Talk:Conservatives in the United States

Hi All,

I'm still pretty new here so a point of etiquette, or really just good practice. During the recent RfD [[1]], I held back from editing the page. According to Wikipedia:Citing_sources: "If someone sees that there is information in an article, and the information does not have a source, then the information may be removed. If you see information that needs to come from a source, tag the information with {{Fact{{subst:DATE}}}}."

Should I go ahead and remove information from this page that does not have a source? And, how about removing information that does not have a third-party source? I'm sure I could just go ahead and do it, but a little talk first probably won't hurt.

If you have time to reply, thanks! Ted O'Neill (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion: Original research?

It seems to me that the Conclusion section here seems to be original research (a synthesis about what conservatives want regarding the power of the rich.) Any objections to removing it? Kansan (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

None. This article seems to have a lot of OR overall. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote the section adding many references. Also, I've been listening to conservative talk radio, and they are very biased, so I mentioned it in the section with a reference that shows a little of that. The ads in the California 2010 election I've seen they are attack ads like the references say. Chuck Marean (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

My point was that the conclusion regarding what conservatives want was maybe implied by a number of references, but none of the references came out and directly said it, which would make it original research. Kansan (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Saying that conservative talk radio is "very biased" is original research. Please find a reliable source that reflects this before inserting it into the article. Goodvac (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I see I had a typo above in the "Needs Proof" template. Now that I've got that sorted out, I started tagging individual statements as unsupported. Whole sequences of OR have one source tacked on at the end. Newsmax is often cited, but may not be a third party source anyway. The author is now doing the same thing over at Conservatism as well. Ted (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC) I see that Newsmax is now only cited once. Ted (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What the hell is "They are cautious and somewhat old-fashioned, supposing their parents’ generation was not cavemen"? Call it bad faith, but you appear to be here with the intention of pushing a POV. Goodvac (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't understand that either. I removed the section on States Rights, parts of which were equally incoherent. The main problem, as in other parts of this article, was original research, unsupported overgeneralization, and a lack of citations. Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative was listed twice as a reference, but once citing page 1-69 and again citing pages 70-127. Those are not usable citations because they are not specific. Thanks, Ted (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing unsupported statements, quotes, etc.

I had tagged several direct quotes that did not have references and several other assertions with [Need proof]. Nothing was added or changed to these statements, so I went ahead and deleted them. Any editor can restore them later if need be, but some supporting references would be a good idea. See Notable Stories on enWP Newsmax for examples why it is not a reliable source. Will continue tagging items that need references to support them. Thanks, Ted (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What this article should be about

After reading Goldwater's book, Conscience of a Conservative, Deaver et al's book, Why I am a Reagan Conservative, and three nonwiki encyclopedia articles on conservatism, I think this article should be about the history of conservatism in the United States as it is affected by the entire world, and since until recently I was unaware of Canada and other countries such as Australia (where the owner of Fox News moved from) being under the rule of the Queen of England. Also, if the article stressed current events, that would be too difficult to write and would be about stuff like attack ads between Republican Meg Whitman and Democrat Edmund Brown, running for governor of California -- research that would be too difficult for an amateur. Chuck Marean (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

More original research

I removed the section Paleo- and Neo- conservatives as original research. I did check the single citation tacked on at the end. The cited source does not support this section of writing. For example, Obama, Reagan, and neoconservative appear nowhere in the cited article. Nor do Cuba and Viet Nam. Adams and Hamilton are mentioned in the context of security, but the cited article in fact says that "they were closer to classical liberalism". Ted (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed the section "Compared with liberals". Many of the statements had been tagged with "Needs Proof" for a while. Just removing those statements made the leftovers incoherent. Additionally, almost any section set up as an A vs B comparison of two groups of people and their values tends to be not neutral and overly general, as this was. Thanks, Ted (talk) 03:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The English used in this article or section may not be easy for everybody to understand

I lowered the reading level to the 9th to 12th grade reading level a couple of days ago and included a link to Wiktionary. A lot of links to other articles and Wikitionary would need to be a team effort, because of all the mouse-clicking. Here is a link to Google Translator. Therefore, I think Template:Complex should be removed. Chuck Marean (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

An editor thinks that this article may not be neutral

Based on the sources I’ve read, this article covers all the published points of view. I used Google to try to find something supporting coining money for welfare, which sounds like a safe, conservative point of view but couldn’t find anything published on that so maybe it’s my idea. Since the article is neutral based on the sources I could find, I think Tememplate:POV should be removed. Chuck Marean (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Deleted the section on "Right to life Conservatives" for two reasons. One, the language "babies who have not been born yet should not be killed" is inflammatory, directly uses the frame of one side of a contentious debate, and is strong enough to be NPOV. Two, Newsmax is a biased source and therefore NPOV. This is clearly documented on En and I have explained previously. Frankly, much of the article is NPOV or original research, but I'll start with the most egregious violations. Gotanda (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Deleted section Bush & Obama is NPOV, irrelevant, or incomprehensible. One Electoral College image in 2004 has nothing to do with Obama. Why are these two lumped together? Two, "President George W. Bush won wars with Afghanistan and Iraq " What? Three, whose "hit man" and what is that anyway? Four, Russia no longer Communist? What? Five, the rest is just more mish-mash of random, repeated criticisms and not a description of the supposed subject of this article--Conservatives in America--totally irrelevant. Gotanda (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Deleted the images of a fox in the snow and the Amish buggy sign as irrelevant. Can animals be conservative? Come on! And, Amish may be religiously conservative, but doesn't have to mean anything about their politics. Gotanda (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Deleted the section on Judeo-Christian elements because none of the references work. The webpages do not link to anything. The citations to books are often to entire volumes, not specific pages. The citations of printed newspaper articles are not specific. Basically, there is no easy way for any reader or editor to verify that the references actually support what you say they support. Additionally, some of these sources may not be reliable because they are Judeo-Christian Conservative sources. If you wish to return this section to the article, Wiki software makes that simple, but you need clear, verifiable, independent references. Gotanda (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Added link to Wiktionary, Reworded "Bush & Obama" section. Reworded "Judeo-Christian elements" section (a section based on the same in en:), moved geography image to top of page. --Chuck Marean (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There you go again, soapboxing some more. Tell me why I should trust that the article is neutral when you are railing about conservatives right here, right now. Goodvac (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want an image related to FOX News (if a free image is available), one directly relating to FOX News should be used. Since this is Simple English, we need to be as literal as possible. (I have to admit that I didn't make the connection between that and the fox until you explained it here.) Kansan (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see my comment above re: removing the Judeo-Christian elements section. An explanation of the connection between Christianity and US politics would be useful, but is very difficult. You reworded, but did not fix the problem with references. Citing an entire book means it cannot be checked and it is overly broad. Citing websites without addresses is not useful or verifiable. Overly broad generalizations without support should not be here. Support with specific third-party references, or leave it out. Gotanda (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Chuck, please stop removing the NPOV template without addressing the concerns of the article. Simply linking a few disclaimers to a book-length manifesto by a conservative talk radio host (again without details or page numbers) doesn't fix the problem. Please explain your changes on the Talk page. Please don't edit your explanations on the Talk page to make your work appear more constructive. Gotanda (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

As I've posted on Chuck's talk page, we'll need more of a consensus before the tag can be removed because these concerns have gone back so far and don't seem to be getting resolved. Kansan (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Kansan. I thought it might be a bit too much editing back and forth. You've probably already noticed, but for anyone else who is just stopping by, Chuck has a long history of POV pushing on EN, multiple blocks, and was finally banned there. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Gotanda, Calling me names does not help me become a better writer. An English teacher would correct the sentence, but those of you who called me “point of view pushing” have never shown me what would be better wording of the sentence(s) in question. My point of view is: 1. Welfare needs to be a lot more 2. Coining money should replace taxes. 3. Needing to work would not be liberty. And, that point of view is not in the article. The article is just based on the sources. Also, I lowered the reading level to the high school reading level. It is a lot easier to read than “en:Conservatism in the United States”. Since you have not suggested better wordings, you will need to correct the writing yourselves. Hopefully, you will remove the “complex” and “POV” tags as soon as possible, because they make the lead look messy, in my opinion. As far as being banned on EN that was unfair just as you calling me “has a long history of POV pushing on EN.” Also, earlier on this talk page you claimed I was “railing about conservatives” and whatever you were taking about was not clear. This is an article about conservatives. It’s not going to be about liberals or radicals, unless you want to put stuff like that in. As far as you wanting more specific references, they are as specific as possible, since many of them are carried over from “en:Conservatism in the United States” and I am not going to re-read “Conscience of a Conservative” or “Why I am a Reagan Republican” again (which I am not by the way). Also, summary is not based on specific quotes but on what the book said. I’m just trying to write well. As far as I know, I was not point of view pushing on EN and the blocks and the banning were unfair. All for now. From, Chuck Marean (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing what, to me, seems to be original research.

Quoting one or two conservatives' opinions on an issue does not mean that everybody believes that. This is especially true within such a broad movement (really, there are many different series of movements among US conservatives) in a large country. This means that, really, the sections on Illegal Immigration and Work are original research; they are syntheses of several people's opinions and claiming they speak for everyone. We need reliable sources about what the whole movement believes, not a series of copied and pasted quotes. Accordingly, I have removed these sections. Kansan (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Kansan, That is what they said and it's not as if they didn't. Removing the sections is like trying to deny anyone said those things. Maybe the sections heading could be "Some conservatives on work" and "Some conservatives on illigals." And, you could include a sentence pointing out that those famous opinions might be minority opinions or something like that. If you would do that, it would not be a cover-up of a major problems with the conservative movement. I'm not going to re-write it because I'm tired of the subject. Or, you could tag the sections that a book is wanted as the source, if that is what you meant. Why you think it's original research, I do not know. To me, original research is a paper that a scientific journal would publish. The conservatives quoted do not want to help illegal immigrants live and they want people to need to work for a living, as far as I can tell. It just the truth. Maybe most conservatives disagree. Maybe that is what you should say instead of deleting sections of the articl. There are practical matters, such as those were the best references I could find. Maybe someone will find better but to cover up the scandal is not needed. All for now. From, Chuck Marean (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

More clean up of original research or un-sourced material. The section "Types" was based on an About.com article (not verifiable) and one reference to the National Humanities Institute which is a conservative think tank/mouthpiece. Since there were no verifiable or third-party sources, I removed the section. As always, it can be replaced very simply when sources are added. Also, removed the various direct quotes from conservative speakers from the section Semantics etc. No need to simply republish primary occurrences of conservative name-calling etc. Thanks! Gotanda (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Bigger

I don’t have the time to get this article neutral all by myself. If you’ve read a reliable source about liberalism and radicalism, you might want to briefly mention those views in the article to improve the article’s neutrality. I’m working on something else, something with a smaller subject than “political views in U.S.” --Chuck Marean (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you "don’t have the time to get this article neutral all by (your)self". I see your request that "you will need to correct the writing yourselves". If you don't have time to fix the problems that you are creating, how do you have time to write more and make this "bigger"? Bigger is not always better. I am not under any requirement to fix the POV or to improve the language. The simplest and most direct solution is to remove POV or complex language. Wiki allows you or anyone else to restore it in a non-POV and simple way at any time. Gotanda (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Attribution notice from esWP

Some content on this page was translated from Spanish Wikipedia. See here for history and attribution. Gotanda (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Bold change--See discussion on review page

I explained the recent change on the Peer Review page. I think the latest revision that largely replaces the earlier content is neutral and matches the title of the article. It creates many links to individual conservatives. Each of those can become a good article that is coherent; it is much easier to write about the beliefs of one conservative rather than over-generalizing to all conservatives. There had been no improvement to the citations and references in the article for some time. A fresh start seemed in order and was discussed by at least one other named editor on the review page. Some of the previous content may be appropriate to re-use elsewhere if it is properly referenced. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)