Talk:Conservatism

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

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

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

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

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

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

This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sociology High‑importance Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Social and political High‑importance Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Politics Top‑importance Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Top‑importance Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Conservatism: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2018-06-21 Priority 1 (top)

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

References to "nuclear family"?

The "nuclear family" model seems to be western-centric, as I am Polish I can certainly state that a model of living with even more of your family (usually grandparents from the mother's or father's side) is more popular in the East, especially from a conservative viewpoint. However, the extended family article doesn't really seem to detail that kind of model either? I don't think "nuclear family" should be referenced here regardless, since it's contradictory to the beliefs of many conservatives outside of the West, I (anecdotally) know a lot of conservatives in Poland who think that the increasing adaptation of the nuclear family model is a cultural degeneration. Polish kurd (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectuals

Why is there Jabotinsky, Mishima, Wang and Peterson in the "prominent intellectuals section? Jabotinsky and Mishima are more aligned with the nationalist, military groups rather than conservatives. One of the main purpose of the conservative thinking is the to preserve the traditional values and institutions, how can a communist government have if it the base of the communist revolution to destroy the traditional institutions, as in Marx and Engels Manifesto. Jordan Peterson is aligned with the right and traditionalist, but is not a conservative. The same way a nationalist militarist cannot be considered conservative. F5naran (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am against removing Wang Huning from the 'Prominent intellectuals' list, because Asia's conservative intellectives are not on the list at all except Yukio Mishima, and that Wang is a leading Chinese conservative (even though he is a member of the CCP) is hardly controversial. The CCP is a developmentalist party commonly seen in other non-developed countries, which does not follow Soviet orthodox communism in economic policy; PRC is a de facto state capitalist country. See also conservatism in the PRC: Conservatism in China. The current CCP advocates the revival of traditional Chinese values, including Confucianism, and Xi Jinping inherited Chiang Kai-shek's New Life Movement; all can be proven by sources. ProKMT (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no further refutation, I'll add Wang Huning again ProKMT (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So why does the history section start with modern conservatism?

Doesn't history suggest, a whole history? 101.115.131.93 (talk) 07:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes history breaks when you try to stretch it back too far. It makes no sense to speak of conservatism and tenuous pre-modern analogies as if they are the same thing. That would do a great disservice to all involved. Remsense ‥ 论 07:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate source mentioning "progressive conservatism" in Canada

There is a source in the intro talking about the distinction between progressive and reactionary conservatisms that specifically focuses on Canada and the name of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and claims its name was chosen to distance itself from reactionary conservatism. That is not why it was renamed in 1942. Its name was was chosen when John Bracken who had formerly been part of the Progressive Party of Manitoba insisted on the Conservative Party adding the name "Progressive" to its name, it does not have any significance to a division between progressive and reactionary conservatisms and this source claiming this is wrong. BlueberryA96 (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Long list of national examples of conservatism is unnecessary

There is a long list of national examples of conservatism that is unnecessary and bloats the article with specific examples. I have seen this phenomenon of national lists of examples of ideologies on multiple Wikipedia articles, typically they are not helpful at all. For instance the list currently includes a section describing conservatism in the city-state of Singapore, I don't mean to be rude but seriously does the history of conservatism of Singapore have any widespread significance to the history of conservatism as a whole? Also people will say "Why isn't this country's conservatism on the list?" and hypothetically you could end up having to show every single national example to address people complaining about national variants not being mentioned and that is ridiculous. If specific national examples are significant to the history of conservatism as a whole then they can be addressed in a section on the history of conservatism as a whole.

I believe the list of national examples should be removed completely and that focus on the history of conservatism as a whole can address those highly influential national examples that have influenced conservatism as a whole. BlueberryA96 (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]