Wikipedia

Talk:Andrew Sullivan/Archive 3

< Talk:Andrew Sullivan
Latest comment: 2 years ago by PrimeBOT in topic Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Is Sullivan Conservative?

Latest comment: 11 years ago53 comments7 people in discussion

The debate on characterizing Sullivan as a "politically conservative commentator" continues. Some editors, citing Forbes, wish to label him as Liberal instead, or prefer to qualify the characterization. No consensus is emerging.

Let me suggest how we might find one. Let us take a broad range of well-known Conservatives: Reagan, Thatcher, Nixon, Eisenhower, Buckley, Theodore Roosevelt, Disraeli, Burke. Which of Sullivan's positions are clearly incompatible with the preponderance of their thinking? (Of course, anyone will differ in some particulars, as they do not agree among themselves on everything.)

Feel free, if you wish, to modify the panel. I have charitably ignored the Nativist tradition; if you like, feel free to add Joe McCarthy, Fr. Laughlin, or George Wallace. Leery of Godwin's Law, I've neglected Europe in the early and mid-20th century, but perhaps you'd want Franco or de Gaulle or Churchill.

Some disagreement is bound to arise from changing times and attitudes. Quite a few of these Conservatives did not oppose segregation, for example. Many would have considered Sullivan's open homosexuality deplorable or worse. Others would have though his embrace of Catholicism to disqualify him from political consideration. Times change. Similarly, we need not inquire into Sullivan's "position" on matters that now have only historical interest -- church tithes, rotten boroughs, whether American Negroes are qualified to serve as postmasters.

But, broadly speaking, which of Sullivan's opinions is clearly incompatible with the opinions of a group like this? And are these opinions integral to his views, or not? You wouldn't necessarily exclude TR as a conservative because of his environmentalism, or Nixon because of his rapprochement to China, or Nixon because of his Checkers speech. Which views cannot be reconciled with the views of these conservatives? MarkBernstein (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This is clearly original research. Gamaliel (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
It is no more original research than arguing ex vacuo whether Sullivan is or is not a "true" conservative. I'm trying to discern what people think "conservative" means in order to reach consensus; otherwise, we'll just continue to have the tea party say "he's a liberal", and then we go back and forth. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
We weigh the sources in accordance with Wikipedia policy. We cannot weigh Sullivan's positions and decide which label is "correct". Gamaliel (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Are we just going to link a whole bunch of sources on the talk page and then sort it out, then? Is that really the only way out? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm open to suggestions. But editors deciding that Sullivan is not sufficient conservative doesn't seem the way to go. Gamaliel (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
In the end, in a situation like this, I'm inclined to say yes, maybe we should just line up the credible sources we can find, that directly discuss his ideology, and see what they say. Otherwise, we are open to accusations of cherry picking and original research. Obviously we can't make a truly exhaustive compilation, but we already have quite a number above. If every interested editor finds a few more, we should be able to get a pretty comprehensive idea of what RS are saying. Peregrine981 (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
In the end, we need to weigh the credibility and validity of sources. Sure, you can find published sources that assert Sullivan is not conservative. You can also find sources that asserted that JFK was a communist, Barack Obama a Muslim, Harry Truman a gangster, and Shakespeare was Marlowe. We're discussing whether Sullivan is a politically-conservative commentator; shall we also start a long, contentious thread to debate whether some question whether Sullivan is a "commentator" or better characterized as a publisher, blogger, editor, pundit, or what you will? A reliable source in this case is one whose opinion is sound -- not merely, for example, a partisan polemic. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that some degree of "weighing" of sources is required. However, one of the peculiarities of wikipedia is that we report what is found in RS, so if enough of them dispute his conservative status, well we can't just ignore them. I think that enough links to credible sources have been provided above by Brian Dell, that we cannot simply say only cranks and partisans are engaging in this (ie. Josh Barro, Ross Douthat), and that even if partisans (Fox News) are doing it, that doesn't completely invalidate their claims (at least as far as wiki is concerned). At any rate, I don't see the problem with qualifying his conservatism somewhat, as long as it is valid. "conservative" is such a vague category it isn't all that useful anyway. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Of course. The issue is how we qualify it. Should we have a full discussion of all of this in the appropriate section, with citations of Barro, Douthat (whose biggest fans include Sullivan, incidentally), Ponnuru, or whoever? Sure. Should this qualification occur in the introduction, which is a summary of his long career, most of which he spent as an uncontested conservative? No. Gamaliel (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible sources

At any rate, here are three more sources I thought might provide some insight to recent discussion of his political status:

"He dreams of a Republican candidate who is “a real fiscal conservative, socially inclusive, open to serious tax reform and politically adult conversation to regain the center ground.” We all know what the Congress should be doing about the debt right now, don’t we? It should be debating which mix of long-term entitlement and defense cuts and the least economically damaging tax increases would lower the long-term debt, restore global confidence in the long-term solvency of the U.S., and thereby ignite more business confidence and job growth.…What do we have instead? A president too calculating to take a stand and an opposition so focused on drastic cuts to discretionary spending and overreaching on collective bargaining that it is already making independents and moderate Republicans queasy.”

"his avowed Tory conservatism"

"He is one of America's most powerful conservative writers and yet an outspoken supporter of the Democrat President and the scourge of the Republican right. His conservatism goes back to his childhood" Peregrine981 (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

For contrast:

  • Josh Barro: "It seems to me that conservatism is whatever ideology is shared by most of the people who call themselves conservatives...I don't believe those things and neither does Sullivan, so I'm not a conservative and neither is he."
  • Wall Street Journal, 2007: "A self-professed conservative, he nevertheless has endorsed Bill Clinton and John Kerry, as well as Bob Dole and George W. Bush."
  • Huffington Post: "The gay marriage cause was jump-started (but not actually started) by self-styled gay conservative, Andrew Sullivan" (emphasis mine)
  • Financial Times, 2006: "Sullivan makes a persuasive case for his sort of conservatism. But, by the end of the book, I was coming to the conclusion that he is not a conservative but a classical liberal. "
  • Jonah Goldberg, The Tyranny of Cliches: "Andrew Sullivan, a blogger...with hatred for George W. Bush and conservatism generally."
  • Andrew Sullivan, The Conservative Soul: "My conservative lineage is an idiosyncratic one, and it's worth getting on the table here, just so you can see where I'm coming from. My personal journey may, indeed, make my conservatism idiosyncratic in the current American or British debate."

This is a good start. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

After reading your final quote, I'm wondering if working "idiosyncratic" into the intro in some way would be a mutually satisfactory solution. Gamaliel (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I think not. "Idiosyncratic" sounds appalling, even if it does come from Sullivan himself. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Idiosyncratic is too vague IMO and not truly accurate. Idiosyncratic implies a certain lack of coherence which isn't really true in this case. I'm coming more and more down into the camp that we call him a "Burkean conservative". That seems to be precise, succinct, accurate, reasonably recognizable, and I think something that we could all agree to? Basically he says he's a Burkean here. - "So let’s call Josh what he actually is: a conservative Whig. Just like Burke. Welcome to the club. And meet the other six members." (He calls himself a "whig" here, but if you read the context he follows that he is a Burkean, and using "whig" as a political descriptor would truly be idiosyncratic in a modern context). Am I over-optimistic in suggesting this can address everyone's concerns for the lede? Peregrine981 (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
That seems a better suggestion. I'd like to hear more opinions. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I can absolutely live with that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't quite understand the objections to "idiosyncratic", but I don't care much one way or the other. "Whig" is right out, it would be like calling Lance Armstrong a "velocipedist". Burkean seems odd to me, as conservatives who do have something of an intellectual heritage universally trace it to Burke, so calling someone a "Burkean conservative" is basically calling someone a "conservative". But it is accurate and doesn't seem to imply that he isn't a "real" conservative, so I can live with that as well. Gamaliel (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I actually agree with you on this. I know idiosyncratic carries some baggage with it, but one could justify it by noting that it's a term he uses and, frankly, because his conservatism also carries some baggage. We also avoid the "self-identified" language that has people upset while still using an accurate term that he himself uses. I like it better than Burkean, but I'm not feeling like either term is a hard line here for me. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with Gamaliel on ideosyncratic. He also makes me interested in using "velocipedist" in conversation today. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm not overly sold on it, but if you think it fits I won't oppose. It doesn't seem overly encyclopedic, and not terribly revelatory, but it does fit him in a certain way, that he won't be pushed around and sticks to his own particular beliefs, come hell or high water (even if he seems rather schyzophrenic to the average commentator). Peregrine981 (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"Idiosyncratic" is synonymous with "eccentric", which in turn can be considered synonymous with dubious mental health. Sullivan himself obviously doesn't intend it that way, but that's how readers might understand it. It is language that should not be used. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I continue to believe "conservative commentator" is the best formulation. If an adjective is thought desirable, some alternatives to "idiosyncratic" might include "unorthodox", "unconventional", or "independent." Still better might be to emphasize separately his commentary and political philosophy: "a conservative political commentator and unconventional political philosopher." MarkBernstein (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that we have plenty of noteworthy, reliable claims to the contrary, and it's far from what we'd consider a fringe position. We have to qualify it somehow. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Not covering the scope of his entire career, and the lede is supposed to be the summary of his entire career, not just relatively recent events. Gamaliel (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
How far back do we need to go for this? The so-called conservative started out as the editor of the liberal New Republic, is that far enough away? Or are we looking at his more prominent early 2000s work? Do we need to find sources for that as well? We have sources from when his book came out (which appears to be the firmest basis for calling him a conservative), so I'm just trying to pinpoint a place we can work with on this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
"Sullivan was the first conservative editor [the New Republic owner] appointed, and his ascent to the editorship drew an unprecedented amount of press." Current Biography 1998. The "liberal" Sullivan also was instrumental in torpedoing Clinton's liberal health care plan. Gamaliel (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Responding to repeated assertions that other conservative commentators are not so designated in their ledes, some counter-examples include:

George Will: He is a Pulitzer Prize-winner best known for his conservative commentary on politics.
William Frank Buckley, Jr.[1] (November 24, 1925 – February 27, 2008) was a conservative American author[2] and commentator.
Robbie George: George has been called America's "most influential conservative Christian thinker."
Ann Hart Coulter (born December 8, 1961) is an American conservative social and political commentator, writer, syndicated columnist, and lawyer.

These are the first four I checked. One counter-example is William Safire. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd imagine the protests come more because Sullivan's ideological credentials are often questioned and in question. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
It has been asserted as fact several times that it is not common to identify ideological alignment in the lede. This assertion does not appear to be true. As has been demonstrated here exhaustively, while some opponents have questioned Sullivan's conservatism, the overwhelming preponderance of sources, including the subject himself, agree that he is conservative. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
The assertion that "It has been asserted as fact several times that it is not common to identify ideological alignment in the lede" does not appear to me to be true. What has been asserted is that it is unnecessary to include this and the David Brooks article was pointed to as an example. Ezra Klein would be an example of a liberal blogger whose "ideological alignment" is not identified in the article introduction. I could go on, but please review WP:ONUS: "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed.... The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material"--Brian Dell (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The numerous sources identifying Sullivan as conservative have been listed here again and again. More can easily be adduced. A handful of outliers, most recent and most either tendentious or striving for rhetorical effect, identify Sullivan otherwise. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Can we get MarkBernstein and Brian Dell on record as to whether you oppose or are in favour of "Burkean conservative" and why or why not? It seems to be a favoured consensus position amongst the other concerned editors. It seems to me that the consensus is definitely against identifying him as simply "conservative" and also against "self-identified" or not mentioning a political affiliation at all, so could we move on from that to the latest proposals? Peregrine981 (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
David Brooks is a "Burkean conservative." Some contend that Brooks is a "closet liberal" but once in a while Brooks actually gets criticized from the left. Liberal TNR pundit Jonathan Cohn, for example, took exception to one of Brooks' columns which was critical of Obama saying "With this column, Brooks has decided to write about politics as a conventional conservative pundit." Andrew Sullivan never gets accused of this. In fact, in this particular denunciation of Brooks Sullivan showed himself a team player for the other side, quoting Cohn, referring readers to Brooks' other liberal critics Timothy Noah, Greg Sargent, and MSNBC host Steve Kornacki, while suggesting in the title of his Dish posting that Brooks had fallen under the baleful influence of the GOP. Sullivan is too consistently critical of Burkean conservatives to be one himself. He criticized David Frum for trying to make a case for Romney. Sullivan opposes both Frum and Ross Douthat on marijuana, with Sullivan using his unique definition of "conservative" to argue that he is pro-pot for conservative reasons as opposed to libertarian reasons. It is not going to put the issue to rest by adding "Burkean" in front of conservative. Whether it takes weeks or months, there will just be another edit war in the future because too many people (rightly) believe that it is misleading to characterize Sullivan as conservative without significantly more explanation than just "Burkean." If there is no support for "self-identified" why did it remain in the article for so long, not being changed until an LGBT activist removed it?--Brian Dell (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

For an example of why this issue should be resolved before "we move on" to the rest of the article, consider the claim that "He favors a flat tax". This is just plain wrong. But how to correct that when that claim is being used to support the contention that Sullivan is conservative or libertarian? To quote the Sullivan of vintage 2013: "a flat tax would be socially destructive. And a true conservative seeks to avoid social destruction..." According to Sullivan, then, his view that a flat tax "would be socially destructive" should be used to support the contention that he is "a true conservative." This is classic Sullivan: he moves to the left and then says he moved because he's being true to conservatism. If we are going to adopt Sullivan's framework here in the introduction, consistency suggests it should be adopted throughout the article. At present the body of the article suggests Wikipedia is skeptical of Sullivan's framework (in accordance with the skepticism of most sources) but the introduction buys into it wholesale. Either the body of the article needs to change to maintain consistency with the intro or the intro needs to change in order to accurately summarize what the rest of the article says.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that again, you are getting too much into the field of original research. It is all very well to say that he is too critical of other conservatives, or that he doesn't have truly conservative positions. That's a fair enough position, but it is your own synthesis. Your accusation about LGBT activists is unfounded, and off-topic and seems to betray a certain amount of bias on your part. What evidence do you have, and why is it relevant to this discussion? Also, just because you oppose other conservatives on many issues, does not necessarily mean you are not conservative anymore. It means you have a different interpretation of the facts. David Frum is not a Burkean conservative. He is a more of a neo-con. As far as the flat tax, I don't see why you couldn't update the article's wording without agreement on the lede... There are, as in most wiki article, mistakes and over-simplifications. You should update them if you spot them. A wiki article isn't necessarily like an essay which is completely consistent from start to finish. BTW a "conservative catholic" is different from a conservative and a catholic, and it is true the difference should be made clear. Your intransigence on this issue is becoming quite alarming; can you suggest some form of compromise wording? Peregrine981 (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
@FreeKnowledgeCreator is a LGBT activist. This doesn't mean FKC is just a LGBT activist. It wouldn't be necessary to go there were it not for the fact the question at hand is whether the conservative movement is allowed to self-define or whether we are supposed to accept how Andrew Sullivan and his overwhelmingly liberal readership defines it. There's been repeated efforts to marginalize conservative voices like mine by calling them "outliers" or otherwise taking issue with who they allegedly are instead of the specifics of what they are saying. If I went over to an LGBT-related article and defined it in a way that the LGBT community resisted and someone pointed out that I am not part of that community, I would acknowledge the potential relevance but reject it by noting that I accept the principle that a community or movement as a whole should be allowed to self-define, clarifying that my position is rather based on the idea that, with the possible exception of founders, no one person or source defines a movement or a community. I would also note that I have not and would not contend that activists of any particular persuasion are merely being "tendentious or striving for rhetorical effect," preferring as I do the citing of specific evidence to unsourced generalizations and opinion.
re Sullivan's positions, if it is a "synthesis" it's one that to a significant extent already exists in the article. It just happens to be contradicted by the introduction.
I distinguished Frum and Sullivan on two issues: Romney and marijuana. I've already argued that Sullivan's contention that Obama is more conservative that Romney is not generally accepted. On the marijuana issue, Frum just so happens to quote Burke to answer the question "Is [my position on this issue] conservatism?" Here Frum responds to the claim that "David Frum is not a conservative" by quoting... Edmund Burke. Yes, Frum has been a neo-con on many issues. But 1) if this post on the Middle East, which consists of nothing more than Frum quoting Burke, represents Frum's current view then he's changed, something I am prepared to recognize unlike the editors here unwilling to recognize Sullivan's shift, and 2) I'm not trying to reduce Frum to "Burkean conservative" by inserting that into the lede of his Wikipedia bio. Speaking of which, I have already suggested "compromise wording," and that's to leave ideological labels aside in the article lede just like they are in the Frum article (and others).
If you are concerned about "original research," I would think you would be removing the unsourced speculation about just what is "the source of accusations that [Sullivan] 'flip-flops'" from this article before taking issue with the material I provide sources for. After all, there's no reason why "you couldn't update the article's wording without agreement on the lede."--Brian Dell (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Let's stay away from labelling editors, we have enough trouble as it is with labels, and frankly wiki editors cannot be taken as represeting particular interest groups, just themselves. The fact that you seem to be approaching this article from the perspective of a member of the "conservative community" is troubling. "Policing" who and and what is accepted in a given community is not what wikipedia is for. That is for members of the community to write about in their own capacities. Here we should represent a fair balance of what people inside and outside of the communities involved think about the subject. Whether conservatives completely reject Sullivan is not our concern, as long many others see him as belonging to that community.
I don't see how calling him a Burkean conservative should be particularly controversial, but if you want to further refine the term, I'm all ears. Would you rather discuss his positions one by one? For example, saying he's generally burkean conservative, but that he is now in favour of marijuana legalisation, against torture, etc... ?
The problem with switching to a "no labels" approach is that it will eventually wind up "dumbing down" wikipedia. If no one can ever be labelled politically, unless they have been 100% purely identified with one political school for their whole lives, then we won't ever label anyone. While purists may like that, it will lower the encyclopedia's usefulness IMO. Peregrine981 (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Would you cease to be "troubled" if I hid my affiliation? It wouldn't change my affiliation solely because I hid it now, would it? Neither does it change Sullivan's affiliation just because he doesn't own up to it. Unfortunately, I don't think it is possible for me to continue to add to the discussion and expect any change in the result when you've just declared here that you don't care if it should be proven that "conservatives completely reject Sullivan" as long as some liberals contend that he "belong[s] to that community," something I don't dispute.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm only "troubled" because you seem to not even understand that we are trying to make an article from a neutral point of view, and if you are approaching the article explicitly as a conservative that will inherently be POV. Not saying that we don't all have our biases, and you can be open about that, but you seem to be arguing that you are going to try to push a conservative POV on this article, and that a conservative should have more say in a wiki article about a conservative. That goes against the spirit of the project IMO. I'm also troubled because you seem to be determined to put a liberal/conservative dichotomy onto the article. I never once said anything about "liberals" saying that he is a conservative. That is you, assuming that if you're not a conservative you must be a liberal. And yes, if reliable sources, whether they be conservative or not, think that he's a conservative, that matters to wikipedia. Please see the page on reliable sources for a refresher. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that we have here a case of WP:OWN:. Insistence that no alternate formulation is tolerable, promise of an endless edit war -- if not now, in the months to come-- and belief that opposition is orchestrated by the worldwide LGBT conspiracy. Sullivan must be a self-identified conservative (which is, of course, to insinuate that he is a liar and a Liberal) or he must be a former Conservative., and extremism in the defense of this proposition is no vice A Republican once gave a pertinent speech about his critics: "you must rule or ruin." And now we have the explicit assurance that, once the lede brands the subject satisfactorily, these tender attentions will be applied to every passage in the article. This is not an encyclopedic spirit, but rather using the encyclopedia to punish deviation from one faction's party line. MarkBernstein (talk) 12:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark, how many sources questioning his conservative credentials will be enough for you to accept that this is not appropriate for a lead without caveats? Do you intend on chiming in on the "Burkean conservative" compromise above, or is there no other formulation you're willing to work with us on? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Preponderance of the evidence applies here; otherwise, whatever gets reprinted a bunch of times is all that matters. Most sources -- and the most definitive sources, particularly Sullivan's book about The Conservative Mind -- regard him as conservative. Many of the contrary sources are simply scoring a rhetorical point, though a few others adopt (as, I believe, some editors here) a novel definition of Conservativism that excludes most conservatives throughout the world and throughout history in the pursuit of an American political agenda. With respect to "Burkean", it seems unlikely that those who insist that Sullivan is no conservative will accept it save as a temporary beachhead en route to the comprehensive purge and edit war promised above. One sensible alternative might be "a conservative commentator and highly original political philosopher", which would also be more in sympathy with the subject. But of course that formulation, or "unorthodox philosopher", or even "conservative commentator given to original and sometimes unexpected views" would, in all likelihood, not satisfy those wishing to denounce or embarrass the subject. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I continue to be surprised that we are having this discussion at all, and I think it's quite clear that a number of editors are not familiar with Sullivan's career at all, either through youth or ignorance or the insistence on viewing it through the lens of recent perceptions of Sullivan. Anyone who was a politically-aware adult in the Clinton years would laugh out loud at the prospect of Sullivan being thought to be a liberal. The lede is a summary of his entire multi-decade career, and that career was spent as a conservative. If an editor disputes that fact, then they are simply not informed enough to be participating in this conversation. This is amply documented by any substanital source on Sullivan, and this fact remains despite a few bloggers and pundits futher to the right of Sullivan disputing this in the last few years. Even if there has been some sort of sudden transformation to liberalism, this alleged transformation has to be substanitated with reliable sources, not with a few pundit opinions. Gamaliel (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect, how much more do we need to move the goalposts? First we needed sources, so they were provided. Then they needed to be "not recent," whatever that means. That was provided. Now the criticism cannot come from "pundit opinions," but rather has to be "substantiated with reliable sources," as if that hasn't already been done. Yes, it has to encompass his whole career, one in which conservatism has not been part of for close to 10 years now, per reliable sources. Honestly, a good analogy might be Dennis Miller, described in the lead as follows: "Although in his early years of fame he was perceived to be liberal and anti-Republican, in recent years, Miller has become known for his conservative political opinions." Would a more concise Sullivan piece be "A politically conservative commentator for much of his career, his ideology has shifted according to many observers due to his political positions and endorsements." Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Many observers -- including, most notably, the subject himself, continue to regard Sullivan as conservative. In any case, your new formulation makes no sense: you think that his political positions have shifted due to his ideology, not vice versa. It might be quite acceptable to mention his dissident conservativism in connection with Politics or with specific issues. For example, you might reasonably observe that his position on gay marriage, or the intrinsic immorality of homosexuality, place him at odds with contemporary conservatives such as X, Y, and Z. (Dennis Miller, the stand-up comedian, is a good analogy? ) His book on The Conservative Soul appeared in 2007, which is rather more recent that "close to 10 years now". MarkBernstein (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
His book where he even refers to his conservatism as idiosyncratic. Dennis Miller has become a political commentator, thus the analogy. I think many would be fine with a compromise that gives a nod in the lead to the very real, easily sourced issues surrounding his ideology. Can we get you on board? Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Who is moving the goal posts? I've always had the same position on this matter. Please refresh my memory regarding decade-old reliable sources you have presented. The oldest you present above is from 2006. What source have you presented that would justify a sentence like the one in Miller's article without being WP:SYNTH? Gamaliel (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
So a 21 year old should be introduced as a child, not an adult, because the lede is a summary of his entire life, and more years were spent as a child than as an adult. No biasing toward recent developments. By the same token a newlywed should be introduced as single, a new father introduced as childless, etc etc. I find it incredible that the grammatical rule that the present tense is used to refer to what is currently the case and the past tense is used to refer to what was historically the case is not being accepted here. FIRST you decide on the case to use, present or past, THEN you decide which sources to use. Writing a Wikipedia article is not nearly as difficult as it is being made out to be here.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
That's a ridiculous analogy. We're talking about a career in the public eye, not a childhood in obscurity. Gamaliel (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
What's ridiculous is to suggest, as you do here, that we call an adult a child if the adult was "in the public eye" as a child but faded into "obscurity" as an adult. If Sullivan has faded into obscurity in your view then fine, for the sake of argument I won't object to ignoring what he IS and just calling attention to what he WAS. But that still means using the past tense.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
This is only relevant if we accept that there has been a change. The subject of the article appears to disagree. Gamaliel (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I have.proposed any number of compromises, none of which, it seems, are worth accepting or acknowledgment. I presume this is because none of them are sufficiently unsympathetic to the subject, The explicit assurance has been made above that, once this is accepted, the rest of the article, already deeply slanted against the subject, will receive similarly unrelenting treatment by the subject's detractors. If we were to accept the sort of description you favor, it would briefly gratify some American tea party supporters and then, once brought to the attention of a wide audience, cast Wikipedia into disrepute. Please, stop grinding this axe.MarkBernstein (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Choosing A Narrative

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Our friends here prefer a narrative in which Sullivan, once a conservative, falls into liberal ways that can be seen both in his embrace of the black president and in the feckless prevarication that leads him to flip-flop. To express this truth, they naturally want to emphasize how greatly Sullivan's position has changed and for this article to concentrate on that change.

The original language, encyclopedic in tone, accurately reflected his ideology and role. But that is too neutral for our friends, who have promised to edit-war every part of the article until it is comprehensively satisfactory to their master narrative. Their goal, of course, is to force a consensus which mixes neutrality with as much right-wing spin as they can inject.

Instead of starting from an encyclopedic tone and accepting just enough propaganda to satisfy the self-avowed edit warriors, let's take their language and substitute a new master narrative. This is almost as POV as the language they propose, but it does have the advantage of historical soundness; this is, surely, a simpler view and one more consistent with the subject's intentions than their portrait of prevarication.

Sullivan's Burkean conservativism [1] is rooted in his British Catholic background, his experience as a homosexual man with AIDS, and the political philosophy of his mentor, Michael Oakeshott. [1] He has consistently defended these values over the years in the face of increasing enmity from the left (who viewed his editorship of The New Republic as a betrayal) and from the US Republican Party and Tea Party. [2] The Catholic strain of his thinking and the legacy of the Conservative achievement of Catholic Emancipation find expression in his bitter denunciation of George W. Bush’s reliance on torture and Vatican facilitation of child abuse, his mistrust of centralized health care, and in his determined opposition to theocracy and Christianism. Sullivan’s homosexuality is reflected not only in his advocacy of same-sex marriage but also in his broad support for comprehensive civil rights and contempt for the Republican Southern strategy, and his support of immigration reform and ending the war on drugs. Both strains, and the legacy of Oakeshott and Buckley, find expression in his frequent mockery of cant and hypocrisy, especially sexual hypocrisy in political figures; Sullivan's prolonged campaign against Sarah Palin is particularly notable. In economic matters, he advocates intelligent and limited regulation to ensure fair and efficient markets, a Tory stance which had been dominant in the US Republican Party from Hoover through George H. W. Bush and which, after Clinton, became Democratic policy instead. [3]

This is thinly referenced -- I have limited time for this windmill -- but nothing here is either original or contentious and numerous references can be found at each point. This narrative also has the crucial advantage that it reflects Sullivan's positions as he himself describes them -- it is not, he has written, a question of his having abandoned conservativism, but rather of movement conservativism having abandoned reason.

This language is, in short, a sounder and more sympathetic portrait than the lede the warriors wish to impose. I think it probable that they will not like it. Let's split the difference -- and return to simply describing the subject -- accurately -- as a conservative commentator in the lede and discussing his positions in the body. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it is fine, though I take issue with the last sentence. I'm not sure that it is really accurate to say that it is a "tory" stance in the US context, and I think it is maybe going out on too much of a tangent to make such a sweeping claim about the GOP and Democrats. Why not cut everything after "a Tory stance"? (incidentally, we could do without your paranoia and snark. I think only one person here has promised an edit war, and making it out as if there's a conspiracy to destroy the article is over-dramatic.) Peregrine981 (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I think you're probably disingenuous here, but I'll assume good faith, make the change you propose, and have edited the page as you suggest. I guess we'll see; I hope in this case that you're right and I'm mistaken. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead rewrites

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

It is fair to note that he has changed his positions, some quite drastically. He has acknowledged that. But at the same time, he characterizes himself as having more or less the same philosophy, but changing his positions to fit new information and new events, except for his extremely hawkish period after 9/11 which he calls "a mistake" and against his philosophy. I don't think this discussion is getting very far. Perhaps we should have a go at making bold edits to the lede and try to work with each other to amend. Don't make edits that you know others have already rejected, and let's see what we can come up with. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

OK -- without waiting for discussion, you've substituted your own tendentious language. I've done my best to repair your proposal, which is clearly intended to show contempt for the subject. I continue to think the original language to be superior. But I have little hope this can be be resolved without administrative intervention leading, or (perhaps more likely) acquiescence in language that will only embarrass the encyclopedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I think Peregrine's language is better, but I'm not opposed to Mark's, either. In both cases, we've got the necessary contexts. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm on board with this approach, but before I sign on to a particular version, I'd like to see each version's editor present the particular sources from the article or elsewhere which support their edits. Gamaliel (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
A modest proposal: the emphasis on Sullivan's position changes should not be greater in this article than the emphasis accorded to position changes in Ronald Reagan's article. Indeed it should be less: Reagan's transformation from union president to conservative icon was a far greater journey. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
An excellent point. While he's long been unorthodox, the changes represent a small percentage of his overall career. Gamaliel (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
User:MarkBernstein has a lot of nerve accusing me of using "tendentious language" "clearly intended to show contempt for the subject". You have been one of the most difficult editors on the subject, and when I try to move the moribund discussion forward with an actual concrete proposal, clearly signalled as a first attempt that others should help with, you accuse me essentially of bad faith and POV pushing. Unbelievable. The fact you could believe something like that seriously, and then actually write it down seriously makes me question your judgement. What purpose could it possibly serve except to antagonize me. I have been trying to get a clear, non-POV label for Sullivan all this time, and if you're too blind to see that, well then we're in bigger trouble than I thought. Get your act together and stick to the subject, rather than commenting on your wild imaginings of what my motives are, or we're going to lose even more time. Please see WP:CIVIL and take notes. Please tell me how what I wrote was tendentious, or not supported by the content of the article and we can have a concrete discussion rather than hurling baseless and idiotic accusations. I don't mind the changes you made particularly, as I said I wrote a draft that I thought would hopefully satisfy both sides in the drawn out dispute which was going nowhere. Someone had to get the ball rolling. I get it that you think we should just call him a conservative and be done with it, no matter what that rest of the editors think. But you have yet to demonstrate why the sources questioning his conservatism should be ignored altogether. I'll try to put a more direct sourcing of the text when I get a moment. For the record, I don't really see why Reagan is an apt parallel, considering that he was President of the United States, not a pundit. In his case, the bulk of the relevant materials is from long after his shift, since his governorship and presidency are clearly the focus of his article. Sullivan's shifting positions have garnered much comment in RS, and are in fact an integral part of his own self-understanding as a political commentator. Peregrine981 (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Charming. For reference, Sullivan's "shifting positions" appear to have garnered attention primarily or exclusively from American tea party adherents eager to claim he is no longer', or never really was, a conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs)
This atmosphere here is getting quite heated and has been for sometime. I think we should start dialing things back, and here is a good place to start, though please don't interpret this as laying the blame for this atmosphere with you, as there are other, more flagrant offenders. Peregrine981 offered an edit in good faith and we should treat it as such, even if we disagree with it. That said, you raise a good point. Whatever edit we settle on depends on what sources are offered to support it, and an edit supported only by bloggers from or sympathetic to the tea party won't get very far. Gamaliel (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
At least three of my sources above predate the Tea Party, so maybe we can kind of cool it with the accusations of such. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Given that my comments were about a hypothetical proposed edit, and you have proposed no specific edit like Peregrine981 and MarkBernstein, I don't know why you'd think this comment was about you. And it would be rather churlish of me to use a plea for civility to attack specific editors. Please accept my comments in the spirit they were intended. Gamaliel (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Here is my text, with supports and explanation:
Sullivan is often regarded as a Burkean conservative [2] and cites Michael Oakeshott as a key influence on his thinking. [4] He is generally suspicious of what he regards as rigidity of ideology and his positions on many issues have evolved over his career..[2] However, he believes that his thinking has always been informed by a moderate conservatism and opposition to radicalism, fundamentalism or utopianism although he has increasingly been at odds with much of the American conservative movement since he turned against George W. Bush..[2] Key issues for Sullivan have been support for gay marriage, freedom of speech, legalization of drugs, and opposition to torture. His ideas on American foreign policy have shifted from a strong anti-Communist stance during the Cold War, to an aggressively militarist stance after 9/11, to a general non-interventionism today..[2] He is a committed Catholic, but he has often been at odds with the Church hierarchy, particularly over issues of homosexuality and abortion. His economic ideas have shifted from a largely unapologetic support for free-markets and economic liberalism to a more centrist stance.[5]
Now, as I said, I'm not wedded to this particular wording, but those are the citations. I don't think we need to cite the stuff about supporting gay marriage, anti-communism etc... that is fairly accepted I think? "Sullivan is a conservative in the tradition of Burke, and cites Michael Oakeshott as a key influence on his thinking. " is better than what I wrote. I think that my wording "has increasingly been at odds with much of the American conservative movement since he turned against George W. Bush" is more precise, since he was generally in line with conservative thinking before that, except on issues relating to homosexuality. I think it is important to note that he really turned against the GOP during Bush administration and has been a seriuos critic. I don't see why we should cut information on his leftward turn on economic issues either, as it seems relevant. The lede is not overly long. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Ask Andrew Anything: Oakeshott's Influence". Ask Andrew Anything. The Daily Beast. October 11, 2011. Retrieved 23 October 2013.
  2. ^ a b c d Hari, Johann (Spring 2009). "Andrew Sullivan: Thinking. Out. Loud". Intelligent Life. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
  3. ^ "Yglesias Award Nominee" The Dish 6 July 2012
  4. ^ "Ask Andrew Anything: Oakeshott's Influence". Ask Andrew Anything. The Daily Beast. October 11, 2011. Retrieved 23 October 2013.
  5. ^ "Yglesias Award Nominee" The Dish 6 July 2012

The lead

Latest comment: 11 years ago33 comments3 people in discussion

The paragraph about Sullivan's "Burkean conservatism" that was added to the lead recently is much, much too detailed. I also think it crosses the line into personal commentary on Sullivan, of the kind that really is not suitable to an encyclopedia. WP:NOTESSAY is relevant here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above; it's a phrase-by-phrase rewrite of the right-wing polemic posted yesterday. It only seems more detailed because it's slightly better argued, in part because this is the argument Sullivan puts forward for himself. I agree that the old language was preferable, but this is better than the corresponding indictment of Sullivan as a feckless former conservative who has flip-flopped into feckless liberalism. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
*facepalm* WTF dude... I'm trying to be civil, and build consensus, but you just can't help yourself can you? What evidence is there that it was a right wing polemic. It was the most milquetoast thing I've ever written and tried to incorporate suggestions from both sides of this arguments. It's quite similar to what is there now, except not as artfully articulated. Your assumptions about my motives are baseless and insulting. Wait until Brian Dell comes around for a real right wing polemic.
Look: We've been having a protracted fight about how to label Sullivan. The problem, it seems to me, is that you just can't explain Sullivan's political beliefs in one or two sentences as we were doing. They are more complex than that. So, I proposed that we write a longer explanation, trying to take into account the concerns of the large majority of editors that the present phrasing is overly simplistic/inaccurate. (I know you think that they are just sleeper agents of the vast global tea party conspiracy to desecrate all that is holy, but they did cite sources that are not simply tea party hacks. Go and have a look above, they were fairly exhaustively detailed.) I re-wrote, what I EXPLICITLY said was a draft, that others should re-work as they thought fit, because I knew that there would be many opinions about how to word it. I was immediately accused of being a right wing vandal, intent on defaming the subject. Good grief. Can't we be a bit more mature about this, and re-write as we think is useful, building on each others' contributions? Be bold and make the changes you think are necessary, and hopefully we can come to a conclusion through re-writes. The discussion was going nowhere. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
It shouldn't be "argued" at all - it isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia article to argue anything (it just states facts). That material is no good, in my view. This is just another example of how attempts to work out a compromise between editors with conflicting views produces a bad result. There is far too much material on currently fashionable issues (eg, the stuff about Sarah Palin), far too much emphasis on Sullivan's homosexuality and on gay politics, and the language is biased ("Christianism", for example, is hardly a neutral term). I also consider it poorly written. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Please feel free to add your concrete suggestions to the article, and we'll see if we can come to a compromise. Please feel free to add material to balance it out. It is not too detailed. A lede is suggested to be 4 paragraphs long. THis is only 3, and since he is a political commentator at least one should discuss his actual positions/philosophy. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
My concrete suggestion, for the moment, is simply to remove the material that was recently added. It's awful. The problem is not the length of the paragraph, per se, but its contents, which digress into inappropriate trivia. It is not neutrally written by any means, and appears overly-promotional of Sullivan and his views (eg, "He has consistently defended these values over the years in the face of enmity both from the left and increasingly from the US Republican Party and Tea Party"). That is the kind of thing that looks as though it was written to make people say, "Ooooh, isn't Sullivan wonderful!", and that's not how an encyclopedia article is meant to read. Can we not allow the possibility that the man might be inconsistent at times? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, there was no consensus around the previous wording either, so let's give it another go. Feel free to redact, discuss or propose alternatives. I have tried my best to keep it neutral, encyclopedic and proportionate to a) content of article b) our discussion:
Sullivan's Burkean conservativism is rooted in his British Catholic background and the political philosophy of his mentor, Michael Oakeshott. 

As a result, Sullivan is deeply distrustful of ideological certainty. 

His career has been marked by a distrust of fundamentalism, radicalism, utopianism and fanaticism of all kinds, although he concedes a departure from these principles 
during the years immediately after the September 11th terrorist attacks.

His general independence from organized political movements and a streak of contrarianism has brought him into conflict with people from across the political spectrum, from the "gay-left" to 
neo-conservatives and tea party activists.

Sullivan has focused much of his attention on individual rights such as support for freedom of speech, civil rights, gay rights, particulary same-sex marriage and opposition to torture. 

In foreign policy, he held an ardently anti-Communist stance during the Cold War, an aggressively militarist stance after 9/11, and a broadly non-interventionist position today. 

A committed Catholic, Sullivan has none-the-less often criticized the Church hierarchy with regard to its handling of child abuse, homosexuality and abortion.

In economic matters, he advocates limited regulation and state intervention to ensure fair and efficient markets.

Peregrine981 (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It's lousy. Too much emphasis on recent issues. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you could elaborate a bit. What is missing? What specifically has too much emphasis? Feel free to edit. Or you could propose an entirely new draft. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Consider things point by point.
"As a result, Sullivan is deeply distrustful of ideological certainty" - That's bad writing. It's too vague to be helpful.
Fair enough. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
"His career has been marked by a distrust of fundamentalism, radicalism, utopianism and fanaticism of all kinds, although he concedes a departure from these principles during the years immediately after the September 11th terrorist attacks." - Must the lead give a laundry list of everything Sullivan is opposed to? Does it really have to mention not only "fundamentalism", but also "radicalism" (a very vague term, remember), "utopianism" (possibly even vaguer), and "fanaticism" (basically only a term of abuse)? Sullivan's "principles" as described in the lead are so vague that one doesn't know what departing from them might mean, and for the lead, such a vague "departure" is anyway trivial. We don't need to give a blow by blow account of how Sullivan's thoughts turned in one direction or another, in response to this event or that.
The point is his opposition to rigid ideological systems. He opposes anything/anyone claiming certainty or unique claims to truth. This is really the uniting strain of his political position, and I think it's important to mention, as it explains a lot of what he means by conservatism.Peregrine981 (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
You haven't understood or responded to my point. It's neither encyclopedic nor helpful to readers to state in the lead that Sullivan opposes this, that, or the other. I'm sure he is opposed to plenty of things. If there is an underlying issue, it needs to be stated differently. Try to avoid original research, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
HOw is it unencyclopedic to discuss his beliefs? What else are we discussing here if not his beliefs? Read the intelligent life article, and you will see that this is THE fundamental aspect of his philosophy. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read WP:LEAD? The lead of an article is meant only to summarize its main points. There is a definite limit to how much detail should be there. You've added too much detail, and it needs to be cut back. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
"His general independence from organized political movements and a streak of contrarianism has brought him into conflict with people from across the political spectrum, from the "gay-left" to neo-conservatives and tea party activists." - Same problems there as with the previous material. There's no special point in listing every group of people who might oppose Sullivan or to whom he in turn might be opposed. "Contrarianism" is a cutesy term, and not the kind of writing that's really appropriate to an encyclopedia. We need to maintain a more formal tone.
Well, many people here wanted to label him simply as idiosyncratic, and "contrarian" is a real term which seems fairly apt. Again, I was trying to address the concerns of those who think it is important to point out his break with the modern American conservative "movement". Peregrine981 (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
No, an encyclopedia needs to use the most formal language possible. "Contrarian" is a made-up term that hasn't got widespread acceptance, and it's hardly acceptable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
"Sullivan has focused much of his attention on individual rights such as support for freedom of speech, civil rights, gay rights, particulary same-sex marriage and opposition to torture." - Too much emphasis on providing a list of Sullivan's views there; it should be possible to sum things up more simply. It also seems confused on a grammatical level: as written, it seems to imply that "oppoisiton to torture" is one form of support for gay rights. Surely that isn't what you mean to suggest?
Another of the suggestions to help clarify his political position was to list the most important issues he has written on so as to give readers a quick idea about his preoccupations and basic positions. I don't think this is an excessively long list, (5 specific mentions) and he has spent much of his career writing about them. These are fairly broad categories. If you simplify any more you will lose any specificity. (how would you even do that? "He has written about individual rights"? well, then it seems that it runs into the "vague and meaningless" problem you wrote about above. ) The suggested lead for a WP article is 4 paragraphs. If we don't even have space to mention his sustained interest and influence on the debate in these areas, I don't know what we will be writing about. The lede should reflect what is in the article, and these issues should certainly be discussed at some length in the article. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I don't agree with you. It is an excessively long list - five mentions is simply too many. Encyclopedias need to sum things up in a simpler and more concise way. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
How do you propose to sum it up? I quote from WP:LEDE: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.[2] The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." These topics are massively covered by secondary sources. We can't just cover them up and exclude them from the lede. They aren't trivial. They are a fundamental part of the story of his life. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Rubbish. Opposition to tortute, for example, certainly isn't one of the things that defines Sullivan's career. There's no reason at all for it to be in the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
"In foreign policy, he held an ardently anti-Communist stance during the Cold War, an aggressively militarist stance after 9/11, and a broadly non-interventionist position today." Another obvious case of unnecessary, excessive detail. For the purposes of the lead, it's of no significance what stances Sullivan took during the Cold War. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, we need to make some sort of summary of his foreign policy positions. I don't know how you can summarize his position more succinctly than this. The dominant strains of his thinking have been related to Cold War strategy, the response to 9/11 and the after math of the Iraq War. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Sullivan's views on the cold war are not particularly significant for the lead, and nor are they necessary for understanding this views on other issues. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

To everything I've said already, let me add that the material you added includes at least two apparent violations of WP:BLP. I've had to remove them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Sullivan accuses Bush of using torture here, and Palin of hypocrisy here. Surely we can report accusations he has made? This isn't a huge issue for me, as I wasn't the original author of the statements, but shouldn't those sources be enough to substantiate.
I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out exactly what you want. Any specifics seem to be "too much detail" for you. I remind you that this whole imbroglio has come out of the fact that editors weren't happy with a simple statement of his ideology. It seems fair in that situation to discuss what exactly his political philosophy is, and what issues preoccupy him, as a way of being fair to Sullivan and to his critics. Sullivan is a noted critic of same-sex rights policy, as well as torture. I fail to see how their inclusion in the lead is somehow so damaging to the article. Quite the contrary. As a reader I would expect to find some information on the topics that preoccupy a subject, and on which he has spent much of his effort. That is surely the most interesting thing to a reader. And, wiki policy is quite explicitly that a lede, should fairly closely match an article in the weight it gives to different topics. If we simply sum up all of his writing in one or two sentences, that is not a fair reflection of the article. Peregrine981 (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
If there are acceptable sources, then yes, the article can state that Sullivan has made accusations against various people. I'm not opposed to "specifics" in the lead; I am opposed to providing tedious lists of people he has attacked or groups to which he is opposed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
ok, well 5 items hardly counts as a tedious list in my mind (unless you're simply uninterested in his work). Would you rather if each item was more clearly explained as an item in its own right, or do you think that we should omit mention of all specific issues?Peregrine981 (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm very interested in Sullivan's work, but yes, your list was tedious. It's certainly bad writing. It might help if you could make clearer proposals. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
If you're so sure of what should and shouldn't be in the article please show us. I'm tired of making concrete proposals only to have people moan and complain about them without suggesting anything concrete as a response. So far only MarkBernstein has worked collaboratively to improve the lead. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
My criticisms are all meant to be constructive. I am willing to listen to anything you have to say. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I'm a bit exhausted with this debate right now. It seems editors have diametrically opposed ideas about how to proceed, so I'm going to let things rest for the moment. If anyone wants to take a stab at improving with fresh ideas, please do so, but I don't have the energy for it right now. thx, Peregrine981 (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Surely the many convictions throughout the world remove any NPOV taint from mention of the child abuse scandals, about which Sullivan has written extensively. I've changed "Vatican" to "clerical," though Sullivan has made it clear on many occasions that he considered the Vatican culpable, and cardinal Ratzinger personally so. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Suggesting that the Vatican, or any other group or organization, is facilitating child abuse is, in the absence of a source, an unacceptable violation of WP:NPOV. I'm sorry it's even necessary to say this. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead redux

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

I suggest that there is well referenced debate and criticism of Sullivan as a conservative. We have gone round and round on that issue here. I think the addition of a brief line about that very public debate is warranted. Something along the line of : "In recent years, Sullivan has been criticised by a variety of sources as being a liberal or not a conservative, these include Forbes etc... (ref1) (ref2) (ref3) "

"Oh my God, not again." you may say. Bear with me for a moment. This is not an insignificant part of Sullivan's biography. I am not, repeat not going to reopen the discussion about whether Sullivan is or is not a conservative. That is a dead horse. It is incontrovertable , however, that there has been public debate around this. The fact of the existence of that debate should appear in the bio and lead. We can't ignore such an important aspect of a public intellectual's life. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Like the underpants gnomes, you left out the middle part that takes us from the fact that there are a few figures which question his conservatism to the idea that this "debate" belongs in the lead. 00:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Heh, underpants gnomes. Few? To recap the "middle part", this public discussion has played out in the pages of The Atlantic, Forbes, the Huffington Post, Business Insider, National Review, Weekly Standard, Politics Daily, and the Daily Caller, among many others. This has been from both the left and right. These are not minor publications. How many RS refs are necessary? Capitalismojo (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
So every aspect of Sullivan's career that gets mentioned eight times belongs in the intro? I could find that many refs for his opinions on Sarah Palin or his role in publicizing The Bell Curve. Gamaliel (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Go wild. I would suggest, however, that a public intellectual's defining battle with the political movement he says he left in 2003 is extremely noteworthy. (It was notable enough that he wrote a book about it.) Capitalismojo (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Can you provide a source for this specific claim linking his book to your preferred version of the hook? Sorry if this has already been covered, I'm not current on Sullivan nor do I remember all the particulars of this wikidebate. Gamaliel (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
He talks about his break with the Republicans by backing John Kerry on pages 3 and 4 of The Conservative Soul, page 5 is where he rejects American conservatism as a form of "fundamentalism" and substitutes his own views as "conservatism" instead. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I just read that passage and it's pretty clear that it's not connected this idea of not being a conservative. He rejects fundamentalism, neoconservatism, and Bush, not conservatism. He also explicitly rejects the left as well. Gamaliel (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This is why it comes back to the self-professed or self-identified thing. He rejects modern conservatism explicitly, but we continue to describe him as such anyway. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe that is an accurate interpretation of that passage. He explicitly rejects the current, post-Bush Republican party, but the US GOP ≠ the whole of conservatism. Gamaliel (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Seeking for consensus, suggested changes

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

The recent back and forth over the word 'conservative' in the lead seems like a tempest in a teacup. I suggest the following changes in the hopes of consensus:

Andrew Michael Sullivan (born 10 August 1963) is a British author, editor and blogger. Sullivan is a conservative political commentator, a former editor of The New Republic and the author or editor of six books. He was a pioneer of the political blog, starting his in 2000. He eventually moved the blog to various publishing platforms, including Time, The Atlantic, and The Daily Beast and finally an independent subscription-based format. He announced his retirement from blogging in 2015.
Sullivan's conservatism is Sullivan identifies as a conservative, and describes his conservatism as rooted in his Catholic background and in the ideas of the British political philosopher Michael Oakeshott.

How does that look to everyone? LK (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Opposed. Phrasing it in this way gives undue weight and may appear to endorse the POV that he is not a conservative, which is not supported by RS. Gamaliel (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Support. And I think you did a good job with the phrasing. It’s a question of primacy. We don’t start Obama’s article with “Democrat president” or “liberal president” - and Democrat is objective. We don’t start Olbermann’s article with “liberal commentator.” I’m not saying that because we don’t do it there we shouldn’t do it here, no: for the same good reasons we don’t do it there we shouldn’t do it here - one of which is simply that our goal should not be to influence. We present facts/views and let the reader form their own opinions. The guy supported gay marriage and Obama’s election - does that make him liberal? I don’t think so but that’s subjective. So we include it but lets remember RS isn't a magic spell that converts opinions (he’s conservative!) to facts (he was born in Surrey.) James J. Lambden (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, we don't call Obama a "Democrat president" because the correct adjective is "Democratic."
Oppose. What Gamaliel says is correct, but in addition: Sullivan's conservatism is central to nearly everything he's written or said in his role as a political commentator. The fact that this might not always line up with what the Republican party supports is irrelevant. Mizike (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose, for the reasons stated by Mizike above. Dyrnych (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Abstain. Since the official Democratic party swatted Bernie like an annoying fly, just abstain from getting excited by the charade. How do you categorize someone like Sullivan who has perfected the art of saying one thing so that he can, in the end, support exactly the opposite, and be hailed, "your own man says so!" He's useful. In 30 days, thanks to a special editing trick, this will all be archived, that is, buried, and the time we wasted on this will all be lost. Abstain. Profhum (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Why No Controversy Section?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sullivan is well known for his Conspiracy Theory that Trig Palin, the downs-syndrome child of Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin is not actually her son, and that her pregnancy was an elaborate hoax.

The unrelenting leftist bias of Wikipedia is shown again. I'm certain that the more controversial statements of prominent right-wing pundits are given ample space and emphasis.

Sullivan's well known, and truly retarded, claims about Palin are covered up and hidden by the Editors. I notice, all comments have been archived away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Sullivan /is/ a prominent right wing pundit, and I don't see any "unrelenting leftist bias" in Wikipedia. Jk180 (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Andrew Sullivan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Conservative?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

User:FreeKnowledgeCreator, are we to take this edit as meaning you think that if a writer/political commentator/blogger has been "no longer able to support the American conservative movement" for more than a decade, he should still be described as writing from a conservative standpoint? I think when it says 'conservative movement' it means 'conservatism'.--76.10.139.70 (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

You have a point. However, you need to wait for discussion over this issue, as it is potentially controversial. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Racism

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Sullivan has critisised the New York Times for its decision to hire Sarah Jeong after her anti-white racist tweets[3] were discovered.[4][5]. Anyone object to this being added? If so, specifically, why? --2001:8003:4023:D900:3174:FC50:F450:D23E (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

let's put this on hold and see what happens first over at Sarah Jeong. --101.173.78.130 (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
This is irrelevant. Andrew Sullivan is a great writer, and these minor opinions are insignificant for his biography. wumbolo ^^^ 14:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

BLP violations

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Perspex03 recently made an addition to the article dealing with Sullivan's comments about Sarah Jeong, in which he characterized some of her comments as racist. Part of the addition reads, "Sullivan has a history of criticizing people regarding the topic". That part of the addition crosses the line into editorializing and personal commentary on the subject of the article. It is simply not how an encyclopedia should be written and I will remove it. It also obviously involves original research and violates WP:BLP: the source cited to support the statement, this article in New York magazine, does not state that "Sullivan has a history of criticizing people regarding the topic", which is something Perspex03 made up. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Section on views on race

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A user removed a subsection added under "politics" discussing Sullivan's views on race. The remover claimed the changes were poorly sourced because they address topics already touched on earlier in the article (they are not discussed in the context of Sullivan's views on race); that the articles sourced do not mention Sullivan (every single one of them does); and that the articles come from Sullivan's own writing, and from Twitter (they are Sullivan's own tweets). Shouldn't writing and tweets by Sullivan, in which he espouses his own political views, be valid sources for a section outlining Sullivan's political views? Thomaspashko (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  • @Thomaspashko: Of the sources you added:
  • Vox briefly mentions Sullivan in two places, describing him as "the punditocracy’s original champion of Murray’s thinking on genetics". The Guardian has somewhat more coverage of Sullivan; it states that he supported The Bell Curve and Steven Pinker's view of Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence. Neither Vox nor The Guardian explicitly supports the statement that Sullivan "is a longstanding proponent of scientific racism".
  • NYTimes doesn't mention Sullivan, as far as I can tell. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
  • Everything else is written by Sullivan. Please see WP:Independent sources, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:No original research. A person's tweets are hardly ever worth mentioning in his or her biography. We absolutely cannot say that his tweets and other writings indicate that he is a racist without a reliable source for this interpretation. gnu57 05:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Blogging section misplaced

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The Blogging section should be integrated into the Career section, or else referred to in the Career section, or moved immediately after the Career section. Blogging is one of the most outstanding features of his career: it should be treated concurrently, or at least adjacently, in the article. I was adding to the Career section (which doesn't go beyond 2013)-- putting in the end of The Dish blog, his NY Mag tenure, and now return to blogging-- when I noticed the Blogging section already covered some of the same points in his career. MayerG (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

MayerG, I agree. I'm not sure of the best arrangement. Merging the content into Career could make that section rather unwieldy and I think might also make the blogging activities less visible. Putting the Blogging section right after the Career section would be an improvement. Or as a subsection in Career? Schazjmd (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that merging Blogging into Career would be the most difficult option. Either of the courses you propose seem good. If keeping Career and Blogging as separate sections, perhaps a "See also: Blogging" could be added at top of Career section. MayerG (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

British English

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Historically it seems that this article used British English. Over time some British spellings have been changed to American English, e.g., "defence" to "defense", which another editor spotted and corrected (diff). I added templates to indicate that British English should be used. If you disagree, let's discuss and we'll go with the consensus. Relevant guides include: MOS:SPELLING, WP:ENGVAR, and English spelling comparison chart. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 19:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Possible corrections to this article?

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I wondered if where this article talks about Sullivan's political allegiance if there is room for reference to his support for Hilary Clinton and his loathing of Trump? At present it has his criticism of Bill Clinton, and support for Obama, but nothing beyond that. Seems this might be appropriate information but please let me know if I am barking up the wrong tree! Many thanks Milosh Quest (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ginnysomers.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Sullivan/Archive_3&oldid=1199220944"