Talk:Conservatism in the United States/Archive 5

POV Intro
User:Introman has added the following template to the lead:

This template is inappropriate and should be removed. Please indicate whether you wish to Keep or Remove this template. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it true or not that the neutrality of the intro is being disputed? There's your answer. Introman (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:Dispute. I have no interest in explaining their policies to you which you appear to miscomprehend.  The Four Deuces (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you didn't want an answer, you shouldn't have asked. Introman (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Introman considers anything that does not agree with his extreme and unsupported POV to be POV. The only person disputing the mainstream view is Introman.

Some people form fixed opinions early in life, usually at the feet of some charismatic leader, and forever after filter all information through these views, believing anything that agrees with their fixed views, rejecting any evidence to the contrary. Others have a genuine interest in the truth, consider new information based on the reliability of its source, and are glad to learn new things. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It depends on what you mean by the "mainstream view." If you mean popular conception I don't think that should matter. The mainstream view of the masses is Republican=Conservative. But it's not that simple. The mainstream view Wikipedia should represent is the mainstream view of educated people, scholars, and such, not necessarily the mainstream view of uneducated masses. Wikipedia is here so those people can inform themselves. No scholar of conservatism regards Bush to be thoroughgoing conservative and many don't consider him a conservative at all. That Bush is not considered a conservative is apparently news to you. But just because it's startling information to you and Four Deuces, that's no excuse for you two to try to keep everyone else in the dark. Introman (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead does not in fact state that Bush was a conservative. It merely states that his election was a conservative victory.  The Four Deuces (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If he's not considered a conservative then it wouldn't be considered a conservatives victory. In other words, a conservative didn't win the election. The way the article states it is as if it's taken for granted that he's a conservative. That's POV, because there is a notable opposing opinion that you don't want to be revealed. Introman (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, this conversation would be more fruitful if you were more familiar with the subject. Bush was - and still is - considered a conservative and he came to power with conservative support, which was a conservative victory.  Very few conservatives supported his major opponents.  The same issues came up with Reagan, with some people claiming he was not a conservative.  The Four Deuces (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources I gave where from notable conservatives saying he was not a conservative. So your opinion on whether he's a conservative is just your opinion and it doesn't hold any weight on Wikipedia. Introman (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) Well it is not in fact my opinion that Bush was a conservative but that is beside the point. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that there are those that consider Bush a conservative. I'm saying that there are also those that don't consider him a conservative. You're just unwilling to be NPOV by allowing opposing opinions, not matter how well sourced. The NPOV policy may not mean much to you, but it certainly is POV only to present one side. Introman (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

correct format for references
References should not include unnecessary words, such as "for example". When a book quotes someone, the author given in the reference should be the author of the book. Titles should be in italics, indicated by two upright singlequotes at the beginning and end, thus. The page number should follow the title, not the name of the publisher. Two citations should not be combined in a single reference. Where available, the ISBN should be given. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "For example" is fine. It doesn't have to be a pure reference. It can be a footnote. Introman (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By removing those statements, you've made the citiations unclear. For example, now we don't know that one of the conservatives that's being referred to is Jeffrey Hart, because all you put is the author of the book. Hart is not the author. Hart is discussed in the book. Introman (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Timoleon212 edit
"Conservatism also attracted white Southern Democrats, alienated by Democratic support of Federal Civil Rights legislation, and evangelical Christians, concerned about what they saw as a breakdown of American morals (from recent Supreme Court decisions which legalized abortion and advocated the seperation of Church and State), to nominate and elect the Republican candidate Ronald Reagan, a self-identified American conservative, as president."


 * I'm not sure if that's a sentence or not, but you may want to break it up into at least two sentences.

"Subsequent electoral victories included gaining a Republican congressional majority in 1994 and the election of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004."


 * George W. Bush was appointed president in 2000 by the Supreme Court, after he lost the election, but I suppose this isn't the place to bring that up.


 * Rick Norwood (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed it as part of a reversion of the lead. I will change this sentence back to an earlier version:  In 1980, the conservative movement was able to attract white Southern Democrats, angry about the Civil Rights movement, and evangelical Christians, angry about what they saw as a breakdown of American morals, to nominate and elect the Republican candidate Ronald Reagan, a self-identified American conservative, as president.  The Four Deuces (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Libertarianism? What?
Rick Norwood keeps deleting the sourced sentence saying, "After losing political influence through the 1970's, and during the economic stagnation of the time, a revival of classical liberalism brought new life to the conservative movement, contributing to the election of Ronald Reagan, a conservative, for President. ("liberalism." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 20 Aug. 2009. Mayne, Alan. From Politics Part to Politics Future. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999. p. 123).  The really strange thing is Rick Norwood is putting in his edit summary for the deletion: "''rv Ongoing attempt to claim that early liberals were Libertarians. It is not the source that is inaccurate, but his claim that is not reflected in the source.''" Apparently Rick Norwood is confused, because there is no mention of libertarianism in the statement. Introman (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The claim not reflected by the source is that Reganomics was a revival of classical liberalism, one meaning of which is Libertarianism. But that is not the meaning intended by Britannica, as you know perfectly well.  You keep inserting the words classical liberalism into articles, ignoring the fact which has been pointed out to you many times, that the phrase is used in a vareity of different ways, one of which is to mean a form of Libertarianism.   Rick Norwood (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason why this edit was totally unacceptable has been explained in detail in sections above. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The sources that the revival of classical liberalism contributed to the conservative movement are plain to see:


 * "But the slowing of economic growth that gripped most Western countries beginning in the mid-1970s presented a serious challenge to modern liberalism. By the end of that decade economic stagnation, combined with the cost of maintaining the social benefits of the welfare state, pushed governments increasingly toward politically untenable levels of taxation and mounting debt. Equally troubling was the fact that the Keynesian economics practiced by many governments seemed to lose its effectiveness. Governments continued to spend money on programs aimed at stimulating economic growth, but the result too often was increased inflation and ever-smaller declines in unemployment rates. As modern liberals struggled to meet the challenge of stagnating living standards in mature industrial economies, others saw an opportunity for a revival of classical liberalism. The intellectual foundations of this revival were primarily the work of the Austrian-born British economist Friedrich von Hayek and the American economist Milton Friedman...These arguments were enthusiastically embraced by the major conservative political parties in Britain and the United States, which had never abandoned the classical liberal conviction that the market, for all its faults, guides economic policy better than governments do. Revitalized conservatives achieved power with the lengthy administrations of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (1979–90) in Britain and Pres. Ronald Reagan (1981–89) in the United States." ("liberalism." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 20 Aug. 2009)


 * "A totally different from of conservatism, individual conservatism or capitalist conservatism, arose out of classical liberalism in both the United States and the UK, and favoured a more or less 'laissez-faire' market economy. This form of conservative ideology dominated the Reagan adminstrations in the UK from 1979 to 1990; it still has a very strong influence on conservatis politics in both the United States and the UK." (Mayne, Alan. From Politics Past to Politics Future. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999. p. 123) Introman (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In the UK there had long been a move of conservative liberals into the Conservative Party and they formed a faction that in the 1970s was led by Keith Joseph and eventually came to control the party with the selection of Margaret Thatcher as leader who followed neoliberal policies after her appointment as prime minister in 1979.


 * In the United States the Republican Party and also the Democrats had long had conservative liberal factions but in the 1950s a group of them began to call themselves "Conservatives" and they were able to assume leadership of the Republican Party with the nomination of Ronald Ronald Reagan who was elected President of the U.S. in 1980 and then followed neoliberal policies. So while it is correct to say that UK Conservatives changed to follow a different form of conservatism it is entirely incorrect to say that American Conservatives changed course in 1980.  It was the Republican Party not American Conservatives that changed.


 * The Four Deuces (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether you think the sources are correct or not is irrelevant. WP:Verifiability says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Introman (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is redundant to say "This form of conservative ideology dominated the Reagan adminstrations in the UK from 1979 to 1990". The lead already explains what Conservatism is, says that Reagan was a Conservative and states that he was president.  The Four Deuces (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because had I deleted the second mention of Reagan in order to not be redundant. Look at the edit. Introman (talk)
 * One must not just take cites and stick them in willy nilly out of context. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. And I didn't. Introman (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Introman must, by this time, understand the points we are making, and just refuses to acknowledge the fact. If not, than nothing we say is going to get through to him. There doesn't seem to be any point in discussing the matter further. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources say what they say. Introman (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Early statesmen
We seem to have disputes about whom to include as conservatives. This largely relates to having an unclear definition of US conservatism. The following seem to be the main theories:
 * 1. US conservatism is a modern concept (c. 1955) stemming from fusionism (mainstream).
 * 2. Federalists, Whigs, Republicans and southern Democrats can be described as conservatives.
 * 3. the US revolution was led by conservatives but conservatism went into decline with the election of Jefferson and in the south with reconstruction.

My suggestion is that for pre-1955 we list prominent Federalists, Whigs and Republicans indicating that they are sometimes considered to be conservatives. We also list early statesmen identified by Russell Kirk or other modern conservative writers as conservatives, indicating that the claims are disputed. Verifiability not truth.

The Four Deuces (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally I do not know of any RS that calls Jefferson a conservative. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have thought he was due to his status as a slave-holding plantation aristocrat. Soxwon (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting argument and note that it assumes the slavery was a conservative institution and Jefferson was an aristocrat, both of which are debatable. But do you have any source that actually says that he was a conservative?  The Four Deuces (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not every person born into the upper class holds conservative political beliefs -- some rebel against the beliefs of their class. FDR was born into the upper class, and was called a traitor to his class.  Jefferson never freed his slaves, but he knew that slavery was wrong and said so.  It was a question of need vs. ideals.  He was so deep in debt that he couldn't afford to free his slaves, even though he knew that it was the right thing to do.


 * Unless you can come up with a source that says Jefferson was a conservative, he does not belong on the list. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon's edit
You did more than just change the order. You moved the core conservative beliefs, God and country, to a separate sentence and added the qualification "though not universally". You moved small government, laissez fair capitalism, and supply-side economics to the front, with no such qualification.

Here is what the Oxford American Dictionary says about conservative: "disliking or opposed to great and sudden change". Here is what Encyclopedia Britannica says about conservatism: "political doctrine that emphasizes the value of traditional institutions and practices."

And here is what Barry Goldwater said, in "The Conscience of a Conservative", which speaks directly to your claim that conservatism in the United States is first and foremost about economics. "The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but he is also a spiritual creature, with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man's nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants."

I am going to rewrite the lede with these sources in mind. Please do not revert unless you have sources at least as authoritative.

Rick Norwood (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So Barry Goldwater is the only influence on Conservatism? The conservatism he refers to is mainstream conservatism. Belief in God is not a requirement. I think that the definition I put was more correct. I will wait for others to comment however. Soxwon (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't just quote Goldwater. I quoted a dictionary, an encyclopedia, and Goldwater. I will be happy to offer more sources.

Here is Webster's Third New International Dictionary. "The Right -- individuals or groups sometimes professing views characterized by opposition to change in the established political, social, and economic order and favoring the preservation of traditional attitudes and practices and sometimes advocating the establishment of an authoritarian political order by revolution or other forceful means."

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, "Conservatism. In general terms, a political philosophy which aspires to the preservation of what is thought to be the best in established society, and opposes radical change." Later in the same article, "In the twentieth century conservatism has been so preoccupied with the struggle against forms of socialism that many people have made the mistake of identifying conservatism purely with anti-socialism. If this perception were correct then the demise of socialism would also be the demise of conservatism.  But in fact there is never any shortage of the kind of belief to which conservatism is inherently opposed.  We can be assured that forms of feminism, ecologism, radical democratic theory, and human rights doctrines will, inter alia, continue to provide the kind of political projects which serve as both opposition and stimulus to conservatism."

The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia gives a good explanation of the relationship between conservatism and laissez faire economics. Here is it's definition, in its entirity, "Conservatism, in politics, the desire to maintain on conserve the existing order. Modern political conservatism emerged in the 19th cent. in reaction to the political and social changes of the FRENCH REVOLUTION and the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.  European conservatism, as formulated by Edmund BURKE and others, emphasized preserving the power of the king and landowners, limiting suffrage, and continuing the ties between church and state.  Benjamin DISRAELI exemplified the conservative tendency to resort to moderate reform in order to preserve the foundations of the old order.  By the 20th cent. conservatism was being redirected by erstwhile liberal manufacturing and professional groups who had achieved their political aims and had become concerned with preserving them.  The new conservatism advocated economic LAISSEZ FAIRE and opposed the extension of the welfare state."

Here is conservative columnist William Safire in "William Safire's Political Dictionary", explaining the difference between economic conservatives and social conservatives. "Economic conservatives frequently disagree strongly with social conservatives, often giving "the movement" a split personality. Social conservatives favor government support of "faith-based" institutions, often frown on gun control, and oppose abortion and same-sex marriage, positions alliteratively summarized as "God, guns, and gays," but these stands were not taken by such Republican political figures as California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani."

I'm not picking these references because they a agree with my views. I'm picking standard reference works and learning from what they say.

Rick Norwood (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh Rick, your sources all support me, the God/Patriotism crowd isn't universal, and so you can't claim it is. Soxwon (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never claimed that the God/Patriotism crowd was universal. I've always seen a place for economic conservatism in tne lede. But it is not the traditional meaning of conservatism, and none of the sources give it as the first meaning of conservatism. It's still there, it just isn't first, and isn't given undue emphasis. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be OR to use a general definition of "conservatism" and apply it to the US. Also Goldwater is a primary source.  Sara Diamond's Roads to Dominion is a highly regarded book about American conservatism, particularly its more radical elements which draws on much of the critical literature about the movement.  Lee Edwards, who is the in-house historian of the modern Conservative movement provides reliable information about them, although obviously written in a favorable light.  The conservative tradition in America by Charles W. Dunn and J. David Woodard is also a reliable source by insiders and provides a version of the revisionist history some US conservatives believe as the title suggests.  I think we should look at these sources and determine a good definition of the subject.  But it also wrong to say American conservatism = libertarianism, especially when libertarianism is given a narrow definition.
 * The Four Deuces (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess the question is does "Conservatism in the United States" mean conservatism, as it is practiced in the United States, or does it mean, rather, something in the United States that is called "conservatism", but differs from what is called conservatism elsewhere. I see a lot of common ground between US conservatism and European conservatism, especially on the subject of immigration, but I may be influenced by growing up in the Deep South during segragation. Also, I currently live in Tennessee, and so most conservatives I know are conservatives because they consider it their Christian duty to be conservatives, and in their view, the most important goals for conservatives are to outlaw abortion and homosexuality. I suppose Arizona conservatives are different. On the other hand, without the South, the Republican party would be a minor party. There is a vast gap between the intellectual conservatives and the grass roots conservatives, and I suppose the same is true of liberals. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon's edit
Good edit, Soxwon. Since I sometimes disagree with your edits, I wanted you to know that I think this one greatly improved the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Washington was a federalist
I have better things to do with my time that argue over what famous people go in whose favorite category. But Washington was a revolutionary! Rick Norwood (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But washington was a revolutionary! who restored the self-gov't the colonies had enjoyed for over 150 years, strengthened the central gov't, put down a populist rebellion, and generally restored the status quo ante-bellum with the sole exception being that Britain didn't have the token presence it had before... Soxwon (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the revisionist view: he was a conservative because he restored liberal government.  Please see the last section above where I recommended a way to get around these problems.  The Four Deuces (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits
I have restored version 321293605 by Rjensen, reversing edits made by User:Default013 who has been blocked. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Recent edits have essentially trashed the article beyond all recognition, with the usual unreferenced claims that "real" conservatives are all libertarians, and that they have excatly the same beliefs as the Founding Fathers. It is going to take a lot of work to salvage the good edits and undo the bad.  Rick Norwood (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you look at the article again. These edits were all made by Default013 and I think they have been reversed.  The Four Deuces (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Racism?
Opposition to civil rights laws is standard conservative fare and is not "racism". Rjensen (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, racists have historically self-identified as conservative. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * some have--but other racists (I think most) have identified on the left--like the agrarians who supported Ben Tillman, Tom Watson and Cole Blease, or the union members in the North in 1964 and 1968 who supported George Wallace. Sheldon Hackney has a good study of this for Alabama, where the conservative businessmen and planters tried to protect "their" blacks from the agrarians; see hackney Populism to Progressivism in Alabama (new edition 2008) Rjensen (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Rjensen's comments were in reply to Default013 removing Randolph from the article. I think it would be more helpful to address a central problem with this article, the definition of American conservatism. Terminology liberal v. conservative is modern and left v. recent even more recent, so there is dispute over who was what going back.  I started this discussion in Talk:Conservatism in the United States.  The Four Deuces (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a union member who supported George Wallace who identified himself as a leftist? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * yes the rank and file white union members (autos, steel etc) who voted for Wallace in 1964 and 1972 (in Dem primary) and 1968 (as independent) in places like Detroit, Baltimore and Gary p275 online.  They were the core of the New Deal liberal coalition. They were leftist on everything but race.  (many turned around and voted for Robert kennedy in 1968 primaries see online p 81 Rjensen (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

John Birch Society
Rjensen's edit left the only reference to the John Birch Society as "By 1962, Buckley and the mainstream conservatives rejected the tenets of the conspiracy-oriented John Birch Society." While WP:Weight means that they do not deserve much space, their early role in modern conservatism is notable and they continued to be part of the fringe of the conservative movement. It is confusing to mention that their tenets were rejected without mentioning that they were originally part of the movement. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the chief historian of the JBS Schoenwald (2001) ch 3 makes what I find is a convincing case that the JBS had very little impact on conservatism--Welch exerted tight control and refused to allow locals to do much besides studying JBS pamphlets that attacked famous people for being tools of a great anti-American conspiracy. On the other hand, 1) many conservatives did join; and 2) liberals intensely criticized the JBS and used it to attack conservatives. So were they part of the movement? I don't think so. Were they a topic of liberal attack? yes indeed, liberals tried to make all conservatives look like JBS types. Rjensen (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That was not my understanding of the Schoenwald's A Time for choosing. "The far-right group had an impact on conservatives of all hues and on American political culture as a whole.  Far rightists, like more moderate conservatives, forced the Republican party - and the Democratic party too - to adjust its agenda."  (p. 65-66)  An of course Welch owned about 15% of the National Review.  Willi Schlamm who helped Buckley raise the money for the NR became a prominent Bircher.  While they ceased to be part of mainstream conservatism, they continued to have an impact on the fringe.  Larry McDonald was head of the JBS and Ron Paul had their support.  Of course they were only one of many influences on modern conservatism and lost influence after it became evident that Welch was an extremist.  Their influence should not be overstated, but must be mentioned.  The Four Deuces (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How to deal with JBS? I suggest explain from viewpoint of 1) JBS members; 2) Welch; 3) Goldwater and other cons. leaders; 4) liberals. I think the JBS suppressed conservative activism because Welch did not allow his 400 chapters to be poltiically active, and used dues money to hire staffers who went from chapter to chapter to enforce Welch's policies. A few locals managed to campaign for local school board candidates, or oppose fluoridation locally, but that's small potatoes.Rjensen (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They played a minor part in modern conservsatism but should be mentioned, that's all I was saying. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

BIAS
I dont understand why the first thing you list as conservative beliefs is God. I mean, many do believe in God, but it had nothing to do with conservative politics. I think a more appropriate summary would be conservatives belief in a strong national military, limited government, free market/capitalist economics, and personal freedom. In fact, I would guess that most conservatives would leave God out of it if you asked what their political beliefs are. Only liberals assume we "cling to our bibles and our guns." Baltimore sensi528 (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC) baltimore sensi528 Baltimore sensi528 (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note to Baltimore sensi528: Wikipedians read the last post on a talk page, not the first. New posts, if you want them to be read, should go at the bottom of the page. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the platform of the Republican party, not conservatism. Conservatism is a political philosophy, the negation of ideology. Perhaps Russell Kirk's 10 Principles of Conservatives would be a better foundation for this article.

Conservatism is protean, no doubt, and discussion of its different forms would be good. Discussing particular issues is policy, not philosophy. It's Republican, not conservative. This article is completely off-base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.107.126 (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Conservatives themselves have never agreed about what it is... In fact, they sometimes gloat about not defining it (Kirk did, Buckley too). Frank Meyer thought this was bad; he was a minority. James Q. Wilson calls conservatism a "mood," and so on. Listing qualities is not definition, either, but it is fair to list here the various positions associated with the various strains of conservatism over time. It may make sense to see libertarianism as one of the basic variants of conservatism, even though Rand and Hayek denied it; Buckley and Meyer disagreed with them. Debates and debates -- the entry needs to reflect them, probably historically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contrarius (talk • contribs) 17:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Words are only useful in so far as they have a common meaning. If, by conservative, you mean "a cravat" and I mean "a waistcoat", then what we have is a failure to communicate.  If this article is to serve any useful purpose, it must define the word the way dictionaries and encyclopedias define the word, and without any exception that I know of they define the word as a preference for traditional values and ways of life.  That has to be the starting point.  Variant usages can be mentioned, of course.  Rick Norwood (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be kind of important to note somewhere that a poll conducted last week (10/21/09) showed that 40% of americans identify themselves as conservative, 35% moderate, 21% liberal. In an article about conservatism in America, wouldnt it make sense to mention it is the leading political philosophy? And it is a gallup poll, not like Heritage Found or anything like that. heres the link, i might just add it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.160.191.18 (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

1) You should sign your posts. 2) Your link doesnt' work. 3) Most people are conservative -- people prefer tradition to change.

Rick Norwood (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Types
Could the types section be reduced? It seems overly long and duplicates information found in other articles. It seems to be more a definition of different terms. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerns: opening paragraph
The opening paragraph currently reads as follows.
 * Conservatism in the United States is a major American political philosophy. In contemporary American politics, it is often associated with the Republican Party. Conservative principles in America include patriotism, Christianity, capitalism, and a strong military.

Setting aside that the first sentence should be a little more descriptive ...

The last two sentences makes some very bold assertions that are not completely explained in the text nor are their citations that adequately back them up (ideally since these assertions are so significant it is worthwhile to include citations in the introduction itself).

That aside, I am not really convinced these assertions really are NPOV. First, associating Conservatism directly with the Republicans in the second sentence of the first paragraph is not very objective (yes, there is a high degree of truth to this but it is not completely true and should not be given top billing). Besides that, describing patriotism and Christianity as pillars of conservative philosophy IMHO is painting a caricature.

The article in general could use some work for neutrality's sake but at least trying to bring some objectivity to the opening would be good. One thing that should be clarified up front is that Conservatism is not a single well-defined philosophy (i.e. be careful about trying to pigeon-hole it).

The following are a few short descriptions of conservatism that are a little more objective.
 * 
 * 

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is how the current lead began when it was first written:
 * Conservatism in the United States is a political movement whose unifying beliefs are traditional values, free markets and security, and places individual initiative above government action. Major themes of conservatives include protection of freedom of religion, right to life, low taxes, smaller government and strong national defense and law enforcement. Although the term "conservative" was first popularized in 1953 when Russell Kirk wrote The Conservative Mind, a conservative tradition has arguably existed thoughout American history.
 * Does that sound better? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hall of Fame
Conservative scholar Clinton Rossiter, "The Giants of American Conservatism," American Heritage 1955 6(6): 56-59, 94-96, names Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, John Marshall, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Elihu Root, and Theodore Roosevelt for the conservative's hall of fame, with John Adams, in Rossiter’s judgment, as the greatest of American conservatives.Rjensen (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it would be appropriate to include this list provided it is sourced, for example with a heading saying something like "From Clinton Rossiter's "The Giants of American Conservatism" (1955). The Four Deuces (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Groups seeking converts often claim that famous people belong to their particular group (though I note that this list does not include Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln). Some people can safely be included in a group because they said they were.  Barry Goldwater was proud to say he was a conservative and John Kennedy was proud to say he was a liberal.  When people did not publicly state that they were part of a particular group, we turn to the views of people who are well and widely educated, and who at least attempt that hard-to-achieve goal of impartiality.  A book titled "The Giants of American Conservatism" does not pretend to impartiality.


 * The people on Rossiter's list were conservative in some ways and liberal in others. In including Alexander Hamilton, I would assume that Rossiter does not intend to imply that conservatives favor a strong federal government.  In including John Adams, he probably does not intend to say that conservatives favor high tarriffs.  In including Theodore Roosevelt, he probably does not imply that conservatives support keeping businesses out of the national parks.  However, in the spirit of compromise, I will not object to including people on Rossiter's list, provided Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln are not included. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Per Four Deuces suggestion above, the Rossiter reference could be included as a footnote. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that mainstream academic thinking does not consider any of these people to have been conservatives. See for example, "American liberalism" in Ian Adams' Political ideology today (2001):  "Ideologically, all US parties are liberal and always have been".  TR's policies were close to those of the Liberal Party of the UK of his time.  Since all sources identifying pre-1955 conservatives comes from the Conservative movement, it is appropriate that we report how they interpret history.  Clinton Rossiter's academic status makes him a good choice as a source.  Here is a link to his article:  .  The Four Deuces (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the list. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rossiter says of Washington: " four men ...above all other men of their age as models of conservative statesmanship and wellsprings of conservative thought. The first of these, as he is the first of Americans, is George Washington." and in Washington "all the virtues of gentility, integrity, and duty met to form the archetype of the conservative statesman. In his career those great abstractions—service, loyalty, patriotism, morality—came nobly to life. And from him the nation heard, in his Farewell Address, the earnest plea of the true conservative for that firm support of ordered liberty: the unity that overrides petty dissension and selfish faction." Pretty convincing evidence from a leading historian of conservatism. Norwood's personal views belong on his blog, not here.Rjensen (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He wrote later in the article:
 * Adams, Hamilton, Marshall, Webster, Calhoun, Root, and Roosevelt—these are the giants of American conservatism, and no conservative need ever feel reluctant to stack them up against the giants of American progressivism, especially since he may argue with some conviction that Washington and Lincoln can also be added to his list.
 * So I think it is incorrect to include Washington, and think it would be better to include Rossiter's arguments in another section of the article. Explanation of the list might be better dealt with by a brief summary or a footnote, rather than as part of the subsection heading.  The Four Deuces (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Rossiter's argument seems to go like this. Since Washington and Lincoln were great men, "he may argue with some conviction" that they must have been conservative.  Only conservatives, apparently, display gentility, integrity, and duty.  This is hardly an unbiased point of view.  Rick Norwood (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just like Liberals were the only ones to support free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, etc. Soxwon (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "unbiased"? well no, Rossiter favors conservatives. But it's an expert view by a leading historian of conservatism, which is what Wiki rules require. Actually the list drawn up by a liberal would be much the same. Rjensen (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Which, of course, makes that point that most people are both liberal and conservative. Far from being opposites, as they were in the 18th century, in the modern world the liberal belief in freedom and the conservative belief in tradition only come into conflict in a few areas: censorship, marriage, drugs, and war come to mind. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out Rossiter did not include Washington and Lincoln in his list. Neither by the way did Russell Kirk and modern conservatives have villainized Lincoln and TR.  It seems more likely that modern conservatism traces its roots to more radical elements.  Of course most historians do not include any of them as conservatives.  The Four Deuces (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you keep getting that from. I have found several sources (and college textbooks) that seem to disagree with this supposed majority. Soxwon (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Political ideology today (2001), Ian Adams, p. 32: "Ideologically, all US parties are liberal and always have been."


 * "Why I am not a conservative" (1960), F. Hayek: "what in Europe was called "liberalism" was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American tradition was a liberal in the European sense.[2] This already existing confusion was made worse by the recent attempt to transplant to America the European type of conservatism, which, being alien to the American tradition, has acquired a somewhat odd character."  [Footnote:  2. B. Crick, "The Strange Quest for an American Conservatism," Review of Politics, XVII (1955), 365, says rightly that "the normal American who calls himself 'A Conservative' is, in fact, a liberal." It would appear that the reluctance of these conservatives to call themselves by the more appropriate name dates only from its abuse during the New Deal era.


 * Conservative parties and right-wing politics in North America (2003), Rainerp-Olaf Schultze and others, p. 15: Because of these divergent backgrounds, the term "conservatism" came to acquire a different meaning in both countries.  Rather than to European notions of conservatism, the American version relates to classical liberalism.  George Grant, a prominent Canadian conservative intellectual, has contended that:
 * "Americans who call themselves 'conservatives' have the right to that title only in a particular sense. [...]  Their concentration on freedom of governmental interference has more to do with nineteenth century liberalism than with traditional conservatism, which asserts the right of the community to restrain freedom in the name of the common good."


 * Conservatism in America (2007), Paul Gottfried, p. 2: "In this book, I intend to investigate another equally blatant mislabeling, one that pertains to American "conservatives"."

That is the mainstream view even among American conservative writers. Even Kirk wrote that conservatism in America ended in the North in 1800 and the South in 1865. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln, Conservative
The addition of Abraham Lincoln to the list of conservatives is particularly ironic, since in his own time the division was not between liberals and conservatives, but between radicals and conservatives. Those who wanted to free the slaves were called radicals, those who wanted to end the Civil War by allowing the continuation of slavery were called conservatives. In the presidential election of 1864, Lincoln, the Republican candidate, was a radical, while McClellan, the Democratic candidate, was a conservative. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * American conservatives today talk endlessly about human freedom and why slavery is bad. That sounds like Lincoln. The South by 1860 was arguing that slavery was a pretty good deal for the slaves. Rjensen (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems the conservatives are divided on this one. See Lincoln debated.  The Four Deuces (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Conservatives are not especially divided on Lincoln--there are some neo-Confederates (like Di Lorenzo) out there who complain that Lincoln saved the Union and abolished slavery, but they're not numerous. The big complaint about Lincoln is that he put anti-Americans in prison, which is the sort of thing conservatives usually cheer about in 2009.Rjensen (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) You still have not commented on my remark that Rossiter did not include Washington and Lincoln in the hall of fame. What he wrote in the article was:
 * Adams, Hamilton, Marshall, Webster, Calhoun, Root, and Roosevelt—these are the giants of American conservatism, and no conservative need ever feel reluctant to stack them up against the giants of American progressivism, especially since he may argue with some conviction that Washington and Lincoln can also be added to his list.

The Four Deuces (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Radio hosts
I don't think Glenn Beck and Mark Levin belong here. Sure they're popular but have they really contributed to conservatism that much? At least Limbaugh is notable for bringing conservative ideas to talk radio.174.124.189.253 (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Policy suggestion

 * following longstanding Wiki policy, I suggest that all nominations of X, Y and Z to the list be accompanied by a citation to a standard reliable source that says X, Y and Z are conservatives.Rjensen (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You should re-write it then, but you still have not replied to my statement that Rossiter did not include Washington and Lincoln as conservatives. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Too many changes, too fast.
American conservatives strongly support specifically Christian beliefs, not just vague religious beliefs, and they strongly disapprove of modern morality, explicitly modern sexual morality, not just a vague decline in religious unity. On the other hand, certainly American conservatives are strongly anti-communist, and the article needs to say that.

The subject of patriotism is more complex. On the one hand, every political party claims that its members are more patriotic than members of the other party, so to list "patriotism" as a specifically conservative belief is meaningless. On the other hand, "nationalism" is unreferenced. How about "American exceptionalism" as a conservative belief?

I'm going to try to put back what is referenced, or can be easily referenced, and remove what is unreferenced and seems to me doubtful.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * First, there are different branches of "American conservatism". Some have no religious agenda at all (such as purely free market conservatives).


 * Second, your opinion depends on what branch of Christianity you subscribe to. Many Christians would say just the opposite. Saying "American conservatives support Christianity" sounds almost like a GOP slogan.--SuaveArt (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The so-called small government conservatives are the tail trying to wag the dog. Note that small-government conservatives also call themselves small-government liberals, and would like to have Wikipedia represent their belief as beliefs held by a majority of right-thinking people, when in fact they are minority beliefs.

Also, please note that under no circumstances can material inside quotation marks be rewritten (except, of course, to correct typoes). Rick Norwood (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rick Norwood is right about revising quotes. The quote in question is not appropriate for Wikipedia: it's an unsigned opinion by anon without footnotes copied from another encyclopedia. It does not qualify as a secondary source. So I just dropped it. Rjensen (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Nationalism
An editor insists on changing patriotism to nationalism in the lead because ""Patriotism" is too subjective a term. Nationalism is a more dictionary correct one". However there is no source for this and I have never heard of American conservatives or adherents of any other ideology described as nationalists. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * User:SuaveArt has replied "patriotism is defined as "love for one's country" - that is completely meaningless here. Nationalism is the closest term, even if people perceive the term as derogatory (it isn't)". The Four Deuces (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not all conservatives have either patriotism or nationalism. Some have one or the other. Others have both. Why not include both? Seregain (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the article should not be a catalog of all beliefs held by some conservatives, but rather of the most important conservative beliefs, and in this article specifically American conservative beliefs. It may be that all conservatives believe that water runs downhill, but that doesn't make it a conservative belief. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Seregain, which American conservatives do you consider "nationalists"? Which American nationalists reject patriotism? The Four Deuces (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * George W Bush as one example. Most of the Christian right-wing would also be considered nationalists (not necessarily pro-the existing federal govt, but definitely ideologically nationalistic).

''Nationalism generally involves the identification of an ethnic identity with a state.[1]|undefined The subject can include the belief that one's nation is of primary importance.[2]|undefined It is also used to describe a movement to establish or protect a homeland (usually an autonomous state) for an ethnic group. In some cases the identification of a homogeneous national culture is combined with a negative view of other races of cultures.'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuaveArt (talk • contribs) 21:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"Patriotism" is not a concrete term. It's an open-ended and opinionated term. If this article is to stay neutral, it will need to reference specific party platforms, not vague sentimental terms like "Christianity" or "Patriotism" which could be argued against just as easily. --SuaveArt (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I fail to understand how "patriotism" is not a concrete term (whatever that means), as you claim, while "nationalism" apparently is. Look at what is quoted above. Phrases like "generally involves" and "can include." That hardly sounds concrete to me. Seregain (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Patriotism deals with sentiment and is completely subjective. "Love for one's country" can mean anything - conservatives, liberals, libertarians, greens, socialists, etc will all say that their party "loves America" more than the others. ;)


 * Nationalism deals with specific party platforms and ideologies. Now whether it's the best term or not for this article is a different story, but patriotism is completely POV and I could just as well put that in the American liberalism article.--SuaveArt (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * SuaveArt, you need a source that connects American conservatism with nationalism. If we make the connection ourselves it is synthesis.  By the way, Americans do not have an "ethnic identity".  American citizenship is composed of people from various European states, indigenous people and immigrants from other countries.  The Four Deuces (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ethnicity can refer to race, religion, or just culture. Not necessarily race. Religious conservatives do promote a "Christian identity", and conservatives in general promote a strong "American identity" which isn't related to the federal govt, but to the perceived "culture".

'' An ethnic group is a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed.[1][2]

further marked by the researcher Seng Yang in the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness[3]|undefined and the recognition of common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioural traits as indicators of contrast to other groups''

—Preceding unsigned comment added by SuaveArt (talk • contribs) 05:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, you would have to show that it is generally believed that American conservatives are nationalists. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which conservatives? This article covers all forms of American conservatism. There are subtopics for specific branches of conservativsm (ex. paleoconservatism, fiscal conservatism, neoconservatism, etc). If you have a better term than nationalism, then feel free to add it. But "patriotism" refers to an emotion or personal devotion, not a party platform.--SuaveArt (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you are the one who edited the lead to say, "Conservative principles in America include nationalism....", perhaps you could tell us to which conservatives you were referring. The Four Deuces

(talk) 08:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Some paleoconservatives, much of the religious right, some neoconservatives, etc.--SuaveArt (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The contention that some paleoconservatives, much of the religious right, some neoconservatives, etc. are nationalists does not support the statement "Conservative principles in America include nationalism...." The Four Deuces (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In an earlier edit, I made a point to mention that there are multiple "schools" of conservative thought (meaning that not all these principles are held by all forms of conservatism), but this was removed.--SuaveArt (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not matter. You cannot generalize from what you say is a minority position to form a description of the majority.  You must either explain why "Conservative principles in America include nationalism..." or abandon this idea.  The Four Deuces (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

repeated reverts of an obvious fact
Any person who has ever read or listened to the news knows the tremendous influence of the Christian Right on American conservatism but a few references never hurt> Rick Norwood (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean that the Christian right and Judeo-Christian-Islamic values are universally considered "Christian" in every denomination of the religion, because they aren't.--SuaveArt (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * in the context of this article, we're talking about an alliance (esp on abortion and moral issues) between Catholics and Fundamentalists/Evangelicals  that was created about 1980. Before that the two groups had been hostile to each other (1928, 1960 elections for example). Indeed, before 1970s most of the Christians in politics were liberal--supporting civil rights or the social gospel or pacifism. Thus the religious factor in American conservatism is new in the last 30 years or so. (and there has been a big effort to include Israel and orthodox Jews) Rjensen (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"Christian Nation"
The "Christian Nation" theme is often used to attack conservatives, and it is reflected in some Fundamentalist literature. It's not mainstream conservatism. President Reagan for example told Norman Lear in 1984 he was "not aware of any 'Christian Nation movement' and I certainly do not support the notion."(Reagan: A Life in letters p. 642). Conservatives usually speak in terms of Judeao-Christian ethics and values. Rjensen (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The influence of Christianity on American conservatism is so obvious to everyone that it is hard to understand what you hope to accomplish by removing it from the lede. Certainly, even if you make it go away in Wikipeida, everyone is aware of it.  Rick Norwood (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note to SuaveArt: you ignore the word "almost" in the quote "almost from the beginning". However, many conservatives make the (false) claim that America is a Christian nation, and that all of the Founding Fathers were Christian.    I've avoided including this in the article because the article should be about the mainstream of conservatism, not Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.  However, the four nut jobs just named, while not part of the intellectual conservative movement, are far and away the four most famous living conservatives.


 * Also, just because Catholics and Protestants fight does not mean that they are not, sometimes separately and sometimes in unison, major influences on American conservatism. As the quoted reference notes, most American conservatives are much more interested in Christianity than they are in "small government".   Rick Norwood (talk) 13:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that whoever wrote the article was trying to unequivocally equate conservatism with "Patriotism" and "Christianity".--SuaveArt (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * the term "Christian nation" is a heavily loaded code word used mostly by opponents and is heavily POV. The term in use by conservatives is "Judaeo-Christian values." Rjensen (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The lead should mention the connection between modern conservatism and religion. Many left-right issues are affected by this:  abortion, Israel, teaching of evolution, school prayer, etc.  Reagan, George W. Bush and McCain (even Ron Paul) all converted from mainstream churches.  But I find both the Christian nation and Judeo-Christian as subject to various meanings.  The Four Deuces (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The claim that "Christian nation" is used mostly by opponents is contradicted by the web sites I've cited as references. I can list a dozen more conservatives who make the same claim, if you like. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Three points. 1) yes there is a major connection between the religious right and conservatism, but 2) that is not what people mean by "Christian nation". There used to be (down to 1960) a very close link between Catholics and the Democratic Party but that did not make Catholicism a policy goal of the Democratic Party. There are indeed some conservatives who preach the "USA is a Christian Nation" theme, so there are a few websites that can be cited. 3) The question here is whether it is a major factor and on that point the statements of the experts are essential. Rjensen (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Conservatism=against gender equality?
The first paragraph suggests Conservatives are against gender equality. Do you mean they're against the modern gender equality movement?Bettering the Wiki (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph suggests that opposition to gender equality is one part of the US conservative movement. For example, conservatives were mobilized to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Source for your example?Bettering the Wiki (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's what the Britannica on-line has to say, "Although the ERA gained ratification of 30 states within one year of its Senate approval, mounting intense opposition from conservative religious and political organizations effectively brought ratification to a standstill."

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

OBJECTION! It doesn't explicitly say Conservatives are against gender equality, just the ERA. Therefore, to say otherwise is WP:Original Research.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed it to the ERA, why was it changed back? Soxwon (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We must be careful in writing sections like this. Equality is a cental belief of all mainstream American ideologies (which makes the US exceptional) but there are wide differences in the meaning of equality (e.g., separate but equal).  We do not find in American political discussion theorists like Ian Gilmour who argued that people are not equal, but there are sources claiming that US conservatives do not really believe in equality.  We should say instead that x says they are against gender equality.  The Four Deuces (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? Roosevelt?
It says right on Teddy's page that he was the leader of the progressive movement. That contradicts Conservatism. How can he be both the founder of modern Liberalism and a Conservative at the same time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.32.249.24 (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * because the progressive movement of 1900 is not the same as the progressives of 2010. Two examples: TR was a strong proponent of traditional family values; TR was a strong proponent of an aggressive foreign policy. Rjensen (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Examples of Conservatism
Everyone is fagits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.121.27 (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

While I can see the gray over names like Jefferson and Lincoln, I'm not sure how you can argue that Federalists like Madison, Washington, and especially Hamilton were not conservative. They fought for the security of the aristocracy and to preserve the status quo. Soxwon (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you honestly believe these revolutionaries were in favor the status quo, then you should be able to cite a reputable source. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If the Whigs in the Revolution were conservatives, then what would you call the Tories? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * there was no aristocracy (and no bishops) in America and the Patriots fought to keep it that way and preserve their form of government, which Britain tried to abolish (in Massachusetts) with the Intolerable Acts. Historians agree these goals were conservative of American values. The Tories wanted direct rule by London and supported the crushing of local and colonial government in Massachusetts by the Intolerable Acts.Rjensen (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

.Rjensen (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Russell Kirk used that explanation to argue that the war was a "conservative revolution", but that is not mainstream historical thought even among serious American conservative writers. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not just Kirk, Daniel J. Boorstin argues the point in "The American Revolution: Revolution Without Dogma," Daniel P. Murphy does in "War and Society," and others agree and even Bailyn acknowledges it. Your mischaracterization is rather astounding TFD. Soxwon (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What's even more dumbfounding is that you make the case that at the minimum (barest minimum) that Alexander Hamilton was not considering he argued for a monarch-style executive for the new government. Soxwon (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hamilton's views were entirely consistent with Whig and Girondin ideology of his time and only appear conservative in relation to his colleagues. He clearly supported the development of trade, commerce and industry, unlike Jefferson's vision of a nation of yeomen.  An American monarchy was anachronistic, but it would be subject to the law, as in the UK or the Netherlands.  If the Federalists had been real conservatives, the US would have developed along the same lines as Mexico.  The Four Deuces (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) It is still a minority view. The mainstream view is that the values of the revolution were liberal, whether they were fighting to change society or to preserve rights that they believed the Crown was infringing upon. However as I said above I believe the article should reflect that there are differing views on this matter. I do not think however that any historians put Jefferson or Madison in the conservative camp, but I may be wrong and would welcome any source showing that they have been considered in this way. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Jefferson, I admit, is a stretch, as is Lincoln. However, Rick was removing wholesale Washington, Hamilton, and Madison who each have strong cases for being considered conservative. Soxwon (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm unable to find "The American Revolution: Revolution Without Dogma" online. I did find "War and Society", but since the subtitle is "The United States: 1941-1945", and since the book does not mention George Washington, except to mention things named after him, it seems an unlikely source. Please provide a quote. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * From "War and Society:"

The American Revolution did not spark a vast social upheaval like those associated with the French and Russian Revolutions. The struggle for independence did not pit one class against another. The men who served in Congress or led the Continental army never sought to restructure society.

Although the shape of American government changed, it was always rooted in traditional practice and principles. Because of this, the American Revolution has been described as a conservative revolution, making it unique among the major revolutionary movements of the modern era. Soxwon (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to a book by American conservatives explaining their history. According to them the Federalists were English-style Conservatives, except for Hamilton who was an authoritarian conservative like De Maistre.  Madison began as a conservative but became a liberal.  I don't mind using this as a source, as long as it is clear it is not mainstream history.  The Four Deuces (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with listing famous people, without comment, as belonging to this or that cause, is that such a list does not permit the nuances that a mention in the text would allow, e.g. most authorities consider these people to have been on one side, but a few authorities consider these people to have been on the other side, in varying degrees, at various points in their career. Rather it suggests, and seems to be intended to suggest, that all the good people are on my side.

Still, I thank Soxwon for the quote, while noting that it does not say that the various people were conservative, but rather than the American Revolution, uniquely among revolutions, was conservative. But note that the use of conservative in the quoted passage means preserving the class system and the social mores. It does not suggest that the Founding Fathers did not support their new government with tariffs and favor a strong central government over the Articles of Confederation. They also were strongly anti-monarchy, anti-established church, pro freedom of speech, and pro freedom of the press. (The exception to the latter being, of course, the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts.) In short, they were the very opposite of conservative in the sense that the word was used at the time, and to some extent is still used today.

In short, a list does not lend itself to answering complex questions. Such a list should be short, and only include unambiguous and major examples. Please only add names to the list of conservatives if the person in question has said, "I am a conservative." or if a major authority includes their names on a list of important conservative thinkers. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * we need to include Americans who are often cited and quoted by conservatives and became icons of conservatism AFTER the Revolution. That covers Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton. Rjensen (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Jefferson, he would be considered more populist and liberal (along with Patrick Henry) than Washington and Hamilton. In response to Rick:

The trouble with listing famous people, without comment, as belonging to this or that cause, is that such a list does not permit the nuances that a mention in the text would allow, e.g. most authorities consider these people to have been on one side, but a few authorities consider these people to have been on the other side, in varying degrees, at various points in their career. Rather it suggests, and seems to be intended to suggest, that all the good people are on my side.
 * Then why do you insist on keeping the list on the Modern Liberalism page? I doubt that Washington, Madison, Jefferson, or any of the other white slave-holders belong in that category.

Still, I thank Soxwon for the quote, while noting that it does not say that the various people were conservative, but rather than the American Revolution, uniquely among revolutions, was conservative. But note that the use of conservative in the quoted passage means preserving the class system and the social mores. It does not suggest that the Founding Fathers did not support their new government with tariffs and favor a strong central government over the Articles of Confederation. They also were strongly anti-monarchy, anti-established church, pro freedom of speech, and pro freedom of the press. (The exception to the latter being, of course, the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts.) In short, they were the very opposite of conservative in the sense that the word was used at the time, and to some extent is still used today.

In short, a list does not lend itself to answering complex questions. Such a list should be short, and only include unambiguous and major examples. Please only add names to the list of conservatives if the person in question has said, "I am a conservative." or if a major authority includes their names on a list of important conservative thinkers.
 * Several historians (including Charles A. Beard and, though not as strongly, John P. Roche) contend they merely protected their privilege and prestige by placating the people (the Bill of Rights was added only AFTER the Consitution and after much protest from Democratic-Republicans like Jefferson) An example of this comes from Jonathan Elliot's The Debates in the Several State Constitutions on the Adoption of the Federal Constutition where Elbrdge Gerry was quoted as saying that the people should only be taken into consideration "to inspire them with the necessary confidence." In this same vein Hamilton urged that "all the communities divide themselves into the the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born and the other the mass of the people who seldom judge or determine right." Soxwon (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to the rest, again, why is this same criteria not used for the Modern Liberaliam? It seems there is a double standard (much more rigorous for one) for such lists. Soxwon (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You should discuss that in that article's talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Jefferson was the chief spokesman for a small, weak national government and that resonates with libertarians and states-righters. The business wing of the conservative movement, and the pro-military wings, have always admired Hamilton. Rjensen (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * However one interprets the American revolution, the mainstream view is that the leaders supported a liberal republic. It seems obvious to me that American conservatism has more in common with English Puritanism, Whiggery and classical liberalism than it does with Royalism, Toryism and one nation conservatism.  The Four Deuces (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality
The neutrality tag has been attached to this article for a long time. Does anyone see why it is necessary? The article may need improvement in some areas, but this does not seem to be a problem. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * agreed. Rjensen (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of unsourced generalizations still in the article however. Soxwon (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * the article is based on lots of books in the bibliography; if someone thinks a statement is dubious, then mark just it and we vcan fix it. Rjensen (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know, there seems to be a lot of generalizing that would be hard to support. I would prefer a concentrated effort be made to go through and see what we can keep and what we can't. I've not had the time to do so, but I would be willing to make time if anyone else is interested. Soxwon (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rjensen. If you think anything is biased then say what it is.  The Four Deuces (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For one there seems to be a distinct lack of libertarian influence on the social conservatism. Secondly, the entire policies section is nothing but uncited generalizations and full of weasel words. Soxwon (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That does not make the article biased. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Soxwon: 1) I thought libertarians were economic conservatives but social liberals. 2) There is no "politics" section. Do you mean "Political movements"? If so, I agree it is blather and should be deleted. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Bias in Libertarianism
I edited the description of Libertarianism Conservatism in the types section to remove bias, it stated that libertarian conservatives were often had "disdain and distrust" of the government, and that many were only concerned with a "single issue". This painted the ideology in a negative light. As a liberal I am not very well versed in other forms of conservatism, and do not feel I have the knowledge many forms of conservatism to safely remove the bias without jeopardizing the segments accuracy. But I do feel that the other segments in the types section also contain bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WildBoer (talk • contribs) 00:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I am a conservative leaning Libertarian and such characterizations are completely POV and ignorant.  Likely the item was edited by someone with little or no understanding/knowledge of Libertarianism. JP419 (talk) 08:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

HoF and Famous Conservatives
Like the famous liberals section this section serves no purpose other than to plop together vaguely associated ppl into a group and really is quite useless. Soxwon (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * that is an outlier opinion not shared by the many other editors involved in t article. The purpose it to make concrete the otherwise rather theoretical distinctions among many different varieties and styles and schools of conservatism. The basic point is that conservatism is more an applied approach -- conservatives often say they are dubious about abstract theory--and in real life conservatives spend much more time (compared say to liberals) talking about the models. For example in recent years conservatives talk a great deal about the Reagan model. In other decades they talked about models set by Goldwater, Taft, Webster, Hamilton and Washington.  So it's not symmetrical with liberalism. (In recent decades liberals talked a lot about Martin Luther King, but mention few other people as models; I'd suggest liberals are more likely to mention abstractions like "New Deal", "Great Society", "Civil Rights Movement" rather than name people; some liberals indeed ridicule using "Dead white men" as models, while  conservatives do not do that.) Rjensen (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A problem with lists are that there are competing views of the use of the term conservatism (e.g., Hartz, Rossiter, Kirk) and the list keeps growing. While it is important to report how different scholars interpret history, I see no purpose in combining these differing views into a list. I would rather see more discussion in the article about what these competing views are.  The Four Deuces (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hartz doesn't get mentioned in the article (he wrote about liberalism). The purpose in naming names is that conservatism focuses more on the concrete than the abstract, and does not reject "dead white men" as many liberals do. The views of Rossiter and Kirk are not very far apart, in my opinion. They emphasize different aspects of conservatism--Kirk is more interested in literature and writers while Rossiter focuses more on politics and the Constitution. Rjensen (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hartz's view, which has remained influential and should be mentioned, was that there is no conservate tradition in America, hence any historical list would be meaningless. Kirk saw conservatism in the US as something similar to British conservatism and thought it had died out politically with the Federalists and the Civil War.  Rossiter saw conservatism as more enduring.  There is also the tradition of nativists and extremists, who are arguably also conservatives.  Finally a lot of the editors equate conservatism with libertarianism.  I don't see how a list could be helpful and it is more likely to be a distraction.  The Four Deuces (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hartz 55 years ago said there is no conservatism in America, so he would erase this whole article. Hardly any expert now agrees with that position. The advantage of a list is that it has focused our editors attention successfully on who the main people are.It let's users jump to the specific biography so they can see for themselves. What usually happens is that one conservative gets aa following and later on experts categorize that position; it's exactly the opposite on the left where ideological positions create factions and the factions, not individuals, become the focus of debate. Rjensen (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Although there is a "conservative" movement in the US that coalesced about 55 years ago and can be distinguished from "liberalism", there is no general agreement on the development of those two traditions before they acquired their current names. the fact that there is a close relation today between the Republican and Conservative Parties can be explained by the move by Liberals into the Conservative Party.  Otherwise American conservatism seems closer to English Puritanism, Whiggery and classical liberalism than Toryism.  Trying to identify an American liberal tradition that developed in parallel to conservatism presents similar problems.  The Four Deuces (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * the situation has changed dramatically in the last 5 years with a whole shelf of major historical studies. Rjensen (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sure that you are more up to date on this than I am. Could you please tell me what some of those studies are.  Surely it would be important to include them in the article,  The Four Deuces (talk) 07:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think maybe the discussion is getting a little far afield of the original suggestion. I agree with Soxwon in that the "Hall of Fame" and the rest of that section is entirely subjective and not useful to the article. I think that it should be removed. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We are trying to determine if the list is subjective. My position is that there is no general agreement as to who if anyone was a conservative before 1955.  The Four Deuces (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "subjective" is not a Wikipedia criteria. What we do is report what the experts say and there is general agreement among experts as shown by the ability of people like Rossiter to make a list and the general agreement in the recent histories and encyclopedias of conservatism. For example, recent books by Alitt, Frohnen, Nash, Ehrman, Wilentz, and Hayward (and older ones by Rossiter and Kirk and Filler) all talk about the same people. Our job is to report that consensus to the readers.Rjensen (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The writers you mentioned (who are all American conservatives) are Patrick Allitt, Bruce Frohnen, George H. Nash, Bart D. Ehrman, Sean Wilentz, and Steven F. Hayward. I do not see where they have created an agreement on the history of American conservatism.  The Four Deuces (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Filler was a prominent liberal; Wilentz is currently leading liberal and Princeton professor. Add Schulman and Zeliser ed. Rightward Bound (2008) (mostly liberals) The point is they talk about the same people. I can't think of a single example where one of these standard books rejects as not-conservative a person named by most of the others. That is, there is a basic consensus. Rjensen (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I want to be sure we're talking about the same list. You assert that all of these people state that George Washington, for example, was a conservative? Rick Norwood (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is an article by Willinz, "Bush's ancestors", where he challenges the view that conservatism began in 1955 and traces it back to the Whigs (and no doubt would group the Federalists with them). Essentially conservatives were the commercial elite who were successful in attracting reactionary lower middle-class elements, ironically by portraying their opponents as elitists. That is basically the Progressive view, and contradicts the US traditional conservatives, who see a link between British and American conservatism. The problem I see is the the dividing line between the two camps. We do not find the same gulf between the two groups as in Upper Canada, where the ideologies of the Family Compact and the Reformers clearly differed. Where for example do Lincoln, Cleveland, Bryan and Al Smith fit? The Four Deuces (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Clearly, a conservative who claims George Washington as a conservative or a liberal who claims George Washington as a liberal are not objective authorities. If we must have lists, and it seems we must, there are, after all, standard reference works.  I suggest we limit the lists to people who are described as "conservative" or "liberal" in standard reference works. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Academic analysis
I started a new section on Academic analysis. I think it is important to show that there are differing views on the existence and nature of American conservatism and believe that this discussion requires broader coverage in the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Types
I think the section on types leads to much confusion once you start reading the detailed definitions of each type. There are additional types (fiscal and social) introduced that were not discussed prior. We end up having way to many types with fuzzy overlapping among them. Are the terms used to name each type known to be in mainstream usage? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 18:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit war
I've been quickly and repeatedly reverted by user:Soxwon at two articles for adding the following information:


 * According to the ASA, a major health study found that adolescents identifying as "very liberal" averaged an IQ of 106, while those calling themselves "very conservative" averaged an IQ of 95.

At talk:Modern liberalism in the United States he said I was using this fact "out of context", but the source speaks for itself. Wnt (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned let us wait for the report to be releaeed. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Everywhere else that WP:PRIMARY is raised, the emphasis is on desirable secondary sources preferred over primary sources. The American Sociological Association is a secondary source, whereas the original paper when it comes out is a primary source.  Even if you disagree with its interpretation, overriding its summary abstract with a new analysis of the data would only get complaints about WP:OR and so on.
 * Personally I think a primary source is as good as a secondary in biological sciences - but you cannot justify banning secondary sources here. Wnt (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you are misinterpreting the difference between types of sources. See:  Identifying reliable sources "Overview" and "Scholarship".  Peer-reviewed articles published in academic journals are high quality reliable sources (HQRS).  Abstracts are merely summaries of articles written by the same writers.  Academic papers often contain primary sources, in this case statistical analysis.  If we use this source we may only report the interpretation offered by the writers, and cannot use it to form our own conclusions.  The Four Deuces (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing this up, The Four Deuces. It's something that has bothered me about the way Wikipedia uses "primary source" and "secondary source". Like Wnt, I assumed the article was the primary and the press release the secondary, but your point -- that the original data is the primary and the article is the secondary, makes sense to me.

Wnt is excited by this result, understandably, but he needs to take a few deep breaths. First, it is fundamental to conservative beliefs that a high IQ and too much education turns people into idiots, and so Wnt shouldn't think the research is going to help the liberal cause. Second, this is a study of American adolescents with extreme views, and so is not of widespread application (not important enough to go into the lede of any article). Rick Norwood (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that if you look at Identifying reliable sources there is no "HQRS" or "High Quality Reliable Sources" in it. Wnt (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See Identifying_reliable_sources: "How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation."  (I forgot the hyphen!)  The term is used throughout WP guidelines and the short-form HQRS is often used by editors.  However what is important is how peer-reviewed academic journals are seen as sources.  The Four Deuces (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The four words appear together once in the guideline, but not in the two sections you mentioned; more to the point, they aren't defined there, and aren't defined to include the primary scientific papers that so often are unfairly disparaged on Wikipedia. The guidelines twice mention high-quality mainstream publications - which assumedly are not peer reviewed at all.  No matter how the policy is interpreted, you know that the American Sociological Association is a source.  They publish several peer reviewed journals.  I cited their web site and their press release.  Wnt (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * These issues can always be resolved at the reliable sources noticeboard. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm US liberal, not conservative, but I completely fail to see how the following sentence belongs in this article: According to the ASA, "Add Health" data found an average IQ of 106 for American adolescents identifying themselves as "very liberal", compared to an IQ of 95 for those calling themselves "very conservative". So I'm joining the "edit war", unless someone can give a strong justification for why THIS ARTICLE is an appropriate place to quote this fact. ToolmakerSteve (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

More about why this doesn't seem to fit to me: 1. It isn't the type of fact that is traditionally seen in articles such as this, in Wikipedia, or other encyclopedias. 2. It is a single study, which would therefore need to be in context of a much broader discussion of sociological and psychological factors found to be correlated with conservatism. 3. It is likely to be highly controversial, hence should be dealt with carefully, after discussion with experienced Wikipedia editors. For instance, the typical reader would conclude that the person placing it did so for POV purposes. Hence, it is difficult to place it *here* without a perception of non-neutrality. ToolmakerSteve (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

And as Rick Norwood mentioned, placing it in the lead of the article is unjustifiable. Don't try to put it there again. Your POV is blatant. ToolmakerSteve (talk) 04:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I put it next to related content. It doesn't really matter where I put it, or what the sources are, because someone will revert it as soon as they find it.  (Besides, technically a "WP:LEDE" is up to four paragraphs, and I put it in a fifth paragraph...)  But for what it's worth, 3 days later, a verbose and less precise version of the story has finally hit CNN; and an even more verbose and even less informative version, with lots of random speculation added, has hit Time Magazine.  I admit, I'd be lying if I said I think these sources are better than (or equal to) those I cited before, but they certainly sound familiar, don't they? Wnt (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There appears to be no consensus to include this material. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously. But that's strictly because certain people patrolling the article don't like it, and for no other reason. Wnt (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two great reasons to oppose the inclusion of this study:


 * Research is new and, consequently, relatively unreliable. If more researchers find similar results in the next few years, you'll have a much stronger case and I'd be willing to jump on board. The source is definitely reputable, but even a few reputable sources are not good enough to start affecting Wikipedia policy across many articles.
 * Nature of the material is, or could be, subject to significant POV by Wikipedia standards. Stability is one of the key features that any Wikipedia article should exhibit, and what you want to do would ruin any sense of that stability. We're already getting hints of potential trouble in the future when you drop comments like "Conservatives 11 IQ points dumber than liberals." In fact, the people who conducted the research are warning against precisely these kinds of stereotypes and characterizations. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 00:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You should try reading WP:NPOV sometime. Consider the first paragraph after the table of contents:


 * The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. Therefore, material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV", although it may be shortened and moved to a new article if it gives undue weight to a minor point of view, as explained below.


 * Because similar results have already been found, this is not a minor point of view. I agree that this has been "subject to significant POV by Wikipedia standards", but perhaps not in the way that you meant it. Wnt (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There's also a very interesting quote from the Time piece: '''But self-identification is often misleading; do kids really know what it means to be liberal? The GSS data are instructive here: Kanazawa found that more-intelligent GSS respondents (as measured by a quick but highly reliable synonym test) were less likely to agree that the government has a responsibility to reduce income and wealth differences. In other words, intelligent people might like to portray themselves as liberal. But in the end, they know that it's good to be the king.''' Soxwon (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind that you are stressing the interpretation of someone who had three days to read the study before opining, "It's an elegant theory, but based on Kanazawa's own evidence, I'm not sure he's right..." Note also that John Cloud is a reporter, not a sociologist. There are multiple sources for the inclusion of Kanazawa's study, but Cloud's comments rate at most a mention if the study is built up into a paragraph documenting reactions. Wnt (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you know that it is not stressed? You've not read anything but the abstract. Perhaps waiting for his full study would be nice. Soxwon (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You can keep saying that, but the moment we dig into the study and start arguing the author's conclusions someone will just say WP:OR, and that would actually be a legitimate policy objection. Wnt (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The objection would actually be WP:Weight. It must be demonstrated that the opinions expressed have received some degree of recognition before they may be included.  The Four Deuces (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You mean like support from the American Sociological Association? This make-believe policy discussion is a waste of time. Wnt (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a little like the news report that many Black teens claim to be socialist. Many of them cannot define the word "socialist" correctly. But Fox News says Obama is a socialist, so they want to be one, too. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to do with an unsourced statement about unidentified teens, and the correct definition of socialist is according to whom? I'd think socialists define what socialism is.  Or look at the meaning of "anarchism" in the U.S. recently... but I digress.  More likely they're "socialists" like they're "Hussein", like Americans are "Yankee Doodle".  In any case, if you have a source then by golly go find a relevant article and add it. Wnt (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wnt, take some deep breaths. My point was not that the "socialist" article belongs in, but that your "IQ" article doesn't, at least not until the result is confirmed by several sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)