This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theConservatism in the United States article. This isnot 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 andavoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seekdispute 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 (index):1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21Auto-archiving period:30 days

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.

This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Politics:American /LibertarianismHigh‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpolitics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated asHigh-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported byAmerican politics task force (assessed asTop-importance). This article is supported byWikiProject Libertarianism (assessed asHigh-importance). United StatesHigh‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated asHigh-importance on theproject's importance scale. ConservatismTop‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofconservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Top This article has been rated asTop-importance on theproject's importance scale.

Thecontentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates topost-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with thecontentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to thepurpose of Wikipedia, any expectedstandards of behaviour, or anynormal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

Material fromConservatism in the United States was split out into other pages. The former page'shistory now serves toprovide attribution for that content in the latter pages, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter pages exist. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. History of conservatism in the United States (talk |history) on19 April 2017 fromthis version List of prominent American conservatives (talk |history) on16 May 2017 fromthis version

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21

This page has archives. Topics inactive for30 days are automatically archived byLowercase sigmabot III if there are more than3.

This article leads with saying American Conservatives want a limited federal government. That's a controversial subjective view that both conservatives themselves and critics of conservatives would debate2600:1008:B030:3A3:4573:AF5B:4DA9:1A57 (talk)11:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide us with any sources that say that?TFD (talk)12:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectBrave Books has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 15 § Brave Books until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬09:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m raising a concern that the lead section does not fully comply with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV for a mainstream U.S. political ideology. Specifically:

1. Editorial skepticism without attribution

The phrase “defense of Western culture fromperceived threats” introduces evaluative language that signals skepticism without attribution. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, judgments about whether concerns are “perceived” should be attributed to critics or omitted from neutral description.

2. Disproportionate emphasis on contested critiques in the lead

The lead foregrounds culture war controversies and disputed critiques (e.g., abortion, LGBT rights, science skepticism) ahead of core governing principles (constitutionalism, federalism, limited government, market orientation). Per WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE, the introduction should summarize the ideology itself before detailing criticisms or controversies.

3. Asymmetric epistemic framing

The statement that conservatives “question epidemiology, anthropogenic climate change, and evolution” is presented as an unqualified descriptor of the ideology in the lead. This is a critical claim about subsets of conservatives and should either be attributed (“some commentators/surveys note…”) or moved to a later section. Comparable epistemic disputes are not framed this way in leads for other mainstream U.S. political ideologies.

I’m not arguing that these topics be removed from the article. Rather, I think their wording and placement in the lead should be revised for neutrality, attribution, and proportionality, consistent with how other mainstream political traditions are handled on Wikipedia.Mersenne56 (talk)20:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You want to write in Wikivoice "defense of Western culture from threats"? That sounds like ΝPOV to you, presenting conservatives as protectors of culture? Should we also sweep theiranti-intellectualism under the rug?Dimadick (talk)19:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the strong ideological positions you publicly identify with, it would be better to address the NPOV/ATTRIBUTEPOV issues directly rather than speculating about motives.Mersenne56 (talk)03:09, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your points in order:

1) I disagree. Similar clarifiers can be found in the lead sections for these articles about political ideologies:Socialism,Marxism,Neoliberalism,Modern liberalism in the United States ("on the contention that...").

I see what you're saying, but I really think the most appropriate way to convey this is in the lead, using the wording that already exists there in the article. It's certainly not appropriate to present these

2) I disagree completely. Considering the documented rise of culture war topics as the dominant politics of conservatives in the U.S. in recent decades, it doesn't seem appropriate to remove those aspects from the lead section. These are commonly held positions that a large portion of conservatives now define as the meat of conservatism, and the lead uses phrases like "tend to" and "generally" before these claims which denotes a level of internal debate in U.S. conservatism while also conveying that these are common positions taken by adherents to the ideology. The lead also presents "pro" and "anti" stances in a balanced way – it begins by presenting several "pro" positions, then after the first paragraph it balances "pro" and "anti" positions by grouping them together in contexts that make sense. So, I don't think moving all of the "anti" positions to the end of the lead section would be an improvement; it would only serve to decontextualize the topic as it relates to the political environment of the U.S. and other conservative movements and ideologies.

3) I do think this one could use some reframing....not sure what the best solution is, but like the culture war stuff I think this is also worth mentioning in the lead. I'll chew on this more and come back if I think of a good way to approach it.Doomhope (talk)08:54, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is aboutattribution and proportionality in the lead, not the inclusion of criticism. WP:LEAD and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV require that evaluative framing be attributed and that core ideological principles be summarized before contested characterizations.Mersenne56 (talk)03:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Heard...so what would your proposed changes look like? The only thing I can think of is switching 2 of the paragraphs (moving the one that starts with "Conservatives often advocate for" above the one that starts with "American conservatives maintain support from the". But would that address your concerns?

Doomhope (talk)19:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is likelyWP:BADPOV. Please rememberWP:Verifiability ascore tenet. –KaijuEditor (talk)19:11, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also share your concerns. But, from every bit of evidence I could find, Conservatism in the United States in 2026 is defined entirely as "Absolute loyalty to Trump." We have to accept the current definition, no matter how much it contradicts all previous definitions.Rick Norwood (talk)15:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"is defined entirely as "Absolute loyalty to Trump." " Not exactly. The so-called "conservatives" have their own version of theFührerprinzip, placing their leader's word above all written law. That is what the current interpretation of theunitary executive theory amounts to.Dimadick (talk)19:04, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology is about beliefs which cannot be proved. Articles cannot present their belief systems as facts.

Maybe the problem is that the beliefs of American conservatives sound particularly stupid when spelled out, compared with most other ideologies.TFD (talk)01:37, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful; please keepcivil

Doomhope (talk)07:14, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am just being blunt. Positions such as climate change scepticism, teaching intelligent design, and paranoia about transgendered children are outside mainstream informed opinion. When you put them all together it gives the impression of an irrational belief system. Of course, it doesn't apply to all conservatives.TFD (talk)01:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Around 80-90% of self-identified conservatives typically support Donald Trump, with recent polling showing figures like 82% in late 2024 and very high favorability (around 90%) within the broader GOP base including conservatives."

So, not all conservatives support Trump, but that's a very high percentage.Rick Norwood (talk)15:36, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia articles that use American English
• C-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• C-Class American politics articles
• Top-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• C-Class Libertarianism articles
• High-importance Libertarianism articles
• WikiProject Libertarianism articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of High-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class Conservatism articles
• Top-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles

• Wikipedia pages about contentious topics