Talk:Traditionalist conservatism

Caleb Stegall

Stegall is identified as an "evangelical Protestant," which is incorrect. (His background is the Scottish Presbyterian, Covenanter tradition.) It is also not a very meaningful term nor one Stegall would be likely to embrace or use based on his criticism of Evangelicals. (Google "Caleb Stegall Evangelical" and also "Caleb Stegall Covenanter.") This is probably indicative of the Gen-X neo-traditionalists not liking "the religious right" too much and tending to see Evangelicals as either part of it or a failed middle path between fundamentalism and liberalism. In Stegall's view evangelicalism generally comes out as liberalism, due to it's "whiggish" tendencies. (http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=21-07-013-v) 67.22.206.238 (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Early 19th Century through late 19th Century

John Randolph of Roanoke should be mentioned in this section, he was very much the Traditionalist conservative and presents a counterpoint to the more centralist and nationalist Whigs.122.106.255.15 (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Paleoconservatism

The distinction between this and paleoconservatism isn't quite clear. Are they so distinct as to warrant seperate pages?Atripodi (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I think the best way of looking at is this: traditionalist conservatism is a philosophy and outlook on the world. Paleoconservatism, on the other hand, is one possible political manifestation of a traditionalist conservatism. Furthermore, I don't think it would be all that out of place to recognize that some paleoconservatives would not fit in with the traditionalist philosophy. That is, they arrive at the paleoconservative political position by route of other philosophies.

This is nicely argued in the 'Traditionalist conservatism and paleoconservatism' section of this article.

Since no one has really discussed the merger in over a year, would it be out of line to remove the merger tag? --patton1138 (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's find out i.e. I removed it.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

They are in fact different. "Traditional conservative" was a term used by modern American conservatives to refer to the type of conservatism known in the UK. Viereck and Kirk believed that there was a conservative tradition in America, but their theory has been vigorously challenged by Thomas Harz, Auerbach and Frank S. Meyer and others. Suggest that this article is amended to reflect that with sources of course. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I define myself as a traditionalist conservative and yet I strongly deny being a paleoconservative. Do not merge the pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.78.182.137 (talk) 05:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Contemporary Traditionalist section

Is it really necessary to have a section comprising mainly of a list, in the form of a massive (aka: unhelpful) paragraph, about every traditionalist conservative scholar in American academia? Really? Why not make an actual list? Or boil it down to a few notable ones. Or better yet, provide a link to a page called "Contemporary traditionalist conservative scholars" that has this data on it.

Just a thought. 79.146.140.241 (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This section, along with much of the rest of the article, would benefit by inclusion of quotations illustrating some of the cited traditionalists' views. As is, a good deal of the article reads simply as a list of individual's names and publications, and less as an account of actual traditionalist views and positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.97.213 (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Change title to "Classical Conservatism"

It would seem that the philosophy of which this article speaks goes by several names -- amongst these are Classical Conservatism, Burkean Conservatism and Traditionalist Conservatism.

It would seem, however, that to refer to Classical Conservatism or Classic Conservatism, or conservatism in the classical tradition would be be more dominant term used.

Thus I would question whether traditionalist conservastism would be the best title for the article.

Change title to 'Traditionalism'

The term 'Traditionalist conservatism' is a rarely (if ever) used term in the Traditionalist community. I would also like to point out that Traditionalists often tend to disassociate themselves with the conservative movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonis74 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

uncited material

There is a great deal of uncited material in the article, much of it involving living people. According to WP policy, uncited material about living people is subject to removal unless cited, and I think one or the other needs to be done. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

This whole article...SMH

This does not read as a neutral voiced, scholarly, informative article of Wikipedia quality as much as an essay by someone mildly enamored with one tiny fraction of the real whole topic. It's like someone listing several of their favorite moon craters, with names and shapes, then submitting the article as "The Milky Way Galaxy."

"Traditionalists defend classical Western civilization"? Oh, really? Does that include Muslims? How about Confucianists? Or does the author of this article claim that neither of them are traditionalist?

Did Phillip of Macedonia's locally notoriously stodgy brother-in-law "value an education informed by the texts of the Roman and Medieval eras"? [Sorry, I made that man up just to make the point.]

Did tradition minded Romans in the era of villas with hundreds of slaves, or for that matter American southern plantation owners antebellum, get misty-eyed at the thought of small family farms?

Do Orthodox rabbis derive their values from the teachings of Edmund Burke?

And all that doesn't even mention how every "traditionalist conservative" Christian in the religious faith paragraph barring the single Roman Catholic would have been executed for his shockingly mad radical ideas during many centuries in Europe. It might even include the Catholic too if he's following a fairly recent interpretation.

The entire premise of this article is, in a sense, flawed, since one era and place's conservative might be preoccupied with "conserving" ideas and institutions that another era and place's would find alien or repugnant. But if people insist on the fool's errand, they're going to at least have to try harder than this and probably offer ten times more information. GLWT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.187.182.72 (talk) 05:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The article is almost entirely about Anglophone countries. It would be best if it was rewritten from scratch. Ffranc (talk) 09:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)