Talk:Culture war

message: I Have to agree with the person below, there is no clear definition of culture war or what occurs during one or because of one. THe stuff about Hunter has no contex to todays culture war in America and the campus wars shouldnt be a huge part of the fouxus, what should be is the actual disagreements in a Culture war. The page needs serious work. --Stonelance 22:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the person above and with @Stonelance . Therefore, I am changing the introduction to add an actual definition. "The notion of “culture wars” refers to the phenomenon in which multiple groups of people, who hold entrenched values and ideologies, attempt to contentiously steer public policy" It comes from https://doi.org/10.1177/07439156221103852 The definition is on page 1 and it is attributed to (Hartman 2019) (cited already).  MexFin (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: What is a Culture War?

message: Aren't the culture wars the endless battle between secular liberals and evangelical Christian conservatives over social issues?  If so, shouldn't the article discuss this in more detail instead of essay-style speculation--Robert Merkel
:If you want to throw that in there, I see no reason why not. 65.58.161.102 20:19 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)
::It's more complex then that. I see the culture war as less between liberals and conservatives as between age groups. My family is fairly liberal, but in some ways could be said to be on the conservative side of the culture war. Somebody Else's ProblemCatDog(aka Alethiophile) 00:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is extremely complex to be sure...you've got religious liberals and conservatives, who are generally (but not always) aligned with their liberal and conservative political counterparts.  Then you have atheists, libertarians, people who are socially conservative and fiscally liberal (and vice versa), to just name a few of the complications.  I don't think age is so much of an issue, however - if anything the younger "culture war" generation is more polarized than the other generations, and has a good amount of support from both sides of the "war".  Of course, everything I just stated is unsourced, but maybe it'll give someone a jumping-off point for some discussion about content for the article. --Tim4christ17 talk 11:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And then you have the centralists like myself, who's rallying cry is 'compromise' and 'listen to the silent majority'. Anyway, it's the older people who are polarized: It occurred in the absence of the internet. But the internet allows us to talk and, more importantly, compromise. The baby boomers are the ones who are polarized04:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Need to discuss conflict more between "liberals" & "conservatives"

message: Unless this work is science fiction, how can it discuss events that have not yet occurred?  2005? -- Zoe
:Historical eras, like generations, have an average length of around 22 years. The 2005 year is listed because the Culture Wars era would end then if it were of average length. 67.74.95.50 00:19 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
In the 20:57, 14 Sep 2004 version, this caught my eye: "The Boom Generation, who had control of the culture at the beginning of the era, came under attack from their next juniors, Generation X, who had a distinctive anti-Boom crossculture. These two generations are like oil and water: aggressive moralizers on one side, neo-hedonists on the other." This reads as if the boomers are the moralizers; however, I interpret it the opposite, so I changed it. Let's develop this by citing some sources... <>< tbc
I have removed the following:
:Though society had been turning away from tradition and the transcendent for centuries, technology had by this time enabled the decoupling of many biological functions from their respective social functions — sex from its social function of producing the next generation, etc.
:The Boom Generation, who had control of the culture at the beginning of the era, came under attack from their next juniors, Generation X, who had a distinctive anti-Boom crossculture. These two generations are like oil and water: the early generation was defined by their neo-hedonism, while their disillusioned children, having lived through the rise of the AIDS epidemic and their own parents' broken marriages, craved restored boundaries on behavior and a return to traditional morality. In schematic summary:
:*The Silent Generation was entering elderhood.
:*The Baby boomers were entering midlife.
:*Generation X was entering rising adulthood, looking at a Boom-built culture in need of the one thing missing at Woodstock: ice-water realism.
:*Generation Y was entering childhood.
It was unsourced original research and analysis. 
Meelar (talk) 19:11, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
I recognize this. It comes from Strauss & Howe - probably their book The Fourth Turning.  While I'm not sure of the quote, this is certainly what's in their books. 50.96.27.108 (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Future - generational issues

message: This doesn't now conform to Wikipedia:Lead section. I'll restore some headings, sice the current five-paragraph lead is too dominant. Charles Matthews 06:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead section

message: This edit changed the characterization of Pat Buchanan from paleoconservative to conservative. It seems to me that his paleoconservatism is precisely the issue in culture war terms: John McCain is a conservative, too, but he'd never have made that sort of speech. I am restoring; if there is a case against the use of the word here, please state it. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with his paleoconservatism being very important, but why is A Republic, Not an Empire listed as important reading on the issue of a culture war?  That book is about foreign policy.  Death of the West is very much about his views on the culture war and State of Emergency explains his take on how the culture war relates to the border issue.  That book should be listed instead, because it has a clear and well-written rundown of the paleoconservative arguement that nationhood and culture come before economics and politics.  The only instance in which A Republic, Not an Empire even remotely relates to culture war is the part that mentions various ethnic lobbies and their influence over foreign policy. Shield2 04:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine, make that edit; I haven't read either; I assume that was not addressed to me in particular. - Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why does Buchanan take such a central role in the article anyway? He's by no means the only voice on the issue, and thus he shouldn't be the only one WP is quoting. Because we only quote him, there's an implicit endorsment of his views. I think this article is rather POV. Alethiophile123 16:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Buchanan

message: I added Australian related article links in "See also". -- Paul foord 12:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's one reason I added a clean-up tag just now. The lead article says this is an American political thing, but then parts of the article have been internationalized (at least to the extent of Oz). We all need to decide whether this is to be about the American thing, or about similar things in other Anglophone countries, or more generic (and, to me, less useful and meaningful). --Orange Mike 15:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Similar debates are occuring elsewhere

message: I've been racking my brain to see the connection of the list "see also" items under "Other" to this article, and I simply don't see it. Very "other", indeed. Unless someone can indicate a relevant connection, I'm really inclined to remove the section. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the term "culture war" is a generic one that can be used in a variety of contexts.  Basically any group that has a culture can have a culture war, and the term is used this way   . There was even a debate once that (because of the userbox issue) Wikipedia was in a culture war: [User_talk:StrangerInParadise#In_particular.2C_a_comment_about_your_user_page_discussion see here].  But, in addition to the general use of the term, there are United States Culture War(s), which needs to be put in a separate article, as this one article is trying to do all of the heavy lifting, and (in its current state) failing.  This might even need to become a gateway page that leads to various "culture wars" (including the Australian so-called "History wars") where regional specifics and applications of the term can be sorted out.--Esprit15d 13:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, some genius decided to move from title 'culture wars', to the current 'culture war'. Which might indeed need to be a disambiguation page, in the fullness of time. Charles Matthews 21:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Other"

message: The list of "Battleground issues in the "culture wars" " includes Terrorist surveillance program.
1) This is a POV term: Many people surveilled are not terrorists, but rather "suspected terrorists" (who turn out not to be terrorists) or "people with information about terrorists" or " -contact with terrorists" (but who are not themselves terrorists). 
2) Terrorist surveillance program currently redirects to NSA electronic surveillance program, which is a USA-specific article. 
I initially changed the entry for Terrorist surveillance program to NSA electronic surveillance program, but immediately realized that this was inappropriate, considering that Culture war / Culture wars currently discusses both the USA and Australia, and might be expected to include other countries in future edits. Any thoughts? -- 201.51.211.130 14:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that its a loaded term, but the people who came up with the project named it that at first. But when people cried foul, they changed it. Edit: Or atleast it seems that way, no one knows for sure.208.248.33.30 21:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with "Terrorist surveillance program"

message: I attempted to create a more NPOV-compliant opening sentence which addressed the fact that many people think the whole thing is more or less fictitious, or vastly exaggerated by those who profit from it (at least psychologically). My effort has been reverted without comment. Could somebody else weigh in on this so we don't get an edit war going? --Orange Mike 15:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if many people think it's imaginary then please add a section saying that will full citations. The lede is not the place to do that. Rjensen 15:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not my theory. Most of the cites I am finding at first google are low-grade (i.e., blogs and the like). Myself, I think the conflict is genuine, albeit not so completely monopolar as certain forces on both sides would like to pretend. I was just trying to find a more nuanced expression of something a prior editor had tried to say, and been reverted for without comment or discussion. --Orange Mike 15:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the POV claim of fictitiousness in the lede/opening, as there were no citations in the article supporting this viewpoint to be in the summary/lede, and there were cited details included in the main article below the summary that indicated that at least one book supported the fact that a culture war exists.  A viewpoint that is unsupported by the article doesn't belong in the lede/opening.  Yaf 16:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I actually came looking for more information on exactly this. Hopefully this subject isn't dead in the water. Is the phenomenon of a culture war recognized as a reality by any prominent liberals, or anyone who isn't defending their particular cultural viewpoint? I can't imagine no one's picked up that microphone... scrambledhelix 84.159.97.17 (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Trying to avoid a revert war

message: This article (now?) has nothing to do with the Australian History Wars debate that are an ongoing public debate in Australia over the interpretation of the history of the European colonisation of Australia, and its impact on Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders.
I think reference to the History Wars should be removed --Philip Baird Shearer 09:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, i thought the same (before reading this), so moved it here:
"The concept of a "culture war" is also current in Australia, particularly in the area of Australian historiography. The so-called history wars concern how to interpret the country's history, especially regarding Indigenous Australians.Debates on Genocide - Part One Debates on 'Genocide' in Australian History, Australian Government Department of Education Science and Training"
It simply seems to be aobut a different idea altogether. Maybe worth a see also link, but that is all.YobMod 13:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing Australia

message: Why isn't gun control listed as a hot culture war topic? Too much of a noob to link it myself but I think it should be there? Dbxdesign (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gun Control

message: The use of WBC protestors in this article is extremely POV. They're a group who almost everyone in the USA disagrees with/dislikes, and are absolutely not representative of "traditionalists". Can we find a photo of some more "moderate" traditionalists? Darimoma (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WBC protestors

message: Apart from the Illuminati YouTube and Yahoo! Answers seem to be about little else. Spend 2 weeks on each and you'll see sources are not necessary for that. 
Sioraf (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This sentence is completely incomprehensible. Please decode. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 17:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Disproportionate Representation

message: Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan condemns 'Magnificent Century', a historical soap opera described in this article as 'a titillating weekly series that exaggerates the romance, intrigue and sex life of Suleiman the Magnificent, a revered 16th century Ottoman leader. Hugely popular in Turkey and the Middle East, the show is broadcast in 43 countries and watched by 200 million people.' 
"I'm condemning both the director of that series as well as the owner of the television station," Erdogan said in a bizarre speech at the opening of an airport in western Turkey last month. "We have already alerted authorities about this and we are still waiting for a judicial action." Whilst being evidently popular the series offends some socially conservative sensibilities enough to attract prime ministerial comment.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/12/14/rohde-turkey-idUKL1E8NE4A920121214
South Africa's President Jacob Zuma is quoted using culture as a rhetorical weapon, asserting 'traditional African values in defence of sexism according to this article: "Let us not be influenced by other cultures… Let us solve African problems the African way, not the white man’s way"
http://blogs.reuters.com/the-human-impact/2012/12/04/does-the-presidents-penis-matter/
The term 'culture war' is a handy media label for something which is currently going on in the USA but beyond that it describes a wider phenomenon as this commentator puts it 'Culture wars, of course, are fought in every country' http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/12/14/rohde-turkey-idUKL1E8NE4A920121214.
Normskiormski (talk) 09:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of current cultural warfare worldwide: 

message: The intro of this article refers to the subject as it entered the lexicon in the United States and the struggles facing that country in the 1990s. Not only is this a narrow view of the subject, it's all but contradicted later in the article when various struggles: Kulturkampf, Prohibition, and the Civil Rights Movement are all referred to as culture wars, despite predating the 1990s. Further evidence is the fact that "Prohibition" and "the Civil Rights Movement" are referring specifically to events in the United States with no clarification to that point. Similar issues all point to this article being written from the perspective of one specific culture, namely a modern US one. We should strive to improve the wording to be more inclusive and keep the perspective global. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalize 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Culture war. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100309215605/http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/richardnile/index.php/theaustralian/comments/end_of_the_culture_wars/ to http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/richardnile/index.php/theaustralian/comments/end_of_the_culture_wars
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section 2000s previously located as an H3 subsection of the USA section, was so egregiously unrepresentative of the decade of the 2000s, that I've removed the entire section fron the article and moved it here for possible rework.  One opinion column by one author in one newspaper on a particular day in 2009 predicting the future about how the culture war will, or should, turn out, is neither a good summary of the decade, nor is it encyclopedic enough in content for an article about the culture wars. 
In a February 2009 column in The New York Times, William Saletan stated that a holistic mix of left-wing and right-wing ideas would come out of the culture war. He wrote: "morality has to be practical, and that practicality requires morals." He concluded that conservatives should embrace family planning as a way to reduce abortion and government assistance while liberals should embrace personal responsibility, which means that unprotected sex is criticized "bluntly". He also advocated same-sex marriage as a way to lead LGBT Americans to an "ethic of mutual support and sacrifice" involving stricter personal responsibility.
The article well deserves a section on the 2000s in the U.S., but it needs good content and none of the content above is worth saving, imho. Mathglot (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "2000s" moved here 

message: I'm wondering if the lead section could be reworded to start with a more general description and then give some examples. "Has had different meanings" isn't very descriptive and the flow into "Originally" seems off. The last sentence in the first paragraph also seems too general and out of place as the term hasn't really been introduced. 
Maybe the introduction could be more in the vein of:  (yes I know this is awkwardly worded, but still) --213.220.69.101 (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Ironic that, with purity spirals and the like, the "progressives" are now the ones most rabidly defending their orthodoxy. Even if their orthodoxy might change, sometimes with the wind. The Internet, and particularly "social media", has allowed a certain personality type to dominate, one who, in real life, you'd generally avoid. But they come together, find power, and are good enough at manipulating that they hook minds and conversations this way and that. "Demagogues", that's the word I think. Everyday commonplace demagogues. The hysterical and the attention-seeking, the narcissistic and other Cluster B's, have found fertile soil, as have the psychopaths and any other fantasists. You know, they found only 10% of deaths reported on Livejournal were actually real? 
Either way, terrible people, like scum, rise to the top. And politicians have gone right with it, chasing the bar as it sinks into darkness. It's logical conclusion lives in the White House. But that's not to say that his opposition aren't terrible. Only a nutcase would assume that. If only the Western world didn't seem entirely populated with nutcases, I wouldn't have had to mention it. 
Not for nothing does Mark Zuckerberg's smile resemble Satan's. He's ended civilisation. 
90.243.234.191 (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progressive orthodoxy 

message: Issues discussed as part of the so-called culture wars are many and different. The article seems to make the case that only depend on one party (conservatives), citing often discredited or one-sided sources. Wikipedia assumes god faith in editors. If you are not capable of assuring that, avoiding writing disruptive contents.--86.6.148.125 (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment itself fails WP:AGF. Tagging articles requires a discussion of  the problem. No concrete suggestions have been offered, only vague complaints, so I've removed the tag. Consider this reply a demonstration of my  . --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: :Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page.--Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory]] has an [[WP:RFC|RFC]]

message: If this is going to be used as a source of information in the article, then the details – author(s), title etc. – need to be supplied.CWO (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I believe I found the correct one and added it.  23impartial (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Kingdom "A 2021 report by King's College London..."