Talk:conservative

The English word has a sense "cautious, restrained", or something along these lines. Could you please add that? Particularly since related words in other European languages tend not to have this sense (except as anglicisms).

RFV discussion: January–February 2016

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

conservative

Rfv-sense "(US, politics) Relating to the Republican Party, regardless of its conservatism." --WikiTiki89 00:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Isn't this just use as synonym for Republican Party? - Amgine/ ^t·e 17:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that it is a good use of time to look for unambiguous cites of this. DCDuring TALK 18:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

And I doubt that such unambiguous cites exist, which is why I nominated it here. --WikiTiki89 18:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

What about this one from "Strictly Right: William F. Buckley Jr. and the American Conservative Movement":

• Then in December, Ohio congressman John Ashbrook decided to mount a primary challenge to Nixon. Ashbrook was a card-carrying conservative: an old YR buddy of Bill Rusher's, ...

Typically "card-carrying" refers to political parties, but there is no "Conservative" party in the US. Also YR probably stands for Young Republican, and Nixon was obviously in a Republican primary. I think Amgine is right that (deprecated template usage) conservative is sometimes used as a synonym for (deprecated template usage) Republican. - TheDaveRoss 16:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

"Card-carrying" means that he's an official member of some organization(s). You cut off the sentence too early, since further on it mentions more organizations, one of which even has "conservative" in its name: Then in December, Ohio congressman John Ashbrook decided to mount a primary challenge to Nixon. Ashbrook was a card-carrying conservative: an old YR buddy of Bill Rusher’s, a member of the Draft Goldwater Committee, a former chairman of the American Conservative Union.. But even then, a "card-carrying conservative" only means that the organizations that he is a member of are evidence of his conservativism, and not that his conservativism is defined by his membership in the organizations. --WikiTiki89 17:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the groups are evidence of conservatism; the evidence I was seeing was that conservatism is not an organization, so the organization which was being referenced was possibly the Republican Party. Other instances compare conservatives and Democrats such as this: Such Democrats rule out "class warfare" and emphasize their friendliness to business interest. Like the conservatives, they take economic issues off the table. link. - TheDaveRoss 18:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I wasn't saying that the groups are evidence of conservatism (not that I disagree), I was saying that the quote is saying that (with the words "card-holding conservative"). As to the next quote, contrasting the views of "Democrats" with those of "conservatives" does not necessarily imply that the latter is also a specific political party. --WikiTiki89 19:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

To be sure, neither of these is clear in their meaning, which circles all the way back to DCDuring's sentiment. While clear citations are going to be hard to find, there are many which can be interpreted as evidence, many in which (deprecated template usage) conservative seems to be a hypernym for Republican, many in which it is a hyponym (sometimes for Republican, sometimes for the Democratic party of the 19th century). Ambiguity is the one common theme in everything I have looked at. - TheDaveRoss 19:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This is because "conservative" does not have this meaning, and that is exactly my point. Maybe sometimes it serves as a hypernym for it and sometimes as a hyponym, but never as a synonym. --WikiTiki89 19:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, I am just saying that it is hard to demonstrate. Since Republicans so often have the feature of being conservative it is hard to suss out when someone is using it synonymously and when they are using it in another way. For instance in the 5th paragraph of this news story there is a remark about Democrats in Congress "openly inviting conservatives across the aisle." Since the article is about Republicans cooperating with Democrats I would read that usage of (deprecated template usage) conservative as synonymous with Republican. I totally understand that, if you don't think that they are synonyms, you could interpret it to merely mean "inviting people of a conservative bent." I think it will be nearly impossible to find a usage which is not subject to the same argument, but that doesn't mean that the usages don't exist. Sometimes it is just very hard to tease out something this nuanced. - TheDaveRoss 19:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of RFV is to verify this specific meaning. If we cannot do that, then we delete the sense. That's the way it works, and for good reason. --WikiTiki89 19:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I was confused about the purpose of the page, thanks for the clarification. - TheDaveRoss 20:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Well then if you don't have any unambiguous quotations, then please stop disrupting the discussion. (And I apologize if you weren't being sarcastic.) --WikiTiki89 20:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this fails the blueberry test. All (or nearly all) Republicans may be conservative, but not all conservatives are Republicans. So yes, people might use the word "conservative" instead of "Republican" for sheer variety, but I don't think that the word can be fairly said to carry the meaning of "Republican". The words apply to many of the same people and positions, but they don't have the same meaning. P Aculeius (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

There are moderate Republicans now, and there have been Liberal Republicans in the past. Purplebackpack89 02:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It may literally refer to membership in an organization, but "card-carrying" is used figuratively as an intensifier for all kinds of nouns referring to types of people: "card-carrying optimist, card-carrying psycho, card-carrying idiot, card-carrying capitalist, card-carrying teenager, etc. Also, never underestimate the irresistible pull of alliteration on writers seeking the elusive snappy turn of phrase. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, there are people called Republicans who are also called libertarians. Though some may call such folks conservative, I don't think it is a helpful definition. DCDuring TALK 04:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nuke in favor of a different definition: Until about 50 years ago, "conservative Democrat" was a thing. In the past fifty years, most conservatives have coalesced in the Republican party, and most liberals (including fmr. liberal Republicans) have coalesced in the Democratic party. Being "conservative" in the United States means you want a smaller, more restrained form of government. It often also indicates a more regressive view on issues of racial/social justice, and adherence to more traditional views of society, particularly religiously. Purplebackpack89 21:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I have created Conservative Democrat and Liberal Republican. Purplebackpack89 21:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Digression over acceptability of word "regressive"

I really don't think that Wiktionary should delve into the historical relationship between conservative and liberal political ideas and U.S. Political parties. Also, and very importantly, your description would explicitly politicize Wiktionary by suggesting that one party is "regressive" in a number of social issues. You're certainly entitled to an opinion on this issue, but if Wiktionary adopts it, or even looks like it endorses such a description, then the impartiality required by a general audience dictionary will be put at grave risk. I'm sure you don't want that. P Aculeius (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC) @P Aculeius I have reworded the definition, but please bear in mind that "liberal" and "progressive" are often used interchangeably in American political parlance. Conservative and regressive are the antonyms of those two words, and both adjectives connote throwing things back to an earlier point in time. As for the claim that we should ignore historical distinctions, there's nothing in CFI to back up that point of view. If a word meant one thing in 1832 and another thing now, it's acceptable to have both definitions, with the 1832 definition marked as "dated". And one way to illustrate those changes is with the entries for Liberal Republican and Conservative Democrat Purplebackpack89 02:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC) I didn't say we should ignore historical distinctions. I said that Wiktionary isn't the proper place to discuss the historical relationships between liberal or conservative philosophies and various political parties. The question was whether "Republican" should be a definition of "conservative", simply because both terms can refer to the same people. I also dispute the assertion that "regressive" is the antonym of "progressive" in the political sense. In politics, "progressive" has a very specific meaning that does not have a corresponding antonym; there has been a "progressive" movement and a "Progressive Party", but there is no "regressive movement" or "Regressive Party", and never has been. You cannot reason them into existence merely because the word "regressive" is the opposite of "progressive", any more than I can define "congress" as the opposite of "progress". That's fine if you're Ambrose Bierce, but we're not. This is supposed to be a real dictionary, not a political discussion forum. When you define the Republican Party as "regressive", you're hurling political invective at it; you're using a supposedly neutral source (a dictionary) to make a political argument. And that can't be allowed. This project doesn't exist in order to inform people of one political opinion while ignoring others; doing so undercuts the credibility of the entire project. You or I may have opinions, but Wiktionary cannot take sides. P Aculeius (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC) I didn't use "regressive" to define Republicans, I used it to define conservative democrats. Maybe get your facts straight? Also, I changed it, so why are you still talking? Purplebackpack89 23:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC) You are far too hung up on word charge...you claim "regressive" has a negative word charge. Guess what? In many circles, "progressive", "liberal" and "conservative" have negative charges as well! I made the change, but I will ABSOLUTELY NOT concede your point that it is unacceptable to use regressive in that manner. Whether or not there was an actual movement or not is irrelevant, as I am using the word as a descriptor, not creating an actual definition of a movement or a party. And I'm not even sure you really know what the word "regressive" means. Someone who is regressive wants to either keep things the way they are or regress to the way things were at an earlier point in time. This definition of "regressive" can easily also be applied to "conservative". And it certainly can be applied to Conservative Democrats, who wanted to preserve the old Southern racial heirarchy, and opposed progressive Civil Rights legislation to do so. But as I said, I made the change. And remember, this isn't Wikipedia. If there are enough sources backing up a definition, even if that definition is "non-neutral", we can still have it! Purplebackpack89 23:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Sorry, but you still don't understand. I'm not saying that Wiktionary has to have a neutral point of view. I'm saying that it isn't supposed to have any point of view. It's a dictionary, not a commentary. You can't simply heap together descriptive words that you associate with a particular group of people and call them a definition. It's not our place to call anybody names or decide which characterizations fit what groups of people. If you insist on doing so, you're going to have a major edit war on your hands. Please don't tell me that I don't understand what words mean, simply because you don't care for what I'm saying. I'm through explaining now, so I won't be replying to any further arguments about this issue. Oh, and if you use edit summaries like this again, "I don't know why P Aculeius is making so much fuss over this. Frankly, his comments belie how little he knows about the project", I'll refer this matter for third-party arbitration. P Aculeius (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC) "You can't simply heap together descriptive words that you associate with a particular group of people and call them a definition." Well, if we're not allowed to use any descriptive words, we can't have any definitions. If I'm defining "conservative Democrat", I need to use descriptive words, preferably words that are not "conservative" or "Democrat". Also, very difficult to have an edit war here, as you have yet to actually edit Conservative Democrat, you've merely griped about it in this RfV. Purplebackpack89 05:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC) I can't believe you're still trying to bait me with personal attacks after using an edit summary to make one. I didn't say that I was going to edit war with you. I said you would be inviting an edit war if you persisted in inserting your personal opinions into definitions of political parties, which is why it shouldn't be done in the first place. I didn't claim to have edited your creation, although you must know by now that editors are not required to have edited entries in order to comment on them; objecting to someone doing so would be "ownership behaviour", which is expressly prohibited by this project. Nor is this discussion specifically about newly created entries. It is about your comment: "Nuke in favor of a different definition: Until about 50 years ago, "conservative Democrat" was a thing. In the past fifty years, most conservatives have coalesced in the Republican party, and most liberals (including fmr. liberal Republicans) have coalesced in the Democratic party. Being "conservative" in the United States means you want a smaller, more restrained form of government. It often also indicates a more regressive view on issues of racial/social justice, and adherence to more traditional views of society, particularly religiously." Let me respond point by point, since I can't seem to get the points across any other way. Until about 50 years ago, "conservative Democrat" was a thing. Wiktionary cannot be used as a database of historical knowledge or opinion. You may think that conservative Democrats all converted or died in 1964, but they didn't. There are still conservative Democrats. But that's not the point. You can't include this in a dictionary definition because it's not a definition, it's an assertion of a political viewpoint about the history of the thing being defined. This is not an encyclopedia, nor is it an opinion forum. If you insert a definition like this, you will be reverted by editors who disagree with your analysis or conclusions, and the definition will never be settled as long as people disagree on whether "conservative Democrat" is still a thing or ceased to be a thing in 1964, which is not provable, but a matter of opinion. In the past fifty years, most conservatives have coalesced in the Republican party, and most liberals (including fmr. liberal Republicans) have coalesced in the Democratic party. Being "conservative" in the United States means you want a smaller, more restrained form of government. Again, this is not an encyclopedia. Definitions of words should not include detailed discussions of the history of different parties or their members in endorsing liberal or conservative political positions. You can describe what "conservative" means, but the definition of "conservative" should not include a political history of the Republican Party or the basis of its opposition to the Democratic Party in terms of the two parties' relative conservatism. That is not how a dictionary works. It often also indicates a more regressive view on issues of racial/social justice, and adherence to more traditional views of society, particularly religiously. You have just indicated that most conservatives have joined the Republican Party; and linked to that you are calling the views of conservatives "regressive" with respect to racial and social justice, and traditional social "views" from a religious standpoint. Because of how you've linked the terms, this is insulting and generalizing about both conservatives and Republicans. Despite the modern use of "liberal" and "progressive" as buzzwords for "socialist" and "communist", neither conservatives nor Republicans consider themselves "regressive" in the areas of racial or social justice, or really anything else. Nobody on the entire political spectrum considers themselves "regressive." You may have your opinions on whether someone's views or positions are regressive; other people may have their views; but these are opinions and not definitions of "conservative" or "Republican". You cannot substitute personal opinion for definition. This is not about whether I or any other editor shares your opinions. Opinion is completely irrelevant to the definition of the words in question. You can no more define "conservative" or "Republican" as "regressive" because that's how you perceive it than you can define a race of people as "lazy", "greedy", or "overachieving", or a religion as "good", "misguided", or "violent". If you do so, you invite a war with editors whose opinions differ from your own, and place Wiktionary in the position of endorsing your viewpoints, thereby becoming unwelcoming to those who hold contrary opinions. This is what Wiktionary cannot do, or it fails in its core mission of providing reliable, unbiased definitions. I really have had enough of trying to explain the same thing to you over and over. This is the last I intend to say on the subject. P Aculeius (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC) TLDR, except, regrettably, I actually read it. You're too dang focused on what I said in this thread, instead of what currently appears at the definitions of conservative and Conservative Democrat. I'm not even sure you've actually read them. It should have been blatantly obvious to you that I had no intention of putting Until about 50 years ago, "conservative Democrat" was a thing into an actual dictionary definition. If I would, I would have already. I'm also not sure you've actually read everything I said above, where I clearly lay out a groundwork for the acceptability of "regressive" in this definition; you're still far too hung up on a gut reaction to the word "regressive"...like that time you were hung up on a gut reaction to disableds...or to house...or to fabulous. And don't try to lecture me about when events happened in American history, young man...I have a bachelor's degree in American history with a minor in politics. Purplebackpack89 14:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC) If you don't stop this, I'm going to call for for third-party arbitration. Please stop lecturing me on how much you know and how much I don't. Don't call me "young man", implying that you're an adult and I'm a child. Don't flaunt your bachelor's degree at me without having any idea what my background or education include. Don't use edit summaries to say that I don't understand the nature of the project, in blatant violation of Wiktionary policy. Don't tell me that I must not have read your arguments, or that I've clearly missed the "blatantly obvious." Don't bring up other discussions that occurred at other times and assert that they're proof that you're right and I'm wrong. I commented on what YOU said under the heading of "Nuke in favor of a different definition:", which can hardly be understood as anything but a suggestion of what that definition should be or include. I didn't comment on any other words or phrases you may subsequently have created. So please don't keep trying to steer me onto discussions of other things. You've been carrying on a ridiculous ad hominem war against me for days now, and it needs to stop right now. P Aculeius (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

{{look}} The month is up tomorrow. This has clearly had enough eyeballs on it, but hasn't been cited. You have three days or I'm closing this as uncited. Purplebackpack89 15:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Closed as not cited/failed Purplebackpack89 15:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

A conservative estimate

If "conservative" means "based on pessimistic assumptions" (as we have defined it), does that mean that a conservative estimate of income is a small one but a conservative estimate of expenditure is a large one? Equinox ◑ 13:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd say yes. --WikiTiki89 15:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

That definition is not great. Dictionary.com has "cautiously moderate or purposefully low", which seems to be more accurate. google books:"conservative estimate" expenditure suggests that, at least some of the time, a conservative estimate of expenditure is a low estimate, not a large one. Perhaps it is sometimes alternatively a large one, based on the some idea of "cautious". Compare how a "conservative estimate" of how many people may have already become infected by a new disease is a low estimate, not a pessimistic estimate (which would be that a high number of people are infected). A conservative estimate of how many people were killed in a genocide is likewise a low estimate, not a pessimistic (large) one, claiming no more deaths than are very likely or than are proven, even if a larger number seems likely to pessimists. - -sche (discuss) 17:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

lol

"A member of a political party incorporating the word "Conservative" in its name." I love it when our abysmal definitions generate accidental satire. Equinox ◑ 21:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

You say that but it's better than what it's been replaced with. Two definitions covering the same ground and three trying to punt their senses to needless SOP forks instead of just nailing something down here. — LlywelynII 10:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)