Jump to content

Talk:Neoconservatism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Post-Neoconservative era

Political monitors throughout the early 21st century have been preparing for a post-Neoconservative American era.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ "After Neoconservatism", FRANCIS FUKUYAMA. New York Times. February 19, 2006. Accessed June 8, 2011
  2. ^ "A Post Neo-Conservative Foreign Policy", Don McKinnon. Commonwealth Secretariat. June 19, 2007. Accessed June 8, 2011

Cleaning up, rebuilding

There's a lot of unsourced, somewhat gossipy ungrounded quotes and other undue material, much with "dubious" tags, and a redundant and superfluous section or two, etc., that I've cleaned up, rebuilding using the material where possible.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it seems the part at the start is not a good summary. I came to this article seeking a short and clear description of the neocon ideology, but after reading the first few paragraphs, I have not found it. 76.95.155.84 (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. I still don't really know what a neocon is. Benjamin (talk) 07:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why are there lists of "neoconservatives" on this article when similar political philosophy articles have no such lists?--v/r - TP 19:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sketchy sources

I'm quite concerned about the reliablity of the sources used for the "Politicians" section, meaning references #122-197. While I'm not an expert on which sources are and which sources aren't reliable, I'm certain that several of these fail to meet our WP:BLP standards. Let me just highlight a few so someone more experienced can take a look at them all:

Going through them all was pretty terrible. Would not recommend it to anyone who isn't familiar with these types of "alternative news" places (hint: they all claim to be alternative). Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. And I do not think that reliable sources on neoconservatism describe individual politicians as neocons, they normally save that description for intellectuals. I would recommend removing the politicians section. TFD (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should remove the entire list. I don't see a list on Neoliberalism_(international_relations).--v/r - TP 19:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton

Today's Cato Daily Podcast highlighted the similarities of Hillary Clinton and the neoconservatives.

Here is the link: Cato Daily Podcast July, 30 2007—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayson Virissimo (talk • contribs)

I have added Hillary Clinton's name to the "Notable people associated with neoconservatism" section, and added three credible sources either deeming her a neoconservative or highlighting neoconservative activities that she has been associated with. I notice this has been an issue from looking at the history, and while I agree hillaryisaneocon.com is not a credible source, comments such as "Hillary Clinton isn't known to be a neoconservative so adding her to the list has absolutely no basis and is essentially vandalism." and "Hillary Clinton is not a neoconservative. Arguing that she is constitutes hyperbole and/or conspiracy theory." are borderline absurd.
The description for this section reads, "The list includes public people identified as personally neoconservative at an important time or a high official with numerous neoconservative advisers, such as George W. Bush and Richard Cheney." and further down the list the is this entry, "Robert Kagan – Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, Historian, founder of the Yale Political Monthly, adviser to Republican political campaigns, and adviser to Hillary Rodham Clinton at the State Department." This alone justifies Hillary Clinton's inclusion in this section, and there is certainly no basis for removing her name unless the description for the section is changed, or the name of her adviser is justifiably removed from the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.173.99 (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also I feel I should point out, one of the sources I added is Ron Paul directly calling Hillary Clinton a "neocon", and Ron Paul is referenced in this very article as a "longtime critic of neoconservatism" and having given "an extensive speech on the House floor addressing neoconservative beginnings and how neoconservatism is neither new nor conservative". Thus, as a prominent figure in the neoconservative discussion, he is a more than credible source as to who is a neoconservative. 70.161.173.99 (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BLP rules apply here. You need a published reliable secondary source--several of them to make this extreme claim. Ron Paul is not a reliable SECONDARY source. He's a primary source who planned to run against her for president. As is RAND Paul (Ron's son). No news media say she's a neocon. Rjensen (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will reiterate, this section is not titles "List of neoconservatives", it is titled, "Notable people associated with neoconservatism", so your statement, "No news media say she's a neocon." is irrelevant, and the argument, "Hillary Clinton is not a neoconservative." or anything similar is not sufficient to justify the removal of her name from this section. Also, I added four sources, not just the two you mentioned, one of which IS a news media source asserting that she is a neoconservative. Also, while Ron and Rand Paul are primary sources, the news articles I referenced that reported on their comments ARE secondary sources. The bottom line is, I have provided credible sources for this, actually being a neoconservative is not necessary to be included in this section unless the description is changed, and while you insist that "No news media say she's a neocon," that's simply not true. 70.161.173.99 (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And in case you didn't notice, there are several blogs being used as references in that section, I doubt they are as reputable as Salon.com, so if you feel so inclined to eliminate poorly referenced additions, I suggest you start there.70.161.173.99 (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above, the list of neoconservatives should not be in the article. Clinton's use of neoconservative advisers is significant, although any competent president would seek advice from experts with a variety of views. We would need a better source that Clinton intends to return to the foreign policy of the early 2000s. TFD (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone who criticized neoconservatism is now associated with it and listed here???? The BPP rules are very strict. Using a political opponent who attacks another candidate is unacceptable in terms of reliability. Rjensen (talk)
I have no idea what you're on about; you seem to just be faking confusion to conflate the issue. She is not listed here for criticizing neoconservatism, she is listed because the news media have reported on her neoconservative policies. Also, Ron Paul was not attacking Hillary Clinton, he was trying to "sell" her to Republicans over Donald Trump, which is the same thing she is herself trying to do (See: http://republicansagainsttrump.org/). Maybe you should actually review a source before you trying to discredit it on false pretense. Also, I will say this again hoping it sinks in, I did NOT cite Ron Paul himself, I did not cite a video or transcript of his statements, nor did I cite self-published statements by Ron Paul; I cited a third party news source reporting and commenting on his statements, which IS a secondary source. None of which matters, there are three other sources I added that you're pretending don't exist, and you seem to be trying to conflate the issue in your edit descriptions. I have removed the sources reporting on statements Ron Paul and Rand Paul, this leaves two other sources.http://www.salon.com/2015/12/26/is_hillary_clinton_a_neoconservative_hawk_what_iraq_ (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No major news media or any of the many books in the bibliography nor any RS calls Hillary a neocon. That is amazing if indeed she is actually a neocon. We have one salon essay by Rosenberg that ASKS with a ? mark if she is one regarding Iraq. His answer is "she was also expressing a common elite consensus view." the other is a reprint of a self-published essay by Robert Parry from his website. [Self-published sources are not allowed at all in BLP] To tag a presidential candidate is especially sensitive and BLP rules apply here. Rjensen (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have clearly proven your bias here. You continually seek to remove the Hillary Clinton from this sections, with your most recent argument being that the sources I provided are blogs, yet as I pointed out, several other people are included in that section with a blog as their only cited source, and you don't seem to care about that at all. You are also CONTINUING TO MISREPRESENT YOUR EDITS; neither of two sources were blogs. Also, you seem to be STILL missing the point that this section is titled "Notable people associated with neoconservatism", so the Salon.com article doesn't actually NEED to make the assertion that she is a neocon. BUT WAIT, IT DOES, "To the contrary, Clinton’s just like Bush and the neocons in fighting the last century’s wars." Also, the other article I cited is not "a reprint of a self-published essay by Robert Parry from his website," it is an article which quotes excerpts from another author's article. It is not simply a reprint of a self-published essay as you suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.173.99 (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary a neocon?? neocons hate Trump and support his opponent, that does not make Hillary one

Several neocon intellectuals prefer Hillary over Trump. Indeed so too do many intellectuals of left, right and center. No mainstream media RS states that she is a neocon. Rjensen (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one has argued that Hillary Clinton is a neoconservative because neoconservatives like her, the argument is that she is a neoconservative because of her neoconservative views. Here is a sentence from the Neoconservatism page, "(n)eoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and promotion of American national interest in international affairs, including by means of military force and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism." Here is a quote from a speech given by Hillary Clinton, "(t)he next president will take office at a time when the United States faces the greatest confluence of challenges in our country's recent history. We must regain our place in the world with a new security policy that serves our national interest, recaptures our moral authority, works with our allies, modernizes our military, and confidently projects our values. In short, we must rebuild our strength and widen and deepen its scope." [1] These statements were reference in the article titles "The moral purpose of US power: neoconservatism in the age of Obama" which I cited. Also, repeatedly claiming "No mainstream media RS states that she is a neocon." and then blanking the edit entirely without any actual discussion is a bit ridiculous; I don't believe you have actually reviewed all mainstream media, so you're claiming something you can't know. Also ridiculous is posting misleading section titles on the Talk page, without offering any meaningful discussion to go along with it.70.161.173.99 (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
that's all OR. none of the cites call her a neocon--try finding a quote that says she is!. none of the major media call her a neocon, nor do her political opponents. All we have is one politicized Wiki editor working a fringe theory. Rjensen (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not original research, how is an article that someone else wrote original research?[2] <--There it is again. I'm spelling it out here because you can't be bothered to read sources.70.161.173.99 (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Mrs. Clinton herself is already under fire for her foreign-policy views — the journalist Glenn Greenwald, among others, has condemned her as 'like a neocon, practically.'" [3]70.161.173.99 (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop pretending to have a discussion, this has all already been pointed out to you. You've previously argued against sources calling her a neoconservative because they were distant political opponents, now you claim that "none of the major media call her a neocon, nor do her political opponents." You don't care about truth, you contest every source I provide without justification, and you accuse me of being politicized?70.161.173.99 (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Truth?? shall we find it in a political attack the week she became the Dem nominee??? Wikipedia depends not on an anonymous editor's personal notion of "truth" but upon reliable secondary sources, which are lacking. No major political observer in the last decade has called her a neocon. Rjensen (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided reliable secondary sources, you have ignored them, or at least haven't addressed them. I then pointed out that in the article I cited about neoconservatism, the author quotes statements by Hillary Clinton which mirror the description of neoconservatism given in Neoconservatism, and you tried to claim that was original research. As if locating a source that backs your position is original research. You are making statements with no basis to support your position. You are attempting to force your own personal point of view onto Wikipedia, in contradiction to cited reliable sources.

Gary Johnson / William Weld

I'm not sure these two should be on here; I'm less familiar with William Weld, but I constantly hear Gary Johnson talking about reducing the size of the military and the scope of international intervention, which seems contrary to neoconservatism.70.161.173.99 (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the articles, neither of them even mentioned neoconservatism, so I removed them. 70.161.173.99 (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.cfr.org/elections/clintons-remarks-center-new-american-security/p15700
  2. ^ https://www.academia.edu/5484178/The_moral_purpose_of_US_power_neoconservatism_in_the_age_of_Obama
  3. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neoconservatism&oldid=725182930"