This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Conservatism in the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
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 is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
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, come here to 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. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Conservatism in the United States. 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 in the United States at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Material from Conservatism in the United States was split to other pages. The former page's history now serves to provide 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. |
Index |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
The collage has three supreme court justices who served concurrently but no one who specifically represents the religious facet of conservatism, e.g. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Francis Spellman.
For that matter no women either, e.g. Phyllis Schlafly, Jeane Kirkpatrick. 73.71.251.64 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a lengthy, thorough and well-sourced article. The introduction ought to be as concise as possible—and represent the article as a whole. Right now a fifth of the introduction is devoted to the topic of some conservatives' opposition to some sciences, for example climate science which is a heavily ideologized—and thus controversial—topic. In the article this topic is presented under a minor section under a subheading called "Other topics". It is not representative for the article as a whole. We should scratch it from the introduction and incorporate it into the already existing minor section, where it belongs. That sort of negative highlighting of controversial information also comes off as very provocative, biased, and unprofessional. Trakking ( talk) 14:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
"21st-century American conservatives question epidemiology, climate science, and evolution more frequently than moderates or liberals."Takes us from 31 words to 16. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 19:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
"tend to question epidemiology ... more frequently than moderates or liberals"is really a very nuanced take (maybe even cherry picked or jaded by current events). Before COVID, definitely not true. The quintessential antivaxxer was a white liberal. It's only because of responses to COVID specifically that someone might say that. This is overly simplistic. They certainly question government health recommendations lately, but they don't question the broader science of epidemiology in the way they tend to question evolution and climate change. 209.248.155.179 ( talk) 21:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
As I've observed throughout time (I'm on the left so this is my perspective or I'm just saying the facts), the presidency of Donald Trump has had a visible influence on modern American conservatism; for example, Donald Trump was a self-proclaimed protectionist. As a result, I see conservatives lean towards protectionism alongside him.
Another example of this is conservatism's frequent questioning of epidemiology and safety of vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic; synonymous to Trump's negation of the threat the virus posed to humanity, even subscribing to the racism he produced scapegoating China. We've also witnessed the ideology's commitment to defending capital even in the face of its evil. This leads me to conclude that the impact of Donald Trump's presidency is something worth documenting on this page. Western Progressivist ( talk) 15:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
My subsection on Pychology was deleted by Trakking here with the summary
Here is the offending text:
In my defense