Talk:Edmund Burke

The rewrite isn't bad, it structures my thoughts much better. EdmundBurke (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Mission

As he is the granddaddy of modern Anglo-American conservatism, I put that an article about Burke is on-mission. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Burke is relevant, but I don't think the article is on-mission. Which mission statement do you think this article satisfies? 1, 2, or 3? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement 3. Specifically, an exploration into the origins of the authoritarianism connected to conservatism. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) My major problem with this is that's a vanity piece by a troublemaker, & liable to be a thorn in RW's side on those grounds alone. Looking at the article, it doesn't really relate itself to the missions. It says a lot about Burke's views on events of the time, & very little that relates him to the present. It says how later writers have interpreted him, but not really how he has been influential. If it stays, it should be more concise, mission focused & link to some other existing articles. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This article does not contain any such exploration. Unless you add one, the article should be deleted. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a new section about Burke's influence on the American conservative scene. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That was a pathetic attempt to save a pet article. It's no more on mission than it was, but you get an "A" for effort. I'll back off because this is obviously important to you. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit of a politics junkie (like Aristotle I believe politics is the art of crafting your environment) and I think, if we are exploring authoritarianism and other political theories then we should have articles on leading theorists but I'll leave it to the mob on this one. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree, but this article does not contain an exploration of authoritarianism as LX desperately claimed. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In any event, the article should not be deleted on account of its authorship by an unpopular editor.

Neveruse, every individual article does not have to contain its own exploration; those are the missions for the entire Wiki. I was stating which particular exploration the article was a part of. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as we both feel better about ourselves, please keep it. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Phantom Hoover has spoken. I agree that Burke is relevant, but that the article is off-mission. As this is very important to you, would you like to userfy until the mob finds it satisfactory? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I will probably just write a completely new article at some point rather than trying to modify this one. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's probably the best solution, but I'd rather not see your work go down the drain like that. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh just fuck off. You don't have a clue about Burke, scholarship, or his political philosophy. Your attempt to categorise him as a 'conservative' is typically intellectual illiterate drivel from the masters of self delusion. Just grow the fuck up, you aren't intelligent or informed. If I were you I'd delete rationalwiki and salt the website, and then donate your entire life savings to a local library. The curse you have laid on everyone else in the world is graver than any mass murder in history. You are all collectively, individually worse than Hitler. Fuck off and waste your intellectual pretensions somewhere else, cretins. You people are idiots, through and through. ^{— Unsigned, by: 134.226.1.229 / talk / contribs}

Kindly define "conservative" for us so we know that Burke is not one. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As someone who spends a bit too much time studying Burke and his times, I must agree with BoN in less angry terms. Calling Burke conservative is perfectly accurate, but only so long as you use a definition totally at odds with current language and with no applicability to current "conservatism". Burke was a progressive, a liberal, and a Whig for god's sake, who, like most all liberals before the late 18th century, justly feared the unwashed mob. He was wary of untested political innovation, and kind of went off the deep end in 1792, seeing Jacobins in every bush. 19:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is true that Burke has been claimed by the modern right wing, but trying to refit his contemporary politics to suit the idiosyncratic mores of our age is neither honourable nor logical. His philosophy can roughly be equated to a deep seated distrust of 'revolution' or probably better put, 'popular will'. Burke is elitist, in the traditional sense of the term. A democratic revolution was to him a most terrifying experience. The Tea party movement of today would give him sleepless nights. Trying to make him sound like 'yer average conservative, like' is pathetic. After 1794 he went a bit nuts to be fair, but you should read his 'reflections' as well as some of his letters. The man was profound. ^{— Unsigned, by: MarcusCicero / talk / contribs}

So, how about those New Orleans Saints? AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 20:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you want to understand the depth of the Saints' gameplay tactics, look no further than Burke's essay "On the Sublime"! 20:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Any chance we can bring this back?

I originally wrote most of this with a sock account and then (rather foolishy) demanded it should be deleted. Any chance it could be restored? MarcusCicero (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is latest revision. Talk:Edmund_Burke/deleted_revision_27_January_2010 ~ Lumenos (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Why was it deleted again? MarcusCicero (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Because I restored the actual article. tmtoulouse 22:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! MarcusCicero (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Take the Ouija Board Home

"We can rest assured that Burke would have found the Tea Party to be both dangerous and insane, in equal measure."

Speaking for dead people is not a rational pastime. Save it for the mediums and other frauds. And this is the language of someone having a frothing fit, rather than a rational analyst. "Burke's doctrine of xxxx conflicts with the Tea Party's insert actions here, which indicates observational conclusion of a dispassionate observer" is a rational phrase structure. ^{— Unsigned, by: 88.198.96.50 / talk / contribs} 19:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)