Talk:Conservatism/Archive 4

message: It was earlier stated that the adding of the "Criticism" section of this page was inappropriate because it was "carried no references". But I must inform you, the reader, that the Socialism page has a thriving Criticism section that also carries no references. Conservatism and Socialism alike are ideologies that have spread their influence on a very large number of people throughout history. In the spirit of neutrality, should they not have an equal section to inform the reader of the claims made against these belief systems? Frankly, I question the neutrality of the Wiki's decision to remove this section. I will take this up with Wikipedia itself if necessary.
:Unrequired and poorly worded. I will remove it again. It's also worth noting that what you are truly being critical of is (in real terms) American Conservatism; it has it's own criticism section. michael talk 01:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All Wikipedia articles should be referenced.  To achieve equity between conservatism and socialism, the solution is to require reference in criticism of socialism.  Rick Norwood 17:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The adding of "Criticism" section 

message: * The revered Conservative Winston Churchill wrote in the 1920's that he was "strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.", and did in fact authorise use of poison gas in Iraq.	
I've a vague memory that Richard Fisk's "The Great War for Civilisation" says that WC advocated it, but not that he authorised it.  Even if he did, I'm not sure it's completely relevant to this article.  Regards, Ben Aveling 03:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gas 

message: Would the author of the recent edit please rewrite his sentences to make them shorter.  For example:
"These custodians can be, depending on the religion in question, relatively centralised, such as the case of the Catholic church, for example, or relatively de-centralised as in the case of Islam and other religions where there is no single supreme authority equivalent to the Pope or Dalai Lama, but rather authority is distributed among a learned class or caste, leaving it to individual believers to choose their own spiritual leader based on their inclinations, capacities and personal needs."
Rick Norwood 15:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long sentences. 

message: Nobody seems to have complained, so perhaps this is just picking nits, but the following passage sounds kind of judgmental:
"Radical movements within established religious traditions illustrate the paradoxical method by which branches of religious conservatism can emerge that, rather than trying to preserve an existing, generally conservative, social order, seek to overthrow that order in the name of a puritanical ideal, and enforce adoption of a perceived 'pristine' form of the religion, usually consisting of a highly literalist, legalistic and, in some cases anti-spiritual core of traditions, values, worldview, and lifestyle. This radical or revolutionary movement is usually a reaction against perceived abuses, corruption, or heresy within the existing tradition. One example of such a movement was the Protestant Reformation."
Would anyone like to comment? Is this in line with Wikipedia's neutral point of view?
:Clearly, this is very POV.  Why don't you rewrite it to make it more NPOV? Rick Norwood 13:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "anti-spiritual" neutral? 

message: i just read it and i dont get it, what do conservatives like?  reform?  idk, it has to be cleaned up and made easier to understand.
:Hardly. The introduction makes perfect sense - unless you have a comprehension problem, that is. This is an article about the idea of conservatism which varies by Country and Culture as a tradition of thought and as a disposition. It is not a universal school of political thought like liberalism and socialism. It is a particularist disposition, and as such the introduction is perfectly stated. Finally ... TrulyTory 12:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE INTRO MAKES NO SENSE 

message: I think it is best to discuss this here, instead of flipping back and forth between this page and my talk page.  First, I replied to your comments at the time.  Second, I am not ignoring your point of view, I'm disagreeing with it.  Third, "absolute rubbish" is name calling, not discussion. Rick Norwood 14:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do hope the readers of the article see through the poor quality nonsense that is the criticism section. There can be no agreement without further input from others and no one has done so signiciantly. michael talk 15:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  more on criticism 

message: The current article was hammered out over a long period of time by liberals and conservatives working together and respecting each other's good faith.  Instead of a blanket condemnation of the entire article, why not try to improve what we have through discussion.
Meanwhile, I am still working on adding all of the citations you requested.  Rick Norwood 15:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scribner's objections 

message: I have provided a number of references.  Please let me know if more are desired.  Also, please specify which statements in this article are not NPOV and which are still disputed.  
A couple of comments.  First, if I factually report that Smith says Jones is an idiot, this does not violate NPOV.  If I say I agree with Smith, that violates NPOV.  Second, it is not helpful to say something to the effect that everything is disputed.  If everything is disputed, you should be able to cite one thing that is disputed, and that's a good place to start. Rick Norwood 17:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  references, neutrality, and disputed 

message: Hey Rick,  the Conservatism Criticism section is original research.  It's neither representative of the good work you've done on this article nor is it neutral or factual.  It comes across as a patchwork intended to prove a point.  WP:NOR Scribner 22:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then help me improve it.  Criticism of conservatism exists.  The sources I've quoted exist.  They say what they say.  If it comes across as a patchwork, or as something I just "thought up" rather than things I've read, then I would welcome a rewrite. Rick Norwood 22:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I almost encouraged you to seek another avenue to prove your point.  I can't rewrite what's there to convey what you're attempting to convey.  As it stands, right now, it's original research. Scribner 22:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rick, again, the section as it stands is a patchwork attempt at original research, with POV problems.  I'm very familiar with the quotes and as it stands it's not factual or neutral. Scribner 00:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: RN: an interesting link was provided by ER MD above.  I am moving here so it can be more easily accessable.  I recommend it. Rick Norwood 14:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: RN: Now, compare the conservatism in ER MD's link to the conservatism here:  http://www.afa.net  My point is that both of these groups call themselves conservatives.  Burke was a Whig, that is to say a liberal.  The conservative party was the Tory party.  In my continuing efforts to make the "criticism of conservatism" section NPOV, I will incorporate this information into that section. Rick Norwood 14:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Original Research 

message: I would like to thank all of you who have forced me to make the section on criticism of conservatism less POV and more well documented.  I continue to work toward this goal. Rick Norwood 14:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have no goal but an agenda "One strong strain of conservatism is the preservation of a state religion, a landed upper class, and a hereditary aristocracy" and are actively decreasing the quality of the article. You openly state your POV and then include it within the article. At a complete loss of words with regard to your actions. michael talk 15:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rick, no uses of "for example", OK.  That's original research. WP:NOR Scribner 21:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by no uses of "for example".  I don't see any alternative to using examples.  In any case, I'm glad to see only a partial deletion this time.  In a spirit of compromise, I've only restored about half of what was deleted. Rick Norwood 22:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: A request for comment has been filed relating to Rick Norwood's edits. Please leave comments there. michael talk 15:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC 

message: :::Rick, the section we continue to remove severely mars the integrity of the article because it is loaded with POV and NOR.
:::Here's the section:
::::Conservatives often invoke religion and patriotism in support of their views. For example, consider Vicomte Louis-Gabriel-Ambroise de Bonald, one of the two leading French conservatives in the age of Napoleon. In Théorie du pruvoir politique et religieux (1796) he "defended absolute monarchy, hereditary aristocracy, patriarchal authority in the family, and the moral and religious sovereignty of the popes over all the kings of Christendom." [10] Critics of conservatism claim that conservative cliams of piety and patriotism are often used hypocritically to sway the masses. Samuel Johnson wrote, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel,"[11]
:::Samuel Johnson's quote should not be used because there is no specific reference as to whom the quote was directed:  "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."  "Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson" does not specify to whom or to what party the quote is directed.
:::The Samuel Johnson quote is invalid unless you prove it was directed at Conservatism.
:::Now concerning religion:  "...he appeared to be an orthodox, conventional, conservative adherent of revealed religion..." 
:::Again, not as you claim: Critics of conservatism claim that conservative cliams (sic) of piety and patriotism are often used hypocritically to sway the masses.  Samuel Johnson's quote must support this sentence, which it doesn't so it's out.
:::Rick, please provide required citations, Thanks.  Tomorrow I'll start on the Benjamin Disraeli quote. Scribner 05:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rick's Challenge, Samuel Johnson 

message: I'm guessing it is being removed all the time because of your edit wars but perheps I'm wrong. Anyone object this template to be added to the Conservatism article? Psychomelodic (people think  edit) 22:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{Conservatism}}</nowiki> 

message: I've removed the reference to Bush that ER MD objected to and removed the Johnson quote that Scribner objected to.
Earlier, there was an objection that the thread of the paragraph was not clear, so I am working to correct that.  
I will have a new version, carefully sourced, later today. Rick Norwood 12:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  continue to work toward a compromise acceptable to all 

message: In researching the context of the Disraeli quote in answer to ER MD's question, I happened on one of those ironies that keep history unpredictable.  The struggle was over protectionist tarrifs called the corn laws.  Disraeli, the conservative, was a protectionist.  The other  conservatives, in favor of free trade, broke away from Disraeli's branch of the party, and joined with the liberals to repeal the corn laws.  
See, good things can happen when conservatives and liberals work together. Rick Norwood 21:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Won't you come home, Disraeli. 

message: Rick, your taunt at another member just backfired.  Thanks for proving that you used a quote here to criticize conservatism without any historical background, whatsoever.  The quote fit your POV agenda, that's all that mattered.  You wrote a sentence loaded with weasel words and inserted it all as fact.  Scribner 22:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Rick Norwood 15:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I just don't understand what "taunt" you are talking about.  I have many faults, but I am unfailingly polite, and never "taunt" anybody.  Rick Norwood 12:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rick proves his POV and NOR 

message: Since we seem to have solved this problem on our own, does anyone object if I remove the request for arbitration? Rick Norwood 19:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I object.  Scribner 19:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has not been solved, more POV needs to be removed.  Explaining the context is better.  You can't come out and say things like "there are three classical points of criticism" its original research. Any crticism section needs to be overly POV otherwise it will get countless re-writes.  The POV in american conservatism still needs major corrections to avoid degeneration into a blog.  i'll look at it my next day off. ER MD 19:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, Rick that was a good one. A claim of immaturity... I love how you try and skirt wiki policy by making veiled personal attacks.  You are a real idiot. I can't believe that you would spend so much time with trying to promote your POV.  I'm not on american liberalism trying claim they are idiots, but an idiot is definitely here trying to make the same claim. This will do great for your arbitration claim.  Claim, that I am violating policy while you blatantly violate polices of personal attacks and lack of consensus. I have made personal attacks in the past only in kind to an attack against me.  So you have really opened up the door... ER MD 22:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration 

message: Was that really said? It looks like a joke to me. --SeizureDog 20:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the hell is up with the "Good Job"? 

message: Our page on weasel words is a style guide, not a policy. Avoid them like the plague if you can! It's better to use quotes or surveys instead. But if you can't (yet), fine. It's a level of quality thing.
*Some say that fooberry frobnosticators are fun. (ref?) 
*: This is ok as a placeholder while you're still digging for references, BUT
these are nicer:
*Mr Smith stated on the 12 february 1923 at the press conference for fooberry frobnosticators that "fooberry frobnosticators are fun!" [ref]
*A survey by frobnosticator fans magazine found that 83% of respondents thought that the fooberry frobnosticators are fun. [ref]
If you do have to use weaselwords as a placeholder, it's always wise to state on the talk page where roughly you're digging for references, or where you think references could be found. Else you might get in a situation where people delete them out of hand. They don't know about the magazine you read last month but forgot the page number of, so you have to point that out. ;-)
Kim Bruning 23:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words is a style guide 

message: From James Burnham / Talk:James_Burnham - 
"His 1964 book Suicide of the West became a classic among movement conservatives" -- Can anybody please explain the meaning of the expression "movement conservatives"? Thanks. -- 201.78.233.162 20:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[James Burnham]]: "movement conservatives"? 

message: Good lord this section is a mess:
:Nationalism, which sees the nation as a long-term, centuries-old, community, has many conservative aspects. Conversely, any centuries-old community is by definition attractive to traditionalist and Burkean conservatives.
Are we seriously saying this?  Seriously?  Was this written by someone who has ever read anything about 19th century European history?  Traditional conservatives strongly opposed nationalism well into the 19th century, because they saw it as tied to liberalism and, in general, disintegrating to traditional ideas, and dangerous to order.  The embrace of nationalism by conservatives in, for instance, Germany (i.e. by Bismarck) was for the most part seen as cynical, and, indeed, even in Germany traditional Prussian conservatives remained highly suspicious of German nationalism, instead embracing their idealized conception of the old Prussian state.  It was the right wing liberals who became the most virulent supporters of nationalism, not the conservatives.  When one was is discussing long-established countries like Britain and France, nationalism is an awkward descriptor.  Ths historical illiteracy of wikipedia articles about political ideologies remains sad and embarrassing. john k 13:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By focusing on 19th century conservatism, you are looking at one situation in a particular place and time.  In the 19th century, Germany was not a "centuries-old" community.  Rather, it was a new nation being put together from shattered fragments.  Thus, in the case of Bismark, "nationalism" did not mean preservations of old traditions but the forging of new traditions.  The article says, "nationalism ... has many conservative aspects".  It does not say that nationalism is conservative in each and every case.  Rick Norwood 15:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that the article is, at present, ignoring the entire history of the 19th century.  "Nationalism has many conservative aspects" is nonsense, in any event.  Nationalism has been appropriated by many conservative movements, but it has equally been appropriated by movements on the left, and sometimes by liberals as well.  The claims made in this article do a disservice both to the scholarship of nationalism - much of which focuses on the fact that the supposed "traditions" of the nation are often invented traditions, with no history behind them at all, and of conservatism, as it ignores the ways in which the relationship of nationalism and conservatism was ambiguous for so long.  I know that I tend to focus on the 19th century in a lot of these political ideology discussions, and that I have a bias here (I study 19th century Europe).  But I think there's a good reason we should always keep the 19th century in mind when we're discussing big "isms" like liberalism, conservatism, nationalism, socialism, and so forth, as well, as, for instance, the left-right political spectrum - these concepts all developed in the milieu of 19th century European politics.  I'm certainly not looking to reify 19th century conceptions which have evolved in different directions since then.  But the way the terms were originally understood, and generally continued to be understood for a long time thereafter, should be considered when we're writing an article, and we shouldn't include facile, amateurish, and meaningless claims like "Nationalism has many conservative aspects."  john k 23:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Its nice to see someone else agrees with me. michael talk 09:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nationalism" 

message: :: Yes, but even then, the current criticism-section isn't really about criticism of the conservative philosophy at all. In Plato his days there was no real conservative philosophy (as we have now), and Wordsworth his 'Bliss in that dawn it was to be alive, but to be young was very heaven' is no criticism of conservatism itself; the text even says it was 'in praise of the revolution that overthrew the Ancien Régime'. Thus, the discussion should not be if we should have 'criticism' of conservatism by conservatives instead, the question should be which well-known 'modern' philosophers (or others) we know who criticised the conservative philosophy with philosophical arguments. In the article on Edmund Burke we have some words of Marx about Burke: "The sycophant—who in the pay of the English oligarchy played the romantic laudator temporis acti against the French Revolution just as, in the pay of the North American colonies at the beginning of the American troubles, he had played the liberal against the English oligarchy—was an out-and-out vulgar bourgeois." So, the criticism by for instance (Marxist) socialists is conservatism is 'bourgeois'. Liberal criticism of the conservative stand against the French Revolution can be found in Thomas Paine's the Rights of Man. And if I'm correct, Karl Popper criticized conservatism as well, although some say he became a bit more conservative later in life as well. Sincerly, Averroes 10:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely Marx's criticism is more complicated than just "Conservatism is 'bourgeois.'" john k 15:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: When do historians use the term "Conservative" to refer to political beliefs other than those which emerged in Europe in the wake of the French revolution.  I suppose it's occasionally used in classical contexts (although I've never seen "liberal" used to describe either Alcibiades or Socrates.), but it would be best to confine this article mostly to discussions of Conservatism as an actual conscious political designation, rather than a retoactively applied title.  And I agree with Averroes that we should try to look at actual critics of Conservatism.  There would be, I think, at least 3 types: 1) marxist/socialist critique; 2) liberal critique; 3) fascist/radical right wing critique. john k 15:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Averroes suggestion 

message: The above is an ongoing mediation case regarding POV issues in this article. There is a Village Pump posting requesting opinions on the matter at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#A controversy in the Conservatism article and a RfC filed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rick Norwood.
If anyone has a solution to resolve the dispute in a manner which may be acceptable to all sides, I'd appreciate comments on Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-13 Conservatism. Please keep Wikipedia policy in mind while drafting suggestions.
Thanks!
:~Kylu (u|t)  20:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A reminder re: [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-13 Conservatism]] 

message: Thank you Scribner for your editing!--MadDogCrog 10:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a consensus of editors against him, at least on the talk page.--Scribner 11:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No More Liberalism 

message: I've restored the two sections, one entirely deleted and the other cut to a single paragraph.  On the other hand, I have no objection at all to shortening these sections.  Would the person who deleted them please specify what these sections say that he does not think belongs in the article?
Personally, I think the patriotism section makes the article stronger.  In fact, the appeal to patriotism is one of conservatism's greatest attractions.
The liberalism section is not as important, but seems to contain some interesting information, and helps the article to be less centered on American conservatism.  If the name of the section were changed, would that help? Rick Norwood 01:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleted sections 

message: This page is 33 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable. 
Attention Firefox and Google Toolbar users: You may find that long pages are cut off unexpectedly while editing in tabs; please be careful. This issue has been reported to Google, and we hope they will fix it.
A section or content that does not pertain to the philosophy of Conservatism should be removed.  The Liberalism section clearly belongs in the liberalism article.  The Patriotism section as well belongs in the patriotism article.--Scribner 04:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want a shorter article, then I suggest you respond for my request, above, for which parts of these sections you object to, intsead of deleting them all.  The article contains a great deal of duplicated material, which I would like to work on, if we could only stop the blanking.  Rick Norwood 12:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, Rick, since the material is not cited I've "hidden" it from view, per policy.  The material I've left is all that I would leave.  Also, let's keep it in a sequential timeframe.--Scribner 05:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article size 

message: There is article Liberalism worldwide.Why there is no such article about conservativism? BoDu 30 July 2006
:I, for one, would love to see such an article. Rick Norwood 22:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservatism worldwide article 

message: I have provided requested references and removed unreferenced remarks.  I hope we can now move on to more constructive work on the article.  The thing that seems to me most needed is a careful read from beginning to end to remove duplication. Rick Norwood 13:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested references provided 

message: In my absence, and recent disgust! While trying to be a decent contributor, and editor to this article. It seem 'Rick' you have decided to remove the sections that I found inappropriate to this article, and include whatever gibberish that you found worthwhile in those sections to other sections!
Well Hooray! After almost a month of my diplomacy, discussion, and pragmatism. You finally did what I asked all along to be done, and removed those sections.
What gives!
Was I correct that these sections did not belong? Do I not deserve an apology for wasting my time? Do I not at least deserve an explanation of why now you changed your mind and decided to remove those sections?
I don’t have all day to spend on wikipedia! And I prefer to work diplomatically and pragmatically. And I truly would like to contribute! But this was a drain on my emotional constitution. And a big waste of my possible editing time. This article needs lots and lots of work!--MadDogCrog 10:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. Rick Norwood 12:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Editing 

message: The China section currently ends with the sentence:
:Since the 1990s, there has been a neoconservative movement in China (not connected with the US neoconservative movement).
I'm not too sure what this means.  The parenthetical phrase tells me what it isn't, but there's no link or explanation of what it is.  What does this neoconservative movement believe, and how is it different from the Chinese conservatism discussed in the rest of the section? --Delirium 23:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sentence on Chinese neoconservatism 

message: Is there any reason why "crunchy conservatives", the movement described in Rod Dreher's book, should not be included in the article here?  There's some overlap with paleocons, but that moniker doesn't adaquately describe those who Dreher writes about.
Mamalujo 19:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the word comes into more common usage, it does not belong here.  Maybe it belongs in the article on Dreher. Rick Norwood 13:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crunchy Cons 

message: "What's happened to this article? It's much shorter, and the quote: "A disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve" which is the very heart of conservatism, is gone."
I agree that the quote above belongs in the article.  Will someone who knows the citation please reference it.
On another topic, someone has added to the introduction the phrase "strong foreign defense".  Whatever that is supposed to mean, it does not belong in the intro.  Some conservatives favor a large army, others favor small government.  Remember George Washington's statement, "Beware of foreign entanglements".  
I've done a small rewrite of the intro.  I haven't added anything, just removed a couple of unreferenced comments.  Rick Norwood 13:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A disposition to preserve 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Russell Kirk]] needs improved cites 

message: I have a question why is it that conservatives are true conservatism these days. The articles does not reflect the aspects of all of this. I have gone threw a great deal of articles in this ideals section. I have not seen any conservative or traditional views that reflect those that support monarchies (Not just the British!! There are other Rulers besides in England!) My point being is that if the article is going to go on about conservatism why does it not address those with positive views of; nobles ruling, public executions, real art, castles etc.
:--Margrave1206 18:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you will find all of that here, if you look far enough. Rick Norwood 21:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservatism? 

message: I find it appalling that Wikipedia included Liberalism on its 2006 CD, but failed to include its opposite. Open source is supposed to be neutral. What a disgrace.
:It's not biased, it's just that the article on conservatism is not up to standards. --A Sunshade Lust 03:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this article will never make it to CD as long as Rick dilegently stands guard here with his POV Rants and deliberatly beats any other contributor with his diatribe of POV babble. if they dare question his obvious POV contribution! --MadDogCrog 09:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, MadDogCrog.  Good to know that my contribution is not forgotten.  I'm tempted to leave it at that, but I did want to mention that most of my work these days is in the staunchly conservative area of good grammar and sentence structure.  This has liberals calling me an archconservative and conservatives calling me an archliberal. Rick Norwood 15:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Baised CD?! 

message: :Result of debate was delete. -Tobogganoggin talk 23:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Conservative newspapers]] and [[:Category:Conservative weblogs]] 

message: This expression "Radical Religious Conservatism" seems to be irrelevant... "Radical Religious Conservatism" is a nice oxymoron : Radicalism is the opposite of Conservatism. People like muslim or christian fondamentalists are far nearer of Marxists and other radicals than conservatives... David Descamps 16:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A group should be identified with the description they use to identify themselves, not with a description others use to identify them (except for a careful translation into English, of course).  On the other hand, the comment on Marxists ignores the fact that a good Marxist rejects all religion.  Rick Norwood 12:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but in that light there are no such things as Anarchists.  An Anarchist is someone who doesn't believe in political class.  When someone labels themselves an Anarchist, they cease to be Anarchists because labeling oneself as an Anarchist constitutes putting themselves in a class (a class of Anarchists).  Therefore, if the only ones who can successfully label people are those who label themselves, there are no such things as Anarchists.HillChris1234 19:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radical Religious Conservatism? 

message: Of course this is controversial.  It is about a political party.
whilst i realise that conservapedia is not run by the people who run wikipedia, could anyone please explain to me why every single link i click on in that site blocks me from adding content to discussions or contacting administrators? someone called Joaquín Martínez keeps blocking me, so quickly i can't help thinking he's locked all the pages. why is this, and is there anything anyone can do about it?
Fhbear 22:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They may suspect you of being a liberal.  Rick Norwood 12:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: A couple of obversations:
1 - the page on liberalism is about 5 times longer than this page
2 - it also has many more pictures of prominent 'thinkers'
Surely, there can be something done to balance this out a bit
:The page on liberalism would be better if it were shorter.  Adding pictures to this article would be a good thing. Rick Norwood 12:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deh.. I don't agree.  Adding pictures would be like artificially beefing the subject up to make it appear more equal.  There is no need for that, because when compared to liberalism, conservatism is equal.  The problem is that most great conservative minds unfortunately aren't looked at in the mainstream as great "thinkers."  People who would fit this mold, such as Ronald Regan, Rush Limbaugh and any variety of religious figures fit this example.  I still think the economic policies of modern conservatism should be included.  Therefore, a lot of great thinkers such as Adam Smith could be included.  The problem is that this article is trying to narrow the broad range of conservatism down to traditionalism, when it is much more than that.  In the English-speaking world (and other languages can define conservatism by their own guidelines in their own wikipedia article) conservatism encompasses issues of strong national defense, limited government and a free market economy as well as traditionalism.  Limiting this article to just traditionalism is only reinforcing the ignorant tendency for people to think conservatives are religious zealots.  Perhaps we should use this article to expand into the benefits of limited government, low taxes, etc.HillChris1234 20:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree completely with HillChris-- conservatism is more than traditionalism.  Also-- there have to be more early historic figures than Adam Smith to lay claim to (who by the way is also claimed by 'liberalism').
I'm not sure what your point is.  The idea of "conservatism" is very old.  The Roman orator Cicero was a conservative, as was the Chinese philosopher Confucius.  The conservative movement in the last few centuries, which traces its origin to Burke, is belief in God, king, and country.  
As you point out, both conservatives and liberals love Adam Smith, up to a point.  Adam Smith advised those who grew wealthy under capitalism to pay their taxes without grumbling, which is where modern "conservatives" diverge from Wealth of Nations.  
To say that "conservatism is more than traditionalism" is to say that, to the historical meaning of "conservative" has been added, in America, a new meaning, "low taxes and small government".  But this is a political move, not a philosophical move.  Traditionally, the "low taxes and small government" people were liberals.  Liberals let them down, by favoring social programs to promote equaltiy of oportunity, and so the "low taxes and small government" moved to the conservative party -- which also let them down.  Maybe you need to form a "Low taxes and small government party".  I wish you luck, because never in the history of the world has a government given up money and power without a fight. Rick Norwood 17:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: True. Both libertarians and conservatives in the modern Western world want low taxes, small government and individual freedom and responsibility. However, the difference is that libertarianism is a fixed ideology, while conservatism as an ideology varies between time periods and societies; for instance, nineteenth-century conservatism was about preserving monarchical and aristocratic rule and was totally different from modern conservatism. I think the quote I added to the first paragraph sums that up quite well: "who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of modern conservatives such as Margaret Thatcher? Basically, conservatism, when considered across the whole of history, is a term so vague as to be impossible to define - which makes this article inherently fairly impossible to write. Conservative movements need to be considered in the context of their country and their time period - whereas there is a fixed definition of "socialist" and of "libertarian", a fixed definition of "conservative" can't exist. WaltonOne 17:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selling Short 

message: "Conservatism as a political philosophy is notoriously difficult to define, encompassing numerous different movements in various countries and time periods; there may sometimes be contradictions between alternative conceptions of conservatism as the ideology of preserving the past, and the contemporary worldwide conception of rape as a conservative political stance." Wtf? This is a joke, right? Or did I miss something?
1337wesm 20:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, vandalism is a fact of life on Wikipedia.  I've reverted this.  I'm told that vandalism usually gets reverted in about fifteen minutes. Rick Norwood 12:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for revert, sorry I'm not very familiar with the reverting thing =X. Even as a liberal, I find the subtle vandalism unfair and offensive. 
1337wesm 21:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rape as a conservative stance... WTF? 

message: So, there is a criticism section on the Liberal section, shouldn't there be one here? Amamamp (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: I reverted the edit that deleted the link to libertarianism. Conservatism has a strong individualist tradition, so unless there's a valid explanation for deleting it, I think it should remain.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.79.208 (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep Link to Libertarianism?