text:
Bangkok Noi district

Bangkok Noi (บางกอกน้อย, ) is one of the 50 districts (khet) of Bangkok, Thailand. Neighboring districts are (from north clockwise) Bang Phlat, Phra Nakhon (across Chao Phraya River), Bangkok Yai, Phasi Charoen, and Taling Chan.

History
Bangkok Noi was established as an amphoe on 15 October 1915. Originally named Amphoe Ammarin, it was renamed on 11 July 1916 to Amphoe Bangkok Noi to match with the historical name of the area. It became a khet in 1972 when Thon Buri and Bangkok were merged. Later on 9 November 1989 the Bang Phlat district was created from four of Bangkok Noi's sub-districts, leaving Bangkok Noi with four remaining sub-districts: Siri Rat, Ban Chang Lo, Bang Khun Non, and Bang Khun Si. On 12 December 1991 a small part of Bang Phlat district was moved back to Bangkok Noi, creating the new Arun Ammarin sub-district.

Symbols
The district seals shows the head of the royal barge Sri Suphunahongsa. The slogan of the district is Resonant Wat Rakang, historical Wang Lang, Royal barges and railway are renowned, lively khlong, inherited stone-polished bowl, Buddha image cast, and abundant ancient wats.

Administration
The district is sub-divided into 5 sub-districts (khwaeng). The missing number 1, 2, 3 and 8 belong to the sub-districts which were split off to form Bang Phlat district.

Places
The National Museum of Royal Barges on the northern rim of Khlong Bangkok Noi near its mouth to the Chao Phraya River houses the royal barges, used for Thailand's Royal Barge Processions on very special events, like 200th anniversary of Bangkok or the 60th anniversary of the accession of King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

On the other side of the khlong is the Siriraj Hospital, which was the first western hospital in Thailand. It was originally named Wang Lang hospital, as it was built on the site of a palace (Thai: Wang), it was later renamed after Prince Siriraj Kakuta Bhandu, the beloved son of King Rama V, who died of dysentery only 18 months old. The hospital also houses several exhibitions, like the forensic museum in the Siriraj Medical Museum.

Directly next to the hospital is the Bangkok Noi Railway Station (or the former Thon Buri Railway Station), which serves the trains to the west, especially to Kanchanaburi. It was built in 1900 in European style. During World War II the Japanese used it as their logistics base and thus the station was destroyed. It was rebuilt in same style after the war. In 2003 the railway station was moved one kilometer westwards and the old building is now unused. The cleared space is allocated for expansion of the Siriraj hospital, however currently only used as a parking lot.

Wat Suwannaram Ratchaworawihan, also located at the southern rim of the Khlong, was originally called Wat Thong and dates back to Ayutthaya times. King Rama I had the temple restored and renamed it to its present name. It was a royal cremation site in the early Bangkok period, however the cremation site was demolished and used to be the location of the Bangkok Noi district office. The temple is most famous due to the murals, which are considered the most artistic of that time. In the Suwannaram Witthayakhom School next to the temple is also the district museum.

Wat Rakhang Khositaram Woramaha Wihan is a major temple near the Chao Phraya river. It dates back to Ayutthaya times, when it was named Bangwayai. During the renovations done by King Rama I a huge bell was found and moved to Wat Phra Kaew, five smaller bells were installed in the temple as replacement. The bell also gave the temple its name, as Rakang is the Thai word for bell.

In the Soi Charan Sanit Wong 34 (Charan Sanit Wong 34 Alley) in the area of Arun Amarin, it is the location of Petchyindee Academy the famous and popular fitness club and Muay Thai institute.

Traditional businesses
Bangkok Noi is known for several traditional goods and handicrafts, though most have disappeared.
 * In Trok Matum opposite the Navy Dockyard bael fruits are boiled in syrup to make a special snack. The small side road (Trok) is named after the fruit, which is Matoom (มะตูม) in Thai. Today, it is officially known as Soi Arun Amarin 23.
 * Nearby Trok Khao Mao (lit. lane of shredded rice) is famous for producing shredded rice. The paddy gets immersed until it is soft, then roasted in a pan. It then get crushed in a mortar and mixed with rain tree leaves to give it green color. Finally it is winnow to separate out the chaffs. Due to the labor-intensive procedure there are only few producers left today.
 * Ban Chang Lo is a community renowned for its casting of Buddha images. Originally the bodies of the images were made from plaster and covered with black lacquer, until finally gold leaves are put on it. Nowadays the plaster has been replaced with rubber mold, and the lacquer with car paint, but the craftmanship of the community is still unchanged.
 * Within the Ban Bu community were the only remaining producers of stone-polished bowls, an old technique dating back to Ayutthaya times. Such bowls ceased to be in daily use since the 1950s, thus the technique nearly disappeared. The bowls are now only collectors' items or bought as souvenirs.
 * A business inherited from the Muslim community of Ayutthaya are mattresses. However, as cotton-stuffed are no longer popular, such only few producers remain.

Shopping
The only major shopping center is Central Plaza Pinklao with a Central Department Store on Borommaratchachonnani Road. Across the street from Central Pinklao is Major Cineplex. The multiplex cinema, which is actually in Bang Phlat District, is surrounded by many small shops selling low-cost clothes and other fashion items.

Supermarkets in the district include a Foodland and a Makro store, both on Charan Sanit Wong Road. Tesco Lotus store, both on Borommaratchachonnani Road.

The striking markets of the district are Pran Nok Market, Bang Khun Si Market and Wang Lang Market, especially Wang Lang Market, a daily bustling market by Chao Phraya River flanked by Siriraj Hospital and Prannok Pier. The name means ‘rear palace market’ because of its close proximity to the Rear Palace, a palace belonging to the nephew of King Rama I which is no longer standing. The Wang Lang Market is popular with local workers and local students, particularly from the nearby Siriraj Hospital. Adjacent Wang Lang Pier is both pier to the Chao Phraya Express Boat and the ferry pier to Tha Phra Chan in the Phra Nakhon side which is full of people and foreign tourists throughout the day.

Chaitit Market is the newest big indoor market located on Liap Thang Rotfai Taling Chan Road. The road parallel to the Southern Railway between the Charansanitwong railway and Bang Ramat railway halts.

Transportation
Charan Sanit Wong Road is the main route of the area, it ran through the entire district from the south (Bangkok Yai) to the northern area (Bang Phlat). Borommaratchachonnani Road is another main road in the district, the road is also a route to neighboring districts, Taling Chan and Bang Phlat. While Arun Amarin and Itsaraphap with Pran Nok Roads considered as the minor road.

Since 2015, the expansion of Phran Nok–Phutthamonthon Sai 4 Road from Taling Chan to Fai Chai Intersection in Bangkok Noi making it easier to travel by road to this district.

The district is served by the Fai Chai and Bang Khun Non Stations of the MRT Metro, whose Blue Line runs above Charan Sanit Wong Road.

The piers of the Chao Phraya Express Boat consist of Prannok (N10) and Thonburi Railway Piers (N11) both are in the area of Siriraj Hospital.

Popular culture
Moreover Bangkok Noi is also referred to in the masterpiece tragedy novel Thommayanti's Khu Kam (คู่กรรม) as the backdrop of the whole story, because it is the location of the Imperial Japanese Army base during World War II period. This novel has been adapted into TV drama, stage plays and movie many times, such as Sunset at Chaophraya in 1996 lead role by superstar Thongchai "Bird" McIntyre etc.

Khlong Bangkok Noi is the setting of a Thai country song, (luk thung), titled Bangkok Noi). It has been sung since 1960 by Chaichana Boonnachote.

title: Bangkok Noi district


text:
Talk:Finitism

Odd
It's odd to me that the article doesn't mention Hilbert or the axiomatization of mathematics... or is this only Geometical Finitism?

reference:   --Graatz 18:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for expansion
The article on ultrafinitism is in bad shape, and should be either cleaned up or merged with this one. I say this because ultrafinitism is such a fringe philosophy. As such its inclusion here as opposed to being in a separate article would give some cohesion to the collection of articles on finitism.

History
Where did the concept originate? Who were the original contributers?

The idea is certainly a part of formalism. It seems much clarification is required for this to be a really useful article.

Countably infinite number of steps
I removed a claim about constructivists allowing a countably infinite number of steps in construction. I'm not sure what that was really trying to say, but it sure doesn't sound right. It almost sounds like it's saying the difference between finitism and constructivism is that the latter allows countable supertasks, and that is simply wrong. --Unzerlegbarkeit (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hilbert's finitism

 * An important thing to understand is that Hilbert's finitism is constrained solely on the length of mathematical proofs. Hilbert did not demand finitism of models, but instead he embraced the very source of transfinitism: "No one shall expel us from the Paradise that Cantor has created for us". It is not hard to understand that an infinitely long proof is impossible: a proof that never ends, is not a proof. Finitists deny the infinity of models too. According to Löwenheim-Skolem theorem LwS, all talk about innumerable infinite models can be substituted by the talk about numerably infinite models. Therefore, LwS is at least somewhat finitist in nature. []

I don't think so. Hilbert's finitism was full-blown finitism. His point was supposed to be that transfinite methods are safe as they could be justified as a conservative extension of finitary methods. Also, I don't know that LwS can be considered finitist. On the face of it, it certainly isn't. --Unzerlegbarkeit (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The "God created the integers" quote may be unsourceable
This is Kronecker's most famous quote, so I was surprised when a scholar in the area told me that he has searched for its source and can't find it. If anyone can come up with the primary source -- something written by Kronecker himself or (at minimum) a direct witness who heard him say it -- I'd be grateful and will pass it on.

Yogi Berra once said that some of the best things he said he never said, and I fear Kronecker's line about God and the integers may be an instance of the same thing. --Jeffreykegler (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

 * People seem to say it was first printed in H. M. Weber's memorial article of him. For instance here for a quote and translation of the appropriate passag which sounds like it would meet your lesser requirement of a direct witness. --Unzerlegbarkeit (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks! That's an excellent source.  I hope someone with access to one of the cited texts will add it as a footnote.  If not, we can make do with an indirect citation via the FOM mailing list entry.--Jeffreykegler (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Classical Finitism?
I would like to see more reputable sources for the words classical and strict finitism. As far as I know a finitist does not accept existence of (the set) of natural numbers as an actual totality, i.e. each natural number exists, but the set of natural numbers do not. 128.100.5.136 (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Also Kronecker was what is called a semi-intuitionist, not a finitist. Just putting one line from him does not make him a finitist. 128.100.5.136 (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, Skolem's work on PRA is after Hilbert-Bernays. They did not adopt it, it is William Tait's claim that PRA is a upper bound on what Hilbert considered finitism. Also it is not a semi-formal system. About Hilbert's views refer to his and Bernay's two volume book and his papers specially "on the infinite". A short explanation is available in first chapters of Kleene's book "Metamathematics". 128.100.5.136 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The question of potential infinite is not one from finistism, it is from semi-intuitionism and intuitionism. 128.100.5.136 (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The are not enough reputable verifiable references for what is stated in this article. Either add good references to what is claimed here or remove them from the article. 128.100.5.136 (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the Kronecker quote helps here since it's normally assumed that there are an infinite number of natural numbers. If God just made the naturals, he still made an infinite number of things. I suggest the quote be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.100.38 (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Most famous proponent
The source provided only claims Kronecker stated "God created the natural numbers, all else is the work of man." It doesn't claim he was the "most famous proponent of finitism." —Ruud 22:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, dropping procedural matters for the moment, what is the heart of your concern? Do you think he might not have been a finitist, or that there might have been a more famous one?  In the latter case, who? --Trovatore (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I happened to come across this article and that particular statement simply seemed a little "out of place", as if some editor made the claim based just on a single quote, while he may just have been minor proponent or not even that. The problem is that I currently have no way to judge whether it is true of false. —Ruud 00:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Now that you mention it that's a good point.  Does anyone have anything addressing whether Kronecker associated himself with (or intended to establish) finitism as a philosophical school per se, rather than just having certain views that seem to align with it? --Trovatore (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

 * There is a detailed article by Schappacher on Kronecker, for anyone who wants to pursue this. Tkuvho (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Link to infinitism
I am removing the link to infinitsm in the see also section, since this article concerns it self with philosophy of mathematics and the other article with epistemology. There is little overlap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.200.193.129 (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wittgenstein
I am a bit surprised to read about Wittgenstein being a finitist. This sentence would at least require some explanation, since I actually came to this article through "Foundations of mathematics", where pt 4. no. 61 : "Finitism and behaviourism are similar attitudes. Both say : Yet, there is only... Both deny existence of something ; both do this in order to escape some confusion." (My bad translation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.249.224.172 (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Names
The names of some finitists should be given. Galileo, Gauss and Poincare could be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.85.252 (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Finitism falsified by QFT
Finitism is wrong because of 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯ =-1/12 = Zeta(-1) is true. Quantum mechanics only works in our reality with this relation, aka Renormalization. Finity and Infinity are correspondending, like wave and particle… Moreover every finite number is an infinite number in p-adic-system... --2.247.253.179 (talk) 03:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This talk page is not the place to argue whether or not finitism is correct. This is the place to discuss improvements to the article.  If you have reliable sources that make the argument above, we can talk about whether it would improve the article to mention that, and if so, how. --Trovatore (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Hilbert's Program
> Hilbert's goal of proving the consistency and completeness of set theory or even arithmetic through finitistic means turned out to be an impossible task due to Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems

Is it possible via infinitistic means?!

Constructivism
How Finitism is distinct from Constructivism isn't clear from article I would have thought Constructivism is a sub branch of "Finitism" because it seems to make more specific assertions.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Finitism


text:
Open O

Open o or turned c (majuscule: Ɔ, minuscule: ɔ) is a letter of the extended Latin alphabet. In the International Phonetic Alphabet, it represents the open-mid back rounded vowel. It is used in the orthographies of many African languages using the African reference alphabet.

The Yucatec Maya language used Ɔ to transcribe the alveolar ejective affricate consonant in the orthography of the Colonial period. Now dz or tsʼ is preferred.

Unicode
On the macOS US Extended keyboard, ɔ and Ɔ can be typed with Option followed by c or C.

Descendants and related characters in the Latin alphabet

 * Ɔ with diacritics: ɔ́ ɔ̀  ɔ̃ ᶗ
 * Uralic Phonetic Alphabet-specific symbols related to Ɔ :

Similar looking letters
Open o looks like a reversed letter 'C'. Claudius introduced a Ɔ (the antisigma) with the intention of replacing bs and ps.

The Scandinavian explanatory symbol (forklaringstegnet) can be typeset using the open o followed by a colon, thus: ɔ:. It is used to mean "namely", "id est", "scilicet" or similar.

This letter is often used to refer to the Copyleft official sign, which looks like an open o with a circle around it.

title: Open O


text:
Dee C. Lee

Diane Catherine Sealy (born 6 June 1961), known as Dee C. Lee or Dee C Lee, is a British singer. Born to Saint Lucian parents, she grew up in south-east London. Early in her career, she was a member of the British band Central Line under the aliases Dee Sealy in 1981 and Dee C. Lee in 1983. She was a backing singer for Wham!, then released her first solo single, "Selina Wow Wow", in 1984. She started working with the Style Council in 1984, while continuing as a solo artist.

Career
Lee was a member of the funk/soul group Central Line under the alias Dee Sealy in 1981 and her current stage name Dee C. Lee in 1983. She was a backing vocalist for the pop group Wham! in the early 1980s and appeared in their music videos for the songs "Wham Rap! (Enjoy What You Do)", "Young Guns (Go for It)" and "Club Tropicana".

Following her departure from Wham!, Lee released her first solo single, "Selina Wow Wow", in 1984.

In 1984, she worked with the Style Council and appeared on their debut studio album Café Bleu (released as My Ever Changing Moods in North America), having already worked with the Style Council in mid-1983 by providing vocals on the song "Money Go Round". Lee's vocals appear on the tracks "Headstart for Happiness", "It Didn't Matter", "The Lodgers", "Walls Come Tumbling Down", and "Shout to the Top". Lee continued to record solo material during this time, but singles "Yippee Yi Yay!" and "Don't Do It Baby" failed to chart.

In 1985, Lee was the featured artist on Masquerade's version of "Set It Off". In the same year, after the release of the second Style Council album Our Favourite Shop, and a stint working with the band Animal Nightlife, Lee released another solo single; the self-penned ballad "See the Day". The single became a hit and peaked at No. 2 in the UK chart in December 1985, selling a quarter of a million copies in the UK alone, and earning Lee a silver disc. Twenty years later, the song was covered by Girls Aloud, their version peaking at No. 9 on the UK Singles Chart in December 2005. Her follow-up singles, a cover of Judie Tzuke's "Come Hell or Waters High" and "Hold On" failed to make the UK Top 40. All tracks were featured on her 1986 album Shrine.

Throughout the rest of the 1980s, Lee continued to work with the Style Council on their albums The Cost of Loving (1987) and Confessions of a Pop Group (1988). She also worked with the band on their 1989 recording Modernism: A New Decade, but this album was rejected by the band's label, Polydor, and did not see a release until almost 10 years later, when it was included in the boxed set, The Complete Adventures of The Style Council.

Between 1989 and 1991, Lee teamed up with Robert Howard of the Blow Monkeys to form Slam Slam. They achieved a number of minor UK club successes including "Move (Dance All Night)" and "Free Your Feelings", the latter produced by Young Disciples. In 1993, Lee collaborated with Gang Starr frontman Guru on a single from his solo project Jazzmatazz called "No Time to Play" which also featured guitarist Ronny Jordan. It peaked at No. 25 in the UK in November 1993. Later in the 1990s, Lee released two further solo albums; Things Will Be Sweeter (1994) and Smiles (1998).

In 2006 Lee had a small role as a pop star in the film Rabbit Fever. In September 2007 she performed her hit "See the Day" on ITV1's Loose Women show. In September 2007, she also performed at a charity event in aid of combating domestic violence.

Lee also portrayed Preaching Nut-Nut in a 2008 short film, The Town That Boars Me, which tells the tale of a Pig Boy created by the lonely town butcher. The Pig Boy, now banished from the town, returns at nightfall to torment the local women and satisfy his insatiable fetish for high-heeled shoes. The film was released in London on 28 August 2008.

On 31 May 2009, Lee joined ex-Level 42 musicians, Mike Lindup and Phil Gould, to play a comeback gig with a collective called 'Favoured Nations' at Ginglik, Shepherd's Bush, London. In October of that year, she played a gig at Dingwalls in Camden Town. She continued to play one-off shows in London venues in 2010, and played in Chelsea in March 2011.

In January 2018, she posted a New Year's message on her website, expressing her sadness at the death of her former Wham! bandmate, George Michael, and reported she had been writing with keyboardist and composer Arden Hart and hoped to be recording new material and gigging.

Personal life
Lee was married to fellow Style Council member Paul Weller from 1987 until they divorced in 1998. They have two children Nathaniel and Leah.

title: Dee C. Lee


text:
Headmaster (disambiguation)

A headmaster is a head teacher.

Headmaster or The Headmaster may also refer to:

 * The Headmaster (play), a 1913 stage farce
 * The Headmaster (film), a 1921 British silent film
 * The Headmaster (book), a 1966 biography book of Frank Boyden by John McPhee
 * Headmaster (TV series), a 1970 American TV series starring Andy Griffith
 * Headmaster (Transformers)

title: Headmaster (disambiguation)


text:
Luis Monti

Luis Felipe Monti (15 May 1901 – 9 September 1983) was an Italian Argentine footballer who played as a midfielder and an Olympian. Monti has the distinction of having played in two FIFA World Cup final matches with two different national teams. He played the first of these finals with his native Argentina in 1930, which was lost to Uruguay; and the second with Italy as one of their Oriundi in 1934, thanks to his Romagnol descent. This second time Monti was on the winning side in a 2–1 victory over Czechoslovakia.

Monti was a rugged, physical, and ruthless player, but he had the technical skills to go with his stamina and strong tackling. He played as an attacking centre half or metodista in the old-fashioned Metodo system: a position roughly equivalent to the defensive central midfield position of today. As such he would mark the opposing centre forward when his team were defending, but would be the main midfield playmaker when his team were on the attack, due to his passing and creativity, which enabled him to start attacking plays after winning back the ball. He was nicknamed doble ancho (double wide) due to his coverage of the pitch. Monti is considered one of the best center-halves of his generation.

Argentina

Monti started his career in 1921 with Huracán, where he won the first of his many championships. The following year he signed with Boca Juniors but left without playing a game. He joined San Lorenzo where he won a further three Argentine championships. All of Monti's honours in Argentina were recorded during the Amateur Era.

Monti was first called up to represent the Argentina national team in 1924. He won the 1927 South American Championship and the silver medal at the 1928 Summer Olympics. With Monti as a key player, Argentina cruised to the World Cup final in 1930, defeating France, Mexico, Chile, and the United States. Monti scored two goals along the way, and injured opponents with his tackling. Some sources speculate that Monti was carrying an injury, but whatever the truth, and despite a death threat, he had a quiet game as Uruguay triumphed 4–2.

Italy

In 1930 Monti was signed by the Italian club Juventus, as he had Italian citizenship. As he was overweight and out of condition, he had a month's solitary training. Monti was back to top form helping Juventus to four consecutive Serie A titles (1932 to 1935), also serving as the club's captain. Monti went on to play 225 matches and scored 19 goals in Italy. During the 1930s, he formed a formidable and successful defensive trio at the club, along with full-backs Virginio Rosetta and Umberto Caligaris, who played behind him.

He was also called up, within a year, to play for the Italy national team as an oriundo. Hosts Italy won their way to the 1934 World Cup final and defeated Czechoslovakia 2–1. And he also was a part of the successful squad that won the 1933–35 Central European International Cup.

The Battle of Highbury
The Battle of Highbury is a match that took place between Italy and England on 14 November 1934 at Highbury, the home ground of Arsenal. Monti was playing centre half for Italy, but as early as the second minute he broke a bone in his foot after a clash with England centre forward Ted Drake. Down to 10 men, in the days before substitutes, Italy succumbed 2–3. Monti was only to play twice more for Italy.

In total Monti won 16 caps (5 goals) for Argentina between 1924 and 1931, and 18 caps (1 goal) for Italy between 1932 and 1936.

After football
Monti became manager after retiring. In 1947, he managed the first team of Huracán. He died in 1983 aged 82.

International goals
Argentina's goal tally first

Italia's goal tally first

Player
Club

 * Huracán
 * Argentine Primera División (1): 1921

 * San Lorenzo
 * Argentine Primera División (3): 1923, 1924, 1927

 * Juventus
 * Serie A (4): 1931–32, 1932–33, 1933–34, 1934–35
 * Coppa Italia (1): 1937–38

International

 * Argentina
 * South American Football Championship: 1927
 * Summer Olympics: Runner-up 1928
 * FIFA World Cup: Runner-up 1930

 * Italy
 * FIFA World Cup: 1934
 * Central European International Cup: 1933–35

Individual

 * FIFA World Cup All-Star Team (2): 1930, 1934

Manager
Club

Juventus
 * Coppa Italia (1): 1941–42

title: Luis Monti


text:
Enrique Coria

Enrique "Quique" Coria (coh-rhia) is a guitarist from Dique Los Molinos, Argentina.

Coria has appeared on over 400 recordings in South America and the US including with David Grisman's DGQ (David Grisman Quintet).

He speaks both Spanish and English and currently resides in Oakland, California with his wife, singer, Yolanda Aranda. Coria has two children from his first marriage, the eldest being Carol and ten years younger, Raymundo Coria.

Recordings

 * Solos From South America (ACD 6, Acoustic Disc Records)
 * Latin Touch (ACD 23, Acoustic Disc Records)
 * Intimo with Yolanda Aranda (ACD 50, Acoustic Disc Records)
 * Dawganova with David Grisman Quintet (ACD 17, Acoustic Disc Records)
 * DGQ 20 with David Grisman Quintet (ACD 20, Acoustic Disc Records)
 * Dawgnation with David Grisman Quintet (ACD 49, Acoustic Disc Records)

title: Enrique Coria


text:
Talk:Symbols of Tuxtla Gutiérrez

Beginning translation. Draeco 18:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Translation finished. I removed the notenglish heading, cited the corresponding article in the Spanish-language Wikipedia. Thanks to Revolución who translated almost half the page before me. Draeco 19:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Symbols of Tuxtla Gutiérrez


text: User talk:70.28.254.75

title: User talk:70.28.254.75


text:
User:Prince Albert on Cans

Prince Albert in a can. Better let me out.

Go out an catch my refrigerator.

title: User:Prince Albert on Cans


text: User talk:66.210.76.226

title: User talk:66.210.76.226


text:
Talk:Cardiff Bus

An Australian company?

 * "Cardiff Bus is an Australian bus company."

I removed the above previous content, as a through google search failed to reveal any evidence of their being a company called 'Cardiff Bus' operating in Australia.

Support

 * 1) Support - it is arguable whether this is a rapid transit system. In any case, there is no need for a separate article from Cardiff Bus where this content would fit nicely. BlueValour (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - with no reference to rapid transit, as per Talk:List of guided busways and BRT systems in the United Kingdom. MickMacNee (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support for a merge and I've checked the article, though I have not seen the transit system in person but generally rapid transit would exclusive transit corridors for example the Transitway in Ottawa or the future Rapibus in Gatineau (local examples of rapid transits). I agree it is debatable whether we should mention the term rapid transit even. Yes, some transit companies have right of way, bus lanes and bus only streets but don't necessary called it rapid transit (i.e the STO in my region) although in Ottawa, one planned route that included right of way, bus lanes and bus signal priority measures would have been called a BRT route - although not sure if it will be still called a BRT in the future. Not sure if the bus-only streets in Cardiff are synonymous of rapid transit (if they are high-speed roadways like 50 miles per hour or so, maybe someone can reply on this.-- JForget 23:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Regardless of the disputed rapid transit status. Welshleprechaun (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support NO need for 2 articles, rapid transit system? Hardly call crawling through canton on the 17/18 rapid! (I live on the 17/18/102 route) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.16.210 (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support This is basically a Cardiff Bus article, which when merged will improve that article too. Seth Whales (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * 1) I have now carried out the merge since it was unopposed. BlueValour (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Bus Rapid Transit"?
Under this heading, four features are identified, but with no indication of provenance:

 * Level boarding, low floor access and adapted bus stops — I'm fairly sure that on any new builds (such as the Bay area) or renewal work (such as the city centre) this is required by law under the Disability Discrimination Act. Any evidence to the contrary?  Answers should include a reference to "bus rapid transit" somewhere.
 * High frequency of up to every five minutes throughout the day — Services 27, 28 and 29 have provided a composite service frequency of 10 per hour during daytime for a number of years. Certainly was the case when I was working afternoons in Llanishen.  I did have some printed timetables for those routes from 2004-2005 somewhere, though I suspect I've thrown them out.
 * Right of way, bus lanes and bus only streets — From what I heard, St. Mary Street was closed for reasons of safety and congestion, with a view to improving the punctuality of all bus services operating that way, rather than for any specific "bus rapid transit" scheme.
 * Tram-like low emission vehicles — Low-emission vehicles have been operating in the area for a few years. I suspect they were first used on service 30 to Newport.  I challenge the notion that the new fleet (especially the Capital Green buses) are somehow "tram-like".

All of this leads me to the conclusion that other editors above have reached, namely that this isn't really "bus rapid transit". I'm willing to change my mind if presented with some reliable sources to back this up. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Please provide a reliable source that refers to this as bus rapid transit. It's been discussed before. MickMacNee (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cardiff Bus HQ, Cardiff.jpg
I have put the image of the Headquarters back into the article as Wikipedians should not be interested in "...best represent(ing) the company (Cardiff Bus)". From WP:SOAP, "Articles about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style."...this would include images too. The headquarters of Cardiff Bus is the only property that the company owns itself, therefore it is important to have it in the article. The company has its own website for them to "best represent the company".

Please comment below, I propose Include. Seth Whales (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

 * It is a seriously poor picture, and adds absolutely nothing to the article, therefore should be removed per the image policy. MickMacNee (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I Agree. Airline pages show images of their aircraft rather than their head office or a hangar. Bus companies should follow suit. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

So how do you pay?
This article is missing information on how they calculate how much you pay. Is it a set price to go anywhere in the system? Do they calculate how far you've gone and make you pay for the exact distance? Do they make you pay extra when crossing certain boundaries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.155.231 (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I'll get the info Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cardiff Bus. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101007204320/http://www.cardiffbus.com/smartcard.shtml to http://www.cardiffbus.com/smartcard.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101010044719/http://www.cardiffbus.com/terms_conditions.htm to http://www.cardiffbus.com/terms_conditions.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cardiff Bus


text:
Talk:Ty Pennington

Atlanta or Marietta?
"Pennington grew up in Atlanta, Georgia, primarily in his hometown of Marietta."

If he grew up in Atlanta, it is awkward to say "primarily in Marietta".

Wanderer57 (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

1965 or 1964?
On the page "October 19" it states that Ty Pennington was born in 1965, on the "Ty Pennington" page it is given as 1964.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whinestein (talk • contribs) 20:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Fixed. Thanks. Quis separabit?  21:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ty Pennington. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110119102516/http://www.paperbackswap.com/Ty-Pennington/author/ to http://www.paperbackswap.com/Ty-Pennington/author
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://abbottnutrition.com/news_and_media/press_releases/pressReleaseDetail.aspx?ContentTitle=Abbott-Innovates-Inside-and-Out-with-New-Similac-Infant-Formula-and-Packaging&year=2008

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

THICK AND VEINY band?
"Ty Pennington was in a band called THICK AND VEINY" quoted from the URL below:

https://jezebel.com/2-teams-2-days-and-many-tears-revisiting-the-joy-of-1824148686 Retrieved August 26, 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 33L71488 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ty Pennington


text:
Conservatism in North America

Conservatism in North America is a political philosophy that varies in form, depending on the country and the region, but that has similar themes and goals. Academic study into the differences and similarities between conservatism in North American countries has been undertaken on numerous occasions. Reginald Bibby has asserted that the primary reason that conservatism has been so strong and enduring throughout North America is because of the propagation of religious values from generation to generation. This connection is strongest in mainstream Protestantism in the United States, and both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism in Canada.

According to Louis Hartz, nations that developed from settler colonies were European "fragments" that froze the class structure and underlying ideology prevalent in the mother country at the time of their foundation. He considered Latin America and French Canada to be fragments of feudal Europe, and the United States and English Canada as liberal fragments. However Gad Horowitz, writing that Hartz had acknowledged a Tory influence in English Canada, claimed a conservative tradition had developed there as well. American conservatism is different from European conservatism, with its combination of traditionalism and libertarianism, and has its roots in American traditions and classical liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries, although Canada also developed an American-style conservatism that competed with the older Tory conservatism. A right-wing conservatism, or "Latin conservatism", developed in Latin America and Quebec. Today, conservative and conservative liberal parties in North America cooperate through the International Democrat Union.

Canada
Conservatism in Canada is generally considered to be primarily represented by the modern-day Conservative Party of Canada in federal party politics, and by various centre-right and right-wing parties at the provincial level. The first party calling itself "Conservative" in what would become Canada was elected in the Province of Canada election of 1854.

Far-right politics have never been a prominent force in Canadian society. Canadian conservative ideology is rooted in British "Tory-ism", rather than American liberalism. Stemming from the resettlement of United Empire Loyalist after the American Revolutionary War with traditionalist conservatism views alongside pro-market liberalism ideals, is the reason that unlike the conservatives in the United States, Canadian conservatives generally prefer the Westminster system of government. The United States of America is a federal republic with a presidential democracy, while Canada is a federal parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarchy.

United States
Conservatism is a major political ideology in the United States. American conservatism is different from European conservatism, and it has its roots in American Republicanism and classical liberalism. In contemporary American politics, it is usually associated with the Republican Party. Characteristics of conservative principles include limited government, respect for American traditions, support for Judeo-Christian values, moral universalism, individualism and defense against perceived threats posed by communism and socialism. Economically, U.S. conservatives support fiscal conservatism, economic liberalism, laissez faire capitalism, and opposition to government intervention in economy. In foreign policy, American conservatives usually advocate a strong national defense. They support the doctrine of "American exceptionalism", a belief that the U.S. is unique among nations and that its standing and actions do and should guide the course of world history.

Although there has always been a conservative tradition in America, the modern American conservative movement began during the 1950s. Russell Kirk popularized conservatism after publishing The Conservative Mind (1953). Two years later, in 1955, William F. Buckley Jr. founded National Review, a conservative magazine that included traditionalists, such as Kirk, along with libertarians and anti-communists. This bringing together of separate ideologies under a conservative umbrella was known as fusionism. The term was invented by Frank Meyer. Politically, the conservative movement in the U.S. has often been a coalition of various groups, which has sometimes contributed to its electoral success and other times been a source of internal conflict.

Modern conservatism saw its first national political success with the 1964 nomination of Barry Goldwater, a U.S. Senator from Arizona and author of The Conscience of a Conservative (1960), as the Republican candidate for president. In 1980, the conservative movement was able to attract disaffected Southern Whites (who were formerly Democrats), neoconservatives (former Cold War liberal Democrats), and evangelical Christians, to nominate and elect the Republican candidate Ronald Reagan, a conservative, as president. The 1980s and beyond is known as the Reagan Era, a conservative decade. Today's conservatives regard Reagan as the iconic conservative hero. Subsequent electoral victories included gaining a Republican congressional majority in 1994 and the election of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.

The conservative movement has been advanced by influential think tanks such as The Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Hoover Institution, Hudson Institute and Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Major media outlets such as The Wall Street Journal, New York Post and Fox News are often described as conservative.

Since the 1970s, the two major American political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, have become increasingly polarized, with the Democrats described as "liberal" and "left wing" and the Republicans as "conservative" and "right wing". The alt-right has pushed the Overton window to the right, making conservative positions seem more centrist.

Mexico
In Mexico, political conservatism originally arose in reaction to the Mexican War of Independence. Because of his prominence in the Mexican Conservative Party, Lucas Alamán has been called "the most organized intelligence behind Conservatism in Mexico." Throughout the presidency of Miguel Alemán Valdés between 1946 and 1952, the politics of the country experienced a significant shift towards conservatism. Gastón García Cantú has performed the most extensive study of Mexican conservatism to date.

Central America
Before the 1930s, Central American countries generally had dichotomous politics divided along conservative-liberal lines, but the effects of the Great Depression in the area caused most of these opposing parties to merge in order to maintain authority. Traditionally, political conservatism in the area has been ideologically linked with Protestantism, but this connection has been questioned in recent years. One of the most prominent historical representatives of conservatism in Central America was Rafael Carrera, the first President of Guatemala. Not only did he effectively suppress liberal reforms in his own country, but he contributed greatly to the unity and influence of conservatism in each of the countries throughout Central America.

Belize
Belize is generally a conservative country as demonstrated by their laws which make abortion and male homosexuality illegal. The primary conservative party in Belize since the country's first parliamentary election as an independent state in 1984 has been the United Democratic Party. Nonetheless, the other major political party, the People's United Party, has a very similar political ideology. Historically, both parties have tended to be more conservative while in power than when in opposition.

Guatemala
Conservatism in Guatemala has always been closely linked with the country's Roman Catholic clergy. Between the declaration of Guatemala's independence in 1821 and the Liberal Revolution of 1871, the country's politics were dominated by conservatism. In the mid-twentieth century, Francisco Javier Arana served as a unifying force for conservatives in Guatemala after his own presidency.

Panama
When Panama was separated from Colombia in 1903, the newly independent country of Panama was initially controlled by a military junta led by José Agustín Arango and Manuel Amador Guerrero. Although the junta included a few token liberal members, the administration was heavily conservative. Politics in the country were strongly divided along conservative-liberal lines in the following years. Conservatives were in power until a military coup in 1968.

Caribbean
The main conservative political body in the Caribbean is the Caribbean Democrat Union (CDU) which was formed in 1986 by Anglo-Caribbean leaders to unify conservative political parties in the region. The CDP is a suborganization of the International Democrat Union (IDU). In Beyond a Boundary, C. L. R. James argues that the influence of cricket and English literature have been instrumental in strengthening conservativism in the Caribbean.

Cuba
In the early 20th century, the concept of conservatism was not well-defined in Cuban politics. In 1913, Mario García Menocal became the third President of Cuba and the first Cuban president representing the Conservative Party of Cuba when the Liberal Party of Cuba split between supporters of Alfredo Zayas y Alfonso and supporters of José Miguel Gómez. Still, the conservative-liberal distinction fails to address many of the major political issues in Cuban governmental history.

Although Cuba's government remains ideologically communist, evangelical churches have allowed the growth of conservative ideas and groups within religious institutions. Many of these churches influence debates on civil liberties such as abortion and LGBT rights.

Study of concept
A 2002 conference at the University of Augsburg which was dedicated to this very topic. There were two main concepts discussed at the conference. The first concept was the connection between the brand of conservatism arising in the 1980s and the 1990s and social democracy. The second concept was simply an exploration of the differences and similarities between conservatism in Canada and the United States. Some feminist scholars have suggested that the prevalence of conservatism throughout North America has resulted in the continent's general post-feminist stance.

title: Conservatism in North America


text:
Talk:Conservatism in North America

Note to Neelix
I was going to leave the page, since you like it and it does no harm. But I agree with The Four Deuces -- we have conservatism articles by country, I don't see the need for conservatism by continent, especially since this article mentioned only two of the many countries in North America. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

There already is a Conservatism (disambiguation) page, that links to Conservatism in Canada and Conservatism in the United States. You need a reliable source that either shows a connection between conservatism in the two countries or at least makes some comparison. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

 * As The Four Deuces has suggested, I have added citations from three reliable sources which show connections between conservatism throughout North America as a continent. Thank you for the suggestion. Neelix (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I think you need more than that. You need to explain how reliable sources show that conservatives in Canada, the United States and Mexico have common origins, compare how they have developed and explain their relationship today.  It is not good enough to mention that someone has done that.  The specific sections for each country are unneccessary since they are already covered in separate articles, at least for Canada and the U.S.  One thing readers may wish to know is why Canadian Conservatives are called Tories while American Republicans are called Conservatives.  And how exactly do Mexican conservatives compare with the others?  I understand that this article was created with two sections - one for Canada and one for the US which was then split into two articles with this page as a redirect.  It should stay that way.  The Four Deuces (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to start this article then please write something substantial that justifies its existence and post it on this page so we may discuss it. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

 * This title cannot redirect to Conservatism in the United States. Redirecting to an article about one particular country makes the statement that conservatism in that country is somehow more important than conservatism in all the other countries in the continent. If "Conservatism in North America" is not a notable concept, then this title should be deleted, not redirected to Conservatism in the United States. I believe that I have already proven the notability of this topic through the citations I have provided, therefore even a stub should be a sufficient existence for the article at present. Neelix (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain to me why this article is necessary? The way it was before it was just a summary of Canadian conservatism and American conservatism.  Why would someone want to read an article like that instead of independent articles?  Why don't you try to re-write the lead so that it explains what is in the sources, esp. Conservative politics and right-wing politics in North America.  And yes it probably would make sense to delete the page altogether rather than leave it as a re-direct page.  The Four Deuces (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

 * This article is necessary because conservatism in North America is an encyclopaedic concept, and articles about all encyclopaedic concepts should be welcome on Wikipedia. Conservatism has been studied on many occasions as it varies across the continent, not just studied as individual unrelated political philosophies in various countries. If the lede I wrote was left by itself, it would remain a valid stub; still, an eventual fully developped article would be lacking if it did not also include summaries of the individual country articles. Additional information should not need to suppliment what I have already written before the article is recognized as a valid one.

 * As a sidenote, it is considered improper etiquette to name a user in a talk page section heading. I would appreciate if this did not occur in the future. Neelix (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (I did not write the heading, but I agree.) A stub should say something, but the current stub says nothing.  I will copy it into a new section so that it can be discussed.  Alright, there are people called conservatives in Canada, the US and Mexico.  Do they share a common history?  No.  Canadian conservatives are called Tories, American Republicans are called conservatives and Mexican conservatism was feudal, ulramontane.  A stub should explain at least this.  Really if you want to start this article you need more information than you have provided.  The Four Deuces (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Source 1 is used to indicate that there was a conference about N. Am. conservatism but says nothing else about it. The matter is trivial.  We want to know what was discussed.
 * Source 2 actually means that modern conservatism (i.e., Reagan-Thatcher) in the developed world has been a set-back for feminism. This is not something specific to North America and really is not important enough for the lead.
 * Source 3 is actually about religious conservatism, not political conservatism, and the source actually calls Canadian not American Catholics conservative so obviously it does not support the text in the lead. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

None of the three sources mention Mexico. The second source is about feminism in the Caribbean and the third is about religion in Canada. Based on the above I do not see this as even being a valid stub article. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I have modified the article in response to the above assertions about the nature of the three sources involved. The information dealing with Source 1 now states what was discussed: most notably, differences and similarities between the forms of conservatism found in Canada and the United States. I have not modified Source 2; at this point, all we have is a lede, so there is nowhere else to place the information. Also, not all the information on the article need be specific to North America; if conservatism has been a setback to feminism in North America, it should be mentioned on this article regardless of whether the same is the case in some but not all other parts of the world. Source 3 is not simply about religious conservatism; it is a political dialogue which discusses the effects of religion on politics. I have corrected the Canada/United States mixup so that it supports the text. Mexico and the Caribbean are both significant portions of North America; the information included about them should remain on the article if the article is to deal with the entire continent. I have restored the article according to the preceding explanation. If anyone still disagrees with the existence of the article, please begin a deletion discussion rather than redirecting the article to a target which has already been agreed to be inappropriate. Neelix (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have copied the new lead to a section below. When I said "we want to know what was discussed" at the Augsburg conference I did not mean what subject matters were discussed but what they had to say about the subject of conservatism in Canada and the United States.  And your use of the books on feminism and religion are totally out of context.  I wrote out what they said below which makes it clear that they have nothing to do with the subject.  Again, none of these sources mention Mexico.

 * This article has been renamed to Conservatism in the United States and is now a re-direct, so I am not deleting a new article, just reverting. North America in fact is often used to refer to the U.S.A. alone, just as the term America often refers to the U.S. alone.  It depends on whether one believes there are one or two American continents.

 * Although you have shown that studies have compared Canadian and US conservatism you have not shown that N. American conservatism has been studied at all, and therefore your lead is entirely original research, unsupported by the sources given.

 * The Four Deuces (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead
Conservatism in North America varies in form from country to country, but is consistent in its attempt to preserve heritage and tradition. Academic study into the differences and similarities between conservatism in North American countries has been undertaken on numerous occasions. For three days in May of 2002, a conference was held at the University of Augsburg which was dedicated to this very topic. Some feminist scholars have suggested that the prevalence of conservatism throughout North America has resulted in the continent's general post-feminist stance. Reginald Bibby has asserted that the primary reason that conservatism has been so strong and enduring throughout North America is because of the propogation of religious values from generation to generation. This connection is strongest in mainstream Protestantism in Canada and both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism in the United States.

References

1. Rainer-Olaf Schultze; Roland Sturm, Dagmar Eberle (2003). Conservative Parties and Right-Wing Politics in North America: Reaping the Benefits of an Ideological Victory?. VS Verlag. p. 5. ISBN 3810038121.

2. Rhoda Reddock (1999). "Feminism and Feminist Thought: A Historical Overview". Gender in Caribbean Development: Papers Presented at the Inaugural Seminar of the University of the West Indies, Women and Development Studies Project (Canoe Press): 72. "The rise of conservatism in North America and Western Europe has been a severe challenge to the movement there and many argue that these countries are in a phase of post-feminism."

3. Lori G. Beaman (2006). Religion and Canadian Society: Traditions, Transitions, and Innovations. Canadian Scholars' Press. p. 230. ISBN 155130306X. "Reginald Bibby identifies a pervasive religious conservatism in North America demonstrated by the intergenerational transmission of religious traditions, which, in the United States, are more likely to be mainstream Protestantism, or, in Canada, mainstream Protestantism and Roman Catholicism."

Lead - second version
Conservatism in North America varies in form from country to country, but is consistent in its attempt to preserve heritage and tradition. Academic study into the differences and similarities between conservatism in North American countries has been undertaken on numerous occasions. For three days in May of 2002, a conference was held at the University of Augsburg which was dedicated to this very topic.[1] ''There were two main concepts discussed at the conference. The first concept was the connection between the brand of conservatism arising in the 1980s and the 1990s and social democracy. The second concept was simply an exploration of the differences and similarities between conservatism in Canada and the United States.'' Some feminist scholars have suggested that the prevalence of conservatism throughout North America has resulted in the continent's general post-feminist stance.[2] Reginald Bibby has asserted that the primary reason that conservatism has been so strong and enduring throughout North America is because of the propogation of religious values from generation to generation. This connection is strongest in mainstream Protestantism in the United States and both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism in Canada.[3]

Note - differences from first version are in italics. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

A bad article is NOT better than no article at all.
I don't think there is any objection to an article titled Conservatism in North America. The problem is that we haven't got a good article with that title, and to write a good article on the subject would require a great deal of expertise and a great deal of time and effort. Few people are apt to search on Conservatism in North America, and the redirect gets those few started on at least one North American country.

I, for one, have no objection to the redirect pointing to Conservatism, if anybody wants that. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Note re reversions
Redirecting articles because you don't like them is not a way of editing in a civilized manner assuming good faith. If you can't establish consensus here there are recognised avenues to achieve dispute resolution. Please cease non-consensus edit warring. This matter is being discussed at EAR. Please discuss this there or start an AfD or post a merge proposal rather than deleting content. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually Neely changed a re-direct page into a separate article because he did not like the article it re-directed to and I merely reverted it back. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Jezhotwells: Nobody redirected this article because we didn't like it. The article was a redirect before Neelix began to edit it, as you can see by comparing his first edit to the state of the article just before. I restored the redirect because of the many errors in Neelix's edit. I think Neelix is sincere, but underestimates the amount of work necessary to write a Wikipedia article from scratch. Also, he copied large chuncks of other articles to try to make this article. That's not the way to write an article. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No one has provided any reason why this article should exist. It is a redirect page that has been turned into an article that is duplicated elsewhere. I have therefore reverted it but welcome conversation. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted this article back and placed tags while the subject is under discussion.

Overcategorization
This article should not exist because it violates overcategorization:
 * Geographical boundaries may be useful for dividing subjects into regions that are directly related to the subjects' characteristics... In general, avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics.

Unless some reason can be found to keep this article I will revert it back to a redirect page.

The Four Deuces (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * It has already been agreed that the former redirect is not appropriate. If anyone objects to the existence of this article, he or she should start a deletion discussion. This has already been pointed out by User:Jezhotwells above. Neelix (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

First time assistance request

 * The following conversation was copied and pasted from its original location on the editor assistance request page.

I have been actively editing Wikipedia for three and a half years, and today is the first time that I have been accused of participating in an edit war. User:The Four Deuces has told me that in editing the article Conservatism in North America, I have violated the three-revert rule, about which I had never heard before now although I now understand the reasoning behind it. I was not under the impression that I had been reverting; I thought I was implimenting suggestions from the talk page. Nonetheless, I do not wish to continue the discussion further alone as User:The Four Deuces has threatened have my account blocked. I have worked very hard on improving Wikipedia over the years and wish to be able to continue to do so. The vast majority of my edits are small and uncontroversial, so I have never been in a situation like this before; any advice in how to proceed would be much appreciated.

The controversy is as follows: User:Rick Norwood and User:The Four Deuces believe that the Conservatism in North America article should not exist. Still, they have refrained from starting a deletion discussion, as I suggested they do. Instead, they have redirected the page to Conservatism in the United States, which they have both agreed is an inappropriate target. While I have attempted to respond to their concerns from the talk page by supplimenting the information on the article with further citations and information, they have reverted my edits four times in a row. From the discussion here and here, I gather that they have decided to avoid the three-revert rule they quoted to me by alternating reverting my edits between them (and on another article I am not involved in editing). As I stated before, I would be grateful for any advice you might provide. Neelix (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the lasted deletion, posted a note on the deleters' page and a note at the article talk page mentioning the discussion here. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I note that the comments you have posted from the other editors' talk pages suggest a deliberate attempt to avoid the 3 r rule and if this persists then it should probably be taken to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The article Conservatism in North America originally had sections about Conservatism in the United States and Conservatism in Canada. Around November 2005 the article was split and Conservatism in North America became a redirect page to Conservatism in the United States. In 2009 Neelix edited the re-direct page to restore it to an article with separate sections on conservatism in Canada and the US. I reverted it back to a re-direct page and Rick Norwood set up a discussion on the talk page.

If Neelix disagrees with the separation of the article into American and Canadian articles then he should recommend a merger of those two articles rather than create an article that duplicates the other two.

When it was pointed out to Neely Neelix that there were more than two countries in North America and that articles require a lead explaining the relationship between the subjects discussed, Neely Neelix added a section about Mexico and a lead. The lead that Neely Neelix wrote stated "For three days in May of 2002, a conference was held at the University of Augsburg which was dedicated to this very topic" (actually only the US and Canada were discussed) and added references from two other sources that were taken entirely out of context. One was a book about gender identity in the Caribbean, the other was about religion in Canada. The quote in the first book actually referred to "North America and Western Europe" while the second was discussing religious not political conservatism.

Based on the talk page, Neely Neelix has no idea what connection if any there is between conservatism in the three countries. He has merely grabbed a redirect page and written an alternative article. When asked to justify that this is a separate subject he adds a lead that is pointless and misleading.

The Four Deuces (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Neelix's statement: Neelix should have stated that he had turned a re-direct page into a new article rather than claiming that Rick Norwood and I deleted the article and turned it into a re-direct. Also it is unfair to say that we have alternated in deleting his work. Rick Norwood mentioned the existence of the article to me at Talk:Liberalism in the United States. Here is the conversation:

 * As I've mentioned, Wikipedia has way too many articles that overlap: Liberalism, Classical liberalism, Social liberalism, Liberalism in the United States, Modern liberalism in the United States. As best I can tell, several of these articles came into being as follows. Someone's edits to the earlier articles were reverted, so they started a new article. I am not sure of this. But I do think that the ideal would be two articles: Liberalism and American Liberalism. With all the articles getting so many edits, I doubt that is practical at this time. I do think we could at least get rid of Conservatism in North America, which seems to be just cut and pasted from other articles, and says nothing about North America outside Canada and the US. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted Conservatism in North America back to a redirect page. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have made no agreement with anyone to alternate editing. You can look at the edit history here to see that claim is false.

The Four Deuces (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally in the example that Neelix uses where he concludes that I am colluding I clearly state, "Although Introman is clearly a disruptive editor we are still expected to follow dispute resolution and to avoid edit-warring and to evaluate each of his edits on the merits." We were discussing a very disruptive editor (see User talk:Introman) at Classical liberalism. You will notice that I had already set up an RfC on that subject, I did not perform any reverts on that article that day (Sept.14), that besides Rick Norwood and myself, User:Snowded and User:FormerIP also disagreed with Introman, no editors agreed with him and Introman was blocked for edit-warring after making five non-consecutive edits in three hours. It is easy to understand Rick Norwood's frustration with Introman but I certainly made no agreement to revert his edits and certainly never discussed Neelix. However, after setting up an RfC and obtaining outside editors' opinions it appeared Introman was unwilling to form consensus for his edits. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I think Neelix is sincere in his edits, but they are hasty and full of errors, and after explaining my reasons on the talk page I reverted what he had done. My only reason for reverting was the reason given.  Rick Norwood (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I have already provided several reasons for the existence of this article. 1) It is an encyclopaedic topic which has been the subject of scholarly study on many occasions. 2) It is supported by citations from reliable sources. 3) It is a parent article for the Conservatism by country articles in North America. User:Rick Norwood has stated that my copying of portions of the Conservatism in Canada and Conservatism in the United States articles is not appropriate; I disagree. A summary of those two articles should be located on this one because it is a parent article. Such summaries are quite often the same as the lede sections of the articles in question.

 * As another sidenote, I do not appreciate name-calling. My username is Neelix, not Neely.

 * Although he or she has not mentioned it in this discussion, User:The Four Deuces has again removed the content of the article and reverted it to a redirect. User:Jezhotwells recommended that the persistence of this type of editing be reported at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Is this something a neutral third party should report or am I in a position to bring it there myself? Neelix (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the article back and inserted tags for WP:SYN and other failures of the article and await the administrator's reply. Question:  if an article is moved, what happens if an editor re-creates the original article using what is now a disambiguation page?  If we go through the time-consuming process of re-merging Nelix's article with the US and Canadian articles, and he re-creates the article, must we go through the entrie process again?

 * Neelix, why do you insist on keeping an article that basically dupllicates information contained elsewhere and about which you appear to have no knowledge or interest or willingness to improve?

 * The Four Deuces (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

 * It would not make sense to merge the Canada and United States sections into their corresponding articles; they were taken directly from them for the express purpose of being summaries, making this the parent article. This article is not intended to be a duplication of information but a synthesis which will eventually include summaries of the individual country articles. Take the National symbols of Belarus article as an example. It is a parent article in which there is a summary of the Flag of Belarus article, the National emblem of Belarus article, and the My Belarusy article. This is not meaningless duplication of material; it is an example of the appropriate interdependence of articles.

 * Again, I do not appreciate the insults. The assertion that I do not have knowledge about conservatism in North America is neither justified nor relevant. We are discussing the notability of the topic and the corresponding validity of having an article dealing with this topic. My willingness to improve the article has been demonstrated in my responses; I have made appropriate changes to the article whenever a reasonable suggestion was placed on the talk page. I would gladly continue to contribute to the article, but I do not wish to do so if further editing could be construed as edit-warring or if it is likely that my edits will be reverted, as seems to be the case at the moment. Neelix (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

 * The National symbols of Belarus quotes their constitution that says: "The symbols of the Republic of Belarus as a sovereign state shall be its national flag, national emblem and national anthem."  The article provides an external source that shows a connection between these symbols.  What is the connection between conservatism in Canada, the United States, Mexico and (since you now state include the Caribbean as part North America) numerous other nations?  Is "North American conservatism" an ideology that is distinct from South American, European, Asian, African and Australian conservatism?  Please provide sources.  Just because two words or terms can be strung together and still be grammatically correct does not mean there should be an article.  Also why do you think that North American conservatism should be the parentarticle.  Do you really believe that Toryism in Canada derives from American Republicanism?  I notice btw that you have created a lot of stub articles, most of which are about legitimate but obscure topics.  The Four Deuces (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I have not suggested the existence of anything called "North American conservatism." The article I created is called "Conservatism in North America." Similarly, there is no unified "North American religion," but an article about "Religion in North America" is justified. Religion in North America is not a distinct concept from religion in other continents, but in order to organize articles properly, it makes sense to deal with the concept of religion on a continent-by-continent as well as a country-by-country basis. Religion also varies significantly from country to country in North America, but that does not discount the article. In the same way, the "Conservatism in North America" article is an important one to develop and maintain. Neelix (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That article probably is not justified either. Do we really need thousands of articles that group unrelated topics just because they exist in Canada, Mexico and the US?  Movies in North America, Education in North America, Government in North America, Presidents of North American countries, Laws in North America?  The Four Deuces (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, why don't you carry on your discussion at the article talk page. This page is for requests for assistance, not suited for debate. If you want outside opinions you can start a request for comment - instructions at that page. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Would it be OK to copy-and-paste this discussion onto the article talk page so that we have a record of it? We've made some progress here and I'd prefer not lose that. Neelix (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fine with me. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If I correctly understood what Jezhotwells said, he was under the impression that this was an article when Neelix began to edit it, and that The Four Deuces made it a redirect page. Now he understands that it was a redirect page before Neelix began to edit it, and The Four Deuces returned it to that form rather than initiating that form.

For my part, I'm willing to give Neelix a fair chance to write a good article on Conservatism in North America, but it will take a lot of work. Such an article must contain referenced information that is not readily available in other articles. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Definition of North America
"North America, third largest continent ... usually considered to include all the lands and adjacent islands in the Western Hemisphere located N of the Isthmus of Panama." -- The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia. Also see: The World Almanac, maps. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis
Just because the AfD was closed does not mean that the synthesis issues have been resolved. It means that the administrator believed they could be resolved. We need a source that discusses the subject. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As was stated in the AfD, no one has pointed to any statements in the article which constitute synthesis. Unless someone demonstrates that there is such a statement in the article, the "synthesis" template at the top of the article should be removed. Neelix (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article begins: "Conservatism in North America varies in form from country to country, but is consistent in its attempt to preserve heritage and tradition."  That implies that there is a concept of "conservatism" that exists in North America and has common features.  But none of that is sourced.  The Four Deuces (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The introductory sentence of the article makes a statement about conservatism in North America which is true about conservatism no matter where it is found; it simply defines conservatism. It does not make any claim that conservatism in North America is distinct from conservatism anywhere else in the world. Neelix (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is original research. American conservatism is generally categorized as a type of liberalism.  It even stated in the Conservative parties and right-wing politics in North America:
 * Because of these divergent backgrounds, the term "conservatism" came to acquire a different meaning in both countries. Rather than to European notions of conservatism, the American version relates to classical liberalism.  George Grant, a prominent Canadian conservative intellectual, has contended that:
 * "Americans who call themselves 'conservatives' have the right to that title only in a particular sense. [...]  Their concentration on freedom of governmental interference has more to do with nineteenth century liberalism than with traditional conservatism, which asserts the right of the community to restrain freedom in the name of the common good.
 * The Four Deuces (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What is it that you are calling original research? The lede of the more general Conservatism article states that conservatism "is a political attitude and philosophy, which advocates institutions and traditional practices, that have developed organically within a nation over a period of time." This statement references both the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and Britannica.com. The lede of this article is simply a restatement of this definition. All forms of conservatism must at least adhere to this definition for the term conservatism to apply at all. Neelix (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) See WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The dictionary does not say anything about North American conservatism. Dictionaries are poor sources and the definition does not seem to include American conservatism anyway. See the following quote: The Four Deuces (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Political ideology today (2001), Ian Adams, p. 33: "The American right has nothing to do with maintaining the traditional social order, as in Europe."
 * Dictionaries are perfectly valid sources and are used for citations in many Wikipedia articles. If you object to the dictionaries because they are not North American, here's the definition of conservatism in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, which is a United States dictionary:
 * disposition in politics to preserve what is established
 * This article is about just such a disposition, which is found in all countries to varying extents. It is not about particular parties which are labelled "Conservative" so as to differentiate from other parties within a given country. The section about the United States in this article should explore the tendencies in American politics to preserve what is established and nothing more. Neelix (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What sources do you have for that? The Four Deuces (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What sources do I have for what? The definition comes from Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, as I previously stated. Neelix (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources that describe groups that "preserve what is established"? It seems that the Conservative Party of Canada's leader was a member of the Reform Party of Canada that advocated a Triple_E Senate, elected judges, privatization, referenda, re-calls, and the end of many long established government policies.  In fact they planned to re-write the constitution.  How does that fit in with your definition of conservatism?  The Four Deuces (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I stated before, this article is not about political parties which happen to use the term "conservative" in their titles in order to differentiate themselves from other political parties. This article is about political conservatism in all North American countries: that is, the "disposition in politics to preserve what is established." It is of no consequence that particular political parties happen to use the label "conservative" and yet do politically liberal things. Neelix (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What are your sources for the "disposition in politics to preserve what is established" in North American nations? The book about conservatism in North America discusses the Progressive Conservatives, Reform and the Republicans and the influence of the New Right and neoliberalism upon their policies (and of other parties as well).  What does that have to do with the article?  The Four Deuces (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Which "book about conservatism in North America" are you referring to? There are 24 sources for this article at present, and all the information derived from them for this article deals with the "disposition in politics to preserve what is established." I don't see the terms Progressive Conservative or Reform Party anywhere in the article, and Republicans are only referred to in the two unsourced sections which are summaries of other articles. Neelix (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am referring to the only book about conservatism in North America cited in the article: Conservative Parties and Right-Wing Politics in North America: Reaping the Benefits of an Ideological Victory.  The book was written before the PCs and the successor party of Reform merged to form the Conservative Party of Canada which is clearly mentioned in the WP article:  "In Canada, political conservatism is generally considered to be primarily represented by the Conservative Party of Canada at the federal level, and by various right-leaning parties at the provincial level."  In fact most of the so-called "right-leaning" parties at the provincial level are Progressive Conservatives.  The Four Deuces (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To be clear, all the sources in this article are about conservatism in North America. Few purport to deal with the concept in all countries in the continent, as you have pointed out previously. I do not understand what your objection is to the particular source you mention. It recognizes that conservative stances in Canada have been "primarily represented" by certain political parties; it does not state that these stances have been limited to those particular parties, nor does it state that those parties have never taken politically liberal stances. Neelix (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) You still need a source that connects your definition with NA conservatism and explains how these various conservative groups are "preserving what is established". What in these countries is established and how is it preserved? Usually established refers to The Establishment and the Established Church. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As you have adamantly pointed out on numerous occasions, there is no such thing as "North American conservatism." There is only the general political concept known as conservatism which has played differing roles in different countries and has been adhered to in varying degrees by different political parties. What is referred to by the word "established" in the definition of conservatism is neither The Establishment nor the Established Church (although these are both potential components in certain countries) but rather the heritage and traditions of the people in question. Any political stance which supports the continuation of principles and practices adhered to in the past rather than movement away from them is a manifestation of conservatism. Neelix (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (out) Let me re-phrase it. You still need to explain what conservatism is.  What kind of heritage and traditions are they preserving?  Does this definition include the "New Right" described in your source Conservative Parties and Right-Wing Politics in North America?  The Four Deuces (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The concept of conservatism is not confined to certain kinds of heritage and traditions; these vary from country to country. This article is unified in the adherance to the general concept, not to the preservation of the same specific things which have been established. What conservatism is has been explained to the fullest extent that it can be without moving into the specifics of particular countries or regions. As a side note, why did you start your last two comments with "(out)"? Does that mean something? Neelix (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I used the "(out)" incorrectly because I was copying an earlier posting, it is used instead of an indent, since successive indents make the text take up too much space.
 * I can either further indent the next paragraph,

(out) ...or use "(out)" The Four Deuces (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis - cont.
Could you please read the section WP:LEAD which explains how it should be written. Note that you need to mention what reliable subjects on the topic say.
 * The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead, if possible.

The Four Deuces (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is true that the lede needs work, but that has nothing to do with the article containing synthesis. Do you still object to me removing the synthesis template? This article should not need to attain featured status before the synthesis warning can be removed. Neelix (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You need a source that discusses what conservatism is and specifically includes the parties or groups in the article. Taking a definition and then determining what groups fit is original research.  There are conflicting definitions of conservatism and differences about what parties should be included.  Consider the two statements:
 * Conservatism... is consistent in its attempt to preserve heritage and tradition.
 * Conservatism is a major political ideology in the United States.
 * You need a source that says both. See WP:SYN:  Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.  The Four Deuces (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that conservatism is the "disposition in politics to preserve what is established" is attested by numerous sources, American and otherwise. The statement that "conservatism is a major political ideology in the United States" is not integral to this article, nor is it sourced. I didn't write that statement; it's simply what was written on the Conservatism in the United States article when this section was created. The United States section should be a summary of the Conservatism in the United States article; if you disagree with the unsourced statement that "conservatism is a major political ideology in the United States," remove it. Neelix (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is not just with the one sentence in the US section but with the entire article. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The AfD established that the 'problem' is not the entire article. You have still not demonstrated any instance of synthesis, therefore the use of the "synthesis" template is unjustified. Neelix (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The argument at AfD was that you did not have to establish a North American conservatism and that it was alright to have an article that describes conservatism in various NA countries. However you still have to explain what conservatism is and how it relates to conservatism in these countries.  You cannot take a dictionary definition and then decide what groups fit:  that is original research.  I could just as easily argue that Liberals, Bloc and NDP met the definition, while Conservatives did not.  You need a source that both explains what conservatism means and what parties meet the criteria.  You should also point out that most political scientists do not believe that there is any political conservatism in the US and American conservatism is generally grouped with liberalism in academic studies.  The Four Deuces (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not "tak[en] a dictionary definition and then decide[d] what groups fit." No specific parties 'meet the definition' of conservatism; conservatism is a tendency to which any political party may adhere to differing extents at different times. The explanation of "what conservatism is" is derived from the Conservatism article; it does not need extensive reiteration here. Your statement that "most political scientists do not believe that there is any political conservatism in the US" sounds dubious; are you suggesting that no one in the political history of the United States has ever attempted to preserve anything which has been established? Again I ask, where is the synthesis in this article? Neelix (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(out)Here are some sources explaining why the concept of American conservatism is problematic:
 * Political ideology today (2001), Ian Adams, p. 32: "Ideologically, all US parties are liberal and always have been."

 * "Why I am not a conservative" (1960), F. Hayek: "what in Europe was called "liberalism" was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American tradition was a liberal in the European sense.[2] This already existing confusion was made worse by the recent attempt to transplant to America the European type of conservatism, which, being alien to the American tradition, has acquired a somewhat odd character."  [Footnote:  2. B. Crick, "The Strange Quest for an American Conservatism," Review of Politics, XVII (1955), 365, says rightly that "the normal American who calls himself 'A Conservative' is, in fact, a liberal." It would appear that the reluctance of these conservatives to call themselves by the more appropriate name dates only from its abuse during the New Deal era.]

 * Conservative parties and right-wing politics in North America (2003), Rainerp-Olaf Schultze and others, p. 15: Because of these divergent backgrounds, the term "conservatism" came to acquire a different meaning in both countries.  Rather than to European notions of conservatism, the American version relates to classical liberalism.  George Grant, a prominent Canadian conservative intellectual, has contended that:
 * "Americans who call themselves 'conservatives' have the right to that title only in a particular sense. [...]  Their concentration on freedom of governmental interference has more to do with nineteenth century liberalism than with traditional conservatism, which asserts the right of the community to restrain freedom in the name of the common good."

 * Conservatism in America (2007), Paul Gottfried, p. 2: "In this book, I intend to investigate another equally blatant mislabeling, one that pertains to American "conservatives"."

You really have to define the subject in the lead to explain why you are including US conservatives. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not attempting to include "US conservatives." The United States section is not supposed to be about political parties which call themselves conservative or are deemed conservative for any other reason. The section is supposed to be about conservatism in the United States, ie. instances of different political groups attempting to preserve different things that have become established. This subject is already well-defined in the lede; there is no need to include any information about why specific American political parties fit or do not fit the label "conservatism." It is quite unlikely that any one party that has ever existed has had a conservative stance on every issue at all times, therefore the identification of a particular political party as the representative of a country's conservatism is indefencible in this context. Neelix (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The US section provides no "instances of different political groups attempting to preserve different things that have become established". The Four Deuces (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead - new paragraph
I added a new first paragraph to the lead. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The rest of the lead is either original research, unsourced or incorrectly represents the sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

 * If you're going to reword the lead paragraph that's fine (if you do break it up; it's huge right now); I also see your point about it having issues. But you can't put a non-lead paragraph at the top. It's got to have an introduction, some context (leads especially need to be as neutral as possible), and then transition into the main body. It needs to conform to WP:LEAD. After a week it didn't look like it was getting cleaned up, so I swapped those first two paragraphs. Shadowjams (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Federal monarchy
An editor changed the text saying Canada was a "constitutional monarchy" to saying it was a "federal monarchy." The linked article provides a definition from a book published in 1863 - a federation of monarchial states. While one could argue that each Canadian province is a monarchy and they are federated into one country, the use of the term is obscure and there is no source provided that calls Canada that. The source for the term was published before the Canadian confederation was established and does not mention Canada.

Also, the editor changed "Conservative Party of Canada" to "Conservative Party" The first is their legal name and it avoids confusion because there is also an unaffiliated "British Columbia Conservative Party."

TFD (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Good edit.Rick Norwood (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conservatism in North America. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091010221128/http://www.idu.org/default.aspx to http://www.idu.org/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Conservatism in North America