Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of modern American conservatism/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 18:08, 9 May 2012 [1].

Timeline of modern American conservatism

edit

Timeline of modern American conservatism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): – Lionel (talk) , Rjensen (talk), Toa Nidhiki05 (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured list because it encompasses the characteristics of a Featured List. – Lionel (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't thoroughly read through this list, but the first thing that jumps out at me is that the quality of references and reference formatting are not to the standard required of a featured list. Specifically:

  • Web references should have a title, publisher and access date given at the very least. Authors, publication dates, etc. should be given if available.
  •  Done
  • Books, including those accessed through Google Books, should be formatted with title, author, publisher, page numbers and publication year at the very least. ISBNs are often included, as well.
  • A person is not a reliable source for potentially controversial information about themselves. For example, the list says "Socialist Michael Harrington popularizes[90] the term "neoconservative"", with ref #90 being to an article by Harrington. No! You need a reliable source written by someone else to prove that this is something other than Harrington's own pet phrase.
The reliable source is in the attached footnote: Justin Vaïsse, Neoconservatism: the biography of a movement (2010) p. 298
  • For a list this long (over 65 kb) the lead needs to be longer - 3-4 paragraphs in general.

Like I said, I haven't read the whole thing. However, these need to be addressed before the article is of FL quality. Dana boomer (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - based on the complete lack of response to my comments and those of Giants, below. The issues the two of us have listed make this list stand quite far from FL status, and significant work is necessary to bring it up to speed. Dana boomer (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Back from wikibreak. Thanks for your patience. – Lionel (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I appreciate that this is a difficult list to work on, but I'm not feeling comfortable with the writing or the formatting. Dana's right, I'm afraid: this isn't ready for FL right now.

  • I'm not liking the table of contents being forced into the upper right part of the page. Not only do I think it should be in a more regular position, but I think the intro would be enhanced with a photo of a prominent conservative (Reagan, perhaps?).
  • If I recall correctly, the TOC is on the right because the lead is short and the TOC ran into the first section header, "Chronology of events." An expanded lead should make a left-TOC aesthetic. I'll revisit after lead expansion.– Lionel (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Timeline capitalized in the first sentence? That's not part of an official title or anything, so why force improper capitalization?
  • 1930s: "Republicans and conservatives are pummeled by a series of electoral blows in 1930, 1932 and 1934:. "pummeled by a series of blows" is really informal language for a featured piece of content. I'd recommend toning it down.
  • "Conservatives had been energized in 1937–38 and liberals discouraged by the a souring of Roosevelt's political fortunes...". The "a" is a grammatical error.
  • I see "court-packing" and "Court packing" near each other. They should be made consistent in capitalization and hyphenation (hint: I don't believe this should be capitalized).
  • While on the topic: "his Court packing plan was a fiasco" sounds quite POV to this independent (literally) reviewer. Again, please consider toning down the language, or provide something in the way of details that shows it was a fiasco.
  • "Recession of 1937–38" is another item that shouldn't be capitalized. I'm not going to point out any more of these, but please check the whole article for situations like this.
  • Abbreviations like AFL, CIO, and NATO should be spelled out when first used. If the abbreviation is provided in parentheses afterward, that would be ideal.
  • "Peter Vierick's article 'But—I'm a Conservative!' is published in the Atlantic Monthly." At first glance, this doesn't appear significant enough to be included in such a list. Is it an early use of the phrase conservative? If so, that's definitely worthy of mention here, as that would be a good reason to include it.
  • "Liberal icon Franklin D. Roosevelt is elected to fourth Presidential term". Feels like it's missing "his" or "a" before "fourth".
  • "Previously a Keynesian". What is that, exactly. I know it has to do with John Keynes because I've taken economics classes, but the general reader may not know this immediately. Don't be afraid to use a wikilink here.
  • 1967: ""Their anti-American venom and efforts to disrupt the draft...". Venom seems like a loaded word to me, at least in this context. Perhaps a replacement can be found? Also, the space before ref 74 should be removed.
  • "Richard Nixon elected over Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace". Shouldn't "is" or "was" come after Nixon's name?
  • There are some uncited bits such as Reagonomics and the elder George Bush's election. They aren't the most contentious points here, but FL criteria demands cites for content so they should be referenced along with everything else.
  • Most people may know he was elected that year, but I doubt they remember the date of the election, which is provided. For a featured piece of content, I'd expect all the information to be cited anyway. It shouldn't be too much effort to find a source for this. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Christopher Ruddy starts conservative new website Newsmax.com." "new" → "news".
  • "George W. Bush embodies what he describes as compassionate conservatism" is a statement that cries out for attribution; otherwise it sounds like Wikipedia is editorializing in this regard.
  • A bunch of references need en dashes for page ranges.
  • You missed hyphens in ranges in refs 14 and 178 (2 in that one), and I noticed formatting issues with ref 152. Please make sure that these are taken care of, and that other similar issues aren't still present. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a final note for now, I'm not convinced about the copyright status of the caricature of the 2012 candidates. I've seen likenesses of living people be used in the past to illustrate articles where there weren't any free images (Susan Boyle was one), and they were never found to be acceptable. Personally, I don't see why a composite image couldn't be made with actual photos; these drawings aren't the most flattering things in the universe anyway. Also, I don't know if the 1960 Modern Age cover is valid free-use; usually magazine covers aren't unless they're out of copyright, and I don't know if only having titles on the cover makes it non-copyrighted. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Result at WP:CQ re: Modern Age cover was "probably." For my part I think the preponderence of the evidence shows that is is PD. That should wrap this one up. – Lionel (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to reviewers: the TOMAC team has assembled on the talk page to in an all out no holds barred effort to resolve all of the remaining issues.– Lionel (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I first found this article when it was up as a DYK nom. I opposed this article appearing as DYK because there's some serious bias issues here, tagged the article, and listed on the talk page Talk:Timeline_of_modern_American_conservatism#Bias a number of the most glaring problems. Six months later, I see the tag has been removed, but not a one single of the problems I pointed out has been fixed. There's still no mention of (for example) Jim Crowe, the Southern Strategy, the great recession, Nixon and his dirty tricks or how they come to the present through Lee Atwater/Karl Rove. Raul654 (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654 has a litany of Democratic rhetorical attacks against Republicans. That's his own POV but it does not help an article on the conservative movement. Nixon (dirty tricks, Southern Strategy, Atwater) for example was more of a liberal or moderate Republican (and yes Watergate is covered). Segregation is given several entries (see 1948 and 1960s). Rjensen (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rjensen's claim that Nixon was a liberal should give you some idea of his POV and grasp of historical facts. The reality is that Nixon was reviled by liberals and retrospective attempts by conservatives to claim 'he wasn't really one of us' are less a reflection of Nixon's policies than the fact that they want to distance themselves from a president that history has judged very poorly. (The very same thing can be said about attempts these days to claim George W. Bush wasn't really a conservative either. It's politically convenient but completely untrue in every respect.)
Getting to the specific facts Rjensen mentioned:
He claims that the Southern strategy was somehow an example of Nixon's liberalism. This claim is so bizarre that I'm really at a loss to respond. (A) It has nothing to do with liberalism, and (B) It wasn't just Nixon that practiced it. He started it, but every Republican candidate since has used it.
On a related note, Rjensen says segregation and the civil rights movement are covered (1948 and the 60s). Read through the article, and see how many times you can find things mentioned about them. There's not many - especially given how important it was as a movement - and the few times they do come up the article facts carefully selected (in what is included and omitted) in ways that tend to leave the reader with a false impression. For example: Deep South Democrats lead by Strom Thurmond split from the National Democratic Party to form the pro-segregation States' Rights Democratic Party or Dixiecrat party. They are protesting support for civil rights legislation in the party platform and make Thurmond their nominee for president in the 1948 election. Nearly all return to the Democratic party in 1949. - this is factually true, in that the racist southern Dixiecrats didn't permanently leave the Democratic party until the mid-60s, after the passage of the civil rights and voting rights acts. Notice that the permanent defection is not mentioned anywhere in the article, which is interesting because Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms (both defectors) both have entries in here. (Traditional conservative Jesse Helms of North Carolina takes his Senate seat; he retires in 2002. As long-time chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he demands a staunchly anti-communist foreign policy that would reward America's friends abroad, and punish its enemies. His relations with the State Department are often acrimonious, and he blocks numerous presidential appointees. His National Congressional Club uses state-of-the-art direct mail operation to raise millions for conservative candidates and for Helms' own sharply contested reelections.[103]) This article has been carefully written so as to avoid giving the reader the impression that they joined the Republican party because the Democratic party had made it clear it would no longer tolerate racists. Here's another example, where the article glowingly mentions that Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL) plays a key role in passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to end segregation Reading this, a reader would be left with the impression that the Republicans played an important role in ending segregation. Frankly, it's hard to imagine something further from the truth.
Notice that of the things I mentioned on the talk page six months ago: - Southern strategy, (B) Jim Crowe, (C) Nixon's Dirty tricks, (D) Lee Atwater/Willie Horton/Karl Rove, (E) Iran Contra, (F) The Great Recession - not a single one is mentioned by name, and only one of them is even tangentially covered (Watergate for dirty tricks). It seems the standard response of the article's authors is to claim that these don't relate to conservatism. And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
I'd go on, but frankly I think it's beating a dead horse. This article's authors don't listen to feedback, so I don't really think it's worth wasting more time spilling ink over it. Raul654 (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Raul certainly has his opinions but he does not have any sources for his POV. He is simply out of touch with modern scholarship. Segregation is mentioned several times (it would be mention more often in the Timeline of Liberalism article). Dirksen did play a major role. "Jim Crowe" gets mentioned twice by Raul654; the spelling is "Jim Crow" and it's actually the informal name for segregation. As for Nixon/ Dirty/Tricks/Atwater, no Nixon was not on the conservative side of the GOP -- better read Joan Hoff's book--he's famous for imposing price controls, detente with USSR, expanding the Great Society, imposing Affirmative Action by exec order, expanding NEH and NEH, and creating the Environmental Protection Agency by executive order. That's pretty liberal for a Republican. Did liberals like Raul654 hate him? obviously he still does! Rjensen (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once again Rjensen is simply saying that all the problems identified above aren't really problems. And once again, his claims about Nixon are so divorced from reality it's hard to know where to start.
Regarding sources - I would supply them if I thought it was worth wasting time arguing with the POV pushers from wikiproject:conservatism who own the article. It's not, but just for everyone's benefits I'll supply one of them: Here is a blog entry by Keith Pool, a University of Georgia professor who has built his academic career on quantifying how liberal or conservative politicians are. Notice that, unlike Rjensen's laughable claims above, Nixon is most definitely conservative. Very, very conservative. More conservative than any democratic president was liberal, and more conservative than other republican except Reagan and the Bushes. And his list of Nixon's "liberal" accomplishments aren't really all that liberal. In his later years, Reagan saw an improvement in Soviet relations too. Does that also make him a liberal? Environmental protection was, until very recently, essentially a non-partisan issue. (It still is too, at the state level) Conservatives like breathing clean air and drinking clean water too.
Dirksen did play a major role. - Did you even read what I said above? I'm not disputing the veracity of this statement. What I said was that it's problematic to give credit to one republican while simultaneously not mentioning (A) the much greater support the bill got from the majority democrats in the congress (in absolute terms, not proportionally) and President Johnson; and (B) that the republicans used the aftermath of the bill to capitalize on the political environment to woo racist white southerners to the republican party. (The Southern Strategy) Not all facts are equal, and mentioning certain ones without mentioning other more important ones tends to leave readers with a false impression, which is *exactly* the problem throughout this article.
As for Nixon/ Dirty/Tricks/Atwater, - you *do* realize that Atwater worked for Reagan and Bush Sr, right? And that Karl Rove, Atwater's protoge, worked for Bush Jr. Once again you have ignored this most inconvenient fact to push your fun-house mirror brand of historical revisionism.
Segregation is mentioned several times - Well, let's see. Although this is subjective, the Civil rights movement was probably one of the four most important social movements of the 20th century. (Along with the Wilsonian Progressives, the New Deal and the Reagan Revolution. And it was lasted far longer than the Reagan or New Deal movements - from Post WIII until about 1970) I count *exactly* five mentions including one in passing (Strom Thurmond/1948, the 1960s intro paragraph, "...and civil rights be included.", Wallace/1963, 1964/Civil rights act). As I've already mentioned above, two of these are misleading (Derkson and Strom Thurmond). Not one of them mentions the general defection of the south to the Republicans that has been the defining political reality of the parties for most of the last thirty to fifty years.
And you *still* have not responded to the other 5 or 6 topics I've already mentioned that get no mention in the article at all. Raul654 (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654 still has not found any reliable sources for his personal POV--note that the article he challenges has over 150 different citations to RS. As for segregation/Jim Crow he said it was ignored; he now finds we had five different mentions. (He misses the section on Wallace, which explains some of the defection of the South) Dirksen played a key role in the civil rights legislation as the RS say. The complaint seems to be that liberals are not given as much attention as conservatives. That is indeed true in an article on conservatism. Raul654 would be more constructive by starting an article on the timeline of liberalism, which clearly interest him much more than this page. Rjensen (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654 still has not found any reliable sources for his personal POV - I would have provided citations, except (A) you would simply ignore it, as you have done time and again in this thread when I have debunked your talking points, and (B) talk pages like this one are not articles, and citations aren't mandatory unless there's some factual dispute. Nothing I've said above is particularly contentious as to require a citation. You're the one making preposterous claims like Nixon was a liberal, or that having lots of citations somehow means this article isn't absurdly biased in its selection of facts for inclusion or omission. (A point that seems to have gone miles over your head)
As for segregation/Jim Crow he said it was ignored; he now finds we had five different mentions. (He misses the section on Wallace, which explains some of the defection of the South) -- Bzzzzzt. Wrong again. What I said was "Notice that of the things I mentioned on the talk page six months ago: - Southern strategy, (B) Jim Crowe, (C) Nixon's Dirty tricks, (D) Lee Atwater/Willie Horton/Karl Rove, (E) Iran Contra, (F) The Great Recession - not a single one is mentioned by name, and only one of them is even tangentially covered" - Jim Crow is not mentioned by name, nor are the Southern strategy, dirty tricks, Lee Atwater, Willie Horton, Karl Rove, Iran Contra, or the Great Recession (Notice that every single one is important enough to merit its own article) I admit that it should have said *two* of those six are covered instead of one, as segregation is mentioned, but nitpicking aside, you have still not addressed my larger point.
The complaint seems to be that liberals are not given as much attention as conservatives - Nice strawman. As I'm sure pretty much anyone reading this now should realize from the last three times I said it, this article's authors have carefully chosen which facts to include, so as to (for example) give conservatives credit for civil rights achievements that were primarily the work of liberals, while simultaneously omitting fifty years of conservative race baiting. And as I've already mentioned several times - to which you have very obviously failed to respond - there are many other things about conservatism that have been selectively omitted from this article, such as thirty years of opposition to science, or how conservative opposition to regulating the derivatives market led directly to the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. (Even Alan Greenspan himself now says this was a mistake).
And in your next comment, it would be very welcome change from your past replies if instead of constructing strawmen to tear down or nitpicking one or two details while ignoring the broader arguments I'm making,, if you could actually produce a meaningful response. Raul654 (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
get some sources. Rjensen (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For what, exactly? Citations aren't here for masturbatory pleasure. Is there something I've said above whose factual accuracy you disagree with? If so, I'll provide a source. Otherwise, I'm not wasting my time digging up citations for obviously true statements such as "Lee Atwater worked for Reagan".
Also, as you have again failed to respond to any of the points I've made above about bias in the choices of facts to include or omit from this article, I'll take your continued non-response as a concession of the point. Raul654 (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
concession? No your complaints are poorly stated because they are based on person POV and not any reliable sources. Wikipedia can only use RS and is not allowed to edit based on POV. As the tag line (below SAVE PAGE) says, "Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view." I fear that none of Raul654's personal complaints meet that criterion. Rjensen (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think it's pretty clear the article's authors aren't interested in feedback or improving this article beyond its current highly-biased condition. Rjensen's above response is pretty indicative of the problem here -- laundry lists of problems go unresponded, except for repeating requests for sources that do not specify what is being requested. I'm done here. It's not worth wasting my time trying to educate someone who doesn't know how to edit within Wikipedia's framework. Raul654 (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree that Raul654 has wasted his time. Rjensen (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I for one welcome any and all suggestions for improving the timeline. But before I go into the issues Raul has raised, I'd like to say that I think he mischaracterizes the "article's authors." The implication is that there is a vast right wing conspiracy taking ownership of the timelime. That could not be further from the truth. In fact 6 mos. ago I wrote:

Most of the editors from the AfD are here... This group of editors, who often butt heads against one another, have a real rhythm--let's get as much productivity out of this esprit de corps while it lasts, ok? (ital. added)

The roster of editors at the article is representative of a myriad of ideologies and viewpoints: from the right and the left. Even amongst Rjensen and myself there is not unanimity. E.g. I favor including S Strategy--Rjensen is opposed. To address Raul's particular points,
  • Jim Crowe: the establishment of these laws pre-dates this timeline. And as Rjensen points out the effect was segregation. Segregation is covered.
  • Southern Strategy: IMO it did affect conservative politics--Rjensen disagrees however.
  • Great Recession: I never thought of this as a conservative issue. I don't see how adding that the Democrat-sponsored CRA and the Clinton repeal of Glass–Steagall caused the recession is within the scope. Oh and btw Greenspan is a libertarian. We have to keep in mind that every RS posits a different cause for the recession. There is certainly no consensus that it was caused by conservatives.
  • Nixon/dirty tricks: Raul is misquoting Rjensen. Rjensen did not say that Nixon was a liberal, he said Nixon was a liberal Republican. There is a word (and an article) for Nixon: Nixonian!!! This is not the Republican timeline, it is the conservatism timeline.
  • Lee Atwater/Willie Horton dirty tricks: the only entries about elder Bush are (1) his election and (2) defeat. Elder Bush is just not that impactful on conservatism. His interest was in foreign affairs. The only reason he's in the timeline is because he broke a tax pledge. And that angered conservatives. Horton is a barely a blip in the grand scheme. Horton rates a brief mention if anything. Regarding Atwater, there are no campaign managers in the timeline. He is UNDUE.
  • Karl Rove dirty tricks: so he was extremely successful in masterminding W's election. That's what good campaign managers do. Not one Bush administration member is in the timeline: not Colin, not Condi, not even Darth Vader.
  • Iran/Contra: it isn't as much a conservatism issue as it is an issue relating to a prominent conservative, Reagan. Brief mention on how it affected Reagan's polling.
The topics that Raul wants included for the most part are (1) beyond the scope and/or (2) not DUE for this timeline and/or (3) noone has gotten around to it. E.g. Nixon was not a conservative: Reagan was. Atwater was only a campaign manager: he is not DUE for this article. On the other hand, both of these personalities would feature prominently in the Timeline of the Republican Party.
Another thing, I don't appreciate Raul issuing orders on the talk page and then deriding the editors when his pet projects aren't completed according to his schedule: this timeline is not FAC. We're volunteers here and we work on what we want to work on. The fact of the matter is that the diverse group of editors at talk just doesn't assign the same importance to Raul's agenda that he does. And while the timeline is very large, there is still an enormous amount of information to be added. It covers 90 years! We don't have Cheney, vast right wing conspiracy, gun rights, and dozens of others. It will never be finished. That said, this timeline is well written, extremely well sourced, amply covers the topic--and will make an excellent FL--even taking into account its shortcomings.– Lionel (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me interject and say that I've seen multiple instances in this discussion where it has been said by the nominating team that the list isn't complete. If that's the case (keeping FL comprehensiveness requirements in mind), shouldn't this have the dynamic list template, as seen here, to recognize this? As you say, this is not the type of list where inclusion is easily defined, and I think it's best to make that clear from the beginning. Also let me note that I think your team should have gotten together and fixed the many issues requiring tags before coming here, as that would surely have saved a lot of trouble and stress, and made the list more appealing to reviewers. Just something to think about if you have any future nominating plans at FLC or FAC. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The timeline is comprehensive, thorough and covers "all of the major items." "Isn't complete" means that the timeline will always be subject to improvement and from that perspective is not finished. This is our first FL/FA and I think we underestimated the process and didn't realize how rigorous it is. I for one have gained alot from this experience--and maybe next time I'll start with peer review. – Lionel (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Timeline_of_modern_American_conservatism/archive1&oldid=1076196486"