Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:27, 16 February 2012

Politics Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Start‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Social and political Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy

Removed 'Death Penalty' as a value

The statement was uncited, and in fact the death penalty is one of the most un-agreed upon issues among social conservatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.57.138 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There are no citation is this entire article....--DCX (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Small Word change

I removed the word traditional from in front of "traditional nuclear family". The idea that the nuclear family is and has always been a "normal" or "traditional" family, and that other arangments are new or deviant is simply revisionist history. It is similar to the false idea that before the 1960s women were always housewives, or that before the sexual revolution only married people had sex, and then only in the missionary position.

The nuclear family is not traditional

(Agree, easily. And the traditional family is not nuclear. Martin | talk • contribs 02:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

I propose that this page be replaced with a redirect to the Conservatism page, where social conservatism is well described and related to other types of conservatism.

Database 15:29, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

• I disagree - it should remain here. The article could actually be expanded quite a bit. --Blackcats 21:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose merging/redirecting because social conservatism pertains to Christian Democracy (which CD template links here), whereas conservatism in general does not relate.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 04:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, per what Guospegn said. Itake 14:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose,mildly, because it stikes me that many people are "social conservatives" and "economic liberals". It might make as much sense to merge this with liberal as with conservative. Or, arguendo, with social. Martin | talk • contribs 02:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved to talk

Its opponents commonly associate it with conservative religious groups, especially those that are fundamentalist, in addition to militarism and nationalism. Unattributed, assumptive, and hot-button - page deserves better. Pollinator 05:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

So could anyone explain what the NPOV problem seems to be? Itake 20:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, an edit conflict arose while posting the following. In my opinion, this article has become biased. The reference to Kinder, Küche, Kirche seems to be a gratuitous attempt to link the philosophy to the Nazis, and the former linkage to oppression and injustice was the view of the editor, and would be disputed by people such as Peter Hitchens himself. I will try to correct some of this. Philip Cross 20:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow... somebody wrote "genocide against homosexuals"!!! Misplaced Pages has a long way to go... Will help out on cleaning up the POV here. ER MD 20:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, read this article and it was so discombobulated (or however you spell that word) that I pared down the POV. Before somebody writes, it should be structed better so that it flows. Also removed lots of soapboxing. Also social conservatism is not necessarily a "cristian democracy" so that box was removed. ER MD 20:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

BIASED LANGUAGE

This article contains several usages of biased language and creates a strawman of opponents of social conservatism. The very defenition: "support for traditional morality and social mores" ignores the fact that social conservatism support only what they perceive to be "traditional values." But the most outrageous part of this article is its claims that critics of social conservatism "are usually those who see no particular value in established tradition and consider it to be an impediment to positive change." Most critics of social conservatism assert that the movement has been highly selective in what they consider traditional values, and at times have been accused of creating an idealistic past that never, in fact, existed. Many critics also charge that social conservatism is tinged with racist and sexist overtones, as most social conservative positions (i.e. abortion, affirmative action, feminism) relate in one way or another to the role of women and minorities in society. Those interested in a historically minded critque of the social conservative "traditional values" movement would enjoy the book "The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap" by Stephanie Coontz.

Agreeing with most of that. The language does seem biased in favour of conservatism. I think it's worth raising this as a NPOV dispute.--BigglesTh9 08:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the most liberally biased article on[REDACTED] which isnt surprising considering its a left wing website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.146.68 (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Bias

Examples of major movements in American History that social conservatives have opposed include freedom of religion, abolition of slavery and Jim Crow laws, same-sex marriage, the suffrage of women and racial minorities, termination of child labor, the choice of abortion, the teaching of evolution in public schools, ending McCarthyism, and equal civil rights for African-Americans.

This might be true but it is certainly not NPOV. It depicts social conservatives as still wishing to keep old practices that nobody would even think about bringing back today. I am myself a social conservative and I don't promote coming back to child labor, slavery or men-only suffrage! Someone should try to find a formultion that would tell the truth about the history of social conservatism without depicting social conservatives as cruel, sexist and racist people.

Don't forget that social conservatives progress too. Canjth 00:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

But social conservatives were cruel, sexist, and racist. 134.84.74.101 01:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Though they presumably didn't realise it themselves at the time. It's only with the benefit of hindsight that today's social conservatives recognise the unpleasant small-mindedness in those of yesterday. Ironically, of course, tomorrow's social conservatives will be scurrying to distance themselves from those of today; and so on. The problem with following such a backward and reactionary philosophy is that history will very swiftly judge you as a petty and malicious fool. WombatDeath 23:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's very judgemental of both User:134.84.74/101 and WombatDeath to say. I personally am a social conservative and I personally agree with those values noted above - but I do not force my beliefs on others. I don't ask that anyone I meet in public to agree with me. Who are both of you to say that those beliefs are cruel, sexist, prejuidiced, and racist? When the very same could be thought of about liberals ideas and views. Regarding the article, I agree with user:Canjtah - I think the article does have a slightly bias tone to it and needs to be changed to a more neutral position. EmilyGreene1984 1:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The history of the social conservative movement, including any societal innovations which social conservatives have opposed (abolition, child-labor laws, etc.), may rightly be included in a complete and unbiased article about social conservatism insofar as such history and opposition can be documented and cited. (Facts are facts; whether or not they make some people feel guilty, they are still relevant to the article.) Now, according to Canjth and EmilyGreene1984, the social conservative movement has progressed since then. If this is so, then they are free to document and cite specific ways in which today's movement is different. In this way, fairness and WP:NPOV can be achieved. (I do agree with Emily that the comments by 134.84.74.101 and WombatDeath seem to be expressions of personal opinion, and therefore not particularly helpful for the purposes of the article, but this is only a talk page, so we might as well just take such comments for what they're worth.) Rangergordon (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I don't think any more documentation is needed to show that the vast majority of Social Conservatives oppose slavery, male-only sufferage and denying minorities civil rights than is needed to state that the sky is blue. Common sense, people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.57.138 (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Intelligent design project?

How is this topic related to Intelligent Design? I don't see it. Martin | talk • contribs 02:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What does social conservatism mean?

Re: the scope of definition:

• What is the range of the term's current usage around the world
• Which branch of knowledge claims to own the term. Is it a political term?
• Does it have direct analogs in other languages?
• Are there ambiguities in the usage of the term; different groups having adopted the term but with a different meaning?
• If it has a generally accepted meaning, are there different terms in other languages that have the same denotation? Is there a "socially conservative" movement in Iraq, and what is it called?
• And is this article attempting to answer these question?

In the USA:

• I think of it as the "old fashioned morality" as regards family, sex, and recognition of the value of human life. Is it?
  Martin | talk • contribs 04:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In Denmark and Sweden the word 'socialkonservative' means pre-welfare Conservatives. They are usually Social Progressive, and would be directly opposed to the Social Conservatives in this article. Carewolf 18:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. In Denmark social conservative has not been used as a term and within academic circles it has the same meaning as in USA. Not until 7 May 2007, when a new center-right party adopted the term, had it been used in any other way than the english one (as an example: "socialkonservativ" had only been used 26 times between 7 May 1997 and 7 May 2007) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.80.28.14 (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Within the conservative party the expression has been used to describe the pro-welfare parts. Both Gitte Seeberg and Per Stig Møller has been described as socialkonservative both by themselves and by the press. In Sweden the same has happened in the party Moderaterne, where the current primeminister has been described as socialkonservative. The Swedish computer game Victoria, made the mistake in the translation and put Social Conservatives to the left of normal Conservatives. Also see the danish and swedish "translations" of this article (the danish is a translation of the swedish). Carewolf 11:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposing splitting the article

Ok, I give up. Social conservatism is not only defined completely different in the nordic countries but also in Germany, and probably in the rest of continental europe. This form is often attributed to Bismarck who introduced germany's welfare system in the 1890s. It is somewhat related to what both conservatives in the UK and the US tries to suggest through Compassionate conservatism but much older and most importantly; not a Bushism.

I need some more information on what the meaning is in various countries, and then make a split between socially conservative, and social-oriented conservative. This can also replace the last paragraph in Liberal conservatism. Carewolf 13:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Women

On the "Political Ideology in the United States" article, it says that most social conservatives are women. Should this fact be included? --212.2.166.207 21:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Illegal immigration

How can someone NOT be opposed to illegal immigration? Obviously if you were in power and you were in favour of it, it wouldn't be illegal would it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.201.117 (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

While there may be differences of opinion on immigration policy, it's doubtful that anybody is in favor of illegal immigration, other than illegal immigrants themselves. It's what is called a "wedge issue"--that is, it's used to stir up opposition to illegal immigration among the conservative base. Then politicians can accuse their opponents of favoring illegal immigration. It also serves to distract the base from faulty economic policies, because increasing wage stagnation, national debt and economic insecurity can be blamed on "illegal immigrants" rather than on their real causes. Rangergordon (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people is in favour of "amnesties" for illegal immigratants, thus rewarding illegal immigration. I suppose they would like to have changed the law so the illegals would be legal in the first place, but that is probably not politically possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.6.185 (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of people who are not illegal immigrants and are in favor of illegal immigration. However, it is not a mainstream view and opposition to it is not limited to social conservatives. -Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.231.93 (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Present social conservative issues in U.S- Adoption

"favor restriction of civil marriage and child adoption rights to couples in heterosexual relationships "

Perhaps this could be broken into 2 points? As it reads, I think it implies that child adoption rights would be for any heterosexual couple as opposed to any MARRIED heterosexual couple. I don't think many social conservatives would feel any non-married couple, heterosexual or not, to be the ideal environment for child rearing. GBrady (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, they are two different issues. And what about gay or lesbian married couples? Do social conservatives favor adoption by unmarried heterosexual couples over adoption by gay or lesbian married couples? Rangergordon (talk) 09:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Why choose between two evils? (Btw. There is no such thing as same sex "marrige", no matter what the law may say.)

Single Source

http://www.crisismagazine.com/julaug2005/burger.htm

seems to be "under construction" aka: non existent. proceeding to delete associated text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.157.58 (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This entire article has no verifiable sources? Isn't that a problem?

Also, what exactly does "traditional" mean here? that's weasely and POV...--DCX (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The word traditional means conforming to the historic culture in the nation in question. It's not POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.6.185 (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Iranian and Dutch parties

First, should we list Islamic fundamentalists here? By American or European standards, they are closer to Paleoconservatism, but even there they would the ultras. I doubt if extreme theocratic movements suit to a list of mainly European (more orthodox) christian democrat parties.
There's another, wholly different matter. The Dutch CDA is strictly speaking not socially conservative, despite its political 'ancestry'. The Dutch society is indeed one of the most socially liberal societies on earth, but even within this context the CDA is just a centrist party labelled christian democratic. Including them here seems to broaden the list too much. ChristenUnie and Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij are rightly there, in my opinion.
Also: should we define the Party for Freedom as socially conservative?. It's still essentially a secularist/liberal, not a christian democratic party, and the opposition to supposed islamization in their case arises out of muslims' opposition to secular values, not so much out of care for the christian heritage of the Dutch society. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 11:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The list of parties is original reaearch and should be deleted. There are very few parties that are specifically socially conservative. TFD (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The list as a whole is definitely useful. You can easily verify that SGP and ChU are socially conservative, as well as Partei Bibeltreuer Christen or Liga Polskich Rodzin. But some entries should be deleted, yes. Let us proceed this way: we first verify on the basis of corresponding Misplaced Pages articles, but do not add CN tags to each and every. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 14:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

My experience with lists like this is they are constantly expanding and become a sort of original research. There is bound to be some disagreement over who should or should not be on the list. I would rather use a source that identifies social conservative parties/groups throughout the world and directly cite its list. But if you think you can improve the list, then good luck. TFD (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Social conservatism, fascism, right-wing, British National Party, British National Front

Your interpretation of the relationship, or supposed relationship, between the aforementioned political ideologies/stances - 'social conservatism', 'fascism', 'right-wing' - is incorrect. Upon undoing my change to the 'Social Conservatism' article, you stated that "right-wing is an extreme of conservatism". In the message you sent me, you stated that "The BNF and BNP are generally considered right-wing or fascist. These would be extremes of social conservatism".

You seem to have misunderstood what the term 'right-wing' means, because, rather than it being an 'extreme of conservatism' (or being an extreme of any other political ideology), it is actually an umbrella term for several different political ideologies, one of these being conservatism. ("Today it is primarily used to refer to political groups that have a historical connection with the traditional Right, including conservatives, reactionaries, monarchists, aristocrats, and theocrats. The term is also used to describe those who support free market capitalism, and those who support some forms of nationalism, including fascism." - taken from the wikiarticle 'Right-wing politics').

Moving from this point on to the second statement of yours that I've quoted, you will see that there is no further need to explain why you are wrong in stating 'right-wing' and/or 'fascist' are "extremes of social conservatism". The only relationship that social conservatism and fascism have with one another, at least as far as the term 'right-wing' is concerned, is just that - they are both considered 'right-wing'. Any further relationship outside of this context between these two ideologies - for eg. characteristics one might happen to share with the other - is irrelevant in terms of a reason for listing a fascist party as an example of a socially conservative party. If it can be shown that fascism IS simply an extreme form of social conservatism within a wider debate, it would not change the fact that it is a distinct political ideology, seperate from social conservatism by way of it's differences.

Furthermore, whilst I, just like you, acknowledge that the BNP/BNF are fascist (subsequently making them right-wing), neither of our personal views on the BNP/BNF's ideology - and what we would label it as - count as a source with regards to wikiarticles. Moreover, the notion that this makes the BNP/BNF's ideology socially conservative is only derived from your misunderstanding of the terms, as already shown. So even if it was acceptable to label the BNP/BNF as fascist (and subsequently right-wing) on a wiki article, based solely upon what they are "generally held to be", they are not "generally held to be" social conservative in terms of their ideology.

However, all that being said, it is all technically secondary in light of the fact that - from among those I have browsed - the other political parties listed on the 'social conservatism' article are not fascist parties (to be more precise, they do not have 'fascism' listed under the subheading of 'ideology' on their respective articles). Surely if the criteria for a party being listed within this article, along with any party that actually has 'social conservatism' listed within it's ideology, is having 'fascism' as one of it's ideologies, then each political party that has - by virtue of an independant source - 'fascism' listed within it's ideology, should now be listed on the 'social conservatism' article.

To put it more concisely, I feel that - if you disagree with what I have said here with regards to the terms 'right-wing', 'fascist', 'social conservative' and how they relate to one another - there should at least be a wider discussion of some sort on the talk page of the 'social conservatism' article, upon the nature of these terms, before listing any party - not just the BNP/BNF - as an example of a socially conservative party, purely upon the grounds of that party being a fascist or right-wing party. I think that until that takes place, only political parties that have the term 'social conservatism' (or at the very least 'conservatism', which neither the BNP/BNF articles have) listed within the ideology subheading of their respective wikiarticles should be on the 'social conservatism' article itself.

-- Sjc613 02:20, 11 December 2010 (GMT)

You're talking about an edit I made two months ago, but you haven't even mentioned the name of the article. Yes, the short version of my view is that social conservatism does not entail fascism, but fascism does entail social conservatism. If you don't mind, I'm going to move this to the article talk page, as it has very little to do with me and quite a bit to do with the article. Dylan Flaherty 03:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party and Social conservatism

The article claims that Tea Party groups are neutral or opposed to social conservatism, and cites two sources, but both of these sources are Tea Party websites. Everything I have read from non Tea Party sources claims that while the tea party movement "party line" is all about economics, the views of members of the movement are nearly universally social conservative. There are some citations to this effect in Tea Party movement (in regards to their overwhelming support for anti-gay marriage legislation, etc.) but nothing that explicitly terms them social conservatives as these citations are all about individual issues. Shouldn't we find some third-party source for this information? Eldamorie (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"Supports prohibition of premarital sex, non-marital sex" ??? =

This should be removed unless a reliable source can be provided that states that even a small percentage of social conservatives support laws to prohibit premarital and non-marital sex? LBJsBarber (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC).

Revent Revert

Nyyankees recently reverted a change to the lead, which removed redundant information and POV wording. I'd like to ask why that was done. For instance, the current lead contains:

• "support a definition of marriage as being one man and one woman" and
• "view the nuclear family model as society's foundational unit" and
• "oppose expansion of civil marriage and child adoption rights to couples in same-sex relationships".

Why are all these needed? The last adequately sums up the topic: Conservatives generally oppose civil marriage and adoption for same sex couples. How are any of the rest relevant except in the context of opposing civil marriage? In another instance, the current lead states:

• "support the right to practice religion free from government influence as supported by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution".

This sentence implies that liberals (or generally "not-conservatives") don't support that right. This is not a distinguishing characteristic of conservatism. It is also limited in scope to the US. Please explain why all of this was reverted. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't have reverted all of it. I reworked the lead here, let me know what you think. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Issues with the article

The lead paragraph talks about "federal government" and "federal legislative passages and Supreme Court decisions", obviously referring to American realities. But this is nowhere explicitly stated! This, I think, indicates that the scope of the article is poorly defined: is it about ***American*** social conservatism (in which case a split and rename is in order) or is it about some kind of overarching international ideology (I don't think there is such an ideology but maybe others do - in this case we need a major rewrite). In any case, the article as it stands is problematic.

Another indication that something is wrong is the list of parties worldwide - the list for Israel consists of two religious parties and a faction within another party. Somewhat problematic. I do not know enough about other countries' politics to take apart their lists but I strongly suspect they are not that relevant as well.

So, what do you say, folks? Bazuz (talk) 12:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this article naturally biased or has it been vandalized?

Make this article neutral. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.146.68 (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This article needs the bias edited out.

Social conservatism is not authoritarian. Social conservatism is one who favors traditional values in society. Most social conservatives are small government conservatives and arent "contrasted" with small government conservatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.146.68 (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Your OPINION is neither consistent with reality, nor backed up by the reliable sources, both of which prove otherwise. Social Conservatism, whether promoted by Rick Santorum or Osama bin Laden, is pretty much the very DEFINITION of "Authoritarianism." --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Start-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Start-Class Conservatism articles
• Top-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Start-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• Start-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles