Talk:Neoconservatism in Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 THERE ARE NO SOURCES 2 Identifying Problems With The Article 3 POV? 4 Apparent Contradiction 5 "Differences between American and Canadian neoconservatism" 6 Presentation of the Article

[edit] THERE ARE NO SOURCES

I was reading through this article out of interest and it occurred to me that there is not one source or reference. By any academic standards, this article cannot be considered credible and should be completely re-written or removed. Not having the article at all is better then unfounded, unsourced information.

Agreed. Based on my own observations the article gives inaccurate descriptions of neoconservatism in Canada, and even if my observations are skewed it still has no sources.--Lord of the Ping 22:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that the section titled "Differences between American and Canadian neoconservatism," despite its title, does not list any differences between American and Canadian neoconservatism, it is simply a list of political positions that are not attributed to either American or Canadian neoconservatives, and the supposed contrasting positions of the other ideology are not listed. I'd like to see this article cleaned up, removed, or merged with the Canadian conservatism article. Hipsterlady 21:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Identifying Problems With The Article

Contradiction In the first paragraph, it is stated that "the movement closely resembles the American neoconservative movement to the south," yet goes on in the second paragraph to say "it remains markedly different from American neo-conservatism."

Unsourced, Possibly Inaccurate and Untrue Statements Most of these should carry citations, or be completely removed. They are subjective, debatable and completely unsupported.

"Stephen Harper has always been more of an economic conservative than a populist social conservative. This difference was the cause of his split with Preston Manning, founder and former leader of the western-based Reform Party." The first sentence is a subjective value judgment that is not backed up, while the second statement may not be true at all. As far as I know, Manning and Harper have continued to work together on and off, with Manning offering counsel to various Conservatives as a respected elder in the movement.

"The tag of "neoconservative" has been stuck to the Conservative government mostly by its critics, aiming to take advantage of popular anti-George W. Bush sentiment in Canada." I rarely see the term neoconservative used by the Canadian media or activists anymore to describe any Canadian conservatives (except for perhaps the likes of David Frum, who worked for Bush).

"The ideological accuracy of such an accusation is highly debatable..." This is exactly why the entire article needs a review and overhaul.Hipsterlady 21:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

"If there is some credibility to the neoconservative tag attached to the new Conservative government of Canada, it is in the domain of foreign policy, particularly regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

- This sentence is entirely consisted of the authors POV. It is not explained how the new Conservative Government is associated with neoconservatism in foreign policy. In order for this to stand, it is important that one give perspective via fact to this declaration. It should briefly mention the Canadian stance to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and how this consitutes neoconservative ideology in regards to foreign policy. A sentence beginning with "If there is some credibility..." is a POV statement otherwise it would read "The neoconservative tag attached associated with the new Conservative Government is evident in their foreign policy...". Rabrams20 (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apparent Contradiction

It claims that Canadian neoconservatism is "more tolerant toward social programs" and is "more fiscally conservative." That makes no sense! Jackjackjackjackjack (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Differences between American and Canadian neoconservatism"

Unless some sources are produces this section should not be allowed to be re-added, as every point is demonstrably false. Sic one, the burden of proof is upon you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.4.6 (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Presentation of the Article

This article seems to be written as a defence of the Canadian Conservative Government. I think the wording of this article should be changed to show a more neutral view. Also, there should be more information on how people call the government Neoconservative, not just rebuttals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chargh (talk • contribs) 21:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)