Talk:Conservatism in North America

Note to Neelix

I was going to leave the page, since you like it and it does no harm. But I agree with The Four Deuces -- we have conservatism articles by country, I don't see the need for conservatism by continent, especially since this article mentioned only two of the many countries in North America. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

There already is a Conservatism (disambiguation) page, that links to Conservatism in Canada and Conservatism in the United States. You need a reliable source that either shows a connection between conservatism in the two countries or at least makes some comparison. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As The Four Deuces has suggested, I have added citations from three reliable sources which show connections between conservatism throughout North America as a continent. Thank you for the suggestion. Neelix (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you need more than that. You need to explain how reliable sources show that conservatives in Canada, the United States and Mexico have common origins, compare how they have developed and explain their relationship today. It is not good enough to mention that someone has done that. The specific sections for each country are unneccessary since they are already covered in separate articles, at least for Canada and the U.S. One thing readers may wish to know is why Canadian Conservatives are called Tories while American Republicans are called Conservatives. And how exactly do Mexican conservatives compare with the others? I understand that this article was created with two sections - one for Canada and one for the US which was then split into two articles with this page as a redirect. It should stay that way. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to start this article then please write something substantial that justifies its existence and post it on this page so we may discuss it. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This title cannot redirect to Conservatism in the United States. Redirecting to an article about one particular country makes the statement that conservatism in that country is somehow more important than conservatism in all the other countries in the continent. If "Conservatism in North America" is not a notable concept, then this title should be deleted, not redirected to Conservatism in the United States. I believe that I have already proven the notability of this topic through the citations I have provided, therefore even a stub should be a sufficient existence for the article at present. Neelix (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me why this article is necessary? The way it was before it was just a summary of Canadian conservatism and American conservatism. Why would someone want to read an article like that instead of independent articles? Why don't you try to re-write the lead so that it explains what is in the sources, esp. Conservative politics and right-wing politics in North America. And yes it probably would make sense to delete the page altogether rather than leave it as a re-direct page. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is necessary because conservatism in North America is an encyclopaedic concept, and articles about all encyclopaedic concepts should be welcome on Wikipedia. Conservatism has been studied on many occasions as it varies across the continent, not just studied as individual unrelated political philosophies in various countries. If the lede I wrote was left by itself, it would remain a valid stub; still, an eventual fully developped article would be lacking if it did not also include summaries of the individual country articles. Additional information should not need to suppliment what I have already written before the article is recognized as a valid one.

As a sidenote, it is considered improper etiquette to name a user in a talk page section heading. I would appreciate if this did not occur in the future. Neelix (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(I did not write the heading, but I agree.) A stub should say something, but the current stub says nothing. I will copy it into a new section so that it can be discussed. Alright, there are people called conservatives in Canada, the US and Mexico. Do they share a common history? No. Canadian conservatives are called Tories, American Republicans are called conservatives and Mexican conservatism was feudal, ulramontane. A stub should explain at least this. Really if you want to start this article you need more information than you have provided. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Source 1 is used to indicate that there was a conference about N. Am. conservatism but says nothing else about it. The matter is trivial. We want to know what was discussed.

Source 2 actually means that modern conservatism (i.e., Reagan-Thatcher) in the developed world has been a set-back for feminism. This is not something specific to North America and really is not important enough for the lead.

Source 3 is actually about religious conservatism, not political conservatism, and the source actually calls Canadian not American Catholics conservative so obviously it does not support the text in the lead. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

None of the three sources mention Mexico. The second source is about feminism in the Caribbean and the third is about religion in Canada. Based on the above I do not see this as even being a valid stub article. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have modified the article in response to the above assertions about the nature of the three sources involved. The information dealing with Source 1 now states what was discussed: most notably, differences and similarities between the forms of conservatism found in Canada and the United States. I have not modified Source 2; at this point, all we have is a lede, so there is nowhere else to place the information. Also, not all the information on the article need be specific to North America; if conservatism has been a setback to feminism in North America, it should be mentioned on this article regardless of whether the same is the case in some but not all other parts of the world. Source 3 is not simply about religious conservatism; it is a political dialogue which discusses the effects of religion on politics. I have corrected the Canada/United States mixup so that it supports the text. Mexico and the Caribbean are both significant portions of North America; the information included about them should remain on the article if the article is to deal with the entire continent. I have restored the article according to the preceding explanation. If anyone still disagrees with the existence of the article, please begin a deletion discussion rather than redirecting the article to a _target which has already been agreed to be inappropriate. Neelix (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have copied the new lead to a section below. When I said "we want to know what was discussed" at the Augsburg conference I did not mean what subject matters were discussed but what they had to say about the subject of conservatism in Canada and the United States. And your use of the books on feminism and religion are totally out of context. I wrote out what they said below which makes it clear that they have nothing to do with the subject. Again, none of these sources mention Mexico.

This article has been renamed to Conservatism in the United States and is now a re-direct, so I am not deleting a new article, just reverting. North America in fact is often used to refer to the U.S.A. alone, just as the term America often refers to the U.S. alone. It depends on whether one believes there are one or two American continents.

Although you have shown that studies have compared Canadian and US conservatism you have not shown that N. American conservatism has been studied at all, and therefore your lead is entirely original research, unsupported by the sources given.

The Four Deuces (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Conservatism in North America varies in form from country to country, but is consistent in its attempt to preserve heritage and tradition. Academic study into the differences and similarities between conservatism in North American countries has been undertaken on numerous occasions. For three days in May of 2002, a conference was held at the University of Augsburg which was dedicated to this very topic.[1] Some feminist scholars have suggested that the prevalence of conservatism throughout North America has resulted in the continent's general post-feminist stance.[2] Reginald Bibby has asserted that the primary reason that conservatism has been so strong and enduring throughout North America is because of the propogation of religious values from generation to generation. This connection is strongest in mainstream Protestantism in Canada and both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism in the United States.[3]

References

1. Rainer-Olaf Schultze; Roland Sturm, Dagmar Eberle (2003). Conservative Parties and Right-Wing Politics in North America: Reaping the Benefits of an Ideological Victory?. VS Verlag. p. 5. ISBN 3810038121.

2. Rhoda Reddock (1999). "Feminism and Feminist Thought: A Historical Overview". Gender in Caribbean Development: Papers Presented at the Inaugural Seminar of the University of the West Indies, Women and Development Studies Project (Canoe Press): 72. "The rise of conservatism in North America and Western Europe has been a severe challenge to the movement there and many argue that these countries are in a phase of post-feminism."

3. Lori G. Beaman (2006). Religion and Canadian Society: Traditions, Transitions, and Innovations. Canadian Scholars' Press. p. 230. ISBN 155130306X. "Reginald Bibby identifies a pervasive religious conservatism in North America demonstrated by the intergenerational transmission of religious traditions, which, in the United States, are more likely to be mainstream Protestantism, or, in Canada, mainstream Protestantism and Roman Catholicism."

Lead - second version

Conservatism in North America varies in form from country to country, but is consistent in its attempt to preserve heritage and tradition. Academic study into the differences and similarities between conservatism in North American countries has been undertaken on numerous occasions. For three days in May of 2002, a conference was held at the University of Augsburg which was dedicated to this very topic.[1] There were two main concepts discussed at the conference. The first concept was the connection between the brand of conservatism arising in the 1980s and the 1990s and social democracy. The second concept was simply an exploration of the differences and similarities between conservatism in Canada and the United States. Some feminist scholars have suggested that the prevalence of conservatism throughout North America has resulted in the continent's general post-feminist stance.[2] Reginald Bibby has asserted that the primary reason that conservatism has been so strong and enduring throughout North America is because of the propogation of religious values from generation to generation. This connection is strongest in mainstream Protestantism in the United States and both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism in Canada.[3]

Note - differences from first version are in italics. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

A bad article is NOT better than no article at all.

I don't think there is any objection to an article titled Conservatism in North America. The problem is that we haven't got a good article with that title, and to write a good article on the subject would require a great deal of expertise and a great deal of time and effort. Few people are apt to search on Conservatism in North America, and the redirect gets those few started on at least one North American country.

I, for one, have no objection to the redirect pointing to Conservatism, if anybody wants that. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Note re reversions

Redirecting articles because you don't like them is not a way of editing in a civilized manner assuming good faith. If you can't establish consensus here there are recognised avenues to achieve dispute resolution. Please cease non-consensus edit warring. This matter is being discussed at Wikipedia:EAR#First_time_assistance_request. Please discuss this there or start an AfD or post a merge proposal rather than deleting content. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually Neely changed a re-direct page into a separate article because he did not like the article it re-directed to and I merely reverted it back. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Jezhotwells: Nobody redirected this article because we didn't like it. The article was a redirect before Neelix began to edit it, as you can see by comparing his first edit to the state of the article just before. I restored the redirect because of the many errors in Neelix's edit. I think Neelix is sincere, but underestimates the amount of work necessary to write a Wikipedia article from scratch. Also, he copied large chuncks of other articles to try to make this article. That's not the way to write an article. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No one has provided any reason why this article should exist. It is a redirect page that has been turned into an article that is duplicated elsewhere. I have therefore reverted it but welcome conversation. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted this article back and placed tags while the subject is under discussion.

Overcategorization

This article should not exist because it violates overcategorization:

Geographical boundaries may be useful for dividing subjects into regions that are directly related to the subjects' characteristics... In general, avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics.[4]

Unless some reason can be found to keep this article I will revert it back to a redirect page.

The Four Deuces (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It has already been agreed that the former redirect is not appropriate. If anyone objects to the existence of this article, he or she should start a deletion discussion. This has already been pointed out by User:Jezhotwells above. Neelix (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

First time assistance request

The following conversation was copied and pasted from its original location on the editor assistance request page.

Conservatism in North America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have been actively editing Wikipedia for three and a half years, and today is the first time that I have been accused of participating in an edit war. User:The Four Deuces has told me that in editing the article Conservatism in North America, I have violated the three-revert rule, about which I had never heard before now although I now understand the reasoning behind it. I was not under the impression that I had been reverting; I thought I was implimenting suggestions from the talk page. Nonetheless, I do not wish to continue the discussion further alone as User:The Four Deuces has threatened have my account blocked. I have worked very hard on improving Wikipedia over the years and wish to be able to continue to do so. The vast majority of my edits are small and uncontroversial, so I have never been in a situation like this before; any advice in how to proceed would be much appreciated.

The controversy is as follows: User:Rick Norwood and User:The Four Deuces believe that the Conservatism in North America article should not exist. Still, they have refrained from starting a deletion discussion, as I suggested they do. Instead, they have redirected the page to Conservatism in the United States, which they have both agreed is an inappropriate _target. While I have attempted to respond to their concerns from the talk page by supplimenting the information on the article with further citations and information, they have reverted my edits four times in a row. From the discussion here and here, I gather that they have decided to avoid the three-revert rule they quoted to me by alternating reverting my edits between them (and on another article I am not involved in editing). As I stated before, I would be grateful for any advice you might provide. Neelix (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the lasted deletion, posted a note on the deleters' page and a note at the article talk page mentioning the discussion here. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I note that the comments you have posted from the other editors' talk pages suggest a deliberate attempt to avoid the 3 r rule and if this persists then it should probably be taken to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The article Conservatism in North America originally had sections about Conservatism in the United States and Conservatism in Canada. Around November 2005 the article was split and Conservatism in North America became a redirect page to Conservatism in the United States. In 2009 Neelix edited the re-direct page to restore it to an article with separate sections on conservatism in Canada and the US.[5] I reverted it back to a re-direct page[6] and Rick Norwood set up a discussion on the talk page.[7]

If Neelix disagrees with the separation of the article into American and Canadian articles then he should recommend a merger of those two articles rather than create an article that duplicates the other two.

When it was pointed out to Neely Neelix that there were more than two countries in North America and that articles require a lead explaining the relationship between the subjects discussed, Neely Neelix added a section about Mexico and a lead. The lead that Neely Neelix wrote stated "For three days in May of 2002, a conference was held at the University of Augsburg which was dedicated to this very topic" (actually only the US and Canada were discussed) and added references from two other sources that were taken entirely out of context. One was a book about gender identity in the Caribbean, the other was about religion in Canada. The quote in the first book actually referred to "North America and Western Europe" while the second was discussing religious not political conservatism.

Based on the talk page, Neely Neelix has no idea what connection if any there is between conservatism in the three countries. He has merely grabbed a redirect page and written an alternative article. When asked to justify that this is a separate subject he adds a lead that is pointless and misleading.

The Four Deuces (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Neelix's statement: Neelix should have stated that he had turned a re-direct page into a new article rather than claiming that Rick Norwood and I deleted the article and turned it into a re-direct. Also it is unfair to say that we have alternated in deleting his work. Rick Norwood mentioned the existence of the article to me at Talk:Liberalism in the United States#Laissez-faire. Here is the conversation:

As I've mentioned, Wikipedia has way too many articles that overlap: Liberalism, Classical liberalism, Social liberalism, Liberalism in the United States, Modern liberalism in the United States. As best I can tell, several of these articles came into being as follows. Someone's edits to the earlier articles were reverted, so they started a new article. I am not sure of this. But I do think that the ideal would be two articles: Liberalism and American Liberalism. With all the articles getting so many edits, I doubt that is practical at this time. I do think we could at least get rid of Conservatism in North America, which seems to be just cut and pasted from other articles, and says nothing about North America outside Canada and the US. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted Conservatism in North America back to a redirect page. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have made no agreement with anyone to alternate editing. You can look at the edit history here[8] to see that claim is false.

The Four Deuces (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally in the example that Neelix uses where he concludes that I am colluding I clearly state, "Although Introman is clearly a disruptive editor we are still expected to follow dispute resolution and to avoid edit-warring and to evaluate each of his edits on the merits." We were discussing a very disruptive editor (see User talk:Introman) at Classical liberalism. You will notice that I had already set up an RfC on that subject[9], I did not perform any reverts on that article that day (Sept.14)[10], that besides Rick Norwood and myself, User:Snowded and User:FormerIP also disagreed with Introman,[11] no editors agreed with him and Introman was blocked for edit-warring after making five non-consecutive edits in three hours.[12] It is easy to understand Rick Norwood's frustration with Introman but I certainly made no agreement to revert his edits and certainly never discussed Neelix. However, after setting up an RfC and obtaining outside editors' opinions it appeared Introman was unwilling to form consensus for his edits. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Neelix is sincere in his edits, but they are hasty and full of errors, and after explaining my reasons on the talk page I reverted what he had done. My only reason for reverting was the reason given. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have already provided several reasons for the existence of this article. 1) It is an encyclopaedic topic which has been the subject of scholarly study on many occasions. 2) It is supported by citations from reliable sources. 3) It is a parent article for the Conservatism by country articles in North America. User:Rick Norwood has stated that my copying of portions of the Conservatism in Canada and Conservatism in the United States articles is not appropriate; I disagree. A summary of those two articles should be located on this one because it is a parent article. Such summaries are quite often the same as the lede sections of the articles in question.

As another sidenote, I do not appreciate name-calling. My username is Neelix, not Neely.

Although he or she has not mentioned it in this discussion, User:The Four Deuces has again removed the content of the article and reverted it to a redirect. User:Jezhotwells recommended that the persistence of this type of editing be reported at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Is this something a neutral third party should report or am I in a position to bring it there myself? Neelix (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the article back and inserted tags for WP:SYN and other failures of the article and await the administrator's reply. Question: if an article is moved, what happens if an editor re-creates the original article using what is now a disambiguation page? If we go through the time-consuming process of re-merging Nelix's article with the US and Canadian articles, and he re-creates the article, must we go through the entrie process again?

Neelix, why do you insist on keeping an article that basically dupllicates information contained elsewhere and about which you appear to have no knowledge or interest or willingness to improve?

The Four Deuces (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It would not make sense to merge the Canada and United States sections into their corresponding articles; they were taken directly from them for the express purpose of being summaries, making this the parent article. This article is not intended to be a duplication of information but a synthesis which will eventually include summaries of the individual country articles. Take the National symbols of Belarus article as an example. It is a parent article in which there is a summary of the Flag of Belarus article, the National emblem of Belarus article, and the My Belarusy article. This is not meaningless duplication of material; it is an example of the appropriate interdependence of articles.

Again, I do not appreciate the insults. The assertion that I do not have knowledge about conservatism in North America is neither justified nor relevant. We are discussing the notability of the topic and the corresponding validity of having an article dealing with this topic. My willingness to improve the article has been demonstrated in my responses; I have made appropriate changes to the article whenever a reasonable suggestion was placed on the talk page. I would gladly continue to contribute to the article, but I do not wish to do so if further editing could be construed as edit-warring or if it is likely that my edits will be reverted, as seems to be the case at the moment. Neelix (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The National symbols of Belarus quotes their constitution that says: "The symbols of the Republic of Belarus as a sovereign state shall be its national flag, national emblem and national anthem." The article provides an external source that shows a connection between these symbols. What is the connection between conservatism in Canada, the United States, Mexico and (since you now state include the Caribbean as part North America[13]) numerous other nations? Is "North American conservatism" an ideology that is distinct from South American, European, Asian, African and Australian conservatism? Please provide sources. Just because two words or terms can be strung together and still be grammatically correct does not mean there should be an article. Also why do you think that North American conservatism should be the parentarticle. Do you really believe that Toryism in Canada derives from American Republicanism? I notice btw that you have created a lot of stub articles, most of which are about legitimate but obscure topics. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not suggested the existence of anything called "North American conservatism." The article I created is called "Conservatism in North America." Similarly, there is no unified "North American religion," but an article about "Religion in North America" is justified. Religion in North America is not a distinct concept from religion in other continents, but in order to organize articles properly, it makes sense to deal with the concept of religion on a continent-by-continent as well as a country-by-country basis. Religion also varies significantly from country to country in North America, but that does not discount the article. In the same way, the "Conservatism in North America" article is an important one to develop and maintain. Neelix (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That article probably is not justified either. Do we really need thousands of articles that group unrelated topics just because they exist in Canada, Mexico and the US? Movies in North America, Education in North America, Government in North America, Presidents of North American countries, Laws in North America? The Four Deuces (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, why don't you carry on your discussion at the article talk page. This page is for requests for assistance, not suited for debate. If you want outside opinions you can start a request for comment - instructions at that page. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Would it be OK to copy-and-paste this discussion onto the article talk page so that we have a record of it? We've made some progress here and I'd prefer not lose that. Neelix (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It's fine with me. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If I correctly understood what Jezhotwells said, he was under the impression that this was an article when Neelix began to edit it, and that The Four Deuces made it a redirect page. Now he understands that it was a redirect page before Neelix began to edit it, and The Four Deuces returned it to that form rather than initiating that form.

For my part, I'm willing to give Neelix a fair chance to write a good article on Conservatism in North America, but it will take a lot of work. Such an article must contain referenced information that is not readily available in other articles. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Definition of North America

"North America, third largest continent ... usually considered to include all the lands and adjacent islands in the Western Hemisphere located N of the Isthmus of Panama." -- The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia. Also see: The World Almanac, maps. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis

Just because the AfD was closed does not mean that the synthesis issues have been resolved. It means that the administrator believed they could be resolved. We need a source that discusses the subject. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

As was stated in the AfD, no one has pointed to any statements in the article which constitute synthesis. Unless someone demonstrates that there is such a statement in the article, the "synthesis" template at the top of the article should be removed. Neelix (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The article begins: "Conservatism in North America varies in form from country to country, but is consistent in its attempt to preserve heritage and tradition." That implies that there is a concept of "conservatism" that exists in North America and has common features. But none of that is sourced. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The introductory sentence of the article makes a statement about conservatism in North America which is true about conservatism no matter where it is found; it simply defines conservatism. It does not make any claim that conservatism in North America is distinct from conservatism anywhere else in the world. Neelix (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That is original research. American conservatism is generally categorized as a type of liberalism. It even stated in the Conservative parties and right-wing politics in North America:[14]

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.

The Four Deuces (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What is it that you are calling original research? The lede of the more general Conservatism article states that conservatism "is a political attitude and philosophy, which advocates institutions and traditional practices, that have developed organically within a nation over a period of time." This statement references both the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and Britannica.com. The lede of this article is simply a restatement of this definition. All forms of conservatism must at least adhere to this definition for the term conservatism to apply at all. Neelix (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) See WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The dictionary does not say anything about North American conservatism. Dictionaries are poor sources and the definition does not seem to include American conservatism anyway. See the following quote:

• Political ideology today (2001), Ian Adams, p. 33: "The American right has nothing to do with maintaining the traditional social order, as in Europe."[15]

The Four Deuces (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries are perfectly valid sources and are used for citations in many Wikipedia articles. If you object to the dictionaries because they are not North American, here's the definition of conservatism in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, which is a United States dictionary:

disposition in politics to preserve what is established

This article is about just such a disposition, which is found in all countries to varying extents. It is not about particular parties which are labelled "Conservative" so as to differentiate from other parties within a given country. The section about the United States in this article should explore the tendencies in American politics to preserve what is established and nothing more. Neelix (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What sources do you have for that? The Four Deuces (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What sources do I have for what? The definition comes from Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, as I previously stated. Neelix (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that describe groups that "preserve what is established"? It seems that the Conservative Party of Canada's leader was a member of the Reform Party of Canada that advocated a Triple_E Senate, elected judges, privatization, referenda, re-calls, and the end of many long established government policies. In fact they planned to re-write the constitution.[16] How does that fit in with your definition of conservatism? The Four Deuces (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As I stated before, this article is not about political parties which happen to use the term "conservative" in their titles in order to differentiate themselves from other political parties. This article is about political conservatism in all North American countries: that is, the "disposition in politics to preserve what is established." It is of no consequence that particular political parties happen to use the label "conservative" and yet do politically liberal things. Neelix (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What are your sources for the "disposition in politics to preserve what is established" in North American nations? The book about conservatism in North America discusses the Progressive Conservatives, Reform and the Republicans and the influence of the New Right and neoliberalism upon their policies (and of other parties as well). What does that have to do with the article? The Four Deuces (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Which "book about conservatism in North America" are you referring to? There are 24 sources for this article at present, and all the information derived from them for this article deals with the "disposition in politics to preserve what is established." I don't see the terms Progressive Conservative or Reform Party anywhere in the article, and Republicans are only referred to in the two unsourced sections which are summaries of other articles. Neelix (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am referring to the only book about conservatism in North America cited in the article: Conservative Parties and Right-Wing Politics in North America: Reaping the Benefits of an Ideological Victory. The book was written before the PCs and the successor party of Reform merged to form the Conservative Party of Canada which is clearly mentioned in the WP article: "In Canada, political conservatism is generally considered to be primarily represented by the Conservative Party of Canada at the federal level, and by various right-leaning parties at the provincial level." In fact most of the so-called "right-leaning" parties at the provincial level are Progressive Conservatives. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, all the sources in this article are about conservatism in North America. Few purport to deal with the concept in all countries in the continent, as you have pointed out previously. I do not understand what your objection is to the particular source you mention. It recognizes that conservative stances in Canada have been "primarily represented" by certain political parties; it does not state that these stances have been limited to those particular parties, nor does it state that those parties have never taken politically liberal stances. Neelix (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) You still need a source that connects your definition with NA conservatism and explains how these various conservative groups are "preserving what is established". What in these countries is established and how is it preserved? Usually established refers to The Establishment and the Established Church. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

As you have adamantly pointed out on numerous occasions, there is no such thing as "North American conservatism." There is only the general political concept known as conservatism which has played differing roles in different countries and has been adhered to in varying degrees by different political parties. What is referred to by the word "established" in the definition of conservatism is neither The Establishment nor the Established Church (although these are both potential components in certain countries) but rather the heritage and traditions of the people in question. Any political stance which supports the continuation of principles and practices adhered to in the past rather than movement away from them is a manifestation of conservatism. Neelix (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) Let me re-phrase it. You still need to explain what conservatism is. What kind of heritage and traditions are they preserving? Does this definition include the "New Right" described in your source Conservative Parties and Right-Wing Politics in North America? The Four Deuces (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The concept of conservatism is not confined to certain kinds of heritage and traditions; these vary from country to country. This article is unified in the adherance to the general concept, not to the preservation of the same specific things which have been established. What conservatism is has been explained to the fullest extent that it can be without moving into the specifics of particular countries or regions. As a side note, why did you start your last two comments with "(out)"? Does that mean something? Neelix (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I used the "(out)" incorrectly because I was copying an earlier posting, it is used instead of an indent, since successive indents make the text take up too much space.

I can either further indent the next paragraph,

(out) ...or use "(out)" The Four Deuces (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis - cont.

Could you please read the section WP:LEAD which explains how it should be written. Note that you need to mention what reliable subjects on the topic say.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead, if possible.

The Four Deuces (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It is true that the lede needs work, but that has nothing to do with the article containing synthesis. Do you still object to me removing the synthesis template? This article should not need to attain featured status before the synthesis warning can be removed. Neelix (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You need a source that discusses what conservatism is and specifically includes the parties or groups in the article. Taking a definition and then determining what groups fit is original research. There are conflicting definitions of conservatism and differences about what parties should be included. Consider the two statements:

• Conservatism... is consistent in its attempt to preserve heritage and tradition.
• Conservatism is a major political ideology in the United States.

You need a source that says both. See WP:SYN: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that conservatism is the "disposition in politics to preserve what is established" is attested by numerous sources, American and otherwise. The statement that "conservatism is a major political ideology in the United States" is not integral to this article, nor is it sourced. I didn't write that statement; it's simply what was written on the Conservatism in the United States article when this section was created. The United States section should be a summary of the Conservatism in the United States article; if you disagree with the unsourced statement that "conservatism is a major political ideology in the United States," remove it. Neelix (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not just with the one sentence in the US section but with the entire article. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The AfD established that the 'problem' is not the entire article. You have still not demonstrated any instance of synthesis, therefore the use of the "synthesis" template is unjustified. Neelix (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The argument at AfD was that you did not have to establish a North American conservatism and that it was alright to have an article that describes conservatism in various NA countries. However you still have to explain what conservatism is and how it relates to conservatism in these countries. You cannot take a dictionary definition and then decide what groups fit: that is original research. I could just as easily argue that Liberals, Bloc and NDP met the definition, while Conservatives did not. You need a source that both explains what conservatism means and what parties meet the criteria. You should also point out that most political scientists do not believe that there is any political conservatism in the US and American conservatism is generally grouped with liberalism in academic studies. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have not "tak[en] a dictionary definition and then decide[d] what groups fit." No specific parties 'meet the definition' of conservatism; conservatism is a tendency to which any political party may adhere to differing extents at different times. The explanation of "what conservatism is" is derived from the Conservatism article; it does not need extensive reiteration here. Your statement that "most political scientists do not believe that there is any political conservatism in the US" sounds dubious; are you suggesting that no one in the political history of the United States has ever attempted to preserve anything which has been established? Again I ask, where is the synthesis in this article? Neelix (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(out)Here are some sources explaining why the concept of American conservatism is problematic:

• Political ideology today (2001), Ian Adams, p. 32: "Ideologically, all US parties are liberal and always have been."[17]

• "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.][18]

• 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."[19]

• 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"."[20]

You really have to define the subject in the lead to explain why you are including US conservatives. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not attempting to include "US conservatives." The United States section is not supposed to be about political parties which call themselves conservative or are deemed conservative for any other reason. The section is supposed to be about conservatism in the United States, ie. instances of different political groups attempting to preserve different things that have become established. This subject is already well-defined in the lede; there is no need to include any information about why specific American political parties fit or do not fit the label "conservatism." It is quite unlikely that any one party that has ever existed has had a conservative stance on every issue at all times, therefore the identification of a particular political party as the representative of a country's conservatism is indefencible in this context. Neelix (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The US section provides no "instances of different political groups attempting to preserve different things that have become established". The Four Deuces (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead - new paragraph

I added a new first paragraph to the lead. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The rest of the lead is either original research, unsourced or incorrectly represents the sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to reword the lead paragraph that's fine (if you do break it up; it's huge right now); I also see your point about it having issues. But you can't put a non-lead paragraph at the top. It's got to have an introduction, some context (leads especially need to be as neutral as possible), and then transition into the main body. It needs to conform to WP:LEAD. After a week it didn't look like it was getting cleaned up, so I swapped those first two paragraphs. Shadowjams (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Federal monarchy

An editor changed the text saying Canada was a "constitutional monarchy" to saying it was a "federal monarchy."[21] The linked article provides a definition from a book published in 1863 - a federation of monarchial states. While one could argue that each Canadian province is a monarchy and they are federated into one country, the use of the term is obscure and there is no source provided that calls Canada that. The source for the term was published before the Canadian confederation was established and does not mention Canada.

Also, the editor changed "Conservative Party of Canada" to "Conservative Party" The first is their legal name and it avoids confusion because there is also an unaffiliated "British Columbia Conservative Party."

TFD (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Good edit.Rick Norwood (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conservatism in North America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091010221128/http://www.idu.org/default.aspx to http://www.idu.org/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)