Talk:Conservatism in the United States/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  New rewrite 

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

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removed text 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Restructuring Nov 10 2005 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Series templates 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Branches of conservatism 

message: 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)
replies: text: I came to the same conclusion independently, and just tried to merge these sections.  Kaisershatner 15:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Differences between "cultural" vs. "social" conservatism?

message: 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)
thread_title: Originalism and "decidedly fairweather" support

message: 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)
thread_title: Stealth Conservatives

message: 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)
thread_title: Social Conservatives

message: 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 (Dark Mark) 21:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From quigonpaj... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  follow up

message: 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 the 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 modernizing 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  remove false statements 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What about race 

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rapid edits 

message: 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 [the Constitution] 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Judicial Activism" 

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

message: 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 conservatismPeople for the American Way 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  About this darn criticism section ... 

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

message: "*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)
thread_title:  Religious conservatives 

message: 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)
replies: text: Talk radio has become almost overnight a major conservative phenomenon and has to be discussed. Rjensen 06:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 (Dark Mark) 14:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Talk Radio

message: 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)
thread_title:  Scribner's request for a citation 

message: 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)
replies: text: Scribner has to be explicit about his vague complaints. Rjensen 02:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed Content

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Unexplained reverts and blanking of a section 

message: All Wikipedia editors are expected to follow Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reminder about consensus editing

message: "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[sic]: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Invalid Content

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Censensus and the criticism section 

message: From Wikipedia: 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)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: 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 Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  criticism or praise 

message: 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 [sic] 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)
thread_title:  Fiscal and monetary policy needs clarification 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ER MD's new rewrite 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Long-term view.  Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And the intro section is not where you place only your liberal perspective. ER MD 07:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  same problem with list as in criticism section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ED MD's edit 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Precursors to 20th Century Conservatism 

message: to quote our rulebook: Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia'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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia are really libertarians, and so they want Wikipedia 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)
thread_title:  Wiki rules: all POV must be included 

message: ::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. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050221/alperowitz 
+ *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. http://www.christianlaw.org/lawrence_case.html Christian Law Association http://www.pfaw.org People for the American Way.  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html Nobel prizewinners on creation science.  
+ *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. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html Nobel prizewinners on creation science.  
::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, Barbara R. Bergmann, In Defense of Affirmative Action, Basic Books, 1997, ISBN 0465098347  
+ *Proponents of affirmative action often argue that a race-blind meritocracy advocated by many conservatives could lead to a return to de facto segregation. Barbara R. Bergmann, In Defense of Affirmative Action, Basic Books, 1997, ISBN 0465098347  
::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)
thread_title:  Why praise of conservatism does not belong under "criticism". 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: That is for the american liberalism page not this one. You should bring it up over there. Jasper23 20:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is bad grammar a conservative value? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Constellation of political ideologies"