Talk:Conservatism

POV Tag - Psychology section

After reading the arguments (not evidence) regarding POV, I fail to see any good reason to maintain the neutrality tag up. In order for such tag to be put up, one must prove with more than just claims that their is bias or non-neutrality, so they are welcome to provide it. Briholt (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's one example: http://www.city-data.com/elec2/00/elec-CORAL-SPRINGS-FL-00.html Andrew Kruglanski, one of the researchers in the Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, and Sulloway meta-analysis, gave $500 to the DNC. I'm sure you can find other examples if you google the other researchers mentioned. Hence we have possible issues of Confirmation Bias. These aren't impartial researchers examining evidence and then drawing conclusions using the scientific method. Instead we likely have partisan researchers finding evidence to support their conclusions. A384956 (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian has added a POV tag to the Psychology section and stated: Nobody has presented a single example of this been included in any other encyclopedia covering an article on conservatism yet. Until they do so then it is still POV and fringe. That is an invalid argument. There is nothing in WP:POV that mentions this criterion. If you have any valid reason to explain why it might be considered POV, then please explain them. In the meantime I am removing the tag because no reasons have been presented to include it. You may wish to read the literature referred to in the section and ensure that this has been presented in a neutral manner. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The case is stated pretty clearly above. It is a fringe theory, which is not included in any other encyclopedia on the topic.

Are you saying that encyclopedias trump journal articles as a reference? If so, that is preposterous. Briholt (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[User:Yorkshirian|Yorkshirian]]continues: Giving WP:UNDUE weight to hard-left WP:FRINGE theories is a violation of the WP:NPOV policy. The POV tag is added when there are POV concerns in articles. As has been shown above, numerous editors have continuously raised this over the course of months, again and again, which at every turn you reply to them with the same automated message, driven to enforce this fringe POV onto the article. Just like you have done and continue to do so on the article fascism, where you are on a mission to blank any mention of the movements socialist and syndicalist roots in the "political spectrum" section. There are also WP:NOTABILITY concerns, only one of these people who claims to have carried out any studies is notable enough to have an article. Robert Altemeyer, an atheistic Marxist materialist and author of very neutral, non-newspeak book; Enemies of Freedom: Understanding Right-Wing Authoritarianism. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, there is a difference between WP:Fringe and Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Theories that are generally accepted by the academic community are not fringe. I don't what you mean by "hard-left"? Are you implying that academic research is somehow "hard left"? Also, if you wish to discuss the Fascism article then it is better addressed on that article's talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet, none of these people who you propagate are notable enough to have articles. A part from Altemeyer, who is an atheistic Marxist, thus clearly not neutral on the subject of conservatism (whom he describes as "enemies of freedom" in his pseudoscientific propaganda books).

Now THIS last post is a great example of bias (ie., pov). Your credibility is gone once you perform an Ad Hominem attack.Briholt (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian continues: Nor have your boys been able to infiltrate mainstream encyclopedias with their theories (though you are certainly giving it a good go here). If it is so "accepted" by the academic community as you claim, why are none of these people notable? Why are their theories regarded as irrelevant by the world's top, neutral, encyclopedias in articles on conservatism? I think this presents clearly that this is not simply a matter of "I don't like it", but rather your inability to prove that this is part of mainstream encyclopedic information on conservatism. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for you to give undue weight to pet views. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This section should be excised. It is nothing but pseudo scientific rubbish being used to advance a particular fringe pov. L0b0t (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Dare to show evidence? Briholt (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

As John Stewart observed, reality has a liberal bias. These papers were published in refereed journals. The results have been consistent, across many cultures. Yorkshirian offers no evidence to the contrary, turning instead to ad hominem attacks on the authors. Obviously an atheist can't be a good scientist! I do think it would be a good idea to add some secondary sources. Surely there are books on the subject. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"[R]eality has a liberal bias." So ... how come Rick Norwood's talk page doesn't give him a warning about using talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room.

Looks like reality is not the only thing with a liberal bias. ;) 20:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

While I disagree with the comment above, there is a reason for the section (I need to find it), but there was a study that mentioned that conservatives have been the subject of far more studies than have liberals. The reasoning I can't remember, but that is the reason this section exists. Soxwon (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason, as I understand it, is that psycologists have looked for parallel congnitive disorders in liberals and haven't been able to find any. Keep in mind, though, that all this is statistical. Nobody is saying that all conservatives demonstrate cognitive regidity, for example, just that there is a correlation. More conservatives are rigid in their views and more people who are rigid in their views are conservative. I hate to say it, because many of my friends and relatives are conservatives, and I agree with conservatives on many points, but I have noticed that my conservative friends are unlikely to change their mind, no matter how strong the evidence -- for example, many believe that global warming is a liberal hoax, even though the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I think it's more to do that the world of academia is just in general more fascinated with the more unknown conservative viewpoint. Soxwon (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Rick, that's not true. The main predictor of how people will vote is wealth. Wealthy people are more likely to vote conservative and working class people vote liberal or left. Of course if people voted along class lines, conservatives would never win. The study of conservatism explains why some working class people vote conservative. The developers of the conservatism theory identified several other political viewpoints: moderate, liberal, radical and left-wing, but could find no strong relation between psychology and support for any of these four viewpoints, except for scoring low on the conservatism scale.

When RWA was developed, so was LWA, but no one tested positive for the test. That actually makes sense because communists believe that when they come to power they will live in a free and equal society. Very few American leftists for example are admirers of Kim Jong Il who is a left-wing authoritarian leader.

I'm a political moderate myself, but some of my best friends are liberals :), and from that experience I would bet that some liberals would tend to rank higher on Dependent personality disorder. So if any academic researchers are reading this and want a new area of study, there it is for you! Dollarwizard (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The researchers identified the following political ideologies: conservative, moderate, liberal, radical and left-wing. Only in the first category could they find any correlation between ideology and personality. You may be right however and maybe someone will do the research again. Maybe they will find links between ideology and personality for moderates too. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow this article too closely but needless to say, the section under contention does not reflect what I've seen of the literature, and whilst I'm biased I think that the current form is an appeasement. And whilst this is, in a very meaningful sense, admirable, our goal shouldn't be to appease conservatives or any other group. See Moral Politics (book) for instance.--Leon (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two big problems with the "psychology" section as I see it:

1. Possible Confirmation Bias on the part of researchers. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Why, because you say so? c'mon. When you make a claim, you must back it up with evidence. Briholt (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Just google any of the academic researchers involved in the studies and you'll find them heavily involved in progressive causes. A384956 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

2. Very small sample sizes. As I recall, the Prato study for example was of only a few dozen individuals. Maybe they just got an unusual sample, and if their measurements aren't terribly precise that could scatter the results to show conclusions that aren't statistically significant. I think we need a broader study in order to justify including the "psychology" section in the "conservatism" entry. 207.224.8.251 (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As you recall? Would it be too much trouble for you to go to the source, read it, find the methods section and than report back with what you find, of course bringing accurate quotations and page numbers would be much appreciated.Briholt (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Since these studies have been conducted by a large number of researchers, in many countries, the only way to argue Confirmation Bias would be to show flaws in their methodology. This has not been shown. Also, note that the results are consistent over many studies with many different populations.

2. You are misinformed about the sample size. This, from Prato, et al: "Although our 1,952 subjects were college students, they represent some diversity in terms of sex, ethnicity, and income groups, coming from public and private universities in California. Demographic information about the samples is shown in Table 1."

Beautiful work. It's amazing how straight forward this is. Briholt (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

IP needs a reliable source that validates his opinion. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Having spent some time with the RWA I recognize the same poor research trying to undermine valid research. Until we see good evidence with proper references/citations, I'm removing the neutral dispute tag.Briholt (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Academic research is evaluated according to the recognition it has received in the academic community. It is not standard practice to challenge results based on the perceived ideology of the academics. Just because Einstein was a socialist is no reason to reject special relativity, at least not in WP articles. If there are academic sources disproving these theories, could someone please provide them. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, cool. So when Professors Newt Gingrich and David Horowitz come out with study results showing cognitive deficiencies in liberals, I assume you'll be just as adamantly in favor of keeping their research posted at the Liberalism article. A384956 (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If they publish their findings through academic journals they would be acceptable, definitely. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

3. The relevance of citing articles purporting to be about conservative individuals to an article on conservatism as a political school of thought are unclear, at best. Also, the cited articles are hardly neutral, and promulgate either implicitly or explicitly a Point of View. Moreover, no other articles on political schools of thought have "Psychology" sections that speak to supposed thought processes of possible adherents to those schools of thought. Please remove this "Psychology" section for discussion further. Leaving it up currently appears to be improper. RPuzo (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This matter has been extensively discussed and the discussion is archived. If you have any sources to show that the sources cited are not neutral or you can provide accepted academic study that contradicts them could you please present them. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is not to whether or not the references cited in this "Psychology" section are neutral, and there's evidence in the literature that they're not ("Psychological Motives and Political Orientation—The Left, the Right, and the Rigid: Comment on Jost et al. (2003)", Greenberg et al.; Ray's review in the Australian J. Psychology, 1983, 35, 267-268 regarding Altemeyer, for example). The issue is that the "Psychology" section only has one apparent purpose - to disparage the subject of the politics of conservatism. It adds nothing to the discussion of Politics:Conservatism, as this page is a discussion of politics, not psychology. The "Psychology" section would be appropriate as part of an article discussing the possible psychological make up of a particular class of people, or on a page dedicated to discussing Psychology. If you have any sources to show that a Psychology article is proper in a Politics article, or you can provide accepted academic study that contradicts that a Psychology article is not appropriate in a Politics article, could you please present them. RPuzo (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is to help people understand conservatism. You would limit that understanding to understanding what conservatives believe, and reject any discussion of why they believe what they do. Can you point to any Wikipedia guideline that says Wikipedia only includes the what and never the why? Rick Norwood (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Greenberg et al do not in fact support the connection between conservatism and psychology. John J. Ray's views on this and other topics are fringe, and have gained no acceptance in the academic world. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we take this to the bottom of the page? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone mentioned it is the doctrine of "white trash", while this may by and large be true; it has no place in an encyclopedic article and I removed it....

Who is R. J. White?

R. J. White is quoted in the introduction. He edited an out-of-print book titled "The Conservative Tradition". Used copies are sold on amazon.com, but there are no reviews and I have not been able to find any information about him. It's a nice quote, but it would be good to identify the author. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Reginald James White was a professor who wrote a number of books on history and literature.[1][2] The problem I see with the quote, besides the fact that a similar statement could be found from a more recent better known writer, is that it represents how conservatives see themselves and White was writing about conservatism in the UK c. 1950. I came across a brief but interesting article by Ron Dart who describes the difference between what he calls Tory conservatism and Republican conservatism.[3] The Four Deuces (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Further reading

If you can have a further reading section, what about a section for documentaries and other sources of information about the topic? Simsimian (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

US perspective tag

An editor has tagged this article for showing a US perspective. Could they please explain this and suggest any changes could address this perceived imbalance. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Beyond Iran

Why is Iran the only Moslem country listed? Does the fact that the arch enemy of the Western Conservatives, the Moslems, the fact that they are also conservative, does that make dealing with Conservatism in moslem countries problematic? I mean, as an American, few conservatives that I know would like to dwell on the fact that the Taliban and Al Queda are fellow conservatives, and would not think to or be very motivated to include them in the article. (Then again, the fact that Iran IS included does stand as evidence against this theory.) (Then again again, the Iran section seems comparatively underdeveloped). Do you all see this as a problem? If so, how should it be dealt with? If not, why not? Chrisrus (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The whole list is original research and there is no consistency in which countries are listed or what parties are considered conservative. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I goofed, Saudi Arabia is also here, albeit also very short. Nevertheless, why not Afganistan, where the conservatives are our (I'm an American) our enemies and the liberals on our side? Chrisrus (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The civil war in Afghanistan is more along religious and ethnic lines, rather than ideological. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've heard that, and I personally think it's true, but also the Taliban is the main enemy according to many, and they are doubtless as conservative as you can get. Karsai and the government allow girls to go to school and such, they are clearly more liberal. Chrisrus (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The side the US backs are mostly supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini, who are not really liberal either. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hamid Karzai?Chrisrus (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) Some of the US allies ,likefor example Karzai are ex-Taliban. But the major ally in the US invasion was the Northern Alliance, which was largely dominated by Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks. The insurgents are largely Pashtun or Baloch. This map shows the division in Afghanistan between the side the US backs (white and green) and the insurgents (blue and yellow). The Four Deuces (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

When you say "like", do you mean "for example"? You've said Karzai is ex-Taliban!?! Chrisrus (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

See Hamid Karzai#Taliban era. You can read about it in Ghost Wars, pp, 285 on.[4] I do not know if he was a member or even if they have members, but he was a supporter and contributed $500K and weapons. Karzai sounds more like a conservative anyway. He tried to restore the monarchy. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Moving psychology section discussion to the bottom of the page.

Researchers have searched for psychological motivation for other ideologies, but the studies have yielded null results. That is, to date nobody has found a personality trait that has a strong correlation to a political belief other than the one reported here. If, in the future, such a correlation is discovered, it should and will be reported. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

People who discuss the relationship between conservatism and right-wing authoritarianism are not necessarily trying to attack conservatism. For example, Barry Goldwater expressed his concern about the right-wing authoritarians in his own party, and William F. Buckley, Jr.'s son quit his job at National Review because of that magazine's right-wing authoritarian stance. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)