Talk:Conservatism
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theConservatism article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| 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 iscontroversial 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 aneutral point of view. Includecitations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This level-3 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article iswritten inAmerican English, which has its own spelling conventions (center,color,defense,realize,traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from othervarieties of English. According to therelevant style guide, this should not be changed withoutbroad consensus. |
Doesn'thistory suggest, a whole history?101.115.131.93 (talk)07:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 whenJohn 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]
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]
Why remove "Conservatives tend to favor institutions and practices that enhancesocial order and historical continuity."?[1] This sentence is 100% true.~2026-39871-5 (talk)13:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Adding him to theStatesmen section, I think, is debatable. Unlike ordinary conservatives, he oppressed the clergy, implemented radical land reforms and Kemalistic secular policies. Because of this legacy, today Iran's Pahlavi royalists belong toIranian liberalism, notIranian conservatism.ProgramT (talk)08:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
