Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:37, 14 August 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conservatism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:Conservatism SA

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Conservatism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Conservatism at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Social and political Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Good Job! "Well-linked introduction" — Sunday Times (London), March 20, 2005

Lead section

Is it just me, or is the second paragraph of the lead (lede) section a mess? The first sentence is about Edmund Burke, the second quotes Hailsham (who I can't find in the body text), the third sentence introduces liberalism (in the lead paragraph?) the fourth and fifth sentences of the lead paragraph on (what appears to be) world conservatism introduce us to Whigs and Tories. I'd honestly just like to lose that second paragraph altogether as unsalvageable. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The second paragraph does not seem that bad to me, as a short summary of a big article, but doubtless it could be improved. The body of the text doesn't mention Hailsham personally, but does mention the ideas he describes.

By the way, I used "lede" until I read more Misplaced Pages guidelines. They use "lead". I guess "lede" is only for newspapers.

Rick Norwood (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

"Lede" is used by printers in general, not just newspapermen -- "lead" refers to the spacing between lines (as in the metal spacers). While the Online Etymology Deictionary only dates it to c. 1965, I had heard it in use earlier. Curiously enough, "lede" is also used as an archaic spelling of "lead" (both verb and metal). Collect (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There is too much about how they describe themselves rather than independent writing. TFD (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There does need to be a better summarization of the whole of this article, any content that attempts to describe the subject and other related subjects should have its own section, and should at best have a sentence or two in the lead corresponding with its size in the body. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis?

" ... Most recently, the Tea Party movement, founded in 2009, has proven a large outlet for populist American conservative ideas. Their stated goals include rigorous adherence to the U.S. Constitution, lower taxes. and opposition to a growing role for the federal government in health care. Electorally, it was considered a key force in Republicans reclaiming control of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010 ... " I have been kind of dancing around the edges of the Tea Party Movement (TPM) discussion, and have an issue with attribution of individual views to the movement as a whole. Even if one or two people who self-identify as members of the Tea Party - or even those who have founded a regional Tea Party organization - espouse a view doesn't necessarily mean that the majority of those in the Tea Party at the national level would agree. Similar to Unitarians, there are underlying commonalities but nothing as rigid as with the Catholic Church. Thus, it is (to my mind) reasonable to indicate that "X" is the position of the Tea Party Caucus, or "Y" is the stated position of the New York Tea Party or Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin. TreacherousWays (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

that's a common problem when dealing with primary sources. the Wiki recommended solution is to use a Reliable Secondary Source, so I added Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson, The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism (2012) pp 45-82 Rjensen (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

'Conservative' Catholics?

Catholics are conservative by most definitions. So I've taken that qualifier out. Also, the original text could be read as implying that 'liberal' Catholics are in favour of the death penalty, which I doubt (leaving aside abortions, of course).Twr57 (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You might want to re-consider that characterization. As I understand it, most Catholics vote Democrat and are pretty liberal when it comes to government policies concerning the poor and disadvantaged. Also as I understand it, Barack Obama carried the Catholic vote in 2008, both white and non-white. The qualifier would seem appropriate to me. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with TreacherousWays. Let's stick to the basics here -- most US conservatives support the death penalty regardless of their religion. Saying "most" allows for exceptions but they don't have tyo be named (Ron Paul does not make a big deal of it). I can't see what Catholicism has to do with it. Catholics are more liberal on most political measures than Protestants (in the US), not "more conservative" . Catholics vote about 50-50 D-R in recent decades. Rjensen (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Conservatism

What does "Conservat" mean? --129.7.147.112 (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Too many examples of "Conservatism in different countries" to list, please remove the section

The "Conservatism in different countries" list is not appropriate for the article. It currently only includes Western world countries, and considering that there are well over one hundred countries, if all countries' examples of conservatism were listed, the article would be extremely long. I urge users to remove the list, as it is not helpful.--R-41 (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The section is about political parties in the tradition of De Maistre and Burke which were established in various countries and continue to exist. As far as I can establish from reliable sources, it is a complete or nearly complete list. TFD (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The section should include all parties which fall into the definition in the lede. Your limit is not per the lede. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Not up to us to provide our original synthesis. We include parties where there is a consensus they are conservative parties. TFD (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be SYNTH to assert that a list of conservative parties is limited to those "in the tradition of De Maistre and Burke ". It is not SYNTH to list all conservative parties in an article on Conservatism. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "conservative parties"? TFD (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Parties identified by reliable sources as "conservative" (noting, of course, that "conservative" is an opinion, but not one which is usually considered contentious) or where the party self-identifies as "conservative" (again - such a self-identification would not normally be seen as "unduly self-serving"). Seems to cover the bases, I should trust. Collect (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Self-identification is usually adequate as is a consensus view in reliable sources. Note that very few mainstream parties self-identify as conservative. TFD (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Compassionate conservatism

I'm going to wait a bit before reverting Rick Norwood's unexplained and disruptive edit so that perhaps before I do so, somebody can explain how this partisan nonsense fits into a neutral, encyclopedic article on the subject matter of Conservatism:

As of the 2012 presidential campaign at least two observers (journalists Jim Wallis in the Huffington Post, and Amy Sullivan in USA Today) have argued the idea has "virtually disappeared" from America's conservative Republican Party, replaced by competition to "take the hardest line in opposing government-funded programs to help the poor."

This has been removed three times now for being the crufty crap that it is, and it's been put back three times by editors offering lame (or false) reasons, when they bother to offer one. To be as frank as possible here, if you can't see the glaring POV problem with this, or if you can't see the obvious problem with relevance, then perhaps political articles aren't your forte. Belchfire-TALK 16:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not know why we have this section. Bush used the term "compassionate conservatism" in a speech, while Cameron issued a pamphlet called "Modern Compassionate Conservatism". There is no agreement on what the term means. TFD (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Two references have been given. Examples of modern US conservatives rejecting the idea of the government helping the poor abound. Just from today's news, "By picking Ryan, Romney acknowledged that he can’t force the election to be a pure referendum on Barack Obama’s bad economy. It’s a choice between a state with more benefits and top-down wealth redistribution, and a state with leaner benefits and tax rates that favor the “makers” over the “takers,” to crib Ayn Rand." On the other hand, TFD makes a good point that the whole "compassionate conservatism" meme is passe, and in any case US-centric, and the entire paragraph should go. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I will remove the section. TFD (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The two references are not RSs for this purpose, Rick. Just because somebody can find a couple of hostile journalists willing to write something doesn't mean it's sourced well enough for Misplaced Pages. The idea that "compassionate conservatism" isn't notable is even more ridiculous than saying the HuffPo nonsense belongs here simply because it has a source. Belchfire-TALK 15:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Which compassionate conservatism are we talking about: where the state provides a decent safety net, where private charity looks after the poor, where neither government nor charity is necessary because God will provide, or where neither government nor charity should provide because it harms people through creating dependency? Can you show that it is given significant coverage in books about conservatism? Aren't these traditional concepts in conservative and liberal ideology anyway? TFD (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The section talks about "compassionate conservatism" as discussed in the 80s and 90s. We could do a better job of explaining it, and we could agree or disagree about whether or not it resembles other philosophies, but that it was part of the national political conversation during that era isn't really in dispute. We're here having this conversation about it because I pulled some partisan claptrap out of the section, and some libs decided to edit-war over that. Belchfire-TALK 16:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that something was "discussed in the 80s and 90s" in the U.S. does not make it notable. None of your sources even use the term. You need to find sources that define the topic and explain its notablity. Find a book about conservatism that has a chapter about the subject. BTW David Cameron's pamphlet "new compassionate conservatism" has nothing to do with American conservatism - it says that conservatives should defend the welfare state. TFD (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the silliest argument I've ever heard. So tell us, what year did history start, in your view? 1995? 2000? Good grief. I'll source it better tomorrow when I have more time, but tying to say, essentially, "The 1988 presidential campaign didn't really happen" is a pretty ridiculous approach. Meanwhile, be advised that unilateral bulk section blanking is not one of your options here, as explained in my last edit summary. Belchfire-TALK 05:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Still24 joined in on the blanking -- the material stays unless and until there is a WP:CONSENSUS otherwise. That is how WP works. And, as always, using terms internationally always entails noting the non-applicability of any real standards for a "left-right linear political spectrum." Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Insulting editors you disagree with, Belchfire, is not conducive to rational discourse, and is against Misplaced Pages policy. The point in deleting the section is that, in your own phrase, it is "part of the national political conversation", and therefore belongs in Conservatism in the United States, not here. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that all articles involving the "political spectrum" are subject to your same point - and in such a case all sections which are not universally true should be removed. Since that would leave empty articles <g>, I suggest that as long as the wording is clear, that the topic belongs in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 12:10, 13 August 2012

This is called "black and white" thinking. You suggest that the article should cover this topic, local to the US and essentially to one presidental administration, or else cover only what is "universally true", which would limit us to mathematics, since all politics is local, in a famous phrase. Between topics that are only about one country and one administration and topics that are "universally true" there are many topics that are of broad international interest. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope. This article intrinsically covers topics from different places and different times - as there is no absolute definition if "Conservatism" which covers all places and all times. Thus every claim here is about certain times and certain places, including the US, Europe etc. Thus no reason to delete any claim as only affecting one area as long as the limits of the claim are properly stated. "Conservatism in X-Land" is a "well-formed sub-topic" of "Conservatism" as a parent topic. 18 math courses sink in a bit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The Conservative Tradition in America by

Charles W. Dunn and J. David Woodard, Rowman & Littlefield, 2003 (224 pages), spends only one paragraph discussing compassionate conservatism. It lists Olasky's book as one of approximately 40 that have had the most influence on U.S. conservatism since 1945, most notably for its influence on George W. Bush. (pp. 15-17) The minimal coverage in a book about US conservatism makes it of no significance to a global article. TFD (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that almost the entire article could be removed on precisely the same grounds that it is about local issues, and there remains no actual universal definition of the term. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The general sections of the article are about the conservatism of Burke and Maistre, which had influence beyond the lives of the two men and beyond the countries in which they lived. This article is the same as any other - it should mention what is important and omit what is unimportant. We can determine what is important by the amount of coverage it receives in mainstream writing. How many people btw remember that George W. Bush, who was president as recently as 3-1/2 years ago, talked about compassionate conservatism and how many people would know what he meant? How important is Bush in the world history of conservatism, compared with Peel or Disraeli? Or even in the US, compared with Reagan? TFD (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Rick, I simply suggest that you should follow Misplaced Pages policy. If that's "black or white thinking" to you...fine, pick a color. Since nobody who tried to blank the section bothered moving it to what you are saying should be the appropriate article, I'm having a hard time taking that argument very seriously. TFD, your thinking is very short-sighted, historically. The concept of compassionate conservatism goes back 25 years or so and doesn't have that much to do with W. (who wasn't really a conservative anyway) Belchfire-TALK 15:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If compassionate conservatism doesn't have that much to do with W. why are all the references in the section from the Bush era? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we agree that the section needs work, no? Belchfire-TALK 15:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No. You and Collect think that the section needs work. The others who have made comments think the section has too little to do with conservatism to belong in this article. Whether it is a major component of American conservatism can be debated elsewhere, if it comes up. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that since Compassionate Conservatism is substantive enough to merit its own lengthy, fairly well referenced article, it should probably be represented in the main Conservatism article. Perhaps it should be in the British or American sections. de Bivort 20:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, "compassionate conservatism" isn't a particular type of conservatism, just a Bush-era slogan meant to suggest the conservatism can also be compassionate. The attempt to sell conservatism this way is interesting in itself, but it says little about conservatism itself so it deserves minimal mention, if any, in this article. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Evidently Bush popularized it, but as a term it goes back to the late 70s. I guess the critical question is, among political scientists, does the term have significance? de Bivort 01:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely the question but you and I aren't the ones to answer it. Rather, whoever wants to include it should track down reliable secondary sources that show it to be significant as a form of conservatism as opposed to as a slogan. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As of the time of this post, the "compassionate conservatism" section has been removed. There is no clear consensus to keep it, and no citations support it. Yet. If things change, we should discuss the issue here and form a consensus to reinsert the section. Until then, let's leave it gone and not edit-war to restore it. Just come here and bring cites. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Another imaginary "consensus". Belchfire-TALK 06:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Look, all you have to do is find some citations and I will personally reinsert the entire section. But as it stands, without these citations, there is no consensus to keep. Work with me; don't just edit war. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• C-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• C-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Top-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Conservatism articles
• Top-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists