Talk:National Conservative Political Action Committee

Time magazine characterization of NCPAC
Another user has repeatedly edited the statement (in the lead section) "Time magazine characterized NCPAC, the Conservative Caucus and the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress (headed by Paul Weyrich) as the three most important ultraconservative organizations making up the New Right" to change "ultraconservative" to "conservative." This edit changes the meaning -- in effect, it's putting different words in a source's mouth. The lead paragraphs of the Time magazine article consistently used the word "ultraconservative" (also "right-wing") to describe these organizations. The fact that the word "conservative" appears later in the Time article does not change the fact that Time described the three groups as "ultraconservative," not as "conservative." For reference, here's what Time said (emphasis added):


 * Block the SALT treaty? "We'll fight it to the end," says Howard Phillips, 38, a husky Bostonian who heads one of the ultraconservative groups that are raising millions to oppose ratification. "In the long run we lose only if we fail to fight."


 * Unite Protestant fundamentalists and Catholic ethnics into a political bloc by emphasizing emotional "family" issues? "A year or two ago nothing was happening," says Paul Weyrich, 36, a former TV reporter who leads another right-wing organization. "Now we're moving."


 * Chop down some of the Senate's most prominent Democrats? "Of course, we can do it," says Terry Dolan, 28, chairman of a third ultraconservative organization.

--Orlady (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Time article uses both "Conservative" and "Ultraconservative". Also there is no Wikipedia page for "Ultraconservative", it reverts straight to Conservative. To be consistent with the revert, the name, and with a neutral point of view the word "conservative" is a better fit. Other relevant citations were also added to help clarify this change. I would suggest that we either expand the Time article section by making it more general (i.e. use multiple sources), or we insert the term right-wing, which does have a page on Wikipedia.

--Fountainviewkid (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the magazine article included the word "conservative" in addition to the word "ultraconservative," but (as noted above) it characterized these three groups as "ultraconservative," not as "conservative."
 * As for the fact that Ultraconservative is a redirect to Conservatism, that simply means that the article "Conservatism" discusses all of the multiple "colors" of conservatism. See Manual of Style (linking) and Redirect for perspective on how hyperlinks and redirects are used in Wikipedia.
 * PS - I realize that you are currently blocked from editing and cannot reply here at present. Perhaps you can use the period of the block to become more familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Orlady (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * PPS - The distinction between "ultraconservative" and "conservative" is not a matter of NPOV. This is a matter of accurately representing the cited source. --Orlady (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)