Talk:Conservatism

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sourced sentence: Encyclopædia Britannica

Why remove "Conservatives tend to favor institutions and practices that enhance social order and historical continuity."? This sentence is 100% true. ~2026-39871-5 (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

That used to be 100% true from some point around 1930 and still meant it until some point in the 1960s. Now the meaning of "conservatism" has changed again, beginning about 2000. Now it is used in different ways. And the meaning has always changed from country to country. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Even then, it was more of an argument traditional elites used to defend their privileges. TFD (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi

Adding him to the Statesmen 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 to Iranian liberalism, not Iranian conservatism. ProgramT (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Iran developed differently from Europe and there is no real equivalent to conservative ideology. TFD (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Rather, Ali Khamenei is more of a conservative than Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in the context of Iranian politics; Khamenei belonged to the 'Islamic Right' when it was divided into 'Islamic Left' and 'Islamic Right' in the 1980s after the Iranian Revolution. (For reference, Ruhollah Khomeini brokered between 'Islamic Right' and 'Islamic Left'.) When adding Iranians to the Statesmen section, it is fairer to add Khamenei than Pahlavi. ProgramT (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Dudek edit

This edit purports to add material but the main thing I see it doing is removing two statements about conservative parties in Poland cited to an academic. Please explain why. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

This was the paragraph before the edit:

PiS has taken a populist and statist approach to economics, maintaining regulations while in office (although being divided on that topic and sometimes supporting moderate deregulation), state control over industries and media, greatly expanding social welfare and applying Keynesian-esque "anti-crisis shields", differentiating itself from previous conservative political parties and movements like AWS or Endecja which believed in economic liberalism. Another difference to AWS is PiS' euroscepticism. Though not opposing European Union membership, PiS pursues an assertive policy of conflict with the European Commission, which, in reaction, took a hostile stance against PiS. In the European Parliament, PiS belongs to the European Conservatives and Reformists group. Liberal media in Poland is vehemently biased against PiS and opposed to its rule, often calling it authoritarian. Liberal scholar Antoni Dudek rejects giving PiS the authoritarian label, suggesting that PiS rejects the ideals of liberal democracy and instead embraces a "national democratic" or illiberal democratic form of governance.

This is the paragraph after:

PiS has taken a populist and statist approach to economics, expanding state control over industries and media, greatly expanding social welfare and applying Keynesian-esque "anti-crisis shields", differentiating itself from previous conservative political parties and movements like AWS or Endecja which believed in economic liberalism. The party would "regulate the market strongly via the active role of the state", pursuing greater regulations against banks, large enterprises and the stock market; at the same time, it also attempted to implement deregulation for small businesses and enterprises. Another difference to AWS is PiS' euroscepticism. Though not opposing European Union membership, PiS pursues an assertive policy of conflict with the European Commission, which, in reaction, took a hostile stance against PiS. In the European Parliament, PiS belongs to the European Conservatives and Reformists group. Liberal media in Poland is vehemently biased against PiS and opposed to its rule, often calling it authoritarian. Liberal scholar Antoni Dudek rejects giving PiS the authoritarian label, suggesting that PiS rejects the ideals of liberal democracy and instead embraces a "national democratic" or illiberal democratic form of governance.

You seem to have been confused by the revision screen - it marks Dudek's reference as removed (in orange) but then marks it at the end of the as (re-)added (in blue). Brat Forelli🦊 15:25, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, I guess my coffee hasn't kicked in yet. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Happens to all of us! Brat Forelli🦊 15:45, 25 February 2026 (UTC)