Social conservatism edit
Okay, I might have been a little loose with the accusation, but the following made me consider the introduction weasely:
1. Calling it a "personal belief", "personal belief" not only implies it is a religion, but also a minority religion. All in all a very strong accusation for a political ideology.
2. "what one, or one's community, considers to be".. Makes the concept seem more vague than it is. That traditions differ is already explained in the next paragraph, there is no reason to water it down twice.
3. "the accepted meaning of traditional", you watering down an already vague statement like "traditional". There is no reason for that.
4. "from group to group within social conservatism.". You are implying that there is internal strife in the "social conservatism" group. That might be true, but has nothing to do with the definition.
I think you are accidentally applying you own personal beliefs on the introduction text. Personally if I did that I would write: "Social conservatism is a fancy word for being an ignorant asshole". but the fact that these belief are stupid, doesn't mean they shouldn't have a good introduction that someone who believes in "Social conservatism" can recognize. It is a political ideology, and should be presented as such. Your text is presenting it is personal bigotry, which is a POV. Carewolf 10:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)