Please observe Wikipedia: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.

The neutrality and factual accuracy of this section are disputed.

The neutrality of this article or section may be compromised by "weasel words".

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.

Please report evidence in this section with {{Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence}} for misconduct and {{Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence3RR}} 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.
Wikipedia: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.

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

"I was taught as a child that Was it just the conservatives at the country club my grandparents were members of? I don't think so. Consider how many conservatives still belong to country clubs that are "white only" (and Jews and Hispanics are not considered "white" in this context). Consider that FDR, the founder of modern American liberalism, was called "a traitor to his class". And recently on a chat room, I was informed that liberalism is "low class". What did conservatives call Bill Clinton? They called him "trailer trash". He wasn't "one of us". Read Buckley's "God and Man at Yale". The roots of conservatism in preserving the class system run deep, and it does no good to say that that is not what you mean by conservativism. I believe you. But it is what a lot of very rich Republicans mean by conservatism."

"I have no axe to grind. I'm one of those weird souls who think there is such a thing as the truth, and I follow wherever it leads. When someone demonstrates that I'm wrong, I rejoice, because I learn something new."

"Historically, conservatives have supported the existing class structure against egalitarianism, the existing religion against other religions and atheism, patriotism against internationalism, and conformity against non-conformity, and so the poor, religious minorities, internationalists, and non-conformists have often spoken out against conservatism."

"Right now, I'm flying my liberal flag, primarily because of conservative distortions about science and history."

michael ^talk 04:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick to michael: First, I suggest you make your points more briefly. The mediator is a busy person. Second, as best I understand the point you make at length above is that I am a liberal. That is true. However, just because I am a liberal does not mean I am unable to write from a neutral point of view, just as a person can be a conservative and still write from a neutral point of view. It is a good exercise in logic and self discipline. Rick Norwood 13:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scribner[edit]

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)[[1]]

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)[[2]]

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."[[3]]

These are just a few of Rick's comments. Number three, was included in the Conservatism Criticism section of the Conservatism article. These comments prove egregious POV by Rick Norwood. Rick's biased POV and unwillingness to compromise are the only reasons I became involved. I believe Rick has got a score to settle with conservatives and he's chosen Wikipedia as his stage. Scribner 19:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Norwood[edit]

Scribner is, I think, sincere but mistaken in his assumptions about my motives. I would like him to assume good faith on my part, as I assume good faith on his. Yes, I'm a liberal. But it may be the case that he is a conservative. (I don't know.) The important thing is that we both use NPOV when writing for articles. It is true that I used the bumper sticker as a footnote to establish conservative beliefs. I was called on that, apologized, and replaced it with a more reliable source.

It is a matter of record that I have compromised many times on this section, making essentially all of the changes requested short of blanking. Scribner has also shown a willingness to compromise by removing the Weasel words label. I hope we can work together for a good article.

Discussion[edit]

The problem is blanking of sections of the article Conservatism by several members. Some are also blanking sections of the article American Conservatism. Actually, I have some hope that between the time I said I was requesting mediation and today it may be that the blanking has stopped. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. If it has, I'll post here and later remove the page from the list. Rick Norwood 15:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Items of note:

• A Request for Comment Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rick Norwood has been filed regarding Mr. Norwoods reverts to the Conservatism article. Dispute resolution is a three-step process:

1. 1. Discussion, such as the Request for comment currently open on this matter.
   2. Mediation, such as the case you are reading at the moment, and
   3. Arbitration, which means this case is referred to Arbitration.

• I plan on leaving this case open until either:

1. 1. The Request for comment is finished and the parties involved come to agreement,
   2. This mediation formally finishes with mediated agreement, or,
   3. ArbCom, Wikipedia Administration, or the home office intervene.

It is my hope that the Request for comment resolves the dispute. The earlier a dispute is resolved,

the happier all parties involved will be. :)

Mr. Norwood, there is a section at the top of this page saying "Request Information", please fill it out or ask me for assistance if needed.

~Kylu (u|t) 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC) (Mediator)[reply]

Sex, Politics, and Religion. These three topics have a tendency to be banned from conversation in many forums due to the inherent divisiveness that can ensue in the discussions regarding them. On Wikipedia, we not only want to not deter the conversation of these topics, we want to expand the conversations and make the issues surrounding them transparent and accessible to the reader who visits this site and expects encyclopedic and reasoned thoughts.

Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, is expected to be neutral of content and comprehensive of information. It occurs to me at this moment that perhaps one course of action that might be followed to resolve this issue would be to have criticisms and endorsements of Conservatism in a separate article where the reasonings both for and against Conservatism can be showcased. This would keep the content encyclopedic and usable, and also hopefully contain the dispute. This is not an ideal solution, however I am obviously willing to listen to suggestions as how to resolve the issue.

~Kylu (u|t) 23:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia shouldn't be presenting two views. Such a suggestion is illogical and itself against the NPOV policy. Articles should present one neutral view and that view only. michael ^talk 04:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. (from WP:NPOV introduction)

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed (From WP:NPOV#The neutral point of view)

I'm afraid it appears to me that you're quite allowed to present conflicting views, as long as those views are balanced against one another and we do not take on the appearance of bias. The stronger, more verifiable, more well-presented your arguments are, the better the article becomes. If you know of policy that contradicts this (I certainly don't know all of it, there's quite a bit.) please say so.

Please keep in mind that in this mediation, we're here to try to come to a compromise. If you dislike anyone else's ideas (feel free) please try to come up with an alternative suggestion for us. :)

~Kylu (u|t) 22:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick to Kylu: An article on the controversy between liberals and conservatives might be interesting, but, after sleeping on it, I see clearly that it is not an article I would want to work on. I really prefer working on the mathematics articles, and was only drawn to the conservatism article by the blanking.

No problem! Are you interested in staying involved in the mediation? ~Kylu (u|t) 22:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick to Beneaththelandslide: You say, "Wikipedia shouldn't be presenting two views." Official Wikipedia policy is to present all points of view. Rick Norwood 13:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick to Kylu: Something just happened that I would like you to look into. Two comments, favorable to me, were posted on talk:Conservatism a few minutes ago by someone identified by a redlink User:Locker420. Scribner deleted those comments, claiming that Locker is a sockpuppet. I do not know if Locker420 is a sockpuppet or not, but if you could find out, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Rick Norwood 21:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick: I'm afraid that while I'm a really amazingly cool person, one thing I'm not is a Checkuser. If you would like an authorative answer, please ask at Requests for CheckUser. Please be sure to read the rules.

Please note that this is a mediation, however, and not a court. My goal is to develop, with all parties involved, a solution that both is true to the spirit and policies of Wikipedia and yet leaves all those involved satisfied.

If everyone involved would be willing to think of a couple ideas, please feel free to throw them on here so we can discuss the pros and cons! I'm not going to "rule against" anyone or "issue judement", we're just here to try to settle things peacefully. :)

Beneaththelandslide: I've already spoken to some admins (including another mediator) who have assured me that an article, say Views on Conservatism, which obeyed (as I said) the spirit and policies of Wikipedia would be acceptable.

• Pros, Cons, Restrictions, and Discussion of suggestion: Create Views of Conservatism to use for use in storing point-counterpoint quotations regarding Conservatism.

Pros:

1. Can be linked-to from a subsection in Conservatism, so we're not hiding the debate.
2. Is a seperate article, leaving Conservatism stable.
3. Both sides are encouraged to leave well-sourced debate points.

Cons:

1. Users (User:Beneaththelandslide?) may be unwilling to move the debate from the Conservatism article.
2. It's simply moving the argument elsewhere (though to someplace more appropriate.)

Restrictions:

1. You will be required to post both sides of the argument together, not simply in seperate sections (See WP:NPOV). Please do not seperate pro- and anti-Conservatism notes into seperate sections. You are encouraged to add material to the debate, however:
2. Like the rest of Wikipedia, all arguments must be from a notable source and verifiable.
3. Please make sure you use the new standard reference format: Simply type <ref>and your reference, then </ref> to close the reference tag. At the bottom of the page, you should place a section ("References") and <references />. This will automagically keep all the references straight, numbered, and in consistant format.

Discussion:

1. Your comments go here. Please feel free to thread thoughts like you would on a talkpage. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, while I have no objection to this, I have no interest in it either. I've got too many articles on my watchlist already. I hope that we can work out a compromise here, as we did long ago when the conservatism article was given its present form. All I ask is that other users accept that fact that not everyone agrees with conservative ideas, and that a few quotes to that effect from famous people are appropriate to a fair treatment of the subject. If they stop blanking, that is all I ask. Rick Norwood 23:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knock yourselves out. Transfer the criticism section to a 'Views of Conservatism' page and include a positive side also. Include a link in the 'See also' section of Conservatism. Its still an inherently flawed idea, and goes against common sense and policy, but it removes the 'criticism' section from what is otherwise a reasonable article.

I completely disagree with any criticism sections in any articles however; they are nothing more than an in-article fork and the perfect place for a biased contributor to place their tripe. Their existence is unrequired; npov is about representing all views through one view. An article essentially filled with debate, the pros and cons of a particular topic, is flawed and not in line with policy. It just doesn't make sense to create running debates of topics on wikipedia. michael ^talk 02:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But michael, you don't make Wikipedia policy. Here is Wikipedia policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies , in particular "Assume Good Faith", "Avoid personal attacks", and the definition of "Neutral Point of View", which says this. "All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one." Examples of articles with "Criticism of..." sections, turned up after just a few minutes of searches, include Socialism, Libertarianism, and Creationism. That is the way it is done, here. Rick Norwood 12:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you decide to be a weasel with a patronising attitude. As I've stated before, lose it, quit it - get rid of it. Step off your pedestal. I did assume good faith and I haven't attacked you personally - I've attacked the nonsense you continue to spew.

So, your idea is to have articles be running debates on the topic at hand? Why not go throw up a 'criticism' section on Sydney and list why you don't like the city and use references? Why not throw up a 'criticism' section on Homosexuality and list why you don't like it and use references? (both of these are purely theoretical) All criticism sections do is force opinion on readers rather than allowing them to read fact and make up their own minds. Criticism sections are completely against the idea of being neutral and non-partisan. michael ^talk 13:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried my best here, but michael keeps saying the same thing over and over. Here is an example when I tried to communicate with him on his talk page: "By saying you're a "liberal" - zing - you've done it, you've shown how naive you are." This is not assuming good faith.

I really do not understand why michael will not focus on the issues here, but keeps saying things like "nonsense", which is not responsive. If the section in the article is nonsense, say why it is nonsense.

I keep hoping to be able to work with michael. His contributions to other articles are excellent. Rick Norwood 16:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the major difference between "Criticism of Sydney, Australia" and Views on Conservatism would be the fact that if you simply stated that you disliked Sydney and posted your reasons, it's a list of reasons backing up your opinion, while the Views article was intended to showcase the logic behind the thinkers of the ages' reasons for supporting or not supporting Conservatism. One is encyclopedic, one is not.

Quite honestly, I don't think criticism sections are just going to vanish overnight. We need to find a way to deal with the problem and contain it, not simply try to assume that it's going to go away. I'd love to hear your suggestions on how we can deal with this situation, Michael. If anyone else has alternative ideas, please suggest them? Even if you think the idea is silly or stupid, it's better to have the ideas posted so we can discuss them and possibly develop a solution based on it. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be the removal of all criticism sections, regardless of article. Useful text in these sections should be integrated into the main article. michael ^talk 03:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just guessing (not deciding consensus certainly!) but I would tend to think that consensus is going to disagree, there. You may wish to file a request for comments or possibly just ask on the neutral point of view page to determine if this line of thought has support. Personally, I think if the criticism sections were removed, many articles (Scientology, for instance, is one I know has a lot of edits regarding criticism) will simply have the criticism sections re-added, regardless.

Given that this is a mediation and not ArbCom, we do not have the authority to place binding decisions on the editors of Wikipedia. I thank you for giving your suggestion, but I'd like to ask if there are any other suggestions you might have that do not involve changing current Wikipedia practice? ~Kylu (u|t) 07:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick to Kylu: Sadly, the blanking has now spread to talk:Conservatism. First, as I mentioned above, Scribner blanked Locke420's comments supporting my position, claiming that Locke420 is a sockpuppet. Now Locke420 is blanking Scribner. Please explain to both that, with very rare exceptions such as obvious spam or vandalism, blanking is not to be used on a talk page. Thanks. Rick Norwood 13:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another compromise[edit]

Hi there. I figure I might as well throw in an idea for a compromise. WP:NPOV does indeed state that both sides of the spectrum should be acknowledged. However, the conservatism article is currently 40kb long, and perhaps in the interest of lowering that a bit, a separate page could be created (perhaps Criticism of conservatism), and a short sentence should be put on the main Conservatism page. This way the criticism section does not overwhelm part of the page (which appears to be one side of the argument), but the information within will still exist in a fork. Then, the criticism page could be expanded. How does that sound? Cowman109^Talk 20:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the suggestion. It is similar to one that Kylu made earlier. However, since the article is 40 kilobytes long and the disputed section is only 25 lines long, it wouldn't save much space to remove it. The big problem with the article as a whole, as I see it, is repetition. Whole sections are repeated almost verbatum several times.

The current compromise Criticism section is very short, and I have removed everything that anyone objected to -- it does not criticize American conservatism, does not criticize economic conservatism, does not criticize modern conservatism. I hoped it would be uncontroversial enough to stand, so that we could get on with removing some of the repetition from the rest of the article. In fact, that may be agreeable to most. I'm not sure where we stand now. I have asked repeatedly for specific objections and gotten no specific responses. The only recent response is michael's "I haven't attacked you personally - I've attacked the nonsense you continue to spew." My question asking for details on the way in which the section is "nonsense" has gone unanswered. Rick Norwood 20:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Norwood 20:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, what are those against the inclusion of the criticism section still looking for? It would help to know what each party wants ;) Cowman109^Talk 23:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its removal. Have a read of the section: it references Greeks executing a radical, a completely incomprehensible statement made by a Roman general, a quick jibe against a conservative party, a quote stating it was bliss to be young at the time of the French revolution and then apologetics for the French revolution. By simple principle the section doesn't belong, but as in its present form its less an attack of conservatism and moreso incomprehensible rubbish. Why is it there? Norwood is on a mission and has a stated agenda. michael ^talk 09:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RN to Cowman109: As you can see by the above, michael's suggestion for a compromise is the total removal of the section he objects to. He considers Socrates a "radical", Livy "incoprehensible", and any comment by someone opposed to conservatism a "jibe". I'm sorry he finds the section "incomprehensible". It did have a few framing sentences, but Scribner objected that anything other than the bare quotes was "weasel words". In one of my many, many attempts at a compromise, I removed all of the framing sentences and Scribner, honoring the compromise, removed the "weasel words" tag. But now michael finds it "incomprehensible".

I have made at least a dozen compromises, I think it is time for michael to give a little. Rick Norwood 12:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Teach Bias[edit]

Don't teach bias. Wikipedia fails in this attempt. My only suggestion is to refer to the ACLU page. Lot's of criticism but the article is lorded over by ACLU folks, which results in diluted criticism.

Allow ALCU folks incorporate ACLU critisism, same with Conservism, American Conservatism. Liberalism, etc. This is flawed somewhat but it works. If Wikipedia is bent on using a flawed format, use one that works.

Good luck. Scribner 06:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sub'd your section heading, hope you don't mind! Makes summary tools go wonky otherwise. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 07:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand Scribner's remarks, the people who favor whatever the topic is should have the right to "lord it over" the page, as he understands the ACLU people to have done, but some "diluted criticism" should be allowed. It seems to me that is what we have on the disputed Conservatism page. 40 kilobites in favor of conservatism, with only 25 lines of very mild criticism of Greek, Roman, English, and French conservatism from previous centuries. Are there less than 25 lines of criticism on the ACLU page?

The problem with accusing people of "bias" is, of course, that one person's bias is another person's reasonable opinion. Didn't George Bernard Shaw say something to the effect that "my ideas are always reasonable, your ideas are always opinionated, his ideas are always biased".

Rick Norwood 12:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scribner and Michael, Wikipedia specifically suggests that all sides of an argument are represented in order to maintain a Neutral Point of View. Perhaps a compromise could be made by specifying what parts of the paragraph are uncomprehensible? Generally it is better to improve or alter edits instead of remove them completely. Perhaps we can take the paragraph and make it clearly explain the controversy of conservatism?

There definitely are valid points to their argument, though, and those should be recognized. The paragraph as it stands is a list of quotes explaining the downfalls of conservatism. Perhaps there are other ways to go about explaining criticism, just as explaining where these issues come from.

Looking at each quote in detail, the first one about Plato does not make any reference to conservatism, the quote by Livy does appear quite confusing and there is no analysis of it (though I'm not endorsing original research here), the quote by Benjamin Disraeli does start getting somewhere, but perhaps it can be elaborated on. Further explanation of the corn laws and why this made controversy could be explained. The quote from poet William Wordsworth also doesn't clearly state controversy of criticism. The final quote appears to be an analysis of Napoleon stating that conservatism would not last - which does not appear to have any direct relation to criticism.

So, while criticism against conservatism should definitely be mentioned, perhaps this should be gone about in a different way. Having numerous quotes doesn't appear to directly discuss the criticism of conservatism (and I'm saying this from a neutral third person perspective.) As a reader of an encyclopedia, I would want a description of specifically what controversy there was/is, and why they were caused. Having several quotes explaining why conservatism is bad does not appear to do this in a very clear way. How do you all feel about this? Cowman109^Talk 15:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. The criticism section as it now exists is the result of more than a dozen rewrites. In particular, the lack of any explanation is due to Scribner's insistance that all quotes must stand alone, and any explanatory material about a quote is "weasel words". So, in one of many efforts at compromise, I took out all the explanatory material. Personally, I think that Scribner's understanding of what constitutes weasel words is in error. In any case, following your suggestions above, I will attempt yet another rewrite later on today. Rick Norwood 16:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. Before adding the rewrite to the article, it may be a good idea to show us here what progress you've made so we can come to some sort of consensus about its inclusion. Cowman109^Talk 16:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't belong. Why are you ignoring the huge amount of debate and evidence I've put forward? The section shouldn't be there. It just so happens that the section there is absolute rubbish. michael ^talk 02:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blatantly stealing from WP:NPOV:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed.

If you could cite, in this same manner, what policies and debates you feel conflict with this, it could help us towards the goal of determining the best way of incorporating your point of view into the outcome of this mediation. I'd appreciate the help! ~Kylu (u|t) 05:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section is wholly against the neutrality policy. If the article is neutral, why is there a section that is criticising the subject of the article? A criticism section argues against the philosophy, so thus, it engages in debate. It engages in debate that is in opposition to the subject; directly against "a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject" and "Readers are left to form their own opinions." (as opinion is being forced upon them) The solution? The section's removal. michael ^talk 06:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blanking[edit]

Sad to say, while we debate the blanking of Criticism of Conservatism, Scribner has blanked the section "Philosophy of American Liberalism" in the article American Liberalism. I've reverted, and mentioned that blanking is against Wiki policy. " The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem? In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright"

Rick, that problem has been resolved, through the talk section. Bjsiders may re-write the section. Talk:American Liberalism

That particular section was written exactly like this disputed section. I suspect you wrote that section?

Your peculiar style of writing-- opening a paragraph with a leading sentence and then completing the paragraph with unrelated quotes is foreign to me. Foreign to us all, I suspect.

And Rick, editing does at times require removal of unnecessary content. I did discuss this on the talk page. Scribner 17:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read above the Wikipedia policy on blanking. If Bjsiders is doing a rewrite, fine, but you should replace the section you object to with a rewrite rather than blanking the section and saying a rewrite is in the works.

I've noticed that, when I write using my own words, you say I am using weasel words, OR and POV. On the other hand when, to avoid those accusations, I write using quotes, you say the quotes are "unrelated". Let me point out that I've worked on well over a hundred different articles on Wikipedia, and have always been able to reach a resonable compromise in any disputes that arose, without having to appeal to mediation, until this dispute. Rick Norwood 18:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked on American Liberalism and, far from being resolved, user:Bjsiders asked Scribner to stop blanking while he did a rewrite, Scribner blanked a second time anyway, and Bjsiders reverted. This pattern of blanking, by Scribner, ER MD, and beneaththelandslide, has been going on for more than a month, now, and I do not understand why they continue to blank things unfavorable to conervatism or favorable to liberalism when they seem to be able to work well with other Wikipedians on any other subject. Rick Norwood 18:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless user:Bjsiders has changed his mind he's going to re-write the section. The blanking issue may have been more a result of getting the attention of an uncooperative editor.

Rick just because you add content to an article, doesn't mean that content must remain. If your addition is disputed and tagged for NOR, and you refuse to compromise, and another editor can't re-write your section with your information--then removal is an option.

Please stop using weasel words, and stop using leading sentences followed by cherry picked quotes. Show some good faith. Scribner 19:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following Cowman109's suggestion[edit]

Here is a (shorter) version of the disputed section that restores the connective material removed in an attempt to compromise with Scribner. Scribner described the material outside quotation marks as weasel words. Anything Cowman109 considers weasel words I will be happy to remove. I really think it makes more sense this way. I am still trying to avoid examples from the 20th century, to which there were objections.

Criticism of conservatism

The neutrality of this article or section may be compromised by "weasel words". Please see the relevant discussion on the [[:Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-13 Conservatism|talk page

Conservatism is the belief or claim that tradition is of primary importance. From time to time, people have expressed criticism of conservatism.

One criticism is that conservatives may tend to punish deviations from tradition too harshly. Plato, in his Apology, gives a sympathetic picture of Socrates, who was sentenced 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, .."^[6]

A second criticism is that conservatives sometimes use appeals to tradition as a cover for self-interest. The Roman historian Livy, in his History of Rome^[7], describes one such instance, in the year 445 BC, when conservative Romans, to preserve their political power, appealed to tradition and found war preferable to change:

"…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. ... 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 ... . 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."

Another example is the dispute over the corn laws in England in 1845. Benjamin Disraeli, himself a member of the Conservative Party, claimed that those members of his party who opposed the corn laws were the very people who stood to gain the most financially from their repeal. He wrote in 1845, "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." ^[8]

A third criticism of conservatism is that it stands in the way of progress. Unlike charges of excess and hypocrisy, this criticism speaks directly to the conservative philosophy itself.

In France, in the 18th century, conservatives supported the Ancien Régime, revolutionaries opposed it. Writing in support of the revolution, the English poet William Wordsworth wrote, "Bliss in that dawn it was to be alive, but to be young was very heaven!" ^[9]

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." Napoleon himself criticized French conservatives for trying to hold back 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.” ^[10]

Rick Norwood 22:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here we have a description of the quotes, but one issue in the paragraphs would be the lengthiness of the quotes. Perhaps the quote by Livy could be cut a bit so the section would not overwhelm the article if it is accepted. As for the inclusion of a controversy section, however, WP:NPOV does explain that separate arguments should be represented. We should recognize, however, that Michael brings up interesting points. For example, when you look at the Liberal democracy article, instead of having a criticism section, we have a list of advantages and disadvantages of a liberal democracy. Could these quotes not be merged into some sort of similar section detailing how conservatism has proven to be advantageous or when it may have harmed a society? Off the top of my head I can think of events such as the early stage of the French Revolution or the Glorious Revolution. However, this may tempt original research.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the problem you're having with the section, Michael, is the way it's being represented? It is interesting to note that the liberalism article, for example, does not have a criticism section. But then again, Communism does (and it's included in the same list of ideologies as conservatism). We cannot say that there is no criticism of conservatism, and as such it should probably be addressed. The quotes are definitely from notable people, so perhaps they should be included some way into the article. Could you respond to this please? Perhaps the section may not stand on its own but may be integrated in other places of the article, but WP:NPOV does indeed state that all sides of a point of view should be represented. Cowman109^Talk 20:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to edit the section as it appears above to make it shorter.

As for "Criticism" sections, you will find them in American liberalism, Shroud of Turin, Libertarianism (a featured article), and many other articles. Rick Norwood 00:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, if a FA has a criticism section, then I think the best thing we could do (especially as it's a related topic!) would be to try to make this criticism section as close to the one in the Libertarianism article as possible while remaining a seperate entity. FA's are ... let's say difficult to acheive is understating it. Wouldn't it be nice if Conservatism made FA because of the discussions here? ~Kylu (u|t) 06:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, along with many others, worked on the Criticism of Libertarianism section. And it includes some of the same criticisms as the Criticism of Conservatism section, notably the suggestion that philosophy is sometimes used to mask self-interest. That section is much longer than this one, because I've cut this one to the bone in an effort to compromise. Also that section includes many modern criticisms. What I would like to do now is move my rewrite above to the article, and see if -- absent blanking -- others work on it, add modern examples, and improve the article by the Wikipedia process. The article needs a lot of work, especially to eliminate some of the repetition. And I want to spend more time on Order of operations and Arithmetic. Rick Norwood 13:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have my words in the preceding section gone completely un-noticed or have individuals chosen ignorance? michael ^talk 13:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, we aren't trying to offend you in any way, but policy simply states that all sides of an issue should be addressed. In Wikipedia editors are encouraged to alter and improve other edits and not simply remove them. Other similar articles have sections where criticism is mentioned, and if the paragraphs are not to your liking, you are welcome to discuss ways to improve them and be bold and make it conform to a WP:NPOV. We have addressed the issue of the conservatism section being a jumbled list of quotes with no explanation behind them and given some facts from history that support the quotes. Perhaps you could address now what specifically you have problems with in the paragraph? Cowman109^Talk 14:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of me giving assistance? I have sufficently argued for the removal of this section with nothing but sharp logic. I think what is happening is an absolute joke; I can only hope that whoever views the article can read between the lines and see the section for what it is. Criticism sections are simply in-article forks to compensate for poor text. You, as a mediator, have obviously failed to read through all of my argument both here and at an RFC I filed in relation to Norwood. Given this, your words of guidance are meaningless - I do not need to be, or appreciate being, lectured to in such a manner. michael ^talk 14:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, we are addressing Rick's edits and I am trying to get us to come to a compromise to cut down on the confusing aspects of his additions and to cut down on any apparent POV. The fact remains that other articles have similar criticism sections, and if you have a problem with the contents of it, you are more than welcome to improve it. Editing other edits and adding to them is generally more helpful than a simple removal of the contents, and nothing is stopping you from working on neutralizing the POV (if that's a word). Cowman109^Talk 14:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complete and utter ignorance of my words. Criticism sections are inherently POV as they are arguing against the subject of the article and engage in debate. What is in the article should be enough to define the topic - why do you think the Adolf Hitler article has no 'Criticism of Hitler' section? Political and controversial articles have criticism sections simply because those opposed to the subject at hand are more interested in blatantly engaging in negative debate against a subject rather than showing it for what it is and letting the reader decide. I have spoken these words before and have got ignorance. I expect it again. michael ^talk 15:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the historical events into the article definitely would be better than a simple criticism section, but how would you propose that such information is included? Perhaps first we could wait for the information and then the next step could be merging it? Would that work as a compromise? Cowman109^Talk 15:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the text was appropriate, yes; the current text, however, is not. All of the criticism relies on particular impementations of the philosophy - in some cases criticising what is not even conservatism but simply actions the writer decided to deem 'conservative'. Thank you for reading my words and giving me a nice surprise, though. michael ^talk 15:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy and politics[edit]

The article Conservatism is part of the politics series, not part of the philosophy series. As such, it covers not only theoretical conservatism, but also the political applications of the philosophy to the real world throughout history. In each of my examples, the subjects of the criticism were either clearly on the side of conserving tradition, which is the definition of conservatism, or self-identify themselves as conservatives.

I find that some modern conservatives think that "conservative" is a synonym for "economic liberal". They favor free trade, small government, and low taxes. But there is nothing inherently conservative about economic liberalism, and the purely political alliance between economic liberals and social and religious conservatives only goes back about fifty years. Throughout most of history, conservatism meant supporting king, church, and country, and to many social conservatives today it means supporting party, church, and country. I have not offered any criticism of economic liberalism. Rick Norwood 16:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're defining it through your own opinion, Norwood. You completely and utterly fail to realise that conservatism isn't "right-wing, Christian, upper-class, etc" but that it is the conservation of tradition. Under communism, conservatism is conservation of tradition; so in that situation it would be wholly different from conservatism under a liberal democracy. It depends on the situation it is applied in. Do you read your own words, Norwood? "Throughout most of history, conservatism meant supporting king, church, and country, and to many social conservatives today it means supporting party, church, and country." - this is nothing more than your own POV and OR. michael ^talk 03:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My views of conservatism throughout history are based on my reading of history. You mention communism and liberal democracy, and you are quite correct when you say that under those systems of government conservatives strive to maintain those systems. But both of those systems were very rare before the 20th century, and all of the examples in the disputed section are from before the 20th century. Historically, most governments have been monarchies, with an aristocracy and an established religion. At least, that has been true since since the establishment of city states. Before that, most governments were tribal and conservatives supported the customs of their tribe. Even in a democracy (like Athens) or a republic (like Rome) (which were the exception rather than the rule), conservatives supported the "gods of the state" and the traditional rights of the upper class.

As for present day conservatism, since the section in question makes no mention of it, I'll avoid getting into a debate on the subject, as much fun as that might be. It's off topic, the the mediators are busy people. Rick Norwood 13:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should avoid discussing what conservatism is and instead come to some sort of idea about what types of information would adequately represent criticism of conservatism? :) Cowman109^Talk 16:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to do nothing as such as I have already stated. I'll take this to ArbCom if no one wakes up. michael ^talk 01:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom generally deals more with behavioral issues and not so much content disputes. We need some sort of proposition as how to properly include all viewpoints of conservatism. If anything, the next step would be a WP:RFC or a WP:RFM if we can't come to some sort of compromise here. Arbitration would be the absolutely last step. Cowman109^Talk 03:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I have the utmost respect for ArbCom, I also heavily suggest against it. Try a RfC or a MedCom mediation, but really ArbCom should be your absolute last choice. Whatever they decide, whether you like it or not, gets enforced. I'd rather try to bring everyone to an amicable solution. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have offered at least a dozen compromises both before and after arbitration. michael is, as best I can tell, exactly where he was when the discussion began. Also, he seems convinced that anyone who disagrees with his position just isn't listening.

What I would like to do is this. While the rewrite above is not what michael wants, it is apparently no worse than what we have now, and has the virtue of being shorter. I would like, if the mediators agree, to put it in the article, and move on to other things. If anyone repeatedly blanks it, it can be delt with under the three revert rule. How does this sound to you? Rick Norwood 14:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above rewrite still fails everything I have mentioned. It is your own point-of-view, and the section itself wholly violates neutrality. You seem to want to bend and twist instead of sticking to a point. I offer no compromise with idiocy. michael ^talk 14:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we must remember that we do not WP:OWN articles, so perhaps we are not looking at this widely enough. Perhaps the proposal for a new paragraph should be brought to more eyes at the talk page of conservatism and even a message left on the village pump could give us more insight and ideas for compromise? Cowman109^Talk 15:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This I can agree with. michael ^talk 15:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed at length on the talk page, but I'm certainly willing to give the village pump a try. I've posted the paragraph there with a few words about the controversy. Rick Norwood 15:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#A controversy in the Conservatism article Location of the Village Pump query in question. No responses yet as of this posting. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick to Kylu -- this has gone on for a long time. I think that we need to take michael at his word and accept that he will not compromise. Do you have any objection if I put the version of the disputed section above, which is shorter and clearer, in place of the version that is there now, which essentially says the same thing? Rick Norwood 13:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't achieved consensus, compromise or common sense here Norwood. Why be so impatient and arrogant? Wait for responses. michael ^talk 13:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick, I still object to the section being put into the article. I wish you would wash your hands of this article and get on with life. You have another section that's being rewritten because of pov problems. American Liberalism , the "philosophy of..." section, again nothing more than a pov sentence with several quotes. An editor stumbled across the section yesterday and called it uber-pov. Scribner 17:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick to michael. You say "you haven't achieved consensus, compromise or common sense here". And yet above you stated that you would never compromise with what you call "idiocy". I was just taking you at your word. I would much rather work out a compromise or a consensus, but I've made more than a dozen offers of compromise, and you haven't budged an inch. Aside from name calling, you have not addressed the issues at all. How long should I wait? Rick Norwood 20:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Village Pump request has so far gained zero comments. Personally, while mediating makes one feel good about themselves, I'd really rather see everyone's wikistress levels drop to reasonable levels and get on with constructive editing. Let me ask a simple question, we'll just say it's for curiosity's sake, to everyone here: What one thing is within your power to do that would make the conflict go away? What action can you take to make everyone happy? ~Kylu (u|t) 22:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes will not stand. Too many editors disagree with not only the selected quotes, but also the use of bundled quotes. Please see the Conservatism talk page for today's comment on the quotes, each of the three were debunked.

I'd like to see the section removed. Let the editor's work it out on the talk page. It's poor policy to allow an editor to add content, with absolutly no recourse for removal, which is exactly what has happened in this section. It's also violates WP:NOR the way I read the policy. Scribner 00:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do read the Conservatism talk page for today's comment on the quotes which, far from debunking them, notes that all the quotes are made by people who are conservatives themselves.

The one thing I would most like to see is for any of those who object to the section to give even one substantive objection to anything in the section -- but that is not in my power. As for what is in my power to do, each of the three people who object to the section have said repeatedly that the only thing that will make the controversy go away is for the entire section to be deleted. That I am not willing to accept. Rick Norwood 20:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it's even crazier to have a section on "criticisms of conservatism" which only lists a group of fairly gnomic quotations from conservatives. Wouldn't it make more sense to have criticisms of conservatism from, you know, people who aren't conservatives? john k 23:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is a horrible mess. I think that an intelligent discussion of how political Conservatism (which has a specific meaning going well beyond "the conservation of traditions") has been discussed and critiques by supporters of other political movements in the last 200 years is well in order. And I think that most of Mr. Norwood's critics are, from what I read of their views here, trying to push their own ignorant POVs into the article. On the other hand, the "Criticisms of Conservatism" section, as quoted above, is idiosyncratic and bizarre. Conservatism is a political philosophy which is generally considered to have arisen in the late 18th century in reaction to the French revolution. Having quotes from classical sources seems deeply problematic. Obviously, in ancient Greece, there were parties of the old elites, and parties supporting democracy, and one can find the same thing to an extent in ancient Rome. But referring to these as "conservatives" is problematic (as is the statement in the article that conservatism predates the left-right division - I have normally seen conservatism as a conscious political movement as being attributed largely to Burke and other later writers like Chateaubriand and so forth, who were themselves instrumental in the development of the left-right division, as well). The Disraeli quote is also idiosyncratic - it's obviously a quote which is referring fairly specifically to the internal political quarrels of the Conservative Party during the second Peel administration, and should not be viewed as a general statement about conservatism as a political philosophy - it is a statement about the British Conservative Party at a particular time. (I'm not sure, but I would assume that what Disraeli is basically criticizing the Peel government for trying to repeal the Corn Laws, which is hardly a grand statement about Conservatism in general). The Wordsworth quote is likewise odd - all Wordsworth is talking about is that he got excited by the French Revolution. The Bonald quotation is similarly odd. This section should most definitely be removed, although that shouldn't prohibit us from writing a decent section on the same theme. john k 22:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue - surely a section on "criticisms of conservatism" should not be a list of disconnected quotations, but an attempt to discuss various views in an encyclopedic way? And if we're going to have quotes, surely John Stuart Mill's "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." is the classic put down. Although, like Disraeli, Mill is talking about the 19th century British Conservative Party, not conservatism as a political philosophy. john k 23:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~Kylu, john k did respond on my talk page. I've removed the two sentences that I posted here requesting commit. Scribner 23:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching the various pages here and there, waiting for an opening to develop that might turn into a means to settle things. I can't say I'm fond of his "ignorant POV" statement, but if some sort of good comes out of this and settles things, I'm willing to overlook it. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 05:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick to Kylu and John K. I am willing to accept all of John K's suggestions, remove the quotes from Plato, Wordsworth, and Disraiei, and have him add quotes from John Sturat Mills and any others he finds apt. But I am tired of making unilateral concessions and so I need some sort of statement from Scribner and the others as to what criticism of conservatism is acceptable to them. So far, in more than a month of trying to compromise, none of them have budged an inch. Rick Norwood 14:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"unilateral concessions"? What concessions? You're just squirming around in your little space; you fail to offer reason. If you were reasonable this would have been solved long ago. I have laid out in detail your agenda, the bias you have added to the article and the nonsense that is a criticism section. You offer ignorance and deception through your words, pretending to be doing the 'right thing' and failing to solving the problem that you created. I am still waiting for reason to appear. michael ^talk 15:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reason[edit]

I have offered repeated concessions. You have offered none. I have made repeteded changes in the section that have been requested. You position is, last I heard, that the section is unacceptable in any form. I have asked repeatedly for the kind of specific comments that, for example John K. has provided. You have offered no specific comments, only general name calling. I have asked you directly: what forms of criticism of conservatism do you consider acceptable? If you claim to be reasonable (and I have seen you be reasonable on other subjects) then answer that question. Rick Norwood 15:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On wikipedia: none. In another medium; in a newspaper, on a blog, etc; whatever you so wish. We are not here to editorialise, debate, speculate or give opinion. We are here to write a neutral encylopedia of fact, not opinion. michael ^talk 15:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, there is no place on wikipedia for Rick Norwood's criticisms of conservatism, or mine, or yours for that matter. But that doesn't mean that a comprehensive encyclopedia article on a political ideology should not discuss the ways that political ideology has been criticized. I don't think that the current format of the section, which is a bunch of contextless quotes, can ever be NPOV, and obviously an original essay would be, well, original research. But one can have a scholarly discussion of how conservatism has been viewed and discussed by non-conservatives, and the way that conservatives have themselves reflected on potential problems with their ideology. Obviously wikipedia is not a place for our (as editors') opinions. It is most certainly a place for reporting accurately on the notable opinions of others. john k 15:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a criticism section does that mean there should be a positives section? Or is the criticism section just picking up where the article left off, because the article itself is too positive? Criticism and opinion is a biased mess and should not be on wikipedia, on any article. We're not here to discuss "But that doesn't mean that a comprehensive encyclopedia article on a political ideology should not discuss the ways that political ideology has been criticized". We're here to lay out fact and let the readers decide. I have said this too many times. Criticism / analysis / opinion in sections / articles do not belong here and are inherently non-neutral. michael ^talk 15:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are not simply here to "lay out fact." That doesn't even make any sense. What wikipedia is meant to do is to report what other people have said about conservatism. That includes the opinions that (notable) other people have expressed about conservatism. It is a fact that John Stuart Mill said (more or less) that most stupid people are Conservatives. Why isn't that fact relevant to the article? It is a fact that there is a particular Marxist critique of conservatism. Why isn't that fact relevant to the article? It is a fact that conservatives themselves have often expressed criticisms of conservatism themselves. Why isn't that relevant? Once again, our opinions, and our analysis is inappropriate, but the opinions and analysis of others is perfectly appropriate. Perhaps the section shouldn't be called "Criticism of Conservatism," but having something to discuss critical opinions of conservatism is exactly what wikipedia should be doing. john k 16:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It makes perfect sense. It might be a fact that he said such a comment, but the comment isn't fact itself. Wikipedia isn't a forum for debate and analysis. Is that what you want it to be - but through someone else's words? Should we start criticism and analysis sections on every article - is that what you wish? How about criticisms of Sydney or Homosexuality?

Criticism sections exist in political articles because of pathetic attempts by people with strong political views, who simply don't like differing philosophies and want to bring their agenda of criticising these onto the pages of wikipedia. Such sections should be eradicated.

I've noticed the message you left on Norwood's talk page. "you don't want to have them accuse the section of 'liberal bias' " This isn't about the pathetic American battleground between Conservatism and Liberalism (which are wholly redefined and bastardised in an American context) - its about keeping articles neutral. michael ^talk 16:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

michael ^talk's argument about Criticism / analysis / opinion in sections / articles do not belong here...

is a solid and valid argument. Michael's right on this point, and my agreement isn't a tactic simply to bar criticism from this or any other article. Nor is this a petty issue. Wikipedia needs to make a determination on this specific point. Scribner 18:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely don't understand this. This seems like insanity to me. By this standard, our articles on films and literary works can only summarize the plot, and cannot discuss critical responses. Our articles on historical events can only give the chronological narrative, and can't discuss the way historians have interpreted said events. This is complete madness. Once again my opinion, and your opinion are certainly irrelevant. But the opinion of John Stuart Mill is not a priori irrelevant. We may determine that that particular quote doesn't belong, but the opinions that have been held of conservatism have to be fair game for an article about conservatism. john k 18:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've summed it up perfectly. (even though you call it "insanity" and "madness") We're not journalists / film critics, etc. This isn't a film site or a political blog. This is an enclyopedia. We don't write essays or opinion peices on what we think of topics, that is essentially what criticism / analysis sections are. You shouldn't be wanting a criticism section, you should be wanting a neutral article with solid text, so the reader can decide what they think of the topic at hand. michael ^talk 02:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. And again, you are ignoring the difference between "our" opinions and analysis (that is to say, my opinion/analysis or your opinion/analysis), and "opinions/analysis expressed by prominent scholars or critics." The latter is explicitly allowed by wikipedia. As Rick notes below, Conservatism isn't a "thing" which exists in the real world - it is a concept, or an idea, or an ideology, or whatever. As such, it does not exist except in so far as people have opinions on it. These people may be conservatives, or they may not be, but there is no "reality" beyond the thoughts of human beings. Your views here are completely against the spirit of the way wikipedia works. john k 14:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I am finally beginning to understand the subtest of beneaththelandslide's objections. He seems to believe that a value, such as conservatism, can be determined objectively, in the same way that a fact, such as the population of Sydney, can be determined. But Sydney exists in the external world, and can be studied by the methods of science and mathematics, as with a statistical study of its population. Conservatism has no such external existance. It exists only as a value held by individuals. That is why the article on Sydney should not contain a criticism of Sydney, but the article on conservatism should contain a variety of opinions about conservatism.

Quite so. john k 14:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the title of the section, I would actually prefer "Opinions about conservatism" rather than "criticism of conservatism" as a section title. However, since most of the other political articls have "criticism" sections, parallel construction may be of use here. Rick Norwood 14:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as if I am making little progress with those who hold an obvious agenda. "external existence" and "a value held by individuals" ? You seem to want to editoralise and put forward an opinion over writing an article. This isn't a discussion forum for quotations, remarks or opinions. michael ^talk 14:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Michael, what should be our sources for an "objective" determination of what conservatism is? john k 14:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't give what the source is, whether critical, analytical or factual - how it is in the article matters. (however, differing American conservatism from this is essential) I don't understand why there is such a concentration on a 'criticism' section but so little on getting the article up to standard. michael ^talk 14:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was entirely incoherent. I genuinely no longer have any idea what you're getting at here. john k 20:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think what michael is saying is that this has gone on long enough. I agree. Certainly I've spent more time on this than I ever intended to, and have suggested several times moving on to the work that the article clearly needs. However, I am not willing to allow blanking and namecalling to determine the content of an article.

On the other hand, michael has now several times mentioned the importance of distinguishing between American conservatism and other forms. Since the section in question is about Greek, Roman, French, and English conservatism, I'm not sure why he keeps bringing up American conservatism. Rick Norwood 21:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you both feel it's gone on long enough, have you considered what actions to take next? I'd still like to suggest an amicable resolution if possible. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. This is a joke, an absolute joke. Norwood continues his patronising trash and Kenney is completely ignorant of all discussion leading up to this. I bring up American Conservatism because it is a sick joke, unworthy of the name, that is not related to the philosophy, and must be distinguished from it. Why exactly do you want to go out of your way to editoralise and fill the article with opinion? Why do you want to slant it? *sigh* Any reader with half a brain would be able to point Norwood out as a biased editor if they went through his edit history and that of the Conservatism article.

If you two are what I am "up against" I doubt there will be a resolution. I'm still more than happy to see this go to ArbCom. michael ^talk 02:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I entered into this conflict when I read this section, ~Kylu and john please acknowledge that you have read this section , Rick and Michael please allow ~Kylu and john k a chance to respond before you comment on this, thanks.

"Criticism Of Conservatism

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 he was "a doer of evil, who corrupts the youth; and who does not believe in the gods of the state, ..."[4] In Livy's History of Rome[5] 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, which overthrew the conservative Ancien Régime, [sic] the poet William Wordsworth wrote "Bliss in that dawn it was to be alive, but to be young was very heaven!"[6]

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 scoundrel," 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 [sic] admission to college and by civil service examinations, to aleviate [sic] inequalities of wealth by a graduated income tax, to end the tradistional [sic]disenfranchisement of Blacks in the South, and to open more occupations to women."

[here's the link]

END

I have underlined the content that caused me to get involved in this article. Do either of you see any violations in this section? Do you see pov, nor, soap box violations? Do you see wholesale hatered toward conservatives?

Do you see why other editors removed this section?

What I read was, "It's payback time, and I (Rick) have got the stage."

Other than vandalism this is the worse that I have read on Wikipedia. Scribner 06:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this material is very good, and I think some of the quotations are used in a dubious manner. Johnson's criticism was not terribly ideological - he was criticizng Pitt and the "Boy Patriots," who were not particularly "conservative" (or "liberal," for that matter). The Socrates quote is problematic. The comment about "many a populist politician" seems to be unsourced POV. There are almost certainly more a propos quotes from Marx. I'm not impressed with the pargraph about the United States, either. That said, I certainly do not see "wholesale hatred towards conservatives," much less "wholesale hatered," and that kind of heated rhetoric is seriously unnecessary. john k 17:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you agree the section violated POV, NOR policies and violated the WEASEL WORD style guide. I agree, that's why after repeated attempts to compromise with Rick Norwood, three editors first tagged and then removed the section, which result in a revert war. The latest rewrite is less POV but is still violates NOR. It's been debunked twice in one week. We seem to be beating the same dead horse day after day. Scribner 19:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"after repeated attempts to compromise with Rick Norwood..." There has never been any offer of compromise from Scribner. When he objected to the section he quotes above, I removed it, and tried again. His "compromise" was to delete the rewrite. The only "compromise" he has ever offered is the removal of the entire section.

The current version has not been "debunked". john k offered some valid criticisms, and I am perfectly willing to do yet another rewrite in response to those criticisms. But before I do another rewrite, I would like some indication of what would be considered an acceptable form for the section to take. I have asked this question of the three who delete the section half a dozen times, now, and have never gotten a reply, except michael's statement that no criticism section is acceptable in any article. Tell me what form you want, and I'll do my best to follow it. I would also be very happy if someone else wanted to write the section. Rick Norwood 21:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beating the dead horse for Rick:

I will respond to each point, using quadruple indents - Rick.

1. Hey Rick, the Conservatism Criticism section is original research. It's neither representative of the good work you've done on this article nor is it neutral or factual. It comes across as a patchwork intended to prove a point. WP:NOR Scribner 22:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I listened to Scribner's suggestions above, and did a complete rewrite.

2. Personally, I almost encouraged you to seek another avenue to prove your point. I can't rewrite what's there to convey what you're attempting to convey. As it stands, right now, it's original research. Scribner 22:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did a third rewrite, using almost entirely different references.

3. Rick, again, the section as it stands is an patchwork attempt at original research, with POV problems. I'm very familiar with the quotes and as it stand it's not factual or neutral. Scribner 00:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I felt like this was getting repetitious and vague. In what way were the quotes OR? In what way were they POV. All of Scribner's comments are general rather than specific. Still, I did another rewrite.

4. ["For example, a conservative bumper sticker reads"...], This is new. Bumper stickers, blogs and forums aren't reputable reference sources.

Rick, here's how Jimbo Wales wants you to handle original research:..."But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history"Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history" WP:NOR

Scribner had challenged me to show that some conservatives favor religion and patriotism, so I quoted a conservative bumper sticker that said something to the effect: "God and the Flag". I was a little out of patience at this point, since it seemed to me that the statement that some conservatives favor religion and patriotism is common knowledge. However, I agree that a bumper sticker, while it establishes the point, is a weak source, and I replaced it the next day with a better source.

```intermission```(Sounds like I'm tring to work with you Rick, really trying.)

Note that I have accepted all of your suggestions so far, but have repeatedly requested that you be specific rather than general in your comments.

5. Rick, no uses of "for example", OK. That's original research. WP:NOR Scribner 21:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? This is where things started to seem strange to me.

6. Rick, on this article section and on the American Conservatism criticism section you continue a campaign loaded with your own POV and NOR agenda. Show some good faith. Scribner 19:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I took out all references to American conservatism and asked again for specific examples of the way in which the examples were POV and NOR.

7. Rick you used a bumper sticker as reference material. Your search for material to prove your agenda is wearing thin. Stop including POV and NOR materials. Scribner 21:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bumper sticker reference is long gone at this point. I can hardly remove it again. Still nothing specific, only generalities.

8. Rick the section that keeps getting blanked are your personal attacks (POV) on conservatives. I can not improve or work with the tripe you've laid out. You've given reasons such as you daughter converting to Islam and the hell the other school kids put her through. You said you had to buy her a car just to get her to complete school. Unfortunate yes, but why drag it into a talk page? You've used a bumper sticker as reference material?

At this point the section that keeps getting blanked consisted entirely of quotes from respected writers. In what way were they "personal attacks"? And Scribner complains once again about the long gone bumper sticker reference. There are still no specifics, just a repetition of claim that the section is POV.

--You said that the Iraq war should be included in the American Conservatism Criticism article. You hand pick a sentence that you like, then scamper off to find a couple of totally unrelated quotes to verify your claims. Take a break. WP:NOR POV Scribner 15:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that I never mentioned the Iraq war in the article currently under discussion. In fact, by this point, the criticisms quoted were of conservatism in Greece, Rome, England, and France. Why bring the Iraq war into the discussion here?

By now, Micheal has filed a RFC. Rick still insists on same POV/NOR section.

I have been able to work with Scribner in the past. Here, I get the feeling that there is something that keeps us from communicating. But I'm not sure what it is because, except for the repeated complaints about the bumper sticker, there is not one word of specific criticism of any specific subject. Rick Norwood 13:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick, I was being specific. I told you repeatedly that the section was a patchwork, OR, POV. Then the Samuel Johnson quote was debunked. (That quote is said to be the most misused quote in forums and usenet.) Rick you said in the spirit of compromise you'd remove the quote. What's to compromise? The use of the quote was proven wrong. Scribner 17:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

```END```

Compromise is the wrong word, isn't it, "to offer guidance" describes my repeated attempts to get through to you. The section has been debunked twice, three times if you count john k's work on it. ER MD, and Cowman109, and maybe others have advised a philosophical approach to the philosophy.

First, Wikipedia needs to make a determination on the inclusion of criticism sections. Scribner 23:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has tolerated the existence of criticism sections for some time, although I don't know that they've ever been explicitly endorsed. A mediation is not the appropriate venue to discuss this, in any case - rather, you would want to discuss it on a policy talk page, perhaps Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. john k 00:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia hasn't explicitly endorsed the existence of criticism sections, then how can one be forcibly introduced into this article?

What in the world are you talking about? Do you at all grasp how wikipedia works? There is no rule against criticism sections. There is certainly no rule mandating criticism sections. Whether or not a criticism section is appropriate should be worked out by the editors of any individual article. How complicated can this be? john k 12:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's where I stand. I'm against all criticism sections. But, if they are included, I believe that quotes should never be used in a criticism section because of the inherent ambiguity. Scribner 00:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that contextless quotes should not be provided. I don't see why quotes should generally be forbidden. john k 12:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been talking to the other coordinators and, in my opinion, it appears this case is going to be quite difficult to solve amicably. I understand a second RfC has been filed, but in all honesty I haven't looked at it and am curious as to if the parties involved are going to continue mediation or seek more...forced...resolution? ~Kylu (u|t) 05:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~Kylu, here is what Rick Norwood requested:

What would you like to change about that?

"I would like them to stop deleting the entire section and discuss any problems they have with the section in a clam and rational manner."

I believe that Rick's request was complied with prior to his request for mediation. Rick's POV violations are recorded fact. Civil and rational resolution by myself, ER MD and Micheal are also recorded fact. I'd like to be proven otherwise. Scribner 07:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RN to Scribner: I've inserted comments above, since I think that makes easier reading. If you think you have offered specific, rather than general, comments about the section, other than repeated complaints about a bumper sticker reference that is long gone, please show me. A good example of constructive criticism is that offered by john k. It is specific rather than general, suggests changes that would improve the section, avoids personal attacks.

RN to john k: I am working on a rewrite, following your suggestions, but I am going to do some reading in the library first. A couple of thoughts. While your John Stuart Mill quote is a great quote, I'm not going to use it, because it isn't true. I know many stupid liberals.

Rick, this suggests an odd attitude towards this section. The point is not to include things that are true, they are to put things that are significant. Mill's quote is significant, whether or not it is true. john k 22:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with your comment that the Livy quote is out of line. The article describes conservatism as a philosophy that values tradition. Philosophy that values tradition antedates the English word "conservatism". For example: "Throughout his life, the conservative Cicero loathed being compared to the then more famous Marius." in Cicero. Rick Norwood 13:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatism is not just "a philosophy that values tradition." There's a lot more to it than that. john k 22:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By all means put the John Stuart Mills quote in there, and then tag the section POV and NOR for me, ok? While you're at it, remove the quote it because it has nothing whatsoever to do the philosophy. Thanks for saving me the time. Oh, and thanks for all the fish. Scribner 23:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick to Scribner: You're savvy enough to laugh at the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but on this one topic you are unable to see the obvious: a quote from John Stuart Mills cannot possibly be POV or original research. What's going on here? Rick Norwood 13:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get a grip here, people, his name is John Stuart Mill. No "s" at the end. At any rate, how on earth would a famous quote about conservatives from one of the leading liberal philosophers of the 19th century constitute either a POV or an NOR violation? And on what basis is this article just supposed to be about explicating the "philosophy" of conservatism? Thie is as an article about conservatism in general, and thus represents various organized political movements at least as much as any "philosophical" movement. At any rate, as I've said before, I think quotations, in general, should only be included if context is provided. But we should all remember that the point of a criticism section would not be to explain conservatism, but to explain the ways that people have criticized conservatism. Mill may have been completely wrong that "most stupid people are conservatives," but the immportant thing is that this contemptuous view is one that has very frequently been held of conservatism. It is a historically significant view, even if it's not actually true. john k 18:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

john k and Rick, I want this to be clear, you both want to use this John Stuart Mill's quote: "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." in the critisism section of Conservatism?

Listen, I object to quotes being used in any critical manner, in ALL criticism sections, even outside of critisism sections. Quotes introduce ambiguities. Quotes are static. Quotes ignore history, they assume an audience's knowledge of the historical context in which the quote was made. Scribner 03:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, I am opposed to just providing a bunch of out of context quotes. I think that the POV represented by Mill's quote is a significant one about conservatism, and should be presented in the article. john k 10:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick to john k: You say that it is odd to want true quotes instead of just ideas by major thinkers. But there are many more quotes than we can possibly use, what is odd about a preference for true ones, or at least apt ones? Even Homer nods. My preference is for the best things that people have thought and said, not the glib remark tossed off at an odd moment. That is my preference not just in this article, but in all the articles I work on.

And you say that there is a lot more to conservatism than just valuing tradition. Of course there is. But as soon as you get away from that definition of conservatism, all of the different beliefs that fall under the general heading go off in all directions. That is, I think, one of the reasons that it is so hard to come to an agreement here. I strongly suspect that the way the word is used by most of the authors I read, especially the classical historians, is very different from the way the word is used by most of the authors ER MD, Scribner, and michael read. This is the reason I keep asking them to be specific in their comments. Rick Norwood 23:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick, who is to judge which quotes are better than others? Is it to be your opinion that decides that Mill's quote is not true, and thus should not be included? We should describe views of conservatism that are historically significant, not views of conservatism that are correct, because there's no possible NPOV way to decide the latter. In terms of conservatism "valuing tradition," or what not, I would suggest that the best way to describe conservatism is as a political ideology that either a) supports the interests of the propertied classes/traditional ruling elites; and/or b) is opposed to cultural innovations. Both of these features could be described as "valuing tradition," but each is more specific than that. I think describing conservatism as "valuing tradition" is simply too vague to be very useful, and doesn't give a very good sense of what actual, in the real world, conservative movements have been like. It's also worth noting that A and B don't necessarily go together, although both are described as conservative. john k 18:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that I have no objection to the quote being included. It just isn't a quote I would have picked myself. And I have no objection to your description of conservatism, but I think if it were included in the article, it would get deleted again and again. In any case, I hope the version of the section that I've posted below is found acceptable, and if it is, then anyone can add to it or change it as they think best, as long as they don't delete it. This really has gone on long enough. Rick Norwood 00:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Conservatism[edit]

Edmund Burke is credited with founding modern conservative philosophy. Burke and his philosophy have been criticized for several perceived failings. One of these is the connection between Burkean conservatism and the British class system. Burke, as quoted in The Western Intellectual Tradition by J. Bronowski and Bruce Maglish, wrote, "The occupation of a hairdresser or of a working tallow-chandler cannot be a matter of honour to any person...such descriptions of men ought not to suffer oppression from the state, but the state suffers oppression if such as they are permitted to rule." Bronowski and Maglish criticize this attitude by pointing out that "this was a tactless remark in the age of Richard Arkwright, who had been a hairdresser, and of Benjamin Franklin, whose father was a tallow-chandler."

Another criticism of conservatism is that the philosophy may serve as a mask for self-interest. In Burke and the Nature of Politics, Carl B. Cone writes "As Burke had declared…this law ... encroached upon property rights... . To the eighteenth century Whig, nothing was more sacred than the rights of property, ... the protest could not be entirely frank, and it masked personal interests behind lofty principles. These principles were not hypocritically pronounced, but they did not reveal the financial interests of Rockingham, Burke, and other persons who opposed the East India legislation as members of parliament, as holders of East India stock... ."

Conservatism has also been criticized as standing in the way of progress. The Dutch religious philosopher Herman Berger, in Progressive and Conservative Man, wrote "Conservatism is contained in conformism...man is...conservative insofar as he takes his universal concepts and judgments out of the transcending movement...sets them up in isolation and fixes them. But to fix is to immobilize."

Is this section acceptable to all parties? Rick Norwood 17:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That looks pretty decent to me. Better than the previous version. I don't know that it's a complete thing, but it's alright. john k 04:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its nonsense, but my logic has so far fallen upon deaf ears. Completly unacceptable, just like the rest of your edits relating to the article. (and not to mention the rubbish you throw into other politics / philosophy articles) michael ^talk 09:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR. Scribner 05:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am really at a loss here. How can quotations from books published by accepted scholars possibly be original research. Please explain, Scribner, what you understand NOR to mean.

Rick, my complaint has not changed. Remember my comment about leading sentences and cherry picked quotes? Same as it ever was. Request for comment/Rick Norwood

john k, will you please comment on the subject of whether the paragraphs above fall into what Wikipedia means by original research? Rick Norwood 12:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, michael, please explain how calling something "nonsense", "completely unacceptable", and "rubish" is an example of the use of logic in a discussion. Rick Norwood 14:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of Michael's choice of words, I don't see how that's helping, Rick. I've thought for a while and came up with a possible solution. See below. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any activity in a while, though I keep desperately hoping that you'd meet in the middle somehow. May I ask: Are you going to continue to try to discuss the matter, or have you already taken it to a different forum? ~Kylu (u|t) 03:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My last contribution was a pair of questions, which have gone unanswered. As far as I know, this medition is the only attempt to resolve the issue. I have made a large number of proposals, but none has been accepted. At least, the mediation has ended the repeated blanking, but I think if the mediation ends, the blanking may resume. So, you are having the effect of a UN peacekeeping force. I'd appreciate your answer to the question I asked john k above. Rick Norwood 12:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kylu, I know you regret taking on this task, but honestly I'd hoped a mediator would mediate the dispute. I feel Rick Norwood edits have been proven both pov and nor, over and over and over. Did you have evidence proving otherwise? No.

Kylu, if I provide proof to you yet again that Norwood's section has been disputed and chewed to pieces by several editors, what will you do? Please answer.--Scribner 08:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another editor on Conservatism has noted their disproval with the article's bias. michael ^talk 09:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again Kylu, any guesstimate on when you will respond to my questions? BTW,(The check is in the mail)--Scribner 01:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to decide who's right or wrong, I'm here to bring everyone to a solution which makes everyone happy. As far as regretting things, honestly I think the biggest problem here is the fact that everyone seems to be unwilling to see things from the other side. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what you're expecting as a result, I suppose. This, being mediation, is primarily a means of peacefully negotiating a middle-ground, so no, I'm not blocking anyone. :) The catch is that while Rick is willing to reword the Criticism section, he doesn't want to let go of it completely, while Michael seems to want to not have any criticism sections at all. There's not a lot of middle ground that I can see. So, what we have is a stall: Neither side wants to actually join in real compromise. The only choice left is to try to apply Solomonic process.

Five Point Proposal[edit]

Here's my proposal, and I'd like to get answers from everyone involved regarding each point seperately:

1. All edits to Conservatism by those involved in this mediation stop immediately, even including obvious vandalism reversion until either Mediation is finished or there's an ArbCom ruling.
2. We will set up (on the discussion page for this case) a straw poll or RfC to determine if Conservatism (and by extension, other similar articles) may have a criticism section at all. All involved users agree to be voluntarily bound to the decision.
3. All involved editors will have read the article in question and will agree that as the article pertains to Conservatism as a general political philosophy, and will not include any references that discuss other variants of Conservatism. (No discussions of the U.S. Republican Party, for instance.)
4. Any further discussion must be adhering strictly to Wikipedia policy. No personal attacks or even a hint of incivility. Each party should preferably state first that they understand that your "opponent" is trying to do his best in contributing to Wikipedia, just as you are.
5. Each user will sign each blocked statement (using four tildes, as always) please.

This gives us the opportunity to stick with the specific debate in question, it will allow us to concentrate on the debate itself instead of the personal problems of the other editors, and will provide incentive to negotiate in good faith, as I assume you all are. :)

Agreed? ~Kylu (u|t) 02:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, with the exception of #3. Can we reword this to say: All involved editors agree the article will pertain to Conservatism as a political philosophy, in general, and will not include any references that discuss other variants of Conservatism. (No discussions of the U.S. Republican Party, for instance.)--Scribner 02:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kylu, any guesstimate on when you will respond to my response?(me wait long time)--Scribner 06:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me, this is a discussion after all, but let's see what comes of it. Sadly, I've got a couple full-time jobs, so I can't be quite as immediate as some people. :( (User:Kylu@Work) 207.145.133.34 22:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Five points, reply by Rick. 1) I can accept this, but I would rather see this mediation focus on the criticism section rather than the whole article. There has been good faith progress by all parties in other parts of the article. 2) No, I think a vote is by its very nature Unwiki, because in most "votes" I've seen on Wikipedia at most a dozen or so "ballots" are cast. If, say, seven people voted against criticism sections and five voted for, this could hardly be binding on this article and "other similar articles". Would the criticism section of American Liberalism be removed? Even though it is totally unreferenced, I don't think it will be removed and I don't think it should be -- American Liberalism is subject to criticism just as is any other political view. (I would like to see references added.) Wiki policy is that all points of view be represented. 3) I can live with this, but this doesn't seem to be a problem at this time. 4) I strongly support "no personal attacks". 5) Rick Norwood 12:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my point with #3 is that we're not going to get anywhere with the extreme views on neutrality that are presented: You have your view, Michael has his, and there hasn't been any willingness to adopt the position of the opposite side yet. I've left a note for the Neutrality Project to take a look over the case and give me opinions, but we'll see how that goes. (User:Kylu@Work) 207.145.133.34 22:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Kylu: I would still like to hear your opinion on this subject: can quoting from published work by major writers be considered original research? Here is what Wikipedia policy says, "Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material placed into articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been previously published by a reliable source." Rick Norwood 12:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that as this mediation is touching on various points throughout Wikipedia policy, you rephrase the question to be as neutral as possible then as it on WT:NOR perhaps, then we can apply the opinions there to our mediation. Make sense? (User:Kylu@Work) 207.145.133.34 22:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what could be more neutral than "Can quoting from published work by major writers be original research?" Unless I'm loosing my marbles, "not previously published by a reliable source" answers the question. And yet, Scribner, above, says "I feel Rick Norwood edits have been proven both pov and nor." Frankly, I'm baffled. Rick Norwood 23:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then ask him. Here: Mr. Scribner: Would you please explain why it is you feel that quoting from published work by major writers be original research (assuming that said quotes are properly cited) and, to further clarify your position and what section of WP:NOR supports your claim?

Kylu, Although I have done so on the Conservatism Talk page on June 5th, I even quoted Jimbo Wales thoughts on NOR, yes, I'll repeat myself.

Rick, here's how Jimbo Wales wants you to handle original research:

..."But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history"

Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history" WP:NOR Scribner 18:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Rick, I've stated several times that the leading, biased "connective material" joining your quotes makes the section original research. Give me two quotes and I can manipulate them with connective material to make my point, it's easy. It is original reaserch at it's worse. Kylu, Rick, do you understand what I just wrote? Please acknowledge that you understand.--Scribner 00:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I just wanted you to explain your position. :) Now, here's the next question... do you see any way to add the section that Rick wants without it devolving into OR? Can it be salvaged? What I'm really asking is: Is there a way that the two of you, at least, can come to some sort of middle ground, leaving a positive, neutral, cited-and-not-assembled-into-OR section on criticism of Conservatism? The important question is, I suppose... can the two of you work on this together to make something that you agree upon? ~Kylu (u|t) 06:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following is from the Conservatism Talk page also: I really believe people are able to come up with better philosophical criticism of conservatism as an ideology; there are enough well-known philosophers who criticized conservatism. Sincerely, Averroes 23:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree the above comment. ER MD offered the same advice. I really wish Rick would take this approach to the section or let someone else write the section in the from of a philosophical approach.--Scribner 07:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to quote policy, it might be helpful to actually quote sections of policy so we understand where our differences lie. Just a thought. (User:Kylu@Work) 207.145.133.34 00:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick to Scribner: Thank you for explaining your point. Here is what you quote: "what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers." All of my quotes have been from reputable journals or reputable publishers. "sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide." All of my quotes are by credible people, much better equipped than you or I to decide. My objection to your label of OR is that you call citations from people much better equipped than you or I, published by reputable publishers, OR. You have never offered any evidence that the people I quote or the publishers are not reputable.

Your second objection is that I provide a few words of context for the quotes. Obviously, it would be possible to bias quotes by taking them out of context. But you have never offered any evidence that I have taken the quotes out of context, or that my descriptive introduction is in any way untrue to the intent of the original authors.

What I have done, and spent a great deal of time doing, is to review the history of political thought, and pick out a few quotes that are 1) from major, reputable authors 2) published by major reputable publishers, 3) are typical of the kinds of criticism of conservatism that have been offered by many people over the years. This is what a good encyclopedia article does. Rick Norwood 13:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The trick here is to get you two to agree on the quotes and the NOR support material. And yes, I'm typing this from work while sick. :P 207.145.133.34 14:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take care of yourself. We'll play nice until you are feeling better. Rick Norwood 14:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rest and plenty of fluids, Kylu. OK, Kylu advised specific content on policy: WP:OWN From the policy, First, there's control of the content. Some contributors feel very possessive about material (be it categories, templates, articles, images or portals) they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders.

That policy is clear enough. Rick, the section has gotten better. But, it's still in violation of WP:NOR, Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history" WP:NOR Scribner 18:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Kylu, Rick, if you still insist on using quotes, then neither of you understand what Jimbo Wales has said about NOR. Your not getting it, and Rick just because you got a few quotes together, doesn't mean you own the section or the article.

Kylu, tell me if bundeled quotes are going to be used. Because if they are, then there is no need in me being here. The section will be in violation of WP:NOR Read it until it makes sense:

Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history" WP:NOR Scribner 18:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)--Scribner 20:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kylu, here's the definition of Original Research:

Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material placed into articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

Kylu, I'd like a determination on the use of bundled quotes, with connective material being used in a historical interpretation. Before we go any further. Because if it's acceptable, I'm out of this case.--Scribner 00:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of these days I'm going to actually do what my doctors tell me to do. Right now I'm supposed to be in bed, and I've got yet another appointment early in the morning that I'll probably walk zombie-like to, but I can't sleep if my mind's pestering me about this... Anyway, on to points.

1. I think you're misunderstanding my position, possibly. I'm not insisting on using quotes, I meant please quote policy when you point to specific things. You have done so. Thank you.
2. This may be hard to beleive, but I'm actually not that worried about the Conservatism article at all. I rather picked this case by accident while trying to clean out cases. I don't have a stance one way or another about if quotes are there or bundled or not: I want those who are parties in this mediation (i.e. you guys) to decide, as a group, what you're going to do, in a calm and friendly fashion. If you all said, "We've decided to go on and play golf instead of deciding the issue" that'd suit me just fine. I'm only interested in defusing the argument at this time. :)
3. Michael doesn't want a section on criticism at all, Scribner is okay with quotes but not connected quotes which form original research, and Rick wants a full section of quotes with connections between them. If this seems correct to you, then that's where the problem lies. Can we develop a solution which will satisfy all parties?
   • It's been suggested before (a couple times) that we create a Criticism of Conservatism article and assign it as a "see also" on the Conservatism article. My personal thought is that a three-way tug of war is difficult to play, and in this case it might be best to solve the problems one at a time.
   1. Let Michael win on the article itself, but concede that the article link to Criticism of Conservatism in its "See Also". I don't think this violates NPOV.
   2. Let Scribner and Rick worry about the initial contents of the Criticism article. Use push-pull techniques together, compromise, and develop the article while staying NPOV/NOR.
4. Personally, I'm convinced by your quote and argument regarding bundled quotes, but sadly I'm not who you need to convince. Admin or not, I'm merely a mediator in this case, not a judge. :D

So, how about it? Do you two think it's acceptable to move criticism to a seperate article and treat it as an encyclopedic topic? As always, I'd really like to resolve this here and now, since if it hits ArbCom (assuming they take the case) they're just as likely to tell you all that you're forbidden to edit any political articles as anything else. What can we agree on here so far? ~Kylu (u|t) 04:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kylu, thank you for your guidance and time.--Scribner 05:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick to Kylu: I hope you're feeling better soon. I know exactly what you mean when you say it is hard to rest when your mind is racing. I wish I could agree to a separate "Criticism of conservatism" article, but, first, I don't think the topic worth a separate article, and second, it would fly in the face of "all points of view should be presented."

Rick to Scribner: I have no particular preference for bundled quotes, but I think you have set up a "catch 22" here. If I write a short paragraph outlining the major criticisms of conservatism, you object that those are my ideas, and therefore OR. If I quote someone else's criticism of conservatism, you object that those are "bundled quotes", and therefore OR. If there is a third alternative to either paraphrasing what major writers have said or quoting what major writers have said, please let me know. I don't really care what form the section takes, just that I think it is unfair for the article to give the impression that, historically, there have never been any critics of conservatism. (Compare the criticism in the articles American liberalism, evolution and just about every other article on a controversial topic.) Your analogy with a wierd scientific theory does not hold, here, because the various criticisms of conservatism I have either mentioned or quoted are totally standard and mainstream, by major, mainstream authors. Rick Norwood 00:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so everyone knows, Kylu has decided to call it quits and let someone else (a.k.a. me) take over the case.

So, the problem here appears to be that, despite attempts at compromise by all parties, no solution seems to be working. Since no one else's solutions are working, below is a solution I propose. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 04:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not actually calling it quits, it's just that not only am I having zero luck mediating this, but I'm kinda iffy on if I can get back to Wikipedia. I've got a hospital visit tomorrow and won't be here at all then, so it'd be best to give some other people tries at mediating this. Cake's a lot better mediator than I am anyway. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake's super amazing solution proposal.[edit]

Tell me if you agree to this:

We include a criticism of conservatism, not just Rick, but everyone. Even people who are conservatives should work on the criticism section. This would make it more neutral, since even proponents are working on it.

However, refrain from removing giant chunks. Rewording or restrucuring is fine, but don't just shear off a huge chunks of information. Rework the problem bits into something you think is more neutral while you're editing.

I think this solution not only makes sense, but it's what we would do anyways under normal circumstances. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, so let's get everyone to edit it. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 04:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect someone posing as a mediator to be so naive. If you're going to propose something, best to read all that has been said so far before making such a pathetic "solution". michael ^talk 05:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no worries, friend, I read every last bit. Took me two hours to read. Notice that my timestamp up at the top of the page is two hours before the timestamp of my solution proposal. So... discussion of why my proposal sucks? --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 05:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because, as I've argued before, again and again, any criticism section is a biased joke. The criticism section has focused on original research, biased judgements on what is considered "conservatism" (Americans are naturally imbued, seemingly, with an inability to differentiate Conservatism from American Conservatism) and a naive and narrow-minded understanding of political philosophy and history. I shouldn't be forced to repeat myself again and again every time someone tunes out or a newcomer jumps into the fray.

Criticism sections should be removed on sight, along with "trivia" sections and other token nonsense. They are in-article forks that compromise the very integrity of this encylopedia (we aren't supposed to criticise or lay judgement; we leave fact - the reader interprets). Norwood's personal bias just adds to the joke that is the Conservatism criticism section. michael ^talk 05:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the section itself is saying that the arguements are grade-A-100%-doubleplusgood truth; I believe it's pointing out that these arguements exist, whether wrong or right, in a detached tone of voice. Just as people agree with conservatism, there are people out there who also disagree, and it's our job to make sure all sides are included without the article itself taking sides. That's why I think having someone who's for conservatism help work on the criticism page is such a great idea.

So since the current section, in your opinion, is POV... let's make a new criticism page with your help. A NPOV criticism section is possible, and it's been done countless times in countless articles. I'll wait for everyone's opinion before proceeding. Feel free to discuss it, and if there's a concensus that this is a terrible idea, then we'll trash it. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 05:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for joining the discussion, CakeProphet. (May I call you CakeProphet for short?) I agree, of course, with your suggestion above. Rick Norwood 22:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a couple of months, now, I've felt like I was making my points into thin air. Just now, I noticed something that struck me as strange. Kylu suggested the following:

"All involved editors will have read the article in question and will agree that as the article pertains to Conservatism as a general political philosophy, and will not include any references that discuss other variants of Conservatism. (No discussion of the U.S. Republican Party, for instance.)"

Scribner wrote:

"Agreed, with the exception of #3. Can we reword this to say: All involved editors agree the article will pertain to Conservatism as a political philosophy, in general, and will not include any references that discuss other variants of Conservatism. (No discussions of the U.S. Republican Party, for instance.)--Scribner 02:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)"

Now, as best I can tell, the only difference between Kylu's version and Scribner's version is "All involved editors will have read the article in question."

I would like to ask Scribner a direct question: Do you read material before you delete it? Rick Norwood 23:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's so quiet I can hear crickets chirping. Rick Norwood 13:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I have nothing to say... since I'm not the one who has to agree or make an agreement. I hate to say it... but there's going to have to be a middle-ground somewhere... which will inevitable involve a criticism section of some sort. That is why I suggest this... we can have a criticism section, but also make it monitored by both sides. That ensures that everyone is happy with the content put into the section. There's just simply no way that we can compromise if one person demands absolutely no criticisms... while another side would prefer that they be there. Compromise requires sacrifices to your arguement, but the results will always be better in the end. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 19:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already agreed to your solution. I hope we can settle this and move on. Rick Norwood 00:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I'll keep waiting... for something interesting to be said. :P --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 16:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scribner has once again deleted the criticism section, based on a comment by one reader that it should go. My temptation is to just restore it, but I will wait on a comment from you, since I agreed to mediation. Rick Norwood 00:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh... it happens. Just keep cool about it and everything should go well. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 20:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, nice, very nice. Rick Norwood 14:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]