Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-12 Conservatism

Mediation Case: 2006-06-12 Conservatism
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Rick Norwood 13:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * ...Conservatism


 * Who's involved?
 * ...User:Rick Norwood, User:ER MD, User:Scribner


 * What's going on?
 * ...There is a section titled Criticism of Conservatism. ER MD and, to a lesser extent, Scribner repeatedly blank this section.  I have tried to work with them for three weeks, but they continue to blank rather than work toward a compromise.  ER MD was blocked for 24 hours yesterday for repeated blanking by administrator User:William M. Connolley, but he is back today and still blanking.  The administrator suggested mediation.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * ...I would like them to be specific about what they object to in the section, and to discuss whether the things they object to are or are not referenced and to the point.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * ...I am happy to work in the open. Contact me on my talk page.


 * Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case? Yes  I am interested in mediating the current cases The Complete Peanuts and Spotted Moth Evolution, both of which I know something about.  I have not worked on either article.


 * This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do
 * what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.



Beneaththelandslide (Michael)
Rick Norwood has, from the start, done nothing but add his own point-of-view to politics related articles. His points are argued by quoting an individual with a certain stance on particular issues (whether it be nationalism, religion, social classes or otherwise) and then attacking the philosophy based on their quotes. In the conservatism article, Norwood, for the most part, wholly ignores that conservatism is the conservation of tradition, and gradual change. He instead interprets it as something akin to American Conservatism; a phenomenon with a hugely different interpretation and attacks it based on his own interpretation.

The conflict is primarily regarding a section entitled 'Criticism of Conservatism' which was originally added by User:EnglishEfternamn (as shown below) with the edit summary stating "If Socialism carries with it a "criticism" page, shouldn't that of Conservatism exist as well? This is only fair." EnglishEfternamn's excuse for a criticism section is based not on its requirement as part of a comprehensive article, but that since it is on a differing philosophy, it is "only fair".

first addition of criticism section
 * Much of the criticism of the ideology of Conservatism comes from the political left. Criticisms range from claims that it limits chances to economically disadvantaged people by eliminating welfare programs seen to be vital by socialists and some liberals. Other criticisms pertain to claims that Conservatism adheres to racist practices. It could be said that the reason for this belief stems from the idea that since Conservatives are traditionalist, they are therefore "racist" as they are accused of supporting old-fashioned race-related practices, such as segregation in the U.S.


 * Responses to these criticisms assert that Conservatives favour the cutbacks of government programs not out of comtempt for the economically disadvantaged, but because it is the belief of Conservatives that smaller government is "better". Many conservatives also rebut by criticising the left's "lack of morals" and stating that the left has used the welfare state to create a class of "dependents". Of course, the general accuracy of these claims is relative to the political affiliation of the receiver of information.

The section completely ignored the philosophy of conservatism and instead attacked American-based issues of welfare, racism and classes. It was subsequently reverted by myself in an edit summary stating "revert; Original research, speculation, unrequired addition".

Following this initial activity, the section was reverted several times by differing users. The section remained unchanged until Rick Norwood made significant alterations:


 * In many historical situations, the young and the disadvantaged have struggled against a conservatism supported by the old and the upper class. For example, in Athens in 399 BC, the philosopher Socrates was put to death on the charge that his teaching corrupted the young, by giving them new ideas. In Livy's History of Rome are countless examples of the patrician class invoking tradition and the gods to hold power over the plebeian class, who cried out for land and for relief from debt. Of the French revolution, the poet William Wordsworth wrote "Bliss in that dawn it was to be alive, but to be young was very heaven!"


 * Conservatives are often criticized for invoking religion and patriotism as a cover for self-interest. Samuel Johnson wrote, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundral," and Karl Marx said, "Religion ... is the opium of the people." Many a populist politician in modern times has stirred the voters to a patriotic fervor and then acted only to benefit himself and his cronies.


 * In America, many critics of conservatism see it as the enemy of freedom and equality. During the heyday of liberalism, between 1933 and 1969, there were efforts on the part of the federal government to provide for the general welfare, to replace the aristocracy by a meritocracy, by means of competative admission to college and by civil service examinations, to aleviate inequalities of wealth by a graduated income tax, to end the tradistional disenfranchisement of Blacks in the South, and to open more occupations to women.

I subsequently analysed the section and on the talk page as follows:


 * "In many historical situations, the young and the disadvantaged have struggled against a conservatism supported by the old and the upper class" - Conservatism as a philosophy has nothing to do with class.
 * No, but the upper class has the most to gain by preserving the status quo and the lower classes the most to gain by change.


 * "For example, in Athens in 399 BC, the philosopher Socrates was put to death on the charge that his teaching corrupted the young, by giving them new ideas. In Livy's History of Rome are countless examples of the patrician class invoking tradition and the gods to hold power over the plebeian class, who cried out for land and for relief from debt." - Again, nothing to do with class. In addition, you seem to imply that conservatism is wholly against change.
 * The implications, which are Plato's and Livy's implications, not mine, are that conservative philosophy, in trying to conserve "traditional" values, often opposes new ideas and changes in the traditional social structure.


 * "Conservatives are often criticized for invoking religion and patriotism as a cover for self-interest. Samuel Johnson wrote, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundral," and Karl Marx said, "Religion ... is the opium of the people." Many a populist politician in modern times has stirred the voters to a patriotic fervor and then acted only to benefit himself and his cronies." - Why the attack on religion and nationalism? (aren't you supposed to be attempting to critique conservatism?) Conservatism as a philosophy has nothing to do with nationalism or religion. Also, you seem to parallel American Conservatism by implying this. If a society is socialist, then conservatism in that society would be the conservation of socialism. Scoundral = Scoundrel
 * Conservatism often strongly supports preservation of religious and nationalistic values. Of course, what those religious and nationalistic values are vary from nation to nation and time to time.  But I doubt that Samuel Johnson or Karl Marx had American conservatism in mind when they made their famous remarks.  Thank you for catching my spelling error.


 * "In America, many critics of conservatism see it as the enemy of freedom and equality. During the heyday of liberalism, between 1933 and 1969, there were efforts on the part of the federal government to provide for the general welfare, to replace the aristocracy by a meritocracy, by means of competative admission to college and by civil service examinations, to aleviate inequalities of wealth by a graduated income tax, to end the tradistional disenfranchisement of Blacks in the South, and to open more occupations to women." - American Conservatism.
 * American conservatism is one form of conservatism mentioned in the article, therefore discussion of it is not off limits unless that discussion focuses on it to the exclusion of other forms of conservatism. All triple indents above by Rick Norwood 22:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Even Norwood's responses to the analysis are filled with personal opinion and reflect his vision of conservatism: "the upper class has the most to gain by preserving the status quo and the lower classes the most to gain by change.", "often strongly supports preservation of religious and nationalistic values". Once again, he ignores the philosophy and instead concentrates on issues that are not a part of it - but issues that are considered, in his own eyes, to be associated with those whom he deems "conservatives". I subsequently reverted this section as I had done earlier; in one of my edit summaries I had pointed out that it was unreferenced. Norwood provided references for the section and then, since it had references, Norwood said that it was now suitable, ignoring the huge flaws that had been pointed out.

Reverts took place and tags were added. The present criticism section is as follows:


 * Historically, there have been three main criticisms of conservatism.


 * There have been those who agree that tradition is important, but who claim that conservative passions often result in extreme punishment for those who deviate from tradition. An example is Plato's implied criticism (in his Apology) of the citizens of Athens, who sentenced [[Socrates to death in 339 BC on the charge that he was "a doer of evil, who corrupts the youth; and who does not believe in the gods of the state, .."


 * Then there are those who claim that conservative philosophy is often a mask for self-interest. The Roman historian Livy, in his History of Rome, wrote (of the year 445 BC):


 * War and political dissension made the year a difficult one. Hardly had it begun, when the tribune Canuleius introduced a bill for legalizing intermarriage between the nobility and the commons.  The senatorial party objected strongly on the grounds not only that the patrician blood would thereby be contaminated but also that the hereditary rights and privileges of the gentes, or families, would be lost.  Further, a suggestion, at first cautiously advanced by the tribunes, that a law should be passed enabling one of the two counsuls to be a plebeian, subsequently hardened into the promulgation, by nine tribunes, of a bill by which the people should be empowered to elect to the counsulship such men as they thought fit, from either of the two parties.  The senatorial party felt that if such a bill were to become law, it would mean not only that the highest office of state would have to be shared with the dregs of society but that it would, in effect, be lost to the nobility and transferred to the commons.  It was with great satisfaction, therefore, that the Senate received a report, first that Ardea had thrown off her allegiance to Rome in resentment at the crooked practice which had deprived her of her territory; secondly, that troops from Weii had raided the Roman frontier, and, thirdly, that the Volscians and Aequians were showing uneasiness at the fortification of Verrugo.  In the circumstances it was good news, for the nobility could look forward even to an unsuccessful war with greater complacency than to an ignominious peace.


 * Other writers have echoed the criticism that conservative philosophy is sometimes used to mask self-interest. Benjamin Disraeli, himself a member of the conservative party in England, wrote in 1845, "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy."


 * Finally, there are those who criticize conservatism as standing in the way of progress.


 * In France, in the 18th century, conservatives supported the Ancien Régime. In praise of the revolution that overthrew the Ancien Régime, the English poet William Wordsworth wrote, "Bliss in that dawn it was to be alive, but to be young was very heaven!"  After the failure of the revolution, Vicomte Louis-Gabriel-Ambroise de Bonald, one of the two leading French conservatives in the age of Napoleon, set forth the principles of French conservatism in Théorie du pruvoir politique et religieux (1796): "absolute monarchy, hereditary aristocracy, patriarchal authority in the family, and the moral and religious sovereignty of the popes over all the kings of Christendom."  But Napoleon himself predicted that, in the end, French conservatism could not stand in the way of progress.  In his final days he said that the principles of the French Revolution would triumph in American, France, and England; and “from this tripod the light will burst upon the world.”

Through a realisation (?), Norwood changed the criticisms from modern-day political stances and changed it to a collection of quotes from historical leaders - some quotes of which even preceded, by millenia, the philosophy of conservatism. He again reflects on matters of class and other issues which do not directly relate to the philosophy. He even compares conservatism to feudal aristocracy.

I have, throughout the whole debacle, communicated with Norwood on both his talk page and on the talk page of the article itself. A request for comment was filed, with notification on both talk pages - it has gained few responses so far, but none in Norwood's favour. On his talk page I have left the following:


 * I am at a loss as to why you keep adding that section.


 * It doesn't relate to conservatism as a philosophy. The quotes used attack not conservatism, but nationalism, patriotism and classes as if they represent it. One even pre-dates the modern philosophy! I do not want to be rude but do wish to be frank; it honestly seems as if you have some vision of conservatism being simply aristocracy, nationalism, religion, inequality and unfree- you then critique it based on this vision.


 * Conservatism (as a philosophy) is not aristocracy, nationalism, religion, etc - it is the preservation of tradition and gradual (slower) change. A 'criticism' section is unrequired for such a philosophy - because criticism of it depends on the circumstances in which conservatism is applied.


 * I hope you understand my words and take this in good faith. michael talk 14:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You just professed your point-of-view ("the preservation of a state religion, a landed upper class, and a hereditary aristocracy") in addition to ignoring what I said above! michael talk 14:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * your positions that you keep adding to conservatism and american conservatism are misrepresentations and star man arguments. I will continue to delete them. The talk pages have already disagreed with you completely on your insertions. I think you need to separate your feelings about conservatism from the NPOV objections to them. ER MD 19:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you do not stop adding your POV to the article I will be taking this further and getting additional input and discussion to end this nonsense. michael talk 14:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Michael, I think you are acting in good faith, but I also think that repeatedly deleting what you disagree with is not the wiki way to resolve disputes. I have provided reputable sources for everything in the disputed section.  I can provide more, if you like.  Saying that the ideas you disagree with are "not conservativism" only means that they are not your kind of conservatism.  I accept that.  I may very well find your kind of conservatism admirable.  But you need to face the fact that there are other kinds of conservatism.  Calling my referenced comments NPOV, OR, nonsense, and so on has become just name calling, not a rational response to the points raised. Rick Norwood 15:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No one has backed you up or agreed with your nonsense. You continue to act in a poor fashion and ignore reasonable argument against your (pov, skewed, nonsensical) edits. Your request for comment has nil responses that are either neutral, or, more importantly, in your favour. With this in mind, I am reverting, again. michael talk 12:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't end up reverting - someone else beat me to it. However, you have been reported for breaching 3RR. michael talk 13:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

His replies, earlier on, are to be found on my talk page:


 * Conservatism, as the article reflects, means different things to different people. One strong strain of conservatism is the preservation of a state religion, a landed upper class, and a hereditary aristocracy.  You object that one of my quotes isn't even "modern".  But the article is not about "modern conservatism" but about conservatism throughout history.  Instead of just rejecting the "criticisms of conservatism" section out of hand, let's discuss it in the appropriate talk page.  Meanwhile, I'll continue to add the references you requested. Rick Norwood 14:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You have done a lot of good work in Wikipedia on Australian articles, but I think your assertions that my contributions to Conservatism are POV are unfounded. In any case, I am working with others to eliminate POV from the section in question, and to carefully provide appropriate references for everything.  Rick Norwood 14:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to view extensive discussion on the Conservatism talk page and the article's history. michael talk 14:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please report evidence in this section with for misconduct and  for 3RR violations. If you need help ask a mediator or an advocate. Evidence is of limited use in mediation as the mediator has no authority. Providing some evidence may, however, be useful in making both sides act more civil. Etiquette: Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.

ER_MD
Rick has failed to meet consensus in both [american conservatism] and in [conservatism], is involved in orignal research, and violates policy with personal attacks as below:


 * P.S. for ER MD. In my reading I came across a quote I thought you might like by the famous philosopher Herbert Spencer, "During immaturity benefits received must be inversely proportional to capacities possessed. Within the family-group most must be given where least is deserved, if desert is measured by worth. Contrariwise, after maturity is reached benefit must vary directly as worth: worth being measured by fitness to the conditions of existence. The ill-fitted must suffer the evils of unfitness, and the well-fitted must profit by their fitness. These are the two laws which a species must conform to if it is to be preserved. ... The only justification for the analogy between parent and child, and government and people, is the childishness of the people who entertain the analogy." Ethics, Book II

In contrast, I have not placed any POV edits in an [Americal Liberalism] or in the [Liberalism] article, both of which do not even have criticism sections. Rick has done nothing to the content of the article with the exception of trying to push his POV. In my opinion, his disruptive behavior and incessant insertions without consensus is more of a violation that my incessant blanking of his POV commentary. The risk is that any criticism section can have hundreds of points with source supported links to biased webpages. But to include criticism of american conservatism on subjects such as "police powers" when there is nothing in the article that mentions "police powers" is a good example of how the criticism section needs to be controlled. I am not opposed to a criticism section, but Rick has a POV interpretation and he needs a source supported view on the philosophies and objections to conservative thought as opposed to policy created by the republican which may not be "conservative" at all. I think that Rick has failed to understand that concept and I find it sad that he has to use an arbitration to try an insert his biased point of view. ER MD 01:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Scribner
The evidence that has been given is accurate. As further evidence I will include a few of Rick Norwood's comments, specific to this complaint.

1. ''As for the question of whether American conservatives are really different, do you know any other country where conservatives bomb abortion clinics? Rick Norwood 20:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)''[]

2. ''My daughter, for example, converted to Islam in High School. (I am not a Moslem.) The persecution she suffered was so great that she nearly dropped out of school. (I had to promise to buy her a car as a graduation present to get her to endure the constant taunting.) She wasn't injured, but she did have wastebaskets emptied over her head. So, the introduction of relgion into the public schools is to me both new and negative. Rick Norwood 15:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)''[]

3. For example, a conservative bumper sticker reads "Faith in God. Traditional family values. Sanctity of Life. Love of Country. The right to protect our freedoms and liberties."[]

These are just a few of Rick's comments. Number three, was included in the Conservatism Criticism section of the Conservatism article. Scribner 00:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Comments by others
This same problem is happening in the American conservatism article, but Norwood has been patient beyond measure with ER MD, who continues to blank out sections he finds distasteful even after administrative action has been taken to restore those sections and an admin posted on the talk page to stop doing that. I can't comment on Rick Norwood's behavior in the conservatism article, but ER MD has been an uncooperative, insulting, condescending bully in the American conservatism article and the current "debate" going on there about its criticism section. Bjsiders 14:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)