Talk:Linguistic Analysis of Candidates

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) at 16:26, January 16, 2009. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

This is an interesting concept. I see a potential difficulty, though. There are certain concepts which I really don't think you can omit entirely when evaluating conservatism (the right to life, for example, and religious freedom.) However, the trick is in determining which key phrases are most likely to be employed, and thus turn up in searches. After all, a mention of "abortion" in a speech isn't a reliable indicator of conservatism--a rabidly pro-abortion candidate might use the word, as well.

How best to evaluate conservative leanings on these very important issues? --Benp 21:22, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I don't fully follow your criticism. "Pro-life" is part of the test, for example. Perhaps you'd like to look at the first analysis and reconsider or rephrase your criticism. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 21:48, 12 January 2009 (EST)
Not so much a criticism as musing on the most efficient way to go about it, Andy. I don't think anything you've already included needs to change; I just wonder if other terms are also warranted. Pro-life is there (and I did, indeed, overlook that the first time; thank you for pointing it out!) Pro-life is certainly a good term, and one that's only likely to be used by conservatives, but is it sufficient? Would it be worthwhile to include terms like "right to life" as well? What about terms that accurately describe the abortion industry, but which liberals avoid like the plague: "pro-abortion," for instance, or "abortion on demand?"
I suppose what I'm trying to figure out here is where the optimal balance falls between being thorough and getting bogged down in too many redundant terms. Rather than add terms wholesale, I thought I'd seek guidance here first. --Benp 22:20, 12 January 2009 (EST)
If time were unlimited, the list could grow in an unlimited manner. But then priority is lost. Twenty (20) seems to balance breadth with priority, and I'd be reluctant to expand the list. But feel free to make specific suggestions here. So far, I don't see how to improve on the term "pro-life". The terms "pro-abortion" and "abortion on demand" seem redundant at best. Overlap between terms is to be avoided.--Andy Schlafly 22:55, 12 January 2009 (EST)
I do see your point. I guess the only question I still have, then, is about religious freedom and school prayer; I don't see any terms on the list that directly touch on these issues, which I would certainly consider important to most conservatives. --Benp 16:35, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Shouldn't this be an essay? KevinS 21:50, 12 January 2009 (EST)

No, I think the concept is encyclopedic and susceptible to objective analysis. Encyclopedias include analysis of novels, so why not linguistic analysis of candidates?--Andy Schlafly 22:55, 12 January 2009 (EST)
As I understand it, though, such analysis comes from other sources. It's not a huge issue, anyways. KevinS 16:45, 13 January 2009 (EST)

To test the effectiveness of this approach we should compare the results for known conservatives such as Palin and McCain with known Liberals such as Obama. If this test is effective it should give very different results. If I have time at the weekend I'll put something together. AndyJM 11:17, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Please do, but note that no one ever felt McCain was a "known conservative," and Palin, though to the right of McCain, remains largely unknown in her political views.--Andy Schlafly 11:26, 16 January 2009 (EST)