Colonel William A. Phillips

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Rant

Why is it that at Wikipedia, the people who are the most aggressive about deleting other people's contributions, are typically the most ignorant about the subject in question? And that includes at least one administrator, who shall for obvious reasons remain nameless.

What is the point of devoting weeks, months, and in some cases, years to studying a topic, and then spending anywhere from 20 minutes to three hours writing, rewriting, and formatting passages for a page, only to find the next time one visits that page, that some moron who knows absolutely nothing about the subject (and who does not even claim any expertise), has deleted all of your passages, and made a smug, self-satisfied remark, to boot?
Wikipedia's creator sees a conflict between expertise and democracy; he claims to choose democracy. But Wikipedia is no democracy, either. Wikipedia rules like "NPOV" apply only to certain groups (heterosexual, white, conservative men) but not at all to others (e.g., racist blacks). And as noted, know-nothing administrators also like to throw their weight around.
So, why bother? It's what I do. Eventually, I'll get banned, but that's the way the world works. Every playground has its bullies. But you can either surrender, or you can at least get some licks in, before they knock you down.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.23.177.216 (talk • contribs).
Rather than the preceding vagueness, could you specify what problem you're referring to? The only edit I notice you've made to this article is this one, citing two blogs. We don't normally cite blogs here, and I don't see any reason to treat the first as particularly credible or the second as particularly notable.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 23:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it still be mentioned? (TAC shutting down.) The year is almost up. TAC does not look like it is closing down. It is still going. While it probably does (or did) have money problems, it does not look like it is going anywhere anytime soon.18:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)~PHX-WIKI


Again, why are we still including this? It seems to me the year is over, and there are no signs that it is shutting down. If there are still signs, show some new (credible) sources! ~ PHX-WIKI

Contributors

If you think there are too many contributors listed in this article can I suggest you decide how many you want, pick the most notable ones, and delete the rest? Saying that the current names are grandfathered in but no new ones can be added is an arbitrary selection method.70.20.108.19 (talk) 01:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps deleitng them all, or moving them all to a separate article ("List of controbutors to The American Conservative"), would be fair approaches to dealing with this ever-growing list.   Will Beback  talk  01:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me.70.20.108.19 (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking look at the current website, it's hard to tell which writers have contributed directly to TAC, and which have simply been reprinted.   Will Beback  talk  03:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think any of the names are "grandfathered in." But, the list as it currently stands is longer than the rest of the article, and that is simply absurd. I think we need, as you suggest, to determine who is and is not notable, and delete the rest. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Buchanan and Taki Theodoracopulos

http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/the_american_conservative_john_lukacs_and_the_unnecessary_review/

There is a lot of confusion on the net. Something needs to be said about fact that Buchanan and Taki no longer affiliated wtih the American Conservative.--DC-Paleo (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Circulation Figure

What is the source for the circulation figure of 8000? A quick search suggests that it is 12,000. [1] suggests that it is 15,000. Here I find 15-20,000.

Anyone have the straight dope?

Stealstrash (talk) 08:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Publisher

Changed to Wick Allison:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/a-conservative-for-obama/

Can't insert the references. Not a wiki master yet, I'm afraid.Stealstrash (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The American Conservative. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonpartisan or partisan?

The lede says the publication is nonpartisan, and then goes on to say it is devoted to conservative values. Is that contradictory? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adjective alert

The organization/publication states that it exists to: promote a conservatism that opposes unchecked power in government and business; promote the flourishing of families and communities through vibrant markets and free people; and embrace realism and restraint in foreign affairs based on America's vital national interests.

unchecked
well, mission accomplished, because there's no unchecked power in government; there are just little pockets all over the place where people get away with less oversight and most people regard as prudent (though many of these worldly assessments of prudence seem to flip mysteriously when you present them with the giant bill—often a tax bill—associated with perfect oversight; and then the oversight bill usually gets added to the agency's internal cost structure, at which point it appears grotesquely less efficient than the private sector—so usually the people keenest to achieve oversight perfection are the ones who would be happiest to see the agency disappear altogether)
vibrant
available synonyms: perky, buoyant, festive, footloose and fancy free; can anyone supply an encyclopedic alternative?
vital
removed; this word doesn't function here to signify how important the interest is (for that, you could simply write "very important" which the editor of sophomoric "very" excess would strike immediately)—no, the word is use to signify how much you care, which is precisely the kind of campy, opinionated, content-hollow language Wikipedia strives to minimize

After I split the sentence—these overloaded sentences are fairly common in Wikipedia, but they are ultimately hard to read, which is evident by how many problems are uncovered as soon as one splits them apart—the ambiguity between whether the organization (minor topic) or the publication (major topic) is promoting this mission statement. Probably one through the other, but unless the supplied citation actually says that, we should stick with what the citation says, and the leave the rest of the inference open.

And just so people know, I'm equally nonplussed with robotic talking adjectives on the other side of the aisle. Swamp creature, thy name is Puff the Vapid Adjective. — MaxEnt 20:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be accurate to describe The American Conservative as transphobic?

Hi all

Would it be accurate to describe The American Conservative as transphobic? What evidence would need to be provided to make a decision? Here is a selection of articles from their website which I would describe as very transphobic:

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be the case, but we would need a reliable independent source to state that. Relying on our interpretation of the publication's own work qualifies as original research. Marquardtika (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

bimonthly

Bimonthly is a very ambiguous word. It can mean either twice a month or once every two months. Instead of using the term bimonthly it would be better to use the term once every two months. 2607:9880:1090:BE:356F:53D0:FE39:8EB0 (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_American_Conservative