Talk:Conservatism: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Xerographica (talk | contribs)
Line 76: Line 76:
:There is no reference for the statement "opposes rapid change in society" or for your statement "supports minimal and gradual change in sociey". The fact that a statement is unsupported does not mean that one can substitute it with another unsupported statement. Please find a source. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 04:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
:There is no reference for the statement "opposes rapid change in society" or for your statement "supports minimal and gradual change in sociey". The fact that a statement is unsupported does not mean that one can substitute it with another unsupported statement. Please find a source. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 04:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
:: yeah, that was my bad. I made the same mistake you did. I didn't read the entire source before I wrote the above statement. You clear wrote the above statement before reading the source. What I changed it to reflects the source. Personally, I think it should be deleted, but you get my point.
:: yeah, that was my bad. I made the same mistake you did. I didn't read the entire source before I wrote the above statement. You clear wrote the above statement before reading the source. What I changed it to reflects the source. Personally, I think it should be deleted, but you get my point.

== Request For Comments – Political Ideologies Diagram ==

[[File:Political Ideology Interconnectedness Venn Diagram.jpg|thumb]]

On the libertarianism talk page we're having quite a bit of disagreement regarding where libertarianism ends and other ideologies begin. Given that a picture is worth a thousand words, I drew this diagram to illustrate the one defining tenet that two ideologies share.

When I posted it on the talk page I specifically noted that it was original research based on numerous reliable sources and was not intended for use in the article. However, the file has been proposed for deletion because editors that oppose my viewpoint feel that original research based on reliable sources should not be allowed on talk pages or even user pages.

From my perspective...it sets bad precedent if you can't draw a diagram to try and help simplify a complex and confusing topic. If this diagram is deleted it will be the equivalent of somebody deleting your comments from the talk page just because they disagree with what you have to say. So far, nobody has offered any evidence that the straightforward definitions contained within this diagram are not factual.

Here's where I posted the file on my user page...[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xerographica#Political_Ideology_Interconnectedness here] and here’s where the file is being proposed for deletion...[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_September_28#File:Political_Ideology_Interconnectedness_Venn_Diagram.jpg here]. I spent a bit of time working on this diagram and would really appreciate some outside feedback on whether the file should be kept or deleted. If it turns out that my diagram is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy then my other two diagrams will have to be deleted as well...[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xerographica#Survey Scope of Government Diagrams].

Revision as of 19:05, 30 September 2010

Religious conservatism and cultural conservatism

Religious conservatism is not a subset of cultural conservatism. Examples abound. China, for example, is very conservative culturally, but not at all conservative in religion. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of true -- China is extremely conservative in such matters as Taoism etc., to the extent that "foreign religions" are suspect. This is sometimes hard to see as China is not by nature a single nation with a single religion, but a grouping of a "Heinz 57" of nationalities, many of which adhere in many respects to traditional religions. You might read Denby on such stuff as well. Collect (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Religious conservatives seek to apply the teachings of particular religions to politics...." Is this referring to religious people who are conservative or people of various political beliefs who are conservative in their religion? Certainly Christian socialists and nonconformist liberals pushed for blue laws and prohibition. But conservatives have usually supported state control of religion. Should be clarified. TFD (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up the source, "New Religious Conservatism".[1] It appears to refer exclusively to a faction of US conservatism and there is no mention of similar factions existing elsewhere. TFD (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try also [2] which refers to religious conservatism thoughout the course of history. Though American, I do not suggest that history began with the US <g>. Collect (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what? This source[3] refers to "conservative dressing". Some people have dressed conservatively thoughout the course of history. Although conservatives tend to dress more conservatively (you can test this by sitting in the Strangers Gallery in any parliament), it does not mean that there is a conservative dresser faction of conservatives. It just means that being religious and dressing conservatively are common attributes of conservatism. TFD (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the recent Spylab edit are good, other parts seem to confuse social conservativism, cultural conservatism, and religious conservatism. It seems clear to me just from the definitions of the words that social conservatism means expecting the government to uphold the conventions of society (examples of social conservatism would include the laws in New York in the early 20th century against lower class people crossing the police line into the Wall Street district, or laws in France in the 18th century against working class people dressing as if they were upper class). I can't think of any examples of social conservatism still in effect. Maybe the Atlanta country clubs that still exclude Blacks and Jews, but that is rare and local. On the other hand, cultural conservatism seems on the upswing, for example the controversial Arazona law requiring police to search anyone who "looks like" they might be an illegal immigrant. And issues of abortion and homosexuality, which seem to me clearly religious conservatism, have been moved by Spylab from religious to cultural conservatism. Maybe he would explain how he understands the various forms of conservatism. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In her US political science textbook, Ellen Grigsby identifies two types of conservatism: "Classical liberal conservatism" and "Burkean traditional conservatism",[4] which she equates with "social conservatism".[5] She identifies the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition as "traditional conservatives".[6] She mentions the Conservative Party of Norway as "traditional conservative". (In fact they call themselves "social conservatives".) Norwegian traditional conservatism involves support of the welfare state, same-sex marriage and family planning, including abortion. US conservative writers have always considered their movement to be a coalition between traditionalists and libertarians. TFD (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(out) Nope. "Always considered"? Not in any books I found. As far as saying that because a single source makes a dichotomy, that therefore the dichotomy must be correct - that does not fit WP:V by a mile. All you can say is "this source says yada yada yada" and not that "yada yada yada is a fact." Collect (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know what books you read, Collect. Perhaps you could recommend one that supports your view. Incidentally, a single source is usually adequate to support a fact. People who dispute facts should provide alternative sources rather than ask for more sources. TFD (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What any editor "knows" is irrelevant - all that counts is WP:V. Which means that insisting that because you find a book with a dichotomy does not mean that the dichotomy is "fact." The only "fact" you have presented is the opinion expressed in one source. And the simple truth is that we have a large number of sources which do not make that dichotomy - inlcuding sources for "fiscal conservatism" etc. As presented in the article. I make no claims as to "knowing" the "truth" nor does WP policy state that such is a proper thing for any editor to claim. Or do you dispute the RS sources given for the forms of conservatism? Collect (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a source says there is a dichotomy is evidence that there is a dichotomy and a source that is silent on the topic is not a source. Anyway, please provide a source that "fiscal conservatism" is a type of conservatism. The source you use, besides being about the US, is actually about keeping costs down in the prison system.[7] This obviously is not a branch of conservatism. TFD (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spylab has not responded to my question here, but on rereading, I find his edit to be an improvement in the article. The only point that seems doubtful is the claim that conservatives support "morality". It's an odd moral code that forbids dirty words but accepts torture. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, I didn't notice that question directed at me until now. This is not about my understanding of the various forms of conservatism, nor about any other editor's understanding of the topic. The Variants section needs more references and less original research. Pretty much all I did was delete a bunch of uncited claims, and then copy/paste content from the related articles (cultural conservatism, social conservatism etc.). Spylab (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead

An editor removed the following text, with the notation "lede is not the place for extended argument - it is to show only the gist of the article. the "but" clai" from the lead: "But Robert Eccleshall countered that their claim that conservatism is not an ideology, taken at face value, implies that conservatives either lack a distinct view of society or else are incapable of thinking intelligently about politics. He defined conservatism as "the persistent image of society as a command structure in which the responsibilities of leadership can be exercised within the framework of a strong state". This text followed Hailsham's description of conservatism as "not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself".

While I accept the objection we still need to provide a mainstream description of conservatism in the lead. What about, "But Robert Eccleshall defined conservatism as "the persistent image of society as a command structure in which the responsibilities of leadership can be exercised within the framework of a strong state"?

TFD (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


"But" is, in esse, placing an argument into the lede, far beyond the value of the argument in the corpus of the article. Collect (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then please recommend another conjuction when there are differing definitions of a topic. (Also, please stop using Latin, it reminds me of my schoolmasters.) TFD (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The primary definition used in the article belongs in the lede. Other definitions do not belong in the lede. There is no need for a conjunction, especially when it is not even properly used as a conjunction. And where Latin phrases are "spot on" it makes sense to use them. Collect (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should use the Eccleshall definition. I do not know where you are getting this from. Could you please provide a source for your explanation, otherwise I will set up an RfC. TFD (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lede should " summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. (My emphasis.) Since you have not replied I will re-insert the definition as described. Please do not remove sourced material without providing any explanations based on policy or guidelines. TFD (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem was that 1. it was not given by him as a definition and 2. it omitted the actual point of the quote - that it referred to divine-right royalism as a hallmark of English conservatism. Now included. Collect (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

another resource for the article

Here's another resource for information on conservatism. 174.124.211.49 (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This book seems moderately interesting, but it was published more than thirty years ago, is out of print, has no reviews either on Amazon or Google, and is apparently the only work by an otherwise non-notable author. Better sources are available. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iran?

A link from Islamic Consultative Assembly (Iran) suggests there is content about Iranian conservatism but no such content exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.71.214 (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reference in this article about that. TFD (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nazis

The Four Deuces: should we revert wrongheaded comments on the talk page? I thought not. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed like trolling to me, trying to generate reaction without expectation of improving the article. In reply to the IP's question, there are right-wing groups that are too radical to be considered conservative. TFD (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid in def. of Conservative

Neither citation uses the word rapid, so I deleted it. Please cite the source, and it can be restored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.91.54 (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reference for the statement "opposes rapid change in society" or for your statement "supports minimal and gradual change in sociey". The fact that a statement is unsupported does not mean that one can substitute it with another unsupported statement. Please find a source. TFD (talk) 04:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, that was my bad. I made the same mistake you did. I didn't read the entire source before I wrote the above statement. You clear wrote the above statement before reading the source. What I changed it to reflects the source. Personally, I think it should be deleted, but you get my point.

Request For Comments – Political Ideologies Diagram

File:Political Ideology Interconnectedness Venn Diagram.jpg

On the libertarianism talk page we're having quite a bit of disagreement regarding where libertarianism ends and other ideologies begin. Given that a picture is worth a thousand words, I drew this diagram to illustrate the one defining tenet that two ideologies share.

When I posted it on the talk page I specifically noted that it was original research based on numerous reliable sources and was not intended for use in the article. However, the file has been proposed for deletion because editors that oppose my viewpoint feel that original research based on reliable sources should not be allowed on talk pages or even user pages.

From my perspective...it sets bad precedent if you can't draw a diagram to try and help simplify a complex and confusing topic. If this diagram is deleted it will be the equivalent of somebody deleting your comments from the talk page just because they disagree with what you have to say. So far, nobody has offered any evidence that the straightforward definitions contained within this diagram are not factual.

Here's where I posted the file on my user page...here and here’s where the file is being proposed for deletion...here. I spent a bit of time working on this diagram and would really appreciate some outside feedback on whether the file should be kept or deleted. If it turns out that my diagram is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy then my other two diagrams will have to be deleted as well...Scope of Government Diagrams.