Talk:Conservatism in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.


Contents

[edit] Roosevelt and WWII

I added the word liberal to the sentence about WWII. In the US, Conservatives have generally been opposed to war. If you look at the wars over the past century most of them were started by Democratic presidents. Exceptions are Greneda, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Famously, Bob Dole said in the 1976 debate with Walter Mondale: "I figured it up the other day: If we added up the killed and wounded in Democrat wars in this century, it would be about 1.6 million Americans-enough to fill the city of Detroit." It should also be noted that Kennedy started the Vietnam War, Johnson escalated it, and Nixon ended it. I'm not saying Nixon was a conservative. The guy imposed price controlls and expanded welfare programs in ways much more in keeping with new deal liberals. I only point out that Vietnam was fought by liberal presidents from beginning to end. Other evidence I'd like to offer in support of my insertion of the word liberal is the book Road to Serfdom by the libertarian Icon Friedrich Hayek. In the book, Hayek argues that war is a tool used by those who would strip us of all of the rights Conservatives generally try to conserve.64.9.237.248 08:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Matt

Except that this is not exactly correct. While Kennedy began the process of putting the military in Vietnam, it was actually Eisenhower (who was hardly a conservative) who began U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

The tactic of starting a war to consolidate political power at home is at least as old as the Roman Empire and has been used by leaders of all stripes. Rick Norwood 12:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, guys, but we had troops in Vietnam since early in our participation in the Pacific Theater of World War II. As a matter of fact, during World War II, Ho Chi Minh was the leader of an anti-Japanese organization in Vietnam, and we were supplying him. The Quid Pro Quo was that we would keep the French out after the war. The Pacific Desk of the OSS was doing the supplying. At the same time, the European Desk of the OSS was supplying the French, and telling them that we would secure all of Indochina for them. After the war, when the OSS was allowed to pass into history, the State Department favored the French in this matter, and Minh realized that he was betrayed. That started the whole mess. We kept Observers and Advisors in all of Indochina, and they remained to become the initial group that got involved after 1954. The rest is history. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 11:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Conservatism and U.S. Constitutionalism

I was disappointed to find so little discussion of the adherence of American Conservatism (A.C.) to the Founding Father's writings, which include the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constituion, The Federalist Papers, etc., including pre-U.S. Independence writings.

A.C. is essentially based upon these documents which also make claim to inspiration to English Common Law and the Bible.

The breakdown of A.C. into groupings of Social Conservatives, etc. is fine as long as it is understood that these groupings form the much larger philosophy of A.C.

I think this article would benefit from additional information and sources from the "Paleoconservatism" page.

While A.C. is a simple philosophy to understand, there is a great deal of information that supports the root and the role it has played in politics from the very first U.S. election to current nationwide elections.

And, frankly, the criticism section is ridiculous because it argues non-contexual arguments in a non-contextual fashion, and leaves more questions than it answers. In fact, answers to the critcism's are found within the article. For example, arguing that the problem with A.C. is that it protects its' perspective despite the march of history, is silly because fundamental beliefs do not change despite what historical occurances any issue encountered. It's like saying that Jewish people should change their beliefs because of the Holocaust. Clearly, absurd. That section should be deleted because a criticism section belongs in a discussion page not in an article that explains the tenets of an article. Jtpaladin 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

American political parties are an amalgum of a small number of people who know what the Federalist Papers are and a large number of people who don't. Most criticism of politics in America is criticism of the methods used by the various parties to get their voters to the polls on election day. For a slightly deeper, more philosophical article, see Conservatism. Rick Norwood 21:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Rick, thanks for your comments. The article on American Conservatism is certainly the forum to discuss the philosophy of A.C. because it is a unique philosophy not a political machine. The article on Conservatism is one of the worst written articles in Wikipedia. It's all over the place. It does not define conservatism as a movement in the U.S. but instead has sub-topics regarding non-U.S. groups that have no basic foundation on English and American history and law. This article needs to be clarfied with the appropriate scholars being quoted and the criticism section removed.
Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, and your complaint that Conservatism does not focus on the US is actually its strength. Rick Norwood 00:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Conservatism in the United States

There is currently a discussion at Talk:American liberalism to move the page to Liberalism in the United States. Since the change would also apply to this article, please join in the discussion. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 19:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Russell Kirk needs improved cites

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)

[edit] and so it begins

And now we have an article titled American Conservatism with a talk page titled Conservatism in the United States, and links and redirects going God knows where. I'll check back with you all about a year, and see how its going. Rick Norwood 19:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed that. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WARNING: one editor is trying to move page without discussion because of his POV hostility to "American"

Many editors have worked on this page now one wants to change the title because he dislikes "American" as an adjective. This is vandalism and violates Wiiki policy. Be Aware! Rjensen 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The move (which I opposed) has nothing to do with "hostility" toward "American" but rather to the ambiguity of "American" (country, continent, the New World). Rick Norwood 22:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
As Rick said, I moved the page because the term "American" can be unclear, not because I dislike the term. I hail from the United States myself and describe myself as American...it has nothing to disdain for the word. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 02:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Who says "American Conservatism" is unclear?? Note there are 402,000 google hits on the term, compared to merely 14,500 on "conservatism in the United States." Users are thirty times more likely to search on "American conservatism" which is by far the termm used in books, articles, encyclopedias and newspapers. Rjensen 02:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
First, there was 70% consensus reached at Talk:American liberalism to move the article to Liberalism in the United States, as you fully know, and I posted on this talk page informing editors that the change would also affect this article. So that's who says "American conservatism" is unclear. As for your second comment, see Wikipedia:Google#Urban_legend_bias. A google test is not valid in this instance. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 02:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this crazy or not--the talk page of ANOTHER article determines what we do here? The root cause is anti-americanism to submit to people who hate the word "American" and pretend falsely that it will confuse users in Peru or somewhere. I am sure that Cielomobile is innocent of this motivation, but it is not tolerated by conservatives. Rjensen 03:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Crazy or not, this is the policy as dictated by WP:RM. I gave ample warning on the talk page, see Talk:Conservatism_in_the_United_States#Move_to_Conservatism_in_the_United_States. Look it up yourself.
The cause for the move was not "anti-Americanism;" it is simply much more vague than "of the United States." -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

While Rjensen misunderstands Cielomobile's motive, his point about ease of search is a good one. More people call this country America than call it the United States. Rick Norwood 14:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Apart from that, there has been no consensus, not even a gesture towards one, on the talk page of 'American Conservatism', that there is consensus on some other US - political oriented page is spurious. I would like to see the page renamed to its former self (conditio state quo ante) and THEN debate this like grown ups on the RIGHT talk page. --Isolani 17:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Now granted I am a bit late in this debate, but I find it almost ironic that even the "conservatism" page title on Wikipedia seems to have suffered from the actions of liberal wikipedians. Any way I look at it, replacing the word "America" with the word "United States" seems to be rather secular. Obviously a vote on a discussion page of "Liberals in the United States" is going to turn out the way it did. That should come as no surprise. It's an obvious sampling error due to the bias. I can't help but compare it to running an abortion poll at an anti abortion rally. Say what you will about the poll being advertised on THIS page before it was closed, there's a reason that during real political elections they don't use one party's campaign headquarters as a polling place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.244.98.148 (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
I opposed the move, but I also oppose the move back. Assume good will. There is nothing "liberal" about the use of the phrase "United States". The whole discussion reminds me of people who go through Wikipedia changing BC to BCE and the other people who go through Wikipedia changing BCE back to BC. Similarly, there are people who change 10 July to July 10 and others who change back again, apparently unaware that if a date is in squarebrackets you can configure your system to display all dates either way. "America" = "United States". What earthly difference does it make? Rick Norwood 19:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
as this is an, apparently, controversial move WP:RM has not been followed. --Isolani 17:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
and a '70% consensus' (in fact a 7-3 vote) is not a 'consensus', it is a majority and in no way can it be used to force through a move of page 'american conservatism'. It looks like User: Cielomobile now has 2 edit wars on his hands --Isolani 17:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I followed the procedure at WP:RM pretty closely, see here and here. The only mistake I made was not posting the template on the talk pages of American conservatism and the other pages that would be affected by the move, but I did post on their talk pages. If you had them on your watchlist, it'd be pretty hard to miss. As for consensus, this vote was 8:3 (not actually 7:3), which is definitely a clear consensus. KISS (band) was recently moved to Kiss (band) with only a 9:7 consensus.
I can't believe you're calling this vandalism. The move was made in complete good faith; "American" is much more ambiguous than "of the United States," and there are plenty of other articles on Wikipedia with similar titles, i.e. Liberalism in France. Conservatism and liberalism are both political ideologies and the articles regarding national variants of them should thus be named similarly.
Thus, I'm going to move the article back to Conservatism of the United States. Instead of having an edit war over this, I ask you that we please have have it mediated, if you still disagree with my actions. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 18:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Since this move is no longer possible for someone without admin status, I'm going to go through the whole WP:RM process for this article again. Whoever incorrectly moved the page split the page histories; you actually have to move the page, not just put up redirects. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 18:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok Isolani, here is what you have done. You have set up redirects on the pages, and that is NOT the correct way to do this. It messes up the page histories; I did this for Liberalism in the United States and an admin told me that was not the correct way to do this. If you want to move the article back to American Conservatism, you have to have an admin do it, which means going through WP:RM and having a discussion here. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 18:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean having the kind of discussion which you didn`t feel necessary on this page? Have fun sorting it out, I`m not wasting my time on this nonsense. --Isolani 18:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:RM mandates that for multiple page moves, you have the discussion at one talk page. I posted on this talk page (scroll up, it's right here) informing users that I wanted to move this and other related pages, and that the discussion would be happening at Talk:American liberalism. This is what WP:RM dictates; if you did not catch my message, that is your own fault. Anyhow, if you want to move it back, feel free to voice your thoughts in the discussion below. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VOTE: Move back to "American Conservatism"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consesus, defaults to keep for now. Please continue the discussion in another thread, though. Teke (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I propose we move back to "American Conservatism" for these reasons:

  1. "American conservatism" is by far better known term, by a ratio of 30-1 according to Google. The AC term is much less likely to confuse anyone.
  2. The idea is that it is part of the American thought system, not a branch of world conservatism that happens to take place in the US
  3. The move was a fraud--it was not discussed here and no poll was taken. The "vote" (7-4) was taken on a different article (on Liberalism) about a different subject, dealing with different ideas and intellectuals and politicians, and edited by different editors. Rjensen 01:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
You did not post at WP:RM. If you are going to accuse me of not following Wikipedia regulations, perhaps you should follow them yourself. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 07:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thanks for the suggestions, which I followed. It's a fraud to say that two articles that deal with entirely different ideas, people, events and movements are "closely related. Rjensen 09:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  1. Support. we had a good thing going here before an outsider with scant interest in the topic jumped in. Rjensen 03:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    In other words, I like it. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. "conservatism in the united states" (with the quotation marks so helpfully ignored by user:Cielomobile) has 15.700 google hits, whereas "american conservatism" has 410,000 . This is a ratio of 26-1 in favour of american conservatism. Furthermore I cite the procedural irregularities in moving the page from 'american conservatism in the first place. Under cielomobile's own rules we can luckily move if we have a 2-vote majority, or as he calls it in Pravda-speak "a 70% consensus" --Isolani 10:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    also: the "american conservatism" site:.edu search has 12,100 results whereas "conservatism in the united states" site:.edu has 145. This makes for a ratio of 83-1 in academic circles. But I suppose that they too will ofcourse be running dogs of the bourgeoisie and do not therefore 'count'. --Isolani 10:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    I've already explained why the Google search does not work, see my long-winded explanation below. I find it funny that you imply that a search with ".edu" determines the consensus within academic circles. But please, continue to compare me with communists; it is rather amusing. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    As I said, running dogs of the bourgeoisie. OK. in 'higher education circles' then. It is obviously the accepted term. If you can show me a single instance of 'american conservatism' being used to describe conservatism in Surinam, I`ll drink more coffee than is good for me. --Isolani 09:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)+
    Searching .edu websites does not support your claim that it is the proper term. Search recent scholarly articles (using something like JSTOR), and come back to me. Also, I have no idea why you are comparing me to the bourgeoisie...what is that supposed to mean? -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 04:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    Never mind, I ran a quick search on Ebscohost-Soc.Science Index and the ratio is 63 to 25 (American Con vs. Con. in the US); also .ac.uk (UK universities) sites google check is 110 - 23 in favour of Am.Cons.--Isolani 10:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    Just because a term appears more frequently on a search engine does not validate its use. If you're concerned about people performing Google searches, the redirect page will still show up in the top results. Anyway, the Ebscohost results aren't really that conclusive; "conservatism in the United States" is a much longer term and is thus less likely to appear. However, the article concerning Native Americans is titled "Native Americans in the United States," not "American Indians" or "Native Americans," because they are either politically insensitive or ambiguous. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 04:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. SUPPORT. Please keep American. People will simply NOT find this article if we change American to the United States. Most Americans refer to our country as America, not the United States. I find when I travel that non-Americans are the ones that refer to us as the United States. PLEASE keep American. Don't allow POV to dominate this entry. Jozil 18:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    This is obviously a sock puppet. He has only five previous edits, and this is his most recent in two months. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 04:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. SUPPORT. American is the best term. Let's move it back to what we have had for a long time. I am a college student and lots of my friends use wikipedia and we want to make it useful for them. Changing the title makes the article hard to find. Obow2003 20:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    Also an obvious sock puppet; this user only has two edits. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 04:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    False Allegation: I am NOT Jozil or Obow2003. As for contributions, Cielomobile had ZERO contributions to this article before he proposed moving it earlier this month. No interest at all in our subject matter--yet suddenly he tries to take control where many other editors have been working patiently for many months. (for that matter he was scarcely involved in the Liberalism article before he decided to move it too). That's disruption in an area where he has no experience or expertise. Rjensen 11:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    Regardless of whether or not they are your sock puppets, they are in fact sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Rjensen for the discussion. As for your personal attack on me, while I may have not edited this article before (though I probably have some edits here), I have edited Liberalism in the United States quite a few times in the past, if I remember correctly. I've had it on my watchlist for ages, and I saw that someone had tagged the article to move it to Liberalism in the United States, but he had not posted at WP:RM and had not posted the notice on the talk page, so I followed up with a proper request. Nothing wrong with that. However, creating accounts for the sole purpose of voting in discussions is a violation of Wikipedia policy (as you so frequently like to accuse me of doing), and even if you yourself did not operate these accounts (unlikely, I'm almost sure you did), you certainly asked someone else to do so. Enough about the sock puppetry though; please redirect all comments about it to the entry at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support "American conservatism" is short and sweet. It's the term most people would use in ordinary speech or writing. The fact that the switch to "X in country Y" form is driven by a vote that took place on a liberal page is an additional reason for us to do it the other way. It would let us say that American conservatives put America first. In contrast, liberals in the United States are liberals who, due to an unfortunate accident of birth, happen to live in the land of the great fascist satan. Kauffner 14:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    Liberal-bashing is always a good way to win an argument. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 19:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support though my support could be stronger. An appropriate Google test favors "American Conservatism". I would also argue against Cielomobile's argument against the Google test based upon a codicil of the search engine criteria. Cielomobile should provide evidence that the former title suffers from an urban legend bias. There is also no danger of confusion of language or speakers here (as with French Conservatism). Rkevins82 15:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • According to Wikipedia:Search engine test#Google bias, "...the Google test checks popular usage, not correctness. For example, a search for the incorrect Charles Windsor gives 10 times more results than the correct Charles Mountbatten-Windsor." Such is the case here. Honestly, I'm not immensely worried about people confusing "American conservatism" with conservatism in the Americas, just as I wouldn't be worried about people confusing Prince Charles with Prince Charles of Belgium. However, we can and should use the correct term. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The Charles Windsor example is an interesting one. If you use Google and search for "Charles Windsor" (including the quotation marks) the first link is to the correct page. The Wikipedia article also fails to carry the correct title (Charles, Prince of Wales). Never mind that. You have yet to show that American Conservatism is incorrect, so you have failed to fill the middle of the argument. Rkevins82 04:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
        • What do you mean, I have yet to show that American conservatism is incorrect? The use of the word "American" to solely refer to citizens of the United States is seen by many Latin Americans as insensitive and ignorant, as they use the word to refer to people from all of the Americas. See here. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition

  1. Oppose - To begin, the "google search" notability test is not a valid argument, see Wikipedia:Google#Urban_legend_bias. Second, your numbers are completely off. A search for conservatism in the united states yields 1,310,000 results, while a test for American conservatism yeilds 1,390,000 results. Hardly a 30:1 ratio. In regards to the validity of google searches, type in "failure" and your first result will be George W. Bush's official website. What does that tell you?
    As for your second comment, that distinction you're making is completely artificial. Let's not kid ourselves, "Conservatism in the United States" is the exact same thing as "American conservatism;" the difference is only linguistic. One uses the adjective form, and the other uses the "in the noun" form.
    This move was not a fraud. I posted the move for moving American liberalism to Liberalism in the United States at WP:RM, and I posted on this talk page (see Talk:Conservatism_in_the_United_States#Move_to_Conservatism_in_the_United_States) notifying users that a discussion to move this and other related articles would be taking place. You yourself participated in the discussion, Rjensen. By the way, consensus was established, and it was 8:3, not 7:4, see Talk:American_liberalism#Page_move. If anything is fraudulent, it is your statement. RfAs (which are much more serious decisions than page moves) generally succeed with more than 75% support, and this move had 73% support. I fail to see how the consensus did not exist.
    My reasoning for moving the articles in the first place was quite simple. "American conservatism" and similar terms can be somewhat ambiguous as to what it refers, the brand of conservatism found in the American continents, or the brand of conservatism found withing the United States. While it is clear to us, citizens of the United States, that it refers to conservatism within the USA, this is not quite so obvious to people living in Central and South America. To them, "America" refers to the whole of what we could call the "Americas." This idea of mine was sparked by an encounters with a Venezuelan woman, who spoke English at a native level I might add, who said that she actually finds it a bit offensive that people from the US consider "American" to describe themselves only. While anyone would quite quickly understand to what the title actually refers, the title "American conservatism" would propagate the US-centric, politically incorrect notion that "America" means the USA and nowhere else. Wikipedia strives to maintain NPOV, and this is simply not in line with that. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    Cielomobile does not know how to do Google searches. If you search on the exact term "conservatism in the United States" with quotes you get 15,800 hits today. If you search for "American conservatism" (using quotes) you get 408,000 hits. (capital letters do not matter). It is FALSE to say this article is closely related to "Liberalism" -- more like the opposite most people would say, as it covers very different people indeed. We need to avoid the fake theory that unknown silent people in other countries want this change. No one in the world will be fooled into thinking that "American conservatism" deals with Peru. Only Cielmobile seems to believe that. Rjensen 03:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    Fair enough, but the Google search is not valid anyway, for reasons I already stated. However, the article is related to liberalism—they are both political ideologies; thus, they are related. They may be considered opposing ideologies, but they are nonetheless both ideologies. As for no one else agreeing with me, who were those other seven editors that supported the move? Why then did only three oppose? Obviously there is some debate on the subject. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    Wikipedia rules say that only closely related pages can be moved (If you are proposing that multiple closely related pages should all be moved for the same reason (see Multiple page moves), it may be advisable to create this discussion on only a single talk page and provide links from the other talk pages to this centralized discussion.) Liberalism and conservatism are not closely related. They are more like opposites! ("Football in 1950s" is closely related to "Football in 1960s") Rjensen 03:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    These two articles are very closely related: they are both political ideologies. It's that simple. They may be at odds with each other, but it is the exact same issue here for moving the two articles. Their being completely different from one another changes absolutely nothing, as I moved the articles for the same reasons, which you have yet to address. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 07:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    Nonsense--the two articles talk about different people, different ideas, use different sources, written by different editors, with different time emphasis. To say that all political ideologies are essentially alike is an extreme position that surely Cielomobile does not believe himself. The fact they are quite distinct means the move of "American Conservatism" was a fraud that violated Wiki rules and did not represent the consent of the people (a value which both liberals and conservatives support). Rjensen 04:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    You don't grasp what I'm saying. Of course the ideologies aren't alike—duh. That's not why I moved the articles. I've explained this countless times; they are both ideologies and fall under the same naming conventions. It's extraordinarily simple. You haven't responded to anything I've written about the process of WP:RM or why "in the United States" is less vague than "American." -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 07:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    The issue is too important to confuse readers by displaying such a misleading title as 'Conservatism in America'. There are too many opportunities for misinterpretation. 'American Conservatism' will direct readers more quickly and effectively to the topic, and seems consistent with other works dealing with the topic.63.170.88.2 19:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    No, it is not misleading. On the contrary, the current title is much more precise. Read my explanation above. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I opposed the move here, I oppose the move back, I oppose anything that causes needless confusion and redirects. As long as the title is reasonable, and a search on any one title leads to all the others, change for the sake of change is pointless. Rick Norwood 21:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong Oppose - per us trying to use form X in country Y rather than Yish X. There are plenty of reasons for this, such as the amibiguity of words like American, British, French (language? location? people who speak the language?), etc. It's best to use this form. What's made it a strong oppose is that American Conservatism is already moved to Conservatism in the United States, and we really ought to be consistent. Patstuarttalk|edits 09:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per all the above arguments.UberCryxic 05:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Strong Oppose First per the above argument of an ambiguous "American", which actually has a dab page: are we talking about the United States, North and South America, or American Airlines conservatism (conserving fuel, maybe, as opposed to ideaology)?See also here. Second, this article with the title of "American conservatism" would then be out of sync with the other articles such as Conservatism in Canada, Conservatism in Germany, Conservatism in Colombia, and Liberalism and conservatism in Latin America. Also agree with UberCryxic, Cielomobile, et al. --MPD T / C 05:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] American as proper term for the culture (USA = geography)

This article is about American culture and political movements like American Civil Rights Movement. the USA designation is merely geography, not culture. The article must be inclusive of the millions of Americans who lived outside the USA -- James Baldwin, WEB DuBois and Richard Wright come to mind, for example. Conversely it does NOT cover European and Latin Amerian writers who lived for years in the US, such as José Martí or Bertolt Brecht. Rjensen 06:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This controversy just points out the reason not to use American, which can mean a person (a patriotic American), or can be an adjective meaning in or of the United States, (American productivity), or can mean a government (the American policy in the Middle East). Rick Norwood 13:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Second Rick.
Rjensen, unless there is consensus to move the article back to American conservatism, this change won't be made. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The page wasn't moved here by consensus, so it shouldn't require a consensus to move it back. A simple majority should decide the issue, IMO. Kauffner 14:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Go to WP:RM. It reads, "If you are proposing that multiple closely related pages should all be moved for the same reason (see Multiple page moves), it may be advisable to create this discussion on only a single talk page and provide links from the other talk pages to this centralized discussion." I did just this. The discussion was held at Talk:Liberalism in the United States, and I posted on this talk page informing editors that the discussion would be taking place. Scroll up. By the way, the move for this article doesn't even have a simple majority; it's 3 - 3 (remember, two of the support votes are sock puppets, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rjensen. Furthermore, if Rjensen is found to be guilty of sock puppeteering, his vote would have to be discounted. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 19:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate that the move was made in good faith, but liberialism and conservatism are not in fact similar, at least not with respect to this issue. The name change is motivated by sensitivity toward possible Latin American objections to the word "American". This type of PC concern is obviously more appropriate for a liberalism article than for a conservatism article. AFAIK, no actual Latin has objected. I was poking around and found that Wikipedia has a Hispanic American history catagory, full of articles about Peruvian Americans, Mexican Americans, and Spanish Americans. Someone needs to tell them that they are Hispanics in the United States! Kauffner 04:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The article's topic does not exempt it from having to be politically correct. As for your last comment, it is unfortunate that the term for Mexicans, Peruvians, etc. in the United States is "Mexican American" and the like, but it is quite established that "blank American" refers to people from countries outside the United States who have settled in the United States. It is a bit unavoidable. However, it is completely avoidable for the name of this article; "Conservatism in the United States" is really no more awkward than "American conservatism." Sure, "American conservatism" is shorter, but so is "Native Americans" when referring to "Native Americans in the United States." It too is vague, though. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The name Conservatism in the US is no more awkward, but it may be less accurate, as it implies that the qualifier simply refers to the location, or simply to the local nomenclature, whereas in fact Conservatism in the United States is largely its own tradition as distinct from other conservative movements abroad. Imagine for instance if the article on American English refered to its subject "English in the United States." That nomenclature would give the wrong impression about American English's history, development and relation to other dialects of English. The article need not be moved, because American Conservatism is clearly the dominant strand of conservatism in the United States, but the article should probably be allowed to refer to its subject using the most accurate and most common terminology. --Isra1337 08:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand your argument, but the status of "American" as ambiguous as to whether it refers to the Americas or the United States trumps this distinction you're creating between American conservatism and conservatism in the US. I honestly believe this distinction does not exist. The strongest argument in favor of moving it back to American conservatism has been that American conservatism is shorter and more likely to be searched upon. However, clarity supercedes shorter article names, as seen if you search "Native Americans." -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 15:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Nowhere did I argue for moving the article. For reasons that need not be rehashed, I think the page is fine here. I note, however, that you have reverted usage of the term "American Conservatism" within the article itself, and I think this is inappropriate. Ambiguity is less of an issue within the article (though frankly I think it is a non-issue anyway) and the article itself would seem to disagree with your assertion that there is no distiction as it clearly discusses figures who have overwhelming influence on the American tradition, but who are (rightfully) found nowhere in the discussion of Conservatism in general. Take a look at the move discussion at Talk:Liberalism in the United States and you will see that the lack of such a divergence with reguards to Liberalism is cited as a reason for the move of that page. Getting rambling to let me recap: keep the page name, but do not try to alter the broadly accepted terminology by preventing its use in the article. --Isra1337 02:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. I don't feel all that strongly towards which term to use in the article itself; I think "C. in the US" should be used when possible, but sometimes "Am. C." is simply less awkward. Note that my reverts were only partial; I left it as Am. C. in some instances, when it was less awkward. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name change caused redundancy in first sentence of lead

"Conservatism in the United States comprises a constellation of political ideologies within the United States under the blanket heading of conservative."

I parse this as conservatism in the United States means conservatism in the United States. This formulation is apparently residue from when the title was 'American Conservatism' and someone felt a need to disambiguate the term 'American.' I couldn't fix this rhetorical tautology by simply removing the redundant term because that would have utterly destroyed the sentence. Hence the change. Baon 07:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I also changed the adjectival forms refering to groups to noun forms refering to doctrines (i.e., conservatives to conservatism) to better reflect the form of the title. Baon 08:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Your rewrite looks good to me. Rick Norwood 13:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill O'Reilly

This article states that O'Reilly states he is either "conservative or libertarian", yet the source that it cites states that O'Reilly claims himself as an "independent", not a "conservative" nor a "libertarian". In fact, a political organization in opposation to him calls him conservative. This statement in the article is inaccurate, and possibly even opinionated by including the organization's opinion as fact. --66.227.194.89 01:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electoral Map

Can someone please post a county by county election map? 70.108.101.57 11:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you could find one in an article such as 2004 United States Presidential Election. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 04:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] help with Global warming article

Please help us with the Global warming article. there is currently a small number of editors who are continually refusing to allow any dissenting views. thanks. --Sm8900 13:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that conservative objections to global warming are political, while the question of global warming is scientific. The article rightly rejects opinions by non-scientists as POV. It was the same some years back with cigarettes, where the politically motivated opinion that cigarette smoking did not cause cancer was rightly not included in the article on smoking. Rick Norwood 20:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Please stop canvassing, Sm8900, and do not remove warnings from your talk page or any others (diff). -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 00:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
What liberals believe is "scientific," but what conservatives believe is "political." That's convenient! Eleanor Goodman, Newsweek's chief "scientific" mind, came up the phrase "global warming denier." I prefer "global warming supporter" myself. But hey, I won't turn down the ticket to Tehran. If anything, I'd say holocaust deniers actually get better coverage in the drive by media than GW supporters do. We're told there is a "scientific consensus" that we all must bow to, but we not we're told what that consensus is, at least not in scientific terms. Kauffner 10:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
This talk page really is not the place for such an argument. There's a mediation being done; if you want to make any comments regarding global warming, please do so on its talk page. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 17:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
We're told there is a "scientific consensus" that we all must bow to, but we not we're told what that consensus is, at least not in scientific terms. - Based on peer reviewed documents - about 700 in favor, 0 opposed, and 200 neutral. Raul654 02:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I looked at your link, but it doesn't say what the mythical consensus actually is. Are you claiming that 700 abstracts argued that CO2 buildup and global warming are bad? I doubt if you can find any scientific paper that says that. Kauffner 10:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is another link. http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=7F5A2F7F-E7F2-99DF-3BFC3A22DBF88894

Of course, predicting the weather is risky. The weather forecast last night predicted snow. Today, no snow. On the other hand, it is safe to predict that in the Northern Hemisphere, on the average, December will be colder than June.

There are three points about climate change, all scientific, none political.

1) Is the climate changing? The scientific consensus is overwhelmingly "Yes". 2) Is this climate change man made? Again, the scientific consensus is "Yes", but with slightly less certainty than in the case of 1. 3) Is this bad news for human beings. Yes, because human agriculture, cities, dams, canals, and so on are all based on the current climate, and it will be very expensive to change all of this infrastructure to adapt to a new climate.

Now, what arguments have been brought to bear against this consensus. I'm sure you don't buy into the "it's all a liberal conspiracy" crap, so we'll stick to scientific arguments. There are essentially two:

1) Because we are dealing in probabilities, we should not do anything until we are absolutely certain. This doesn't hold water -- under the same argument smoking is not bad for our health because we are not absolutely sure it will kill us.

2) Climate change is already so bad that any effort to mitigate it is pissing in the wind. This is a slightly stronger argument, but I for one am not ready to lie down and die. We've overcome bigger problems.

Rick Norwood 14:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Republican Midwest

Republican Midwest? Why was it that in 2004 only Ohio, Indiana, and Iowa were won out of all the Midwest? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.5.170.110 (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Historically, it was GOP, note "midwest" can include Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota which lean Dem today, others include Plains states like Kansas, Nebraska and the Dakotas which are still heavily GOP... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

The Criticism section seems to me particularly lame. This article and the Liberalism articles both used to have criticism sections, as did many other articles on controversial subjects. It was suggested that instead of placing criticism in a separate section, it should be incorporated in each section where there was more than one generally held belief. Is there any objection to doing that here? Rick Norwood 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

With EnglishEfternmann's edit, the criticism section has become even more of a debate rather than straight reporting. I really think it has to go. I notice that nobody has defended it here. Rick Norwood 13:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no "Criticism" section in the article on [Liberalism_in_the_United_States]. There should not be a "criticism" section here either - the article should be about Conservatism, and what the movement does, what Conservatives think/believe etc. It seems that the Wikipedia userbase is by far very Liberal, and therefore only says good things about the Liberals and feels the need to post-script any information on Conservative beliefs with "These guys are so wrong because..." statements. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.42.253.50 (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
Someone tried to remove the section today on the grounds that it violates NPOV. Since it's sourced, I'm sure it can at least be incorporated into the rest of the article rather than deleted wholesale, so I placed the criticism-section template on it. I don't think it needs its own section though.--Cúchullain t/c 06:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency in "Fiscal conservatism" and "Economic liberalism" sections

In the section titled "Fiscal conservatism"...

"This economic liberalism borrows from two schools of thought: the classical liberals' pragmatism and the libertarian's notion of "rights." The classical liberal maintains that free markets work best, while the libertarian contends that free markets are the only ethical markets."

Then, in "Economic liberalism"...

"Classical liberals AND [emphasis added] libertarians support free markets on moral, ideological grounds: principles of individual liberty morally dictate support for free markets."

Further, the article notes that conservatives passively reject rights theory as a motive for support for free markets, after stating that they inhert their position from both camps (whether or not it is true that such disparity between them exists)...

"Modern conservatives, on the other hand, derive support for free markets from practical grounds. Free markets, they argue, are the most productive markets."

So there are two contradictions in all. First, that classical liberal and libertarian perspectives on the market are different AND the same. (For the record, I'm NOT saying that they aren't different positions, OR that they're the same. It's just that the article should come down on this one way or the other.) Second, that conservatives hold a position taken from a single source (after stating otherwise). King of Corsairs 02:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conservatism and Change

A writer noted under this topic heading:

"The race-blind meritocracy now embraced by many U.S. conservatives as an alternative to affirmative action would have seemed quite radical to most U.S. conservatives in the 1950s."


Really? Both National Review and The Freeman editorialized against Brown vs. Board of Education when the opinion was handed down in 1954, as being an unconstitutional attempt to recognize race as a political category. Specifically what conservatives of the time would have regarded a color-blind polity as "radical"?

Well, National Review and The Freeman, for example. In opposing Brown, they were supporting the right of schools to inquire into the race of students and refuse admission to students who were of the "wrong" race. At that time, the idea that a school should not even inquire into the race of students was certainly "radical" -- they would have probably called it "communist". Rick Norwood 14:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


No, this is not correct. I suggest you go to the library and actually read the editorial in the first issue of National Review. They simply editorialized against what they perceived as an usurpation of power on the part of the federal government. There is a difference between this position and that of "supporting the right of the schools to inquire into the race of students". The primary issue was the federal government's role and the fact that it did not even have the legitimate power to make the ruling (in the opinion of NR). Most conservatives of the time did not care what states like Massachusetts and Rhode Island had done to desegregate schools. NR even said so in the editorial. Lazytory 15:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TV/MEDIA PERSONALITIES

I think Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity should be removed, because they are neoconservatives? If there are no comments on this in 24 hours I'll go ahead and move them.Reinoe (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Gop-plank.JPG

Image:Gop-plank.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clark reference

A recent edit quoted Barry Clark as saying that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, conservatism was a mixture of economic liberalism and social conservatism. Here is what Clark actually says on the subject: "During the Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, American Conservatism was found almost exclusively in the South, where the Plantation System and slavery were ideally suited for an ideology that emphasized the importance of a hierarchal community." Rick Norwood (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)