Talk:Conservatism in the United States



Limited Federal Government

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 debate 2600:1008: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]

"Brave Books" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

NPOV and undue weight concerns in lead section

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 from perceived 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 their anti-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 about attribution 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 likely WP:BADPOV. Please remember WP:Verifiability as core 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 the Führerprinzip, placing their leader's word above all written law. That is what the current interpretation of the unitary 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 keep civil
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]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Conservatism_in_the_United_States