Talk:Culture war

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Flag Culture war is part of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
WikiProject Australia To-do:

Contents

[edit] Need to discuss conflict more betw "liberals" & "conservatives"

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)

[edit] Future - generational issues

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:

It was unsourced original research and analysis.

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:11, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] I changed the dating from the 1980's to the 1960's

here is why. The culture war in America began with the "counter-culture revolution" in the 1960's. The dramatic revolution from traditional views of authority, sexuality, family, and American culture in general began in 60's - not the 80's. We saw the rise of the Moral Majority, Christian Coalition, Americans for Life, Focus on the Family as a response to what happened in the 1960's. The leaders of these movements all point back to the "counter-culture revolution" of the 1960's as a justification for organizing in the 1970's and 80's. The culture war was started by the secular left in the 60's. The religious right did not begin an effective response until the late 70's. (Anonymous post from 64.160.116.54)

Babble. The "Culture War" is simply a label (it's not literally a war after all). The label applies to social phenomena that inspired the label. The first application of the label is the sensible starting point: from that point one may assess the cultural situation that evoked the label. Then one can describe what the label means to its users. If focus is lost, one quickly winds up gabbling, and redefining the label to serve personal agendas does not help. --Wetman 19:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone may want to look into whether some of the recently deleted material from this article should be restored; I don't have time right now. I've worked on cleaning up the first three paragraphs, which had decently cited and relevant material; I think they are now quite good, but the rest of the article is almost a total loss. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:05, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

The section on 9-11 is especially aimless and confused. 68.110.199.122 23:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section

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)

[edit] Buchanan

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Similar debates are occuring elsewhere

I added Australian related article links in "See also". -- Paul foord 12:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Other"

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)

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 [1] [2] [3]. 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)
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)

Hadn't looked at this in months; I take it no one objects to removing these. - Jmabel | Talk 01:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/u/l/Talk%7ECulture_war_0012.html"