Talk:Neoconservatism/Archive 4

message: It looks like Rex inserted a lot of stuff written by others, including me, I'm not quite sure what happened, I'm trying to understand the sequence.--Silverback 06:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is this compare that I don't understand, .  All the additions were by you, but my comments are in there somehow? --Silverback 07:57, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, it seems fine now. I was having technical trouble with it, as the page would seem to freeze up on my computer. --Rexrexilius 08:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anybody know what happened to the history? 

message: I read the article, there is no research, it is just generalizations, insinuations and speculation.  What about it is evolutionary psych? Where is the evidence of "recruitment"?  Where is the evidence that the arguments with "mass appeal" are not valid positions on their own merits?  The MacDonald article makes unsubstantiated statements about neocons such as "they are attempting to rearrange the entire Middle East in the interests of Israel."  I have left the MacDonald paragraph largely untouched, because it is about his opinions, but I have tried to cut out this POV material where it has krept into the rest of the article.--Silverback 12:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As soon as I saw your user-name I made a hypothesis about your behaviour and testosterone levels. Pantroglodytes would have been better, IMO. Jacquerie27 14:04, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The difficulty I have with your introduction of MacDonald, is that you move from identifying him as an evolutionary psychologist to stating that he "conducted research", which would lead one to conclude that his paper or article was scientific and peer reviewed.  Rather, his is a "research" paper in the sense that it is footnoted and the facts should be able to be relied upon, if not the generalizations and the theories.  His paper is more analogous to the research a historian might do, who is defending his theories rather than uncovering new "facts".  I am not irreparably opposed to characterizing his paper as a "research" paper, but the language as put forward so far, would give a misimpression.  Can you propose a compromise or does the current language suit you? --Silverback 14:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think saying he conducted research is fair, because neo-conservatism is obviously an historical/sociological topic and not (yet) a scientific one. All the same, science can (and will increasingly) illuminate it and he's identifying well-established psychological phenomena. It's also fair to note that The Occidental Quarterly is a journal of opinion, but I don't know that many proper scientific or historical journals would have wanted to touch the paper: MacDonald thanks "an expert on Leo Strauss for his comments" and notes that "at his request, he must remain anonymous". That may say rather disturbing things about the way the topic is being policed. Jacquerie27 21:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no indication that the MacDonald article is "research", evolutionary psych or otherwise 

message: Is there any link from this topic to Neoliberalism?--Nerd 17:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Neoliberalism]]

message: I removed a link to The New Republic in the text of the article and gave a plausible explanation.  My edit was promptly reverted by JamesMLane, with reference to a discussion on this talk page.  I've gone through both this portion and the archives, and I simply cannot find a discussion of TNR anywhere.  Can someone point me to where this discussion took place if I'm merely glossing over it?  If it is not here anywhere, I recommend removing the reference to TNR. Jersyko 02:24, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
:Sorry, I got sidetracked before posting my comment here.  The reference to The New Republic didn't say that it's a neocon magazine.  Instead, as an illustration of the neocons' influence, it identified The New Republic as one of the magazines that host their writings.  That's certainly true according to at least one author ().  I've restored The New Republic to the list. JamesMLane 02:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The New Republic]]