Talk:Neoconservatism and paleoconservatism
Propose rename: Conflicts between neoconservatism and paleoconservatism
The current article name has a number of issues:
- The spacing before and after the dash in the name is awkward.
- The capitalization of the term paleoconservatism is incorrect since it isn't the first word in the article title.
- I believe there are multiple conflicts and the title should reflect this.
Also, I would prefer having the term "Conflicts" first in order to not give either of the term political branches significant precedence over the other. Thus I propose the above suggested name change. Thoughts? --70.48.243.22 01:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Question?
I gather from this that the views concerning Jewish people or Israel are a major, maybe even the major, difference between the two groups. Is that the right impression of the article? Is that issue really so central? I guess I thought paleocons were just generalized isolationists while neocons were "spread the American ideal abroad" type people.--T. Anthony 04:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Problems
The article seems to display an unspoken assumption that neoconservatism is the deviation from the paleoconservative line and its almost unilateral use of quote-unquote paloeconservative sources is indicative of this. This is quite egregious and suggests a polemic motivation behind the article's existence which is contrary to the proper functioning of an encyclopedia. TheLateDentarthurdent (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The "1995 Washington Times" section appears irrelevant. Firing someone for expressing frankly racists attitudes has nothing to do with neo- vs paleo-conservatism. It is simply cleaning house. Is the writer suggesting that one side of this divide is actively racist? 132.250.122.190 (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Windscion
Barry Goldwater
Little is made of old paleoconservativism and its pro-immigration stances, which are now neolibertarianism. I think this should be corrected.--12.227.237.140 (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)