Talk:Andrew Sullivan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

A better example of poor sourcing

Here's a better example of poor sourcing than the whole Oxford saga.

Sullivan began writing for The New York Times Magazine in 1998, but was fired by editor Adam Moss in 2002 under instructions from executive editor Howell Raines. Jack Shafer writes in Slate magazine that he asked Moss via e-mail to explain this decision, but that his e-mails went unanswered, adding that Sullivan was not fully forthcoming on the subject. Sullivan wrote on his blog that he was told that his presence at the Times made Raines "uncomfortable", but defended Raines's right to sack him. Sullivan suggested that Raines had fired him in response to his criticism of the Times on his blog, and acknowledged that he had expected that his criticisms would eventually anger Raines.[20]

Now look at the actual source referenced under [20]. Nowhere in Shafer's article is it demonstrated that the instruction to sack Sullivan originated from Howell Raines. As far as the source goes we only have Sullivan's suggestion that it was Raines' decision rather than Moss's alone. Moss himself refused to comment. Yet the unsupported and unsourced statement "..under instructions from executive editor Howell Raines" is allowed to stand. This is poor sourcing. Someone correct it by all means, I am done editing this article, Love, Light and Peace. Oinky (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, I've modified it so it only says that Sullivan claims the decision to fire him was taken by Raines. Robofish (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Sullivan a conservative?

Clearly, the lead is at issue right now. Can we hash out why it's important to say Sullivan is a conservative without any qualification? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Because he says he's a conservative. He's written an important book about the definition of conservativism. The response to that book has been a struggle of which the effort to claim that Sullivan is not a conservative is part. He says he's a conservative. In any conservative movement outside the US, he would unquestionably be called a conservative by all. Wikipedia should not be a battleground for fringe political struggles. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It is actually much easier to describe him from the sourceas a self-identified conservative given no one can dispute he identifies that way if he does. There are also other sources easily found that will call him a self-identified and a so-called conservative. The latter would have to be WP:ATTRIBUTED I.e., X calls him a so-called conservative. μηδείς (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"So-called" is POV and I agree with Mark. Teammm ^talk
_email 17:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

But the sources describe him that way, we wouldn't and shouldn't. Why is Mark's idea of simply calling him a conservative even though there's disagreement within the sources better than simply stating that he self-identifies in the lead? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with the current lead. Teammm ^talk
_email 17:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

As constructed right now, nor do I. This is exactly what was revert warred over, though, so it's why I'm hoping those opposed to it can explain why. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly my concern. If you ask conservatives (who would know), he's not one of them. Clearly, it's a contentious statement to say outright he's a conservative, I don't see why noting that it's a self-identification is especially controversial. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It's only contentious amongst a small minority. If it's a matter of sources, we shouldn't look to a cherry-picked grouping of them. I could produce literally thousands of sources with a lexis/nexis search saying he is a conservative. It is inappropriate to use to introduction to claim that there is serious doubt when there is not, beyond this fringe. This can be discussed later in the article if the editors feel strongly about this. Gamaliel (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I would imagine that most of those sources call him a conservative because he refers to himself as one. If we're going to make an ideological claim about him, then we should be using sources that actually look at an ideological breakdown of his views. Thus, "self-identifies" or something similar is more appropriate as sources are highly likely to take his word for it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

And why is this standard not applied to other articles? This is a very slippery slope here and we shouldn't open up the introductions of BLPs to politically-based challenges. Surely the best source of information about Sullivan's views is Sullivan himself, who is also an expert in this field besides being intimately familiar with his own views. Gamaliel (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It probably should be applied across the board. Sullivan's ideological identification is certainly controversial in a way, say, Sarah Palin or Ezra Klein's is not, and this is probably the safest way to handle it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

If it is controversial, and not merely challenged by a few, then there should be a section establishing that in the article, at which point we can alter the intro per WP:LEAD. All that's there now is that he supports a few candidates and views that are not approved by current US Republican conservatives. But we can't let every fringe challenge make us seed doubt into perfectly obvious facts about a BLP in the introduction. Gamaliel (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It appears any and all sorts of criticism of Sullivan has been excised from the article, which is part of the problem. I still don't understand the opposition to "self-identifies," though. This isn't a fringe challenge, it's just an attempt to meet a middle ground between those who believe he's a conservative and those who do not based on the edit war from the last day or so. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I support restoring reasonable criticism to the article. The problem with the 'compromise' is that it isn't a middle ground, it endorses the POV that there is serious doubt about his beliefs. Gamaliel (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

And simply declaring him a conservative doesn't endorse the POV that there isn't? Furthermore, look at this interview. He appears to couch his conservatism in his own framework, rather than a widely accepted one. That he's "a conservative, but the Republicans aren't" is very much a statement of self-identification and establishes his POV as the standard. If we're attributing his point of view to his ideology, why wouldn't we attribute his ideology to him? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sullivan clearly states that he was and is a Tory. That's conservative. End of story. To use "so-called" or "self-identified" is to use the Encyclopedia to express a covert insinuation that he is not in fact a conservative, which is precisely the POV goal of a partisan faction. To say that "he appears to couch his conservatism in his own framework" is to say absolutely nothing that would not apply to William Buckley or Disraeli. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I can get behind this, but shouldn't we be linking, then, to the British version of conservative as opposed to the American if so? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I see what Mark is saying and tend to agree. If we link to the British version of conservative, any "disclaimer" placed before conservative is not needed. I do believe "self-identified" and especially "so-called" is biased because it is a disclaimer on his conservatism, created in order to include a critic's viewpoint of Andrew Sullivan...which takes nothing away from his decades of work in traditional conservatism. (I just tried to compromise too early as I don't like arguing) Teammm ^talk
_email 22:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we might be onto something here. If there aren't any complaints in the next day or so, I think we should do this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The devil is, as always, in the details. What specific article would we link to? Gamaliel (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

We rely on reliable source materials to determine what is included, particularly in BLPs. Self descriptions and self-published material is to be treated very carefully. There are a multitude of mainstream RS that describe Sullivan as liberal or not conservative. These include the Atlantic, Huffington Post, and Forbes, among others. Some of these sources frankly ridicule Sullivan's self-identification as a conservative. So we have a SPS asserting that he is a conservative and multiple RS stating he is liberal (one of the 25 most influential). I'd say the most reasonable approach is to leave in the "self-described" phraseology. It could be argued that his statement that he is too a conservative is an unduly self-serving statement from a self-published source, hence subject to removal. I think it should stay in, however, as long as it is clear that it is his self description. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is a reply to my comment, but I will bite. You forget the many, many more mainstream RS that have described him as conservative for over two decades. Gamaliel (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I started writing that comment earlier in the day. It didn't post properly because of an edit conflict and I just now got it up. That explained, I'll respond to your question...

Sullivan has said himself that his views and positions have changed. Two decades of being called a conservative is fine, but he's not anymore. That has literally become a joke among liberal and conservative writers alike. He has acknowledged the changing positions but clings to the the self-identification as a conservative. Beginning around his endorsement of Kerry he walked away from conservatism as practiced in America (and to be clear he is now an American writer). You can't be both one of the "Most Influential Liberals" and a prominent conservative at the same time. I do agree that Sullivan may be a conservative in the Tory sense. I'm not sure how that helps us in that he is defending his conservatism in an American social and political context. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I actually think that this might make an interesting (brief) subsection in the biography. Sullivan's very public defence of his "conservative" identity over the last several years in the face of robust public media attacks on that position from both the left and the right are both notable and well sourced. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Forbes ref

The Forbes article describing the subject as one of the 25 most influential liberal journalists has been described as a mere "slideshow". The Forbes article itself talks about how their list was put together.

In recognition of the role played by the media in our national debate, Forbes.com nominates, here, 25 of America’s most consequential liberal journalists and media personalities. The exercise is subjective, by definition, and Forbes Opinions editors canvassed the views of more than 100 academics, politicians and journalists. The list that follows is a distillation of that survey.

This is a straightforward article by a prominent reputable source. Of course it is their opinion and should properly be cited as their opinion but simply removing it with a dismisal as mere "slideshow" is not correct. The Forbes 400 could also thus be dismissed. It uses the same format and approach. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

But of course the Forbes piece (link?) doesn't appear to disclose its methodology or evidence in nearly the detail of the Forbes 400 -- not that the latter is worth a great deal. I also observe the Thomas Friedman and Chris Hitchens were on this 2009 list. The full text of the discussion follows: “A granddaddy of Washington blogging and a former editor of The New Republic, he clings unconvincingly to the “conservative” label even after his fervent endorsement of Obama. His advocacy for gay marriage rights and his tendency to view virtually everything through a “gay” prism puts him at odds with many on the right.

The central point here is whether this is evidence that Sullivan is not in fact conservative. Here, a number of anonymous wikipedians have pitted themselves repeatedly against Sullivan's explicit avowal. Nor is Sullivan's claim casual; he has written a book about contemporary conservativism. This particular article, clearly, enjoyed the attention it could garner by claiming that prominent conservatives were actually liberals -- and perhaps provoking them to cite it and so sell more ads. (As it is, this format forces the reader to view dozens of adds to simply browse the list.)

In short, unnamed people and an author with an interest in provoking controversy called Sullivan a liberal in 2009. Sullivan himself, before and after that date, identified himself as a conservative. We have no reason to doubt him. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

First, if there are problems with that particular article take it to RSN. The idea that an article must be dismissed because it may be interesting and thus "sell more ads" isn't likely to be seen as a strong argument however. Forbes is generally RS and is certainly for its own opinion. Second, and more importantly, We should give due note of Sullivan's statements, but his personal statements, as published on his blog are WP:SPS. There are a great number of RS from left, right, and center that dispute Sullivan's statement(s). Self Published Source policy on Wikipedia requires that we rely on reliable secondary sources as opposed to an individual's own self-serving statements. At Wikipedia a biography subject's "explicit avowal" has less weight than Reliable Sources. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Sullivan liberal??

In this Business Insider piece the author spends some time discussing conservatism and concludes that

I've never quite understood Sullivan's attachment to the term "conservative." It seems to me that conservatism is whatever ideology is shared by most of the people who call themselves conservatives — roughly, that taxes should be low and non-progressive; that the safety net should be strictly limited and particularly should not include a universal health care guarantee; that more financial risk should be shifted away from the government and toward individuals; that the government should promote some concept of "traditional morality." I don't believe those things and neither does Sullivan, so I'm not a conservative and neither is he.

Sullivan's shift from being percieved as a conservative writer to being percieved as a liberal has been very public. This public discussion has played out in the pages of The Atlantic, Forbes, the Huffington Post, Business Insider and the Daily Caller, among others. The Atlantic news wire refers to him as a liberal. [1] The Huffington Post wrote an article saying "Sullivan Official a Liberal" about this issue. Sullivan Officially a Liberal Forbes describes him as one of the nation's top 25 liberal journalists. Forbes' Top 25 Liberals The Daily Caller describes him as a liberal writer. [2] He has also stated that he can't take neoconservatism seriously.A False Premise If RS describes him as something we must include that even if the subject of the article disputes it. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

To be very clear; it is contentious to baldly state that "Sullivan is a conservative" with no caveats. This is especially true if we are relying on his own Self Published statements, as we appear to be doing. It is even more contentious given that we have significant Reliable Source discussion on the issue, sources that describe him as a liberal. I would suggest that a reasonable approach is to say something like; "Sullivan has been described, and describes himself, as a conservative, though he has been in recent years described as a liberal." We have refs for each part of that sentence and it more accurately highlights the state of the public discussion. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you stop this nonsense and find something more productive to do with your time? Apparently the purpose of your edits here is to push the notion that Sullivan isn't a real conservative, whatever he says about himself. I hope the larger Wikipedia community will treat your efforts with the disdain they deserve. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I am following the reliable sources in an attempt to improve this article. That should be clear from the section above. I do not engage in personal attacks that try to drive other editors away from articles. I would strongly suggest that you confine your remarks to the content of articles and avoid discussing or concentrating on other editors with expressions of disdain. Please read [WP:NPA]]. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I commented on your behavior, not on you personally. I trust that experienced editors will be able to recognize disruptive behavior when they see it - including disruptive behavior that attempts to remain within the letter of Wikipedia policy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I trust, or would hope, that editors will avoid accusing other editors of disruption when they are focussed on mainstream reliable source content discussions. I'd like to hope none would parachute in to make unfounded attacks. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

To persistently argue, in the face of much opposition, that someone who identifies himself as an XYZ isn't a real XYZ definitely is disruptive, and forgive me, but it does seem to have been what you have been doing here. Fortunately, someone has suggested a more balanced way of handling this issue in the section below. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I am glad you appreciate that balanced approach proposed by Peregrine. I do as well. Persistently and politely discussing reliable sources and content is how articles change for the better, in my experience. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The original poster in this section cited sources. That's what Wikipedians do, or should do. If you have no counterargument explaining why that evidence is not meaningful, I suggest saving space here for someone who does, in order to minimize disruption. Yes I am talking to you, "FreeKnowledgeCreator," there is absolutely nothing "disruptive" about not taking what the subject of a biography claims about himself at face value.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed for "conservative writer" in lede.

There are only youtube video clips / SPS ref'ing "conservative" in the politics section. Those are not suitable. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Sullivan calls himself a conservative in his books, The Conservative Soul and others. Therefore, the article should call him a conservative. Arguing otherwise is idiotic, disruptive, and a waste of the Wikipedia community's time. Furthermore, would you please see WP:EGG? The piped link in the lead to Conservatism in the United Kingdom is inappropriate and should not have been restored. Links are only useful if people know where they are going when they click on one, and no one can reasonably be expected to know that "political conservatism" will lead to Conservatism in the United Kingdom. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the EGG point. I did not originally add it. It was the result of a series of discussions of other editors on this article. The discussion centered on whether Sullivan could be described as conservative. Their conclussion at the time can be summed up as "well, he was a conservative in the UK sense." I don't agree with that edit so will not further revert it. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

As to the important point of whether Sullivan is a conservative. It is not a waste of time. There are no RS refs for that. We have refs for "Sullivan identifies himself as a conservative." We have refs for "Sullivan's self-identification as a conservative has been questioned." We have a wide variety of solid RS refs saying "Sullivan is a liberal". This is under reasonable discussion at this page. To suggest that it is "idiotic" is inappropriate and intemperate. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The piping of UK conservative is a compromise from above. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreement having been reached on the WP:EGG issue, I will remove the link. I have no comment on the political nonsense inherent in Capitalismojo's comments. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Sullivan&action=edit&section=11#

Capitalismo: Sullivan identifies himself as a conservative in his book, The Conservative Soul, and indeed throughout his writing. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I would encourage editors not to get too hung up on the label, and focus their energies on discussing his actual positions. In general I think it is fair to say that he describes himself as a conservative, but that many contemporary American conservatives do not consider him as such. Later in the article there could be some discussion of the specifics of the argument, which is fairly philosophical and cannot really be boiled down to a a sentence or two and remain fair to all sides. Peregrine981 (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with your formulation. Indeed I think that is precisely what we have refs for. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. He states that he is a conservative. For example, http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/11/is-andrew-sullivan-a-conservative-149465.html:

Absolutely. I wrote a book on my conservatism, 'The Conservative Soul.' But in so far as the word has been hijacked by religious fundamentalists and emotionally arrested Randians, I am not one of them. I'd fit easily into a conservative party in any other western democracy. But the GOP is a rogue in the western world - the most extremist right-wing party in any modern democracy by a mile. Banning all abortion and all gay marriages? Denying climate change science?

They're not conservatives, they're the loony right.

His publisher, Harper Collins, considers him a conservative. Publishers Weekly, reviewing the book, begins "As editor of the New Republic and on his blog The Daily Dish, Sullivan has been a major conservative voice in U.S. politics for 15 years." There is nothing to discuss: he is a conservative. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Just because Harper Collins and Publishers Weekly have called him a conservative does not definitively settle the matter as you suggest. If other notable people in the "conservative community" do not consider him to be a conservative, that is relevant information. There is obviously some disagreement about his political "classification" and wiki cannot ignore that. Hence my suggested formulation which I think is fair. I personally think that the dispute is somewhat pedantic, and largely about a disagreement on the definition of conservatism, which is a complex and on-going dispute. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

By your reasoning, any person Joe McCarthy called a Communist ought to be termed a Communist in his Wikipedia lede, since (a) McCarthy, a US Senator, was clearly a notable person, and indeed was regarded by his friends and allies as an expert on Communism. That a faction of his opponents says that the subject is not "really" a conservative carries little or no weight. Sullivan identifies as a conservative, his publishers identify him as a conservative, he has long been associated with the conservative party in his country of origin, and his opinions clearly lie within the spectrum embraced by the British Tories and the tradition of Hume and Burke. There is nothing to discuss: he is a conservative. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, here Nicholas Wapshott writes these things about Sullivan: "media conservatives have turned on media conservatives. But none have shown more recklessness than Andrew Sullivan"; "Sullivan is no leftie."; "avowed Reagan and Thatcher fan"; "became a U.S. citizen to more closely involve himself in conservative thinking, he is the moderate right’s equivalent to ..."; "Sullivan, Frum and other middle-ground Republicans". -84user (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to come back to this a bit late, I've been distracted. I hardly think that the situation is comparable to McCarthyism. McCarthy is one guy. There are numerous people who believe Sullivan not to be a conservative. If there were many notable people in addition to McCarthy who believe Mr. X to be communist, it should be noted that a Mr. X believes he is a liberal, but Joseph McCarthy and various other notable individuals believe him to be a communist. Then we could discuss the evidence. Clearly the main pitfall here is not to give undue weight to relatively fringe theories, but it isn't right not to note them at all. If you believe that the people calling Sullivan a liberal are such a small minority that they aren't worth mentioning, you should provide more argument along that line. But Sullivan himself has felt compelled to respond, and several mainstream publications have labelled him a liberal. I think that they constitute enough of a voice that they should be mentioned. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

If you're familiar with the history of the McCarthy era, you know that McCarthy’s charges and insinuations were instantly repeated by any number of allied outlets. Under your standard, every opponent of McCarthy and every rival would have their Wikipedia lede include the charge that he is a communist. Yes, the people calling Sullivan a liberal are a small minority, not worth mentioning and certainly not worth mentioning in the lede, who are hoping to purge a dissident from their movement and using Wikipedia in the course of this campaign. The subject says he is conservative; his publisher says he is conservative; he has written a notable book about the philosophy of conservatism. His heroes are Reagan and Thatcher and Hume. He is a conservative. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, under your standard anyone who comes out and says they're a peace loving democrat is one, regardless of what others say. The issue is one that has been addressed quite widely, in reliable sources which don't necessarily have an axe to grind (for example [3] but there are many more). Ignoring the issue would do a disservice to readers; I don't think it's just a fringe theory. It has appeared in mainstream publications like Forbes and Business Insider, and is all over the right wing new outlets like "The Blaze" etc... Surely it is relevant that his supposed fellow travellers don't accept him as "one of them". Sullivan himself has taken quite some time to rebut the claims, and you can see even on wiki that they come up with regularity. In the end, as I have said above, it is basically a definitional issue. They are all talking at cross purposes, because they just don't agree on what it means to be "conservative". We should make that clear, since he defines himself as a conservative in the contemporary American context. I don't think it is somehow a concession to the lunatic fringe to say that many of his fellow "conservatives" do not accept him as such. Peregrine981 (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

If some conservatives don't accept Sullivan as a real conservative, then it may be appropriate to mention that somewhere in the article. But it doesn't belong in the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect. This is not about 'conservatives' saying Sullivan isn't a conservative. It certainly isn't about McCarthyism. (That's a sort of a Godwin's Law suggestion.) This is about a large array of RS describing Sullivan as not a conservative. Theses sources are left, right, and center. The point being that Sullivan can describe himself as conservative but at wikipedia we require RS for such statements. We can state that he describes himself as conservative. But the fact that he describes himself as such does not mitigate, or allow the removal of significant RS descriptions that state that he is not a conservative. Self-published sources and statements don't trump RS. As a further point, the advertising and marketing of Sullivan's publisher can't be considered RS for this purpose. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Fine for me, as long as his main political positions are clearly outlined. I think we have wasted far too much time on this labelling issue already.Peregrine981 (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I would note the RS for Sullivan's shift from being percieved as a conservative writer to being percieved as a liberal. These are The Atlantic, Forbes, the Huffington Post, Business Insider and the Daily Caller, among others. The Atlantic news wire has a story that is centered on this issue and refers to him as a liberal. [4] The Huffington Post has an article saying "Sullivan Official a Liberal" about this issue. Sullivan Officially a Liberal Forbes describes him as one of the nation's top 25 liberal journalists. Forbes' Top 25 Liberals The Daily Caller describes him as a liberal writer. [5] If RS describes him as something we must include that even if (perhaps especially if) the subject of the article disputes it. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You still seem to be on some quest to prove that Sullivan isn't a real conservative, despite what he says about himself. Did it occur to you that BLP might be a problem here? Trying to use a Wikipedia article to score points against its subject is really not acceptable behavior. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is defamatory to call someone liberal, especially if there is a plausible argument to be made. As capitalistmojo says, these are not fly by night operations discussing the issue, and there is some merit to the argument (as in, it isn't completely ludicrous, depending on your POV). I don't see why it is such a big issue for you that some people have written that he isn't a conservative. It's an intellectual argument that has a thousand shades of grey in it, and frankly is partially a defining feature of Sullivan's writing, as he's written a whole book on the subject of what it truly means to be "conservative". That people disagree with him is hardly surprising. Nor should it need to be as complicated as it is made out here. I don't think it is absolutely necessary to mention in the lede, but I have no problem with doing so if that is the consensus here. However, I would personally lean toward saying that he considers himself a conservative, while a number of self-described modern American conservatives do not believe he is. Why is that such a problem? Peregrine981 (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue is one of weight. Are the complaints of a few political ideologues significant enough to mention in the lede or to use Wikipedia's voice to cast doubt on a political orientation that has been public established (and can be cited with hundreds of references) for decades? Gamaliel (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The writers referenced above, none of which are ideologues as far as I can tell, from a variety of of political perspectives and mainstream Reliable Sources describe the subject in a particular way. Against that we have the subjects adamant self-description (and that of his publisher's marketting team) which is notable but not dispositive. Wikipedia goes where the RS indicate not where the subject might like. Perhaps we could add some recent RS saying he is a conservative or a self-described connservative and balance it with the growing chorus of RS of all stripes saying he is not conservative. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

What we have is four reliable sources about the complaints of ideologues versus decades of reliable sources establishing him as a conservative. This is clearly a weight issue, and placing this issue in the lede would be violate WP:UNDUE. Gamaliel (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe this is still an issue months later. Is there a reason we can't go back to British conservative or whatever it was? Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice if, rather than asserting "decades" of sources, we just added some of these supposed sources. That is after all the title of this discussion section. Moreover the idea that public intellectuals don't change their position on the ideological spectrum over the years is specious. I'd suggest the examples of Irving Kristol, Christopher Hitchens, David Brock, and Dianne Ravitch (among those that initiallly leap to mind) would suggest that people change, sometimes dramatically. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Kristol and Hitchens changed, Reagan changed, Specter changed, even. Sullivan was and is a conservative; some ideologues want to claim he's not really a conservative and, apparently, want to use Wikipedia to demonstrate that.MarkBernstein (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

We wouldn't be using Wikipedia to demonstrate that he's not conservative. I agree, we shouldn't spend too much space on this issue, but we should certainly address it by stating matter of factly that some disagree with his assessment and then discuss the roots of that disagreement. Whether you think his critics are ideologues or not, they are relevant, particularly since they theoretically subscribe to the same political ideology. As I said above, better to make a more rounded description of his actual positions than fight about these labels for months on end. Peregrine981 (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Section break

The issue is that Sullivan claims he is a conservative while failing to hold many conservative viewpoints. The proposal to have him as a "self-described conservative" still seems like the most logical option, but there continues to be pushback on that. Should we maybe revisit that? Going with "self-identified" puts the ball in Sullivan's court as opposed to our source counting (since we could just as easily find a source that says he isn't a conservative for every one that claims he is). Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Source counting won't help: Joe McCarthy could and did find plenty of people to assert that all his enemies were card-carrying communists, too. Sullivan holds many views from the traditional and widely-accepted canon of conservative politics. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

And many conservatives, in reliable sources, can dispute your claim. Thus why "self-identified" appears to be the safest route. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

May we also describe Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon as "liberal"? Jack Kennedy as "conservative"? Abraham Lincoln as a radical revolutionary warmonger? The latter characterization has thousands of reliable sources, too. This "controversy" is like arguing whether someone is or is not really Catholic -- also a charge leveled against Sullivan -- or whether someone is or is not really Jewish, Native American, Australian, Black, or indeed a natural-born citizen. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Um, not so much. The "ideologues" you keep speaking about aren't. The reporters for the Forbes magazine list aren't ideologues. Neither is the New Yorker magazine, nor is the Atlantic news wire, perhaps the Huffington Post columnist might be (from the left). Reuters has covered this as has MSNBC. This is not some conspiracy to mis-identify a writer. This is a real issue that has been much discussed in the mainstream media. The New Yorker story posits or suggests that Sullivan's "conservative" self-definition was always "off" the core American understanding of conservatism, coming as he did from the UK, but then still details his further drift away from the mainstream of US conservatism. Discussion of a public intellectual's ideology is not at all the same as suggesting someone isn't really Jewish, particularly when the writer in question has made a point of discussing, arguing, and even writing books about the issue. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we could maybe have a good discussion about Nixon, but context is key. Sullivan self-identifies as a conservative, but it's not a conservative of this era that's recognizable. Reliable sources repeat his claim because it's his claim, not necessarily due to an objective review of his beliefs. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

"Self-described conservative" would fall afoul of WP:WEASEL. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree completely. It's attributable directly to Sullivan, and can be attributed to him via third-party sources to boot. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well, I disagree with you. "Self-described conservative" sounds lousy, and it's the kind of expression that looks as though it serves a tendentious purpose. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. A phrase like that only promotes the POV that he's not a "real" conservative. This whole issue is one of WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT. We have a career going back decades, and we have a fringe viewpoint of recent vintage supported by only four sources. This is a no brainer, I'm surprised that editors are still stubbornly trying to make an issue of this. Gamaliel (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

How many sources do you need to be convinced it's not actually a fringe viewpoint of recent vintage? This is a serious question that I'm hoping you can give a serious answer to. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. I'd have to look at the evidence presented. Is there any evidence that this is not a recent viewpoint? Gamaliel (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

We're still basically talking at cross-purposes. What those who call him a conservative mean, is different from those who don't, so maybe we will have to describe what he means by conservative to settle this argument. We can't call him "self-described" because it implies that not one else calls him that, which is patently not true. There are a number of articles that refer to him as a "liberal" but they seem to do this referring basically to the "teams" of American politics, and not as part of true discussion of his politics. Also, several of the articles cited are simply discussing the Forbes article, so can't really be considered to be totally separate sources. So, perhaps we should say that he considers himself to be a conservative in the moderate tory/Burkean/Oakeshottian tradition; he has held positions x,y,z? (I am not 100% familiar with how he would describe himself, some research would be required, but something along those lines is surely close to the mark) Peregrine981 (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

"Self-described" is not a [WP:WEASEL] word. That doesn't seem applicable of the style guideline. It is not at all like "so-called" or "supposed" or any other phrase that casts doubt or aspersions on the subject. We have RS refs for "self-described". That having been said I wonder what Gamaliel considers "recent vintage" and why the age of RS references matters in this case. As has been discussed, public intellectuals often change over the course of "decades". Capitalismojo (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

"Self-described" insinuates that the characterization is unjustified and is indeed [WP:WEASEL] . In this case, the claim that the characterization is unjustified is based on the opinions of a faction who wish to claim a broadly-understood term, "conservativism", for their own partisan purposes; wikipedia cannot redefine conservative for the short-term convenience of the US Tea Party. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I have seen no justification in the above discussion for removing the "He describes himself as a political conservative though he has been increasingly at odds with the Republican Party on many issues" language. Apparently several Wikipedians think that the subjects of biographies should write their own articles. This is totally inconsistent with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. One can argue that Bradley Manning is Chelsea Manning because the subject self-identifies as female, but this is not at all comparable to that, this is an objective claim that is resolved by objective evidence, and that does not mean just substituting "liberal" for "conservative." It means giving the reader as much information as possible.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Sullivan does not himself recognize the principle that how an individual self-describes is determinative. Sullivan has said "let’s call Josh [Barro] what he actually is: a conservative Whig," but Barro has rejected Sullivan's labeling, saying "I don’t believe [in typical conservative policy prescriptions] and neither does Sullivan, so I’m not a conservative and neither is he. What members of the Whig party favored in England in the 1700s doesn’t enter into the question."
• In 2007 Sullivan wrote of Obama "This guy is a liberal. Make no mistake about that." Last year Sullivan wrote "Obama is simply and unequivocally the more conservative candidate" which suggests that Sullivan has changed his views about just how "liberal" Obama is. Sullivan himself has acknowledged this, last year referring that 2007 post and saying that at that time "the early twitches of my political/intellectual migration" were already evident. That "migration" means sources from 2007 or earlier are as relevant as what the Whig party favored in English in the 1700s.
• Sullivan previously objected to the Forbes article saying that that article said liberals support "universal health care of some kind" and that does not apply to him. Yet a year ago who said that he believed "universal access to basic healthcare in wealthy countries" was a "core moral principle".--Brian Dell (talk) 03:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

"Self-described conservative" and similar expressions are unacceptable, for being weasel words (see WP:WEASEL) and also for being bad writing. How tedious to see that this is still being argued over. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

How is it bad writing? It is "tedious" to see that you apparently think we should call North Korea a democracy because it calls itself the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" and would consider it a smear of North Korea's good character to imply that it is anything less than the democracy it claims to be. North Korea isn't a biography, you say, well so what, the issue is accuracy, and BLP is being misused if it is being used to excuse inaccuracy. A Minnesota Post writer has noted that "Andrew Sullivan['s] conversion over recent years from a conservative to some kind of liberal seemed to deeply linked to his admiration for Pres. Obama..." contrary to your claims that this notion that Sullivan is now "some kind of liberal" is just made up out of thin air by Wikipedians out to smear Andrew Sullivan. The good faith assumption here would be that those of us who disagree with you want to the article to reflect that "conversion" which the sources have identified. This conversion means anything prior to Sullivan meeting Obama in 2007 is not reflective of Sullivan's current stance. If "self-described conservative" is too weasely then call him what he is, a pro-Obama blogger, just like Sullivan felt entitled to call Josh Barro what he thought Barro was, over Barro's objections. You have not responded to any of my observations above. I'll add to them to note that according to Sullivan, Obama is more "conservative" than Romney. This is an unconventional definition, is it not? Wikipedia's readers are entitled to have this all explained to them. If you want Sullivan described as conservative, fine, but the very same sentence should note that he considered Obama more conservative than Romney, so the readers know that Sullivan's use of the term is idiosyncratic and largely unique to himself (where are the other sources claiming that Obama is more conservative than Romney full stop if Sullivan is not out in his own little world on this one?).--Brian Dell (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Sullivan is clearly conservative in the sense of the term used in his native country, in most of the world, in his adopted country among scholars of the subject and political scientists. That he describes himself as conservative is significant, that he has written an important book about the definition of conservativism is significant. That a faction of us republicans consider him a liberal is interesting and increases the demand for popcorn, but this has no place in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not conservapedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You are not engaging in a discussion here. If you were, you would explain why what he wrote prior to 2007 is relevant when even Sullivan himself has said he has undertaken "a political/intellectual migration" since then. You'd also provide some links supporting your claims of fact. May I point out that Sullivan is also on the right wing of the spectrum in the North Korean context? Of course you can find some place or some time where he is "conservative." Unless it is the contemporary context and the context in which the subject is notable and cited (in Sullivan's case, U.S. politics) it is irrelevant, just as Josh Barro noted in rejecting Sullivan's labels of himself and others ("What members of the Whig party favored in England in the 1700s doesn’t enter into the question"). However, even if I were to agree with you that Sullivan is conservative in, say, Britain, Sullivan called Obama more "conservative" than Romney. That's not a "British" context. And since when is Josh Barro British? Recall that Barro wrote, "Sullivan responds to my disavowal of the conservative title by insisting that I really am a conservative, whether I know it or not — a "conservative Whig," to be specific. No, I'm not. I've never quite understood Sullivan's attachment to the term..." Think about what Barro has said here. If Sullivan defines the universe then Barro is simply wrong about his own self-identification, right? But that would contradict the argument we've see on this Talk page that self-identification trumps objective evidence to the contrary, right? But if Sullivan is wrong about Barro, and Barro is what Barro says he is, then Sullivan can be wrong with respect to his application of the "conservative" label here, no? The bottom line here is that Sullivan is using the term conservative in a U.S. context and if Sullivan were not, he would say so. The way you want the first paragraph to read, the typical reader will assume that he is anti-Obama, and creating such a false impression is just plain wrong. If people get the wrong impression because the truth is more nuanced, then that nuance should be spelled out. We are an unbiased informative service, not Andrew Sullivan's private public relations platform.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator and MarkBernstein, I refer you again to my second bullet point above, which is clear evidence that Sullivan has redefined "liberal" and "conservative" in his own lexicon since Obama first ran for President. Wikipedia does not redefine "conservative" just because Andrew Sullivan has done so. Show us other writers who have defined Obama as more "conservative" than Romney if Sullivan's definition is commonly accepted. Finding another "conservative" who has complained, like Sullivan, that the Washington Post "has been co-opted by the necon right" is beside the point unless that "conservative" is notable in the same conversational fora as Sullivan (i.e. not on the other side of the world in a different media market). If Sullivan's definition of "conservative" is unconventional then full disclosure means stating that when the unqualified claim that Sullivan is "conservative" is made. If "self-described" is "bad writing" then introduce your own phrasing that makes it clear that Sullivan has applied the "conservative" label to persons who have rejected it and in circumstances where the label is contrary to "conventional wisdom." Even if there wasn't considerable evidence that Romney is more conservative than Obama, there ought to be cases where Sullivan has been cited by entities such as Wikipedia to support the claim that Obama is more "conservative" than his Republican Presidential opponent if Sullivan is truly an authoritative source here.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

"Conservative", just as "liberal" or "right wing" and "left wing" are not fixed terms. That is where the problem comes from here. We are still arguing at cross-purposes. Sullivan is a conservative, in the sense of skeptical of centralized power, progress, and human goodness. He is an incrementalist and a skeptic of human reason's ability to solve all problems. So, he is very much a conservative in the traditional mold. He may have some policy differences with the bulk of American conservatives at the moment, but that does not mean he suddenly isn't a conservative, despite having been so all his life. A phrasing along the lines of "Andrew Sullivan is a conservative, although some American conservatives do not recognize him as such" is the best solution IMO. Then go into the details later in the article (as I have tried to do over the last week or so). If half of the effort we spent arguing about this was spent fleshing out the article, we'd be better off. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

"...in the sense of..." is frankly off-topic on this Talk page. In a certain metaphysical sense Sullivan, you, and I are all God's children, but such philosophical or theological statements do not address the particular concrete issue of whether the typical reader is being led into making incorrect assumptions by how the lede reads. The typical reader is not placed in 19th century England or, for that matter, on a cloud pondering the limitations of human reason. The typical reader just came across something Sullivan said about Obama or the Republican party and came to Wikipedia for a quick indication as to where Sullivan stands in terms of his identification with the one or the other. Sullivan once called Obama "liberal. Make no mistake about that." He much more recently claimed that Obama was in fact more conservative than Romney. My point here is quite straightforward: Sullivan's 2007 terminology is the commonly accepted terminology in the context of the sphere in which Sullivan is influential. His subsequent "migration" is unique to Sullivan and does NOT reflect a change in the common usage. Wikipedia follows the common usage, meaning we don't continue to hold to an obsolete description because Sullivan has unilaterally defined it. If your view is correct than why has Josh Barro disputed it by rejecting the conservative label? "...in the sense of..." may explain WHY Sullivan's self-describes as conservative but it does not address WHETHER he self-describes as conservative. The "why" can, and should be, fully elaborated on in the body of the article.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you are being rather narrow in your interpretation of what a "typical reader" wants. We should be fair in our description of Sullivan about what reliable sources, and he himself say, and I think that is what our "typical reader" wants. What this has to do with the 19th century I don't know. Sullivan has explained what he means by conservatism, and it is not some sort of outlying definition. It has a lengthy and well-established tradition accepted by many from across the political spectrum. Of course, definitions shift and change over time. No one disputes that. But you will have to bring forward a lot more sources to show me that the traditional definition of conservative has changed so much that it no longer applies to Sullivan. So, I would propose that you try to make a comprehensive listing of those sources on this talk page, and we can then evaluate them without having to be so hypothetical here. Also, an article is supposed to take a broader POV, not simply the POV of his "context". I think it would be a mistake to simply put a tit for tat "scorecard" of what "side" Sullivan is on. His whole point is that he rejects that kind of simple categorisation. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

How am I being narrow, other than with respect to not having the article as a whole misrepresent the subject by presenting him within a framework in which he is not notable instead of the framework in which he is notable? Where have I suggested that the article cannot go on at lengths about Sullivan and conservatism? At issue here is FKC's and MarkB's insistence on narrowing Sullivan down to "conservative" in the lede with no qualification. Sullivan obviously isn't rejecting categorization if he categorizes himself, Obama, Josh Barro, and others but sure, we can agree to not categorize him at all. If he is going to be categorized, however, it ought to be explained that however he categorizes himself, "conservative" does not mean the general skepticism of Obama that it usually means with respect to the vast majority of "conservative" American pundits. re what this has to do with the 19th century, very little, since Sullivan is notable in our lifetimes, not prior to that, and notable as a commentator on U.S. politics. re "Sullivan has explained what he means by conservatism, and it is not some sort of outlying definition", besides the fact you have not addressed the fact that Sullivan has also called Obama more conservative than Romney and there are other instances where Sullivan's usage has been rejected, I certainly have no objections at all to giving full space to Sullivan explaining just what he means the body of the article. But, again, the edits at dispute here allow for no such elaboration or "explanation." If it's not "simple" as you say then Wikipedia should not make a simple declaration in the lede, no? I propose that you try to make a comprehensive listing of those post-2008 sources which refer to Sullivan as "conservative" without qualifying that as a self-description or otherwise noting that Sullivan is not in the same category as most other "conservatives" weighing in on U.S. politics. I am not proposing labeling "Sullivan" liberal here, I'm rather saying Wikipedia should be less categorical. The burden of proof is on the party insisting on a less qualified statement. Removing "self-described" makes Sullivan's "conservativism" an absolute objective fact, and is accordingly far more categorical than with a qualifier.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, well let's not get too far into the weeds. In principle I have no objection to qualifying the statement in the lede. I have already proposed a wording. I think we should stay away from mentioning the republican party, as we are not talking about parties, rather political ideologies. Also, "self-described" is not accurate, as many others do describe him as a conservative as well. "Andrew Sullivan is a conservative, although some contemporary American conservatives do not accept him as such." - that should be ok IMO. It basically presents him as a conservative (which the overwhelming majority of sources agree with) while accepting that a certain vocal faction doesn't accept that. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Your phrasing still suggests that "'conservative' is whatever Andrew Sullivan is" since the only qualification added is that "some" do not see him for what he claims to currently be. The sources do not, in fact, support "some." The sources support "almost all," and if almost all do not accept him as such, then it would be more accurate to say "self-described." It is not a matter of just not being accepted by the "crazies" or "a certain vocal faction." In a sympathetic piece on the NY Times website Ross Douthat calls him a "self-described conservative." But that's an opinion piece, you might say. Well the mainstream media has also called Sullivan "a self-described political conservative". But that's a FOX News report, you might say, as if FOX News is not a reliable source. OK well Buzzfeed refers to "the self-identified conservative-libertarian writer Andrew Sullivan". Is BuzzFeed part of the right wing echo chamber? Sociology professor Jeffrey C. Goldfarb writes "...Andrew Sullivan, perhaps also David Frum. (Anyone else?) But because these two are so guided, few, if any, conservatives recognize them as comrades in thought." If you are going to replace this "few, if any" with "some" can you find a source for "some" and explain why it is a superior source to "few, if any"? Sullivan recently conducted a survey on his blog and the number of readers who self-identified as "liberal" outnumbered those who identified as "conservative" by more than 8 to 1. How many genuinely conservative bloggers have such an overwhelmingly liberal readership?

re "we are not talking about parties, rather political ideologies," a reference to something at hand allows the reader to get the quick impression that an article lede should provide, as opposed to continuing with an abstract debate about what constitutes "conservatism" that could go around in circles in terms of resolving the edit dispute at hand and cannot be fulsomely explained in the limited space afforded by an article lede. You suggest more effort be "spent fleshing out the article" but what are the odds that Salon's observation that Sullivan is "the most prominent Trig doubter" will be added to the article without dispute when "self-described conservative" can't go in despite the fact "Sullivan, a self-identified conservative who supports President Obama and has criticized Romney regularly..." appears on ABC News? "Self-identified conservative who supports President Obama and has criticized [Republicans] regularly" is so obviously accurate and informative one can only speculate as to the motivations of those who insist that such language is unacceptable. Given that even David Weigel thinks Sullivan was embarrassing himself with the Trig Birtherism thing there is no point in trying to "flesh out the article" with anything that Sullivan or his many liberal readers might not want included prior to getting agreement on what WP:NPOV and WP:RS mean.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I can find plenty of independent sources calling him a conservative. On a cursory look, Bruce Bartlett, "Other dissident conservatives, such as David Frum and Andrew Sullivan, have told me that they are banned from Fox as well. More epistemic closure."; Nicholas Wapshott "Sullivan is no leftie. An avowed Reagan and Thatcher fan who moved to Washington  from Britain and became a U.S. citizen to more closely involve himself in conservative thinking"; The Washington Post; Maisie Alison "Post-movement conservatives are not political operatives. Unorthodox writers like Ross Douthat, Andrew Sullivan, and Conor Friedersdorf can be loosely described as Burkeans." I'm sure we can get into a tit for tat battle of people who do and do not think he is a conservative, so quantifications like "most" and "some" or "many" are rather hard to nail down. Also, just because someone says that he is "self identified" does not necessarily mean they doubt his characterisation. It's just a way of side stepping the debate, so unless the person specifically says they question his identification, I don't think that phrase in itself should be used as evidence they don't accept the claim.

re GOP: Identifying the GOP with "conservatism" is problematic. Many people, not least Sullivan, do not accept the claim. So, why not just say "conservatives" and make it simpler?

re trig rumours: why not add it, and see? I don't see what the problem would be. It is verifiable and not shrouded in terminological problems like this issue. I would certainly defend inclusion, and using this issue as a reason not to move forward on that front seems like an excuse to me. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Bruce Bartlett. Romney's tax plan to broaden the base while cutting the rate should have been right down Bartlett's lane since, as Bartlett admitted, "a change that holds revenues constant while lowering marginal tax rates – the rate on the last dollar earned – should increase growth. That is because, in economist-speak, both the income and the substitution effects are pushing in the same direction." But because Bartlett remains so peeved about what liberal blogger Kevin Drum calls his "excommunication from the conservative movement", he had to criticize the Romney plan anyway, saying it wouldn't be enacted as proposed. The point being that Bartlett and Sullivan actually go out of their way to criticize a conservative instead of a liberal. This behaviour makes them heroes to liberals, with Paul Krugman praising Bartlett for converting to Keynesianism, saying "I have in the past been a bit hard on Bartlett, wondering why it took him so long to see the obvious" and Daily Kos giving Barlett "kudos" because he went on Hardball to call for tax hikes. Chris Matthews actually cautioned Barlett on "a good chunk of the Republican caucus is either stupid, crazy, ignorant or craven cowards" saying that's "tougher words" than Matthews would use. But this is all beside the point anyway since the quote you supply pegs Bartlett as a "dissident conservative" as opposed to a "conservative"! Calling Sullivan a "dissident conservative" would be a vast improvement over "conservative" although this is more loaded language than "self-identified" and I think David Frum would be a much better example of "dissident conservative." Frum actually takes on liberals and Obama from time to time.

re the Maisie Allison piece (I note you are going to the same source again here, The American Conservative). Allison does not, in fact, introduce Sullivan as a conservative but as a "Burkean," later noting that Sullivan is "a committed Obamacon." If the source is good for one phrase it's good for another, no? In any case, there's grave doubt about Allison's whole taxonomy here. Conor Friedersdorf, for example, says he is "in no way a movement conservative... I'm not part of that category...". A photo of Reihan Salam is included with Andrew Sullivan as if they should be grouped together yet look at Salam versus Sullivan head to head here. These two are clearly not in the same category (apparently to Sullivan's disappointment given his reaction to Salam's statement that he identifies with the Tea Party) and Sullivan's performance as a TV talking head is typical in that it is indistinguishable from a liberal.

As for that opinion piece by Dana Milbank from early 2006, that says very little about what Sullivan believes today. Sullivan has changed, even by his own account. Look, there is a more straightforward way to approach this issue than cherrypicking sources (I'm sure someone somewhere introduced Sullivan as "conservative" within the past couple of years, the issue is whether that is representative of the sources). Let's just take a story from today's wires. The Atlantic says that the Employee Non-Discrimination Act "has become a benchmark for conservatives." Now where is Sullivan relative to that benchmark? In support of ENDA, of course, and the same story even quotes Sullivan to challenge something Boehner said in opposition to ENDA. Sullivan talks about ENDA on his own website and says that in coming to support ENDA he has "changed my mind over the years" and "My objections twenty years ago are now moot." Sullivan's support for Reagan and Thatcher, which you quote here, is equally moot. Are you going to write the Atlantic and tell them that they ought to issue a correction and change "conservatives" to "radical extremists" and take away the "conservative" label from the Heritage Foundation and apply it instead to Andrew Sullivan?

re "just because someone says that he is "self identified" does not necessarily mean they doubt his characterisation." I agree. So why are you opposed to "self-identified"? "Conservative" is quite obviously NOT simpler than a reference to the GOP since there is no dispute that Sullivan is opposed to Republicans and it is very straightforward to state Sullivan's opposition. Again, look at the sources and it's clear that most of them are like today's Atlantic story in that they avoid putting the Sullivan into the "conservative" box and if they do feel they need to do that it is usually qualified. The whole problem is precluded if Sullivan is simply identified as an Obama supporter and/or a critic of Republicans.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think we're getting rather too much into the field of original research and synthesis with some of your otherwise interesting discussion. In the interests of keeping this discussion manageable, I won't address everything you have written, but I have indeed read it with interest. Using "dissident conservative" cannot really be used usefully to describe his political orientation in the lede, though it perhaps could be discussed later in the article with some explanation. I am opposed to using "self-identified" because it isn't the best wording to respect wiki policies. It is an acceptable journalistic short hand when they don't want to get into the nitty gritty of his entire political philosophy, but that is what we are here to do... I could live with "Burkean conservative", or perhaps more accurately "conservative in the tradition of Oakeshott and Burke" or some similar variant. See also a discussion of Sullivan's in which he certainly seems to line himself up with Burke. Simply identifying him as an Obama supporter and critic of Republicans is both inaccurate (he has his disagreements with Obama certainly and has in the past supported Republicans for most of his life) and vastly over-simplistic (what about issues from his home country, what about issues outside that simple relationship?, what about before Obama became president?). Surely his many years of writing about politics cannot simply be boiled down to being an Obama fan boy? Peregrine981 (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As someone who's opposed to the current wording, I can absolutely get behind some formulation of "Burkean." Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, shall we label every politician and political philosopher in history with the formula, "…though some American conservatives do not recognize him as such?" We can find plenty of examples of sources who regarded Nixon, Reagan, Buckley, Eisenhower, and Disraeli as "not real conservatives." Perhaps we'll only accept Ted Cruz's personal definition of a real conservative, and Joe McCarthy's definition of a real American? This would get even sillier for the other team: was Hugo Black a liberal? Harry Truman? Was LaFollette a real Republican? It would never end. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

"{Should we] only accept Ted Cruz's personal definition of a real conservative"? No, yet you insist that we only accept Andrew Sullivan's personal definition of a real conservative! Apparently we are supposed to call Sullivan, along with his kindred spirit Obama, the true conservative with Romney and the rest of Sullivan's interlocutors (Krauthammer? Reihan Salam?) some sort of non-conservative. It is indeed "silly." What's not silly is using the COMMON usage. Sullivan has applied the "conservative" label to himself and Obama in a U.S. context, explicitly contrasting Mitt Romney not to some 19th century figure but to the 21st century U.S. politician Barack Obama. Is his usage common or not? If not, we use the common usage, the usage the reader is most likely to expect, instead of his usage.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, instead of engaging on this Talk page and answering specific questions you are edit warring with the edit summary "get agreement on the Talk page first." In fact Wikipedia has an established policy here, and it's that in the case of no consensus the page reverts to back to what it was before. This is why the Chelsea Manning article remained Bradley Manning after hundreds of Wikipedia editors weighed in on whether to rename that article. There was no consensus there so it remained Bradley Manning despite the call of bigwigs like Wikimedia Foundation head Sue Gardner to promptly change to Chelsea Manning. Bring this particular dispute to an admin managed process like that and you'd get the same result absent a consensus, which here would mean a return to "self-described conservative." In other words, despite edit warring by refusing to engage here on the Talk page, you are misrepresenting Wikipedia policy by wrongly implying what the default would be absent consensus. I note here a compromise would be to make no claim about whether Sullivan is conservative or not in the lede but you've rejected that as well, without any effort to explain why that particular solution is unacceptable. It's just easier to edit war, I suppose.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the version of the article you reverted away from was the stable version. So please leave it at that. I'm not seeing consensus here for your preferred version. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

This is simply not true. "He describes himself as a political conservative, though he has been at odds with the Republican Party on many issues" or something very close to that was how the lede read for many months, at least half a year, and many article revisions until you came along this summer and changed it, and without any effort to get consensus for your change. It was not many article revisions later before your changes were disputed, and another editor raised the issue of your changes on this Talk page. Your changes have been disputed since this summer and continue to be disputed. That one other editor, MarkBernstein, should happen to agree with you does not constitute a consensus for your view that the lede should declare without qualification that Sullivan is "conservative." If you wish to develop a consensus, you could start by engaging here on the Talk page and addressing the points that myself and other editors have made. If you do not wish to build a consensus, then please leave this article at its stable version.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope, there's at least two other editors who agree with him. Gamaliel (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The majority still does not, when one makes a good faith effort to try and infer the view of the various editors to the article even if they haven't weighed in on this Talk page (why was the language stable for so long if the changes are widely supported?). In any case, at the end of day Wikipedia is supposed to be guided by policy, articulated reasoning, and sourcing, not editor votes. If you can find the time to pipe in here with your vote, I would think you could find the time to provide some of the former as well.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I have made my position clear, with references to policy, from the beginning of this matter, and that position still holds even if I don't see fit to reply to every comment you post here. I don't know what method you are using to divine the will of the majority, but surely that must begin with reading previous comments on this page. Gamaliel (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The only apparent reference to policy I've seen from you has been to suggest that BLP implies that articles about living people should describe their subjects as those subjects want to be described and that is not actually a reference to policy because nowhere in the policy is such a sweeping interpretation supported. As often happens in these cases, the same editors expressing worry about maligning the subject of the article at hand have no problem maligning others, in your case by suggesting that Ramesh Ponnuru (and essentially every other serious conservative in America) is an "ideologue" on the "fringe," because Ponnuru has said "I know no serious conservative who considers [Andrew Sullivan] a conservative." As if stating that someone is a "self-described conservative" is somehow more offensive than calling someone an "ideologue." What's notable about the Ponnuru remark is that he made the observation way back in July 2006, before even Sullivan's first encounter with Obama and what Sullivan calls "the early twitches of my political/intellectual migration"! As long as you insist that Wikipedia share your view that the conservative/GOP establishment in the U.S. has been taken over by extremists and ideologues then of course you are going to insist that Wikipedia present Andrew Sullivan as the one true conservative who is just taking issue with the wingnuts trying to hijack the conservative movement away from him. Let's stop pretending that this dispute is about something other than trying to place Sullivan on the right wing in order to portray Romney, the rest of the Republican party, and U.S. conservatives in general as extremists.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

So where do I get a crystal ball like yours so I can divine the motives of other editors? Gamaliel (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It didn't take a crystal ball to see you place all conservatives who don't deem Sullivan a fellow conservative on the "fringe" because you did so quite explicitly. How about playing the ball instead of the man, that is, addressing the substance of what I and other conservatives are saying instead of just rejecting our views because we are "ideologues"? How about considering the idea that no one person gets to define who is a serious conservative and who's on the "fringe," either me, you, or Andrew Sullivan? Step away from this preconception of yours and then we can just follow what the sources say.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

When you say "follow what the sources say", you really mean "follow what my preferred sources say". You can't say "no one person gets to define who is a serious conservative" and then advocate that we let Ramesh Ponnuru decide who is and isn't a serious conservative. Gamaliel (talk) 07:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Where do I get that crystal ball that allows you to divine what other editors "really mean"? When did I say Ramesh Ponnuru is anything more than ONE voice? One is still greater than zero, and zero is the number of conservatives that you have pointed to who have said that while Sullivan may be pro-Obama he is still a fellow conservative. Zero is also the number of times that you have countered an instance of "self-described" in the sources by citing a post-"migration" instance where Sullivan is introduced to the reader as conservative without any qualification. Zero is also the number of times you have pointed to cases where Sullivan's usage of "conservative" is agreed to such as when he deemed Obama more conservative than Romney. If we shouldn't just follow my sources (and we shouldn't) the question becomes where are yours? If going through the sources to ensure that the "median" source is being represented as opposed to a few cherry-picked sources is too laborious a process I note that you could always just stop edit warring and leave the article at the version it was for so many months.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Peregrine981 has presented plenty of sources above. Gamaliel (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with him, for the record, and I thought we had a good consensus with linking to British conservative. I'm not going to be especially happy with any version that has Sullivan described as a conservative without caveats in the lead. "Self-described" works for me, British conservative works for me, some sort of statement on how Sullivan is at odds with American conservative thought works for me, I don't care much about how we solve it as long as we solve it, as the current situation assumes there's no question about it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Bdell makes solid policy-based points and I agree with Thagor. I am uncomfortable with a lede that has conservative without caveats. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

An alternate path

Since we're not getting far above: do we need to have his ideology in the lead at all? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we do, because we're an encyclopedia and it's our job to inform readers. Leaving his ideology out of the lead may make life easier for certain editors, but it does nothing to help inform actual readers of the encyclopedia. Let's not dumb things down too much. I hope a way can be found to fend off the "he's not a real conservative" crowd. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, the reason this is a continued issue is because the sources conflict and his ideology conflicts with conservative thought. By asserting he's a conservative, we mislead. If we call him a liberal, we mislead. We discuss his ideology in detail further down in the article. I'm not seeing how the current formulation in either direction helps inform anyone. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

In some ways, it does, in others, it does not. So which elements make you a conservative and which do not? Why are we setting ourselves up as judge? Gamaliel (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

These are my thoughts as well. Gamaliel (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Why this interest in extending a courtesy to self-define (without calling it a self-definition) to Sullivan when Sullivan isn't willing to extend that courtesy to others? Sullivan has called David Brooks "a closet liberal". What's most distinguishing and consistent about Sullivan is, in fact, his support for Obama. In early 2010 he was on the Chris Matthews Show and Matthews asked "We put it to The Matthews Meter, 12 of our regulars. If unemployment stays up there around 10 percent until the elections this November, could President Obama still get credit for his jobs push, all this talk about jobs? Eleven say no, it won't work. Just one says yes. That's you, Andrew. Mr. SULLIVAN: Yes, because I think people see that he's sincere, he's trying." Not even "Matthews Meter" liberals like Howard Finemore, who in one of his MSNBC appearances told Keith Olbermann that Obama's speeches are Mount Rushmore worthy, would go as far as Sullivan in reaching for excuses like "he's trying."--Brian Dell (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. We don't treat a particular article differently because we judge that the subject of an article has acted in a particular way. Sullivan's comments about David Brooks (which must rank among the stupidest things Sullivan's ever said) are as irrelevant as Ramesh Ponnuru's comments about Andrew Sullivan. And the idea that the thing "most distinguishing and consistent about Sullivan" is "his support for Obama" is just nuts. Sullivan's been a conservative - Oakshottean, Burkean, Tory, idiosyncratic, whatever - pundit since Obama was in law school. Please stop making arguments as if Sullivan's career started in the Obama administration. See WP:RECENT. Gamaliel (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you write HuffPo, then, and complain that it is "just nuts" to introduce Sullivan as "known for steadfastly supporting President Obama" and not say anything about his "conservatism"? Are you going to complain to Conor Friedersdorf for writing a column that repeatedly refers to and quotes Sullivan and states only that Sullivan is one of "Obama's staunchest supporters"? Do you know Sullivan better than Friedersdorf does, despite the fact Friedersdorf was a Sullivan intern and Dish "underblogger" (to use Sullivan's term)? Glenn Greenwald has noted that Sullivan "all but crusades for Obama’s instantaneous Sainthood" (while commenting that "it’s dangerous, literally, to be willing to twist one’s own views this way to glorify whatever the leader does at any given moment"). The fact is that "Sullivan has moved steadily leftward over time" as liberal writer Eric Alterman has observed. If you think all these comments about Sullivan are "irrelevant" I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This is just a hodgepodge of quotes that doesn't address what I said at all. Gamaliel (talk) 05:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not he supports Obama is not the issue here. Using his support to imply that he is no longer a conservative is the very essence of original research. Please go ahead and include these stories in the article, but they are not directly relevant to the discussion at hand. I'd be interested if you, Brian Dell, agree to the concrete proposals below. If you don't comment further I think we can presume your agreement? Then we can hopefully move forward with putting some of all the effort expended on the talk page into the actual article. Peregrine981 (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No, the issue is not whether Sullivan is "conservative" or not. You are narrowing down the issue to that when the real issue is broader: how to introduce the subject in the lede. Why one particular litmus test ("conservative" without any qualifications) has been elevated above all others is beyond me. There are many potential ways of introducing the subject that could be employed if editors would stop insisting that a highly disputed term, and only that term without any qualification, be used. The fact I continue to oppose the use of "conservative" without either qualifying it with "self-described/self-identified" or with a reference to where he usually comes down with respect to a typical contemporary U.S. political dispute does not mean I am not open to an enormous range of other solutions. The lede for the David Brooks article does not make any reference to whether Brooks is liberal or conservative yet that article remains stable. Why bring this battle here? Trying to shoehorn a subject into an ideological box and then refusing to entertain any qualification or elaboration with respect to the categorization is, of course, the perfect way to create an ongoing controversy that wastes enormous amounts of editor time.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a solution, exactly along the lines you suggest below, which for some reason you are not engaging with one way or the other. No one is "insisting that a highly disputed term, and only that term without any qualification, be used." Not sure if you somehow missed it, but there seems to be consensus on "Burkean conservative" or some variant thereof outlined below. Since Sullivan is an explicitly political commentator, and very explicitly labels himself as conservative, and the topic has been the topic of some discussion in RS, we cannot ignore his political affiliation in the lede. I don't mind putting a mention of his strong support for Obama in the lede. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you endorse, then, the promised edit war begin now? I have a better idea: a 60 day moratorium on the question of whether or not Sullivan is a sufficient conservative. MarkBernstein (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Source for "Burkean"

The source cited merely says Unorthodox writers like Ross Douthat, Andrew Sullivan, and Conor Friedersdorf can be loosely described as Burkeans. An archived discussion (on page 3) cites this page where Sullivan basically says he's a Burkean. But as far as I could see, the page does not explicitly identify itself as having been written by him, rather than having the self-described Burkean be some guest writer on his site. So even though I don't think the claim is contentious, I do think it would be good to have a better source. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Catholicism

An IP editor questions Sullivan's claim to catholicism, a topic that has been discussed here before (See archives). If Sullivan had been formally and officially excommunicated -- and if that excommunication had been covered by reliable sources -- the canon law question might perhaps be pertinent. However, as the matter has not been adjudged, it is not our place to do so. Sullivan says he is a Catholic, and wikipedia policy lends greatest weight to published self-avowal, especially in the case of living persons. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to put an hidden note there so IP editors stop making that change without coming to the talk page first. Gamaliel (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Against capital punishment?

I don't have the time to watch the two-hour video that is the basis for the article's statement that he is "liberal" when it comes to, among other things, capital punishment. I recall reading a Sullivan essay years ago titled "Death and Justice" which clearly defined his support for capital punishment. Seems implausible that he was against it. 184.7.175.199 (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that a video is not the best source. ImprovingWiki (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Move blogging section

I suggest we move the blogging section to a subsection of the career section. It is, after all, a significant part of his career, not just a hobby or something. Fnordware (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You can't really call it part of his career, as he isn't payed for doing it. And he no longer blogs anyway. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Nationality, occupation

The lede states "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...He announced his retirement from blogging in 2015." Three things are incorrect about this: Sullivan now holds permanent US residency, so he would no longer be considered British, he's described as a former editor, and since "he announced his retirement from blogging", he's no longer a blogger. He is, however, now a columnist for New York Magazine. I suggest that the first sentence be changed to "Andrew Michael Sullivan (born 10 August 1963) is a British-American author and columnist", full-stop. Bricology (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)