Talk:Neoconservatism/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Neoconservatism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
BLP violations
Wikipedia has VERY strict rules on wp:BLP "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." this includes a asking a "question" that suggests antisemitism. Rjensen (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- This page is now protected from IP editing. TFD (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Terminology
In God and Man at Yale, in the section on the Yale Daily News, william F. Buckley observes: "The chairmen of the 1948 and 1949 boards of the News were, roughly speaking, noncommittal, neoconservatives." He does not bother to define the term, because it was already generally recognized. Failing to acknowledge that makes this article extremely misleading. Furthermore, in Neoconservatism: The Biography of a Movement by Justin Vaïsse, p.7 we read: "This first age of neoconservatism was built around two journals: The Public Interest ... 1965, and Commentary ... in 1970." Cerberus (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- It was a casual neologism of which Buckley produced many. The term as used in this article comes decades later. Rjensen (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- People have often added the prefix "neo" to various words and the meaning is dependent on context. "Neo" just means new. Sometimes though it becomes an established term to describe a topic. Buckley obviously was not talking about the subject of this article, since it had not yet come into existence. TFD (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Odd tone
This article needs a rewrite. The tone makes it sound like the Democrats and Liberal "Jews" are responsible for Neo Conservative Policy. They were not, its radical conservatism that caused this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:160:EB08:0:0:0:0:C (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- the RS agree that liberal Democrats (most of them Jews) formed the neocon movement and dominated it. Rjensen (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
List of neoconservatives
There are now users trying to remove people from the list on the pretext that these figures nominally disavowed neoconservatism after the unpopularity of the Iraq War. Their disavowal does not erase history, and the criteria for the list (which I did not write incidentally) is people who were neoconservative for a significant period of time. I just had to undo the Francis Fukuyama edit because -for God's sake - Fukuyama was a neocon for twenty years during the height of the movement. Let's use our heads folks.GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think there should be a list because it was not a formal organization and therefore not always clear who was or was not a member. TFD (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Neoconservatism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121120095615/http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryAmerican/Since1945/?view=usa&ci=9780195036626 to http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryAmerican/Since1945/?view=usa&ci=9780195036626
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040404193525/http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/rumsfeld-openletter.htm to http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/rumsfeld-openletter.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090614072646/http://canadiancoalition.com/adbusters01/ to http://canadiancoalition.com/adbusters01/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040404193525/http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/rumsfeld-openletter.htm to http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/rumsfeld-openletter.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
John Bolton
Why isn't he listed under notable people?
Sammartinlai (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Bolton was discussed at Talk:Neoconservatism/Archive 7#No Original Research and BLP concerns. I have always found the list a problem because there is no clear guide to who is a neoconservative, especially after we advance past its origins and move from intellectuals to politicians. TFD (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yet the list remains with people Bolton actively agreed with. Sammartinlai (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Suggested improvement of 2010s description of neoconservatism
The idea that the neocons were out of power/fashion during the 2010s under the Obama administration is quite questionable. The State Department, headed by Hillary Clinton, carried on many of the activities around the world associated with neoconservatives, at arguably even a greater level. The activities of the State Department often get overlooked, which was especially highlighted in a recent episode of the Congressional Dish podcast. cf. https://congressionaldish.com/cd175-state-of-war/ ~~ Steve Wilkinson - Wednesday, June 13, 2018 ~~
- The description of the neocons as disenchanted with the supposed "pacifism" of Democrats is a gross simplification, not to say cartoonish caricature. Needs to be modified Mballen (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Milton Friedman?
Why is Milton Friedman in the image for this article? He is not a neoconservative and even a cursory analysis of neocon positions is proof of this - increased military spending and intervention, protectionism, social conservatism, and at times economic interventionism. All of these are things Friedman was vehemently opposed to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.0.194 (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- The image is for "Conservatism in the United States" of which this article is part of a series. None of the others pictured were AFAIK neoconservatives either. TFD (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
(Neo)conservative foreign policy and Iraq/end of Cold War
It seems to me there is huge potential for expanding/clarifying/developing an understanding of conservative foreign policy, neo or otherwise, in terms of what it is and the contradictions between different conservative thinkers. For example, Jean Kirkpatrick argued essentially that the Communist Bloc was on one side, the rest of the world, which was either democratic or could evolve toward democracy, was on the other, and that Carter and other proponents of hostility to authoritarian regimes were directing friendly fire at their own side in the Cold War. As noted elsewhere in the article there was a sense for neoconservatives that America was different and that there was a certain morality that ought to distinguish America in its conduct, for example that it will not commit aggression or that it will not ignore violations of human rights (two things which might come into conflict when considering what to do about an authoritarian regime committing crimes against its people). The Kirkpatrick school of thought was that change should be gradual; it was the Communist totalitarians who wanted radical change and were the ones threatening international peace and stability. By contrast the end of the Cold War saw the US liberated from having to worry about the USSR or any severe or immediate consequences to a bolder more interventionist foreign policy. When Iraq, essentially an authoritarian regime, misbehaved, many Americans in both parties and across the ideological spectrum, including some conservatives, wanted to punish Iraq. After the liberation of Kuwait there was then the question of occupying Iraq with some including Cheney opposing such a move. Later he and others were advocating more radical change in the Middle East using military force if necessary.
I don't have a plan for how to tease out all these contradictory strands/currents/schools of thought among neoconservatives about the purpose of American foreign policy, the attitude America should have toward other political systems, the kinds of change the US should be seeking in other countries (radical change vs gradual change/constructive engagement), under what circumstances (Cold war vs post Cold War, totalitarian vs authoritarian, etc.), using what means (military force vs economic sanctions). But it seems there is an opportunity and a need to develop/refine/solidify/clarify and lay out more systematically how these different ideas have developed over time.Andrewthree68 (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
John Bolton is not neo con
John Bolton is not a Neocon
In John Bolton, Donald Trump has an adviser who’s radical even by neocon standards
Scarier Than a Neoconserative
John Bolton, the new national security advisor, is a radical nationalist
Who’s Afraid of John Bolton?
The Welcome Humiliation of John Bolton
“Neocon” as a Slur
John Bolton Is Back. And so Are His Dangerous Ideas.
U.S. Allies React to Bolton’s Appointment
John Bolton completes Trump's America First goals
The Neoconservative Comeback
John Bolton’s appointment is a warning to America’s enemies
The National Security Adviser Has No Heart
- https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/tucker-carlson-versus-john-bolton/592372/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.129.20.108 (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Why conservatives are worried about John Bolton
Ben Shapiro is not a neocon.
He said so himself on Dave Rubin's show (29:32 Trump, Trans, Religion, Abortion, and Tax Cuts | Ben Shapiro | POLITICS | Rubin Report posted on Jan 3, 2018). Over the years I have seen a lot of problems with that section of the page, if you want to label and add anyone here do so after you have info where they describe themselves as such, not when someone else does that for them. And make sure to check your sources, because they have their own agenda and biases and some don't even qualify at all, once I saw InfoWars as a source here for a lot of people described as neocons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.242.213 (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
By that standard, Adam Smith wasn't a classical liberal; he never described himself as such. Guarapiranga (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)if you want to label and add anyone here do so after you have info where they describe themselves as such, not when someone else does that for them.
- That's debatable and my main point stands without it, because Shapiro isn't a neocon by definition and he specifically says he is not one (in the video that I "linked" and you didn't watch). So, if you like to keep false info here I can't do much. There are other people that shouldn't be here, but for now I hope the Shapiro issue is resolved. 37.25.87.226 (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- 1.
Shapiro isn't a neocon by definition
- 2.
He specifically says he is not one
- These are two different arguments. The 1st one is valid, the 2nd one isn't.
in the video that I "linked" and you didn't watch
- Can you prove your assertions? Guarapiranga (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- 1.
- Actually he wasn't. His economic theories were selectively adopted by classical liberals. I would remove Shapiro because he is not significant to neoconservatism. TFD (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Then you should remove him from here. Guarapiranga (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- That's debatable and my main point stands without it, because Shapiro isn't a neocon by definition and he specifically says he is not one (in the video that I "linked" and you didn't watch). So, if you like to keep false info here I can't do much. There are other people that shouldn't be here, but for now I hope the Shapiro issue is resolved. 37.25.87.226 (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Conservative liberalism related?
My first visit to the Neoconservatism article, I'd like to point out to regular editors here that this line appears in the intro of the Conservative liberalism article...
Neoconservatism has also been identified as an ideological relative or twin to conservative liberalism,[4]...
...but the Neoconservatism article makes no similar mention, which left me wondering if it was true or not. I came to this article via that link. 5Q5|✉ 13:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Poor sources under "Notable people associated with neoconservatism" section
I have removed some entries and cites under the "Notable people associated with neoconservatism" section. Some of the references here were pretty bad: blogs and op-eds (from HuffPo, Reason, etc.), and the like. The Neoconservative movement has been covered extensively in good sources (like books published by university presses) and there is no reason to use these bottom-of-the-barrel websites. Some that I removed are straight-up fringe - "newswithviews.com" and "thenewamerican.com" are two examples. These are not good sources in any case, and especially not for BLP-related material. Neutralitytalk 13:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I find the reference to "anti-anticommunism" in the article confusing, although the point being made is a valid one. It took me 30 seconds to unravel that one as I'm not as smart as someone like Podhoretz. The sentence containing that term should be rewritten.184.180.87.188 (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Ronald Reagan was not a neocon!
The listing of Ronald Reagan as a neocon is preposterous! Now George H.W. Bush is a different story with his unnecessary interventions in Panama or the war with Iraq in 1990 with a massive invasion of 400,000 American troops is exactly what Neocons do. Reagan only limited his policy to rebuilding deterrence of the Soviets and a quick incursion into Granada where American citizens and students were caught in a conflict started by Cuba. Boom in and out and it proved our military was so atrophied under Carters management the predecessor to JSOC was incompetent and couldn’t communicate with other US forces and lost members of the Navy SEAL teams on the Beaches. Libya and Quadafi blew up a passenger liner over Lockerby Scotland and we responded by bombing his palace but no major invasions or regime changes. 50.53.176.7 (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Reagan was no neocon!
True he started out in his misguided youth as a Liberal Democrat until the marxists tried to take control of the Screan Actors Guild and other Hollywood Guilds in the 40s and 50s but got enlightened and switched sides. Watch his GE speeches of the 1960s and you will see he did believe in a strong national defense but not constant interventions. 50.53.176.7 (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)