Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National conservatism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- National conservatism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There appear to be no sources indicating that there is a generally recognized subject. Sources show the term has been used to describe the policies of Daniel Webster and sometimes to describe right-wing populism. It is also used to describe conservative parties that compete on a national level. TFD (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. It's a political ideology that is present in 30+ parties around the world. MikeNicho231 (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide a source for that statement, please. TFD (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [1] Use Google. MikeNicho231 (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The link you provided is to a copy of the Wikipedia article on a mirror site. Can you please provide a book or article that says there are 30+ such parties. TFD (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I take back my statement that there are 30+ parties, but there is a fair share of parties that follow this ideology. It clearly fills the requirements for inclusion. MikeNicho231 (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please provide a source for that statement. You may be correct, but we cannot have articles about subjects that do not appear in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is even a book written about it. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeNicho231 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I mentioned that a writer had used the term to describe the policies of Daniel Webster. But what has that got to do with the use of the term to describe the subject discussed in the article? TFD (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is even a book written about it. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeNicho231 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please provide a source for that statement. You may be correct, but we cannot have articles about subjects that do not appear in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I take back my statement that there are 30+ parties, but there is a fair share of parties that follow this ideology. It clearly fills the requirements for inclusion. MikeNicho231 (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The link you provided is to a copy of the Wikipedia article on a mirror site. Can you please provide a book or article that says there are 30+ such parties. TFD (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [1] Use Google. MikeNicho231 (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. You would think the nominator would at least check the links in the "Find sources" template, it took me all of two seconds to find a published definition of National conservatism. What a waste of time. --Martin (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you find anything written about it other than a dictionary? Incidentally, the first page of the dictionary makes it seem questionable: "The New World Order and the global public Administration with a global bureaucracy will have major implications for public administration theory, education and practice."[3] The definition appears to be a synonym for Right-wing populism. TFD (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy keep - purely disruptive motion. 'National conservative' is the way how to describe a number of parties like Swiss People's Party, Perussuomalaiset, the (now defunct) Deutsche Partei [4] and several others. There are enough sources to verify that it's a pretty often used label [5]. MIaceK (woof!) 10:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your first source uses it as a synonym for right-wing populism while the first hit in your Google search was for Daniel Webster. In fact all three parties are normally described as right-wing populist. Can you explain why you think that the two concepts are connected. TFD (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To claim that 'national conservatism' equals 'right-wing populism' is nonsense or pure WP:OR. The two terms are related, but not synonymous. Firstly, 'populism' is not the way these parties usually self-describe, rather, some see it as a slightly derogatory label attached by critics. The Latvian LNNK or the minor Estonian National Movement for example define itself as a national-conservative organizations. There are numerous others. Secondly, 'right-wing populism' also includes trends that are better described as 'national liberalism' or e.g. 'new right'. None of these really equal national conservatism. Thirdly, Deutsche Partei was described as nationalist/conservative/national-conservative during its heyday, the label 'right-wing populism' was not even used these days. All in all, the fact that you refuse to recognize the brand called national conservatism does not make this phenomenon nonexistent. MIaceK (woof!) 14:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Term is in sufficient usage, and WP does not require titles to conform with what any given editor knows. see also [6] Variations among conservative parties arise mainly from the tension between neoliberal and national conservatism. [7] Second, the influence of both secularism and national conservatism has eroded some of Christian democracy's traditional pro-European fervor. [8] Their anti-communism, national conservatism, and distrust of “moral relativism” find ample support among the electorate. And so on. Collect (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They appear to be using it as a synonym for right-wing populism. TFD (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Asserting what you WP:KNOW does not work when the specific quotes make no such claims. Collect (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your second source for example classifies the PiS as a "national conservative" party. The classification to which that party belongs is right-wing populism, although as that article points out, there are numerous other synonyms used for this category of political parties. It appears the writer is using this term as a synonym. If they are not, could you please find a source that explains the term. TFD (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? You mean you know better than the author of the article what he meant? Interesting idea, that. As for your use of claims that your term is better because the person using a different term really meant it only as a synonym - therein lies hubris. Collect (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Collect (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As it says in Right-wing populism, "Scholars use terminology inconsistently, sometimes referring to right-wing populism as "radical right" or other terms. Pippa Norris noted that they have been called "'far' or 'extreme' right, 'new right', 'anti-immigrant', 'neo-Nazi' or 'neofascist', 'antiestablishment', 'national populist', 'protest', 'ethnic', 'authoritarian', 'antigovernment', 'antiparty', 'ultranationalist', or 'neoliberal', 'libertarian' and so on"." That does not mean that we should have dozens of articles about the subject. I do not know whether the authors were using the term as a synonym. You could help however by finding a source that explains how the term is used and what parties it describes. You might also find a source that connects Daniel Webster with modern radical right-wing parties. TFD (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you trying to use a Wikipedia article as a reference? LOL. [9] et seq were by one editor. A sequence of fifteen edits by that same editor, in fact. Did that fact elide your notice? Collect (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The quote provided is sourced to Pippa Norris's book, Radical Right.[10] The issue is however whether or not that article is about the same subject as this one. Can you please provide a source that describes "national conservatism" so we can make that determination. TFD (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A source already has been supplied above that describes "national conservatism". One point of difference is that Laissez-faire liberalism is a defining feature of right wing populism but not of National conservatism. In any case, making such a determination is synthesis, you should find a published source (apart from referring to your own work on Wikipedia) that asserts national conservatism = right wing populism, rather than asserting that you WP:KNOW it to be. --Martin (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only source that describes the term is the dictionary for administrators with the "global bureaucracy" of the "New World Order", and it provides no examples or sources. All the parties listed in the article are right-wing populist parties, which is why I thought they might be the same. Can you point to any other source that identifies it? BTW, your source does not seem to cover Daniel Webster. However the book The radical right in Switzerland says that Swiss scholars use the term "national-conservative" to describe the Swiss People's Party, although they do not define it, because they reject the use of comparative research on the radical right.[11] TFD (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you WP:KNOW all these parties listed in the article are right-wing populist parties, or do you have a source? So Damir Skenderovic claims Swiss scholars "reject the use of comparative research on the radical right" when they describe Swiss People's Party as "national-conservative", so what? --Martin (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only source that describes the term is the dictionary for administrators with the "global bureaucracy" of the "New World Order", and it provides no examples or sources. All the parties listed in the article are right-wing populist parties, which is why I thought they might be the same. Can you point to any other source that identifies it? BTW, your source does not seem to cover Daniel Webster. However the book The radical right in Switzerland says that Swiss scholars use the term "national-conservative" to describe the Swiss People's Party, although they do not define it, because they reject the use of comparative research on the radical right.[11] TFD (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A source already has been supplied above that describes "national conservatism". One point of difference is that Laissez-faire liberalism is a defining feature of right wing populism but not of National conservatism. In any case, making such a determination is synthesis, you should find a published source (apart from referring to your own work on Wikipedia) that asserts national conservatism = right wing populism, rather than asserting that you WP:KNOW it to be. --Martin (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The quote provided is sourced to Pippa Norris's book, Radical Right.[10] The issue is however whether or not that article is about the same subject as this one. Can you please provide a source that describes "national conservatism" so we can make that determination. TFD (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you trying to use a Wikipedia article as a reference? LOL. [9] et seq were by one editor. A sequence of fifteen edits by that same editor, in fact. Did that fact elide your notice? Collect (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As it says in Right-wing populism, "Scholars use terminology inconsistently, sometimes referring to right-wing populism as "radical right" or other terms. Pippa Norris noted that they have been called "'far' or 'extreme' right, 'new right', 'anti-immigrant', 'neo-Nazi' or 'neofascist', 'antiestablishment', 'national populist', 'protest', 'ethnic', 'authoritarian', 'antigovernment', 'antiparty', 'ultranationalist', or 'neoliberal', 'libertarian' and so on"." That does not mean that we should have dozens of articles about the subject. I do not know whether the authors were using the term as a synonym. You could help however by finding a source that explains how the term is used and what parties it describes. You might also find a source that connects Daniel Webster with modern radical right-wing parties. TFD (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? You mean you know better than the author of the article what he meant? Interesting idea, that. As for your use of claims that your term is better because the person using a different term really meant it only as a synonym - therein lies hubris. Collect (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Collect (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your second source for example classifies the PiS as a "national conservative" party. The classification to which that party belongs is right-wing populism, although as that article points out, there are numerous other synonyms used for this category of political parties. It appears the writer is using this term as a synonym. If they are not, could you please find a source that explains the term. TFD (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Asserting what you WP:KNOW does not work when the specific quotes make no such claims. Collect (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep National conservatism is a well known political ideology, no doubt. --Checco (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete/ merge with "Conservatism" Not really enough references for a stand alone article. IJA (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Not to be merged with anything. Maybe all the parties listed are not similar enough to be on a list together, but this ideology is PART of those parties, even though they have other ideologies that inspire their policies. Dismissing the whole thing as entryism or camouflage is silly. Leftwingers just think conservatives are evil. That's never going to change. --LeedsKing (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.