Talk:Conservatism/Archive 5

???

"but classical liberals are less suspicious of big government than conservatives"

What kind of nonsense is that ?? Libertarians are not suspicious of big government? This website's a joke 201.212.90.185 (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What? Your point makes no sense. Assume Good Faith, yes, but are you confusing Liberals and Libertarians? This page is a reference to conservatism as the right-leaning portions of the political spectrum, including Libertarianism, and to a more extreme extent, Fascism. In the same vein, the page on Liberalism is indicative of the left-leaning political spectrum, including Socialism and to a more extreme extent Communism.

Please read more into the goal of an article before you incorrectly complain about its contents. Pmo22 (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

OK... Whoever is writing all of this about less suspicion... just stop alright?... Liberals think that government should control everybody's lives and in that the entire nation to the point that nobody actually has an identity... can anybody see the connection to Communism... thought so. Mistinis (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Mistinis

Liberals DO NOT belive that the govermant should control everyone's lives. Liberalism has to do with extensive human rights and equality not to control everyones lives. (Some people are crazy) Hungaryboy1 (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, actually that's your opinion of what liberals want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.128.191 (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Conservative government is an organized hypocrisy"

I have removed this from the article because whoever added it had misunderstood what Disraeli meant. To give the quote its context and why it has been misinterpreted, I'll give the peroration of the speech addressed to Sir Robert Peel:

"There is no doubt a difference in the right hon. gentleman's demeanour as leader of the Opposition and as Minister of the Crown. But that's the old story; you must not contrast too strongly the hours of courtship with the years of possession. 'Tis very true that the right hon. gentleman's conduct is different. I remember him making his protection speeches. They were the best speeches I ever heard. It was a great thing to hear the right hon. gentleman say: "I would rather be the leader of the gentlemen of England than possess the confidence of Sovereigns". That was a grand thing. We don't hear much of "the gentlemen of England" now. But what of that? They have the pleasures of memory—the charms of reminiscence. They were his first love, and, though he may not kneel to them now as in the hour of passion, still they can recall the past; and nothing is more useless or unwise than these scenes of crimination and reproach, for we know that in all these cases, when the beloved object has ceased to charm, it is in vain to appeal to the feelings. You know that this is true. Every man almost has gone through it. My hon. gentleman does what he can to keep them quiet; he sometimes takes refuge in arrogant silence, and sometimes he treats them with haughty frigidity; and if they knew anything of human nature they would take the hint and shut their mouths. But they won't. And what then happens? What happens under all such circumstances? The right hon. gentleman, being compelled to interfere, sends down his valet, who says in the genteelest manner: "We can have no whining here". And that, sir, is exactly the case of the great agricultural interest—that beauty which everybody wooed and one deluded. There is a fatality in such charms, and we now seem to approach the catastrophe of her career. Protection appears to be in about the same condition that Protestantism was in 1828. The country will draw its moral. For my part, if we are to have free trade, I, who honour genius, prefer that such measures should be proposed by the hon. member for Stockport than by one who through skilful Parliamentary manoeuvres has tampered with the generous confidence of a great people and a great party. For myself, I care not what may be the result. Dissolve, if you please, the Parliament you have betrayed. For me there remains this at least—the opportunity of expressing thus publicly my belief that a Conservative Government is an organised hypocrisy". (Buckle & Monypenny, Life of Disraeli. Volume I (1928), pp. 718-19.)

Disraeli was saying that Peel, elected to uphold the Corn Laws but repealed them a few years later, had betrayed the people who elected him. It was not who "personally profit from the repeal of the corn laws". Disraeli would later be the head of a Conservative Government.--Johnbull 03:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact, many MPs were voting their own financial interests. However, I have no objection to your formulation of the quote. Let's have it with your words to explain it. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it should be in the article because it does not relate to conservatism as an ideology—Disraeli was not criticising conservatism but the hypocrisy of Peel's Conservative government in not pursuing Conservative policies despite being elected to do just that.--Johnbull (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the observation of Disraeli, a major conservative, of the relationship between conservative ideology and self-interest is of major importance. It is one example of many. Since the article on patriotism mentions jingoism, I think the article on conservatism should at least mention the relationship between conservative government and the self-interest of the upper class, not only in England, but in many times and places.--Rick Norwood, 14:17, December 16, 2007.

Disraeli is not talking about self-interest. He was not a landowner and therefore he cannot have had a self-interest in the maintenance of the Corn Laws. Without a source which claims Disraeli was talking about self-interest in this regard, to include the quote in the article with the claim that he was talking about self-interest amounts to original research.--Johnbull (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If I wanted to include that in the article, I would of course quote sources. What I suggested was including the quote with your own explanation of it. Since the quote is important enough to appear in Bartlett's, it is certainly important enough to appear in this article. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

For any historical quote, context is incredibly important. In this case, the context is very specific - Disraeli, a conservative, was condemning a particular conservative government for betraying the interests of the rich landed interests that had arrested it, and comparing it to a previous conservative government of a decade or so before which had done a similar thing to anti-catholic interests which had similarly supported it. The statement has little relevance to any general discussion of conservatism. As far as Bartlett's goes, it's purpose is close to the opposite of ours - its purpose is to strip quotes of their context and present them as general maxims. We should not be doing this. john k (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Chesterton an example of conservatism?

I was correcting the punctuation and word order of the following quotation of G. K. Chesterton: "'My country, right or wrong,' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, 'My mother, drunk or sober.'" In doing so I paid closer attention to the statement it's used to demonstrate, i.e. that some conservatives wish to "expose the hypocrisy of an existing regime." Although there are situations in which this is true, isn't it a patent characteristic of liberalism? The article's example is the Chesterton quotation. According to Wikipedia, his ideas "were far too nuanced to fit comfortably under the "liberal" or "conservative" banner." I believe this point is in need of elaboration and evidence. 66.251.27.98 (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Read Chesterton on the subject of "niggers". Rick Norwood (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you be less sibylline? What do you mean? David Descamps (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Definition

Political Conservatism does not mean the favor of slow, gradual change. It means small or "conservative" government interference, where as liberal means much or liberal government interference. I don't know why this definition is spread around and regurgitated. This definition is often associted with the GOP in the U.S. It's simply not true. For instance, the GOP's favor of Second Amendment rights is a conservative political stance, but the GOP's pro-life stance is a liberal stance because it involves government interference. The Democratic Party favors the legalization of drugs, which is a conservative stance, but endorses the limiting of Second Amendment rights, which is a liberal stance. Libertarianism is the most conservative political ideology (except for, perhaps, anarchism) and fascism (and, hence totalitarinism) is the most liberal. Chenzo23 (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The definition of conservatism as meaning small government is peculiar to the United States and (more recently) some other English speaking countries. Bismarck was highly conservative yet he introduced state socialism/welfare state yet no one denies he was a conservative, yet under your definition he would be, bizarrely, a liberal. Can the conservative doctrine of Joseph de Maistre, for example, be really reduced to "small government"? Your post showed awareness of America only. And as for the definition of liberalism as "big government" (and fascism and totalitarianism as the most liberal!) that is even more US-centric and wide of the mark.--Johnbull (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Political conservatism means limits, so a limited government. Belgian conservatives (long long time ago. No more conservative party there), with Charles Woeste who once said «J’ai peur de l’état et je hais le Césarisme» [I fear the state and I hate Cæsarism] and Auguste Beernaert « Il faudra réduire le gouvernement au strict nécessaire » [We will have to reduce the government to the strict necessity], wanted that limited government. (Quotes from the "Biographie Nationale")David Descamps (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Chenzo23 is right on target. A "Conservative" government "conserves" its resources and only gets involved when absolutely necessary. Whereas a "Liberal" government is quite "liberal" with its resources and gets involved in all sorts of things. The problem most people have with the word "Conservative", is that they apply the definition of individual, personal, social conservatism to government and think that personally conservative individuals in government should apply their personal conservative values to public policy, which often requires an extremely liberal use of government resources to implement them. The United States was founded by a group of Libertarians who created a Conservative government to interfere as little as possible with individual liberties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommm3000 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In a word, balderdash. Conservativism does not mean, nor has never implied "limited government interference," as if liberalism favored "unlimited government interference." Do you have any idea at all how blantantly biased that sounds? Conservatism" is so named because they are trying to "conserve" the status quo. The generally wish to keep things as tradition upholds. Whether this is done through small or large amounts of government interference truly depends on the society in which the conservative movement exists, and the amount of government "interference" varies from issue to issue. You think the pro-life stance, for instance, can be upheld with no government interference? On the contrary, the way things are now would require large amounts of government interference to make abortion illegal. (Of course, pro-life is also a biased term, but that's a topic for another board.) Even before abortion became legal, it would require large amounts of government interference to keep individuals from getting abortions if they were determined to have them. PatrickLMT (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Chenzo23, you've gotten a couple of good answers, but since you ask for my thoughts on the subject: the word's "liberal" and "conservative" as they are bandied about in the current political debate are meaningless or, rather, just mean "my side" and "your side". On the other hand, if you read books written before, say, 1960, or serious scholarly books, you discover that the meaning of the words is much closer to the dictionary meaning. Liberals favor freedom, conservatives favor the status quo or the status quo ante.

The ideas that you have picked up, that liberals favor big government and conservatives favor small government, go back to the time when FDR was president. The class structure at that time was as strong as it has ever been in America. Both New York City and the state of California had police lines that only upper class people were allowed to cross. FDR was called, explicitly, "a traitor to his class". The wealth was concentrated in the hands of the few, who conspired to fix wages and prices, to bust unions and to use government power to restrict the rights of workers, people of color, and women. People in America were starving, living in "shanty towns", wandering from place to place looking for work. It was in this context that the government, under FDR, began to offer very limited help to ordinary Americans. He was called every dirty name in the book, including "Jew" and "communist".

It was never a question of "big government" vs. "small government". It was a question of big government helping the rich vs. big government helping the poor.

The political movement that actually favors small government is the libertarian movement. The Republican party in the United States wooed the libertarians, by promising small government, and by portraying the Democrats as in favor of big government. In fact, the federal government has grown in power under both parties, so that no American president in my lifetime has ever paid more than lip service to "small government" conservatism.

And political propaganda has done its best to destroy the meaning of words, in order to increase the power of government.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Very educational, but Chenzo has a point. In the US, 'conservative' has certainly come to be identified with 'spending conservatively'. Having this article limit the definition to 'limited change' misses the full range of meanings the word has come to have. Insisting that 'conservative' only ever means the first definition would *kinda* be like defining 'gay' as happy and bright, ignoring the word's now predominant association with people who have a particular sexual orientation. (I'm using some hyperbole, but it's true nevertheless) Regardless of the way the word acquired this particular shade of meaning, under NPOV it should really be addressed. 'Liberal' and 'conservative' are such widely applicable words - like 'Functionalism', 'Structuralism', or 'Postmodernism', their meaning varies too widely according to the word's context and the person who is using it for any succinct definition, such as the one on this page, to be rightly given. --NZUlysses (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The link to Fiscal Conservatism basically argues that the way it is used here (i.e. limited taxes) is wrong. So which one is it, limited government involvement or balanced budget ? 63.241.31.130 (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Johnbull and Chenzo you have it right... you would not believe some people... some actually think that Conservatism is anarchy... :P right?

Once again, this article is not about modern conservatism in the United States. There is an article on that subject. This isn't it. You need to read some history, and find out how the word was used before the Republicans got ahold of it. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong definition for Britain

The use of the word 'Conservatism' in British politics was firmly attached, originally, to the preservation of the link between the state and the Church of England: more specifically, the retention of laws preventing Catholic Succession. As this is fundamentally based on a belief that protestantism represents progress and independence, whereas Roman Catholiicism represents loss of national independence and regression, Britain's original Conservatives were therefore, in their own view, actually conservators of revolution/progress achieved, progressives opposing a certain type of conservatism, their use of the word therefore in some ways verging on the cryptic/ironic/colourful/'tongue-in-cheek.' No doubt the Party has attracted hordes of following, and even leading active members, totally ignorant of this original history and meaning, resulting in a deeply misleading and confusing state of affairs, historically, and in terms of fundamental character, but one which Wikipedia surely need not add to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.100.250.230 (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

well the father of conservative thought, Edmund Burke wrote his seminol work railing against the revolution in france.

the Tory party has always been about preserving the status quo in Britain, be it Irish Home Rule, or the right of heredity peers to sit in the lords it has traditionally stood as an opponent of change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.171.61 (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

History of Conservatism

I'm not sure why a recent edit removed references to older conservatives. It is standard to use the word in discussing history, especially the history of Greece, Rome, and China. It seems that some people want to change the meaning of the word. This seems counterproductive. In every culture, there are people who support the old ways, the traditions, the old religion, and the importance of family. In all times and places, modern historians identify such people as conservatives. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What about reformation? How can you source the POV you wrote earlier? I've never read that protestant reformation was conservative…Usually, it is said that protestant reformation lead to French Revolution. David Descamps (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Self identified Conservative Christians trace their beliefs to Martin Luther and the protestant reformation, which took place in the 16th Century. The French Revolution took place two hundred years later, in the 18th century. Not only did the two events take place in different centuries, they took place in different countries. The protestant reformation was largely German (also Swiss and English). The French remained Catholic. The French Revolution was a liberal, overthrowing the monarchy. Both were anti-Catholic, but that is just about the only thing they had in common. The protestant reformation wanted to replace the Roman church by Bible believing Christianity; the French revolution wanted to replace the Catholic church by atheism. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Come on… you're showing off your ignorance. Large parts of France became protestant during reformation, resulting in wars. France regained catholic faith because of Counter-Reformation which was really conservative. It is not because conservatives in USA are mainly protestant that reformation was conservative. And you're mixing political philosophy with some psychological bias or with radical fundamentalism. David Descamps (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What a strange response. I'm certainly aware of the Huguenots. I'm also aware that they were slaughtered, and that, as I said, France remained Catholic. You have not offered any evidence for your claim that "protestant reformation lead to French Revolution." And to suggest that, because I know what "Conservative Christians" mean when they so identify themselves, that makes me a radical fundamentalist is absurd. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You said that reformation didn't take place at the same place of French revolution. (both had implications on the whole of Europe) Now you said that French protestants were simply slaughtered, this is a nice shortcut. Between Edict of Fontainebleau and Edict of Nantes, there is some years… Perhaps I didn't offered any evidence, but I didn't write any claim on main page, on the contrary of you. Perhaps you would find some similarities between Monarchomachs and the tyrannicide theory used in 1789. Perhaps this book of Dale K. Van Kley will give you a light : The Religious Origins of the French Revolution: From Calvin to the Civil Constitution, 1560-1791. David Descamps (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure what I wrote that you are objecting to, or what point you are trying to make. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You wrote that conservatism is based or comes from Protestant Reformation. That is not correct. You wrote that conservatism is just a bias that some people have in every culture and every epoch. That is not correct. This page is about conservatism, a political philosophy that mainly comes from reaction to progressivist French Revolution based on Enlightement ideology. So mainly from Edmund Burke, not Cicero, not Martin Luther. Even if lots of conservative protestants think it is from Martin Luther (but that point of view should be written in this article as it is : a point of view) or even if Cicero can be considered as a conservative (but this is anachronistic). I think you have a (legitimate for me) problem with the american meaning of the word Liberalism and you try to make that point here, look at your speech about "conservative propaganda to lure libertarians" (I think you mix also conservatism with neoconservatism). I also do think that the use of the word liberal in US is wrong, but it is not here that you will change that. This seems counterproductive to me. David Descamps (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has been edited so many times that I can no longer tell which parts I wrote and which parts other people wrote. I don't think I ever said that conservatism was a 'bias' or that conservative propaganda tries to 'lure' libertarians. That doesn't sound like me. But that is not important, the only important thing is that the article be correct.

One strand of conservatism, modern political conservatism, can be traced back to Burke and to reaction to the French Revolution. But the word is commonly used in other ways. If one reads history, one finds the word often applied to Cicero, Confucius, and many others who valued family and stability above individualism and freedom. Burke's ideas were not original with him -- few ideas can be traced to a single source.

Of course Martin Luther was not a conservative -- he was a revolutionary -- but the people who currently identify themselves as "conservative Christians" (not only in the US, but also in the Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia and many other places) consider themselves to be followers of Martin Luther. Thus the revolutionary ideas of one generation become the conservative ideas of later generations.

I tend to place a great value on the dictionary meaning of words -- standard dictionaries, especially the Oxford English Dictionary -- are the only defense against propagandists spinning words to mean anything they want them to mean. Without common meaning, communication becomes impossible. I don't have an OED handy, but Webster's Seventh New Collegiat Dictionary defines conservative as "1 a: an adherent or advocate of political conservatism b cap: a member or supporter of a conservative political party 2 a: one who adheres to traditional methods or views b: a cautious or discreet person." This article places its greatest emphasis on definition 1, but should also include definition 2. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This page is about the political philosophy : the first definition in the Webster dictionary (1a), not the second. There is a disambiguation page to deal with other meanings. David Descamps (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct -- I withdraw the view expressed in my final paragraph. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is inappropriate to trace conservative Christians back to Martin Luther. Martin Luther was not the progenitor of the entire protestant movement! In fact, Methodists would claim that John Wesley was a protestant before Martin Luther was, if I recall correctly.

The largest current Lutheran church in the United States, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), is not a part of the conservative christian movement in the United States, although other Lutheran churches in the United States, including the Missouri Synod, are. The ELCA is in fact considered one of America's more (politically) liberal churches.

The conservative Christian movement is more frequently identified with the Southern Baptist or Presbyterian churches in the United States than it is with the Lutheran church. It would be more appropriate to trace their history and theology back to John Calvin. 205.175.123.26 (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the economy stupid

This article focuses almost exclusively on social values. What about the economic values of conservatism?

The wedding of conservatism and economic liberalism came much later, primarily in the US during the administration of FDR, when "that man in the White House" put the welfare of the American people above the rights of businessmen. At this point, the economic liberals in America split off from the social liberals and, looking for a home, joined the God, King, and Country conservatives. For more on this subject, see Conservatism in the United States.

By the way, it looks as if the future will bring more political bed-hopping, as the conservatives, because of their suspicion of foreigners and foreign ways, put Americanism above the rights of businessmen to go multi-national. As this happens, according to The World is Flat, economic liberals will return to the liberal camp. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dont centre around America there is conservatism elsewhere in the world as well. Hungaryboy1 (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, and its not always the same. Look at Conservative Islam. Same basic god fearing right-leaning values, but has totally diferent economics Duckmonster (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

RWA and SDO

Why is RWA and SDO discussed here? They don't seem like legitimate topics under this category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.173.240.130 (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wherever this section is placed, I think there's something missing in this sentence:

According to psychologists, an SDO is an attitude toward intergroup relationships which says that [____?] groups are subordinated and of lesser status than others.

"some groups"? "minority groups"? Because right now it seems like it's saying: "All groups are subordinated and of lesser status than others." Ileanadu (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Psychological research

The entire section "psychological research" does not belong in this article, since the subjects of these studies were present day Americans, and this article is about conservatism as a general political philosophy. If the section belongs anywhere, it is in Conservatism in the United States. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that it does not belong. It's amazing to see that "impartial" Wikipedia considers conservatives to basically have psychological deficiencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.79.208 (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Rick Norwood,

1) The psychological section contains the following sentence: “For instance, a meta-analysis by Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, and Sulloway in 2003 analyzed 88 studies, from 12 countries, with over 22,000 subjects, …” I understand the sentence to mean that conservatives from other countries have also been studied. How did you reach the conclusion that only Americans participated in all the studies?

2) You state, “…the subjects of these studies were present day Americans,…” How do you know the 88 studies only included “present day” research? Could some of the studies used in the meta-analysis come from decades ago?

3) What do you mean by the term “political philosophy”?

a. We are in agreement that this article is about conservatism as a political philosophy, as long as you are using the second meaning and understandings found in wikipedia. The second wikipedia meaning states that a political philosophy is “a general view, or specific ethic, belief or attitude, about politics that does not necessarily belong to the technical discipline of philosophy.” The fields of knowledge that studies world-views, beliefs, or attitudes are cultural studies, psychology, and sociology.

b. The first meaning for “political philosophy” in wikipedia states a, “Political philosophy is the study of fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority in a given system: what they are, why (or even if) they are needed, what makes a government legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect and why, what form it should take and why, what the law is, and what duties citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any, and when it may be legitimately overthrown—if ever.” If you meant this by the term “political philosophy,” then you believe that political philosophy died out in the late 1970s. The last conservative political philosophers were Friedrich Hayek and Leo Strauss. If this is your position then I have a question. How do you explain the changes in conservatism over the last 30 years?

4) Perhaps this article should change the word “political philosophy” to “ideology.” From my perspective, the word ideology describes this article better than political philosophy. Ideology would remove any confusion caused by difference in meaning between the older and newer usage of the term “political philosophy”.

5) Psychology has studied conservatism (and liberalism) for well over 100 years. In the United States, Wolfe wrote about the difference between conservatism, radicalism and the scientific method.(1) At this time, conservatism was associated with anti-science and anti-intellectualism.(2) After WWII, the study of the psychological factors that contribute to fascism began with the work of Theodor Adorno. Adorno developed the F-Scale that identified authoritarian personality characteristics, which subsequent scientists have confirmed, refined, expanded over the last 50 years, in many different countries. Adorno’s F-scale identified several characteristics linked to conservative cognition and behavior. Santo F. Camilleri applied factor analysis to the F-Scale in 1959. The Milgram experiment confirmed authoritarian submission in conservatives, and some liberals. In the 1960s, the term used in psychology to identify characteristics highlighted in the F-Scale changed to “authoritarian personality,” which gained popularity outside personality psychology. Diane Baumrind’s child development parenting styles identifies an “authoritarian” parenting-childrearing style. F-Scale also correlates with racism through of stereotyping. Moreover, Neurobiology has also identified differences in between how liberal and conservative brains work. Indeed, a recent neurocognitive study correlated between conservatism and liberalism, supported through brain imaging that “conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles, whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty.”

Daniel Oneofshibumi (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources: 1) Wolfe, A.B. (1923) Conservatism, Radicalism, and Scientific Method: An Essay on Social Attitudes. New York: Macmillan. 2) Hofstadter, R. (1966). Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (Paperback). New York: Vintage Books.

Your points are well taken. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

IF this section is appropriate for the Conservatism article, then why is there not a analogous section for the Liberalism article? - especially in light of Daniel's point (5) above (although citing half-century old articles would seem to be rather selective, given the changes in the "science" of psychology, the "intellectual" basis of conservatism (in the US), and the population of conservatives being studied). Surely there are illuminating psychological insights about those who hold to the views of Liberalism. Looked at across articles, the whole thing suggests selection bias and is very "Wiki-not" (intended as a horrible intellectual criticism which should evoke shame).

BD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.90.240 (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I am in full agreement that this section does not belong in the article on Conservatism. It fails Wikipedia's rules in several ways.

First, the studies cited border on Pseudoscience. Had the subject of these studies been "African-Americans" "Buddhists" "Arabic people" or "vegitarians" the outcry would be enormous and the researchers would have been pilloried and accused of racial or ethnic bias -- and justly so. Further, the value indexes inherent in the research demonstrate an underlying bias in the studies themselves. For instance, what is "closure" in this context? What does "death anxiety" have to do with political philosophy? If not pseudoscience, this is definately junk science.

Second, the examples above also show that the section itself is an example of bias. This is nothing more than a not-to-subtle attempt to portray conservatives as mentally deranged individuals, and conservatism as the product of diseased minds. I would refer you to the subject of Lysenkoism. The fact that there is no corresponding Psychology of Liberalism, or for that matter, Psychology of ANY other political philosophy is a damning indictment.

Third, the entire section is patronizing and patently offensive to conservatives. But hey, who cares about *those people* anyway? Substitute ANY other random group in the place of "conservatives" and ask if the section would be permitted.

Fourth, As a side issue, I feel that several sections display an inherent confusion between conservatism and the Republican party, and believe that they are in need of disambiguation. I freely confess my own bias in this matter -- I am a non-Republican, non-Libertarian conservative.

Full disclosure: I am the party secretary of the American Conservative Party, founded in 2008, with chapters in 8 states across the nation. I signed up today in order to open this debate in the accepted Wikipedial idiom. I look forward to this issue being resolved amicably through that process.

Thank you, Crimsonsplat 204.235.227.134 (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC) (sorry, thought I was logged in, and had to add my username manually)

PRODUCTIVITY LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE "Arthur Brooks and Peter Schweizer independently found evidence suggesting that American conservatives are, on average, substantially happier and more productive than American liberals" This statement seemed to me quite important so I had a look on the references and it appears that on the wikipedia article on Arthur Brooks : "One of Brooks's most controversial findings was that political conservatives give more, despite having incomes that are on average 6 percent lower than liberals."

Maybe my understanding of productivity is limited, but in my opinion if you earn more you product more. So one of these two articles should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Suffit (talk • contribs) 14:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, earnings do not always reflect productivity. A man who produces food to feed a thousand people may be poorly paid, while a member of the board of directors for a corporation may be very well paid even if he does no work at all. In fact, we have recently seen corporate executives who distroyed their own corportions given million dollar bonuses.

Conservatives tend to be generous, happy, and productive because they never doubt that they are right, ignore facts that conflict with their worldview, and believe in an all-powerful God who loves them. Liberals are often unhappy because they tend to be better informed, and to think more logically, than conservatives. "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise."Rick Norwood (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As an "American Liberal" and someone who majored in Social Psychology, I agree that the psychological research belongs in a separate section. These studies say as much about Liberals as it does about conservatives. Therefore, it should be in a separate article with links from the main articles. I found this discussion interesting, but I don't have any expertise in this area, so I can't say anything about its accuracy. Ileanadu (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Critisism

There is a cristism part on the liberalism page some one should make one for this page.Hungaryboy1 (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note, just under your remark in Talk: Liberalism, Wikipedia policy on "criticism sections". Rick Norwood (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

POV flag

It occurs to me that the recent POV flag could have either of two meanings. It could be a claim that the way in which the research is reported is biased, that the research does not in fact make the claims made here. Or it could mean that the research is invalid because the researchers themselves were biased, even though what they said is accurately reported here. How to respond to the flag depends on which meaning is intended. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's simply no way to know, since none of these sources can be found online. I've seen lots and lots of psychological studies that are invalid. Either the sample size is too small (because the researchers aren't properly trained in statistics) or the data quality is suspect. That's why it's always important to actually look at original studies rather than relying on 3rd party reports of those studies. Maybe these cited studies are valid, or maybe not. But just because a study has appeared in a journal doesn't mean it's free from the sample size or data quality issues I mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.79.208 (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, Felicia Pratto doesn't seem to be the most impartial researcher when it comes to proving conservatives have "Social Dominance Orientation." A quick glance with a search engine reveals Pratto's other works have titles such as "The bases of gendered power" and "When race and gender go without saying." So she's hardly an objective academic. So, it's pretty amazing that a 14 year-old unverifiable study by someone with a prejudiced agenda would be acceptable in a Wikipedia article. If it were flipped around, and an arch-conservative researcher had published an unverifiable study in 1994 showing that liberals have psychological issues, it would be swiftly deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.79.208 (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I cannot help but contrast the two comments above. First, 63.230.79.208 says "there's simply no way to know" but, discovering that Felicia Pratto is a woman, he concludes she is "someone with a prejudiced agenda". Would he be as quick to accuse a Black researcher writing on civil rights of having a "prejudiced agenda"? Also, he has moved from the reasonable "important to actually look at original studies" to a thought experiment about an "unverifiable study".

We need input from a sociologist, who has read the original article and confirm or deny the existence of follow up studies. Science consists of what is replicable. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I registered finally, so I don't have to be a number anymore. :) No, my criticism has absolutely nothing to do with Pratto being a woman, but rather with my research into the other things she has written. Quick work with a search engine reveals that she has a very strong point of view and, presumably, did not conduct this Social Dominance Orientation study of conservatives with an objective, impartial point of view. It is highly likely that she instead went into the study with a conclusion already in mind and merely found the evidence to support her view.

Now, this alone does not invalidate her work. It's important also, as I said, to consider the data quality and things like the sample size used and whether it was truly a representative sample. I agree that an expert (one WITHOUT an agenda, hopefully) needs to chime in on the study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyb1 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Conservatism and social dominance theories

I'm moving the discussion from the top of the page to the bottom.

There have been any number of follow-up studies, all confirming the original results. Here is a recent book on the subject, from a major university press, which has had good reviews. It is international in scope, and has a quite good discussion of the relationship between political conservatism and the patronage system. I'll add it to the references.

Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression by Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto

Rick Norwood (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It would help make the case to have material from different authors. There's related conceptual stuff at Social Dominance Theory and Social dominance orientation, but not real criticism there. I'm honestly surprised and a bit disturbed by that. Cretog8 (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's one recent paper, which by its abstract seems critical of the theory (so, by implications, application of the theory): "Group domination and inequality in context: evidence for the unstable meanings of social dominance and authoritarianism", by Lehmiller & Schmitt; link to abstract Cretog8 (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Studies like this can certainly be used to play "gotcha!". Most liberals I know (which means American liberals, because those are the ones I talk to) are baffled about how conservatives can still believe the things they believe (creationism, global warming is a hoax, Sadam Hussain masterminded 911, George Bush is a great president who cut government spending and decreased the power of the federal government, the war in Iraq fights terrorism and we are winning). Social Dom theories provide one explanation. But that has nothing at all to do with the question we should ask: is the theory correct?

For that, we need comments from a professional sociologist, who keeps up with the journals and with current research. In short, we need an expert. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Dang, I can't find the WP policy I'm thinking of. In any case, I'm pretty sure that part of that policy was that it doesn't actually matter whether the theory is true. It matters whether it's notable, and verifiable--in the sense that you can verify there's people putting forward the theory, not verify the theory itself. I think it's somewhat notable, since the overall idea of psychological differences between conservatives and liberals comes up in the popular media periodically. It does really look like it's getting undue weight, though. Cretog8 (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the key distinction as I understand it. If a belief is widely held, Scientology being a good example, then in the article on Scientology you report that belief in as neutral manner as possible, while making it clear that the article is about a belief, not a known fact. On the other hand, in the main article religion, you would not go into much detail about the beliefs of Scientologists.

The question, then, is whether Dom Theory is a mainstream belief, in which case it should be reported here, or a minor belief, in which case it should at most be mentioned here and reported in its own article. As best I can tell, only a professional sociologist can tell the difference. All I have to go by is that the most important book on the subject was published by a major university press and got good reviews. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems like none of us currently in this conversation are qualified to do so, but here's what I'd propose: Make an article on something like Psychology of political orientation. Most of this could go there, with a brief snippet and "main article" link from here. The main trick I see is that the new article would be seen as having POV problems until more stuff is added. Cretog8 (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Next go put all the "verfiable" and "notable" research from the Bell Curve on the African-American page while you're having fun with offensive statistics. 75.5.100.86 (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The big difference was the "statistics on african americans" from the bell curve was almost universally rejected as faulty and illogical, and on closer examination was found to be methodologically bungled. The research on the topic of conservatives and conservatism is both relevant and well executed. You might not like it, but unlike the bell curve, it has the unfortunate property of being true. Duckmonster (talk) 06:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

On conservatives and the fetus

To conservatives, you are very valuable as a fetus. They care most about you before you are actually born. From the moment you are born to the moment you turn 18, military and voting age, they don't give a damn about you. To think all those frozen embryos with all those life saving stem cells are going to waste. Why? Because conservatives have this notion in their minds that they might come back to life. Might as well send the National Guard to the grocery store's frozen section. "Stand back! The clam strips may come back to life any moment!"

Note to conservatives: GET THE FUCKING HELL OUT OF POLITICS. STOP STALLING PROGRESS AND DIE FOR YOU COUNTRY. I MEAN ACTUALLY DIE. Wikipedia is not a forum Cretog8 (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

maybe I can help a little....

Personally, I find this entire task daunting. There is far too much POV for anything involving politics and religion. (which is probably why you're never supposed to bring them up in polite company.) Considering that conservatism is about ideas, you're faced with the task of quantifying and organizing ideas. Then others begin to consider "actions" and begin to contribute things they think are conservative simply because people they think are conservative have done them.

Might I suggest separating out the ideas? Start with the basic ideas; I saw a very good list in the talk archives:

Basic principles of conservativism:

   * Personal responsibility
   * Everyone should be treated equally
         o No one should be discriminated against
         o No group should have higher rights or special privlidges in government programs, regulation, or judical proceedings
   * Laws should be enforced
   * Laws should be enforced equally
   * Personal freedom should be protected and enhanced
   * Citizens should be self sufficient except in cases of severe disability
   * Citizens should obey the law
   * have a strong military
   * Not help our enemy
   * Have limited government

Religious principles of conservativism:

   * Moral values of Christanity should be followed

Then, the last item... stay away from connecting it to religion. As a conservative, I have found (I know, POV!) that connecting conservatism to christianity isn't something conservatives do, but it is something liberals do to define-down conservatives. Besides, statistically it doesn't hold up... you can go to the dkospedia (daily kos's reference manual) of all places, and see that christianity (and religion in general) is spread pretty evenly across the parties. Christianity is not a conservative phenomenon.

Fascism. Any connection between fascism and conservatism is not only false, but inflammatory. The use of "Fascist" to smear conservatives in general and the current President in particular is just that - a smear. Fascism in all it classic forms (Mussoulini, Hitler, Stalin) and its current forms (Chavez, Mugabe), has always been a stepchild of the left. Socialism and communism have all bred fascism. The Nazi Party was the National Socialist Party. They were anti-smoking, pro-abortion, pro-gun control, nationalized health care, racial quotas, speech codes at universities, holistic medicine etc. Hitler was a strict vegetarian and Himmler was an animal rights activist. There was even an anti-department store movement going on at the time in Germany (think, anti-walmart) These are not people of the right; you would be perpetuating a myth to include references to fascism such as that.

Fascism coming from the left? Where do you people get this crazy nonsense? When early fascists where running around calling themselves 'radical conservatives' and talking about 'return to tradition' and 'smashing the communists', do you think they where somehow lying and just saying right wing things to be tricky? Have all those thousands of books written by people on both the left and the right all turned out to be wrong? Madness writ large. Duckmonster (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also recommend removing those bizarre passages attempting to connect the conservative movement with racism. Trying to scientifically prove conservatives are racists is such a bizarre waste of time. Trying to assign such qualities (racist, bigot, homophobe) is not only a bigoted act itself, but is fundamentally unprovable and will always be in dispute. Why even go there?

And why remove libertarianism? I've always seen the spectrum of the right starting there. The most basic sweep of thought in this entire process is this: conservatives focus on individual identity; liberals focus on collective identity. It starts with fascism on the left and ends with libertarianism on the right. (And don't give me that poly-sci nonsense about the "circle connecting at both ends"; fascism and libertarianism are polar opposites.)

No they are not. Fascism and anarcho-socialism are polar oposites. Go look up the 2 axis charts. And yes the 'circle connecting' both ends is a nonsense and nobody in pol-sci who isnt illiterate ever claims that Duckmonster (talk) 06:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. I hope I can help.

Wikitfl (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You write from your experience with modern American conservatism. This article is about "conservatism" as it is understood in a world-wide historical context. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Which is the problem with this subject: everyone not only will, but has to approach it from their own POV. The more I think about this project, the more impossible it seems. At first I thought stripping it down to simple ideas was the best course... but how to manage the progression through history when event hose ideas have changed? In particular; the whole period in the 20s-30s, when liberals and conservatives pretty much switched places? There's a company that sells an [amazing poster]http://www.historyshots.com/Parties2/index.cfm... check it out if you get a chance. It actually may provide some kind of roadmap.

And besides, much of those are pretty universal things. Conservatives claim those in rheotric just like liberal cliams "racial equality" and "care for the poor" in rheotic. And what the hell do Nazis have to do with this anyway? 66.112.100.15 (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Not much, although Fascist theorists in the 30s considered fascism to be 'radical conservatism'. But you can't call all those universal things to conservatism. Think of the conservative muslim. He will have different economics for instance (Islam forbids ursury). The french rural conservative might disaprove of free trading because he feels tarifs protect his crop. An indian conservative Hinduvista might disaprove of christians preaching around vishnu temples (maybe?) and so on. American conservatism isn't the only sort, but looking into the writings of early conservatives like Burke will help you get a real list of what conservatism REALLY means. Duckmonster (talk) 06:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

We have to start with the universal, no? It seems to me that this topic becomes incredibly complicated when you dwell too much in the specifics. Broad strokes at first, then work in the detail. The definition should start with the ideals, (as expressed through the rhetoric). This is what I meant when I said you can't get into the actions. If a "pure" conservative policy is expressed through an incompetent republican party that compromises and gives backroom deals to democrats in a corrupt government... how can one adequately relate policy/action to whether something is or isn't "conservative". It seems strange, but I think the only way to define either side (conservatism/liberalism) is by sticking to the pure thought and intentions; not the results. (Although that could certainly have its own section)

As for the Nazis... haven't you noticed the "tendency" (being kind) for people to attempt to associate "the right" with the "fascist right wing". It pops up here and there in the entry already, and a lot of the conversation in this area keeps pushing that assumption that the "right" and the "fascist" are close or cousins or related. Its simply not true, 180 degress out of phase, and its a smear. The origin of this began when Americans erroneously applied European political descriptions to American parties in the 1930s. At the time, the national socialists (who became the fascists) and the international socialts (who would've been slightly less fascist?) were fighting it out and the intls succeeded in painting the natls as "further right". Since the late 60s, the left in this country has succeeded in perpetuating this myth... to their own benefit.

I would think that any definition of conservatism would also have to dispel myths about what it is or isn't.

As soon as you mention the Republican and Democratic party, you are rooted in the present day US. Did you know that in the 1880s, it was the Republican party that was liberal, and the Democratic party that was conservative. Things change. If we are to communicate at all, we must use words as the dictionary defines them. "Conservative -- disposition to keep to established ways." Rick Norwood (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I liked those charts and various ways of describing the liberal/conservative relationship... and all of them recognize the spectrum (individual -> collective) I noted above... so I'm, not sure what the fuss about my comments are all about. I'm less "nuanced"?

What I'm saying, is the problem with these analysis is that they get clouded by too many variables. So why not start with one? Individuality. I'm willing to bet that someone could sit down and see the history of conservatism in America as a movement across that spectrum alone.

I am fully conscious of the switches that have taken place between conservatism and liberalism and democrats and republicans and libertarians in the past 100 years. ([check that poster link I added]http://www.historyshots.com/Parties2/index.cfm ) , I know you can't correlate anything more than a temporary relationship between the parties and the ideas, but that (in a way) is the point: despite all the shifting and morphing... this still remains a "bi-polar" process. There are two sides. There are most definitely two different kinds of thought competing for focus.

The goal, I would think, is to distill this down to its essence, a broadly drawn distinction... and start there. individual -> collective

The only reason I start with conservatism as the "home" of the individual, is that is because where the mantle currently resides. And since people NOW are looking at wikipedia to understand conservatism NOW, that's where we should start, no? This is all completely relativistic ultimately, and that's why there has to be a starting point somewhere. Certainly conservatism today resembles liberalism of the 1900s, etc.

I afraid you have made the same mistake the American left has. European conservatives were not too keen on free markets like modern American ones. In Germany in particular, the conservative tradition involved a strong sense of the responsibility of the state, like aristocrats of old, to take care of the people. It was they, not the leftists, who put in the welfare sysrems.

And no the Nazi were not pro-abortion (not for Aryan woman) and they did not nationalize healthcare. As for guns, gun control laws under Germany were already established by the Weimar Republic. Paleo-conservatives also support enviroment protection and animal welfare, are they leftists? And Hitler being a vegaterian is a red herring.

Your one dimesional view of left being fascist/colletive and right being liberatarian does not belong here. There are many different ways of looking at the left-right scale. You're just trying to put all the oppressive idealogies on the opposing side and the good ones on yours. It's a typical "good vs evil"-type mentality.

Fascism's relationship with the right has being discussed before, check them out. 207.118.248.114 (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Listen, I'm not a troll and am generally trying to help. I'm not gonna debate Nazi party policy. You can quibble on the details or the eventual implementation... the [Nazi Party platform]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program is largely leftist. And if the Nazis only were pro abortion for non-aryans does that make it better somehow? Does racism trump sexism or leftism? Does caring for animal rights makes paleo-conservatives make them leftist or facist? Yes, I think it does in some ways.

You only prove my point: you can't link any party or idea with fascism... yet the left continually attempts to link fascists and bush and nazis and republicans blah blah blah. All I've been trying to say is, "in the creation of this entry, can't we just please try to avoid that?" Can't we?

When we start to debate the people and the policies and the implementations, we lose sight of what went into the sausage maker in the first place.

If my views on this are "one dimensional", it's because I am attempting to define only one dimension of it in particular. Your views may be multi-dimensional, but to the point of ambivalence... and I suspect you're a bit of relativist; you like to dwell in the "grey" and resent people who do draw black and white distinctions. Apparently like me.

On my scale all of the totalitarian regimes belong on one side; because they all suppress freedom. Libertarianism is a slight notch above anarchy; almost complete freedom. Both conservatism and libertarianism emphasize the individual; (libertarians more so) but you want to separate them for some reason.

This process of creating an entry is a process of discernment and reason; it requires distinctions and assessments. It also requires discussion and thought. The very idea that "my one dimensional view" is not welcome here goes against the entire process of rational thought and open discussion that - presumably - should be going on here. The fear and supression of individual thought could be said to be a leftist/fascist trait.

Apparently you didn't read the whole article, Hitler and the Nazi pretty much ignored the program. My point is that you are doing the same thing the left is doing by saying that fascism is entirely on the left, which is of course just as wrong. Many consevatives and liberatarians have also though the years have tried to do that.

Also, fascism does not require enviromentalism nor vice versa, dispute what you want to believe And conservatives may support individualism on economic issues but not so much on social issues. Demanding that immigrants completely intergrate in American culture and ignore their previous culture is not individualist. Supporting state sponsored school prayer is not individualistic. Supporting "gay conversions" is not individualistic. Individaulism can also conflict with tradition and religion which conservatives embrace. And yes, support for the Civil right and feminists movements came mostly from the progessives not the traditionalists and mainstream anarchists have mostly been on the left.

But anyway maybe this whole discussion on how collectivist and individaulist conservatism can be on issue can be put in the article. Fair enough? 207.118.248.114 (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That is completely fair, but you keep skirting around this realization I'm trying hatch in your head: state sponsored school prayer and supporting "gay conversions" is not individualistic. Then it's not conservative. Let that sink in. Do you see what I'm saying? You have been raised to believe a series of associations with conservatives that are contrary to reality. There are roughly equal numbers of religious people on either side. You have to toss out religion. You have to toss out rich vs poor, gay vs straight, black vs white, jesus vs the devil, patriot vs traitor. All of that has to go. That's social baggage and political hackery.

A better analogy? You keep getting drawn into discussions about why vanilla is sometimes with chocolate chips and sometimes with rocky road and even all by itself sometimes... so you keep redefining "vanilla". What I'm trying to do is get you to examine what the ice cream is.

Individaulism can also conflict with tradition and religion which conservatives embrace. And yes, support for the Civil right and feminists movements came mostly from the progessives not the traditionalists and mainstream anarchists have mostly been on the left.

What I'm saying is that was a period of time in history where the mantle of individualism rested with the liberals. Now, I don't think it does. I think the left has sacrificed its individual liberty to collective security. It passed to the conservatives after that point, but has become difracted through so many different "strains" that its almost unrecognizable. That whole period of time (1900-1935) has been fascinating to me lately. Permit me, if I may, to make a hypothesis:

You have a group of individualists called liberals who are always focused on the proper use of government... they focus on the bill of rights; what the government cannot ever do.

WWI happens, and the one thing it did was change the way we looked at our government. Prior to WWI, the government was trusted, and reasonably functional. Being a "G-Man" was a cool thing. (Now you have to be a G-Unit to get any respect). And during the conflict, in response to the crisis, we nationalized and socialized and the benevolent government did a good job.

But when it came time to dismantle the machine after the war, some of the liberals became "progressives" and they put their liberal idealism "into action". This is how we got all these public works projects, Roosevelt was president for 12 years, and we got grande new things like the income tax, prohibition, Federal Reserve, welfare, the american protection league, etc. All collectivist solutions. The progressives of the time were an American blend of Fabian Socialism.

There was a split in the 30s... liberals who didn't become progressive just kind of drifted; and America started to slide into collectivism. Hitler, Roosevelt and Moussolini were all very popular at the time for the same reasons: this idea that government shouldn't stay out of your life, but make it better. When WWII ended, these people were largely discredited (except roosevelt) and progressives ran for the hills.

Liberals came back into the spotlight again; the fight against communism made them coalesce and the mantle of individualism passed to them. When they became to enmeshed in business interests, it slid back to the liberals for a bit... but those weren't necessarily the democrats -- it was Al Gore's father who philibustered the civil rights act, after all.

Then, back in the 70s-80s, liberals began to drift into collectivism again, and that's why liberal became such a dirty word in the 90s... and very few self identify as such now. They usually use the term progressive. Back to the original big government solution provider.

This strain of individualism keeps switching sides and jumping parties through history, doing whatever it can to oppose collectivism.

It gets more complicated if you look at policy: The Social Security act was largely considered unconstitutional for its time, and Roosevelt had to reduce the size of the Supreme Court to get it passed. Truly a collective, top-down, 1930s government solution.

Fast forward 80 years... individualism has been vindicated -- the program is a leftover from a bygone era that is simply in tatters and proof that government solutions fail. It's corrupt, bloated, and probably going to crash hard one day and hurt a lot of people. But it has become such a part of the fabric of our country, that George Bush will attempt to "indvidualize it" with personal accounts... an individualist spin to a collective solution?

Conservatism is not about individualism; it just happens to be about that right now. If history were a bit different, we could easily be discussing opposite roles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitfl (talk • contribs) 02:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Concern regarding neutrality in article

Section "Schools of Conservatism," sub-section of "Cultural conservatism," second paragraph reads as follows (with what appears to be non-neutral wording bolded):

"In the subset social conservatism, the norms may also be moral. For example, in some cultures practices such as homosexuality are considered "wrong". In other cultures women who expose their faces or limbs in public are considered "immoral", and conservatives in those cultures often support laws to prohibit such practices. Other conservatives take a more positive approach, supporting good samaritan laws, or laws requiring public charity, if their culture considers these acts moral."

My problem with regards to this is that this paragraph (in general, but especially the bolded words) conveys the point of view of a conservative. I'm all for re-working it somewhat (and additionally referencing it), but I would like hear what others think before continuing. Master&Expert (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the passage you quote is one of those passages that strike a liberal as being too conservative and strike a conservative as being too liberal. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That's probably not the only one, either. Let's see what I can find...

This, which is the entirety of the subsection "North America," may not have the bias of the previous paragraph above, but there is little doubt that it is too small to provide any particularly useful information, plus (like the message reads) it contains some original research - despite some referencing:

"Conservatism in the United States comprises a constellation of political ideologies including fiscal conservatism,wildlife conservation, free market or economic liberalism, social conservatism, bioconservatism and religious conservatism, as well as support for a strong military, small government, and states' rights."

Master&Expert (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Note the references in that paragraph aren't particularly reliable, with the first linking to a conservatism support site (and thus, not NPOV), the second being practically non-existant, and the third being marginally useful if it were used properly. In general, they do not help the comprehensiveness of the article. I'm currently working on re-writing the section entirely, and was wondering if anyone knows of any reliable sources to use in the article. Master&Expert (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the point you are making. NPOV requires that Wikipedia report that conservatives believe what conservatives say they believe, not what liberals claim conservatives believe (and vice versa). What better evidence that modern American conservatives believe something than a statement by a major conservative support site. On the other hand, the claim that there is a major bioconservative movement is doubtful, and in my opinion should be eliminated.

If you do a rewrite about conservative beliefs, then you are going to have to be very careful to report what major conservative organizations and commentators actually say they believe. You are also going to have to take a historical perspective, and not focus too strongly on the passions of the hour. Conservatism started with Burke's "God, King, and Country" conservatism. In America, conservatives have supported a strong military, flag-waving patriotism, and the natural superiority of the White Man and Christian Civilization. As America became more industrial, conservatism became more and more a belief in the natural rights of the upper class, and of big business. As the upper class has done throughout history (read Livy), conservative leaders preached religion as an alternative to social progress, what labor leaders called "pie in the sky by and by" instead of wages and benefits in this world. From the time of the Civil War to the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement, the conservative party in America was the Democratic party, which adopted the slogan "The White Man's Party". Democrat Woodrow Wilson invited the Ku Klux Klan to march in Washington. The shift of conservatives from the Democratic party to the Republican party began with FDR, who the upper class called "a traitor to his class" and "the Jew in the White House". By offering relief to Americans made homeless by the great depression, FDR alienated business interests, who shifted from the Democratic party to the Republican party, though in the "solid South" the branch of the Democrats known as Dixiecrats still upheld White Conservatism. By leading us to victory in World War II, Democrat FDR and Republican Dwight David Eisenhower helped to heal the breach between the two parties, and you will find few conservatives today who are openly racist, though of course they still don't admit Jews and Blacks to their country clubs, because "those people are happier with their own kind", so it would be incorrect to report racism as a major theme of modern conservatism. The main branches today are flag waving patriots (Obama is not anathema because he's Black, he's anathema because he doesn't wear a flag pin on his lapel), conservative Christians (there is a ruling going through the Department of Health and Human Services right now that will allow employers to fire women who practice birth control), and big business Libertarians, who gave up on the Democratic party for supporting clean air, clean water, and other such "big government", anti free enterprise causes.

I've gone on longer than I intended. Whoever writes anything about politics needs to know all this. On the other hand, keep in mind that few modern conservatives have any sense of history at all. They think conservative means upholding Christian ideals, American ideals, and the integrity of the self-made man. How could anyone who wasn't evil oppose such obvious good?

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't oppose those ideals, and despite the fact that this information could prove to be useful, I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. Are you defending the ideals of conservatism as non-racist for a particular reason, as I don't recall ever stating or even implying that they were. Regarding the link, I think you're right. Though to be honest, Ask.com doesn't really strike me as a reliable source altogether (of course, I could be wrong) and that is largely the reason I removed it. But regardless of the particular use of the link, that paragraph is in need of a major rewrite, as right now, it's weak and riddled with original research. Master&Expert (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to do anything except to set forth the facts. The situation is complex, and difficult to boil down to a clear and accurate statement. If you can do better, more power to you, but keep in mind that many before you have tried their best. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my comment above implied that I counter-argued against a non-existant argument in a rather uncivil way. I'm not sure how well I'll do - this article does need significant improvement. I plan to do a full review of the article tomorrow to subjectively analyze what specific areas need improvement. Might I ask, are you an expert on the subject? If so, I could really use your help, as I know relatively little regarding the topic and am here to both improve this article and learn more about conservatism as a whole. Your imput is therefore greatly appreciated. Master&Expert (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've started a personal sandbox that focuses on improvements to this article, which can be found here. Comments are of course welcome. Master&Expert (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

My degree is in mathematics, not in political science, and so I prefer to work on articles in mathematics and leave this one to political scientists. But I read a lot of history just for fun, and correct errors where I find them. Sometimes I use the "Random article" button, and fix any mistakes I find. Certainly I think anyone who works on this article should have read a lot of history, especially Livy. Good luck. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, this was a mistake. I though he changed "do" to "to" instead of the other way around. Master&Expert (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Conservatism

The entire section on Chinese Conservatism has been REMed out. Why? Rick Norwood (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a single source. Chinese conservatism refers to Taiwanese politics.Valois bourbon (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Chinese conservatism refers to increased nationalism on the part of the mainland Chinese. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:SeretseKhama.jpg

The image Image:SeretseKhama.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's what happens when you edit for speed rather than accuracy.

The recent edit has this sentence in the lede: "It is difficult to define the term precisely because different established values and, in consequence, conservatives in different cultures have differing goals." If we remove the clause after the "and" it reads: "It is difficult to define the term precisely because different established values have differing goals." Values can't have goals. Please, please, stop editing so hastily. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Another example of the same problem. Originally, the article had a section on British Conservatism and then on European Conservatism. Somebody moved European ahead of British Conservatism, which makes perfectly good sense, but failed to notice that the European section begins: "In other parts of Europe..." which makes no sense now that it no longer follows the British section. Read what you edit, don't just cut and paste without reading! Rick Norwood (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced sections

Someone inserted sections that have no references that would indicate they are part of conservative movement. It's ridiculous to claim that Chinese communism is actually part of conservative movement even though they have become a bit more positive toward free market. Please remove them.Valois bourbon (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The sections should be referenced, but to suggest that Confucianism is not conservative goes against all modern usage. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken about the article. This is about a political movement advocated by parties such as the British Conservative Party. An analogy: U.S. democrats who wanted conserve Bill Clinton policies in 2000 are definitely "conservative", but they are not part the political movement using the same word "conservative". Accountants too might use the word "conservative", but it has nothing to do with the political movement.Valois bourbon (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the main article on conservatism. Of course, you are correct that not all who conserve are conservative. But we need to use the dictionary definition of the word, not the various ideological attempts to spin the word to make it mean something other than the dictionary definition. It is not standard usage to limit "conservative" to the European usage. That restriction belongs in one of the sub-articles. Just to quote from The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia: "conservatism, in politics, the desire to maintain or conserve the existing order." That desire can take place anywhere in the world. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

rapid edits

There have been dozens of very rapid edits in the past two days. What happens when people edit without reading is that bad edits, even vandalism, stay in the article. Please, before you edit this article, read the changes that have been made since your last edit, and fix those that need fixing, before you add another layer of changes.

I've been trying to repair some of the damage, but the section on Nationalism, for example, is a hodge podge of fragments left over from previous edits, and there's not much I could do to fix it. Also, I have not restored the section on China, because it needs is references.

Rick Norwood (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

My request for careful editing has been ignored. For example, the first sentence now reads: "Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that believes in gradual change; they appreciate history and are more realistic than idealistic."

"...political philosophies that believes..."

If you do not see the problem with that, please learn grammar before editing Wikipedia.

The section now titled "Ideological interaction and influence" is so badly written that I can't fix it. If you like it, fix it. If not, I will just delete it." Rick Norwood (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Dubious lead sentence

I added a "dubious" tag to the lead sentence because it is opinionated, and because the only reference is Encyclopedia Britannica 2007, without any link, quote, page number or author name. The claim that conservatives all "appreciate history and are more realistic than idealistic" is an innacurate generalization.Spylab (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I also find the lead sentence dubious, but have not had time to get to an Encyclopedia Brittanica to look it up. I've left it, because it is (marginally) better than a lot of the lede sentences we've had, since the most recent spate of very rapid edits. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I also think the lede defective as it stands now. I consider conservatism a personality defect but the current lede both expresses anti-conservative POV and fails to capture the objective essence of what it is, literally the desire to slow, halt or reverse change in a given culture relative the established norms of same raised to a philosophy and political stance. Lycurgus (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I like your definition, Lycurgus. Can you reference it? If you can, we can use it. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the reference Rick, I'm afraid it's OR. Lycurgus (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It is of course a commonplace, the best "sourceable" reference I can think of is a statement by Bill Buckley, not sure when, think in the '50s, but it lacks the analytical/objective character of my statement and was something to the effect that conservatism was a conviction that the best times/things were in the past. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln Quote

I took out the Abraham Lincoln quote. First, the reference attached to it seems to belong to the previous quote by Russel. But more importantly, Lincoln does not try to define conservativism, he uses the question as a rhetoric device to prove that the anti-slavery republicans are the real conservatives, while the so-called conservative slave holders are deviating from the wise ways of the founding fathers. It's a great speech, but its a not a serious definition. See the quote in context at [1]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln defines conservatism in the course of attacking pro-slavery politicians. Russell Kirk certainly thought it was a serious definition. In the citation given, he quotes Lincoln's definition and agrees with it. Since conservatism is a political movement, the views of a practicing politician are relevant. Kauffner (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln does not define it. He offers a very much simplified view as the basis for his rhetorical attack. I don't currently have access to Kirk's book, but the Lincoln quote is very much out-of-context here, and the indirect justification bothers me as well. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: Looking at "Ten Conservative Principles", Kirk's "conservatism is the negation of ideology" is in no way connected with Lincoln's definition - in fact, Lincoln is not even mentioned in that essay. Unless the connection is made in "The Conservative Mind", the current version is at least misleading. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's Kirk on the Lincoln quote: "'What is conservatism?' Abraham Lincoln inquired once. 'Is it not adherence to the old and tried against the new and untried?' It is that, but it is a bit more." (p. 8) From there, Kirk goes on to define six principles of conservative thought. Kauffner (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

In the version I found on Google Books, it is actually "It is that, but it is more" - i.e. he is not actually agreeing, but (rightly) exposing Lincoln's trick question as superficial. "Yes, but" is rarely agreement. And none of the 6 principles is "negation of ideology", i.e. the second quote is from a very different context. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the real problem not so much this sophistry, but that you don't want Lincoln associated with conservatism? Kauffner (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I don't think Lincoln was a conservative in his time, or that he is usually associated with conservatism. So yes, unless I find some sources, I would oppose presenting him in this way. But that is somewhat irrelevant. Experts can very well define movements they are not part of, and can even do so sympathetically. I just think that in this case Lincoln the politician was pulling a fast one, and that this political speech should not be mistaken for a real definition - and, in fact, Kirk does not do this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Conservative = Libertarian

I notice that the lede has returned to stating categorically that conservatism means Libertarianism.

The lede also quotes one R. J. White. I like the quote, but the only R. J. White I can discover was a famous murderer.

Rick Norwood (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A message to Bobisbob2 and Skylab

Every day, Valois bourbon edits this and many other pages to reflect the dogmatic Libertarian POV. It would be fairly easy for the three of us, all of whom have mainstream views, to revert his edits. But we've been trying to work with Valois bourbon, keep some parts, fix other things that need fixing. He, on the other hand, has no hesitation reverting anything that disagrees with Libertarian dogma. Thus, when I come to these pages each morning -- and I'm sure there are other pages he edits that are not on my watchlist -- I find a mixture of good edits and bad. I don't want to revert the good edits. And so I try to read all of the dozens of changes that have happened overnight and then do a rewrite that keeps the good but cuts the Libertarian POV. After all, Libertarianism is, at best, a minor viewpoint, held by relatively few students of politics. But since Valois bourbon simply reverts everything, my work is wasted, and his POV is waiting for me every morning, essentially unchanged, or with a few additions, such as the Ronald Reagan quote. Now, Ronald Reagan is America's most beloved president, but he is not a scholar and his political views are not universally subscribed to. Any suggestions as to how we can end this seemingly endless reversion of any non-Libertarian material would be appreciated. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

He also keeps deleting the Saudi Arabia section, claiming that it's non-political but this article is about all forms of conservatism, including religious. My suggestion is to get the higher-ups to lock this article until something can be settled. We should do the same to right-wing politics, another article hes had a passion protecting. Bobisbob2 (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh and please comment here. Bobisbob2 (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I made a brief comment on the NPOV page, but I've dealt with people with strong POV before, and all that is needed to keep them under control is a coordinated effort by those editors who want a serious encyclopedia article rather than propaganda. There is, after all, a scholarly consensus about liberalism and conservatism that can be found in, for example, the OED or the Britannica. The articles should reflect that. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we should not use another encyclopedia as a reference, but it is a starting point. As a reference, I suggest we turn to any respected text on World Political Science.

I am willing to work through the articles, and restore to them an encyclopedic tone. But I would much rather share the workload. Maybe Bobisbob2 would pick three articles, Skylab pick three articles, and I pick three from what's left. We stabilize the lede in those articles, being very careful not to let our frustration or our own point of view intrude. Then, we agree to revert any attempt to change the lede without first discussing the change in talk. That would at least get the situation under control for the time being. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well it seems VB has allowed the info on Iran and Saudi Arabia, only moving then to the "religious conservatism" section. Sounds like a good compromise. I guess we can work things out after all. I can't stay I completely accept the new lede he put though but I'll let the other users deal with that. Bobisbob2 (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• If Valois continues his persistent campaign of POV-pushing, misinformation, edit warring and vandalism, he should be reported to Wikipedia admins.Spylab (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with including a tourist brochure citation about Saudi Arabian customs to this article. But it's no more related to the Western movement called "conservatism" (e.g. Thatcher) than "environmental conservatism" or "conservatism in accounting". The article is either about a single concept or all concepts.

Now, it seems that at least the user Bobisbob2 wants to include all kinds of things called "conservatism", while the user Spylab believes it's "offtopic". Please decide by yourself.Valois bourbon (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I think this article should include only conservatism in sociology (cultural, religious, social, economic). Things like conservation (which has it's own article) accounting, and "conservative estimates" in mathematics are entirely different animals. Bobisbob2 (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And on second thought I'm putting the Iran and Saudi Arabia sections back. They may not be Western conservatism but this article is not Western-centric. Bobisbob2 (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

First "this is NOT just about political conservatism." and you inserted all kinds of concepts with the word "conservative" in them (C-scale? Saudi Arabian fashion?), then you deleted them, and now "this article should include only conservatism in sociology"?

I think we should work these problems out ourselves. Working through Wikipedia administrators is a long, arduous, time-consuming, and often frustrating process. I've tried it, and it is a court of last resort. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The section is about the policies of the conservative Saudi government not the conscept of "conservative dress" the Saudi clergy and the CCA are considered to be conservative in their respective countries just like the Republican party is considered conservative in the US. The psychology section details the psychology of people with conservative views it's not like it talks about a "conservative" school of psychology. Bobisbob2 (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Skylab's edit

The current lede, as written by Skylab, expresses what most educated people understand by "conservative". He has also removed a lot of extraneous material that has no place in this article. I support what he has written, and strongly suggest that any changes be discussed here first. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

Here is our current lede. I will not make any changes without discussing them here first.

Conservatism is a political and social term whose meaning has changed in different countries and time periods, but which usually indicates support for the status quo or the status quo ante. In Western politics, conservatism refers to the school of thought started by Edmund Burke and similar thinkers.[1] Scholar R.J. White once put it this way: "To put conservatism in a bottle with a label is like trying to liquify the atmosphere … The difficulty arises from the nature of the thing. For conservatism is less a political doctrine than a habit of mind, a mode of feeling, a way of living."[2] Ronald Reagan often is quoted as saying: "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."[3] Russell Kirk considered conservatism "the negation of ideology".[4] Conservative political parties have diverse views. For instance, the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, the Conservative Party in Britain, and the Liberal Party of Australia are all major conservative parties with varying positions.

Cultural conservatism is a philosophy that supports preservation of the heritage of a nation or culture.

Here are the changes I suggest. 1) Either remove the redlink R. J. White or someone write an article about him. 2) I find it easier to read if the quotes are indented. 3) The quote by Ronald Reagan rather breaks the flow, first because it is out of chronological order, second because it is a quote by a politician where the other two writers are scholars. I think it belongs further down in the article. 4) I think Burke should be mentioned in the lede.

Comments? Rick Norwood (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And note the non-Western conservatisms too. Bobisbob2 (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In lieu of edit warring with Soxwon, I propose that the a sentence be added to the lede that explains that the origin of the word conservatism comes from the latin, conservare, which means to preserve or protect. Ejnogarb (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

GMTA -- done. (actually first done an hour before your post hit). And now reworded per SoxWon. Thanks! (Mom taught Latin). Collect (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion

The article should separate different concepts with the word "conservative" in them.

Conservatism (Western politics) - A political movement typically advocating changes toward freer market. Also known as Tories, particularly before the mid-19th century. Examples: Edmund Burke, Margaret Thatcher, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, John Key.

Conservatism (adjective) or Conservatism (sociology) - Examples: "Conservative dressing", "Conservative buddhism", "a conservative member of the Communist Party", etc.

Conservatism (psychology) - Belongs to the category "Personality tests".

Conservatism - Redirects to Conservatism (disambiguation).

Any objections? Valois bourbon (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Strong objections.

1) The breakdown ignores America and American conservatism. While it is one thing for an article to be too focused on America, it is another thing entirely to pretend that America is an unimportant country in world politics. You want, somehow, to pretend that the God, King, and Country conservatives do not exist, but they do. Burke only favored free markets when he saw profit in doing so, and broke with other members of his own party when the profits went to them and not to him.

2) Conservatism in Europe is no different from conservatism in Ancient Rome or conservatism in modern South America. It stresses nationalism, religion, and a government too weak to oppose the moneyed interests. While "free trade" is often used as a slogan, it is seldom found in real politics.

3) Conservatism (sociology) and conservatism (psychology) are not about branches of these fields -- there is no such thing as conservative sociology -- but rather about using the social sciences to understand the conservative poltical stance and worldview. Of course, "conservative dress" has no place in this article, as I am sure you well know.

4) There is already a redirect page for conservatism.

This article should continue to present mainstream views, not Libertarian views.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read Conservatism by Jerry Z. Muller or similar book, or look at Merriam-Webster's dictionary., they make a clear distinction.

And please don't break WP:CS/WP:SUBSTANTIATE by deleting one-to-one citations. You have done that repeatedly in several articles in what appears an attempt to portray something you obviously oppose in negative light.Valois bourbon (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Conservatism by Jerry Z. Muller is an excellent book, and Merriam-Webster is a pretty good dictionary. I would welcome edits in the spirit of either. Please discuss edits here first. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Please note that in supplying references, references should be to the original source.

For example, if you read in the daily paper that Joe Smith wrote a book saying that "food tastes good," you should reference the book, not the daily paper that reviewed the book.

I mention this because I've just had to change two references to articles about what somebody said in another source. In both cases, the original source was easy to find and reference.

Rick Norwood (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Research

In the section on psychological research, a distinction should be made between research -- statistic studies published in refereed journals -- and popular books, which can, after all, say anything and support every point of view people are willing to pay money to read. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't we get that pretty much automatically if we source things appropriately? EastTN (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

SDO

I know this has been brought up before, but with no citation and making incredibly strong accusations, is it right to keep the SDO bit? Soxwon (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what "SDO" means. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

What isn't cited? Sooner016 (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fox News under United States

What's the relevancy of this? It's an entire paragraph about Fox News, it really serves no purpose and would be better served on the Fox News controversies page. 72.201.222.236 (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would think that paragraph, if it is notable enough to include at all, belongs in the main article, Conservatism in the United States. Certainly it is not notable enough for a brief overview. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please remove the obvious attack on conservatives.

I would really love to use my individual power to improve Wikipedia. I use Wikipedia a lot and want to see it succeed. With that said, the psychological section that tries to prove conservatives are mentally deficient is completely inappropriate. Being a conservative has nothing to do with being scared of change or any other irrational fears or such. Being a conservative just means questioning whether new ideas are good, or if they have already been implemented and failed. It is not again resistance to change, but about creating a barrier against unnecessary change.

As it stands now I believe it defiles the page. If little things like this aren't going to be taken care of, I am fearful that Wikipedia will deteriorate in quality indefinitely. To rationalize this idea, let me suggest that a reader who comes across a political wikipedia page and is confused by the particulars of the partial information given, will simply turn to another, more trustworthy source. This will slowly happen until Wikipedia loses all credibility. Please help me prevent this and delete the ridiculous section. If you really think that it matters just make it a new page, but don't link it, because it has nothing to do with this.

PS. I know what the reply to this will consist of already, and so let me take the preemptive strike here and suggest a mental deficiency section under progressive liberalism. 71.204.61.136 (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Good luck changing it, you will get reverted with "well referenced" and "reliably sourced despite what may actually be the truth. Soxwon (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

External Links

This link: "A Conservative, Independent, and Unitarian Communion of Saints" -- is to a website espousing some far right views and conspiracy theories. I propose it be deleted, but be prepared for it to pop up again.

Shouldn't the advisory about discussing things before making changes also appear at the top of the main article. Ileanadu (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The other links (except the one to the university article) are also fringe, and I will delete them too. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Fox news

I have replaced the study by Lichter with this.

Fox News has been accused of having a conservative bias. (see: Criticism of Fox News Channel)

The article linked has the Lichter study as well as studies that contradict it. Putting the studies here will take the article of topic. This is not the place for a debate on the fairness or bias of FNC. 69.179.60.252 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You can add the content, but plz stop taking out the other cited material. Thank you! Soxwon (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I already told you, this article is NOT the place to put on studies on the bias of Fox. It leads to far of topic. Just because something is cited doesn't mean it belongs here. 69.179.60.252 (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet it's ok to talk about the controversies of Fox? Double standards much? Soxwon (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It's only one sentence and I put that the network denies it. You still haven't explained why having studies on Fox News belongs here. 69.179.60.252 (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The other statement can be trimmed to be the same length. What I don't understand is why one can be in and the other can't. Soxwon (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't one sentence saying that Fox News is accused of bias and the network denies it not enough? 69.179.60.252 (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It is, which is why I say we could have both (which is the way it is now). Soxwon (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Remove the entire psychological section

I am in full agreement that this section does not belong in the article on Conservatism. It fails Wikipedia's rules in several ways.

First, the studies cited border on Pseudoscience. Had the subject of these studies been "African-Americans" "Buddhists" "Arabic people" or "vegitarians" the outcry would be enormous and the researchers would have been pilloried and accused of racial or ethnic bias -- and justly so. Further, the value indexes inherent in the research demonstrate an underlying bias in the studies themselves. For instance, what is "closure" in this context? What does "death anxiety" have to do with political philosophy? If not pseudoscience, this is definately junk science. The terms and criteria are irrelevant to the subject, and clearly chosen to create the desired conclusion.

Second, the examples above also show that the section itself is an example of bias. This is nothing more than a not-to-subtle attempt to portray conservatives as mentally deranged individuals, and conservatism as the product of diseased minds. I would refer you to the subject of Lysenkoism. The fact that there is no corresponding Psychology of Liberalism, or for that matter, Psychology of ANY other political philosophy is a damning indictment. Reading through this entire debate, it appears that the consistant reversion, and indeed, accentuation of the negative aspects of this section are largely the work of one or two editor/admins, using solipsistic arguments and red herrings to justify their own Social Dominance within the context of Wikipedia. It is time for the nonsense to stop.

Third, the entire section is patronizing and patently offensive to conservatives. But hey, who cares about *those people* anyway? Substitute ANY other random group in the place of "conservatives" and ask if the section would be permitted.

Fourth, As a side issue, I feel that several sections display an inherent confusion between conservatism and the Republican party, and believe that they are in need of disambiguation. I freely confess my own bias in this matter -- I am a non-Republican, non-Libertarian conservative.

Full disclosure: I am the party secretary of the American Conservative Party, founded in 2008, with chapters in 8 states across the nation. I signed up specifically in order to open this debate in the accepted Wikipedial idiom. I look forward to this issue being resolved amicably through that process. The original of this message was eroneously posted under point #11 as I missed the request to bottom post.

Thank you, 204.235.227.134 (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

People (myself included) like to think that they arrive at their beliefs by rational consideration of the alternatives. But scientific research suggests that this is not so. In the political arena, for example, rational consideration of the alternatives does not explain the very strong correlation between opposition to abortion (a value judgment) and disbelief in global warming (a scientific finding). It does not explain why the strongest predictor of political belief is whether a person lives in a homogeneous or heterogeneous community.

There is, of course, a tendency to make scientific studies on controversial issues taboo -- look at the trouble Watson (or was it Crick) got into on the issue of race. But whether or not the issue is controversial shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not the science is carried out according to standard norms. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Rick, it has become terribly obvious that you are singlehandedly keeping this section of the article alive to perpetuate your own bias. It has been challenged again and again, yet you engage in solipsistic arguments and assumptions to justify rentention of the offensive text. You have yet to answer any of the charges made in favor of removal.

By your own biography, you have admitted zero expertise in the area of politics, government, psychology or any other area relating to your vociferous defense of these highly questionable "studies." You can't even accurately cite your reference, whereas a simple search of the Wikipedia itself shows that Watson's comments were attributed to him by others, and not directly a part of any formal study.

Whereas the very inclusion of the term "Right Wing Authoritarianism" in any purportedly scientific study begs the very question it claims to be researching and demonstrates an unscientific point of view on the part of the researcher, these "studies" are anything but.

Finally, the only other person I found supporting the inclusion this section in the entire thread above is a single poster who is a transparent apologist for Cuban human rights violations.

Given the above, and your months-long crusade to ensure the inclusion of this section on such weak grounds, I feel that there is no alternative but to ask for the intervention of a senior administrator on the grounds that you are not acting impartially within the scope of this article.

Crimsonsplat (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

To attack me personally, and presume insight into my motives, does not advance the discussion. As for the Watson bit, I did not cite any reference, thus I cannot have cited a reference inaccurately. It was in the news recently, so I assumed, correctly, that you would know what I was talking about.

Arguments in favor of the removal of the section should speak to scientific defects in the studies involved, not to a dislike of their conclusions. While my professional area is mathematics, not political science, it does include statistics, and these studies are statistical studies. Show ways in which a study has violated the rules of statistics, and I will be with you in supporting its removal. I have never defended the studies in question. I have always asked that their removal be based on solid, scientific grounds.

To give an example, you mention the study on "Right-wing Authoritarianism". The study has been published. Was the wording of the questions biased? Was the study a double-blind study? If the wording was biased or the study not double-blind, then it should be removed. But this should be done on a case-by-case basis, not by a blanket assertion that the entire section should be removed.Rick Norwood (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to avoid this, but I'll just comment. I do think that I provided evidence to say the study was disputed, and I think that psychological research section is WP:UNDUE in terms of size (it's the largest single section, highly unbalanced). Soxwon (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Rudeness has no place in Wikipedia. No user should insult any other. Discussions should weigh objective evidence.

I agree that the psychological research section is too large. As for "balance", balance is a virtue in some cases, but is a flaw in science. Science should not (and is not) "balanced" between astrology and astronomy, for example. Astronomy is right, astrology is wrong. That's not balanced, but that is the finding of science. So, the psychological research section should be shorter, and only the most important and well-documented studies should be included. But we should not strive for "balance" by including a weak study that supports one side to balance a strong study that supports the other. What is, is.Rick Norwood (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there was a misunderstanding, I meant that the size was throwing off the balance of the article. Soxwon (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree.Rick Norwood (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I am attacking not the math, which I presume to be accurate. I am attacking the assumptions that went into the study. Nor am I insulting you. I am questioning your choice and rationale for insisting on the inclusion of such material. By your own argument of "weak vs. strong" studies, the work of Altmeyer, et. al. does not belong here. The value-loadings of the terms chosen, and yes, the questions involved clearly indicate bias on the part of the researchers. Additionally, the list of cites starting with #40 shows a clearly unbalanced POV .

Let me quote this critique of Altmeyer's question selection -- (quote) "In a recent Usenet thread, the question was raised of whether authoritarian personality types were more likely to be on the political right than on the political left. One contributor offered a link to a webbed book by Professor Robert Altmeyer which, the poster claimed, described scientific research that showed that the right was much more authoritarian than the left. I read the beginning of the book and concluded that it was indeed interesting--as an example of how to load the dice in order to get the results you want out of supposedly objective research.

The book starts off by defining "right wing authoritarian" (RWA) in a way which purports to be politically neutral; the author offers an implausible explanation of his entirely non-political reasons for labelling it "right wing." There follows the set of twenty questions (plus two that don't get scored) used to test subjects to see how RWA they are. On each question, the responder is supposed to express a view from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." The grading is simple--on some questions you count as more authoritarian the more strongly you agree, on the rest you count as more authoritarian the more strongly you disagree.

What is almost immediately obvious if you read the questions is that they aren't testing for RWA as the author defines it but for a combination of that and right/left political views. When the question is of the form "people who campaigned for unpopular causes X, Y and Z were good," X, Y and Z just happen to be causes more popular on the left than on the right. When the question is of the form "We should follow authority X," X just happens to be a source of authority, such as the church, more popular on the right than on the left. No questions about people who campaigned for unpopular right wing causes or about deferring to sources of authority popular on the left.

Perhaps the worst question of all was:

6. Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly." (end quote)

In the commments comes this tidbit: (quote)And I'd like to know why the question on astrology affects the social scale: accepting astrology makes you less libertarian, somehow. (end quote)

The often irrelevant and loaded nature of such questions, and the inherent bias of such work renders them unsuitable for use; I note that all of his studies are published through his university, and none of them are in major peer-reviewed journals. This renders him unusuitable as an authority. Crimsonsplat (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the section should be removed because the studies are biased. I agree with the original complaint that had the subject been anything other than conservatives, it would have been edited out long ago. For example, you don't see it published anywhere on Wikipedia that the majority of prison inmates are liberal democrats, or other negative information associated with other classes of people. Normally, when negative information is presented, it's done under a "criticisms" section, which implies a natural bias. However, since this information is presented under a scientific heading, it removes the possibility of doubt or bias. The section needs to go. Ejnogarb (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The research was conducted in accordance with academic standards and any judgment on its validity should come from other peer-reviewed sources. It is different from a study from a think tank, which often is junk science. I would keep it. And to the contributor from the American Conservative Party - this information could actually help you in building up the party. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

First, please note the correct spelling of Dr. Altemeyer's name. It will make it easier to research his reliability. Here is what Thomas H. Lewis in "Journal of the American Medical Association" says about Dr. Altemeyer's book, "The Authoritarian Spectre", "Dr. Altemeyer has provided a unique and coherent body of solid scientific information." This seems more authoritative than what internet blogs say.

Anon above says he assumes the math is accurate. He shouldn't assume that -- many studies get the math wrong! But Dr. Altemeyer's study seems well reviewed.Rick Norwood (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If everyone agrees that at the very least, this section is too long, we should remove the part on right-wing authoritarianism; all of that research is already included in the article right-wing authoritarianism. If editors still insist on linking conservatism to right-wing authoritarianism, the paragraph beginning with "Scores on the RWA" could be removed, and those wishing to read more about RWA can follow the appropriate link. Ejnogarb (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

My humble suggestion to people who dislike this section is that they talk to people who understand political psychology, get them to read the academic literature on the relationship between conservatism and beliefs, find out what studies have followed Altemeyer and whether he has altered his interpretations. Then amend the section to make it "fair and balanced", giving proper weight to studies as they have been accepted. The Altemeyer study is I believe considered important as the first major study linking conservatism (1981) to personality and is therefore important if for that reason only. (It should appear at the beginning of the section.) I am surprised that the opponents of this report appear to have not even bothered to click on the hyperlinks for the study or they would have found this: Right-wing authoritarianism#Criticism, showing at least reasoned criticism of Altemeyer. For those people who want to censor science without bothering to check scientific sources or knowing anything about the subject, let me ask this: Where do you think you would be on the Right-wing authoritarianism scale? The Four Deuces (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

None of these studies were conducted in accordence with scientific rigor; they are inherently biased and that is why they did not appear in peer-review journals.

I also utterly fail to see where my POV is authoritarian and that of other editors violating the NPOV policy is not. The appearance of criticism in an obscure link does nothing to excuse the excess of the main article. Crimsonsplat (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Self correction: Pratto and Sidanius were in a peer-reviewed journal. However, these are but TWO articles, 14 years ago, with no follow-up in journals of equal (or even close) reputation. Citing Wikipedia's own rules regarding this section:

Specific NPOV faults are as follows:

WIKIPEDIA #1: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources and/or by well-regarded academic presses.

(I am not entirely certain of the regard in which the University of Manitoba is held, in the field of Psychology. Its Wikipedia article mentions a college of medicine, but nothing about pshychological research.)

WIKIPEDIA #2: Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all.

(Two peer-reivewed studies out of how many thousands? Altmeyer's work was published by a Canadian university of no note in his field, and hasn't been followed up in over twenty-five years? And the rest of the cites are two from less-reputable journals at the best, the remainder being a hodgepodge of magazine articles, internet pages, and even a press release cited as a source for "Research has also suggested that conservatives tend to be less flexible in their thinking than liberals.")

WIKIPEDIA #3: Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

("It is said that conservatives are more likely to stick to a position and have less tolerance for ambiguity as opposed to liberals who are more likely to think in gray areas." Combined with the above quote, the authors appear to be engaging in "mass effect" presentations, attempting to portray consensus where none exists.)

WIKIPEDIA #4 ...it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality: it does not override it.

(Let me repeat that: "verifiability lives alongside neutrality: it does not override it." That rather succinctly explodes the rationale for keeping any of this nonsense.) Crimsonsplat (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Altemeyer's study has undergone considerable peer review some of which is mentioned under the article Right-wing authoritarianism and his research is cited extensively in most university textbooks on political psychology. The University of Manitoba was rated in the 201 to 302 range for the 2008 "Academic Ranking of World Universities" http://www.arwu.org/rank2008/Top500_EN(by%20rank).pdf. A recent check of Questia shows that they have 85 academic books and 58 academic journal articles that reference his work. There are certainly far more that have been published.

If you think this represents a minority view then I suggest you consult textbooks or academic journal articles for this position. But Altemeyer's theories are highly regarded and generally accepted, and they have never been successfully challenged. I can see no problems with them.

I agree that sentences should not begin "It is said..." and this sentence and any others like it should be corrected after referring to the sources cited. However, "conservatives" are less likely to see gray areas. For example, hey are more likely to support mandatory sentences and abolition of the insanity plea, less likely to pursue diplomatic options in foreign policy, and more likely to support fundamentalist interpretations of religion.

The Four Deuces (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't drag in the SDO and RWA articles -- the points I make above are equally valid to them, but I'm only going to argue one article at a time.

First note: The University of Manitoba's overall ranking does not imply that it's prestige in the field of psychology is equally high. Can you clarify this?

Second note: As for consulting textbooks and citing articles, no, that is your job. Given the nature of Wikipedia as I understand it, it is the job of the proponent to prove that the view is worthy of inclusion.

Third note: Even if it is, the matter is clearly presented in a biased fashion, including the use of weasel words, yet all past attempts to fix these problems appear to have been reverted.

Fourth: Altmeyer's theories are highly regarded... by whom? Cite please.

Fifth: "his research is cited extensively in most university textbooks on political psychology. Cite please. Supporters of this shoddy research continue to make assertations without cites, yet demand cites of others.

Sixth: references and journal articles -- a study this controversial and involving such a loaded term as "Right-Wing Authoritarianism," minority view or not, is going to incite comment. Your statement as worded implies that _all_ of the references support his work. Again, cite. You state there are no contradicting studies -- that is not itself conclusive. The key question in science is: has anyone else duplicated his results? (Preferably without such loaded and arbitary questions.) If his results cannot be duplicated, it is no more scientific than cold fusion, regardless of who pushes his viewpoint. (Clearly my dislike of ambiguity has been on display here.)

Throughout this debate, the burden of proof is being thrown at the challengers. This is incorrect. Given the controversial nature of the assertations by a mere half-dozen research psychologists (out of how many thousands?), the biased way the statements have been presented, and continuing objections to the content, the burden of proof is clearly on its proponents that it should remain -- especially without the dispute/controversy tag. Given that one of the cites for a rather inflammatory statement is an online copy of a media release (!), the proponents clearly felt pressure to meet such a burden.

Let's take the last assertation. "However, "conservatives" are less likely to see gray areas. For example, hey are more likely to support mandatory sentences and abolition of the insanity plea, less likely to pursue diplomatic options in foreign policy, and more likely to support fundamentalist interpretations of religion."

The problem is that the article is clearly written as if there's something _wrong_ with that. It's a circular argument that assumes itself: all the items cited by the study are conservative positions. Conservatives are likely to have conservative positions. What? Of course they are! Which raises the question of why anyone would bother with such a study, and in turn, that suggests that the point is being made for another reason, and the article is clearly written to follow that point.

A value judgement has been inserted. I disagree with that judgement, and so have the prior challengers. (However, any debate on _value_ would clearly get us into the realm of political disagreements, which are outside the scope of the dispute, not to mention Wikipedia. Which, I remind you, enshrines NPOV.)

Editors supporting the inclusion continue to support these texts/articles/studies as legitimate science -- so let's address it as a question in logic. If "conservative minds" are all *this,* it imples that liberal minds are the *opposite.* Indeed, that claim is briefly made...here. Not so much in the article on Liberalism, or anywhere else in Wikipedia.

I've already asked for cites that duplicate Altmeyer's research. But in the interests of balance, can you _or anyone else_ reading this discussion point me to a comparable body of work regarding the liberal mind -- as a question completely apart from whether anyone's bothered to include it in Wikipedia. If neither you, nor anyone else can point to an equivilent body of such work, then the research presented here (mostly as if it were _fact_) is itself highly suspect, and likely to be of fringe stature, regarless of other arguments here.

Finally, psychology and politics are separate subjects. They may be related, which is the underlying argument of Altmeyer, Pratto, et.al. (and at that basic of a level, I agree with them), but they are still very separate subjects. Politics might legitimately be a minor area under the Psychology subject, but it wouldn't be a major section; nor should Psychology be such a major section under any political subject. They are separate fields with only tangental involvement.

Even if supporting editors _are 100% correct_ about the studies, the entire section should be no more than a one or two sentence neutral reference to the SDO and RWA articles. There is little or no justification for an extended psychological discourse within a political article. NPOV: UNDUE

Therefore I repeat the call for removal of the section in question.

Crimsonsplat (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

1. I don't know how high the university ranks. But if you can name a highly ranked university, I will find a book they published that uses Altemeyer's study plus a reference to his study in their journal.

2. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources says: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers". The Altemeyer study is a reliable source.

3. If you think you can re-write this section to improve it, then please suggest your changes. Does this article accurately reflect the findings of the researchers and is it presented in an open manner? Altemeyer developed scales for both conservatism and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), because he was trying to correlate RWA with a number of attributes, including conservatism. Unsurprisingly he found that RWAs scored high in conservatism, and found conservatives scored higher on the RWA scale than others. (Libertarian Party members scored average on the RWA scale.) But he did not equate conservatism with RWA. It may be that the phrasing in the section could be improved. The same with Pratto who corelated conservatism with the Social Dominance Index.

4./5. Here's a link to a Google books search, which lists many books you can read on-line that cite Robert Altemeyer: http://www.google.com/books?q=%22robert+altemeyer%22

6. Here are some of the studies that duplicated the results:

http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/27/2/216

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9F-4GJK82F-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=31ce65e839c5d174293cc3d3d74d4051

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3757163

Article writers must prove their assertions by citing a reliable source. This has been done by citing a book published in a University press. (See: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources). It is now up to you to show why this study should be ignored.

You question Altemeyer's logic and findings, but the opinions in WP articles should be from reliable sources. If the logic is flawed, then this would be reflected in peer-reviewed sources.

Any study of the "liberal mind" belongs in the liberalism section, and is not required here for the sake of balance.

Political psychology is not separate from politics, it's about why people hold their political views.

The Four Deuces (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A few of things strike me here:

• Whether we agree with it or not, this material is well sourced. It may be wrong, but clearly there are researchers in this field who have drawn these conclusions. That would seem to create a prima facia case for the inclusion of this material in the article, unless we can find equally strong sources demonstrating that these are fringe points of view.

• Balance is critical, and that may play out in a couple of ways here. If we can find good sources for criticisms of this work, or other points of view in this field, we should include them as well. More broadly, conservative thinkers tend to point to sociological research that shows correlations between political affiliation and such things as happiness, volunteerism, etc. (Altemeyer vs. Brooks, to be crass about it.) Whatever their flaws, both are relevant to current debates between conservatives and liberals.

• Balance in the article is important as well as balance in POV. This section is becoming large (and dense). Two things might be useful here. The first would be some subheadings. I could certainly use some help navigating between the discussions of survey research, Altemeyer's RWA model, Pratto's SDO model, etc. The second might be pulling this discussion out into a separate article, and leaving a short summary and link to it in this article.

To be very blunt, I'm not a big fan of either Altemeyer or Pratto. But that's neither here nor there. They do appear to be a part of the literature, and fair game for Wikipedia. I'd like to suggest that we focus on making sure that 1) they are characterized clearly and neutrally, and 2) if there are other equally important sources expressing different points of view, we find them as well. EastTN (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think that we should tone down Pratto as her results don't seem to be as unchallenged as Altemeyer's. I also think the whole section in general is just too large. I don't think anyone can disagree it shouldn't be the largest section in the article. Soxwon (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I won't arm-wrestle you on Pratto (I'm not the best judge of which of the two is the most credible). I agree with you on the relative size of the section. My one caveat is that if the material (after some more work) is both relevant and good, I'd rather see it split out into a separate sub-article than simply deleted. EastTN (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

One thing I suggest is trimming or possibly removing the first paragraph, a fairly general commentary. It also seems that Pratto, Altemeyer, and the others highlight some of the same things (homosexuality, lack of gray areas etc.) perhaps these could be grouped? Soxwon (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If everyone agrees that at the very least, this section is too long, the paragraph beginning with "Scores on the RWA" could be removed, and those wishing to read more about RWA can follow the appropriate link. This paragraph seems too long when there's another page completely devoted to it. Ejnogarb (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been working on cutting out unecessary/repetitive information, I'll try to work that in next. Soxwon (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if someone who had expertise in the discipline could edit it. It's obviously important, but the source material is very technical. There may be ambiguity in the current phrasing equating conservatism with RWA and DSO.The Four Deuces (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That did occur to me and I tried to only eliminate material repeated elsewhere. I'm hoping that people will check to find out what those two are but one can only hope. Soxwon (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought that the second para should be moved to first because it is the earliest research mentioned. Also, I think the wording could be re-phrased. It currently reads:

According to psychologist Robert Altemeyer, individuals who are politically conservative tend to rank high in Right-Wing Authoritarianism on his RWA scale. This finding was echoed by Theodor Adorno.

It would be more accurate to say:

In 1981, Robert Altemeyer, who was trying to test Thomas Odorno's theory of the Authoritarian personality, developed a conservatism test. He found that conservatives ranked higher in Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA).

The Four Deuces (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It is all messy -- as the subjects were not chosen internationally (nor particularly randomly) which means it is, at best, a very limited study. It certainly should not be listed as having any universal significance. Collect (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Collect, that was not the question. It was about moving the sentence. I remember your long long arguments inTalk:Discussion about how 'Horowitz describes Theodor W. Adorno as "central to the thinking of avant garde left-wing fascism,"' and really don't want to get into that type of discussion here (or anywhere else). The Four Deuces (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I happen to think that it is relevant -- especially since Altemeyer specifically said "right wing" was not related to "political right wing" as he found the Soviet Communists to be "RWA" in attitude ... meaning its relationship to "conservative" as defined in some contexts very muddy indeed. Clear enugh? Collect (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a gross violation of NPA. False in every single respect, and note that I made absolutely no comments about you. Kindly redact the charge. Collect (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I took it out. Altemeyer's comments on conservatism are relevant, the question is how to present them. This article is about conservatism, not RWA (or right-wing politics for that matter) or communism. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

OK -- but I still wonder what RWA has directly to do with "conservatism" in US usage -- it appears an orthogonal subject, hence my suggestion would be not to try covering it unless and until real we get additional material to cite. Collect (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion comment was that we need someone who has expertise in the area to ensure that Altemeyer's findings are correctly presented. If RWA types are excluded from the conservative population do the remaining conservatives score higher in the RWA scale than non-conservatives? Altemeyer found e.g. that Libertarian Party members scored average. The article also fails to mention how wealth, religion and ethnicity relate to conservaism. Historically conservative voters have tended to be wealthier, belong to mainstream churches in their area, and were under-represented by minorities. In Quebec for example, French Catholics historically voted conservative provincially but liberal federally, because the provincial conservative party was ultramontanist while the federal party was Protestant. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Only problem -- it goes against WP policy (sigh). And groups which are "conservative" on one scale may be "non conservative" on others, as you pointed out. For example, the percentage of blacks who are pentecostal or babtist is higher than the general populatin, and socially many blacks are "conservative" albeit "government liberal." Thus the suggestion that simple labels fail. In any case, going back to your suggestion, WP says "experts" shoiuld actually stay away from articles, as they are more apt to draw conslusions which are not clearly stated in the sources, and WP is to be a "tertiary source" at best. See Joseph Heller Collect (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not against WP policy for people with expertise to edit articles. (See Wikipedia:Expert editors.) I disagree that actually understanding a subject is an impediment to editing an article. Also, the fact that there are different models for predicting political views is no argument for excluding them. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to write about something, it's always helpful to actually understand it. Expertise doesn't hurt as long as the expert plays by all of the Wikipedia rules (e.g., NPOV, use of reliable sources, etc.) - and in many cases, can help immensely. If nothing else, a real expert should be familiar with the full literature on a subject, and be better positioned to bring in good sources than most other editors. Perhaps the biggest danger is that an expert may be tempted to view himself, in his role of editor, as sufficiently authoritative and not support his statements with anything other than his own opinion. I think there are enough of us dilettantes around to keep any experts we're lucky enough to have stumble in here honest, though. EastTN (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I still think that the information here duplicates the pages on SDO and RWA and should be replaced by links to those articles -- however they are in significant need of balancing themselves. The recent edits have restored a great deal of the missing neutrality, and I'm much happier with the current version. I want to thank everyone for their hard work and patience with my SDO and RWA traits. :) This has been quite the learning experience.

I remain deeply suspicious of Altmeyer's work, but will let the challenge go for now, as I don't have time to build a proper case for his being a biased flake (and it appears that, flake or not, he meets WP standards for notability). At a later time, when I'm not busy building a Conservative Party, I may solicit professional evaluation of the research as reqeusted by Four Deuces and Rick Norwood, but for now I don't have the time to do Wikipedia's standards justice.

Again, thank you all. Crimsonsplat (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

ultra conservative

the search term Ultra-conservatism links here, but there is no mention of it in the article, I think this should be rectified, as some information on this topic should be at least somewhere on wikipedia.

Such a term would most likely be highly POV. Soxwon (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Soxwon. Create a page for it but leave it out of this page. Ejnogarb (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It does not have a specific meaning. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is is a significant group of people who self-identify as "Ultra-Conservative," this would seem likely to be a pejorative term. If we can find good sources for it, it would seem fair game to discuss gradations of belief or "orthodoxy" among conservatives, but I think we run a risk of creating POV-forks if we start creating articles on "Ultra-Conservative," "Ultra-Liberal," "Ultra-Libertarian," etc. EastTN (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Spylab's edit

Excellent edit, Spylab. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The idea of nation

Regarding this sentence, in the Development of Western conservatism section: "Some conservatives are friendly toward the idea of nation..." I figured most or all conservatives are friendly toward the idea of nation, so I think the intended meaning is something else. Can anyone clarify the sentence? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like something left over from a hasty edit. My recommendation is to delete it. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I had tried going through the edit history to see if some word(s) had been omitted at some point, but couldn't find anything like that. It looks to have been inserted in its current state, or (presumably, only partially) restored from some old version of the article. I'm moving the text in question to this section. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"Some conservatives are friendly toward the idea of nation, such the liberal conservative New-Flemish Alliance, which has sought peaceful secession of Flanders from Belgium."

I think the point is that some conservatives are "friendly toward the idea of creating a separate nation". However the following sentence in the article captures this idea: "Nationalist separatist movements may be both radical and conservative." However, it's not very good prose either. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The conservative portal is a redlink.

There doesn't seem to be a conservatism portal. Somebody should fix that. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed  EJNOGARB  05:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This page is a joke. It's pathetic. Remove attack on conservatives.

"According to Robert Altemeyer and other researchers, individuals who are politically conservative tend to rank high on right-wing authoritarianism, as measured by Altemeyer's RWA scale."

Now, regardless of whatever jib jab you'll throw at me you cannot deny that liberals, like Obama who voted 97% liberal, are the Democrat party that are for bigger government. Conservatives are for smaller gov't. I know Wikipedia doesn't straight up list stances for reasons but the stances of liberals are national (gov't) health care, against school vouchers (or in other words, for gov't monopolized education), and for wealth redistribution (this includes welfare for people "not well-off" ie smoking crack with my money). These stances create BIGGER gov't. Conservative stances mirror those, so no monopolized gov't health care, nor education, nor taking conservatives' voters' money and putting it in liberals' voters' pockets.

Question: How the something do you justify putting that conservatives are the ones typically for "authoritarianism" when it is actually the liberals who praise the nanny state (see: Obama's campaign promises)?

Answer: You can't. All you can do is pile a bunch of words strung into pure nothingness on the defiers. Want an example? Whichever editor replies to me to contradict me will mention nothing of the simple truth in my second paragraph, and will instead say things like "this research is cited" or something else to distract from the facts. This more of a call to action than a question. Please admit that the sentence is stupid, inappropriate, and, honestly, makes Wikipedia look like a shit encyclopedia. There I said it. I acknoewledge the rule to be civil, and this I'm being. There is nothing uncivil in pointing out the truth. Just because the prominent editors don't admit to it (most of them) doesn't mean the readers don't realize, even if not right away, that this is not where you get your information from.71.204.61.136 (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

While I am a conservative and am for small gov't, you do realize there is a big world outside the US right? Soxwon (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You should distinguish between what liberals actually believe, and what the Republican Party propaganda claims that liberals believe. You will rarely find a liberal who favors bigger government -- liberals want a government big enough to protect our rights, but not big enough to take away our rights. It was George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who enunciated the principle of executive privilege, and a president and vice president who were above the law. They were the once who defended the right of the federal government to kill, torture, and rape without consequences, not to mention spy on American citizens, inspect bank accounts, and tap phones without a warrant. In Bill Clinton's last year as president, the Federal Government spent $1.8 trillion and balanced the budget. In every year he was president, George W. Bush spent more than $2 trillion and ran a large budget deficit. The claims 71.204.61.136 makes are repeated over and over by self-styled conservatives, but the facts are available, and are available from the US Government, and the claims fly in the face of the facts.Rick Norwood (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh no, Bush didn't "spend" any money, that was Congress. And I didn't see Democrats really doing much to cut the deficit. And Norwood, you need to distinguish between small gov't conservatives and interventionist neocons Soxwon (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The president proposes a federal budget, congress then votes on that budget. For six of the eight years Bush was president, he had a Republican congress to work with, and every year he was president, he proposed a budget with a big deficit.

Now, as to small government conservatives, as best I can tell a small government conservative is a conservative who is not in power. All conservative presidents talk about small government; none to date has kept that promise.

In any case, today such a large percentage of the US economy is fueled by federal spending that if we ever did elect a fiscal conservative to office, someone who would actually drastically cut the size of the federal budget, the entire economy go bankrupt. That's not libral nor is it conservative -- just pragmatic. People who talk about small government are talking about what never was and never will be. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, Neocon. Bush was not a small-gov't conservative, and your gross generalizations on what IS a small gov't conservative are indeed telling. And considering where the gov't's funding comes I don't see how giving it back to the ppl would hurt the economy. Soxwon (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You can't dismiss liberal beliefs by saying just saying most liberals don't believe what all the liberals in power are doing. Since you are voting for them, it's only reasonable to believe that, although possibly on accident, you do believe in bigger gov't. Everything Obama wants to do when he says "I will [action]" translates into "The government will use your money to [action]." I mean that's the difference between the two parties. One wants the gov't to do everything. Look at any issue to prove this: welfare, health care, housing, lending, education, and anything else where the two choices are gov't vs private sector, liberals are for gov't. This includes Obama. Saying conservatives are for authoritarian gov't makes no sense. If anyone is then it's liberals.

What hurts the economy is the extreme concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few. The facts are easy to find -- if you don't trust Wikipedia, look them up at www.us.gov. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You act as if that is an inevitability of capitalism. And gov't intervention isn't that great either. Soxwon (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it has nothing to do with capitalism. It is just human nature. People in power seldom act to reduce their own power. It has happened. In ancient Rome, Sulla did it. But I can't think of a case in the last two thousand years. There are probably a few, but it's rare. John Adams maybe? After all, when Tom Jefferson won the election, Adams could have had him shot, but instead he handed over power peacefully. But both of these examples are of people who gave up power and retired. I can't think of someone who had power and voluntarily limited his own power while still exercising it. Can you? Rick Norwood (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No, but that has nothing to do with "etreme concentration of wealth" either Soxwon (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The connection is this. If we accept that "small government" is unlikely, then the government is either going to spend its money helping the rich or helping the poor. For the past eight years, the government primarily helped the rich, and now -- I forget the figures but you can look them up -- 90% of the wealth is in the hands of 10% of the people (roughly). Businesses are going bankrupt, because many of their customers are broke. This puts more people out of work, leading to a descending spiral. President Obama is spending money to help the working class. That means putting money in the hands of people who will go out and spend it, which means more customers for the businesses that are hurting, fewer bankruptcies, fewer people out of work. The only question is, will it be enough? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I checked the numbers, try 60%. However, a lot of the wealth is going overseas to try and escape taxation (outrageous or not, where are you going to invest and build your business, here where you lose about 40% in taxes, most of almost any country save Japan?). Raising taxes is just going to encourage more investing abroad or, if say NAFTA were repealed, they'd instead have to cut production dramatically, raise the price and/or, cut wages to match production. With the gov't spending money you have to account for all, probably most of it, being wasted by bureaucrats more interested in their own jobs than the ppl. Soxwon (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

actually people in the top ten percent have about 80% of the wealth. couple that with the fact that the median income is 28k- 32k (depending on how you look at it) and it shows how big a disparity there is in income and overall wealth. half of americans make less than 30,000 dollars a year. thats sad. also, the richest 1% holds 38% of our wealth while the bottom 90% hold 73% of our debt. --Brendan19 (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting stats -- cite for them? The ones I found show the top 10% hold about 70% of total wealth (much of which is nicely illiquid, by the way) which is less that Switzerland, and similar to that of Denmark and many other industrialized nations. The next 10% own just over 10% of total ewealth -- which means that you are hitting the median wealth level just about where it should logically be. Some non-industrialized nations have worse figures. And unless you adopt "to each according to their needs" you shall always have disparities. Collect (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

collect, as i learned when i took statistics in school, numbers can often be manipulated to conform with what you want them to say. because of this i can say that ive seen it said that the top 10 holds anywhere from 70-90% of the wealth, but heres where i get the 80%- Hurst, Charles E. Social Inequality: Forms, Causes, and Consequences, page 31. Pearson Education, Inc., 2007 see-[2]. as for the individual median income see-[3] and see table 1 in [4]. most of the talk is about household income as opposed to individual, but table 1 says that overall the per capita median is 26,804. not sure what age groups were included there, but on the whole i have seen 30k given as per capita median most of the time. thats not wealth, just income. it should be noted that a large percent of the lower income earners have zero wealth. i would disagree with you that our median wealth level is where it should be. we have too many poor people and a select few with way too much. im fine with some disparity, but im not ok with this one. cheers...--Brendan19 (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I trust you know that WP is not a "reliable source" for anything. And with US distribution being quite similar to other industrialized nations, I would suggest that having the "80-20 rule" work is not unusual. If one ascribes an annuity value to transfer payments, the folks at the bottom have substantial imputed wealth, by the way. In 2009 we have slightly reduced median income, but the latest figures show it at about $32K (CNN) [5]. Your cite table A-1 shows median household income at $65,576 in 2007. Your main problem seems to be that minors do not have much per capita income, but that does not mean they are poor, it means they are part of a family unit. As to being upset that people who are poor do not have much wealth, I do not know what to say. Collect (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

right, didnt cite wikipedia- cited a book by charles hurst (which is the source for the wp article i mentioned) and some census websites. as for the folks at the bottom having substantial imputed wealth... i find that to be quite a comical statement. what does that substantial imputed wealth buy them? i would say it buys them nothing because its not their wealth. thats why they are at the bottom. your cnn cite makes no mention of individual median income. it does mention a median household income of 64k (which is 14k above the census table 1 stat of 50,233). i fear you probably just divided that number in two to reach your 32k (which is probably close to what the actual number is), but that shows that you dont know how those numbers work. you are making the assumption that household income= two wage earners, but thats not always the case. i could not find your 65,576 number anywhere in any of the tables. the median household income is listed as 50,233. the only thing close to your number was 65,876- which was the household income for asians. --Brendan19 (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Both of you enough, this discussion ended in March. It's now June. Let's just let it drop, plz. Soxwon (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's true that US and Japan have the highest taxes on corporations, and among the lowest taxes on individuals. Isn't it interesting that they also have the world's strongest economies.Rick Norwood (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Psychological Research?

I just deleted the final section of this article ie., "Psychological Research." In addition to its extremely questionable relevance, it struck me as highly non-NPOV, in that it consisted almost entirely of apparent attempts to label political conservatism as a sort of mental pathology. Perhaps someone might like to visit this article's History page, retrieve the text I just deleted, and use it in order to create a new article on that subject, but it frankly seems out of place here. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I just looked at the articles for liberalism, socialism, and libertarianism, and those articles do not contain any equivalent sections pertaining to the psychological make-up of their respective adherents, pathological or otherwise, hence I feel vindicated in the action I have taken ie., the deletion of the "Psychological Research" section of this article. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reversed your change which was made without discussion. If you look at the sections above in this discussion page, there has been detailed discussion of this topic. May I request that you read them and if you are in disagreement to present your arguments for discussion. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Unreversed. I am convinced by his arguments. It is at best anecdotal in its nature, and would better be placed in the Pseudoscience article than here. Collect (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I will notify editors who were involved in the discussion (Rick Norwood, EastTN, Soxwon). Please feel free to notify other editors you think may be of assistance. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The section "Psychological Research" reports information about the subject of the article, published in reputable refereed journals. This does not violate NPOV, any more than it violates NPOV to report, in the William Jefferson Clinton article, that the president had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to report facts.

This is a subject that has come up time and again, in article after article. People who are uncomfortable with certain facts try to delete them, claiming that the facts support a certain point of view. Facts do that. It is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to try to balance information with misinformation. We can leave that to television. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As I much as I disagree with the findings, I must unforetunately agree with Norwood and Four Deuces. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument. The stuff is verfiable and relevant. The question is how much importance the reader puts in it. Soxwon (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I oppose canvassing. I would point out that the "psychology" bit is about the human nature of people who are conservative, and is not about "conservatism" which is the actual topic of the article. As for use opf psychoanalytic tomes, I would point out that "psychoanalysis" is listed per se as "pseudoscience" in WP. If the article were titled "Characteristics of people who are lebelled as conservative" I would still object, as that is by its very nature a subjective assessment of people. Let's keep the article on the topic, and not have it digress, else I could easily add a few hundred thousand words about notable "conservatives" in the past. Shall we keep to one topic, or have it ooze all over the place? We do not need pseudoscience masquerading as objective fact. Collect (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It is hard for me to follow your reasoning.

Evidently, because the article psychoanalysis has a "criticism" section, and because that criticism section mentions that Popper considers psychoanalysis a "pseudoscience", to you suggests that Wikipedia says that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience. No. Wikipedia says that Popper says that psychoanalysis is a psuedoscience. That's an important distinction.

Then you suggest that if the article has a few hundred carefully referenced words about conservative psychology, it follows that the article should have a few hundred thousand words by you about notable conservatives. That doesn't follow either.

As I said, it is hard for me to follow your reasoning. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I do not think that the section mentions psychoanalysis anyway. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The reasearch seeks to attribute characteristics to conservatives -- based on articles by others about conservatives. The nature of the attributes is psychoanalytical in nature. But heck, I just added another opinion to the mix. Collect (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The research attributes characteristics to conservatives based on statistical studies of a large number of subjects, studies published in peer reviewed journals. The studies are psychological in nature, not "psychoanalytical". Rick Norwood (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The first cite refers not to studying people, but studying studies. What it does, in fact, is echo the claims made in some of those studies without subjecting any of them to rigorous comparison with other studies. The one study cited in Israel uses vastly different concepts of "conservative" than are found in US political statements. By defining "conservative" to mean strongly defensive of Israel by military means one finds much of that research to be tautologocal and inapt to the US or to a brad dissussion of "conservatism" at all. Collect (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reversed various edits made by Collect while this discussion has been going on. Please advise others of the changes you wish to make and obtain concensus before you make them. This is particularly important when there is a discussion about changes to the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Kindly re-revert them. None of them should be controversial at all, and your instant deletion looks quite poor indeed. Thank you. Collect (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You wrote at my talk page: "I object to your 100% rejection of even non-controversial edits to the Conservatism article. It reflects quite poorly on you to make such changes as refusing to allow additional references etc. Thanks!" (User talk:The Four Deuces#revert) I have re-reverted the non-controversial edits. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The quote from Kenneth Minogue has again been inserted without discussion. I suggest its deletion because it is from a tertiary source (The Social Science Encyclopedia) (See: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources). Also, it was not written by a psychologist and there is no reference to any research that led to these conclusions. While I am happy to see various points of view presented, they should be from peer-reviewed secondary sources. I also take issue with the assertion that conservatives "respect prejudice".

I also notice the name of the section has been changed to "Psychology" again without discussion. As Collect reminded me just weeks ago: "Change a heading only after careful consideration, because this will break section links to it within the same article and from other articles. If changing a heading, try to locate and fix broken links." (Talk:Fascism#political spectrum heading) The Four Deuces (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that the material was written for the book and is, therefore, a secondary source per WP policies. And I would also note that "Psychological research" clearly is a misnomer as most of the material in the section is not about "research" at all. I also had checked and found precisely zero outside links to that section title, which is what I told the other editor was required. As no such links existed, no links could be readily broken. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sort of split on this section. I would hope that our articles on ideologies are uniform and standardized. To that end, I can see how a conservative would feel slighted by a section discussing the psychological tendencies of conservatives when no corresponding section exists for similar articles. On the other hand, a liberal might feel perplexed about why this article has no criticism section and the article on liberalism does. Comparisons are generally dangerous on Wikipedia, however, and we should probably ignore them here. Does this section deserve to remain in this article on its own merits? I would argue no based on the following line of thought. The information contained in the section is well-cited and researched, but it is not appropriate material for an article such as this one. Articles on ideologies should focus significantly on political history, intellectual history, and various philosophical issues. Psychology should not constitute a major part of these articles, much less a whole section! My primary concerns are related to length. Good articles usually describe their subjects quickly and efficiently. We lose that efficiency when we focus so heavily on an important, but not decisive, issue. I don't mean to suggest that we banish psychological studies entirely, but they don't deserve their own section.UberCryxic (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I was around for the last battle over this controversial subject, and I still think it should be deleted because it is research done about some Western conservatives in a multinational article, but also because it typifies some conservatives, not conservatism or the conservative movement. It seems so out of place, considering the majority of the article contains short explanations and links to other forms of conservatism, and then at the bottom is a strange little section about the psychology of an extreme minority of the world's conservatives. Delete, delete, delete.  EJNOGARB  05:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I favor shortening the section, but not deleting it entirely. The studies that are kept should be those that are specifically multinational. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I favor keeping as it is a notable topic that provides a model for explaining conservative support. My main concern is whether the section accurately reflects academic theory on conservatism. It is not whether the findings were valid but whether they have been fairly presented. The research on conservatism was developed as part of a study of the right-wing authoritarian (RWA) personality. As part of that personality included "conservatism" tests for conservatism were also developed. It is clearly wrong to suggest that the tests equate conservatism with RWA. Altemeyer has said that Barry Goldwater e.g. would probably score low on the RWA scale. I think we need to have someone with a better understanding of the subject edit this section for neutrality and accuracy, and have written to several contributors on the RWA and SDT articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Clearly some people around here do not understand NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. If you are creating an Encyclopedia with that concept, then your moderation of the articles cannot only be concerned with "does this viewpoint have footnotes that point to academic research, if so then it is fine regardless of any other considerations".

If you asked people for an example of a fiercely partisan topic, "conservative vs. liberal" would probably be at the top of the list. NPOV would have to be far more carefully balanced than we see here.

As a non-partisan Independent, and a strong advocate of Evolutionary Psychology, I was struck by the fact that "Conservatism" has an elaborate section called "Psychology" which implied that one could only be a conservative if you were descended from Neanderthals and abused in childhood. Yes, that is an exaggeration of the content, but that "Psychology" section is a clear "plant" by movement liberals to discredit conservative concepts as being due to emotional reactions, rather than rational and academic thought. In actuality, I have seen much more emphasis in political literature on the "psychology of liberals", with the idea of "liberal guilt" being used to explain the preponderance of liberalism amongst wealthy celebrities who have been the beneficiaries of lucky breaks. I am not proposing that any of the above concepts - of either side - are accurate, just that the Wikipedia presentation seems surprisingly slanted, especially given that the "criticism" section of Liberalism is astonishingly short, consisting of one obscure and difficult reference, which seems to be present simply so that someone can claim that "yes there is a criticism section". This is quite amazing, considering that biographies of minor pop stars or sports stars, whose lives have no impact on society other than entertaining people, have big Wikipedia stamps " THIS ARTICLE APPEARS TO BE SLANTED ". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.239.113 (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the sections above in this discussion page, there has been detailed discussion of this topic. May I request that you read them and if you are in disagreement to present your arguments for discussion. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(removed)

(removed) (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Plz, that is the epitomy of bad faith. If you even bothered to look at the edit I was suggesting I made no changes to content, just rearranged a freaking sentence that was already in the article. If you'd actually looked at what you were doing instead of blindly looking through Collect's edits for possible evidence, you might have noticed we were on the oppposite sides of that debate. Soxwon (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies, i will take you at your word. Ikip (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources

I really don't want to insert the statement They have been supported in these claims by other studies back in, is there any other way to make use of these sources: [6] [7]? Are they really needed? Soxwon (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You've done an excellent job of shortening and organizing what had become a "grab-bag" of unrelated paragraphs. As for the two references you ask about above, both are good, popular magazines but, as you know, articles in scholarly journals are better sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rick, it reads much better now. BTW I question the inclusion of Arthur C. Brooks' findings. He writes serious peer-reviewed studies and also popular polemical works. The reference here is from Gross National Happiness which is the latter. If you can find that he ever published this view in a peer-reviewed journal then it would be different. This may seem trivial, but claims in popular books do not get reviewed by scholars. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I wanted to remove it so I went ahead and did. It really served no purpose. Soxwon (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My inclination was to leave it, since both Brooks and Schweizer have good academic credentials, and also because it seemed to add balance to the article. But I'll defer to Soxwon and The Four Deuces on this one. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I would leave it except it's so, well, akward. It doesn't really flow. I'll try to find a way to correct it. Soxwon (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion came up at the US Conservatism article. Brooks wrote two books explaining the motivation for charitable giving Gifts of Time and Money (2005) and Who Really Cares (2006), which used the same data to come to different conclusions. In the first book he uses a table that shows the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Malta are well ahead in first place in volunteering.[8](p. 5) In the second book, the same table is used but Canada, Australia, NZ and Malta are omitted,[9] so the US clearly leads the table, and concludes the European welfare state makes people less generous (my italics). No explanation why it does not have that effect in the three countries most similar to the US. So I would accept him as an expert but only for his academic work. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

But does it really serve a purpose in this article? Soxwon (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

When Adam delved and Eve span, who then was the conservative?

I've become sensitized to the divergent uses of the words "liberal" and "conservative" in the popular press. Here is my latest observation. Time, June 8, 2009, "Four Myths About The Supreme Court".

"And Roberts has become more hard-edged and divisive as his views on issues of race and Executive power have repeatedly clashed with those of the court's liberal wing."

Roberts argued in favor of George Bush's "signing statements" which said, in effect, that the President of the United States is above the law. This view is certainly anti-liberal. But it is also anti-conservative. Where does that leave Roberts?

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

United States

I removed the following:

Contemporary American conservatism traces its heritage back to Irish political philosopher Edmund Burke, who developed his views in response to the French Revolution. US President Abraham Lincoln wrote, that conservatism is "the adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried."

The first sentence from Russell Kirk represents a minority opinion. The quote from Lincoln is entirely out of context and implies that he considered himself a conservative.

The Four Deuces (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, Burke had a very profound impact on conservative ideology and is arguably one of the founders of modern views. Soxwon (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Try [10] where Burlingame makes a case for Lincoln using a pen name "Conservative." Also Fairbanks at [11] and this is rather conclusive [12]. Collect (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, the issue is not whether conservative ideology can be traced to Burke but whether modern American conservatism can be so traced. Kirk's views are highly contentious even among American conservatives. Other than Kirk's writings, can you find any modern writers that agreed with him and any evidence that this was the major view?

If we want to include the theory about Burke then we need to contain the mainstream view that modern American conservatism is a continuation of American liberalism, which owes more to Locke and Adam Smith, that it supports liberty, property rights, free markets, legal equality, and individualism and is opposed to collectivism, socialism, hereditary social status and elitism

Collect, I have not heard that theory and the links seem to just go to summaries. What exactly do these writers say?

You have to beware of accepting new theories as fact. Lots of people have written convincing books about who wrote Shakespeare's plays or the real identity of Jack the Ripper. So do you have any mainstream sources that identify Lincoln as a conservative?

The Four Deuces (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh FD, I think that you need to clarify yourself on some points. If you are referring to classical liberalism, than yes, modern conservatism (fiscal conservatism, property rights, and against collectivism and socialism) does qualify. Soxwon (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, call it classical liberalism then. The mainstream view is that modern American conservatism is a continuation of classical liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) We need older opinions about Lincoln? (the cites given are absolutely mainstream and clear) [13] Charnwood 1917 should suffice. Nicolay from 1890 quotes Lincoln, and is given above, so I am unsure how that can qualify as a "new theory" at all. Collect (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright I followed the link Burlingame, writing in The Inner World of Abraham Lincoln (1994) in the Appendix (p. 365): The same day that Lincoln spoke to the Lyceum, the Sangamo Journal published a blistering, pseudonymous attack on Stephen A. Douglas under the byline "Conservative No. 2." Some Democrats at the time accused Lincoln of writing the "Conservative" letters, and at least one historian has endorsed that view. But the editors of The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln demurred, saying that such attribution rested on insufficient evidence."[14]

Two things, Collect: the theory that Lincoln signed an article as "The Conservative" is a theory that has not been proved and even if it had, it is OR to assume from that that he was a conservative.

The Four Deuces (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you miss the Nicolay cite of an actual letter from Lincoln? Not much of a "theory" in that one. 1890 means he did not look at a new theory either <g>. And note that I said "Burlingame makes a case for Lincoln being called a 'conservative.' meaning I cited him precisely accurately. Collect (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In this article (in contrast with Conservatism in the United States) we need to show in the subsection on the United States that US conservatism has some common roots with the use of the word in other countries, or else state flatly that in the US "conservative" has an entirely different meaning from the use of the word on other countries. In fact, as best I can tell, only Libertarians want to change the meaning of "conservative" to make it a synonym for "Libertarian" and what they call "Classical Liberal". In every respect but one, Libertarianism is a form of liberalism. The one common ground between Libertarians and Conservatives is that Libertarians loath taxes, and Conservatives are willing to cut taxes, at least for the very rich, even if it means going deep in debt. But the theory of taxation is, at its heart, neither Liberal nor Conservative, and theory is in any case moot, since proverbially nothing is more sure than taxes except death. If we get into "big government" vs. "small government", then we are going to have to rewrite this article every four years, saying that Conservatives always favor big government if the Republicans are in power and that Conservatives always favor small government if the Democrats are in power. In sort, instead of both sides trying to claim Abraham Lincoln for political gain, we should eschew the flood of political propaganda and stick to what the word really means, according to standard reference works. "Conservatism: disposition to keep to established ways: opposition to change." - The New Mirriam-Webster Dictionary. Lincoln was willing to be conservative if that would preserve the union. He was also willing to do away with established slavery, the biggest change in America since 1776, if that would preserve the union. One thing you can say with certainty: Lincoln was not in favor of State's Rights! Rick Norwood (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have again removed: Contemporary American conservatism traces its heritage back to Irish political philosopher Edmund Burke, who developed his views in response to the French Revolution. US President Abraham Lincoln wrote, that conservatism is "the adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried."

Please see: WP:UNDUE: Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. If you want to present the views of a revisionist historian like Russell Kirk, they must be attributed to the author and must be presented after the mainstream view. In this case the mainstream view was provided by Louis Hartz. In any case American conservatism can trace its roots to the American Revolution and probably earlier and to the Federalist Papers (1787-1788), while Burke's response to the French Revolution was only published in 1790.

Please see: WP:SYN: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The text implies that Lincoln was a conservative which is misleading because the source does not actually say that.

The Four Deuces (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Rick, American Conservatism does not share common roots with conservatism in other countries. Note that the American Revolution was fought between Whigs and Tories. There is no longer a Tory party in the US although Tories remain in the UK and Canada. However it is possible to speak of a modern conservatism. It has an organization (the International Democrat Union) that includes the US Republicans, UK and Canadian Conservatives, Australian Liberals, France's Union for a Popular Movement and various other parties. Their website says "The International Democrat Union (IDU) is a working association of over 80 Conservative, Christian Democrat and like-minded political parties of the centre and centre right."[15] It should be mentioned in this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind leaving off Burke, since he is covered in the lede, and certainly the Lincoln quote is pulled out of context, but you say, "American conservatism can trace its roots to the American Revolution" and then edit the subsection to begin with Ronald Reagan. There is a big gap there! Whether Kirk, Buckley, and Goldwater were right, or just Right, is moot -- they were important voices in the American Conservative movement and need to be mentioned. I'm happy if you want to write that paragraph -- and it doesn't need more than a few sentences -- but somebody has to. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It does read poorly now. What about removing Reagan and saying something like Consevatism in the US is usually associated with the Republican party? The Four Deuces (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be ok with that, but I think that while not being the founder, Burke did have a profound impact on conservative thought. Soxwon (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course he did and a large part of the article is devoted to him and he is also mentioned in the US Conservatism article. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Forms of conservatism

This section of the article, as it stands, is nonsense. It contradicts itself. Is there really a difference between liberal conservatism and conservative liberalism, and if so are these two the most important "forms of conservatism"? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Liberal conservatism is usually applied to parties like the Conservative Party of the UK that accepted liberal values, like those in the Bill of Rights, and distinguishes them from reactionary conservatives like Franco and Latin American dictators. Conservative liberalism usually refers to parties like the Liberal Party of Switzerland that opposed modern liberalism.

The article does not seem to provide an adequate explanation of conservatism.

The Four Deuces (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the parties described as "conservative" in this article developed from liberal or Catholic centrist parties and have little or no connection with 19th century conservatism. The article however fails to note this. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Psychology section

This section should be purged with extreme prejudice. It is based on ultra-Marxist concepts, such as that of Theodor Adorno (whom the section mentions) of the Frankfurt School - a radical organisation, which set out expilicity to subvert and level Western Civilisation. This movement does not come from a NPOV on the subject of this article. Opposing political theories are dressed up in this section, under terminology such as "study" in a subversive Freudian manner in an attempt to give them more "legitimacy". If we are going to have a section on Marxian opposition to Conservatism, lets make a real, out in the open section on it, instead of having it hidden behind very thinly veiled newspeak which levels ad hominem attacks. - Yorkshirian (talk)

It would be helpful if you would provide reliable sources that support your claims. In the meantime we must rely on the sources provided. If you have reliable sources that dispute this section then they may be added. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

These entites have referenced articles which specifically mention their Marxist status, which you could easily click on above. Alternatively for explicit discussion on this subversive movements utilisation of sophistry and newspeak in an authoritarian attempt to blacklist competing political ideologies (in this case Conservatism) you could read Pat Buchanan's Death of the West. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read the discussion on this subject which is now archived here.[16] The majority of editors agreed that this section should remain. You may disagree and wish to re-open the discussion. However you should consider the arguments that were presented before re-arguing the case. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the archives, the majority of people seem to be against the inclusion of this section. It seems to be a very small but persistent group, who want to keep it in. Yet the issue keeps getting raised again and again. A list of users who have presented rationale opposed to its inclusion;

• KevinOKeeffe, Collect, Cryxic, Ejnogarb, 67.121.239.113, 71.204.61.136 , 204.235.227.134, Crimsonsplat, 75.5.100.86, 71.191.90.240, 204.235.227.134, Ileanadu

It only seems to have remained through shere persistance, though the issue keeps getting raised. Adornoite/Frankfurt School popaganda doesn't belong on a serious encyclopedia article covering the topic of general Conservatism. If anywhere it belongs in an article on conservatism in the United States, or on those theorists articles. Other than the fact that it is a violation of WP:NPOV, I can find no other example of a serious encyclopedia which includes such a section within its article. Nor am I convinced that this particular Marxist sophist movement is notable outside of North America and the United States inparticular after Adorno migrated there from Germany. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion in Wikipedia is decided by references, not by majority vote. The section is referenced, and includes many non-US examples of the conservative mindset and worldview. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, the specific political philosophy of the authors of these theories is irrelevant. It is accepted in academic studies, and has been empirically tested. If you have evidence that the theories are no longer accepted, please present it. Incidentally many IPs change every time the user logs in, so you may be double-counting. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"Academic" according to whom? Marxist critical theory and its exponents are an explicitly opposing political concept. A radical group whose stated objective is the destruction of Western Civilisation. They have a conflicting interest when it comes to the subject. It is POV to include their fringey newspeak propaganda in the article, whether subversively dressed up as pseudoscience or not. While Wikipedia is not a democracy, there is still the WP:NPOV policy which must be obided by and also it must be proven that it is relevent to the general concept of conservatism and not a WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:FORK for Frankfurt School Marxian psychoanalyictic theory. I would like to ask for you two to provide one example of a politically neutral respected encyclopedia which includes this newspeak within an overview of conservatism. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) Please see WP:RS#Scholarship:

Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available....

* Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses....

* The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes....

All of these criteria have been met. Google Scholar for example returns 2,530 hits for "right-wing authoritarianism".[17]

The Four Deuces (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of Theodor Adorno in this section is false and misleading on the face of it. He died before these studies were published. I've removed the reference. I wonder who put it there in the first place, and why? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

They got it the wrong way round. Altemeyer's finding echoed Adorno's theory of the authoritarian personality. However it is too much detail and best omitted. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove Adorno, but Rick, this was the accepted version and the studies match what was said. The way you tried to present it is extremely POV. Soxwon (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon: I accepted the references until I looked them up! The incorrect format on the citations (which you have restored) should have been a warning sign. And how is it POV to give the complete quotation instead of just part of the quotation, when the clause taken out of context changes the meaning? I'll try to get this straightened out. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

fake quotes

I've discovered several misquotes, incorrectly cited quotes, and even quotes out of context that attempt to make an article say exactly the opposite of what it really says. I'm still not certain about the quote below, however. I've followed the link, searched there, searched google scholar, searched The Journal of Social Psychology. None of them have yielded the quote given below. But it is cited so often in the conservative press, that I would like someone else to double check for me. Does this article exist?

However, a 2005 study by H. Michael Crowson and colleagues suggested a moderate gap between RWA and other conservative positions. "The results indicated that conservatism is not synonymous with RWA." (reference) Crowson, H. Michael, Stephen J. Thoma, and Nita Hestevold. "Is political conservatism synonymous with authoritarianism?." The Journal of Social Psychology 145.5 (Oct 2005): 571(22). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Remote Access. 20 May 2009

<http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>. (end reference)

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with that paper but conservatism was merely one element of RWA. But Altemeyer notes in The Authoritarians (p.261): "If anyone ought to be interested in understanding authoritarianism, it's the mainstream conservatives who used to form and control the Republican Party. They have seen their political party hijacked by the most radical element in their party, and it's anybody's guess whether they can get it back. The takeover has been so complete that many people have forgotten what "conservative" meant before it became "authoritarian"."

In the book he conducted a survey of Canadian federal and provincial legistors who belonged to social democratic, liberal or conservative parties. (These parties can trace their origins to the 19th century when the terms had clear meanings and the groups had radically different viewpoints from one another.) The social democrats ranged from 50-80 on the scale, the conservatives ranged from 110-130 and the liberals were in the middle. (p.208) That shows an 82% correlation between ideology and RWA. (p. 208) When he conducted the survey on US legislators the Democrats and Republicans resembled the Canadian liberals and conservatives, but each showed a wider range and overlapped. (p.201)[18]

The Four Deuces (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to a short abstract of the Crowson article:[19] The Four Deuces (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon: Let's take the citations one at a time.

Your version refers to "a study by Kathleen Maclay. There is no such study. Maclay is the author of a press release. The quote in that paragraph is by Glaser et. al., not by Maclay. The quote is also taken out of context. I've provided the context.

The Crowson citation fails to use the capitalization used in the title of the paper, and mangles the quote. I've provided the correct quote.

The Schneider paper confirms rather than refutes Crowson's claims. The appearence that he refuted Crowson's claim comes by taking a sentence fragment out of context. I've provided the entire sentence. Also, I've again corrected the format and capitalization in the citation.

The Kenneth Minogue citation quotes Jessica Kuper quoting Kenneth Minoque. It should be replaced with a citation from the original source.

The Sidanius study found that there is a correlation between racism and conervatism, mediated by social dominance orientation, and that the correlation increases with the educational level of the person studied. You have changed that finding by taking words and sentence fragments out of context. I have restored the context and again corrected the citation format.

I hope this detailed explanation is helpful.

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For the Sidanius study, it says quite clearly,

Although it would be a serious mistake to assume that White's opposition to redistributive policies such as affirmative action are primarily driven by either racism or group dominance motives, assuming that racism and group dominance motives become less important as intellectual sophistication among Whites increases, would be equally mistaken. I thought that was what the text said, which is why I made it reflect that. I'm not sure why you keep saying that racism is the primary force when it clearly is not.

For the Glaser citation, I'll fix that, but I think the way I have it is a little better phrased. I'm still looking into the others. Soxwon (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright Rick, I looked up your source for the Crowson study and while what you put is somewhat true true, you can't justify taking out what was there when they said it twice in the abstract: "Across these studies, moderate relationships emerged between RWA and our measures of cognitive rigidity, whereas the relationship between rigidity and mainstream conservative ideology was not as strong," and also The results indicated that conservatism is not synonymous with RWA." You also put it mediates the relationship when that finding was only partially supported. I think the way it was before is more correct, though it could be improved. Soxwon (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Please get authors, titles, and quotes right. For example, your version still claims that there is a "study" by Kathleen Maclay and fails to use correct capitalization in titles. Yes, I make mistakes, too. But they are not hasty mistakes, and I do not use the revert feature to restore a version that I know has mistakes in it. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll change the opening paragraph, that seems to be the only complaint left. Soxwon (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Changed opening paragraph, added in bit by Crowen. Instead of changing everything back, could you please just help find a source that directly quotes Minogue? Soxwon (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

continue to work on Psychology section

There are several problems with the two sentences below, from paragraph two. RWA is a personality trait, not a "conservative position", and therefore cannot be compared with "positions".

However, a 2005 study by H. Michael Crowson and colleagues suggested a moderate gap between RWA and other conservative positions. While it was true that RWA partially mediated the relationship between cognitive rigidity and mainstream conservatism, "The results indicated that conservatism is not synonymous with RWA."

The first conclusion in the paper is that there is a correlation between RWA and conservatism, and also a correlation between cognitive regidity and conservatism. In other words, conservatives tend to believe what their leaders tell them, and are slow to change their minds. The second conclusion is that this correlation is not 100% (conservatism is not synonymous with RWA). In other words, not all conservatives are right-wing authoritarians. Which conservatives are less like to display RWA? Those who are less cognitively rigid. When they authors only looked at the correlation between RWA and conservatism among those subjects who scored low on tests of cognitive regidity, the correlation between RWA and conservatism was less.

As an example, this explains why, when Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, conservatives tended to believe him (a lot of liberals also believed him -- the correlation of RWA and conservatism is not 100%). Conservatives tend to believe what their leaders tell them. But then Bush admitted that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. And yet, some conservatives continued to believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. This is an example of cognitive regidity, a disinclination to change your mind when presented with new evidence. Now, how about the conservatives who displayed less cognitive regidity, and accepted that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction? These conservatives also showed less RWA. They were less apt to believe what their leaders told them.

The paragraph above is, of course, original research, and has no place in the article. I'm just trying to make the conclusion in the paper clearer by use of an example.

So, how can we best summerize the conclusions of the paper in a few words, without adding anything to those conclusions or leaving out anything important. I suggest the following:

A 2005 study by H. Michael Crowson and colleagues found correlation between RWA, cognitive regidity, and conservatism. However they found that not all conservatives display RWA. "The results indicated that conservatism is not synonymous with RWA." In particular, those conservatives with less cognitive regidity were also less likely to be right-wing authoritarians.

I don't really think the quote is necessary, but I am willing to leave the quote in if anyone wants it there.

Comments?

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually Rick, the first result was a correlation between cognitive rigidity and RWA and the second result was a relationship between rigidity and conservatism. The second, however, was not as strong as the first. Therefore, it's supposed to be "some conservatives have RWA, less have cognitive rigidity, and those that have RWA are somewhat more likely to have cognitive rigidity." Soxwon (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The abstract says, "The authors performed 2 studies that tested the distinction between conservative political ideology and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA)....The results indicated that [political] conservatism is not synonymous with RWA." The RWA-scale was designed to test for right-wing or authoritarian conservatism not mainstream conservatism. It should be clear in the WP article. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Still sounds pseudoscience and newspeaky. George Bush's neocons come from Trotskyite roots and again, what the United States calls "conservatism" (outside of the likes of Buchanan) is absolutely nothing like in the rest of the world. The United States has no traditionalist culture or aristocratic heritage, while that is what conservatism is closely linked to in the rest of the world. Hardly representative. Wikipedia covers the entire world its not an insular US exclusive project.

1) not a single example has been given that shows it features in any other respected encyclopedia article on a general topic of conservatism. Making it WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and non notable. Just one example of it featuring in a Britannica or something along those lines please. You won't find it.

2) no evidence provided that this Marxist neckbeardry is relevent to anything outside of North America (there is a Conservatism in the United States article). Their pseudocentific, pseudoacademic mubojumbo seems to be specifically about attempting to subert what evangelicals regard as "their culture" and "their values" in the United States, through a process of critical theory and psychoanalysis. Manipulating words in an attempt to blacklist in an (ironically) authoritarian manner rival philosophies which they wish to eliminate. This is by definition Orwellian newspeak, in no way WP:NPOV and that is why it is in no serious encyclopedia covering a general article on conservatism.

- Yorkshirian (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect Yorkshirian, we're trying to hammer out a compromise, so if all you're interested in doing is repeating things that have been rejected already, then just stop. Soxwon (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Compromise, chmompromise. Nobody has presented a single example of this been included in any other encyclopedia covering an article on conservatism yet. Until they do so then it is still POV and fringe. The only thing I see being rejected, is the multitude of editors who keep starting a new thread on here every few months rejecting the inclusion of the POV section entirely. This will continue to happen until the section is removed, because it does not belong in an encyclopedia (evidenced by it not being included in any other) The Four Deuces, etc enforcing it on the article doesn't legitimise it or neutralise the stated concerns. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The report mentioned in the first sentence by Jost et al (2003)[20] provides a very good outline of all the psychological analyses like C-scale, RWA and SDO, explaining how the concepts were developed and tested, before they discuss their own research. This might be a good source for the entire section as it is recent and reliable. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian: the studies were not limited to the United States. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Conservatism sidebar

The Conservatism sidebar has been broken for months now. Does anyone know how to fix it? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Proposed merger of Conservatism in North America into Conservatism. The article Conservatism in North America was created as an article that discussed conservatism both in the United States and in Canada. Several years ago following discussion it was decided to split the article and Conservatism in North America became a redirect page to Conservatism in the United States. However the old article has now been revived. There is no reason why conservatism should have separate articles for each continent and there is no common element for North American conservatism. Canadian conservatives are called Tories while most American conservatives are Republicans. There is no North American conservative association. I suggest that any worthwhile text be copied into articles about the respective countries and the page redirect to this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - Conservatism in North America should not be merged into Conservatism. Conservatism in North America has been studied as a concept unto itself as separate from conservatism throughout the rest of the world and therefore deserves its own article. See this book [21] for information about a conference dedicated to conservatism in North America as a continent. There are strong historical connections between conservatism in Carribean countries and there are strong historical connections between conservatism in Central American countries. Conservatism in the Northern American countries, the United States and Canada, has been widely compared and contrasted in political literature and such comparison is worthy of encyclopaedic attention. The best way of addressing these connections is the solution which already exists: the existence of the Conservatism in North America article. Neelix (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There already is an article that compares politics in Canada and the US: Comparison of Canadian and United States governments. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Who is R. J. White?

R. J. White is quoted in the introduction. He edited an out-of-print book titled "The Conservative Tradition". Used copies are sold on amazon.com, but there are no reviews and I have not been able to find any information about him. It's a nice quote, but it would be good to identify the author. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Reginald James White was a professor who wrote a number of books on history and literature.[22][23] The problem I see with the quote, besides the fact that a similar statement could be found from a more recent better known writer, is that it represents how conservatives see themselves and White was writing about conservatism in the UK c. 1950. I came across a brief but interesting article by Ron Dart who describes the difference between what he calls Tory conservatism and Republican conservatism.[24] The Four Deuces (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Further reading

If you can have a further reading section, what about a section for documentaries and other sources of information about the topic? Simsimian (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

US perspective tag

An editor has tagged this article for showing a US perspective. Could they please explain this and suggest any changes could address this perceived imbalance. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Beyond Iran

Why is Iran the only Moslem country listed? Does the fact that the arch enemy of the Western Conservatives, the Moslems, the fact that they are also conservative, does that make dealing with Conservatism in moslem countries problematic? I mean, as an American, few conservatives that I know would like to dwell on the fact that the Taliban and Al Queda are fellow conservatives, and would not think to or be very motivated to include them in the article. (Then again, the fact that Iran IS included does stand as evidence against this theory.) (Then again again, the Iran section seems comparatively underdeveloped). Do you all see this as a problem? If so, how should it be dealt with? If not, why not? Chrisrus (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The whole list is original research and there is no consistency in which countries are listed or what parties are considered conservative. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I goofed, Saudi Arabia is also here, albeit also very short. Nevertheless, why not Afganistan, where the conservatives are our (I'm an American) our enemies and the liberals on our side? Chrisrus (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The civil war in Afghanistan is more along religious and ethnic lines, rather than ideological. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've heard that, and I personally think it's true, but also the Taliban is the main enemy according to many, and they are doubtless as conservative as you can get. Karsai and the government allow girls to go to school and such, they are clearly more liberal. Chrisrus (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The side the US backs are mostly supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini, who are not really liberal either. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hamid Karzai?Chrisrus (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) Some of the US allies ,likefor example Karzai are ex-Taliban. But the major ally in the US invasion was the Northern Alliance, which was largely dominated by Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks. The insurgents are largely Pashtun or Baloch. This map shows the division in Afghanistan between the side the US backs (white and green) and the insurgents (blue and yellow). The Four Deuces (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

When you say "like", do you mean "for example"? You've said Karzai is ex-Taliban!?! Chrisrus (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

See Hamid Karzai#Taliban era. You can read about it in Ghost Wars, pp, 285 on.[25] I do not know if he was a member or even if they have members, but he was a supporter and contributed $500K and weapons. Karzai sounds more like a conservative anyway. He tried to restore the monarchy. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

POV Tag - Psychology section

After reading the arguments (not evidence) regarding POV, I fail to see any good reason to maintain the neutrality tag up. In order for such tag to be put up, one must prove with more than just claims that their is bias or non-neutrality, so they are welcome to provide it. Briholt (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's one example: http://www.city-data.com/elec2/00/elec-CORAL-SPRINGS-FL-00.html Andrew Kruglanski, one of the researchers in the Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, and Sulloway meta-analysis, gave $500 to the DNC. I'm sure you can find other examples if you google the other researchers mentioned. Hence we have possible issues of Confirmation Bias. These aren't impartial researchers examining evidence and then drawing conclusions using the scientific method. Instead we likely have partisan researchers finding evidence to support their conclusions. A384956 (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian has added a POV tag to the Psychology section and stated: Nobody has presented a single example of this been included in any other encyclopedia covering an article on conservatism yet. Until they do so then it is still POV and fringe. That is an invalid argument. There is nothing in WP:POV that mentions this criterion. If you have any valid reason to explain why it might be considered POV, then please explain them. In the meantime I am removing the tag because no reasons have been presented to include it. You may wish to read the literature referred to in the section and ensure that this has been presented in a neutral manner. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The case is stated pretty clearly above. It is a fringe theory, which is not included in any other encyclopedia on the topic.

Are you saying that encyclopedias trump journal articles as a reference? If so, that is preposterous. Briholt (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[User:Yorkshirian|Yorkshirian]]continues: Giving WP:UNDUE weight to hard-left WP:FRINGE theories is a violation of the WP:NPOV policy. The POV tag is added when there are POV concerns in articles. As has been shown above, numerous editors have continuously raised this over the course of months, again and again, which at every turn you reply to them with the same automated message, driven to enforce this fringe POV onto the article. Just like you have done and continue to do so on the article fascism, where you are on a mission to blank any mention of the movements socialist and syndicalist roots in the "political spectrum" section. There are also WP:NOTABILITY concerns, only one of these people who claims to have carried out any studies is notable enough to have an article. Robert Altemeyer, an atheistic Marxist materialist and author of very neutral, non-newspeak book; Enemies of Freedom: Understanding Right-Wing Authoritarianism. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, there is a difference between WP:Fringe and Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Theories that are generally accepted by the academic community are not fringe. I don't what you mean by "hard-left"? Are you implying that academic research is somehow "hard left"? Also, if you wish to discuss the Fascism article then it is better addressed on that article's talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet, none of these people who you propagate are notable enough to have articles. A part from Altemeyer, who is an atheistic Marxist, thus clearly not neutral on the subject of conservatism (whom he describes as "enemies of freedom" in his pseudoscientific propaganda books).

Now THIS last post is a great example of bias (ie., pov). Your credibility is gone once you perform an Ad Hominem attack.Briholt (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian continues: Nor have your boys been able to infiltrate mainstream encyclopedias with their theories (though you are certainly giving it a good go here). If it is so "accepted" by the academic community as you claim, why are none of these people notable? Why are their theories regarded as irrelevant by the world's top, neutral, encyclopedias in articles on conservatism? I think this presents clearly that this is not simply a matter of "I don't like it", but rather your inability to prove that this is part of mainstream encyclopedic information on conservatism. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for you to give undue weight to pet views. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This section should be excised. It is nothing but pseudo scientific rubbish being used to advance a particular fringe pov. L0b0t (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Dare to show evidence? Briholt (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

As John Stewart observed, reality has a liberal bias. These papers were published in refereed journals. The results have been consistent, across many cultures. Yorkshirian offers no evidence to the contrary, turning instead to ad hominem attacks on the authors. Obviously an atheist can't be a good scientist! I do think it would be a good idea to add some secondary sources. Surely there are books on the subject. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"[R]eality has a liberal bias." So ... how come Rick Norwood's talk page doesn't give him a warning about using talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room.

Looks like reality is not the only thing with a liberal bias. ;) 20:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

While I disagree with the comment above, there is a reason for the section (I need to find it), but there was a study that mentioned that conservatives have been the subject of far more studies than have liberals. The reasoning I can't remember, but that is the reason this section exists. Soxwon (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason, as I understand it, is that psycologists have looked for parallel congnitive disorders in liberals and haven't been able to find any. Keep in mind, though, that all this is statistical. Nobody is saying that all conservatives demonstrate cognitive regidity, for example, just that there is a correlation. More conservatives are rigid in their views and more people who are rigid in their views are conservative. I hate to say it, because many of my friends and relatives are conservatives, and I agree with conservatives on many points, but I have noticed that my conservative friends are unlikely to change their mind, no matter how strong the evidence -- for example, many believe that global warming is a liberal hoax, even though the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I think it's more to do that the world of academia is just in general more fascinated with the more unknown conservative viewpoint. Soxwon (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Rick, that's not true. The main predictor of how people will vote is wealth. Wealthy people are more likely to vote conservative and working class people vote liberal or left. Of course if people voted along class lines, conservatives would never win. The study of conservatism explains why some working class people vote conservative. The developers of the conservatism theory identified several other political viewpoints: moderate, liberal, radical and left-wing, but could find no strong relation between psychology and support for any of these four viewpoints, except for scoring low on the conservatism scale.

When RWA was developed, so was LWA, but no one tested positive for the test. That actually makes sense because communists believe that when they come to power they will live in a free and equal society. Very few American leftists for example are admirers of Kim Jong Il who is a left-wing authoritarian leader.

I'm a political moderate myself, but some of my best friends are liberals :), and from that experience I would bet that some liberals would tend to rank higher on Dependent personality disorder. So if any academic researchers are reading this and want a new area of study, there it is for you! Dollarwizard (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The researchers identified the following political ideologies: conservative, moderate, liberal, radical and left-wing. Only in the first category could they find any correlation between ideology and personality. You may be right however and maybe someone will do the research again. Maybe they will find links between ideology and personality for moderates too. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow this article too closely but needless to say, the section under contention does not reflect what I've seen of the literature, and whilst I'm biased I think that the current form is an appeasement. And whilst this is, in a very meaningful sense, admirable, our goal shouldn't be to appease conservatives or any other group. See Moral Politics (book) for instance.--Leon (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two big problems with the "psychology" section as I see it:

1. Possible Confirmation Bias on the part of researchers. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Why, because you say so? c'mon. When you make a claim, you must back it up with evidence. Briholt (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Just google any of the academic researchers involved in the studies and you'll find them heavily involved in progressive causes. A384956 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

2. Very small sample sizes. As I recall, the Prato study for example was of only a few dozen individuals. Maybe they just got an unusual sample, and if their measurements aren't terribly precise that could scatter the results to show conclusions that aren't statistically significant. I think we need a broader study in order to justify including the "psychology" section in the "conservatism" entry. 207.224.8.251 (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As you recall? Would it be too much trouble for you to go to the source, read it, find the methods section and than report back with what you find, of course bringing accurate quotations and page numbers would be much appreciated.Briholt (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Since these studies have been conducted by a large number of researchers, in many countries, the only way to argue Confirmation Bias would be to show flaws in their methodology. This has not been shown. Also, note that the results are consistent over many studies with many different populations.

2. You are misinformed about the sample size. This, from Prato, et al: "Although our 1,952 subjects were college students, they represent some diversity in terms of sex, ethnicity, and income groups, coming from public and private universities in California. Demographic information about the samples is shown in Table 1."

Beautiful work. It's amazing how straight forward this is. Briholt (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

IP needs a reliable source that validates his opinion. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Having spent some time with the RWA I recognize the same poor research trying to undermine valid research. Until we see good evidence with proper references/citations, I'm removing the neutral dispute tag.Briholt (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Academic research is evaluated according to the recognition it has received in the academic community. It is not standard practice to challenge results based on the perceived ideology of the academics. Just because Einstein was a socialist is no reason to reject special relativity, at least not in WP articles. If there are academic sources disproving these theories, could someone please provide them. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, cool. So when Professors Newt Gingrich and David Horowitz come out with study results showing cognitive deficiencies in liberals, I assume you'll be just as adamantly in favor of keeping their research posted at the Liberalism article. A384956 (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If they publish their findings through academic journals they would be acceptable, definitely. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

3. The relevance of citing articles purporting to be about conservative individuals to an article on conservatism as a political school of thought are unclear, at best. Also, the cited articles are hardly neutral, and promulgate either implicitly or explicitly a Point of View. Moreover, no other articles on political schools of thought have "Psychology" sections that speak to supposed thought processes of possible adherents to those schools of thought. Please remove this "Psychology" section for discussion further. Leaving it up currently appears to be improper. RPuzo (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This matter has been extensively discussed and the discussion is archived. If you have any sources to show that the sources cited are not neutral or you can provide accepted academic study that contradicts them could you please present them. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is not to whether or not the references cited in this "Psychology" section are neutral, and there's evidence in the literature that they're not ("Psychological Motives and Political Orientation—The Left, the Right, and the Rigid: Comment on Jost et al. (2003)", Greenberg et al.; Ray's review in the Australian J. Psychology, 1983, 35, 267-268 regarding Altemeyer, for example). The issue is that the "Psychology" section only has one apparent purpose - to disparage the subject of the politics of conservatism. It adds nothing to the discussion of Politics:Conservatism, as this page is a discussion of politics, not psychology. The "Psychology" section would be appropriate as part of an article discussing the possible psychological make up of a particular class of people, or on a page dedicated to discussing Psychology. If you have any sources to show that a Psychology article is proper in a Politics article, or you can provide accepted academic study that contradicts that a Psychology article is not appropriate in a Politics article, could you please present them. RPuzo (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is to help people understand conservatism. You would limit that understanding to understanding what conservatives believe, and reject any discussion of why they believe what they do. Can you point to any Wikipedia guideline that says Wikipedia only includes the what and never the why? Rick Norwood (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Greenberg et al do not in fact support the connection between conservatism and psychology. John J. Ray's views on this and other topics are fringe, and have gained no acceptance in the academic world. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we take this to the bottom of the page? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone mentioned it is the doctrine of "white trash", while this may by and large be true; it has no place in an encyclopedic article and I removed it.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.241.250.106 (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

1) I have no idea what you're talking about. 2) It is easier for people to find your comments at the bottom of the page. 3) Sign comments with four tildes. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional response posted at the bottom...thanks for moving it there, Rick. RPuzo (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving psychology section discussion to the bottom of the page.

Researchers have searched for psychological motivation for other ideologies, but the studies have yielded null results. That is, to date nobody has found a personality trait that has a strong correlation to a political belief other than the one reported here. If, in the future, such a correlation is discovered, it should and will be reported. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

People who discuss the relationship between conservatism and right-wing authoritarianism are not necessarily trying to attack conservatism. For example, Barry Goldwater expressed his concern about the right-wing authoritarians in his own party, and William F. Buckley, Jr.'s son quit his job at National Review because of that magazine's right-wing authoritarian stance. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, your theories are very interesting, as are mine and everyone else's on this topic. Now read this page, and maybe this one, and maybe this one as well. This WP article is about Conservatism (capital 'C'), the theories of Locke, Burke, and other philosophers, and as those philosophies exist today. The article is not about people who writers of certain psychology studies claim to be conservative. The articles cited in the 'Psycology' section are not about the political field of Conservatism (neither for nor against), but rather the supposed mental state of people the articles authors label as 'conservative', whom they attack and attach various negative labels to. It appears that the only reason this 'Psychology' section remains is to attack Conservatism, as it contains only negative talk about conservative people, and no discussion on Conservatism. The 'Psychology' section has no place in a WP article about Conservatism, and should be removed. RPuzo (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

1) NOR Papers published in refereed journals are not considered original research.

2) Reputable sources. Refereed journals are considered reputable sources.

3) Fringe Theories. Ideas published in refereed journals are not considered fringe.

The articles in question do not "attack" anybody. Facts are neutral, even if you don't like them.

I'm from the American South, and have a certain amount of pride in my region, but I would not expect an article on the American South to suppress the history of racist attitudes on the part of many Southerners just because it was "negative". Similarly, this article should not supress the authoritarian attitudes of many conservatives, just because it is "negative".

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

RPuzo, Locke was not a conservative, it seems that what you think is conservatism is really liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Psychology again

The section in question is very highly cited and detailed. The content, in other words, is pretty solid and I don't have much desire to change it. The real problem seems to be an issue of encyclopedic judgment, not content, which makes this entire problem far more difficult to resolve. Although I believe the content is worthy, I don't think it's worthy enough to occupy an entire section in Wikipedia's flagship article on conservatism. There is something to be said about giving this particular topic undue weight. Conservatism is a complicated movement and mentality stretching back through the ages, and to give so much attention to what seems like a trivial point is mystifying. I propose that the section be removed and that some, not all, of its content be integrated into the rest of the article. I'll wait a few days to see what people think of my proposal, and if no one responds in time, I'll go ahead and make the necessary changes myself.UberCryxic (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The section seems to provide important information. How about shortening it, but keeping all the references? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Agred, but then you run into the problems of ppl not liking what is thrown out. Right now it is fairly balanced, but then you will find ppl who want more fluff and others wanting to slam conservastism. Perhaps further research and a breakout article? Soxwon (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Soxwon. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure creating another article would be the best approach. That article would be plagued by even more POV issues than what we're dealing with now. Imagine hell...times ten. To Rick: I am arguing from context. I agree that the section provides important information, but you have to compare that important information with the far more important material about conservatism that we could include in this article. Right now, that section is wasting space and drawing unwarranted attention. The best thing to do is to eliminate it while integrating some of its information into the appropriate places in the article, which needs to be restructured entirely anyway.UberCryxic (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Conservatism in different countries

This section appears to be original research. There is no source that discusses conservatism in different countries that groups the different parties listed. I think this section should be deleted. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I delete some of the sun-sections in there because they largely contain trivial information that has little bearing on conservatism. Bobisbob2 (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The idea behind such a section is not, of course, original research, although certainly the current section could be accused of lacking reputable sources, which hurts its credibility. Instead of "Conservatism in different countries," it should be retitled "Conservatism worldwide" and it should provide a more general and comprehensive summary than the current version, which gets bogged down too much with national details.UberCryxic (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not follow Bobisbob2's reasoning. Conservatism in Saudi Arabia may be trivial to someone living in the US, but Wikipedia tries to be international, not Americentric. I'm going to restore those sections for now. They may, in fact, be trivial, but I would rather keep information about many nations until it can be combined into the comprehensive summary suggested by UberCryxix. If Wikipedia can have an entire article about the Klingon language, it can afford a paragraph about conservatism in Botswana.

On another subject, I think the two paragraphs combined by UberCryxix are on substantially different topics, and should remain separate.

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with being Americentric, the point is many of the sections do not discuss the philoshopy or political theory of conservatism in the countries. They mostly just talk about certain policies of political parties. They assume that just because a certain party that leans right does something that means it reflects conservatism of the nation. Bobisbob2 (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There is also the issue about the definition of conservatism. Is the Liberal Party of Australia conservative? The Four Deuces (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I will not object to the removal of sections that both Bobisbob2 and The Four Deuces agree are off-topic. There is a big difference between being off-topic and being "trivial". Rick Norwood (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)