This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Again we have people making political definitions that would not be agreed upon by political scientists. A political position describes a role that the government should have in a society, not a position relative to time as described in the entry. For example a communist government can be conservative in trying to conserve its position but that has nothing to do with politics anymore than a diver trying to conserve air. A political conservative typically favors a free economy and accepts the inequality that naturally follows. The opposite is a socialist who favors a controlled economy in an effort to reduce inequality. This is a simplified definition but is closer to currently exists.
I think the definition is a bit out of whack. Here's one I found from an introductory textbook: "An ideology based on the belief that society is an organic collective whole. Moreover, conservatives believe that the best form of society is hierarchical-- a society in which everyone knows their place, a society where some rule and the rest are ruled. Order and tradition, not freedom and reason are key political values" (Critical Concepts. An Introduction to Politics). Some of these key elements are missing on this site's definition.--Apples99 03:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The solution is compromise. I don't think the current definition is a bad one, and I don't think the definition from your textbook is a perfect one. I haven't checked, but I assume the article on the Holocaust mentions holocaust deniers, just as the article on the Kennedy assassination probably mentions the idea that the CIA carried out the hit (or was it Cigarette Smoking Man?) A thousand philosophies flourish, a thousand poppies bloom. Rick Norwood 14:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
It was earlier stated that the adding of the "Criticism" section of this page was inappropriate because it was "carried no references". But I must inform you, the reader, that the Socialism page has a thriving Criticism section that also carries no references. Conservatism and Socialism alike are ideologies that have spread their influence on a very large number of people throughout history. In the spirit of neutrality, should they not have an equal section to inform the reader of the claims made against these belief systems? Frankly, I question the neutrality of the Wiki's decision to remove this section. I will take this up with Wikipedia itself if necessary.
I respectfully disagree.
- User:EnglishEfternamn
I agree. No section of wikipedia, an encyclopedia, should be without references. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable," is stated in the wikipedia rules of conduct. This applies to all articles, including socialism and conservatism. Websurfer135 02:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi's comment on the September 11 attacks has less to do with racial and biological superiority than cultural one... this should be put somewhere else if it is used at all.
The article is getting so long, and being rewritten so intensively, that we may want to consider splitting off the details of various national conservative movements. There are already American and Canadian articles. I suggest we split off British conservatism, Chinese conservatism, and maybe German conservatism. Then this article would focus on the big picture -- history, meaning of the word, common conservative beliefs -- with brief (!) mentions of each national conservative movement with a (see main article) link. Rick Norwood 15:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Um. Speaking as a Catholic, I think the Church's stance on anything is part of a tradition because the Holy See is the oldest corporate body in the world, and Catholics lean on its authority. I would assume Judaism has its equivalent, as Islam has in its great jurists, Buddhism with its lamas.
Sheesh. Refer to Religious conservatism. You know, though I helped write that section, it does not necessarily describe what I think. Nor do I bite my nails at night worrying that it is as politically correct as the half-baked mish-mash of ideas in my head. I edit Wikipedia because I often learn a lot by it, and while I have learned quite a bit from reading and thinking about conservatism(s), especially from reading Rich's entries, I am sick of this topic. You've got to let this go, K. Can we move on? Perhaps to adding some frequent conservative values? Ogo 00:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for redirecting me, Keith. I now have an account, but can someone tell me how to make my name show up at the end of my posts? I'd like everyone to go up and read the Open Letter to Wikipedia section on this discussion page. I'll quote myself: "why don't we just have the Conservatism article explain that it is the name of varying political/ideological philosophies and parties throughout the world, and then give links to each country's conservatism page? That seems to me to be the most accurate and honest way to do things". Can anyone provide a reasonable objection to this?
This article should provide a list of some common beliefs among conservatives, not just vague descriptions. anonymo the nameless
I think you are going to have a lot of difficulty listing anything that conservatives around the world agree on -- unless it is not wanting to pay taxes, but then, nobody wants to pay taxes, so that isn't unique to conservatives. Rick Norwood 20:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Order over chaos (nope -- "What ever happened to the good old days, when men were men, the days before all these laws and cities.") Orientation toward the past rather than the future (agree -- this is the definition of conservative) The rural over the urban (a Confucian conservative would not agree, this is mostly an American idea) Unity and homogeneity, over discord and fragmentation (I tend to go along with this one) The natural over the artificial and technological (I think this seems true only because technology is so closely allied with the new. Most conservatives I know like technology.) Existence over possibility (no "The existing welfare state must be overthrown so we can return to the good old days of capitalism.") Slow and incremental change over utopian projects (I agree about the opposition to utopianism, but certainly Islamic conservatives favor rapid and violent change away from modernism.) Hierarchy over egalitarianism (no, many conservatives are egalitarian (many are not) "In a free society, the strong will naturally rise to the top, if the damn government would just leave us alone." Sovereignty over union, in matters regarding the European Union (This is, of course, modern and local).
So, what have we got:
Orientation toward the past and toward conformity, away from new ideas and new forms of government.
I could live with that, but I doubt that many conservatives would agree with it. Rick Norwood 00:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I just don't see anything conservative about those dichotomies. In order over chaos, you single out the conservatives who are happy to preserve the existing order, but rule out the many conservatives who see violence as the only way to restore the old order. In natural over artificial, you suggest that conservatives are typically luddites. That certainly isn't the case. Most conservatives are glad we have cars, and indoor plumbing. In hierarchy over egality, you focus on those conservatives who support the class system, and ignore the many conservatives who support the rugged individual. Rick Norwood 19:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems quite clear from the above discussion that there is little, if anything, that all groups labeled as "conservative" across the world would agree on. Thus, logically, there are 2 possible choices for the future of the article:
I emphatically vote for number 2. The term "conservatism" is ambiguous and has no universal meanings except that it is a name given to certain political or moral ideologies. -- 2nd Piston Honda 12:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Sounds about right to me. Rick Norwood 22:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I can only speak from the United States perspective, but in my opinion, and just from reading the ongoing debate, the National Socialist party (Nazi) was exactly that - a party of nationalistic socialists. Some of the nationalistic and conservative agendas in the West are similar (strong military for example in the United States) but some differ. The socialistic ideals of the Nazi party are definitely not in line with modern conservative ideals in the United States but they do fall in line with most Western European parties, both liberal and conservative from what I can divulge. Conservativism in the United States is definitely a very individual opinion; I feel myself to be a fiscal conservative but I have liberal leanings on certain issues. I am nonreligious but I believe that the individual is responsible for their own present and future. Low taxes, small government (which means more low taxes), a completely free-market economy without burdensome legislation, and people taking care of themselves so as not to become a burden to society are the ideals the bolster the conservative doctrine on this side of the Atlantic. I know this may not help too much, but I hope to bring to the picture that there are all kinds that make up a certain politcal strata. Some conservatives don't even believe in God (like me). ````
Unless it has been added recently, there is nothing in the article to suggest Nazi's were conservatives. I certainly don't think they were. But Fascists were explicitly conservative, desireing a return to the good old days of the Roman Empire, and, in Spain at least, to that old time religion (Roman Catholicism). They were also conservative in being anti-communist. Rick Norwood 13:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
True. Thanks for getting us back on topic. Rick Norwood 20:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
So when are we going to see a decision on this? -- 2nd Piston Honda 03:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Conservatives don't oppose change. They believe in certain ideals and values, regardless of what the status quo is. Therefore, this article is propaganda and needs to be a disambig page. -- 2nd Piston Honda 19:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I would agree it is innacurate to say "resistant to change" is the only definition of conservative. Further I'd agree it is a misnomer in many (if not most) cases it is used since someone may actually be called a conservative only because of how some subset of his views appear similar to some views of the past, according to a simple-minded observer (e.g. the press). I especially think it is a fallacy to claim a person is resistant to change first and ergo ends up at his views on current politics second. That may often be the case but we should not be in the business of mind-reading. That sounds a lot like a (certainly not liberal!) implication that conservatism is a universal mental defect or the result of brainwashing or something. And of course conservatives have ideals everyone does. keith 21:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Unlike other articles that cover political points of view, Conservatism contains no critique of the Conservative point of view. Contrast with Liberalism, Libertarian Socialism, and other nonconservative points of view, whose articles go out of their way to include what opponents of the point of view have to say. One would get the impression that conservatism has no opponents, or that Wikipedia recognizes those opponents as being in the wrong.
I could tell right from the start, that the author of the conservative article, that he or she is of the "liberal" persuasion. The article was filled with subtle but noticeable injections of their discontent for "conservative" thinkers and ideas. Later, when I got to the discussion page, their "discontent" has clearly manifested it self.
Criticism sections can also be a way of quarantining negative facts to weaken their weight in the subject, and get them out of the flow of the text without violating wikipedia policy. Such sections are also invariably weasel-worded. This article has profoundly critical assertions stuffed right in the main text, as with for example the references to fascism. keith 01:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
First, let me suggest moving this discussion to the bottom of the page.
I did not write the section on Franco. I only defend it because it is historically correct.
1) Jefferson owned slaves. Without looking, I would be willing to bet that is mentioned in the article on Jefferson. 2) Clearly, Jefferson was a liberal, since he penned the words "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," making the change from the earlier "life, liberty, and property". Your conclusion does not follow. Nor does this article suggest that all conservatives are fascists nor than all fascists are conservatives.
If Franco was only incidentally both a Fascist and a conservative, just as Hitler was only incidentally both an antisemite and a vegitarian, then the section should not be in the article. But Fascism, as the name of the movement suggests, harked back to the glories of the Roman Empire, when the lictors carried fasces (rods) before the Emperor. In other words, the philosophy specifically embraces the supposed superiority of a past form of government.
Now, I know that many conservatives do not consider the dictionary definiton of conservative to be correct, and certainly dictionary definitons can get things wrong. But almost everything I have read on conservative values emphasizes the superiority of the morals, life styles, government, and religion of the past as superior to that of the present day. The only exception I can think of is those utopian libertarians who embrace conservatism as a route toward diminished government. Rick Norwood 13:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the right place for this, but it would seem that the sentence "It is the degree of political taboo, rather than inherent ideological incompatibility, that determines the overlap between 'respectable' conservatives and the right." is POV. In its context it implies that as a rule conservatives do not have any ideological qualms about the tragedies mentioned prior to this quotation such as "brutal repression of African decolonisation." In short, this line implies that all conservatives are morally reprehensible, if not simply monsters.
I concur with original author of this section, this page is not NPOV, it needs a critique. If liberalism has a critique, then conservatism needs a critique.
I removed this sentence: "In the Netherlands, for example, defenders of ‘Dutch tolerance’ as a traditional national value and Islamic supporters of Sharia law both call themselves conservatives."
It's nonsense. The only people in The Netherlands who call themselves conservatives are the people from the Edmund Burke Foundation. They are not supporters of 'Dutch tolerance'. No Muslim in the Netherlands call himself a conservative, although ignorant people in the media sometimes do.
Moreover, the sentence didn't add anything of substance to the article.
I've a vague memory that Richard Fisk's "The Great War for Civilisation" says that WC advocated it, but not that he authorised it. Even if he did, I'm not sure it's completely relevant to this article. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Confirmed. "you should certainly proceed with the experimental work on gas bombs, especially mustard gas, which would inflict punishment upon recalcitrant natives without inflicting grave injury upon them." Fisk cites p 1190 Martin Gilbert's Winston s. Churchill 1917-1922 Companion Volume IV.
You can read more at http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2006/01/19-0947-1272.html and I recommend you do. It is all very interesting, but I still don't see that it has any place in this article. Maybe somewhere else. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
"there is NOTHING held common among all conservatives. Can my point be made any more clear? -- 2nd Piston Honda"
If what Piston Honda says is true, then the word is meaningless, and the entire article pointless. I happen to be one of those people who think words have meanings. But words only have meanings if people agree on what those meanings are. In order to preserve some sort of meaning to words over time, we have dictionaries. The dictionary nearest to hand, The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "Conservative 1. preservative, 2. disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions."
Now, wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so the article does not stop with that definition, but goes on to discuss how various major writers have used the word, and how the meaning of the word has changed over time.
In the mass media the word "conservative" has indeed lost its meaning. To Rush Limbaugh it means "right thinking person". To Al Franken it means "blithering idiot". But neither of those "definitions" is appropriate to an encyclopedia article. Sure, a lot of people call themselves "conservative" or "liberal" without really thinking about what that implies. To some conservatives, "conservative" just means "my side". And a lot of people call other people "conservative" without thinking, meaning simply "the other side". People tend to take sides. But, again, that has nothing to do with rational discussion.
There really is a point of view, historically called conservative, held by intelligent people who are serious about ideas. That is what this article is about. Rick Norwood 13:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, there are differences between conservative parties in different countries. That is why several articles on concervatism in various countries were split off from this article. On the other hand, political thinkers and historians use the word conservative to describe writers such as Confucius, Cicero, Burke, and Buckley. These people have in common either a desire to preserve the existing social order or a desire to return to an ideal social order of the past. That conservatism is the subject of this article. For political as opposed to philosophical or sociological conservatism, the reader is referred to the use of the word in various countries. Rick Norwood 19:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
If you think something in this article is propaganda, propose it for deletion. I explained above why an article on conservative philosophy is important, and how conservative philosophy differs from conservative politics. The word "conservative" has a perfectly good dictionary meaning. What is your objection to an article on conservative in that sense of the word? Rick Norwood 13:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Interesting point about reactionary. Here is what wikipedia has to say about that.
"Reactionary (or reactionist) is a political epithet typically applied to extreme ideological conservatism".
So, yes, I would agree that Franco was a reactionary.
Let me mention the broader question that concerns me. Everyone likes to hear good things about things they identify with and hates to hear bad things. Therefore we have, for example, people of certain nationalities who try to hide anything bad that their nation has ever done, and exagerate the good.
There is a dark side to conservatism -- just as there is a dark side to America. I don't want wikipedia to go overboard in emphasizing the dark side of any subject, but I also want to avoid a whitewash.
Though personally a liberal, which means I favor freedom and equality of opportunity, I can see many good things about conservatism. But there are conservatives to whom conservatism means favoring the upper class, the white race, the Christian religion, the male gender, and the heterosexual orientation. Franco, with his compulsary Catholocism, his anticommunism, and his persecution of homosexuals, fits into that tradition. And I could easily name contemporary conservative spokespersons who carry on that tradition. I am NOT saying all conservatives are like that, but I do believe that the number who are in that camp is not small. Rick Norwood 18:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Since a "reactionary" is a kind of conservative, or so I gather, there are no degrees of separation. I don't know much about Islam, but I trust the article on the subject has plenty to say about the "dark side". In any case, making this a good article and making Islam a good article are independent projects. Rick Norwood 19:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the history of Islam article is a whitewash. Sad. But it is not a subject I know much about. Rick Norwood 19:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Though personally a conservative, which means I favor freedom and equality of opportunity … (hey, wait a minute … isn’t that what you said it means to be a liberal?). Is it possible that conservatives and liberals can have the same principals? Of course it is, because conservatism (the opposite of which is radicalism – not liberalism) is centered more on the means than the end.
Burke’s ideal of statesmanship decidedly avoids both extremes of reckless change and resisting change at all cost – "a disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve" (the classical definition of true conservatism). Conservatives simply take a pragmatic approach to change that weighs the long-term and collateral effects of change and tend to tether their actions to established rules or traditions of affecting change in that particular society.
In Burke’s words: "By a slow but well-sustained progress, the effect of each step is watched; the good or ill success of the first gives light to us in the second; and so, from light to light, we are conducted with safety through the whole series."
His notion of a ‘social contract’ was a long-term partnership: "... a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead and those who are to be born."
So, Rick, you and I are at odds less because you are "Liberal" and more because you are "flaming".
I agree that their can be derivatives of classical conservatism worthy of outline in this article. The ‘stand-pat’ conservative is so risk adverse or satisfied with the status quo that he resists all change. The ‘reactionary’ conservative only seeks to undo a specific change. But these derivatives should not muddy the classical definition. Nor should there be an attempt to lump anyone who makes reference to the past in promoting their other views as a conservative. Hitler and the Nazi movement was steeped in the Wagnerian imagery highlighting Germany’s illustrious past, not because they had anything to do with conservatism, but because it was a great marketing wrapper to distract from a twisted and radical core agenda - somewhat akin to modern American Liberal tactics to gain power.
Anyway, in an attempt to offer something by way of improving this article, I have to agree that the best course would be to shorten it considerably and treat it as a prologue to the much wider application and impact of conservatism – relying primarily on links to articles that can go substantially deeper into each derivative aspect of:
1. Streams of thought (fiscal, social, religious, paleo, neo, etc.) and,
2. Regional and Party (the capital “C”) movements
Phocion 22:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Would the author of the recent edit please rewrite his sentences to make them shorter. For example:
"These custodians can be, depending on the religion in question, relatively centralised, such as the case of the Catholic church, for example, or relatively de-centralised as in the case of Islam and other religions where there is no single supreme authority equivalent to the Pope or Dalai Lama, but rather authority is distributed among a learned class or caste, leaving it to individual believers to choose their own spiritual leader based on their inclinations, capacities and personal needs."
Rick Norwood 15:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
While the current version is good in its treatment of conservatism during the Enlightenment, it ignores what every Enlightenment philosopher was acutely aware of -- the debate about conservatism by Roman writers, especially Livy and Cicero. In particular, no Enlightenment writer would have said:
They all knew Latin, and most of them knew Greek. Rick Norwood 21:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Let's see, that takes care of most of your six points. There is no doubt that President Bush is familiar with Livy, since the use of religion to acquire power, and the use of foreign wars to keep power, are spelled out in some detail. Rick Norwood 13:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The reference to British conservatism is, in my opinion, defective.
I suggest the following:-
"The old established form of English, and after the Act of Union, British conservatism was the Tory Party. It reflected the attitudes of a rural land owning class, and championed the institutions of the monarchy, the Anglican Church, the family, and property as the best defence of the social order. In the early stages of the industrial revolution,it seemed to be totally opposed to a process that seemed to undermine some of these bulwarks. The new industrial elite were seen by many as enemies to the social order.
Sir Robert Peel was able to reconcile the new industrial class to the Tory landed class by persuading the latter to accept the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. He created a new political group that sought to preserve the old status quo while accepting the basics of laissez-faire and free trade. The new coalition of traditional landowners and sympathetic industrialists constituted the new Conservative Party.
Benjamin Disraeli gave the new party a political idealogy. As a young man, he was influenced by the romantic movement and the then fashionable medievalism, and developed a devastating critique of industrialism. In his novels he outlined an England divided into two nations, each living in perfect ignorance of each other. He forsaw, like Marx, the phenomenon of an alienated industrial proletariat.
His solution involved a return to an idealised view of a corporate or organic society, in which everyone had duties and responsibilities towards other people or groups. This one nation conservatism is still a very important tradition in British politics. It has animated a great deal of social reform undertaken by successive Conservative governments."
If no-one objects, I will add this, and possibly more later about Randolph Churchill, Macmillan, and Thatcher. -- Train guard 12:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Your proposed rewrite has a number of awkward phrases. May I suggest the following revision:
My response in brackets.-- Train guard 11:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
(It must be stated why they opposed industrialisation. 'Parvenu' means something very different to what I was saying. They thought that the industrial elite were the enemies of all that they held dear.)
(Not any change, but social reform. That's the point.)
Rick Norwood 16:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Nobody seems to have complained, so perhaps this is just picking nits, but the following passage sounds kind of judgmental:
"Radical movements within established religious traditions illustrate the paradoxical method by which branches of religious conservatism can emerge that, rather than trying to preserve an existing, generally conservative, social order, seek to overthrow that order in the name of a puritanical ideal, and enforce adoption of a perceived 'pristine' form of the religion, usually consisting of a highly literalist, legalistic and, in some cases anti-spiritual core of traditions, values, worldview, and lifestyle. This radical or revolutionary movement is usually a reaction against perceived abuses, corruption, or heresy within the existing tradition. One example of such a movement was the Protestant Reformation."
Would anyone like to comment? Is this in line with Wikipedia's neutral point of view?
i just read it and i dont get it, what do conservatives like? reform? idk, it has to be cleaned up and made easier to understand.
In my opinion, the critcism section is factually incorrect. Both conservatives and liberals tend to believe in similar outcomes or goals such as minimizing poverty. The difference is the means. Liberalism advocates raising taxes, distributing money to the "less fortunate", establishing quotas, creating government housing, food, and health care. Conservatism advocates economic growth to increase the number of jobs, disincentives to not working/saving/taking care of oneself, and individual responsibility. Of corse the aspect about the "racism" has to go... definately POV and not an accepted position (sure the left may makes these claims, but I would not go onto the liberalism page and state that conservatives think that liberals are retarded--even if they do). ER MD 08:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
You are free to edit the section, and I suggest you do if you feel it is "absolute trash" (I would refrain from using the word "absoute", though), but in the spirit of neutrality, this section does not have the right to exist without such a section, again, all perspectives must be adequately represented. Again, you can help by editing the section to what you feel is the most acccurate description, but I will dispute the neutrality of the article until the section is a permanent entity here. We have to play by the rules.
Those who think I was writing about some special interest are grossly mistaken... you should read it before deleting it, because some pinko will continue to put a biased position piece into the final section. Why not write a section that adequately reflects current conflicts with the "classical" concept of conservatism. It does exist... Maybe I will revise my original. ER MD 09:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Most controversial articles in Wikipedia have a criticism section. The important thing is that the criticism be sourced and stick to the subject. The previous criticism section got blanked because it belonged in the American conservatism article, not here. After some thought, I've restored my own version, which is sourced, and which only mentions American conservatism in the final paragraph, and there does not mention any of the hot button topics in the modern culture wars, except for the graduated income tax. Please discuss and improve this section, rather than simply deleting it. Rick Norwood 13:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is the section that I wrote: (please ID POV or wrong statement)
First, "The traditional opposite of conservatism, therefore, is radicalism (not, as is often asserted, liberalism)." This sentence is unnecessary, and flame-bait. I'm sure it's absolutely true according to some serious scholars of conservatism, but it sounds so much like the hackneyed conservative goad "anyone who doesn't agree with me is a radical." It's just begging for an argument from anyone who isn't (and many who are) a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. Furthermore, while it may be true in some ivory-tower scholarship sense, it absolutely isn't true in terms of how the words "conservative" and "liberal" are used in everyday language.
Second, the first sentence of the second paragraph is great, but it goes downhill quickly from there. "Additionally, conservative 'means' are often combined with other ideological 'ends [...]'" is getting rather obscure for an introduction sentence. And "(e.g.: Conservative or Classical Liberal versus Radical Liberal)." Huh? First, "Classical Liberal" and "Radical Liberal" are obscure terms. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but these are (apparently) being used as an example to clarify a previous point (that's what "e.g." implies) Clarifying the obscure with an obscure example isn't good writing. And even after clicking on the Classical/Radical links, I still have no idea what this whole sentence means.
And lastly, the final sentence in the second paragraph gets us back into scholarly ivory tower territory. In the real world (and in the U.S.), most people use "left"/"right" as essentially synonymous with "liberal"/"conservative." It's fine for the article to expand on the shades of meaning that these various terms have, or have in certain circles, or can have, or have had in the past. But right now the tone is one of some high-falutin professor saying "Well, let me start by informing you that the way you have used these words throughout your life is wrong."
Anyhow, that's my $.02 on the introduction. The only part I'm going to change right now is the "The traditional opposite of conservatism..." sentence. I urge more interested parties to look at the rest of the introduction. KarlBunker 13:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that in the religious section he's referred to with a SAW. As a neutral source, I don't think Wikipedia needs to pay heed to a tradition that is only applicable to actual believers. Heck, the article on Muhammad refers to him without PBUHs or SAWs. I didn't revert it out myself because I didn't know if there was some carefully measured compromise behind this or the like. SnowFire 17:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it is best to discuss this here, instead of flipping back and forth between this page and my talk page. First, I replied to your comments at the time. Second, I am not ignoring your point of view, I'm disagreeing with it. Third, "absolute rubbish" is name calling, not discussion. Rick Norwood 14:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Here are a few quotes that are easy to find. I will provide more.
"What is conervatism? It it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?" Abraham Lincoln.
"There is always a certain meanness in the argument of conservatism, joined with a certain superiority in its fact." Ralph Waldo Emmerson
"A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." Benjamin Disraeli
Less ready to hand (in my office) are Livy's many comments on conservative Romans. I'll provide some of those on Monday, if you like. In memory, but hard to find, are comments by a conservative bourgeois small businessman about the necessity for sumptuary laws forbidding the proletariat from dressing like the bourgeoise, something to the effect that "nothing is so disgusting as having a conservation with a person only to discover he is of the working class".
Turning to the OED, Conservative with a capital C is "the most common current designation of one of the two great English political parties, the characteristic principle of which is the maintenance of existing institutions, political and ecclesiastical." One quote given to explain this usage: "Conservative and Liberal, as we ordinarily use the terms, are distinctions having reference to a particular practical struggle, the gradual substitution of government by the whole body of the people for government by the privileged classes."
Enough, I think, to show that my view of a certain form of conservatism is not unfounded. Rick Norwood 15:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I think ER MD strongly agrees with your point of view, but the important thing is not more opinions, but more references. I've offered references for my understanding of the question. Please offer references for your. I will read them carefully. Also, I understand the difficulty of proving a negative. Rick Norwood 15:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The current article was hammered out over a long period of time by liberals and conservatives working together and respecting each other's good faith. Instead of a blanket condemnation of the entire article, why not try to improve what we have through discussion.
Meanwhile, I am still working on adding all of the citations you requested. Rick Norwood 15:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I have provided a number of references. Please let me know if more are desired. Also, please specify which statements in this article are not NPOV and which are still disputed.
A couple of comments. First, if I factually report that Smith says Jones is an idiot, this does not violate NPOV. If I say I agree with Smith, that violates NPOV. Second, it is not helpful to say something to the effect that everything is disputed. If everything is disputed, you should be able to cite one thing that is disputed, and that's a good place to start. Rick Norwood 17:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey Rick, the Conservatism Criticism section is original research. It's neither representative of the good work you've done on this article nor is it neutral or factual. It comes across as a patchwork intended to prove a point. WP:NOR Scribner 22:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Some of my points come from Livy's History of Rome and Machivelli's Discourses on Livy, but a lot of them come from the history of British conservatives, and from modern liberal commentators on modern conservatism. None of the points I make are original to me, though I can understand how they may sound original to a modern conservative if he has not read much history and gets his commentary exclusively from conservative sources. I think what would surprise modern conservatives most is the frankness with which the British Conservative party put forth their beliefs that the government should support the interests of the upper class. The upper class were obviously the best people, the lower classes needed religion and foreign wars to keep them distracted, while the government acted to protect upper class wealth and power. It is all laid out very clearly in the commentators on British politics, some of whom I've quoted, and in commentators on American politics. And yet I think a person could read this article without having the least idea of the origin of conservatism as a movement to conserve the power of the upper classes and the established religion. Rick Norwood 23:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
ER MD: Rick you are way off base with your writings. Here is a comparision on the philosophies. http://www.nhinet.org/raeder.htm ER MD 08:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The "Criticism of conservatism" section is not original research simply because it doesn't meet any of the criteria listed in WP:NOR#What_is_excluded. Everything in the section is quoted and referenced, and I see no attempt at "analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case"; in fact, describing the section as a "patchwork" precludes exactly this kind of argument.
NPOV tag is even more ludicrous. Hint: the section's title is "Criticism of conservatism". I have removed both tags now. GregorB 12:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to thank all of you who have forced me to make the section on criticism of conservatism less POV and more well documented. I continue to work toward this goal. Rick Norwood 14:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
If you doubt the statement, you need to read some history. I feel a little bit here the way I feel when I tell my friends and neighbors that the Theory of Evolution is real science. Their reply is very much to the effect that I have no goal but an agenda, and they are at a complete loss of words how anybody can think that there is any science behind evolution.
There is history behind the statement above, standard, well understood history. Since this history seems to be unknown to some, I will continue to document it, using standard, well known, sources. Rick Norwood 15:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Assume good faith, as I do. You are defending what you mean by conservatism. I am reporting criticism of a certain kind of conservatism. The current rewrite makes that more clear, I hope. It is important that this section demonstrate two things. First, that these are views of people who clearly support conservative beliefs and who played a major role in history. Second, that the criticisms are sourced and are contemporary with those criticized. Rick Norwood 15:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
"For example, a conservative bumper sticker reads"..., This is new. Bumper stickers, blogs and forums aren't reputable reference sources.
Rick, here's how Jimbo Wales wants you to handle original research:
..."But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history"
Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history" WP:NOR Scribner 18:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I can understand that conservatives are uncomfortable with some facts about the history of conservatism, just as Americans are uncomfortable with some facts in American history, and Australians are uncomfortable with some facts in Australian history. The fact remains, these people were major conservative thinkers, and they are not going to go away just because you delete references to them. Rick Norwood 15:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I have no axe to grind. I'm one of those weird souls who think there is such a thing as the truth, and I follow wherever it leads. When someone demonstrates that I'm wrong, I rejoice, because I learn something new. But blanking is not the same as demonstration. Rick Norwood 15:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Sign your comments with four tildes, please.
I've voted for liberals. I've voted for conservatives. Right now, I'm flying my liberal flag, primarily because of conservative distortions about science and history. Let the liberals come into power, and I may start flying my conservative flag. Rick Norwood 15:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I try to be careful not to put anything on Wikipedia that is not sourced from a major writer on the subject. Rick Norwood 15:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I assume that you are acting in good faith. Please credit me with the same. I can understand how, if you are not familiar with the standard history I reference, it can come as a shock. But it is standard history. You can bet George W. Bush learned it in prep school, and would find nothing in it original, remarkable, or exceptionable. Rick Norwood 20:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I know you are just kidding, but George W. Bush has one of the best educations money can buy. He went to prep school at Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts. He has a B.A. in History from Yale University. He has the training to fly a F-102. He is fluent in Spanish. And he has a MBA from Harvard Business School. Furthermore, he has run up a nine trillion dollar debt and left you holding the tab. You tell me who is smart and who is stupid. Rick Norwood 20:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed the bumper sticker reference. I agree, it was a weak source. I will try to avoid such weak sources in the future. Rick Norwood 22:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
(con't down here)
My point is this. This article begins with discussing conservatism in the abstract, then separates into discussions of specific instances of conservatism in history. Your current criticism section is almost entirely criticisms of specific movements with conservatism- Roman patricians, French royalists, American conservatives, etc. I feel that these statements, if kept at all, should be moved to their specific section. Unless they can be tied into a general, abstract criticism of conservatism (which perhaps might require examples), I can't see their relevance at the end, which seems to be about criticism of conservatism in general. There might be relevance if you could prove that all implementations of conservatism have inherently been "corrupt" in some way (as some argue against Communism by saying that all its examples failed), but that section doesn't seem to do that. You can't show a philosophy is wrong in general by pointing out a few specific instances where it was "wrong."
SnowFire 19:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
A request for comment has been filed relating to Rick Norwood's edits. Please leave comments there. michael talk 15:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I figured it'd be easier to just show an example of what I was referring to above. The kind of "Criticism of Conservatism" section I'm imagining (should it even be kept), which focuses on the idea:
---
Critics of conservatism find the idea of tradition having any kind of vote in what is just or right ridiculous. History contains many societies whose tradition contains practices considered bizarre or evil today. If a visionary should recognize that something is wrong, why should there be any hesitance to abandon it? While non-conservatives may hope that their societies are "right," they find no fulfilling proof that a common practice is also a correct practice.
Critics also often find the conservative wariness over revolutionary change overly timid. While there are many examples of revolutions gone horribly wrong, there are also examples where they provided a useful "clean break" with the past, clearing away accumulated mistakes in one mighty shift. A positive example might be the American Revolution. The danger is also seen in reverse; a society in decline often needs to change quickly or else risk disaster, and conservative elements might slow things down to the point where it is too late. An example of this would be Easter Island, which was too slow to change its tradition of moai-building before deforesting the island, leading to an ecological collapse. Some environmentalists critisize conservatives today over such worries, that adopting change too slowly will lead to ruin.
Conservatism has also historically been abused as a guise for self-serving interests. Since conservatism demands a respect for tradition and hesitance of change, people in powerful positions have often advocated conservatism not because they believed its merits, but merely to keep themselves in power. Livy's History of Rome [1] contains countless examples of the patrician class invoking tradition and the gods to maintain their hold on power over the plebeian class and preserve the status quo. Critics of conservatism would counsel that asking Cui bono in the case of conservative ideology is much more important than with other ideologies, due to conservatism's natural benefits for established power structures.
--
How's that? SnowFire 20:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
If I want to show some part of Quantum Physics I think is wrong, I don't quote a 17-year old on the Internet for the opposing side. I cite current journal-published research, and then how those methodologies could have been wrong, or the results misinterpreted. If I think Creationism is mistaken, I don't try and scientifically debate televangelists; I find the books written by the "Creation scientists" that have gotten the most respect, and show how even then their results are suspect. If I disagree with American conservatism at a high political-science level, I don't dismantle Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter's invective that passes as arguments; I use scholarly books by William F. Buckley or Milton Friedman.
Defeating low-lying fruit proves very little. If "that side of conservatism" (as you put it) is relevant, then every article on a philosophy can include a section where it is revealed that some people that support that philosophy probably can't defend it well and might support it for emotional or self-serving reasons rather than logical reasons. This isn't news, and it doesn't imply that the philosophy is wrong. (Again, it may be relevant historically and in specific sections, and it may be relevant if a movement is much more vulnerable to these subsections than other movements- which as I noted above may in fact be true of conservatism, but that isn't in the article currently- but it is not logically relevant.)
I suppose my complaint is that the current section (I only joined recently and assumed from talk that it was mostly yours- apologes if it isn't) lacks an overriding intellectual framework. What are these critics trying to say? Unlike others here, I have no problem with a criticism section, but I'm still unclear on what exactly its current purpose is. Let me be specific.
So? What does this lead into? Socialists often invoke equality and fairness in support of their views. Theocrats often invoke morality and justice in support of their views. Is this bad for some reason? If so, why?
So Disraeli disliked a conservative government of the time and Wordsworth liked the French revolution. Could well have been just pithy quotes. What's the context? Why are conservative governments organized hypocrisies? Even assuming he meant it, this feels like "he said, she said." A criticism section that basically says "Some people don't like conservatism. Here they are and some quotes of them dissing conservatism and celebrating liberalism" isn't very interesting. Even if it's well-sourced, finding out that people disagree with conservatism isn't nearly as useful as finding out why they disagree with conservatism. As it stands, the Criticism section is notably short on actual criticism and argument. SnowFire 16:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Criticism of conservatism belongs in the article if they are in the other political (affliction) articles. My criticism is geared to the whole article in general and I find it poorly written and POV.-- MadDogCrog 09:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The criticisms from Plato, Wordsworth, and Gladstone were offered in hopes that the three who objected to modern examples would at least accept criticism of conservatives by conservatives. (Livy was something of a conservative, too.) But as things stand, the those who object to the section are adamant that no criticism of conservatism is ever acceptable. Visit the arbitration page to see where things now stand. Rick Norwood 20:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's move this discussion to the bottom of the page, where it will be easier to work. Rick Norwood 15:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Some conservatives believe in limited government, but this is, historically, not a major theme in conservative thought. I cannot think of any conservative before the 20th century who wanted limited government. Most of the people in earlier societies who wanted to limit the power of government were liberals, and wanted to overthrow monarchies, dictatorships, or powerful religions. In fact, it is hard to understand how limited government fits any of the definitions of conservatism given in this article. It sounds more like libertarianism to me.
Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are hardly "17-year old" Internet bloggers. They are best selling authors. They are also straw men, since the section in question does not mention either. All of the examples you mention are modern American examples, which suggests you think of conservatism in those terms, rather than as a major movement with a long history.
You don't seem to distinguish between what is said on the talk page and what is said in the article. In the article, the section in question quotes only major writers, and only two modern writers, only one of whom is an American.
This is the beginning of a paragraph that reports claims, by various writers, that conservatives who invoke religion and patriotism are hypocrites.
This leads into the next paragraph, which is about those critics who accuse conservatives of hypocrisy.
This is from an earlier paragraph, and offers a famous criticism of French conservatives, who supported the King, the aristocracy, and the church.
I think your point is well taken. In an effort to keep the paragraph very short, I've probably left out some connective sentences that would make it clearer. I don't want the paragraph to grow in size -- the article is already too long -- but I will see what I can do to make it easier to understand. I'm not going to attempt that today. There are some reference books out at school that I want to consult first. But I will try to do something along those lines tomorrow. Rick Norwood 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
In my reading of history and political philosophy, I have come across three main criticisms of conservatism. (Obviously, I need to cite chapter and verse, which I will do tomorrow.) First is the criticism that while conservativism is good, conservatives tend to carry their love of tradition to extremes, as in the death of Socrates. Second is the criticism that conservatism is not good, because tradition stands in the way of progress. Third is the criticism that conservatism is a form of hypocracy, because the people who appeal to tradition are often the people who benefit most from that tradition.
No personal attacks on individual conservatives. No references to cousin Bob. Rick Norwood 21:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Sir:
I believe you are acting in good faith. That is, I believe these ideas are new to you and therefore you assume that I just made them up. But I have offered clear evidence, in the form of references, that this is not, in fact, the case. Please help me to understand why you continue to reject this evidence. Rick Norwood 21:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Your claim that this is original research means that you claim that I wrote the material in question. Please go to a library and verify that in fact the material in question was written by the people referenced. Your claim that this is point of view is a claim that the people quoted had a biased or non-standard point of view. Since one of them won a Pulitzer Prize and a Medal of Freedom, that claim is also unsubstantiated. Unless you can substantiate your cliams, you should stop blanking the paragraph in question.
I really expected better of you than just a repetition of unsupported claims. Rick Norwood 22:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
"Conservatives often invoke religion and patriotism in support of their views."
For example, consider Vicomte Louis-Gabriel-Ambroise de Bonald, one of the two leading French conservatives in the age of Napoleon. In Théorie du pruvoir politique et religieux (1796) he "defended absolute monarchy, hereditary aristocracy, patriarchal authority in the family, and the moral and religious sovereignty of the popes over all the kings of Christendom." [10]
Critics of conservatism claim that conservative cliams of piety and patriotism are often used hypocritically to sway the masses. Samuel Johnson wrote, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel,"[11]
Many a populist politician in modern times has stirred the voters to a patriotic or religious fervor and then acted only to benefit himself and his cronies. [12] [13]
Rick: you complain that I have deleted the section 3 times in one day. Well, 3 other people also deleted it. And you have reverted 6 times now so you are in violation of the 3RR rule. The preponderence of thought on this issue is that this parapgraph does not belong. I will delete for the 4th time. Request an arbcom if you wish. You are violating policy way more than me. ER MD 23:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I really do not understand what it is about this paragraph that ER MD objects to, but in the spirit of compromise, I offer the following. I will limit my comments in this article, for one month, to conservatism before 1900, and delete from the Criticism of Conservatism section all references to events and persons after 1900. In return, you ER MD, stop blanking the Criticism of Conservatism section of this article for at least one month. If we both are happy with the result, we can extend the truce. What do you say? Rick Norwood 23:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Rick, while I happen to believe that you do have something to contribute here, my recommendation would be to bring the entire Criticism of Conservatism section to the Talk page and hash out what it should be here first, so as not to cause a disruptive war in the main article. If on the Talk Page people can come to some consensus, then the section can be moved back into the article with much firmer backing. Continuing the battle on the main article page will only bring the wrath of the admins down eventually. SnowFire 04:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I think they've made it pretty clear. They feel that the whole section's thrust is POV and not explanatory and think it should go.
As for moving it to the Talk Page, it's entirely possible that the consensus will, in fact, be to remove the section and not put it back. If that's the case, while you might think the consensus wrong, it will at least be a community decision. Oh well. People and organizations make mistakes, and you can just consider that possible occurrence one of them should it happen. SnowFire 15:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
In the spirit of compromise, I will remove the quote by Johnson. On the other hand, the Disraeli quote is specificly addressed to conservatism. Rick Norwood 12:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm guessing it is being removed all the time because of your edit wars but perheps I'm wrong. Anyone object this template to be added to the Conservatism article? Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ) 22:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
No, sorry, my bad. I'll put it back now.
Rick Norwood 23:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the reference to Bush that ER MD objected to and removed the Johnson quote that Scribner objected to.
Earlier, there was an objection that the thread of the paragraph was not clear, so I am working to correct that.
I will have a new version, carefully sourced, later today. Rick Norwood 12:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
First of all, it sounds like the "three" classical points of critique are original research. Reference a page that states that addresses the "three classical points of criticism."
Second, having assertions followed by quotes that are made without referencing the context of the quotes does not sound appropriate.
Third, a review of this webpage [ [3]] seems to have a real critique of conservatism as opposed to what Rick has written and even what I have written in the past.
Therefore, I think this section needs to go. Not only can nobody agree on what should be written here, it seems to me that there are political motivations by Rick to influence people to his point of view by providing a soapbox. Note, I have not written any critique of american liberalism since to do so is just that... a soapbox. For an article to address a philosophy and then have a criticism section that covers aspects not in the article seems to be a violation. What would be the logic, lets say, of having a liberalism section which explains the philosopy, and then to write a criticism section that broadsides the philosophy with arguments not even referenced in the article.
The article by George Irbe seems to have a philosophical approach to the philosophy as opposed to what has been written here. ER MD 20:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Rick Norwood 14:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Even though I came up with the Plato example, in an effort to find some authority that would be acceptable, Plato was really opposed to democracy rather than to conservatism per se. I have much better examples, due to Burke. Sadly, the mediation on this issue has gone on for months, now, with little or no progress, and I hesitate to make any changes that might start another edit war. Rick Norwood 13:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[Democracy] contains every possible type, because of the wide freedom it allows, and anyone engaged in founding a state, as we are doing, should perhaps be made to pay a visit to a democracy and choose what he likes from the variety of models it displays, before he proceeds to make his own foundation
Or, as Churchill put it, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. Rick Norwood 19:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
In researching the context of the Disraeli quote in answer to ER MD's question, I happened on one of those ironies that keep history unpredictable. The struggle was over protectionist tarrifs called the corn laws. Disraeli, the conservative, was a protectionist. The other conservatives, in favor of free trade, broke away from Disraeli's branch of the party, and joined with the liberals to repeal the corn laws.
See, good things can happen when conservatives and liberals work together. Rick Norwood 21:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Rick, your taunt at another member just backfired. Thanks for proving that you used a quote here to criticize conservatism without any historical background, whatsoever. The quote fit your POV agenda, that's all that mattered. You wrote a sentence loaded with weasel words and inserted it all as fact. Scribner 22:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Did you want proof? Scribner 05:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Since we seem to have solved this problem on our own, does anyone object if I remove the request for arbitration? Rick Norwood 19:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The request for arbitration will stand.
I had already removed the introductory sentence you object to. I only added it at the request of a reader who thought more explanation was necessary. Personally, I'm happy to let the quotes speak for themselves. Rick Norwood 21:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
P.S. for ER MD. In my reading I came across a quote I thought you might like by the famous philosopher Herbert Spencer, "During immaturity benefits received must be inversely proportional to capacities possessed. Within the family-group most must be given where least is deserved, if desert is measured by worth. Contrariwise, after maturity is reached benefit must vary directly as worth: worth being measured by fitness to the conditions of existence. The ill-fitted must suffer the evils of unfitness, and the well-fitted must profit by their fitness. These are the two laws which a species must conform to if it is to be preserved. ... The only justification for the analogy between parent and child, and government and people, is the childishness of the people who entertain the analogy." Ethics, Book II
My P.S., far from being an attack, was intended as a peace offering. Spencer is a major philosopher who agrees with your views about small government, as best I understand them. He is calling the liberals childish! I thought you could use the quote in the "Criticism of socialism" section if you wanted to. Rick Norwood 21:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Was that really said? It looks like a joke to me. -- SeizureDog 20:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Quote from Wikipedias' policy on use of "weasel Words",
"If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed."[ [5]]
Rick, I advised you against the use of weasel words before I knew Wikipedia not only has a policy against them but also has coined a terminology for such words and phrases. Good work, Wiki!
I don't have time for a protracted argument. Please read and follow Wikipedia's policy WP:WEASEL, thanks. Scribner 20:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia "weasel word" page :
Examples of weasel words:
Here are some weasel words that are often found in Wikipedia articles (but shouldn't be):
"Some people say..." "Some argue..." "Contrary to many..." "As opposed to most..." "Research has shown..." "...is widely regarded as..." "...is widely considered to be..." "It is believed that..." "It has been said/suggested/noticed/decided/stated..." "Some people believe..." "Some feel that..."' "They say that..." "Many people say..." "It may be that..." "Could it be that..." "It could be argued that..." "Critics/experts say that..."' "Some historians argue..." "Considered by many..." "Accusations..." "Apparently..." "Allegedly..." "Arguably..." "Serious scholars/scientists/researchers..." "Mainstream scholars/scientists/researchers..." "The (mainstream) scientific community" "It is claimed..." "It should be noted that..." "Correctly (justly, properly, ...) or not, ..." Anthropomorphisms like "Science says ..." or "Medicine believes ..." "...is only one side of the story" "Experts suggest..." "Four out of Five Doctors/Dentists agree..."[ [6]]
Your sentences:
1. Then there are those who claim that conservative philosophy is often a mask for self-interest.
2. Other writers have echoed the criticism that conservative philosophy is sometimes used to mask self-interest.
3. Finally, there are those who criticize conservatism as standing in the way of progress.
OK, no question that the sentences include weasel words. Now, which of the three did you want to debate first? Scribner 22:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
As you know, I did not "choose" not to debate the issues. I was blocked. If you would like to debate any of the three "claims", dispite the fact that I removed all three in the spirit of compromise, I am willing to do so. Please pick one of the three "claims" that you disagree with and we can start there. Meanwhile, I've asked the cabal mediator to comment on the Criticisms of Conservatism section, and am restoring it for that purpose. Please do not delete it until the mediator has had a chance to read it and offer advice. Rick Norwood 06:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Our page on weasel words is a style guide, not a policy. Avoid them like the plague if you can! It's better to use quotes or surveys instead. But if you can't (yet), fine. It's a level of quality thing.
these are nicer:
If you do have to use weaselwords as a placeholder, it's always wise to state on the talk page where roughly you're digging for references, or where you think references could be found. Else you might get in a situation where people delete them out of hand. They don't know about the magazine you read last month but forgot the page number of, so you have to point that out. ;-)
Kim Bruning 23:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
From James Burnham / Talk:James_Burnham - "His 1964 book Suicide of the West became a classic among movement conservatives" -- Can anybody please explain the meaning of the expression "movement conservatives"? Thanks. -- 201.78.233.162 20:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Good lord this section is a mess:
Are we seriously saying this? Seriously? Was this written by someone who has ever read anything about 19th century European history? Traditional conservatives strongly opposed nationalism well into the 19th century, because they saw it as tied to liberalism and, in general, disintegrating to traditional ideas, and dangerous to order. The embrace of nationalism by conservatives in, for instance, Germany (i.e. by Bismarck) was for the most part seen as cynical, and, indeed, even in Germany traditional Prussian conservatives remained highly suspicious of German nationalism, instead embracing their idealized conception of the old Prussian state. It was the right wing liberals who became the most virulent supporters of nationalism, not the conservatives. When one was is discussing long-established countries like Britain and France, nationalism is an awkward descriptor. Ths historical illiteracy of wikipedia articles about political ideologies remains sad and embarrassing. john k 13:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Why Why Why are you interpreting nationalism on the conservative page Rick! Nationalism is more a socialist/communist movement. American conservatives are for states rights and are not nationalistic but patriotic. Germans/Europeans in general have always been nationalists; liberal, conservative or communist! Oh! and the patriotism section is horrendous and absolutely ridiculous! Rick I have gone back a few months and looked over your POV writing and people having edit wars with you! this page is so terrible, and I think right now YOUR the biggest reason why. You waste so much time and effort of goodhearted people trying to fix your continuous POV, that this article is getting worse. Rick it is obvious your intention here to everyone but you! Why do you troll this article and write for it, when you only have disdain for anything conservative.This whole article needs to be restyled and rewritten if you ask me.-- MadDogCrog 09:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that "nationalism" was a poor word choice. Patriotism is much better, and following John Kenney's good suggestion, I made the change. There is now only one paragraph about nationalism, and the purpose of that paragraph is to point out that nationalism is often not a conservative movement. I have no objection if you want to remove that paragraph. In fact, I have no objection to removing the sentences with "cite" tags, if, say, a week goes by without anyone providing the requested citations. (Some of those sentences are mine, some are not, but I'm not wedded to any of them.) There is a big difference between blanking, which is Unwiki, and asking for citations and removing unverified material, which is the essence of Wiki. I'm always glad when someone asks for a citation. It keeps me honest.
Please assume good will. I see a lot to admire in conservatism and a lot to criticise in liberalism. I also see a great deal of overlap between the two. Currently, both favor capitalism and democracy. Rick Norwood 14:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Surely saying that patriotism should be associated with conservatism is much much worse than saying that nationalism is. "Patriotism" is pretty entirely non-political, and is used by pretty much any politician - hell, what did Joseph Stalin call World War II again? Nationalism did come to be associated with the right in many parts of Europe by the early 20th century, although there've always been left wing and liberal nationalists, as well. "Patriotism" has never been primarily associated with the right, except in the minds of Ann Coulter, et al. john k 15:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
While the word "conservative" did not take on its present meaning until a few hundred years ago, historians widely use the word to describe similar views in other times and cultures. For example, Confucius is usually described as a conservative philosopher. The conservative philosophy is the philosophy that upholds tradition. This distinction was well understood in Plato's day, and Socrates and Alcibides are described as liberal thinkers, while Thucidides and Xenophon are usually described as conservative -- upholders of the traditional ways of doing thing. Plato was conservative in some ways and revolutionary in others -- his Republic proposes a totally revolutionary form of government in which social class is decided by ability rather than by birth.
The current criticism of conservatism section has no examples in common with the original criticism of conservatism section, everything in that section was removed due to challenges by the three people who repeatedly blanked the section, in an attempt to compromise. The blankers, however, have so far rejected the very idea of any criticism of conservatism. I would personally like to see all of the examples you mention above added to the section. Rick Norwood 15:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The above is an ongoing mediation case regarding POV issues in this article. There is a Village Pump posting requesting opinions on the matter at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#A controversy in the Conservatism article and a RfC filed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rick Norwood.
If anyone has a solution to resolve the dispute in a manner which may be acceptable to all sides, I'd appreciate comments on Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-13 Conservatism. Please keep Wikipedia policy in mind while drafting suggestions.
Thanks!
Can anyone justify why this section is here in the Conservative Article. Very Poor Form for Encyclopedic Reference. It needs to be deleted along with the Patriotism section, unless anyone objects.-- MadDogCrog 04:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
So your justification for the patriotism section is that you feel most conservatives are more patriotic than the liberal counterpart, So 6 poorly written paragraphs needs to be included into the conservative page. Instead linking patriotism in the See Also section. So I shall expostulate in remonstance.
First paragraph; Has a mis-quote of Stephan Decatur Jr.’s that in Original form is quite patriotic but not affilliated with any Conservative group, agenda, and/or cause. If Stephan Decature was a Socialist would this be a famous Socialist patriotic expression. Why is this quote conservative?
Next paragraph; Discussion of the country of England Political postureing about retaining its Style and Culture! Which is definatly a classic conservative philosophy but seems to be a latent patriotic atribute at best.
Third paragraph; Is some form of Original Research tripe that goes nowhere, yet ends with the excellent patriotic quote, from the Conservative Sir. Walter Scott. That I Guess is supposed to justify the whole paragraph?
Forth paragraph; Is a discription of patriotism in general. Nothing conservative specific. And yet it ends with the Social Liberal Democratic quote of John F. Kennedy to justify its content, Wich is quite patriotic, yet you could never consider him a classic conservative, but was a fiscal conservative!
Fifth and Sixth paragraph; More poorly written Alphabet Soup Original Research somehow made its way her to the patriotic Conservative section. I am at odds at the anchor to patriotic conservatism, and its intent and direction to inform the researcher using Wiki. And I believe you feel also should be deleted.
So there really is no reason to keep any of this erroneous information! Unless you can justify its inclussion in rebuttal.
And lets see, you say we should Conserve the Liberalism section! Yet the Wiki Page on Liberalism does not have a Conservative section. So its wiki to keep inappropriate tripe! And its inclusion is very un-Encyclopidic. And as you agree this section is problematic and should be moved or included elsewhere.
So create and write a more suitable section with the information you find appropriate in this section as you suggest. And you or I shall remove this problematic and inappropriate section! I would argue against this section more, but I am tired and feel its existence is argument enough. My favorite quote of Sir Walter Scott ; “Oh! what a tangled web we weave When first we practice to deceive!” -- MadDogCrog 06:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
First I had to fix the quote of Stephen Decatur Jr. to be complete and correct! Still don’t understand why its there or who classifies it as conservative other than you rick! But I will just ask for citation and go from there.
To quote you Rick. “The patriotism section is important, I think, because patriotism is a value most conservatives espouse.” I was trying to clarify your justification of why a patriotism section exists. And where you get the idea that I was creating a black and white issue out of this defies logic to me. Other than to be a passive aggressive barb to belittle my intellectual depth of the issue. As verified by linking me to the Shallow American comment. Touche! But I will stay on the direct and intellectual approach.
Your comment that conservatives use the Religion Card Shows a little lack of depth on your part., for the Religious Conservatives, Religion and Morals are there issue. It is not a card that is played, but the hand they hold,
So you agree with me about the Second Paragraph, I think. Your rebuttal is fairly vague. Yet it is still there!
Third and Rest of the section---Excellent Quote! Very Patriotic! Again how is this Conservative! National Values, and Patriotism. Again not conservative specific.
Your comment ” I think, the conservative idea that patriotism is more important that other virtues.” Shows that this section is to again insert your POV. I do acquiesce to the your Literary quote “patriotism is a value most conservatives espouse.”as Being a part of the general Article on Conservatism, but to have a whole section on patriotism is rediculous when this value is espoused in many cultures, nations and the vast spectrum of political philosophy in one form of another.
And again there is no Conservatism section in the liberal page. So why do you feel a liberalism section belongs here!!! Don’t you see this just seems so obviously unEncyclopedic, reeks of poor form, and lack of Continuity of style for the editors and researchers using wiki-- MadDogCrog 12:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The old section was rather long, so I've split off a new section. The main thing I have to say here is that if my comments about the liberal/conservative split in America sounded like a barb aimed at you, I apologize. Such was not my intention.
About playing the religion card. When a private citizen supports a particular religion, that is a matter of conscience and belief. When a politician says, vote for me because of my religion, that is playing a card. In the last American election, John Kerry and George Bush ran for president. Both men are Christians. But in my church, the pastor told the congregation, "If you are a good Christian, you will vote for George Bush, because he's a good Christian." When you mix religion and politics, it makes bad religion and bad politics.
About the patriotism section. Have you read Kipling's Stalky & Co.? There is a scene in that book where a politician comes to the boys' school and gives a speech about patriotism. It makes Stalky almost literally ill. Patriotism is something you feel, not something you talk about. It may help you understand how I feel when the American congress, at a time when we are fighting a war that serves no legitimate American interest, at a time when we are going nine trillion dollars deeper in dept, introduces an ammendment against burning the American flag. Now, I love my country's flag, and I love my country, but I would never try to use my own patriotism for political gain. The idea makes me sick.
The point about the liberalism section: as I see it, the section has one and only one legitimate purpose, and that is to explain how the words "liberal" and "conservative" are used differently in different contexts. For example, "liberal" is sometimes used to mean "conservative" as in the phrase, "economic liberal". And the meaning of the two words in the EU is very different from their meaning in the US. I tried to take everything else in that section out. But, as I said, I hope someone else who knows more about the EU than I does a rewrite. Rick Norwood 23:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I got too chatty on the talk page -- I was trying to respond to a direct question from MadDogDrog. Rick Norwood 12:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Rick to MadDogCrog: I'm going to try to keep this brief and focused, to avoid the accusation of blogging. (1) The problem with mixing religion and politics is hypocracy. (2) The difference between flag burning and the environment is that while flag burners may hurt my feelings, pollution may hurt my health. I'm willing to restrict freedom to protect my health, but not to keep my feelings from being hurt. (3) It is not I who equates economic conservatism and economic liberalism. I go with you and Mr. Webster. This section is a concession to the libertarians. Rick Norwood 14:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
My three responses above were direct answers to your direct comments to me. To respond directly to your comments above, and ignore the accusations of propaganda and bad spelling: 1) people may edit sections of Wikipedia without waiting to be asked. 2) if you don't like my edit, instead of insulting it, improve it. 3) The reason for the liberalism section was that (as best I remember) a libertarian wanted people to know that many libertarians considered themselves classical liberals but political conservatives. Then someone who knows about Eurpoean politics added some paragraphs that I found interesting. 4) The reason for the patriotism section (at first badly titled "nationalism") is that, as the section says, "Conservatives often express admiration of the patriotic values of duty, sacrifice, and obedience." Do you disagree? 4) I do know the meaning of hypocrisy, so my education was not entirely wasted. To belabor a point I thought was obvious, while there are many sincere Christians in politics, there are also many crooked politicians who hypocritically profess to be good Christians, so many that the real Christians tend not to wear their religion on their sleeve, for fear of sounding like the hypocrites. Rick Norwood 16:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Scribner for your editing!-- MadDogCrog 10:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Rick Norwood, you've change all cited materials to the style of Footnotes, without discussion. Change every "footnote cite" back to the "Embedded HTML links" that this article has used since the article was started.
The following are different citation styles you can use to insert references into Wikipedia articles:
All three are acceptable citation styles for Wikipedia. Do not change from Harvard referencing to footnotes or vice versa without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor. citation styles-- Scribner 00:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
If contributors differ as to the appropriate style of citation, they should defer to the article's main content contributors in deciding the most suitable format for the presentation of references.If no agreement can be reached, the citation style used should be that of the first major contributor.-- Scribner 00:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC) agreement required-- Scribner 00:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Rick to Scribner: While I have no strong preference for one citation style over another, the problem here was mixed citation styles, which is clearly a bad idea. As for following the style of the first major contributor, I would say Jmabel deserves that honor. But, if priority is the issue, I was working on this article long before you were. Rick Norwood 00:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I've restored the two sections, one entirely deleted and the other cut to a single paragraph. On the other hand, I have no objection at all to shortening these sections. Would the person who deleted them please specify what these sections say that he does not think belongs in the article?
Personally, I think the patriotism section makes the article stronger. In fact, the appeal to patriotism is one of conservatism's greatest attractions.
The liberalism section is not as important, but seems to contain some interesting information, and helps the article to be less centered on American conservatism. If the name of the section were changed, would that help? Rick Norwood 01:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
This page is 33 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable.
Attention Firefox and Google Toolbar users: You may find that long pages are cut off unexpectedly while editing in tabs; please be careful. This issue has been reported to Google, and we hope they will fix it.
A section or content that does not pertain to the philosophy of Conservatism should be removed. The Liberalism section clearly belongs in the liberalism article. The Patriotism section as well belongs in the patriotism article.-- Scribner 04:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Good call, GregorB. Can we also remove the references flag, since the article now has many references? Rick Norwood 12:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
On the subject of warning labels. I agree with GregorB that any warning labels should be on sections, not on the entire article. Only the criticism section is under mediation.
Rick to GregorB: The existing criticism section is the result of repeated unsuccessful attempts on my part to compromise with Scribner. He insists that the section must not contain any introductory remarks or framing material, must not contain any mention of US conservatism or modern conservatism, and must not include any examples. The existing section was the best I could do under those constraints, but he still considers it POV and OR. There are a couple of alternate versions on view on the mediation page, and I would appreciate another opinion which might help to break the deadlock there, which has gone on for more than a month.
Rick to Scribner: Please read the Wiki policy on blanking. I have offered to work with you on this. Please tell me what you want. Rick Norwood 22:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
There is article Liberalism worldwide.Why there is no such article about conservativism? BoDu 30 July 2006
I created today article Conservatism worldwide.I invite you,and others to start writing. BoDu 31 July 2006
I have provided requested references and removed unreferenced remarks. I hope we can now move on to more constructive work on the article. The thing that seems to me most needed is a careful read from beginning to end to remove duplication. Rick Norwood 13:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
In my absence, and recent disgust! While trying to be a decent contributor, and editor to this article. It seem 'Rick' you have decided to remove the sections that I found inappropriate to this article, and include whatever gibberish that you found worthwhile in those sections to other sections!
Well Hooray! After almost a month of my diplomacy, discussion, and pragmatism. You finally did what I asked all along to be done, and removed those sections.
What gives!
Was I correct that these sections did not belong? Do I not deserve an apology for wasting my time? Do I not at least deserve an explanation of why now you changed your mind and decided to remove those sections?
I don’t have all day to spend on wikipedia! And I prefer to work diplomatically and pragmatically. And I truly would like to contribute! But this was a drain on my emotional constitution. And a big waste of my possible editing time. This article needs lots and lots of work!-- MadDogCrog 10:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
... it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.---- Comment by Jimbo Wales
See also, Wikipedia criticism guideline
And, POV forks POV forks
The criticism section was nothing more than a bundle of quotes, wired together with connective material. The guidelines regarding criticism in articles were never followed. Section removed.-- Scribner 05:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Refences for recently added section:
1: "1.1 What is distinctive about conservatism as a political view?
Its emphasis on tradition as a source of wisdom that goes beyond what can be demonstrated or even explicitly stated."
From a Jim Klab who has written several books on the topic.
2: "His decision to block the bill from becoming law is a major win for social conservatives, who opposed the measure because they argued extracting stem cells would destroy the embryos and thus end a life."
From CNN.
3: The Russian conservatives and reformers have different visions of the future. The Russian conservatives favour a strong state hand in economic development. In their view, the state sector should coexist with a largely independent private sector, and independent enterprises would have to shoulder their own debts. At the same time, the state would permit but regulate monopolistic enterprises and institute harsh penalties for cutting output and raising prices without valid reason. Key to conservative plans is the creation of a single CIS economic space.
From the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service.
This section is not inflammatory and specifically avoids a lot of topics.
Honestly conservatism, at least much of its ideological stimulus in the past two centuries, has been little more than a reaction against liberalism. There is very little unique material to actually criticize. There should be a criticism section, but it's not as pressing a matter as it is for a topic like liberalism, which has been vastly more influential in global politics over the past two, three, four (?) centuries.
UberCryxic 02:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, there definitely needs to be a critisism section. There's one for liberalism and other political ideologies, so why not here? Conservativism is no different and does not deserve special treatment. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 02:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem with your characterization Rick is that before modern times, "conservatism" was really just an undercurrent in history. It only represented a general state of affairs - as you said, the support of tradition, religious institutions, and autocracies, among other things, in many societies - but it was not a coherent worldview and ideology like it is now. That would require Edmund Burke. When people did all these things you are saying, and they did do them, they did not appeal to conservatism; it was merely how they were raised. Liberalism as an ideology is far older than conservatism. And like I said, the latter is a reaction to the former (Burke was writing in response to the French Revolution). UberCryxic 14:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
They were discussed by those writers in their own unique context and traditions. The ideological rigor only developed in recent times, which is true for many beliefs and ideas out there. Before the "isms" of the 19th century gave them systematic and coherent weight, they were mostly customary traditions, though not always. Generally speaking, I simply want to caution against taking a modern ideology and brushing history with its stroke. Doing that in no way illuminates on the intellectual debates and concerns of the writers that you identified, and, in fact, it may even detract from those pursuits. UberCryxic 17:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The China section currently ends with the sentence:
I'm not too sure what this means. The parenthetical phrase tells me what it isn't, but there's no link or explanation of what it is. What does this neoconservative movement believe, and how is it different from the Chinese conservatism discussed in the rest of the section? -- Delirium 23:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there any reason why "crunchy conservatives", the movement described in Rod Dreher's book, should not be included in the article here? There's some overlap with paleocons, but that moniker doesn't adaquately describe those who Dreher writes about. Mamalujo 19:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
"What's happened to this article? It's much shorter, and the quote: "A disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve" which is the very heart of conservatism, is gone."
I agree that the quote above belongs in the article. Will someone who knows the citation please reference it.
On another topic, someone has added to the introduction the phrase "strong foreign defense". Whatever that is supposed to mean, it does not belong in the intro. Some conservatives favor a large army, others favor small government. Remember George Washington's statement, "Beware of foreign entanglements".
I've done a small rewrite of the intro. I haven't added anything, just removed a couple of unreferenced comments. Rick Norwood 13:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The cites in Russell Kirk are looking rather anemic. Anybody care to try to improve them? -- 201.51.211.130 15:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I have a question why is it that conservatives are true conservatism these days. The articles does not reflect the aspects of all of this. I have gone threw a great deal of articles in this ideals section. I have not seen any conservative or traditional views that reflect those that support monarchies (Not just the British!! There are other Rulers besides in England!) My point being is that if the article is going to go on about conservatism why does it not address those with positive views of; nobles ruling, public executions, real art, castles etc.
I find it appalling that Wikipedia included Liberalism on its 2006 CD, but failed to include its opposite. Open source is supposed to be neutral. What a disgrace.
Religious conservatism is unlike other forms of conservatism, because of the many different forms it can take. Many religious conservatives are resistant to all change, because they see their beliefs as coming from an all knowing and unchanging God. St. Paul illustrates the importance of tradition in First Corinthians: "I have received from the Lord that which also I delivered unto you." The Latin word for delivered here is traditio.
"I have received from the Lord that which also I delivered unto you" (exact reference: 1 Corinthians 11:23).
You know what they say, a text taken out of it's context becomes a pretext.
In this case, Paul's intention was clearly not an attempt to justify religious conservatism (In fact Paul, being a converted jew himself, often refers to Israel's religious traditions such as circumcision as being no longer necessary). In addition, the latin word traditio means "giving up, surrender; instruction, relation" (ref. University of Notre Dame's Latin dictionary). The word tradition may well have been derived from traditio, but the meaning of traditio has nothing to do with tradition. It's a one way street. Furthermore none of the new testament was originally written in Latin, but rather in Greek. It is generally accepted amongst historians and Bible scholars that the latin transaltion of the Bible is flawed and modern translations of the bible are done (for the vast majority) from the Greek texts.
As a side note, the use of the term "all knowing" is somewhat (if not very) sarcastic, and should be replaced with a more neutral term such as "omniscient". Also the usage of "St." is ambiguous (see the Bible's usage of the word, which is much broader that the "canonized by the Church" definition, only recognized in certain denominations, notably by the Catholic or Orthodox Churches), perhaps "apostle" would be more appropriate.
This expression "Radical Religious Conservatism" seems to be irrelevant... "Radical Religious Conservatism" is a nice oxymoron : Radicalism is the opposite of Conservatism. People like muslim or christian fondamentalists are far nearer of Marxists and other radicals than conservatives... David Descamps 16:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
As a staunch liberal myself, I still want the conservatives to be presented correctly. I feel that the first paragraph of this article does not do justice to the conservative philosophy. "Traditional" values are hardly what conservatism calls for - if that were so, we might be stuck in the stone age. No, I think a stronger introduction would have conservatism shown as a philosophy that advocates for minimal government over the people. Gautam Discuss 05:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course this is controversial. It is about a political party.
whilst i realise that conservapedia is not run by the people who run wikipedia, could anyone please explain to me why every single link i click on in that site blocks me from adding content to discussions or contacting administrators? someone called Joaquín Martínez keeps blocking me, so quickly i can't help thinking he's locked all the pages. why is this, and is there anything anyone can do about it?
Fhbear 22:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
A couple of obversations: 1 - the page on liberalism is about 5 times longer than this page 2 - it also has many more pictures of prominent 'thinkers'
Surely, there can be something done to balance this out a bit
This article does mention both Adam Smith and Ronald Reagan. It does not mention Rush Limbaugh because he is essentially unknown outside the United States, and belongs in the article Conservatism in the United States. Similarly, the alliance between conservatives and libertarians is relatively recent, and motivated, as best I can tell, by politics rather than ideology, an alliance many libertarians now regret. Rick Norwood 17:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your point is. The idea of "conservatism" is very old. The Roman orator Cicero was a conservative, as was the Chinese philosopher Confucius. The conservative movement in the last few centuries, which traces its origin to Burke, is belief in God, king, and country.
As you point out, both conservatives and liberals love Adam Smith, up to a point. Adam Smith advised those who grew wealthy under capitalism to pay their taxes without grumbling, which is where modern "conservatives" diverge from Wealth of Nations.
To say that "conservatism is more than traditionalism" is to say that, to the historical meaning of "conservative" has been added, in America, a new meaning, "low taxes and small government". But this is a political move, not a philosophical move. Traditionally, the "low taxes and small government" people were liberals. Liberals let them down, by favoring social programs to promote equaltiy of oportunity, and so the "low taxes and small government" moved to the conservative party -- which also let them down. Maybe you need to form a "Low taxes and small government party". I wish you luck, because never in the history of the world has a government given up money and power without a fight. Rick Norwood 17:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
That would be the Libertarian Party. Granola Bars 23:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
"Conservatism as a political philosophy is notoriously difficult to define, encompassing numerous different movements in various countries and time periods; there may sometimes be contradictions between alternative conceptions of conservatism as the ideology of preserving the past, and the contemporary worldwide conception of rape as a conservative political stance." Wtf? This is a joke, right? Or did I miss something? 1337wesm 20:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
1337wesm 21:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
So do we all. Most of the vandals are kids with nothing better to do. Rick Norwood 12:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
So, there is a criticism section on the Liberal section, shouldn't there be one here? Amamamp ( talk) 03:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the edit that deleted the link to libertarianism. Conservatism has a strong individualist tradition, so unless there's a valid explanation for deleting it, I think it should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.79.208 ( talk) 05:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Terribly obese with partisanship towards the liberals. Conservative's have more defined views and you know it. 70.178.23.13 ( talk) 06:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It references sources that are not able to be checked online. Specifically they are:
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L.M., & Malle, B.F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741-763. Sidanius, J. (1993). The psychology of group conflict and the dynamics of oppression: A social dominance perspective. In W. McGuire & S. Iyengar (Eds), Current approaches to political psychology (pp. 183-219). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Being able go to a university library and dig up these 15 year-old studies, it is possible to verify the validity of these studies. For example, did they use a large enough sample size to be statistically accurate? Often these psychological studies, especially from that long ago, do not.
I therefore am going to delete that section from the article, pending a good explanation for why it should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.79.208 ( talk) 17:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Stop talking about this and change the "article." Pompous windbagery at it's finest! 70.178.23.13 ( talk) 06:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia considers science to be evidence. As Colbert said, "Reality is biased".
There must be some reason why so many conservatives deny facts for which there is overwhelming evidence: climate change, evolution, the fact that the US Constitution does not establish the Christian religion, the fact that there are no laws against prayer in the public schools, the fact that Saddam Hussein did not plan 9/11, the fact that Obama is not a Moslem, that Hillary Clinton did not murder anybody, that liberals do not hate America.
Keep in mind that I'm talking about the self-appointed Conservative spokespeople in the mass media. There is another strain of conservatism, which stresses small government and self reliance, that has a lot to recommend it. Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Again we have people making political definitions that would not be agreed upon by political scientists. A political position describes a role that the government should have in a society, not a position relative to time as described in the entry. For example a communist government can be conservative in trying to conserve its position but that has nothing to do with politics anymore than a diver trying to conserve air. A political conservative typically favors a free economy and accepts the inequality that naturally follows. The opposite is a socialist who favors a controlled economy in an effort to reduce inequality. This is a simplified definition but is closer to currently exists.
I think the definition is a bit out of whack. Here's one I found from an introductory textbook: "An ideology based on the belief that society is an organic collective whole. Moreover, conservatives believe that the best form of society is hierarchical-- a society in which everyone knows their place, a society where some rule and the rest are ruled. Order and tradition, not freedom and reason are key political values" (Critical Concepts. An Introduction to Politics). Some of these key elements are missing on this site's definition.--Apples99 03:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The solution is compromise. I don't think the current definition is a bad one, and I don't think the definition from your textbook is a perfect one. I haven't checked, but I assume the article on the Holocaust mentions holocaust deniers, just as the article on the Kennedy assassination probably mentions the idea that the CIA carried out the hit (or was it Cigarette Smoking Man?) A thousand philosophies flourish, a thousand poppies bloom. Rick Norwood 14:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
It was earlier stated that the adding of the "Criticism" section of this page was inappropriate because it was "carried no references". But I must inform you, the reader, that the Socialism page has a thriving Criticism section that also carries no references. Conservatism and Socialism alike are ideologies that have spread their influence on a very large number of people throughout history. In the spirit of neutrality, should they not have an equal section to inform the reader of the claims made against these belief systems? Frankly, I question the neutrality of the Wiki's decision to remove this section. I will take this up with Wikipedia itself if necessary.
I respectfully disagree.
- User:EnglishEfternamn
I agree. No section of wikipedia, an encyclopedia, should be without references. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable," is stated in the wikipedia rules of conduct. This applies to all articles, including socialism and conservatism. Websurfer135 02:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi's comment on the September 11 attacks has less to do with racial and biological superiority than cultural one... this should be put somewhere else if it is used at all.
The article is getting so long, and being rewritten so intensively, that we may want to consider splitting off the details of various national conservative movements. There are already American and Canadian articles. I suggest we split off British conservatism, Chinese conservatism, and maybe German conservatism. Then this article would focus on the big picture -- history, meaning of the word, common conservative beliefs -- with brief (!) mentions of each national conservative movement with a (see main article) link. Rick Norwood 15:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Um. Speaking as a Catholic, I think the Church's stance on anything is part of a tradition because the Holy See is the oldest corporate body in the world, and Catholics lean on its authority. I would assume Judaism has its equivalent, as Islam has in its great jurists, Buddhism with its lamas.
Sheesh. Refer to Religious conservatism. You know, though I helped write that section, it does not necessarily describe what I think. Nor do I bite my nails at night worrying that it is as politically correct as the half-baked mish-mash of ideas in my head. I edit Wikipedia because I often learn a lot by it, and while I have learned quite a bit from reading and thinking about conservatism(s), especially from reading Rich's entries, I am sick of this topic. You've got to let this go, K. Can we move on? Perhaps to adding some frequent conservative values? Ogo 00:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for redirecting me, Keith. I now have an account, but can someone tell me how to make my name show up at the end of my posts? I'd like everyone to go up and read the Open Letter to Wikipedia section on this discussion page. I'll quote myself: "why don't we just have the Conservatism article explain that it is the name of varying political/ideological philosophies and parties throughout the world, and then give links to each country's conservatism page? That seems to me to be the most accurate and honest way to do things". Can anyone provide a reasonable objection to this?
This article should provide a list of some common beliefs among conservatives, not just vague descriptions. anonymo the nameless
I think you are going to have a lot of difficulty listing anything that conservatives around the world agree on -- unless it is not wanting to pay taxes, but then, nobody wants to pay taxes, so that isn't unique to conservatives. Rick Norwood 20:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Order over chaos (nope -- "What ever happened to the good old days, when men were men, the days before all these laws and cities.") Orientation toward the past rather than the future (agree -- this is the definition of conservative) The rural over the urban (a Confucian conservative would not agree, this is mostly an American idea) Unity and homogeneity, over discord and fragmentation (I tend to go along with this one) The natural over the artificial and technological (I think this seems true only because technology is so closely allied with the new. Most conservatives I know like technology.) Existence over possibility (no "The existing welfare state must be overthrown so we can return to the good old days of capitalism.") Slow and incremental change over utopian projects (I agree about the opposition to utopianism, but certainly Islamic conservatives favor rapid and violent change away from modernism.) Hierarchy over egalitarianism (no, many conservatives are egalitarian (many are not) "In a free society, the strong will naturally rise to the top, if the damn government would just leave us alone." Sovereignty over union, in matters regarding the European Union (This is, of course, modern and local).
So, what have we got:
Orientation toward the past and toward conformity, away from new ideas and new forms of government.
I could live with that, but I doubt that many conservatives would agree with it. Rick Norwood 00:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I just don't see anything conservative about those dichotomies. In order over chaos, you single out the conservatives who are happy to preserve the existing order, but rule out the many conservatives who see violence as the only way to restore the old order. In natural over artificial, you suggest that conservatives are typically luddites. That certainly isn't the case. Most conservatives are glad we have cars, and indoor plumbing. In hierarchy over egality, you focus on those conservatives who support the class system, and ignore the many conservatives who support the rugged individual. Rick Norwood 19:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems quite clear from the above discussion that there is little, if anything, that all groups labeled as "conservative" across the world would agree on. Thus, logically, there are 2 possible choices for the future of the article:
I emphatically vote for number 2. The term "conservatism" is ambiguous and has no universal meanings except that it is a name given to certain political or moral ideologies. -- 2nd Piston Honda 12:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Sounds about right to me. Rick Norwood 22:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I can only speak from the United States perspective, but in my opinion, and just from reading the ongoing debate, the National Socialist party (Nazi) was exactly that - a party of nationalistic socialists. Some of the nationalistic and conservative agendas in the West are similar (strong military for example in the United States) but some differ. The socialistic ideals of the Nazi party are definitely not in line with modern conservative ideals in the United States but they do fall in line with most Western European parties, both liberal and conservative from what I can divulge. Conservativism in the United States is definitely a very individual opinion; I feel myself to be a fiscal conservative but I have liberal leanings on certain issues. I am nonreligious but I believe that the individual is responsible for their own present and future. Low taxes, small government (which means more low taxes), a completely free-market economy without burdensome legislation, and people taking care of themselves so as not to become a burden to society are the ideals the bolster the conservative doctrine on this side of the Atlantic. I know this may not help too much, but I hope to bring to the picture that there are all kinds that make up a certain politcal strata. Some conservatives don't even believe in God (like me). ````
Unless it has been added recently, there is nothing in the article to suggest Nazi's were conservatives. I certainly don't think they were. But Fascists were explicitly conservative, desireing a return to the good old days of the Roman Empire, and, in Spain at least, to that old time religion (Roman Catholicism). They were also conservative in being anti-communist. Rick Norwood 13:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
True. Thanks for getting us back on topic. Rick Norwood 20:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
So when are we going to see a decision on this? -- 2nd Piston Honda 03:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Conservatives don't oppose change. They believe in certain ideals and values, regardless of what the status quo is. Therefore, this article is propaganda and needs to be a disambig page. -- 2nd Piston Honda 19:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I would agree it is innacurate to say "resistant to change" is the only definition of conservative. Further I'd agree it is a misnomer in many (if not most) cases it is used since someone may actually be called a conservative only because of how some subset of his views appear similar to some views of the past, according to a simple-minded observer (e.g. the press). I especially think it is a fallacy to claim a person is resistant to change first and ergo ends up at his views on current politics second. That may often be the case but we should not be in the business of mind-reading. That sounds a lot like a (certainly not liberal!) implication that conservatism is a universal mental defect or the result of brainwashing or something. And of course conservatives have ideals everyone does. keith 21:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Unlike other articles that cover political points of view, Conservatism contains no critique of the Conservative point of view. Contrast with Liberalism, Libertarian Socialism, and other nonconservative points of view, whose articles go out of their way to include what opponents of the point of view have to say. One would get the impression that conservatism has no opponents, or that Wikipedia recognizes those opponents as being in the wrong.
I could tell right from the start, that the author of the conservative article, that he or she is of the "liberal" persuasion. The article was filled with subtle but noticeable injections of their discontent for "conservative" thinkers and ideas. Later, when I got to the discussion page, their "discontent" has clearly manifested it self.
Criticism sections can also be a way of quarantining negative facts to weaken their weight in the subject, and get them out of the flow of the text without violating wikipedia policy. Such sections are also invariably weasel-worded. This article has profoundly critical assertions stuffed right in the main text, as with for example the references to fascism. keith 01:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
First, let me suggest moving this discussion to the bottom of the page.
I did not write the section on Franco. I only defend it because it is historically correct.
1) Jefferson owned slaves. Without looking, I would be willing to bet that is mentioned in the article on Jefferson. 2) Clearly, Jefferson was a liberal, since he penned the words "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," making the change from the earlier "life, liberty, and property". Your conclusion does not follow. Nor does this article suggest that all conservatives are fascists nor than all fascists are conservatives.
If Franco was only incidentally both a Fascist and a conservative, just as Hitler was only incidentally both an antisemite and a vegitarian, then the section should not be in the article. But Fascism, as the name of the movement suggests, harked back to the glories of the Roman Empire, when the lictors carried fasces (rods) before the Emperor. In other words, the philosophy specifically embraces the supposed superiority of a past form of government.
Now, I know that many conservatives do not consider the dictionary definiton of conservative to be correct, and certainly dictionary definitons can get things wrong. But almost everything I have read on conservative values emphasizes the superiority of the morals, life styles, government, and religion of the past as superior to that of the present day. The only exception I can think of is those utopian libertarians who embrace conservatism as a route toward diminished government. Rick Norwood 13:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the right place for this, but it would seem that the sentence "It is the degree of political taboo, rather than inherent ideological incompatibility, that determines the overlap between 'respectable' conservatives and the right." is POV. In its context it implies that as a rule conservatives do not have any ideological qualms about the tragedies mentioned prior to this quotation such as "brutal repression of African decolonisation." In short, this line implies that all conservatives are morally reprehensible, if not simply monsters.
I concur with original author of this section, this page is not NPOV, it needs a critique. If liberalism has a critique, then conservatism needs a critique.
I removed this sentence: "In the Netherlands, for example, defenders of ‘Dutch tolerance’ as a traditional national value and Islamic supporters of Sharia law both call themselves conservatives."
It's nonsense. The only people in The Netherlands who call themselves conservatives are the people from the Edmund Burke Foundation. They are not supporters of 'Dutch tolerance'. No Muslim in the Netherlands call himself a conservative, although ignorant people in the media sometimes do.
Moreover, the sentence didn't add anything of substance to the article.
I've a vague memory that Richard Fisk's "The Great War for Civilisation" says that WC advocated it, but not that he authorised it. Even if he did, I'm not sure it's completely relevant to this article. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Confirmed. "you should certainly proceed with the experimental work on gas bombs, especially mustard gas, which would inflict punishment upon recalcitrant natives without inflicting grave injury upon them." Fisk cites p 1190 Martin Gilbert's Winston s. Churchill 1917-1922 Companion Volume IV.
You can read more at http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2006/01/19-0947-1272.html and I recommend you do. It is all very interesting, but I still don't see that it has any place in this article. Maybe somewhere else. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
"there is NOTHING held common among all conservatives. Can my point be made any more clear? -- 2nd Piston Honda"
If what Piston Honda says is true, then the word is meaningless, and the entire article pointless. I happen to be one of those people who think words have meanings. But words only have meanings if people agree on what those meanings are. In order to preserve some sort of meaning to words over time, we have dictionaries. The dictionary nearest to hand, The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "Conservative 1. preservative, 2. disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions."
Now, wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so the article does not stop with that definition, but goes on to discuss how various major writers have used the word, and how the meaning of the word has changed over time.
In the mass media the word "conservative" has indeed lost its meaning. To Rush Limbaugh it means "right thinking person". To Al Franken it means "blithering idiot". But neither of those "definitions" is appropriate to an encyclopedia article. Sure, a lot of people call themselves "conservative" or "liberal" without really thinking about what that implies. To some conservatives, "conservative" just means "my side". And a lot of people call other people "conservative" without thinking, meaning simply "the other side". People tend to take sides. But, again, that has nothing to do with rational discussion.
There really is a point of view, historically called conservative, held by intelligent people who are serious about ideas. That is what this article is about. Rick Norwood 13:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, there are differences between conservative parties in different countries. That is why several articles on concervatism in various countries were split off from this article. On the other hand, political thinkers and historians use the word conservative to describe writers such as Confucius, Cicero, Burke, and Buckley. These people have in common either a desire to preserve the existing social order or a desire to return to an ideal social order of the past. That conservatism is the subject of this article. For political as opposed to philosophical or sociological conservatism, the reader is referred to the use of the word in various countries. Rick Norwood 19:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
If you think something in this article is propaganda, propose it for deletion. I explained above why an article on conservative philosophy is important, and how conservative philosophy differs from conservative politics. The word "conservative" has a perfectly good dictionary meaning. What is your objection to an article on conservative in that sense of the word? Rick Norwood 13:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Interesting point about reactionary. Here is what wikipedia has to say about that.
"Reactionary (or reactionist) is a political epithet typically applied to extreme ideological conservatism".
So, yes, I would agree that Franco was a reactionary.
Let me mention the broader question that concerns me. Everyone likes to hear good things about things they identify with and hates to hear bad things. Therefore we have, for example, people of certain nationalities who try to hide anything bad that their nation has ever done, and exagerate the good.
There is a dark side to conservatism -- just as there is a dark side to America. I don't want wikipedia to go overboard in emphasizing the dark side of any subject, but I also want to avoid a whitewash.
Though personally a liberal, which means I favor freedom and equality of opportunity, I can see many good things about conservatism. But there are conservatives to whom conservatism means favoring the upper class, the white race, the Christian religion, the male gender, and the heterosexual orientation. Franco, with his compulsary Catholocism, his anticommunism, and his persecution of homosexuals, fits into that tradition. And I could easily name contemporary conservative spokespersons who carry on that tradition. I am NOT saying all conservatives are like that, but I do believe that the number who are in that camp is not small. Rick Norwood 18:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Since a "reactionary" is a kind of conservative, or so I gather, there are no degrees of separation. I don't know much about Islam, but I trust the article on the subject has plenty to say about the "dark side". In any case, making this a good article and making Islam a good article are independent projects. Rick Norwood 19:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the history of Islam article is a whitewash. Sad. But it is not a subject I know much about. Rick Norwood 19:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Though personally a conservative, which means I favor freedom and equality of opportunity … (hey, wait a minute … isn’t that what you said it means to be a liberal?). Is it possible that conservatives and liberals can have the same principals? Of course it is, because conservatism (the opposite of which is radicalism – not liberalism) is centered more on the means than the end.
Burke’s ideal of statesmanship decidedly avoids both extremes of reckless change and resisting change at all cost – "a disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve" (the classical definition of true conservatism). Conservatives simply take a pragmatic approach to change that weighs the long-term and collateral effects of change and tend to tether their actions to established rules or traditions of affecting change in that particular society.
In Burke’s words: "By a slow but well-sustained progress, the effect of each step is watched; the good or ill success of the first gives light to us in the second; and so, from light to light, we are conducted with safety through the whole series."
His notion of a ‘social contract’ was a long-term partnership: "... a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead and those who are to be born."
So, Rick, you and I are at odds less because you are "Liberal" and more because you are "flaming".
I agree that their can be derivatives of classical conservatism worthy of outline in this article. The ‘stand-pat’ conservative is so risk adverse or satisfied with the status quo that he resists all change. The ‘reactionary’ conservative only seeks to undo a specific change. But these derivatives should not muddy the classical definition. Nor should there be an attempt to lump anyone who makes reference to the past in promoting their other views as a conservative. Hitler and the Nazi movement was steeped in the Wagnerian imagery highlighting Germany’s illustrious past, not because they had anything to do with conservatism, but because it was a great marketing wrapper to distract from a twisted and radical core agenda - somewhat akin to modern American Liberal tactics to gain power.
Anyway, in an attempt to offer something by way of improving this article, I have to agree that the best course would be to shorten it considerably and treat it as a prologue to the much wider application and impact of conservatism – relying primarily on links to articles that can go substantially deeper into each derivative aspect of:
1. Streams of thought (fiscal, social, religious, paleo, neo, etc.) and,
2. Regional and Party (the capital “C”) movements
Phocion 22:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Would the author of the recent edit please rewrite his sentences to make them shorter. For example:
"These custodians can be, depending on the religion in question, relatively centralised, such as the case of the Catholic church, for example, or relatively de-centralised as in the case of Islam and other religions where there is no single supreme authority equivalent to the Pope or Dalai Lama, but rather authority is distributed among a learned class or caste, leaving it to individual believers to choose their own spiritual leader based on their inclinations, capacities and personal needs."
Rick Norwood 15:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
While the current version is good in its treatment of conservatism during the Enlightenment, it ignores what every Enlightenment philosopher was acutely aware of -- the debate about conservatism by Roman writers, especially Livy and Cicero. In particular, no Enlightenment writer would have said:
They all knew Latin, and most of them knew Greek. Rick Norwood 21:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Let's see, that takes care of most of your six points. There is no doubt that President Bush is familiar with Livy, since the use of religion to acquire power, and the use of foreign wars to keep power, are spelled out in some detail. Rick Norwood 13:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The reference to British conservatism is, in my opinion, defective.
I suggest the following:-
"The old established form of English, and after the Act of Union, British conservatism was the Tory Party. It reflected the attitudes of a rural land owning class, and championed the institutions of the monarchy, the Anglican Church, the family, and property as the best defence of the social order. In the early stages of the industrial revolution,it seemed to be totally opposed to a process that seemed to undermine some of these bulwarks. The new industrial elite were seen by many as enemies to the social order.
Sir Robert Peel was able to reconcile the new industrial class to the Tory landed class by persuading the latter to accept the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. He created a new political group that sought to preserve the old status quo while accepting the basics of laissez-faire and free trade. The new coalition of traditional landowners and sympathetic industrialists constituted the new Conservative Party.
Benjamin Disraeli gave the new party a political idealogy. As a young man, he was influenced by the romantic movement and the then fashionable medievalism, and developed a devastating critique of industrialism. In his novels he outlined an England divided into two nations, each living in perfect ignorance of each other. He forsaw, like Marx, the phenomenon of an alienated industrial proletariat.
His solution involved a return to an idealised view of a corporate or organic society, in which everyone had duties and responsibilities towards other people or groups. This one nation conservatism is still a very important tradition in British politics. It has animated a great deal of social reform undertaken by successive Conservative governments."
If no-one objects, I will add this, and possibly more later about Randolph Churchill, Macmillan, and Thatcher. -- Train guard 12:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Your proposed rewrite has a number of awkward phrases. May I suggest the following revision:
My response in brackets.-- Train guard 11:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
(It must be stated why they opposed industrialisation. 'Parvenu' means something very different to what I was saying. They thought that the industrial elite were the enemies of all that they held dear.)
(Not any change, but social reform. That's the point.)
Rick Norwood 16:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Nobody seems to have complained, so perhaps this is just picking nits, but the following passage sounds kind of judgmental:
"Radical movements within established religious traditions illustrate the paradoxical method by which branches of religious conservatism can emerge that, rather than trying to preserve an existing, generally conservative, social order, seek to overthrow that order in the name of a puritanical ideal, and enforce adoption of a perceived 'pristine' form of the religion, usually consisting of a highly literalist, legalistic and, in some cases anti-spiritual core of traditions, values, worldview, and lifestyle. This radical or revolutionary movement is usually a reaction against perceived abuses, corruption, or heresy within the existing tradition. One example of such a movement was the Protestant Reformation."
Would anyone like to comment? Is this in line with Wikipedia's neutral point of view?
i just read it and i dont get it, what do conservatives like? reform? idk, it has to be cleaned up and made easier to understand.
In my opinion, the critcism section is factually incorrect. Both conservatives and liberals tend to believe in similar outcomes or goals such as minimizing poverty. The difference is the means. Liberalism advocates raising taxes, distributing money to the "less fortunate", establishing quotas, creating government housing, food, and health care. Conservatism advocates economic growth to increase the number of jobs, disincentives to not working/saving/taking care of oneself, and individual responsibility. Of corse the aspect about the "racism" has to go... definately POV and not an accepted position (sure the left may makes these claims, but I would not go onto the liberalism page and state that conservatives think that liberals are retarded--even if they do). ER MD 08:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
You are free to edit the section, and I suggest you do if you feel it is "absolute trash" (I would refrain from using the word "absoute", though), but in the spirit of neutrality, this section does not have the right to exist without such a section, again, all perspectives must be adequately represented. Again, you can help by editing the section to what you feel is the most acccurate description, but I will dispute the neutrality of the article until the section is a permanent entity here. We have to play by the rules.
Those who think I was writing about some special interest are grossly mistaken... you should read it before deleting it, because some pinko will continue to put a biased position piece into the final section. Why not write a section that adequately reflects current conflicts with the "classical" concept of conservatism. It does exist... Maybe I will revise my original. ER MD 09:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Most controversial articles in Wikipedia have a criticism section. The important thing is that the criticism be sourced and stick to the subject. The previous criticism section got blanked because it belonged in the American conservatism article, not here. After some thought, I've restored my own version, which is sourced, and which only mentions American conservatism in the final paragraph, and there does not mention any of the hot button topics in the modern culture wars, except for the graduated income tax. Please discuss and improve this section, rather than simply deleting it. Rick Norwood 13:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is the section that I wrote: (please ID POV or wrong statement)
First, "The traditional opposite of conservatism, therefore, is radicalism (not, as is often asserted, liberalism)." This sentence is unnecessary, and flame-bait. I'm sure it's absolutely true according to some serious scholars of conservatism, but it sounds so much like the hackneyed conservative goad "anyone who doesn't agree with me is a radical." It's just begging for an argument from anyone who isn't (and many who are) a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. Furthermore, while it may be true in some ivory-tower scholarship sense, it absolutely isn't true in terms of how the words "conservative" and "liberal" are used in everyday language.
Second, the first sentence of the second paragraph is great, but it goes downhill quickly from there. "Additionally, conservative 'means' are often combined with other ideological 'ends [...]'" is getting rather obscure for an introduction sentence. And "(e.g.: Conservative or Classical Liberal versus Radical Liberal)." Huh? First, "Classical Liberal" and "Radical Liberal" are obscure terms. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but these are (apparently) being used as an example to clarify a previous point (that's what "e.g." implies) Clarifying the obscure with an obscure example isn't good writing. And even after clicking on the Classical/Radical links, I still have no idea what this whole sentence means.
And lastly, the final sentence in the second paragraph gets us back into scholarly ivory tower territory. In the real world (and in the U.S.), most people use "left"/"right" as essentially synonymous with "liberal"/"conservative." It's fine for the article to expand on the shades of meaning that these various terms have, or have in certain circles, or can have, or have had in the past. But right now the tone is one of some high-falutin professor saying "Well, let me start by informing you that the way you have used these words throughout your life is wrong."
Anyhow, that's my $.02 on the introduction. The only part I'm going to change right now is the "The traditional opposite of conservatism..." sentence. I urge more interested parties to look at the rest of the introduction. KarlBunker 13:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that in the religious section he's referred to with a SAW. As a neutral source, I don't think Wikipedia needs to pay heed to a tradition that is only applicable to actual believers. Heck, the article on Muhammad refers to him without PBUHs or SAWs. I didn't revert it out myself because I didn't know if there was some carefully measured compromise behind this or the like. SnowFire 17:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it is best to discuss this here, instead of flipping back and forth between this page and my talk page. First, I replied to your comments at the time. Second, I am not ignoring your point of view, I'm disagreeing with it. Third, "absolute rubbish" is name calling, not discussion. Rick Norwood 14:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Here are a few quotes that are easy to find. I will provide more.
"What is conervatism? It it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?" Abraham Lincoln.
"There is always a certain meanness in the argument of conservatism, joined with a certain superiority in its fact." Ralph Waldo Emmerson
"A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." Benjamin Disraeli
Less ready to hand (in my office) are Livy's many comments on conservative Romans. I'll provide some of those on Monday, if you like. In memory, but hard to find, are comments by a conservative bourgeois small businessman about the necessity for sumptuary laws forbidding the proletariat from dressing like the bourgeoise, something to the effect that "nothing is so disgusting as having a conservation with a person only to discover he is of the working class".
Turning to the OED, Conservative with a capital C is "the most common current designation of one of the two great English political parties, the characteristic principle of which is the maintenance of existing institutions, political and ecclesiastical." One quote given to explain this usage: "Conservative and Liberal, as we ordinarily use the terms, are distinctions having reference to a particular practical struggle, the gradual substitution of government by the whole body of the people for government by the privileged classes."
Enough, I think, to show that my view of a certain form of conservatism is not unfounded. Rick Norwood 15:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I think ER MD strongly agrees with your point of view, but the important thing is not more opinions, but more references. I've offered references for my understanding of the question. Please offer references for your. I will read them carefully. Also, I understand the difficulty of proving a negative. Rick Norwood 15:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The current article was hammered out over a long period of time by liberals and conservatives working together and respecting each other's good faith. Instead of a blanket condemnation of the entire article, why not try to improve what we have through discussion.
Meanwhile, I am still working on adding all of the citations you requested. Rick Norwood 15:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I have provided a number of references. Please let me know if more are desired. Also, please specify which statements in this article are not NPOV and which are still disputed.
A couple of comments. First, if I factually report that Smith says Jones is an idiot, this does not violate NPOV. If I say I agree with Smith, that violates NPOV. Second, it is not helpful to say something to the effect that everything is disputed. If everything is disputed, you should be able to cite one thing that is disputed, and that's a good place to start. Rick Norwood 17:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey Rick, the Conservatism Criticism section is original research. It's neither representative of the good work you've done on this article nor is it neutral or factual. It comes across as a patchwork intended to prove a point. WP:NOR Scribner 22:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Some of my points come from Livy's History of Rome and Machivelli's Discourses on Livy, but a lot of them come from the history of British conservatives, and from modern liberal commentators on modern conservatism. None of the points I make are original to me, though I can understand how they may sound original to a modern conservative if he has not read much history and gets his commentary exclusively from conservative sources. I think what would surprise modern conservatives most is the frankness with which the British Conservative party put forth their beliefs that the government should support the interests of the upper class. The upper class were obviously the best people, the lower classes needed religion and foreign wars to keep them distracted, while the government acted to protect upper class wealth and power. It is all laid out very clearly in the commentators on British politics, some of whom I've quoted, and in commentators on American politics. And yet I think a person could read this article without having the least idea of the origin of conservatism as a movement to conserve the power of the upper classes and the established religion. Rick Norwood 23:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
ER MD: Rick you are way off base with your writings. Here is a comparision on the philosophies. http://www.nhinet.org/raeder.htm ER MD 08:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The "Criticism of conservatism" section is not original research simply because it doesn't meet any of the criteria listed in WP:NOR#What_is_excluded. Everything in the section is quoted and referenced, and I see no attempt at "analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case"; in fact, describing the section as a "patchwork" precludes exactly this kind of argument.
NPOV tag is even more ludicrous. Hint: the section's title is "Criticism of conservatism". I have removed both tags now. GregorB 12:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to thank all of you who have forced me to make the section on criticism of conservatism less POV and more well documented. I continue to work toward this goal. Rick Norwood 14:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
If you doubt the statement, you need to read some history. I feel a little bit here the way I feel when I tell my friends and neighbors that the Theory of Evolution is real science. Their reply is very much to the effect that I have no goal but an agenda, and they are at a complete loss of words how anybody can think that there is any science behind evolution.
There is history behind the statement above, standard, well understood history. Since this history seems to be unknown to some, I will continue to document it, using standard, well known, sources. Rick Norwood 15:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Assume good faith, as I do. You are defending what you mean by conservatism. I am reporting criticism of a certain kind of conservatism. The current rewrite makes that more clear, I hope. It is important that this section demonstrate two things. First, that these are views of people who clearly support conservative beliefs and who played a major role in history. Second, that the criticisms are sourced and are contemporary with those criticized. Rick Norwood 15:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
"For example, a conservative bumper sticker reads"..., This is new. Bumper stickers, blogs and forums aren't reputable reference sources.
Rick, here's how Jimbo Wales wants you to handle original research:
..."But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history"
Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history" WP:NOR Scribner 18:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I can understand that conservatives are uncomfortable with some facts about the history of conservatism, just as Americans are uncomfortable with some facts in American history, and Australians are uncomfortable with some facts in Australian history. The fact remains, these people were major conservative thinkers, and they are not going to go away just because you delete references to them. Rick Norwood 15:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I have no axe to grind. I'm one of those weird souls who think there is such a thing as the truth, and I follow wherever it leads. When someone demonstrates that I'm wrong, I rejoice, because I learn something new. But blanking is not the same as demonstration. Rick Norwood 15:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Sign your comments with four tildes, please.
I've voted for liberals. I've voted for conservatives. Right now, I'm flying my liberal flag, primarily because of conservative distortions about science and history. Let the liberals come into power, and I may start flying my conservative flag. Rick Norwood 15:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I try to be careful not to put anything on Wikipedia that is not sourced from a major writer on the subject. Rick Norwood 15:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I assume that you are acting in good faith. Please credit me with the same. I can understand how, if you are not familiar with the standard history I reference, it can come as a shock. But it is standard history. You can bet George W. Bush learned it in prep school, and would find nothing in it original, remarkable, or exceptionable. Rick Norwood 20:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I know you are just kidding, but George W. Bush has one of the best educations money can buy. He went to prep school at Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts. He has a B.A. in History from Yale University. He has the training to fly a F-102. He is fluent in Spanish. And he has a MBA from Harvard Business School. Furthermore, he has run up a nine trillion dollar debt and left you holding the tab. You tell me who is smart and who is stupid. Rick Norwood 20:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed the bumper sticker reference. I agree, it was a weak source. I will try to avoid such weak sources in the future. Rick Norwood 22:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
(con't down here)
My point is this. This article begins with discussing conservatism in the abstract, then separates into discussions of specific instances of conservatism in history. Your current criticism section is almost entirely criticisms of specific movements with conservatism- Roman patricians, French royalists, American conservatives, etc. I feel that these statements, if kept at all, should be moved to their specific section. Unless they can be tied into a general, abstract criticism of conservatism (which perhaps might require examples), I can't see their relevance at the end, which seems to be about criticism of conservatism in general. There might be relevance if you could prove that all implementations of conservatism have inherently been "corrupt" in some way (as some argue against Communism by saying that all its examples failed), but that section doesn't seem to do that. You can't show a philosophy is wrong in general by pointing out a few specific instances where it was "wrong."
SnowFire 19:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
A request for comment has been filed relating to Rick Norwood's edits. Please leave comments there. michael talk 15:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I figured it'd be easier to just show an example of what I was referring to above. The kind of "Criticism of Conservatism" section I'm imagining (should it even be kept), which focuses on the idea:
---
Critics of conservatism find the idea of tradition having any kind of vote in what is just or right ridiculous. History contains many societies whose tradition contains practices considered bizarre or evil today. If a visionary should recognize that something is wrong, why should there be any hesitance to abandon it? While non-conservatives may hope that their societies are "right," they find no fulfilling proof that a common practice is also a correct practice.
Critics also often find the conservative wariness over revolutionary change overly timid. While there are many examples of revolutions gone horribly wrong, there are also examples where they provided a useful "clean break" with the past, clearing away accumulated mistakes in one mighty shift. A positive example might be the American Revolution. The danger is also seen in reverse; a society in decline often needs to change quickly or else risk disaster, and conservative elements might slow things down to the point where it is too late. An example of this would be Easter Island, which was too slow to change its tradition of moai-building before deforesting the island, leading to an ecological collapse. Some environmentalists critisize conservatives today over such worries, that adopting change too slowly will lead to ruin.
Conservatism has also historically been abused as a guise for self-serving interests. Since conservatism demands a respect for tradition and hesitance of change, people in powerful positions have often advocated conservatism not because they believed its merits, but merely to keep themselves in power. Livy's History of Rome [1] contains countless examples of the patrician class invoking tradition and the gods to maintain their hold on power over the plebeian class and preserve the status quo. Critics of conservatism would counsel that asking Cui bono in the case of conservative ideology is much more important than with other ideologies, due to conservatism's natural benefits for established power structures.
--
How's that? SnowFire 20:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
If I want to show some part of Quantum Physics I think is wrong, I don't quote a 17-year old on the Internet for the opposing side. I cite current journal-published research, and then how those methodologies could have been wrong, or the results misinterpreted. If I think Creationism is mistaken, I don't try and scientifically debate televangelists; I find the books written by the "Creation scientists" that have gotten the most respect, and show how even then their results are suspect. If I disagree with American conservatism at a high political-science level, I don't dismantle Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter's invective that passes as arguments; I use scholarly books by William F. Buckley or Milton Friedman.
Defeating low-lying fruit proves very little. If "that side of conservatism" (as you put it) is relevant, then every article on a philosophy can include a section where it is revealed that some people that support that philosophy probably can't defend it well and might support it for emotional or self-serving reasons rather than logical reasons. This isn't news, and it doesn't imply that the philosophy is wrong. (Again, it may be relevant historically and in specific sections, and it may be relevant if a movement is much more vulnerable to these subsections than other movements- which as I noted above may in fact be true of conservatism, but that isn't in the article currently- but it is not logically relevant.)
I suppose my complaint is that the current section (I only joined recently and assumed from talk that it was mostly yours- apologes if it isn't) lacks an overriding intellectual framework. What are these critics trying to say? Unlike others here, I have no problem with a criticism section, but I'm still unclear on what exactly its current purpose is. Let me be specific.
So? What does this lead into? Socialists often invoke equality and fairness in support of their views. Theocrats often invoke morality and justice in support of their views. Is this bad for some reason? If so, why?
So Disraeli disliked a conservative government of the time and Wordsworth liked the French revolution. Could well have been just pithy quotes. What's the context? Why are conservative governments organized hypocrisies? Even assuming he meant it, this feels like "he said, she said." A criticism section that basically says "Some people don't like conservatism. Here they are and some quotes of them dissing conservatism and celebrating liberalism" isn't very interesting. Even if it's well-sourced, finding out that people disagree with conservatism isn't nearly as useful as finding out why they disagree with conservatism. As it stands, the Criticism section is notably short on actual criticism and argument. SnowFire 16:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Criticism of conservatism belongs in the article if they are in the other political (affliction) articles. My criticism is geared to the whole article in general and I find it poorly written and POV.-- MadDogCrog 09:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The criticisms from Plato, Wordsworth, and Gladstone were offered in hopes that the three who objected to modern examples would at least accept criticism of conservatives by conservatives. (Livy was something of a conservative, too.) But as things stand, the those who object to the section are adamant that no criticism of conservatism is ever acceptable. Visit the arbitration page to see where things now stand. Rick Norwood 20:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's move this discussion to the bottom of the page, where it will be easier to work. Rick Norwood 15:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Some conservatives believe in limited government, but this is, historically, not a major theme in conservative thought. I cannot think of any conservative before the 20th century who wanted limited government. Most of the people in earlier societies who wanted to limit the power of government were liberals, and wanted to overthrow monarchies, dictatorships, or powerful religions. In fact, it is hard to understand how limited government fits any of the definitions of conservatism given in this article. It sounds more like libertarianism to me.
Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are hardly "17-year old" Internet bloggers. They are best selling authors. They are also straw men, since the section in question does not mention either. All of the examples you mention are modern American examples, which suggests you think of conservatism in those terms, rather than as a major movement with a long history.
You don't seem to distinguish between what is said on the talk page and what is said in the article. In the article, the section in question quotes only major writers, and only two modern writers, only one of whom is an American.
This is the beginning of a paragraph that reports claims, by various writers, that conservatives who invoke religion and patriotism are hypocrites.
This leads into the next paragraph, which is about those critics who accuse conservatives of hypocrisy.
This is from an earlier paragraph, and offers a famous criticism of French conservatives, who supported the King, the aristocracy, and the church.
I think your point is well taken. In an effort to keep the paragraph very short, I've probably left out some connective sentences that would make it clearer. I don't want the paragraph to grow in size -- the article is already too long -- but I will see what I can do to make it easier to understand. I'm not going to attempt that today. There are some reference books out at school that I want to consult first. But I will try to do something along those lines tomorrow. Rick Norwood 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
In my reading of history and political philosophy, I have come across three main criticisms of conservatism. (Obviously, I need to cite chapter and verse, which I will do tomorrow.) First is the criticism that while conservativism is good, conservatives tend to carry their love of tradition to extremes, as in the death of Socrates. Second is the criticism that conservatism is not good, because tradition stands in the way of progress. Third is the criticism that conservatism is a form of hypocracy, because the people who appeal to tradition are often the people who benefit most from that tradition.
No personal attacks on individual conservatives. No references to cousin Bob. Rick Norwood 21:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Sir:
I believe you are acting in good faith. That is, I believe these ideas are new to you and therefore you assume that I just made them up. But I have offered clear evidence, in the form of references, that this is not, in fact, the case. Please help me to understand why you continue to reject this evidence. Rick Norwood 21:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Your claim that this is original research means that you claim that I wrote the material in question. Please go to a library and verify that in fact the material in question was written by the people referenced. Your claim that this is point of view is a claim that the people quoted had a biased or non-standard point of view. Since one of them won a Pulitzer Prize and a Medal of Freedom, that claim is also unsubstantiated. Unless you can substantiate your cliams, you should stop blanking the paragraph in question.
I really expected better of you than just a repetition of unsupported claims. Rick Norwood 22:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
"Conservatives often invoke religion and patriotism in support of their views."
For example, consider Vicomte Louis-Gabriel-Ambroise de Bonald, one of the two leading French conservatives in the age of Napoleon. In Théorie du pruvoir politique et religieux (1796) he "defended absolute monarchy, hereditary aristocracy, patriarchal authority in the family, and the moral and religious sovereignty of the popes over all the kings of Christendom." [10]
Critics of conservatism claim that conservative cliams of piety and patriotism are often used hypocritically to sway the masses. Samuel Johnson wrote, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel,"[11]
Many a populist politician in modern times has stirred the voters to a patriotic or religious fervor and then acted only to benefit himself and his cronies. [12] [13]
Rick: you complain that I have deleted the section 3 times in one day. Well, 3 other people also deleted it. And you have reverted 6 times now so you are in violation of the 3RR rule. The preponderence of thought on this issue is that this parapgraph does not belong. I will delete for the 4th time. Request an arbcom if you wish. You are violating policy way more than me. ER MD 23:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I really do not understand what it is about this paragraph that ER MD objects to, but in the spirit of compromise, I offer the following. I will limit my comments in this article, for one month, to conservatism before 1900, and delete from the Criticism of Conservatism section all references to events and persons after 1900. In return, you ER MD, stop blanking the Criticism of Conservatism section of this article for at least one month. If we both are happy with the result, we can extend the truce. What do you say? Rick Norwood 23:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Rick, while I happen to believe that you do have something to contribute here, my recommendation would be to bring the entire Criticism of Conservatism section to the Talk page and hash out what it should be here first, so as not to cause a disruptive war in the main article. If on the Talk Page people can come to some consensus, then the section can be moved back into the article with much firmer backing. Continuing the battle on the main article page will only bring the wrath of the admins down eventually. SnowFire 04:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I think they've made it pretty clear. They feel that the whole section's thrust is POV and not explanatory and think it should go.
As for moving it to the Talk Page, it's entirely possible that the consensus will, in fact, be to remove the section and not put it back. If that's the case, while you might think the consensus wrong, it will at least be a community decision. Oh well. People and organizations make mistakes, and you can just consider that possible occurrence one of them should it happen. SnowFire 15:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
In the spirit of compromise, I will remove the quote by Johnson. On the other hand, the Disraeli quote is specificly addressed to conservatism. Rick Norwood 12:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm guessing it is being removed all the time because of your edit wars but perheps I'm wrong. Anyone object this template to be added to the Conservatism article? Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ) 22:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
No, sorry, my bad. I'll put it back now.
Rick Norwood 23:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the reference to Bush that ER MD objected to and removed the Johnson quote that Scribner objected to.
Earlier, there was an objection that the thread of the paragraph was not clear, so I am working to correct that.
I will have a new version, carefully sourced, later today. Rick Norwood 12:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
First of all, it sounds like the "three" classical points of critique are original research. Reference a page that states that addresses the "three classical points of criticism."
Second, having assertions followed by quotes that are made without referencing the context of the quotes does not sound appropriate.
Third, a review of this webpage [ [3]] seems to have a real critique of conservatism as opposed to what Rick has written and even what I have written in the past.
Therefore, I think this section needs to go. Not only can nobody agree on what should be written here, it seems to me that there are political motivations by Rick to influence people to his point of view by providing a soapbox. Note, I have not written any critique of american liberalism since to do so is just that... a soapbox. For an article to address a philosophy and then have a criticism section that covers aspects not in the article seems to be a violation. What would be the logic, lets say, of having a liberalism section which explains the philosopy, and then to write a criticism section that broadsides the philosophy with arguments not even referenced in the article.
The article by George Irbe seems to have a philosophical approach to the philosophy as opposed to what has been written here. ER MD 20:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Rick Norwood 14:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Even though I came up with the Plato example, in an effort to find some authority that would be acceptable, Plato was really opposed to democracy rather than to conservatism per se. I have much better examples, due to Burke. Sadly, the mediation on this issue has gone on for months, now, with little or no progress, and I hesitate to make any changes that might start another edit war. Rick Norwood 13:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[Democracy] contains every possible type, because of the wide freedom it allows, and anyone engaged in founding a state, as we are doing, should perhaps be made to pay a visit to a democracy and choose what he likes from the variety of models it displays, before he proceeds to make his own foundation
Or, as Churchill put it, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. Rick Norwood 19:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
In researching the context of the Disraeli quote in answer to ER MD's question, I happened on one of those ironies that keep history unpredictable. The struggle was over protectionist tarrifs called the corn laws. Disraeli, the conservative, was a protectionist. The other conservatives, in favor of free trade, broke away from Disraeli's branch of the party, and joined with the liberals to repeal the corn laws.
See, good things can happen when conservatives and liberals work together. Rick Norwood 21:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Rick, your taunt at another member just backfired. Thanks for proving that you used a quote here to criticize conservatism without any historical background, whatsoever. The quote fit your POV agenda, that's all that mattered. You wrote a sentence loaded with weasel words and inserted it all as fact. Scribner 22:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Did you want proof? Scribner 05:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Since we seem to have solved this problem on our own, does anyone object if I remove the request for arbitration? Rick Norwood 19:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The request for arbitration will stand.
I had already removed the introductory sentence you object to. I only added it at the request of a reader who thought more explanation was necessary. Personally, I'm happy to let the quotes speak for themselves. Rick Norwood 21:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
P.S. for ER MD. In my reading I came across a quote I thought you might like by the famous philosopher Herbert Spencer, "During immaturity benefits received must be inversely proportional to capacities possessed. Within the family-group most must be given where least is deserved, if desert is measured by worth. Contrariwise, after maturity is reached benefit must vary directly as worth: worth being measured by fitness to the conditions of existence. The ill-fitted must suffer the evils of unfitness, and the well-fitted must profit by their fitness. These are the two laws which a species must conform to if it is to be preserved. ... The only justification for the analogy between parent and child, and government and people, is the childishness of the people who entertain the analogy." Ethics, Book II
My P.S., far from being an attack, was intended as a peace offering. Spencer is a major philosopher who agrees with your views about small government, as best I understand them. He is calling the liberals childish! I thought you could use the quote in the "Criticism of socialism" section if you wanted to. Rick Norwood 21:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Was that really said? It looks like a joke to me. -- SeizureDog 20:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Quote from Wikipedias' policy on use of "weasel Words",
"If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed."[ [5]]
Rick, I advised you against the use of weasel words before I knew Wikipedia not only has a policy against them but also has coined a terminology for such words and phrases. Good work, Wiki!
I don't have time for a protracted argument. Please read and follow Wikipedia's policy WP:WEASEL, thanks. Scribner 20:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia "weasel word" page :
Examples of weasel words:
Here are some weasel words that are often found in Wikipedia articles (but shouldn't be):
"Some people say..." "Some argue..." "Contrary to many..." "As opposed to most..." "Research has shown..." "...is widely regarded as..." "...is widely considered to be..." "It is believed that..." "It has been said/suggested/noticed/decided/stated..." "Some people believe..." "Some feel that..."' "They say that..." "Many people say..." "It may be that..." "Could it be that..." "It could be argued that..." "Critics/experts say that..."' "Some historians argue..." "Considered by many..." "Accusations..." "Apparently..." "Allegedly..." "Arguably..." "Serious scholars/scientists/researchers..." "Mainstream scholars/scientists/researchers..." "The (mainstream) scientific community" "It is claimed..." "It should be noted that..." "Correctly (justly, properly, ...) or not, ..." Anthropomorphisms like "Science says ..." or "Medicine believes ..." "...is only one side of the story" "Experts suggest..." "Four out of Five Doctors/Dentists agree..."[ [6]]
Your sentences:
1. Then there are those who claim that conservative philosophy is often a mask for self-interest.
2. Other writers have echoed the criticism that conservative philosophy is sometimes used to mask self-interest.
3. Finally, there are those who criticize conservatism as standing in the way of progress.
OK, no question that the sentences include weasel words. Now, which of the three did you want to debate first? Scribner 22:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
As you know, I did not "choose" not to debate the issues. I was blocked. If you would like to debate any of the three "claims", dispite the fact that I removed all three in the spirit of compromise, I am willing to do so. Please pick one of the three "claims" that you disagree with and we can start there. Meanwhile, I've asked the cabal mediator to comment on the Criticisms of Conservatism section, and am restoring it for that purpose. Please do not delete it until the mediator has had a chance to read it and offer advice. Rick Norwood 06:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Our page on weasel words is a style guide, not a policy. Avoid them like the plague if you can! It's better to use quotes or surveys instead. But if you can't (yet), fine. It's a level of quality thing.
these are nicer:
If you do have to use weaselwords as a placeholder, it's always wise to state on the talk page where roughly you're digging for references, or where you think references could be found. Else you might get in a situation where people delete them out of hand. They don't know about the magazine you read last month but forgot the page number of, so you have to point that out. ;-)
Kim Bruning 23:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
From James Burnham / Talk:James_Burnham - "His 1964 book Suicide of the West became a classic among movement conservatives" -- Can anybody please explain the meaning of the expression "movement conservatives"? Thanks. -- 201.78.233.162 20:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Good lord this section is a mess:
Are we seriously saying this? Seriously? Was this written by someone who has ever read anything about 19th century European history? Traditional conservatives strongly opposed nationalism well into the 19th century, because they saw it as tied to liberalism and, in general, disintegrating to traditional ideas, and dangerous to order. The embrace of nationalism by conservatives in, for instance, Germany (i.e. by Bismarck) was for the most part seen as cynical, and, indeed, even in Germany traditional Prussian conservatives remained highly suspicious of German nationalism, instead embracing their idealized conception of the old Prussian state. It was the right wing liberals who became the most virulent supporters of nationalism, not the conservatives. When one was is discussing long-established countries like Britain and France, nationalism is an awkward descriptor. Ths historical illiteracy of wikipedia articles about political ideologies remains sad and embarrassing. john k 13:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Why Why Why are you interpreting nationalism on the conservative page Rick! Nationalism is more a socialist/communist movement. American conservatives are for states rights and are not nationalistic but patriotic. Germans/Europeans in general have always been nationalists; liberal, conservative or communist! Oh! and the patriotism section is horrendous and absolutely ridiculous! Rick I have gone back a few months and looked over your POV writing and people having edit wars with you! this page is so terrible, and I think right now YOUR the biggest reason why. You waste so much time and effort of goodhearted people trying to fix your continuous POV, that this article is getting worse. Rick it is obvious your intention here to everyone but you! Why do you troll this article and write for it, when you only have disdain for anything conservative.This whole article needs to be restyled and rewritten if you ask me.-- MadDogCrog 09:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that "nationalism" was a poor word choice. Patriotism is much better, and following John Kenney's good suggestion, I made the change. There is now only one paragraph about nationalism, and the purpose of that paragraph is to point out that nationalism is often not a conservative movement. I have no objection if you want to remove that paragraph. In fact, I have no objection to removing the sentences with "cite" tags, if, say, a week goes by without anyone providing the requested citations. (Some of those sentences are mine, some are not, but I'm not wedded to any of them.) There is a big difference between blanking, which is Unwiki, and asking for citations and removing unverified material, which is the essence of Wiki. I'm always glad when someone asks for a citation. It keeps me honest.
Please assume good will. I see a lot to admire in conservatism and a lot to criticise in liberalism. I also see a great deal of overlap between the two. Currently, both favor capitalism and democracy. Rick Norwood 14:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Surely saying that patriotism should be associated with conservatism is much much worse than saying that nationalism is. "Patriotism" is pretty entirely non-political, and is used by pretty much any politician - hell, what did Joseph Stalin call World War II again? Nationalism did come to be associated with the right in many parts of Europe by the early 20th century, although there've always been left wing and liberal nationalists, as well. "Patriotism" has never been primarily associated with the right, except in the minds of Ann Coulter, et al. john k 15:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
While the word "conservative" did not take on its present meaning until a few hundred years ago, historians widely use the word to describe similar views in other times and cultures. For example, Confucius is usually described as a conservative philosopher. The conservative philosophy is the philosophy that upholds tradition. This distinction was well understood in Plato's day, and Socrates and Alcibides are described as liberal thinkers, while Thucidides and Xenophon are usually described as conservative -- upholders of the traditional ways of doing thing. Plato was conservative in some ways and revolutionary in others -- his Republic proposes a totally revolutionary form of government in which social class is decided by ability rather than by birth.
The current criticism of conservatism section has no examples in common with the original criticism of conservatism section, everything in that section was removed due to challenges by the three people who repeatedly blanked the section, in an attempt to compromise. The blankers, however, have so far rejected the very idea of any criticism of conservatism. I would personally like to see all of the examples you mention above added to the section. Rick Norwood 15:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The above is an ongoing mediation case regarding POV issues in this article. There is a Village Pump posting requesting opinions on the matter at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#A controversy in the Conservatism article and a RfC filed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rick Norwood.
If anyone has a solution to resolve the dispute in a manner which may be acceptable to all sides, I'd appreciate comments on Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-13 Conservatism. Please keep Wikipedia policy in mind while drafting suggestions.
Thanks!
Can anyone justify why this section is here in the Conservative Article. Very Poor Form for Encyclopedic Reference. It needs to be deleted along with the Patriotism section, unless anyone objects.-- MadDogCrog 04:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
So your justification for the patriotism section is that you feel most conservatives are more patriotic than the liberal counterpart, So 6 poorly written paragraphs needs to be included into the conservative page. Instead linking patriotism in the See Also section. So I shall expostulate in remonstance.
First paragraph; Has a mis-quote of Stephan Decatur Jr.’s that in Original form is quite patriotic but not affilliated with any Conservative group, agenda, and/or cause. If Stephan Decature was a Socialist would this be a famous Socialist patriotic expression. Why is this quote conservative?
Next paragraph; Discussion of the country of England Political postureing about retaining its Style and Culture! Which is definatly a classic conservative philosophy but seems to be a latent patriotic atribute at best.
Third paragraph; Is some form of Original Research tripe that goes nowhere, yet ends with the excellent patriotic quote, from the Conservative Sir. Walter Scott. That I Guess is supposed to justify the whole paragraph?
Forth paragraph; Is a discription of patriotism in general. Nothing conservative specific. And yet it ends with the Social Liberal Democratic quote of John F. Kennedy to justify its content, Wich is quite patriotic, yet you could never consider him a classic conservative, but was a fiscal conservative!
Fifth and Sixth paragraph; More poorly written Alphabet Soup Original Research somehow made its way her to the patriotic Conservative section. I am at odds at the anchor to patriotic conservatism, and its intent and direction to inform the researcher using Wiki. And I believe you feel also should be deleted.
So there really is no reason to keep any of this erroneous information! Unless you can justify its inclussion in rebuttal.
And lets see, you say we should Conserve the Liberalism section! Yet the Wiki Page on Liberalism does not have a Conservative section. So its wiki to keep inappropriate tripe! And its inclusion is very un-Encyclopidic. And as you agree this section is problematic and should be moved or included elsewhere.
So create and write a more suitable section with the information you find appropriate in this section as you suggest. And you or I shall remove this problematic and inappropriate section! I would argue against this section more, but I am tired and feel its existence is argument enough. My favorite quote of Sir Walter Scott ; “Oh! what a tangled web we weave When first we practice to deceive!” -- MadDogCrog 06:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
First I had to fix the quote of Stephen Decatur Jr. to be complete and correct! Still don’t understand why its there or who classifies it as conservative other than you rick! But I will just ask for citation and go from there.
To quote you Rick. “The patriotism section is important, I think, because patriotism is a value most conservatives espouse.” I was trying to clarify your justification of why a patriotism section exists. And where you get the idea that I was creating a black and white issue out of this defies logic to me. Other than to be a passive aggressive barb to belittle my intellectual depth of the issue. As verified by linking me to the Shallow American comment. Touche! But I will stay on the direct and intellectual approach.
Your comment that conservatives use the Religion Card Shows a little lack of depth on your part., for the Religious Conservatives, Religion and Morals are there issue. It is not a card that is played, but the hand they hold,
So you agree with me about the Second Paragraph, I think. Your rebuttal is fairly vague. Yet it is still there!
Third and Rest of the section---Excellent Quote! Very Patriotic! Again how is this Conservative! National Values, and Patriotism. Again not conservative specific.
Your comment ” I think, the conservative idea that patriotism is more important that other virtues.” Shows that this section is to again insert your POV. I do acquiesce to the your Literary quote “patriotism is a value most conservatives espouse.”as Being a part of the general Article on Conservatism, but to have a whole section on patriotism is rediculous when this value is espoused in many cultures, nations and the vast spectrum of political philosophy in one form of another.
And again there is no Conservatism section in the liberal page. So why do you feel a liberalism section belongs here!!! Don’t you see this just seems so obviously unEncyclopedic, reeks of poor form, and lack of Continuity of style for the editors and researchers using wiki-- MadDogCrog 12:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The old section was rather long, so I've split off a new section. The main thing I have to say here is that if my comments about the liberal/conservative split in America sounded like a barb aimed at you, I apologize. Such was not my intention.
About playing the religion card. When a private citizen supports a particular religion, that is a matter of conscience and belief. When a politician says, vote for me because of my religion, that is playing a card. In the last American election, John Kerry and George Bush ran for president. Both men are Christians. But in my church, the pastor told the congregation, "If you are a good Christian, you will vote for George Bush, because he's a good Christian." When you mix religion and politics, it makes bad religion and bad politics.
About the patriotism section. Have you read Kipling's Stalky & Co.? There is a scene in that book where a politician comes to the boys' school and gives a speech about patriotism. It makes Stalky almost literally ill. Patriotism is something you feel, not something you talk about. It may help you understand how I feel when the American congress, at a time when we are fighting a war that serves no legitimate American interest, at a time when we are going nine trillion dollars deeper in dept, introduces an ammendment against burning the American flag. Now, I love my country's flag, and I love my country, but I would never try to use my own patriotism for political gain. The idea makes me sick.
The point about the liberalism section: as I see it, the section has one and only one legitimate purpose, and that is to explain how the words "liberal" and "conservative" are used differently in different contexts. For example, "liberal" is sometimes used to mean "conservative" as in the phrase, "economic liberal". And the meaning of the two words in the EU is very different from their meaning in the US. I tried to take everything else in that section out. But, as I said, I hope someone else who knows more about the EU than I does a rewrite. Rick Norwood 23:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I got too chatty on the talk page -- I was trying to respond to a direct question from MadDogDrog. Rick Norwood 12:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Rick to MadDogCrog: I'm going to try to keep this brief and focused, to avoid the accusation of blogging. (1) The problem with mixing religion and politics is hypocracy. (2) The difference between flag burning and the environment is that while flag burners may hurt my feelings, pollution may hurt my health. I'm willing to restrict freedom to protect my health, but not to keep my feelings from being hurt. (3) It is not I who equates economic conservatism and economic liberalism. I go with you and Mr. Webster. This section is a concession to the libertarians. Rick Norwood 14:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
My three responses above were direct answers to your direct comments to me. To respond directly to your comments above, and ignore the accusations of propaganda and bad spelling: 1) people may edit sections of Wikipedia without waiting to be asked. 2) if you don't like my edit, instead of insulting it, improve it. 3) The reason for the liberalism section was that (as best I remember) a libertarian wanted people to know that many libertarians considered themselves classical liberals but political conservatives. Then someone who knows about Eurpoean politics added some paragraphs that I found interesting. 4) The reason for the patriotism section (at first badly titled "nationalism") is that, as the section says, "Conservatives often express admiration of the patriotic values of duty, sacrifice, and obedience." Do you disagree? 4) I do know the meaning of hypocrisy, so my education was not entirely wasted. To belabor a point I thought was obvious, while there are many sincere Christians in politics, there are also many crooked politicians who hypocritically profess to be good Christians, so many that the real Christians tend not to wear their religion on their sleeve, for fear of sounding like the hypocrites. Rick Norwood 16:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Scribner for your editing!-- MadDogCrog 10:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Rick Norwood, you've change all cited materials to the style of Footnotes, without discussion. Change every "footnote cite" back to the "Embedded HTML links" that this article has used since the article was started.
The following are different citation styles you can use to insert references into Wikipedia articles:
All three are acceptable citation styles for Wikipedia. Do not change from Harvard referencing to footnotes or vice versa without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor. citation styles-- Scribner 00:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
If contributors differ as to the appropriate style of citation, they should defer to the article's main content contributors in deciding the most suitable format for the presentation of references.If no agreement can be reached, the citation style used should be that of the first major contributor.-- Scribner 00:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC) agreement required-- Scribner 00:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Rick to Scribner: While I have no strong preference for one citation style over another, the problem here was mixed citation styles, which is clearly a bad idea. As for following the style of the first major contributor, I would say Jmabel deserves that honor. But, if priority is the issue, I was working on this article long before you were. Rick Norwood 00:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I've restored the two sections, one entirely deleted and the other cut to a single paragraph. On the other hand, I have no objection at all to shortening these sections. Would the person who deleted them please specify what these sections say that he does not think belongs in the article?
Personally, I think the patriotism section makes the article stronger. In fact, the appeal to patriotism is one of conservatism's greatest attractions.
The liberalism section is not as important, but seems to contain some interesting information, and helps the article to be less centered on American conservatism. If the name of the section were changed, would that help? Rick Norwood 01:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
This page is 33 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable.
Attention Firefox and Google Toolbar users: You may find that long pages are cut off unexpectedly while editing in tabs; please be careful. This issue has been reported to Google, and we hope they will fix it.
A section or content that does not pertain to the philosophy of Conservatism should be removed. The Liberalism section clearly belongs in the liberalism article. The Patriotism section as well belongs in the patriotism article.-- Scribner 04:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Good call, GregorB. Can we also remove the references flag, since the article now has many references? Rick Norwood 12:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
On the subject of warning labels. I agree with GregorB that any warning labels should be on sections, not on the entire article. Only the criticism section is under mediation.
Rick to GregorB: The existing criticism section is the result of repeated unsuccessful attempts on my part to compromise with Scribner. He insists that the section must not contain any introductory remarks or framing material, must not contain any mention of US conservatism or modern conservatism, and must not include any examples. The existing section was the best I could do under those constraints, but he still considers it POV and OR. There are a couple of alternate versions on view on the mediation page, and I would appreciate another opinion which might help to break the deadlock there, which has gone on for more than a month.
Rick to Scribner: Please read the Wiki policy on blanking. I have offered to work with you on this. Please tell me what you want. Rick Norwood 22:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
There is article Liberalism worldwide.Why there is no such article about conservativism? BoDu 30 July 2006
I created today article Conservatism worldwide.I invite you,and others to start writing. BoDu 31 July 2006
I have provided requested references and removed unreferenced remarks. I hope we can now move on to more constructive work on the article. The thing that seems to me most needed is a careful read from beginning to end to remove duplication. Rick Norwood 13:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
In my absence, and recent disgust! While trying to be a decent contributor, and editor to this article. It seem 'Rick' you have decided to remove the sections that I found inappropriate to this article, and include whatever gibberish that you found worthwhile in those sections to other sections!
Well Hooray! After almost a month of my diplomacy, discussion, and pragmatism. You finally did what I asked all along to be done, and removed those sections.
What gives!
Was I correct that these sections did not belong? Do I not deserve an apology for wasting my time? Do I not at least deserve an explanation of why now you changed your mind and decided to remove those sections?
I don’t have all day to spend on wikipedia! And I prefer to work diplomatically and pragmatically. And I truly would like to contribute! But this was a drain on my emotional constitution. And a big waste of my possible editing time. This article needs lots and lots of work!-- MadDogCrog 10:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
... it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.---- Comment by Jimbo Wales
See also, Wikipedia criticism guideline
And, POV forks POV forks
The criticism section was nothing more than a bundle of quotes, wired together with connective material. The guidelines regarding criticism in articles were never followed. Section removed.-- Scribner 05:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Refences for recently added section:
1: "1.1 What is distinctive about conservatism as a political view?
Its emphasis on tradition as a source of wisdom that goes beyond what can be demonstrated or even explicitly stated."
From a Jim Klab who has written several books on the topic.
2: "His decision to block the bill from becoming law is a major win for social conservatives, who opposed the measure because they argued extracting stem cells would destroy the embryos and thus end a life."
From CNN.
3: The Russian conservatives and reformers have different visions of the future. The Russian conservatives favour a strong state hand in economic development. In their view, the state sector should coexist with a largely independent private sector, and independent enterprises would have to shoulder their own debts. At the same time, the state would permit but regulate monopolistic enterprises and institute harsh penalties for cutting output and raising prices without valid reason. Key to conservative plans is the creation of a single CIS economic space.
From the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service.
This section is not inflammatory and specifically avoids a lot of topics.
Honestly conservatism, at least much of its ideological stimulus in the past two centuries, has been little more than a reaction against liberalism. There is very little unique material to actually criticize. There should be a criticism section, but it's not as pressing a matter as it is for a topic like liberalism, which has been vastly more influential in global politics over the past two, three, four (?) centuries.
UberCryxic 02:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, there definitely needs to be a critisism section. There's one for liberalism and other political ideologies, so why not here? Conservativism is no different and does not deserve special treatment. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 02:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem with your characterization Rick is that before modern times, "conservatism" was really just an undercurrent in history. It only represented a general state of affairs - as you said, the support of tradition, religious institutions, and autocracies, among other things, in many societies - but it was not a coherent worldview and ideology like it is now. That would require Edmund Burke. When people did all these things you are saying, and they did do them, they did not appeal to conservatism; it was merely how they were raised. Liberalism as an ideology is far older than conservatism. And like I said, the latter is a reaction to the former (Burke was writing in response to the French Revolution). UberCryxic 14:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
They were discussed by those writers in their own unique context and traditions. The ideological rigor only developed in recent times, which is true for many beliefs and ideas out there. Before the "isms" of the 19th century gave them systematic and coherent weight, they were mostly customary traditions, though not always. Generally speaking, I simply want to caution against taking a modern ideology and brushing history with its stroke. Doing that in no way illuminates on the intellectual debates and concerns of the writers that you identified, and, in fact, it may even detract from those pursuits. UberCryxic 17:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The China section currently ends with the sentence:
I'm not too sure what this means. The parenthetical phrase tells me what it isn't, but there's no link or explanation of what it is. What does this neoconservative movement believe, and how is it different from the Chinese conservatism discussed in the rest of the section? -- Delirium 23:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there any reason why "crunchy conservatives", the movement described in Rod Dreher's book, should not be included in the article here? There's some overlap with paleocons, but that moniker doesn't adaquately describe those who Dreher writes about. Mamalujo 19:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
"What's happened to this article? It's much shorter, and the quote: "A disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve" which is the very heart of conservatism, is gone."
I agree that the quote above belongs in the article. Will someone who knows the citation please reference it.
On another topic, someone has added to the introduction the phrase "strong foreign defense". Whatever that is supposed to mean, it does not belong in the intro. Some conservatives favor a large army, others favor small government. Remember George Washington's statement, "Beware of foreign entanglements".
I've done a small rewrite of the intro. I haven't added anything, just removed a couple of unreferenced comments. Rick Norwood 13:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The cites in Russell Kirk are looking rather anemic. Anybody care to try to improve them? -- 201.51.211.130 15:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I have a question why is it that conservatives are true conservatism these days. The articles does not reflect the aspects of all of this. I have gone threw a great deal of articles in this ideals section. I have not seen any conservative or traditional views that reflect those that support monarchies (Not just the British!! There are other Rulers besides in England!) My point being is that if the article is going to go on about conservatism why does it not address those with positive views of; nobles ruling, public executions, real art, castles etc.
I find it appalling that Wikipedia included Liberalism on its 2006 CD, but failed to include its opposite. Open source is supposed to be neutral. What a disgrace.
Religious conservatism is unlike other forms of conservatism, because of the many different forms it can take. Many religious conservatives are resistant to all change, because they see their beliefs as coming from an all knowing and unchanging God. St. Paul illustrates the importance of tradition in First Corinthians: "I have received from the Lord that which also I delivered unto you." The Latin word for delivered here is traditio.
"I have received from the Lord that which also I delivered unto you" (exact reference: 1 Corinthians 11:23).
You know what they say, a text taken out of it's context becomes a pretext.
In this case, Paul's intention was clearly not an attempt to justify religious conservatism (In fact Paul, being a converted jew himself, often refers to Israel's religious traditions such as circumcision as being no longer necessary). In addition, the latin word traditio means "giving up, surrender; instruction, relation" (ref. University of Notre Dame's Latin dictionary). The word tradition may well have been derived from traditio, but the meaning of traditio has nothing to do with tradition. It's a one way street. Furthermore none of the new testament was originally written in Latin, but rather in Greek. It is generally accepted amongst historians and Bible scholars that the latin transaltion of the Bible is flawed and modern translations of the bible are done (for the vast majority) from the Greek texts.
As a side note, the use of the term "all knowing" is somewhat (if not very) sarcastic, and should be replaced with a more neutral term such as "omniscient". Also the usage of "St." is ambiguous (see the Bible's usage of the word, which is much broader that the "canonized by the Church" definition, only recognized in certain denominations, notably by the Catholic or Orthodox Churches), perhaps "apostle" would be more appropriate.
This expression "Radical Religious Conservatism" seems to be irrelevant... "Radical Religious Conservatism" is a nice oxymoron : Radicalism is the opposite of Conservatism. People like muslim or christian fondamentalists are far nearer of Marxists and other radicals than conservatives... David Descamps 16:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
As a staunch liberal myself, I still want the conservatives to be presented correctly. I feel that the first paragraph of this article does not do justice to the conservative philosophy. "Traditional" values are hardly what conservatism calls for - if that were so, we might be stuck in the stone age. No, I think a stronger introduction would have conservatism shown as a philosophy that advocates for minimal government over the people. Gautam Discuss 05:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course this is controversial. It is about a political party.
whilst i realise that conservapedia is not run by the people who run wikipedia, could anyone please explain to me why every single link i click on in that site blocks me from adding content to discussions or contacting administrators? someone called Joaquín Martínez keeps blocking me, so quickly i can't help thinking he's locked all the pages. why is this, and is there anything anyone can do about it?
Fhbear 22:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
A couple of obversations: 1 - the page on liberalism is about 5 times longer than this page 2 - it also has many more pictures of prominent 'thinkers'
Surely, there can be something done to balance this out a bit
This article does mention both Adam Smith and Ronald Reagan. It does not mention Rush Limbaugh because he is essentially unknown outside the United States, and belongs in the article Conservatism in the United States. Similarly, the alliance between conservatives and libertarians is relatively recent, and motivated, as best I can tell, by politics rather than ideology, an alliance many libertarians now regret. Rick Norwood 17:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your point is. The idea of "conservatism" is very old. The Roman orator Cicero was a conservative, as was the Chinese philosopher Confucius. The conservative movement in the last few centuries, which traces its origin to Burke, is belief in God, king, and country.
As you point out, both conservatives and liberals love Adam Smith, up to a point. Adam Smith advised those who grew wealthy under capitalism to pay their taxes without grumbling, which is where modern "conservatives" diverge from Wealth of Nations.
To say that "conservatism is more than traditionalism" is to say that, to the historical meaning of "conservative" has been added, in America, a new meaning, "low taxes and small government". But this is a political move, not a philosophical move. Traditionally, the "low taxes and small government" people were liberals. Liberals let them down, by favoring social programs to promote equaltiy of oportunity, and so the "low taxes and small government" moved to the conservative party -- which also let them down. Maybe you need to form a "Low taxes and small government party". I wish you luck, because never in the history of the world has a government given up money and power without a fight. Rick Norwood 17:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
That would be the Libertarian Party. Granola Bars 23:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
"Conservatism as a political philosophy is notoriously difficult to define, encompassing numerous different movements in various countries and time periods; there may sometimes be contradictions between alternative conceptions of conservatism as the ideology of preserving the past, and the contemporary worldwide conception of rape as a conservative political stance." Wtf? This is a joke, right? Or did I miss something? 1337wesm 20:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
1337wesm 21:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
So do we all. Most of the vandals are kids with nothing better to do. Rick Norwood 12:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
So, there is a criticism section on the Liberal section, shouldn't there be one here? Amamamp ( talk) 03:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the edit that deleted the link to libertarianism. Conservatism has a strong individualist tradition, so unless there's a valid explanation for deleting it, I think it should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.79.208 ( talk) 05:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Terribly obese with partisanship towards the liberals. Conservative's have more defined views and you know it. 70.178.23.13 ( talk) 06:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It references sources that are not able to be checked online. Specifically they are:
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L.M., & Malle, B.F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741-763. Sidanius, J. (1993). The psychology of group conflict and the dynamics of oppression: A social dominance perspective. In W. McGuire & S. Iyengar (Eds), Current approaches to political psychology (pp. 183-219). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Being able go to a university library and dig up these 15 year-old studies, it is possible to verify the validity of these studies. For example, did they use a large enough sample size to be statistically accurate? Often these psychological studies, especially from that long ago, do not.
I therefore am going to delete that section from the article, pending a good explanation for why it should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.79.208 ( talk) 17:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Stop talking about this and change the "article." Pompous windbagery at it's finest! 70.178.23.13 ( talk) 06:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia considers science to be evidence. As Colbert said, "Reality is biased".
There must be some reason why so many conservatives deny facts for which there is overwhelming evidence: climate change, evolution, the fact that the US Constitution does not establish the Christian religion, the fact that there are no laws against prayer in the public schools, the fact that Saddam Hussein did not plan 9/11, the fact that Obama is not a Moslem, that Hillary Clinton did not murder anybody, that liberals do not hate America.
Keep in mind that I'm talking about the self-appointed Conservative spokespeople in the mass media. There is another strain of conservatism, which stresses small government and self reliance, that has a lot to recommend it. Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)