User talk:TrueTory

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Useful links


Hello, TrueTory, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, TrueTory!

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2017 (EDT)

Conservative Party

I only partially reverted your edits, but the ones I saw on the Conservative Party are problematic. I already told you that the "anti-Euroskeptic" part in the article refers to the party elite, not the base. I kept the info you added, though, to show the differences between the base and elite. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

National liberalism

Before I restore the article, what sources do you have that indicates this subject is real? Karajou (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2017 (EDT)

Here are a few: There are also numerous references throughout news articles and so on. What evidence is there that this subject is not real?

TrueTory (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2017 (EDT)

In answer to your question, it's the sudden newness of the subject that had me skeptical. National socialism I get, but "national liberalism"? It's like, did Hitler suddenly strip down to his underwear and start to play the flute in San Fransisco? I'll defer to your word on the subject, with apologies. Karajou (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2017 (EDT)

It isnt a new thing at all really (idea originated in the 19th century) - it is just that like many other subjects on CP it did not have an article. Thank you for putting back the article however - much appreciated (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2017 (GMT)

Problems with your "national liberalism" article

Hello TrueTory,

Your "National liberalism" article, as it stands right now, has several problems. If any of these problems are not fixed, I will request for the article to be deleted again.

  • 1) The article needs categories
  • 2) The article needs sources, per #2 of the Conservapedia:Commandments
  • 3) The article reads like an essay from your point of view -- I have seen many of your edits, and despite appearing to lean conservative, you are still not fully in line with CP's point of view. The article reads like an attack page on many political parties that are conservative, much more than any other political movement right now in Europe and compares them to the Nazi Party (all unsourced)
  • 4) Related to point #3, you include several conservative parties (like UKIP, AfD, and Lukid) without explaining, without citing sources, and without making clear that this is a new term, and only some people actually use this term at all. Besides, judging from the Wikipedia article, there clearly is dispute over whether which parties are considered "national liberal." And once again, you tie those parties to the Nazi Party -- it really seems like you are attacking these parties as being neo-Nazi parties (like what the MSM and EU establishment also does).

Please fix these, or else the article will be deleted again. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2017 (EDT)


  • 1) I don't know how to add categories or what ones to add - somebody else will have to help me out here.
  • 2) I'll add some in, the only problem is how do I add ones in if they are not online - ie. in print?
  • 3) The only problem that I have with National liberalism is their support for homos and so on. I'm proudly homophobic.
  • 4) None of the 3 parties you reference are really conservative but I will remove UKIP from the article as it is not NatLib either - it is more single-issue. Likud - my favourite Israeli party is a liberal party, no doubt about it. Yisrael Beiteynu is the conservative party in Israel but is very small compared to the mainstream parties. I am not attempting to tie those parties to the Nazis in any way as I support many of these parties myself. I will remove the reference to the Nazis however as they are more national socialist than liberal.

I think one thing that has to be understood when reading this article is that the word liberal is being used in the European sense of the word not the US sense of the word. What the Americans call a liberal we would call a leftist or a social democrat. Although CP is a US website I think in this case the European meaning of the word should be used in the article as NatLib is a mostly European thing. Would a disclaimer about this be an idea? --Unsigned edit by User:TrueTory

If you explain accurately what the term actually means with sources, I guess you can do that. However, since you clearly want to use this term to describe specific political parties (rather than simply explaining what the term means and that's all), why not just use more common terms that are more familiar with Americans? And rather than slapping a term that very few people actually use onto a page of a political party, why not just explain what the party believes?
All of the three parties that I listed are conservative (although Lukid is a more establishmentarian party). UKIP is very conservative (from a limited government standpoint), and several of its leaders/former leaders, like Nigel Farage and Raheem Kassam are known by many Americans for being very conservative (more than the Conservative Party). UKIP is not "single-issue," as it has strong opinions on several issues. The AfD is also conservative -- it's shifted a lot since its founding, when it was a more liberal-conservative party. I see no reason to believe that the AfD is socially liberal, other than the fact that one of its senior members happens to be bisexual or something (and that does not make a party socially liberal -- as an analogy, UKIP has several blacks and Arabs as members, but it by no means supports mass migration).
If you support those parties, I am curious about this line: "The mainstream media generally sees national liberals as repulsive and therefore attempts to tie them to the conservative movement rather than liberalism, which is their real ideology." This appears to be again saying that these parties are actually liberal parties (implying that there is a "conservative" alternative to the parties--Theresa May??), and this line conflicts with article's statement that they combine left-wing and right-wing. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2017 (EDT)

Okay I think I have made your prescribed edits. I guess national liberalism can be placed between national socialism and national conservatism. I dont suppose anybody disagrees that ordinary socialism and national socialism are quite different and in fact conservatism and national conservatism have differences. --Unsigned edit by User:TrueTory

Thanks for the edits. There are still several problems that you can and should address:
  • You cited Wikipedia, and this is not allowed (unless the content in question is about Wikipedia). I recommend removing that reference.
  • Several sentences and examples are still unsourced, so I don't know if those sentences are just your personal opinion. I recommend adding more high-quality sources for each sentence and example. This term is rarely used, so having it well-sourced is even more important.
  • I recommend removing every political party example from the article because this term is rarely used and thus this label is disputed for most if not all parties. You should probably do this, especially if these mentions are unsourced and other editors like myself personally object to these parties having the labels.
--1990'sguy (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2017 (EDT)
  • 1) I will remove the citation for Wikipedia. I did not realise this was not allowed sorry.
  • 2) It is not a rarely used phrase at all in Europe. I can understand it not being used in the US as there are no noteworthy national liberals.
  • 3) Parties such as Likud self-describe as National Liberal. The PVV is very notable as the embodiment of National liberalism.

I cannot see why this article is such a problem - no party is perfect so people should not be touchy if some mild criticism of a party is put across. --Unsigned edit by User:TrueTory

The problem with the criticism is that it is unsourced, and the parties in question are conservative and nationalist, at least in a general sense (and CP is a conservative encyclopedia -- if you want to see criticism of conservative parties, you can easily go to many other sources, such as virtually all of the mainstream media). In addition, if this phrase is widely used in Europe, why are there so few sources in this article? I can see that this term has a historical usage,[1] but where are the many European sources describing the AfD and Lukid as "national liberal"? And where are the sources for the several essay-ish sentences describing MSM treatment of the parties and their leftist views? There are many more common phrases, such as "right-wing populist" or "conservative" that are out there to describe the parties. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2017 (EDT)
You have until Tuesday night (EDT) to make the improvements I showed above. Several key parts (the parts of the article I was most concerned about) are still unsourced and are essentially an essay, one that is not in line with CP's point of view. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2017 (EDT)