of sex to the marriage bed. The gender roles that they advocate are that men are the breadwinners, heads of the family, and wear masculine clothes; women the homemakers, raising the children, and wear feminine clothes, but not sexy clothes. The religious conservatives who favor the incorporation of religious teachings into the public schools are those who favor the teaching of creation science, so called, and prayer in the public schools. Those who favor of religion in the criminal code include laws against homosexual marriage, laws against abortion, and laws against euthanasia, as well as the "blue laws" against selling certain goods on Sunday and the four states that require belief in God for everyone who holds public office. States rights conservatives are a vanish breed, but they still exist. Opostion to cultural relativism is real, but not a major issue, in my opinion. In the future, please ask for references or revisions. No blanking. Rick Norwood 21:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

- I have to disagree, i see tons of states-rights conservatives especially on the issue of abortion.

this is a pretty specific list Norwood. I assume these are all social conservatives have these viewpoints? or all religious conservatives hold these views and have the beliefs that government must interevene in american life? As for the specific points that are brought up in the introduction is the main issue of social conservatives to establish traditional gender roles? The point is this: the positions written are limited. Some positions are included whereas others are not included. Why should social conservative just have a reference to gender roles and sexual norms as opposed to positions such as the preference for education that teaches the 3 R's or violence off of TV. Hence the inclusion of just the points that you disagree with is a POV sampling. Therefore it has to be removed. The article has a section for these opinions. If the intro section is going to have a list is has to be vague. and the cultural relitivism issue even if it is true belong more in a philosophy section. Will revert. ER MD 22:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"This describes the POV of groups & does not advocate for them" I disagree---this does not represent the POV of the groups since it is a selected view from the groups that is not necessarily the affirmative position. In fact it is more the liberal perspective of why liberals dislike the groups. 162.119.232.101 01:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty even-handed to me. This Wiki article must be acceptable to liberals of course. Take one sentence and rewrite it and we'll see if there is POV. Rjensen 03:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Long-term view. Misplaced Pages will be editied forever as it appears. Attempts to write stuff that is POV or espouses the "liberal" point of view as in the intro are going to get deleted. Write some content as opposed to pov. I think I spend most of my time on wiki deleting stuff. ER MD 06:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The job of Wiki especially in this article is to offer BOTH liberal and conservative POV. Erasing one or the other is naughty POV by an editorRjensen 06:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And the intro section is not where you place only your liberal perspective. ER MD 07:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Liberal perspective? Actually I'm a conservative. The point remains that the article must satisfy both liberals and conservatives or it doesn't meet Wiki standards. Rjensen 07:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine--put explanations in the body of the text as opposed to trying to place positions in the intoduction section. ER MD 07:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why just the liberal and conservative point of view! What about the Communist, and libertarians. The anarchists, and the Humanist. Isn’t Wiki supposed to be NPOV, not Every POV. I agree with ER MD the placement of some content is poor form, and lacks clarity.--MadDogCrog 11:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Rick to ER MD: Of course, not all social conservatives believe everything on the list. The list reflects the beliefs of many American social conservatives. By the way, is User: ED MD the same person as User: ER MD?

Rick to MadDogCrog: You say, "Isn't Wiki supposed to be NPOV, not Every POV." No. Here is what Misplaced Pages: Neutral Point of View says, "All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one." Now, obviously we need to be reasonable, and begin with major ideas, and eventually we reach ideas so minor they are not worth including. Rick Norwood 13:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This section is definitely biased towards a positive point of view for conservatism and has little elaboration on each point.

Writing Encyclopedic

Rjensen, you're wrong. See these examples: The ACLU article is biased toward the ACLU and it should be. The NRA article is biased toward the the NRA and it should be. Each article is to provide an overview of the topic, not a debate of the topic, and not all views expressed.

Misplaced Pages is wrong for teaching bias, but the ACLU is a good example of how to handle critisism. Please keep in mind the vast majority of topics should be %100 npov or sightly biased toward the topic. Not a debate, Rjensen, et al, an encyclopedia. Scribner 07:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

My goal is to get the description of American conservatism exactly right. Rjensen 08:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen no one can get the description of American conservatism "exactly right". That is where you are failing here and in other articles. You are a bar to progress without understanding what I wrote to you and it applies to other authors on this article and other as well.

Now attempt to debate my opening statement or move on. Scribner 08:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Scribner, I understand that you are expressing your strongly held belief, but Misplaced Pages policy supports Rjensen in this. Here are the relevant quotes, cut and pasted from :

Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view

All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one.

Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete

The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?

In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.

Rick Norwood 12:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

ED MD's edit

Good edit, ED MD. By the way, just curious, are you the same person as User: ER MD? Rick Norwood 12:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I dropped ER_MD since people kept on harrasing me about keeping the "talk page" archived (something that I prefer not to do). ER MD 13:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote

this was inappropriate for the talk pages. So I erased them! these pages are not for blogging!--MadDogCrog 12:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Precursors to 20th Century Conservatism

The form of Conservatism we are used to did not spring forth from Whole Cloth in the 20th Century. It had its precursors in each of the formative centuries, and yet you start your discussion with the 20th Century. You need to expand the article acordingly.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 20:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

criticism

Once again, Scribner reverts anything that is remotely critical of conservatism, no matter how well documented. Maybe we need to do away with the section entirely, but to have a section titled "criticism" which consists of arguments in favor of conservatism is unreasonable. Rick Norwood 12:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Norwood, the truth is, I asked ER MD to write the section here on June 13, 2006, which he did. We should reinstate that section. It was well written and knowledgeable of subject matter.

I have reverted your recent edits because they're POV-loaded and unknowledgable of American Conservatism.--Scribner 02:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I can understand that a conservative would prefer the section on criticism of conservatism be written by a conservative and contain nothing but praise of conservatism. This is not, however, reasonable. Do you maintain that nobody has ever criticized American conservatism? The criticisms are all sourced, the sources are mainstream.

I have no objection with removing the criticism section and incorporating the criticism throughout the article. Would you prefer that? Rick Norwood 12:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I like the current edit. The article looks great. Let's stick to criticising on, "ideological or philosophical grounds."--Scribner 14:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Rick, I can't tell just how seriously to take you when it comes to this. Just saying over and over again that it's referenced doesn't mean that much when your first reference is The Nation - please. Finding a POV about anything on the net is not hard to do - but just being able to give a POV a footnote doesn't change the fact that it's a POV. Other edits at this section have certainly been more studious in their approach - something you declare to be praise (which I wish you could better explain). Do you really think the end user of the article would walk away better informed by just throwing out:

One of the most common criticisms of conservatism is that it favors the rich, and leads to an extreme concentration of wealth.

instead of

The cornerstone of modern conservative economic philosophy is monetary policy, specifically modifications taken on the supply side. Traditionally, American conservatism support economic liberalism and limited government. Critics, specifically supporters of modern liberalism, believe that this structure of fiscal and monetary policy leads to concentration of wealth and impedes social justice and equality.

Which one do you think helps an objective reader to connect the dots and leave better armed to develop their opinion? You're obvious problem is that it is not harsh enough. But then again, one of the critisms of your brand of liberalism is that it's ilk tend to prefer that others adopt your opinions instead of developing their own - feel free to reference me in the critism section of social liberalism. Have you considered venting your distaste for conservatism via a blog instead of Wiki?

I've explained this very patiently many times, but I will try again. First, if American conservatism were primarily about monetary policy, it would get about as many votes as the Libertarians do. Second, I have no interest in writing a blog, I do have an interest in preventing wikipedia from becoming Libertarian propaganda. Third, however much you dislike The Nation, it is a major magazine and it does criticize conservatism. Encyclopedias report what exists, now what would exist or should exist or might exist. The reference is not designed to show that the criticism is correct, only that the criticism exists. Fourth, Scribner, you have several times been asked to state that you read things before you delete them, and have not responded. This suggests that you sometimes delete things without reading them. And yet you claim, several times in the paragraph above, to have insight into my motives and intentions that go far beyond what can be inferred from what I have written. Please stick to the subject at hand, instead of indulging in personalities. Rick Norwood 12:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience, Rick. First: Conservatives aren't a party in this country - so they don't get any votes. Second: please reconsider - TheWorldAccordingToRick.com as a Wiki reference would be more intellectually honest than trying to insert your thinly veiled negative pov of all things conservative. Third: shoot, looks like your site will be competition with other 'major' sources (like the Nation). Again, the point here is not whether or not some people like conservatism. In that sense, yes, every political / philosophical article in Wiki needs a Rick Norwood section at the end of it to tell us that some people don't like it. The point (I would have thought) for a section like this is to leave the reader armed with same complete (yet concise) context as possible. But apparently that results in some sort of praise in your eyes. I tried to be specific in my point by constrasting the two approaches above - which you did not comment on and suggests that you must not have read it. In the future, please state that you have read things at the beginning of your replies. And you must not even read your own write either if you think your writings haven't clearly stated your pov.

Despite it all, I'm not against working with you here. Hell, I can find critism of convervatism myself (so that's not the problem). But if you can't approach it from a fair/balanced and with the intent of benefiting the reader point of view, then TheWorldAccordingToRick.com may be your most rewarding option.

Rjensen's edit

Thanks for your rewrite. Your version is much better than the old one. Rick Norwood 12:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks :) Rjensen 13:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the section, which was once again deleted. When I have more time, I'll try to spread the information in that section throughout the article, instead of having it gathered together at the end. Liberals and conservatives working together on the article agreed that it should be saved for a final section, but repeated deletions suggest that this compromise is no longer operative. Rick Norwood 22:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So, where should we start?

Wiki rules: all POV must be included

to quote our rulebook: Misplaced Pages:Describing points of view: An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Misplaced Pages's official "Neutral Point of View" policy. Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know: Who advocates the point of view What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.) That means the serious criticisms of conservatism must be included, clearly stated and not suppressed. Rjensen 00:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Whether or not the US is an Christian nation is not part of "conservatism" per se; besides, this topic is discussed in depth elsewhere. In fact, this is a matter of debate BETWEEN conservatives.
2. Affirmative action is a public policy issue that is covered elesewhere; it is not part of the definition of conservatism; in fact, there are conservatives who support AA. Also, whether or not AA is a conservative issue is part of the paleocon/neocon debate, which is beyond the scope of this article.
3. There simply isn't room to discuss every position that a conservative might take: line item veto, repealing unfunded mandates, stem-cell research, capital gains tax cuts, nuclear proliferation, increased military spending, voucher programs, English-only, etc. There's a certain kernel that makes "conservatism" of various stripes. The criticism that conservatism favors the rich covers conservatism, writ large, so it fits. Yakuman 01:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is room to discuss every major issue--that is the genius of Wiki. Conservatives are in fact very concerned with topics like stem cell research, vouchers, military $$, the role of religion, affirmative action, and so on. Wiki should indicate when and how conservatives differ among themselves on these major issues. Rjensen 03:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

To second what Rjensen said, this article is about American conservatism, not just "conservatism". American conservatism is very different from any other conservative movement anywhere else in the world. Most of the "conservatives" who write for Misplaced Pages are really libertarians, and so they want Misplaced Pages to reflect their view that conservatism is primarily about economic policy, and to downplay the strong isolationist, militarist, and religious aspects of American conservatism. This is a minority view, and the views of the majority of American conservatives should not be surpressed because they embarass the libertarian conservatives. Rick Norwood 12:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Why praise of conservatism does not belong under "criticism".

Below, each * section is the original, each + section the replacement which I just reverted.

• One of the most common criticisms of conservatism is that it favors the rich, and leads to an extreme concentration of wealth.

+ *Opponents to economic liberalism, including supporters of modern liberalism, believe that such economic policies tend to create a concentration of wealth that impedes social justice and liberty.

The reference does not suggest opposition to economic liberalism. That's editorial.

• Many American conservatives believe that America is or should be a Christian nation; critics say that forcing students (or anyone) to acknowledge a particular religion violates the Constitution. Likewise critics say conservatives who believe that government or public schools should judge scientific questions (especially regarding evolution) by the Bible are violating the constitution.

+ *Many conservatives defend America's Christian traditions. There is strong debate surrounding religion's role (if any) in government and public affairs (including prayer and creationism in public schools, religious displays on public property, etc.). Many of these issues have been and continue to be adjudicated in the courts.

The references do not say that there is a debate, the references criticize conservatives for trying to force their religious views on children, the courts, and scientists. The idea that there is only a "debate" is editorial.

• Critics claim that conservative opposition to affirmative action might lead to a return to de facto segregation,

+ *Proponents of affirmative action often argue that a race-blind meritocracy advocated by many conservatives could lead to a return to de facto segregation.

The reference does not support the idea that the debate is between affirmative action on the one hand and a race-blind meritocracy on the other, but rather that conservatives support de facto favoritism for white males. To suggest otherwise is editorial.

In short, an attempt is being made to replace referenced criticisms with non-referenced editorials. Rick Norwood 18:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Is bad grammar a conservative value?

I recently tried to fix the grammar and moderate the claims in this section, and was promptly reverted with an accusation of original research. Is fixing grammar origial research? Here is just one paragraph that the revert restored.

"Anti-intellectualism has always been an important component, especially in a society that has politicized religious arguments. Thus social conservatives like William Jennings Bryan led the battle for prohibition in the United States against Darwinism and evolution, while simultaneously he was a leading exponent of economic liberalism."

1) an important component of what? 2) Is the claim that anti-intellectualism has always been an important component less original research than the claim that this is only sometimes the case? 3) the link to prohibition in the United States refers to prohibition of alcohol, not Darwinism.

I really would like to see this section improved. Instead of reverting, why not work toward improving the section? Rick Norwood 12:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh it's not such bad grammar. The article is about topic X so we can assume people know that when disacussing its components. Many historians have emphasized the anti-intellectual point (but Hofstader should get cited, I agree). Bryan fought For prohibition and against Darwin (at the same time)--a comma is needed rather than a discourse. Rjensen 16:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a critism section for American Conservatism and none for American Liberalism? This reeks of PoV, and not unbiased material.

That is for the american liberalism page not this one. You should bring it up over there. Jasper23 20:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

For criticism of liberalism, go to the "Criticism of Liberalism" section in the liberalism article. The point about prohibition is that the link to prohibition in the United States is worse than pointless. Click on it and see. The point about reverts is that people who revert entire edits instead of working to improve the article do not help improve Misplaced Pages. Rick Norwood 22:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Constellation of political ideologies"

Whoever first wrote that deserves a gold star in my book; no word could better sum up the state of American political parties than "constellation": multiple points of light that people have a tendency (and an incentive) to group together in their minds, yet have little connection in reality. Kudos! --Xyzzyva 11:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Integrity

Rick, a reference to a two paragraph article highlighting that a concentration of wealth is creating a political opportunity for progressives is not support for an assertion that conservatism favors the rich. The article doesn't even mention conservatism and from what I can tell would provide you with a better indictment of capitalism or America in general.

I can only assume that a link to a racist, Christian Party website as support for the assertion that "Many American conservatives believe that America is or should be a Christian nation" was an ill attempt at humor or vandalism. Peddle that kool-aid on your blog - not here. Thanks.

Intelligent conservatives would, of course, like to distance themselves from their less savory fellow party members, but, sadly, cannot win elections without them. Politics makes strange bedfellows. However, the purpose of this article is not to whitewash American conservatism, but to describe it as it is. Rick Norwood 12:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a question for the person who keeps removing references to non-conservative books and magazines. Do you seriously maintain that no-one has ever criticized conservatives for contributing to the concentration of wealth? Do you seriously maintain that there are not influential conservatives who claim that America is a Christian nation? Rick Norwood 12:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

American Conservatism and U.S. Constitutionalism

I was disappointed to find so little discussion of the adherence of American Conservatism (A.C.) to the Founding Father's writings, which include the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constituion, The Federalist Papers, etc., including pre-U.S. Independence writings.

A.C. is essentially based upon these documents which also make claim to inspiration to English Common Law and the Bible.

The breakdown of A.C. into groupings of Social Conservatives, etc. is fine as long as it is understood that these groupings form the much larger philosophy of A.C.

I think this article would benefit from additional information and sources from the "Paleoconservatism" page.

While A.C. is a simple philosophy to understand, there is a great deal of information that supports the root and the role it has played in politics from the very first U.S. election to current nationwide elections.

And, frankly, the criticism section is ridiculous because it argues non-contexual arguments in a non-contextual fashion, and leaves more questions than it answers. In fact, answers to the critcism's are found within the article. For example, arguing that the problem with A.C. is that it protects its' perspective despite the march of history, is silly because fundamental beliefs do not change despite what historical occurances any issue encountered. It's like saying that Jewish people should change their beliefs because of the Holocaust. Clearly, absurd. That section should be deleted because a criticism section belongs in a discussion page not in an article that explains the tenets of an article. Jtpaladin 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

American political parties are an amalgum of a small number of people who know what the Federalist Papers are and a large number of people who don't. Most criticism of politics in America is criticism of the methods used by the various parties to get their voters to the polls on election day. For a slightly deeper, more philosophical article, see Conservatism. Rick Norwood 21:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Rick, thanks for your comments. The article on American Conservatism is certainly the forum to discuss the philosophy of A.C. because it is a unique philosophy not a political machine. The article on Conservatism is one of the worst written articles in Misplaced Pages. It's all over the place. It does not define conservatism as a movement in the U.S. but instead has sub-topics regarding non-U.S. groups that have no basic foundation on English and American history and law. This article needs to be clarfied with the appropriate scholars being quoted and the criticism section removed.

Misplaced Pages is not a discussion forum, and your complaint that Conservatism does not focus on the US is actually its strength. Rick Norwood 00:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Move to Conservatism in the United States

There is currently a discussion at Talk:American liberalism to move the page to Liberalism in the United States. Since the change would also apply to this article, please join in the discussion. -- Cielomobile 19:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Russell Kirk needs improved cites

The cites in Russell Kirk are looking rather anemic. Anybody care to try to improve them? -- 201.51.211.130 15:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

and so it begins

And now we have an article titled American Conservatism with a talk page titled Conservatism in the United States, and links and redirects going God knows where. I'll check back with you all about a year, and see how its going. Rick Norwood 19:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed that. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

WARNING: one editor is trying to move page without discussion because of his POV hostility to "American"

Many editors have worked on this page now one wants to change the title because he dislikes "American" as an adjective. This is vandalism and violates Wiiki policy. Be Aware! Rjensen 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The move (which I opposed) has nothing to do with "hostility" toward "American" but rather to the ambiguity of "American" (country, continent, the New World). Rick Norwood 22:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As Rick said, I moved the page because the term "American" can be unclear, not because I dislike the term. I hail from the United States myself and describe myself as American...it has nothing to disdain for the word. -- Cielomobile 02:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Who says "American Conservatism" is unclear?? Note there are 402,000 google hits on the term, compared to merely 14,500 on "conservatism in the United States." Users are thirty times more likely to search on "American conservatism" which is by far the termm used in books, articles, encyclopedias and newspapers. Rjensen 02:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

First, there was 70% consensus reached at Talk:American liberalism to move the article to Liberalism in the United States, as you fully know, and I posted on this talk page informing editors that the change would also affect this article. So that's who says "American conservatism" is unclear. As for your second comment, see Misplaced Pages:Google#Urban_legend_bias. A google test is not valid in this instance. -- Cielomobile 02:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this crazy or not--the talk page of ANOTHER article determines what we do here? The root cause is anti-americanism to submit to people who hate the word "American" and pretend falsely that it will confuse users in Peru or somewhere. I am sure that Cielomobile is innocent of this motivation, but it is not tolerated by conservatives. Rjensen 03:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Crazy or not, this is the policy as dictated by WP:RM. I gave ample warning on the talk page, see Talk:Conservatism_in_the_United_States#Move_to_Conservatism_in_the_United_States. Look it up yourself.

The cause for the move was not "anti-Americanism;" it is simply much more vague than "of the United States." -- Cielomobile 03:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

While Rjensen misunderstands Cielomobile's motive, his point about ease of search is a good one. More people call this country America than call it the United States. Rick Norwood 14:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Apart from that, there has been no consensus, not even a gesture towards one, on the talk page of 'American Conservatism', that there is consensus on some other US - political oriented page is spurious. I would like to see the page renamed to its former self (conditio state quo ante) and THEN debate this like grown ups on the RIGHT talk page. --Isolani 17:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

as this is an, apparently, controversial move WP:RM has not been followed. --Isolani 17:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

and a '70% consensus' (in fact a 7-3 vote) is not a 'consensus', it is a majority and in no way can it be used to force through a move of page 'american conservatism'. It looks like User: Cielomobile now has 2 edit wars on his hands --Isolani 17:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I followed the procedure at WP:RM pretty closely, see here and here. The only mistake I made was not posting the template on the talk pages of American conservatism and the other pages that would be affected by the move, but I did post on their talk pages. If you had them on your watchlist, it'd be pretty hard to miss. As for consensus, this vote was 8:3 (not actually 7:3), which is definitely a clear consensus. KISS (band) was recently moved to Kiss (band) with only a 9:7 consensus.

I can't believe you're calling this vandalism. The move was made in complete good faith; "American" is much more ambiguous than "of the United States," and there are plenty of other articles on Misplaced Pages with similar titles, i.e. Liberalism in France. Conservatism and liberalism are both political ideologies and the articles regarding national variants of them should thus be named similarly.

Thus, I'm going to move the article back to Conservatism of the United States. Instead of having an edit war over this, I ask you that we please have have it mediated, if you still disagree with my actions. -- Cielomobile 18:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Since this move is no longer possible for someone without admin status, I'm going to go through the whole WP:RM process for this article again. Whoever incorrectly moved the page split the page histories; you actually have to move the page, not just put up redirects. -- Cielomobile 18:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok Isolani, here is what you have done. You have set up redirects on the pages, and that is NOT the correct way to do this. It messes up the page histories; I did this for Liberalism in the United States and an admin told me that was not the correct way to do this. If you want to move the article back to American Conservatism, you have to have an admin do it, which means going through WP:RM and having a discussion here. -- Cielomobile 18:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean having the kind of discussion which you didn`t feel necessary on this page? Have fun sorting it out, I`m not wasting my time on this nonsense. --Isolani 18:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RM mandates that for multiple page moves, you have the discussion at one talk page. I posted on this talk page (scroll up, it's right here) informing users that I wanted to move this and other related pages, and that the discussion would be happening at Talk:American liberalism. This is what WP:RM dictates; if you did not catch my message, that is your own fault. Anyhow, if you want to move it back, feel free to voice your thoughts in the discussion below. -- Cielomobile 03:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

VOTE: Move back to "American Conservatism"

I propose we move back to "American Conservatism" for these reasons:

1. "American conservatism" is by far better known term, by a ratio of 30-1 according to Google. The AC term is much less likely to confuse anyone.
2. The idea is that it is part of the American thought system, not a branch of world conservatism that happens to take place in the US
3. The move was a fraud--it was not discussed here and no poll was taken. The "vote" (7-4) was taken on a different article (on Liberalism) about a different subject, dealing with different ideas and intellectuals and politicians, and edited by different editors. Rjensen 01:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You did not post at WP:RM. If you are going to accuse me of not following Misplaced Pages regulations, perhaps you should follow them yourself. -- Cielomobile 07:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the suggestions, which I followed. It's a fraud to say that two articles that deal with entirely different ideas, people, events and movements are "closely related. Rjensen 09:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. we had a good thing going here before an outsider with scant interest in the topic jumped in. Rjensen 03:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

In other words, I like it. -- Cielomobile 03:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Support. "conservatism in the united states" (with the quotation marks so helpfully ignored by user:Cielomobile) has 15.700 google hits, whereas "american conservatism" has 410,000 . This is a ratio of 26-1 in favour of american conservatism. Furthermore I cite the procedural irregularities in moving the page from 'american conservatism in the first place. Under cielomobile's own rules we can luckily move if we have a 2-vote majority, or as he calls it in Pravda-speak "a 70% consensus" --Isolani 10:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

also: the "american conservatism" site:.edu search has 12,100 results whereas "conservatism in the united states" site:.edu has 145. This makes for a ratio of 83-1 in academic circles. But I suppose that they too will ofcourse be running dogs of the bourgeoisie and do not therefore 'count'. --Isolani 10:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained why the Google search does not work, see my long-winded explanation below. I find it funny that you imply that a search with ".edu" determines the consensus within academic circles. But please, continue to compare me with communists; it is rather amusing. -- Cielomobile 03:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said, running dogs of the bourgeoisie. OK. in 'higher education circles' then. It is obviously the accepted term. If you can show me a single instance of 'american conservatism' being used to describe conservatism in Surinam, I`ll drink more coffee than is good for me. --Isolani 09:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)+

SUPPORT. Please keep American. People will simply NOT find this article if we change American to the United States. Most Americans refer to our country as America, not the United States. I find when I travel that non-Americans are the ones that refer to us as the United States. PLEASE keep American. Don't allow POV to dominate this entry. Jozil 18:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

SUPPORT. American is the best term. Let's move it back to what we have had for a long time. I am a college student and lots of my friends use wikipedia and we want to make it useful for them. Changing the title makes the article hard to find. Obow2003 20:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Opposition

1. Oppose - To begin, the "google search" notability test is not a valid argument, see Misplaced Pages:Google#Urban_legend_bias. Second, your numbers are completely off. A search for conservatism in the united states yields 1,310,000 results, while a test for American conservatism yeilds 1,390,000 results. Hardly a 30:1 ratio. In regards to the validity of google searches, type in "failure" and your first result will be George W. Bush's official website. What does that tell you?

As for your second comment, that distinction you're making is completely artificial. Let's not kid ourselves, "Conservatism in the United States" is the exact same thing as "American conservatism;" the difference is only linguistic. One uses the adjective form, and the other uses the "in the noun" form.

This move was not a fraud. I posted the move for moving American liberalism to Liberalism in the United States at WP:RM, and I posted on this talk page (see Talk:Conservatism_in_the_United_States#Move_to_Conservatism_in_the_United_States) notifying users that a discussion to move this and other related articles would be taking place. You yourself participated in the discussion, Rjensen. By the way, consensus was established, and it was 8:3, not 7:4, see Talk:American_liberalism#Page_move. If anything is fraudulent, it is your statement. RfAs (which are much more serious decisions than page moves) generally succeed with more than 75% support, and this move had 73% support. I fail to see how the consensus did not exist.

My reasoning for moving the articles in the first place was quite simple. "American conservatism" and similar terms can be somewhat ambiguous as to what it refers, the brand of conservatism found in the American continents, or the brand of conservatism found withing the United States. While it is clear to us, citizens of the United States, that it refers to conservatism within the USA, this is not quite so obvious to people living in Central and South America. To them, "America" refers to the whole of what we could call the "Americas." This idea of mine was sparked by an encounters with a Venezuelan woman, who spoke English at a native level I might add, who said that she actually finds it a bit offensive that people from the US consider "American" to describe themselves only. While anyone would quite quickly understand to what the title actually refers, the title "American conservatism" would propagate the US-centric, politically incorrect notion that "America" means the USA and nowhere else. Misplaced Pages strives to maintain NPOV, and this is simply not in line with that. -- Cielomobile 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Cielomobile does not know how to do Google searches. If you search on the exact term "conservatism in the United States" with quotes you get 15,800 hits today. If you search for "American conservatism" (using quotes) you get 408,000 hits. (capital letters do not matter). It is FALSE to say this article is closely related to "Liberalism" -- more like the opposite most people would say, as it covers very different people indeed. We need to avoid the fake theory that unknown silent people in other countries want this change. No one in the world will be fooled into thinking that "American conservatism" deals with Peru. Only Cielmobile seems to believe that. Rjensen 03:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the Google search is not valid anyway, for reasons I already stated. However, the article is related to liberalism—they are both political ideologies; thus, they are related. They may be considered opposing ideologies, but they are nonetheless both ideologies. As for no one else agreeing with me, who were those other seven editors that supported the move? Why then did only three oppose? Obviously there is some debate on the subject. -- Cielomobile 03:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages rules say that only closely related pages can be moved (If you are proposing that multiple closely related pages should all be moved for the same reason (see Multiple page moves), it may be advisable to create this discussion on only a single talk page and provide links from the other talk pages to this centralized discussion.) Liberalism and conservatism are not closely related. They are more like opposites! ("Football in 1950s" is closely related to "Football in 1960s") Rjensen 03:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

These two articles are very closely related: they are both political ideologies. It's that simple. They may be at odds with each other, but it is the exact same issue here for moving the two articles. Their being completely different from one another changes absolutely nothing, as I moved the articles for the same reasons, which you have yet to address. -- Cielomobile 07:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense--the two articles talk about different people, different ideas, use different sources, written by different editors, with different time emphasis. To say that all political ideologies are essentially alike is an extreme position that surely Cielomobile does not believe himself. The fact they are quite distinct means the move of "American Conservatism" was a fraud that violated Wiki rules and did not represent the consent of the people (a value which both liberals and conservatives support). Rjensen 04:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't grasp what I'm saying. Of course the ideologies aren't alike—duh. That's not why I moved the articles. I've explained this countless times; they are both ideologies and fall under the same naming conventions. It's extraordinarily simple. You haven't responded to anything I've written about the process of WP:RM or why "in the United States" is less vague than "American." -- Cielomobile 07:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue is too important to confuse readers by displaying such a misleading title as 'Conservatism in America'. There are too many opportunities for misinterpretation. 'American Conservatism' will direct readers more quickly and effectively to the topic, and seems consistent with other works dealing with the topic.63.170.88.2 19:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not misleading. On the contrary, the current title is much more precise. Read my explanation above. -- Cielomobile 03:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I opposed the move here, I oppose the move back, I oppose anything that causes needless confusion and redirects. As long as the title is reasonable, and a search on any one title leads to all the others, change for the sake of change is pointless. Rick Norwood 21:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

1. People for the American Way
2. People for the American Way
3. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050221/alperowitz
4. http://www.christianlaw.org/lawrence_case.html Christian Law Association
5. http://www.pfaw.org People for the American Way.
6. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html Nobel prizewinners on creation science.
7. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html Nobel prizewinners on creation science.
8. Barbara R. Bergmann, In Defense of Affirmative Action, Basic Books, 1997, ISBN 0465098347
9. Barbara R. Bergmann, In Defense of Affirmative Action, Basic Books, 1997, ISBN 0465098347

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics