Talk:Neoconservatism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neoconservatism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics: American High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance). Conservatism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. United States High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Neoconservatism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Neoconservatism at the Reference desk.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

I deleted the section on the 1980s, and this deletion was reverted. If this article is going to have a chronological section, it is ridiculous that the only thing mentioned for the entire 1980s is a single article published in a Israeli journal that has nothing to do with neo-conservativism because of conspiracy theories about Israel's intentions towards the Arab world.

The person who reverted it justified it because otherwise the discussion of Perle's Report in the 1990s would otherwise make no sense. False. They are not attempting a viewpoint neutral discussion of that report, but rather using a tendentious description of it as an update on the 1980s article based on another obscure book. You can describe the Clean Break Point on its own merits without all the conspiracy theories in the section on the 1990s if you want. If you want to bring up the Yinon article in that context, fine. But this is clearly biased as is. There were many neoconservatives writing in the 1980s. They had a real impact on Ronald Reagan's policy. Having the only reference in the entire decade one to a this article is transparently an attempt to paint neo-conservativism as a Jewish plot.Original Position (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The inclusion of Oriana Fallaci on this list seems wrong to me. She was not associated closely with any of the other movement neoconservatives. During the time that the neoconservative was completely focused on the projection of American power abroad and the Iraq war she wrote mostly about domestic issues in Italy, in Italian! She properly fits into the European New Right, a group which is at odds with the Neoconservative movemnet much more than they agree with them.

I'm un-clear on the process which was used to assemble this list but I would like to start a discussion about removing Fallaci. She is deceased and can not speak for herself on this matter, so extra care devolves to the editors to not mischaracterize her. Have no doubt that for many people this is a rogues gallery, and so including people here can be seen as a risk for score settling and mischief making in character destruction and ongoing political disputes.

For whatever reason, when one Google's "neoconservative", the abstract that pops up under the Wikipedia link reads:

"Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among conservative leaning Democrats who became disenchanted with the party's foreign policy."

~~luxdsg~~

Guys with the current attention to the 2024 presidential election and all I’ve been wondering if you guys think Nikki Haley qualifies as a neocon and if so we can put her in this page and expand it to acknowledge that yes there still are neocons in the GOP 99.232.236.142 (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah she would be,and yeah neocons never left the Republican party as there were plenty of them in the Trump administration 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:7D0D:489A:1AD4:29DF (talk) 06:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree here but Haley stands out this election cycle as she’s basically the figurehead of the neocons left in the GOP whereas Trump has increasingly become isolationist so we could expect miss less neocon influence should he be re-elected. Overall yeah I think someone doing an edit should mention Nikki Haley as the figurehead of the neocons left in the GOP 99.232.236.142 (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. If Neoconservatives come from the left then Nikki Haley would be the opposite of a Neoconservative. Idrawrobots (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

some neocons were liberals who turned to conservatism but not all of them 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:D4A1:691D:8813:A241 (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]