text:
Talk:Conservatism

This Article Could Use a Short Disclaimer on the Usage of the Term
Before reading this article, I had taken issue with the article on Carl Schmitt for stating that he was a "conservative" theorist, when it's pretty obvious that he was a fascist as per both his membership in the Nazi party and explicit advocation of the suspension of the rule of law and establishment of a state of exception, effectively a rule by decree, in the form of a dictatorship in Dictatorship, as I was considering the term, "conservative", within the context of contemporary political debate and not as per both its historical use and use within the field of history, in which case, I think it's adequately descriptive of Schmitt to characterize him as such. Effectively, I'd thought that the term was either euphemistic or pejorative because of that I was thinking about as per its contemporary use.

Anyways, because of that, I was thinking that this article could use some sort of disclaimer on historical usages of the term and its use within the field of history as distinct from what is generally connotative of conservatism within a contemporary political context. For instance, when you hear someone described as a "conservative" in the news, you would be likely to assume that they have some opposition to proposed social reforms and advocate a right-wing economic policy, but, also, that they are still in favor of some form of representative democracy, whereas its use in, say, a historical textbook, though it would still generally connote an opposition to social reforms, may not necessarily favor contemporary conservative economic policy, and may even advocate for, say, absolute monarchy, at least, in a case where the status quo in question is an absolute monarch.

Basically, I think that there being multiple usages of the term in different contexts could be either confusing or even misleading, and think that some clarification could be given in this regard. When I see the term, "conservative", in a news article, I assume that the person whom it is ascribed to is right-wing, but not of the far-right, for instance, whereas they very well may be, as per my example of Carl Schmitt, within a historical text.

In short, I think a brief disclaimer distinguishing the contemporary political usage of "conservatism", i.e. right-wing both socially and fiscally within a political spectrum limited to representative democracies, and both the historical usage of the term and its use within the field of history as, to put it rather crudely, the maintenance of status quo, regardless as to what that status quo may be, with the simplest counter-point to the contemporary political usage of the term being absolute monarchy. No one, when they hear a newscaster say that someone is a conservative, assumes that they could be in favor of something like the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire, when it is entirely possible that they could be in a work of history. To me, there seems to be a clear difference between how the term is used in those contexts, which could use some clarification. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

 * The article used to clearly define the topic as an historical ideology that developed in reaction to liberalism and pointed out that the terms liberal and conservative were ahistorically adopted in the U.S. Unlike both American liberalism and conservatism, it sees society as organic and explicitly hierarchical. It's actually more than situational conservatism (protecting traditional institutions regardless of what they are) because it protected specific institutions. TFD (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, adding something like that back in might be good, or just having a section on contextual usage. I mean, in the states, a conservative is someone who is fairly right-wing fiscally and socially, but still in full support of democracy or whatever, whereas in Europe, that someone is a conservative can refer to a return to all kinds of old world authoritarianisms.  It could be a bit confusing for someone, say, in high school looking all of this up.  What's more, the ambiguity of the term lends itself to a certain sophistry.  For instance, someone on the far-left could claim that Leszek Kołakowski was a conservative in order to ascribe a slew of reactionary attributes to his person or someone on the far-right could exploit the ambiguity of the term euphemistically, for instance, with my above example of Carl Schmitt.
 * In general, I think, conservative beyond liberalism is colloquially called "reactionary", though it's a favorite political pejorative of the far-left, but something about the usage, I think, or a more in-depth explication like what was here previously would be helpful. Anymore, I don't think that "conservative" is regularly used, even in Europe, to describe something like a return to the aristocracy all that often, and, so, if there's just a usage section, a short bit about the history of the political philosophy could explain a thing or two.  There could also be a more in-depth section on its history and the extrapolation of the term in the United States.  It's all clear enough for me, but, like I said, could be somewhat confusing for others. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You have many thoughts and ideas, but you are not citing any authoritative sources.
 * Scholars have interpreted aristocracy in many different ways. The term literally means rule of the best. Aristotle equated it with meritocracy – rule of the most competent. And meritocracy is a core value of traditional conservatism, as confirmed by many works about conservative philosophy.
 * Sometimes, however, aristocracy is used as a synonym for plutocracy – rule of the wealthy. This is the caricature of conservatism, although it may be sometimes be valid.
 * The father of conservatism, Joseph de Maistre, claimed that ”democracy” was an impossibility, that all societies are aristocratic, that the power is always concentrated to the hands of the few. He writes: ”At all times and in all places, the aristocracy commands. Whatever form is given to governments, birth and wealth always obtain the first rank.” In sociology, the Italian school of elitism reached the same conclusion in the 20th century, with Robert Michels coining the iron law of oligarchy: ”Who says organization, says aristocracy.”
 * Even the ”medieval” definition of aristocracy is of enduring relevance to conservatism: the rule of specific families and their territorial claims. The average conservative person throughout history has been a farmer, and the lifestyle of a typical farmer is more ”medieval aristocratic” than that of a modern city-dweller, because he is the head of a large family and he owns land. Even the populist wave that is sweeping the West is aristocratic in this sense: a certain people (family) claims to be the legitimate ruler of a certain country (land).
 * Politics, especially, is an aristocratic business. The conservative ideology was a creation of a long range of aristocrats: Burke, de Maistre, de Chateaubriand, de Bonald etc. And the same is true for other ideologies. The most prominent modern exponents of classical liberalism were aristocrats: von Hayek, von Mises, Sir Berlin. The great anarchist philosophers were aristocrats: Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Tolstoy. Etc.
 * Obviously, an article on conservatism must have a historical approach, and up until the 20th century the aristocracy ruled large parts of Europe. The United Kingdom is a nation where the aristocracy is still very powerful. Many of the most prominent conservative statesmen in the modern "democratic" era were aristocrats as well: Mannerheim in Finland, de Oliveira Salazar in Portugal, de Gaulle in France, Bildt in Sweden etc. And many European nations are still monarchies.
 * In conclusion, there are many different meanings of aristocracy, and conservatism is associated with all of them. Trakking (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "And many European nations are still monarchies." Define many. Per Monarchies in Europe, the only remaining European monarchies are: 1) Andorra, 2) Belgium, 3) Denmark, 4) Liechtenstein, 5) Luxembourg, 6) Monaco, 7)the Netherlands, 8) Norway, 9) Spain, 10) Sweden, 11) the United Kingdom, and 12) Vatican City. Eleven of them are constitutional monarchies, and 1 is an absolute monarchy (Vatican City). Dimadick (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * All the richest and most stable nations of Europe are monarchies. The only exceptions are Switzerland (the only European nation with a republican tradition) and Austria (where there is a strong popular support for a restored monarchy). Trakking (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not so much that aristocracy can be defined in different ways, but that the term has different meanings. That's true with lots of words. For example Mars is both a god and a planet. We determine which meaning the speaker is using through context. We know for example that NASA was sending a rocket ship to a planet rather than a Roman god, because of context.
 * Aristocracy of course was the class that dominated society before the advent of capitalism. Of course not every aristocrat shows class solidarity just as not every worker votes Labour. Hayek and Von MIses incidentally were not from the aristocracy but their middle class ancestors had been ennobled in the 18th and 19th centuries.
 * As this article points out, aristocrats formed conservative parties in reaction to liberalism and the two dominated politics until the end of WWI, when the main competitors became liberalism and socialism. After FDR accused his opponents of being conservatives, the terms liberal and conservative acquired ahistorical meanings in the U.S., something Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (whose ancestors were medieval lords) called the "great American semantic confusion." TFD (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

 * What about beginning the article something like this:
 * Conservatism is a political ideology that developed as a reaction to liberalism and is associated with respection for tradition. Scholars have identified several commonly used definitions. Samuel P. Huntington for example identified three definitions: aristocratic, autonomous and situational.
 * The article could then be divided into three sections.
 * The first definition is used in the study of political parties. Von Beyme for example said that most parties in Europe could be categorized as extreme right, conservative, Christian democratic, liberal, green, socialist, communist, agrarian or nationalist. More recently, left parties have been added. But the other two definitions group other ideologies into the conservative camp. So it's important to distinguish the various definitions when adding material.
 * TFD (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Early conservative opposition to liberalism is not that relevant. Early liberal philosophers such as aristocrat Benjamin Constant, who supported constitutional monarchy etc., were right-wingers by today's standards. In the 20th century, classical liberals consistently sided with conservatives against the rise of a common enemy—socialism. The most predominant strand of American conservatism has been libertarian conservatism. The great liberal thinker Lord Acton pointed out the fruitful relationship between conservatism and liberalism in the United Kingdom:
 * "'Great Britain had no instinct and no productive power that emancipated it from the customs of its forefathers. Every appeal against oppression was to the hereditary rights; the only protection which the Englishman knew was in the traditional laws of his country. By means of this perpetual recurrence to old principles, and of the gradual contrivance of new forms in which to secure their action, the English people conquered their freedom.'"
 * It may seem like a paradox, but liberalism sometimes have to be conservative. Even Edmund Burke, who was an "old Whig", claimed that freedom must be limited in order to be owned and sustained. Trakking (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Most political philosophers see the origins of political parties as essential to understanding them. It's also one of the main ways that parties are classified.
 * I don't see any significance in the fact that liberals and conservatives worked together in the 20th century, that they were both perceived as right wing or that conservatives adopted liberal policies. They were still organized into different political parties and had different ideologies.
 * I also do not see the relevance of Burke's quote. He is not considered to have been a liberal, so why does it matter if he thought freedom had its limits? And who says it doesn't?
 * It is important that this article point out that political scientists have identified an ideology called conservatism, which they consider distinct from liberalism, have documented its history and identified parties belonging to its tradition. Articles about liberalism, Christian democracy, communism, etc., do the same thing. What makes this topic different? TFD (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand btw Huntingdon's position: a conservative supports tradition, the tradition of America is liberalism, therefore a U.S. conservative supports liberalism. But that becomes problematic in Europe, where liberalism is not their tradition. To the extent European conservatives support liberalism, it is because they have incorporated liberal beliefs into their ideology. TFD (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Many authoritative sources actually identify Burke as a classical liberal as well as a traditionalist conservative—indeed, some even argue that he was more of a liberal than a conservative due to his support of free trade, Catholic emancipation, and American independence.
 * It should also be remembered that Western Europe, in the past two centuries, has never ever been as anti-liberal as Asia. A conservative in Western Europe may be a liberal in Asia (Japan, China, India, Russia, the Middle East etc.) Trakking (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * All of this is tangential to what we are discussing. How should the article define conservatism? and please provide a source. TFD (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My point is that conservatism is coloured by its context—its time and place.
 * Tage Lindbom (the most erudite conservative thinker in modern Sweden) considered Burke a Manchester Liberal and not a true conservative. Writers for Timbro (the biggest think tank in Sweden, advocating for classical liberalism) have argued that Burke was more of a liberal than a conservative.
 * In Edmund Burke and the Invention of Modern Conservatism (2017), Emily Jones states that liberals and conservatives alike claimed Burke as their own throughout the 19th century, and it was not until the early 20th century that he was definitively seen as a conservative, first and foremost.
 * Scholars often label Burke's ideology liberal conservatism. See, for example, "Tocqueville, Burke, and the Origins of Liberal Conservatism" by Sanford Lakoff. Trakking (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, this is all tangential and stuff I know already. Can you please provide a definition we can use for the article?
 * It seems that your preferred definition is the "positional" one. So in the 80s people talked of conservatives in the USSR, US, UK, Iran and Germany, even though comparative politics would define them as having distinct ideologies. So my suggestion is that we devote part of the article to this but also to the other two definitions.
 * TFD (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

, you have some microstates in your list, though not Monaco. You have left out Jersey, the Bailiwick of Guernsey, and the Isle of Man. Gibraltar is technically a British colony, thanks to the reversion clause in the Treaty of Utrecht, but for practical purposes it is an independent constitutional monarchy. Moonraker (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

 * I think we can agree that monarchy continues in the UK, Scandinavia, the Benelux and some other states in Europe. These are also btw by and large the states where conservative parties have continued. In other countries they have not fared so well. For example, in Germany, the Conservative Party was merged into the Nazi Party and outlawed after WWII. Of course conservatism in Germany did not disappear, but was absorbed into the Christian Democratic Party, which had been known as the Center Party because they sat in the center between Liberals on the left and Conservatives on the Right. TFD (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @The Four Deuces: It is a relevant question since it is quite common to hear people claim that conservatism is notoriously hard to define succinctly. However, the current definition seems valid; it captures much of the essence of conservatism.
 * Institutions: Yoram Hazony’s encyclopedic work Conservatism: A Rediscovery (2022) is a very scholarly treatise written on conservatism, and ”institution” is the main keyword; it is a term that he constantly returns to throughout the work. (A quotation could be incorporated into the reference, if necessary.)
 * Customs: Another encyclopedic work, Edmund Fawcett’s Conservatism: The Fight for a Tradition (2020), is referenced in the article claiming that custom and tradition are the two keywords of Edmund Burke’s philosophy. Political theorist Kenneth Minogue, mentioned later in the article, also highlights custom as a keyword of conservatism.
 * Values: In post-war Europe there was a large scholarly debate about the nature of conservatism, where the established consensus was that there’s a distinction between mere Strukturkonservatismus (”structure conservatism”) and genuine Wertkonservatismus (”value conservatism”) and that the latter constitutes true conservatism. Jakob Söderbaum’s encyclopedic work Modern konservatism (2020), the most authoritative work in Swedish on conservative philosophy, constantly hammers home this point. Some of the foremost scholars on conservatism in modern times, such as Russell Kirk in The Conservative Mind (1953) and Roger Scruton in How to Be a Conservative (2014), have argued the same point. Francis Wilson's definition of conservatism, cited in the article, also highlights the word value. In other words, conservatives believe in certain traditional values, such as family values, Christian values, or Asian values.
 * These are just some of the sources that come to mind in support of the current definition. Obviously, many additional sources could be referenced here, but these books are some of the most authoritative works written in recent times on the topic. Trakking (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I already mentioned how Hazony's and Fawcett's books reflect their opinions and the same could be said for Kirk and Scruton. We can no doubt find numerous other writers who have their own opinions on what conservatism means to them.
 * Kirk's interpretation of conservatism has gained little acceptance even in the U.S. conservative movement. Scruton's claim that Thatcher and Reagan are conservative leaders is controversial since both sought to return to Victorian classical liberalism, are referred to as neoliberals and Thatcher even gave her ministers Hayek's article "Why I am not a Conservative," telling them "This is what I believe."
 * According to policy the article is supposed to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." One way to do that is, "Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other."
 * It's no coincidence that Fawcett listed "party-political family" as the first definition. It's one area where there is academic consensus, and certainly should be included in the lead.
 * Also, articles are supposed to be based on secondary sources. That means you want articles about Kirk, Scruton, etc., not our personal interpretations of their original writings.
 * Do you have any tertiary sources that back up your definition? TFD (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Jakob Söderbaum’s encyclopedic and authoritative work Modern konservatism (2020)—which I mentioned above—identifies Burke, Hegel, Kirk, Oakeshott, and Scruton as the five main philosophers of conservative philosophy. Tertiary sources on the topic usually cite several of these philosophers. Trakking (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a self-published book by a non-expert. Again, the article should be based on expert sources outlining the various views of the topic providing due weight, not be based on opinions of various people who consider themselves conservatives. TFD (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

no critisim?
The socialist page has one, the liberal page has one, even the nationalist one has one.

I grant you that i have no sources, but i would be dammed and death if i were told in all my years of being politically concious, that conservatism has no critisms 181.1.137.59 (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

 * As it stands, the essential information in this article is that conservatives are better people, more honest, work harder, and live happier lives, while liberals tend to be miserable and erratic. I'm not sure that the evidence justifies that conclusion.Rick Norwood (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just one example of an obvious lie not identified as a lie: "The Tea Party movement, founded in 2009, proved a large outlet for populist American conservative ideas. Their stated goals included rigorous adherence to the US constitution, lower taxes, and opposition to a growing role for the federal government in health care. Electorally, it was considered a key force in Republicans reclaiming control of the US House of Representatives in 2010." The US constitution says "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." For more than 100 years, essentially all conservative states denied the right of Black people to vote. But even after 2010, "The 2021 redistricting cycle was the first one without the full protections of the VRA. Many states and local municipalities have taken advantage of this to implement racially gerrymandered maps, i.e. district lines that limit the voting power of voters of color." If this article is serious, should it include claims that are clearly lies? Rick Norwood (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

 * I plan to work on this article. As it stands, especially if one only reads the beginning and end of the article, it states essentially that conservatism is right and liberalism is wrong. If that is true, clearly the White race is superior, as is the male sex. I don't see evidence for this. And, in the US, clearly Trump is our greatest president and the Christian religion is the one true religion. I don't see evidence for this. Finally, again primarily in the US (the article Conservatism in the United States needs work, too) scientists are wrong about global warming and doctors are wrong about Covid. But the Wikipedia articles on those subjects say the exact opposite.

 * I plan to take my time and post nothing that is not referenced. We can only wait and see how it goes. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Rick, you misinterpreted the objection that was raised. Most articles on different ideologies include a distinct heading called ”Criticism,” where well-sourced and common criticisms against the ideology in question are presented. For example, Third Way is criticized as ”being a vague ideology with no specific commitments”. Trakking (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also—some of your comments above are completely nonsensical. The article does not advocate white power or Christianity anywhere. Are you aware that black conservatism is a thriving ideology in the United States? Do you know that Afro-Americans were the most Christian group in the nation in the 60s? Are you aware that religion—Christianity and Islam as well as traditional religions—are booming in Africa? Do you know that some African countries, such as Botswana and Togo, have had a strong rightist conservative culture? Trakking (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You are basically proving Rick Norwood's point. The racist and exclusionary position of what you call conservatism is excluded. They are give plausible deniability because they use dog whistles instead of overt language. Meanwhile, the token inclusion of a few African Americans is considered proof of inclusivity.
 * In fact most of what you consider conservative is more properly called the extreme right. It's basically a petit bourgeouis reaction to social change which ironically has occurred due to market pressures.
 * There is nothing in this article about how the parties that rule Botswana and Togo with an iron fist are conservative. While I accept that authoritarianism is positional conservatism in that it seeks to preserve itself, why not include every authoritarian regime under the conservative banner? TFD (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think though that Rick Norwood is incorrect in his reference to conservatism. It's basically extreme Calvinism, usually adopted under evangelical churches but sometimes even by Catholics (charismatic Catholicism.) Even the atheist right-wingers seem to follow most of the belief system except for its explicitly religious dimensions. Basically it's the prosperity gospel without Jesus. TFD (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

First, I would like to thank you, Trakking, for actually reading my edits, and only reverting the first three of them. Your grammar edits were to the point, and appreciated.

I hope someone will restore my edits. I don't want to get involved in an edit war, and will move on, citing different sources.

Next, you say that the article does not advocate White Power or Christianity anywhere. Your statement is correct. My sources say that many conservatives do advocate White Power and Christianity. If they do, that is an important aspect of conservatism that the article does not mention but should.

You suggest that the idea that a large number of conservatives advocate White Power and Christianity is "nonsensical". I think I can provide a large number of examples to the contrary. Tell me how many you want.

You say "Do you know that Afro-Americans were the most Christian group in the nation in the 60s?" I wouldn't be surprised. But Afro-Americans in the 60's were not conservative, so I don't know what that has to do with this discussion. And, as The Four Deuces points out, your comments about Africa being both strongly religious and conservatives basically agrees with what my sources said one of the three posts of mine that you deleted.

In reverting three of my posts, you say "two of the three scholars referenced are extremely obscure and not authoritative, one of the sources (The Guardian) is heavily ideologized and unreliable plus cited incorrectly" The scholars you call "extremely obscure and not authoritative" are referenced in Wikipedia and published in major journals. In your opinion, is there any scholar who thinks conservatism is racist, sexist, and anti-science who is not "extremely obscure and not authoritative"? If so, tell me who, and I will cite them instead of the ones I cited. If, on the other hand, you take it as an axiom that everyone who is not conservative is "extremely obscure and not authoritative", we have nothing further to discuss.

As I said, I hope someone restores the three paragraphs you deleted on the grounds that the authors of the quotes are "extremely obscure and not authoritative", because they find them essentially correct and well-referenced. If that doesn't happen, I'll move on.

Let me mention that I, Trakking, and The Four Deuces are major Wikipedia editors, with hundreds if not thousands of edits that have stood the test of time. We three hold very different views of conservatism. The article current reflects only one of those views, Trakking's view, which is (correct me if I'm wrong) that conservatives are religious but the article should not say so, and that Blacks were conservative in the 60's because they were religious even though conservatives in the 60's would not allow Black people to vote. Rick Norwood (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Those phenomena have nothing to do with conservatism specifically. Communist nations (Soviet Union, China, North Korea etc.) have also been racist, sexist etc. Indeed, early socialists in Catholic Europe were significantly more sexist than conservatives. These leftists vehemently opposed the right of women to vote, instead believing in the sexist principle of ”brotherhood” derived from the French Revolution. Meanwhile, ultraconservative groups such as Action Française and Croix-de-Feu advocated for female suffrage as part of their political program. To quote Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn:
 * "”Naturally the ochlocratic and egalitarian principle also demands female suffrage, but certain leftist groups had their doubts and scruples about the application of their dogmas. This is mainly true of the Latin countries where women, with the exception of a small, but extremely rabid minority, profess strong conservative and religious views, and therefore the principle of universal suffrage was quietly dropped in countries like republican France, Spain, and Portugal.” [The Menace of the Herd (1943), p. 58]" Trakking (talk) 10:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that for socialism, conservatism and liberalism, social and economic policy is not fixed and can change. But that only works if we use the historic meanings of the terms, where parties reflect class perspectives. For example, when manufacturing was in its infancy, American capitalists wanted protectionism, but dropped that when they were able to compete internationally. It had nothing to do with how they felt about tradition.
 * If instead we define conservatism as "respecting traditions," rather than specific traditions, then European and American conservatism is by definition racist, sexist, etc.
 * In the liberal-conservative dichotomy, it is understood that people advocating for more equality are liberal, while those who advocate for less are conservative. And how far along the axis one is depends on how extreme one's position is. And this is borne out by empirical evidence. TFD (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Recent edit
I just noticed that Trakking also deleted my Confucius quote. Is Confucius "extremely obscure and not authoritative"?Rick Norwood (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Confucius holds great authority, but he lived 2000+ years prior to the invention of the ideology of conservatism in the late 18th century. However, as the grandfather of Chinese conservative thought he could be mentioned in a new section about China under ”National variants”. Conservatism in China is strongly associated with Confucianism. Trakking (talk) 10:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Thank you, The Four Deuces, for correcting my mistake. I did not know that rule. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Where the article stands now
181.1.137.59 posted that the article "has no criticism of conservatism".

I suggested that "As it stands, especially if one only reads the beginning and end of the article, it states essentially that conservatism is right and liberalism is wrong."

I posted a few referenced quotations.

Trakking deleted most of them.

It seems best to take them one at a time.

Here is my first post, under "Themes", now deleted.

"A less positive view of conservatism is expressed by scholars Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, who wrote in Dædalus in 2022: "Empirical data do not support the conclusion of a crisis of public trust in science. They do support the conclusion of a crisis of conservative trust in science: polls show that American attitudes toward science are highly polarized along political lines." "

Comments? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

 * That information only concerns contemporary American politics; it does not cover the topic from a historical and global perspective. It is a subject for the main article on US conservatism. Furthermore, the information is irrelevant if you do not mention the connection that the study draws between a growing distrust in science and the belief in limited government. Trakking (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Naomi Oreskes is full professor at Harvard, with more than 900 papers published in refereed journals, but she is an American, so you conclude she only knows about American contemporary politics. And, she is not a conservative, so she doesn't understand that distrust in science is related to a believe in limited government. In short, you agree that conservatives distrust science but you don't trust Americans. Erik M. Conway has a Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota, works for Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and is the author of several books, including one titled High-Speed Dreams (2005), in which he argues that "U.S. government sponsorship of supersonic commercial transportation systems resulted from Cold War concerns about a loss of technological prowess in the modern world." But he is also an American, and therefore cannot be trusted to have learned about anything except what the American government wants him to know. Further, he does not mention that the reason conservatives distrust science is that conservatives distrust government.

The statement that I am trying to balance, just above the post you deleted, is by Quintin Hogg. His claim, which remains in the article is: "Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself." His views of free society and a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself you find reliable, because he is a conservative politician, and President of the Oxford University Conservative Association. He is British, and therefore not under the thrall of the American government.

In short, you say that there is in conservative thought "a growing distrust in science and the belief in limited government." but don't think Americans scientists know as much about science as British politicians with no training in science.

So, in order for this article to state what you agree is true, I need to find someone who says that who is not an American. Ok. I can do that. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Naomi Oreskes is a reliable scholar, but her expertise is the history of science. This article is about a social and political ideology, and her opinion on the topic does not carry weight. The scholars quoted and referenced throughout the article are political scientists, political philosophers, sociologists, social psychologists, and historians of ideas. Many of these people (Corey Robin, Alexandre Kojève, Mark Lilla, Edmund Fawcett, Bob Altemeyer, Felicia Pratto, Jonathan Haidt etc.) are ideologically left-leaning, which is excellent because it makes the article nuanced and balanced. Trakking (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course, it is no surprise that you quickly reverted my post, even though you agree with what the post says. You claim that an expert on the history of science is not reliable and does not carry any weight. But that was my previous post, not the post you just now reverted. The post you reverted was credited to an Australian scientist, not an American. But you said of that the Australian scientist "it is only representative of parts of the Anglosphere [the US and Australia] and not the whole planet" But isn't your own source, a conservative British politician, also "only representative of parts of the Anglosphere ... not the whole planet"?

So, I will quote a British scientist, and see if you revert that quote while keeping the quote by a British politician. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

 * 1. Great Britain is still only the Anglosphere.
 * 2. Quintin Hogg's quote is from The Conservative Case, a treatise written specifically about conservatism, and it is a famous quote that has been cited in different works on conservatism, stimulating much debate.
 * 3. Skepticism towards vaccines and some aspects of climate change is a minor issue on the historical and global topic of conservatism.
 * 4. There are many nations where conservative people have been the most pro-vaccine people. Trakking (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, how about what The Guardian says. I've cited a source that contradicts your claim that The Guardian is not trusted, and provided two examples, one new, of how the Tories are not helping. IF you delete it, I will provide more examples.

As for your points:

1. You object that my posts are only the Anglosphere, and are fine that the post my sources disagree with is only the Anglosphere. 2. You point out that your quote is famous. It is also wrong. Being famous (among conservatives) doesn't make wrong right. 3. Skepticism toward vaccines and some aspects of climate change have already killed millions of people and are killing more ever day. Killing millions of people is not "minor". 4. I do not say, and The Guardian does not say, that all conservatives are anti-vaccine. Clearly, many are anti-vaccine, and it is a major cause in conservatism world-wide. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Please read the article on green conservatism. In many nations all over the world, conservatives are taking environmental stances, forming alliances with green parties etc. The most influential conservative philosopher in recent decades, Roger Scruton, wrote How to Think Seriously About the Planet: The Case for an Environmental Conservatism (2012) promoting green conservatism.
 * Meanwhile, the communist Soviet Union was the nation that caused most destruction to the environment in the 20th century. And in the 21st century it is communist China that is causing the most destruction to the environment. Trakking (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, it is clear that no matter what I post you will revert it. Now, I'll put it back up. You'll revert it again. I'll put it back up. You'll revert it again. That will be your third and last revert. Then we'll let the Wikipedia referees sort it out.

I wish we could have actually exchanged ideas, but since you again assert that The Guardian, the most trusted newspaper in Great Britain, is not a reliable source, there's no point in trying to have a discussion. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

 * It's not that the authors are Americans, it's that they are writing about American conservatism which most experts do not consider to be a form of conservatism. Notice that the authors cite (an admittedly wacky version of) Adam Smith, Hayek and Friedman as the intellectual giants of conservatism, although they were all liberals, as were the reforms initiated by Thatcher and Reagan.
 * Thatcher incidentally purged the party of Quinton Hogg's proteges and rejected his ideology. As Ian Gilmour recounted, she said Labour has an ideology, so should we and threw down a copy of Hayek's Constituion of Liberty, which includes a chapter "Why I am not a conservative." The tradition she wanted to return to was, as Gilmour explained, Manchester liberalism which she had learned from her father, who was a Liberal politician.
 * Rejecting vaccines comes from a tradition of peasants and pitchforks and burning witches at the stake. It runs counter to respect for authority and is an expression of selfishness and rugged individualism.
 * While there is consensus that the Guardian is reliable, Reliable sources/Perennial sources points out that as with any newspaper, that does not necessarily apply to analysis, commentary and opinion, which must be judged on their own merits.
 * The Guardian article incidentally does not connect climate change policy and conservative ideology. An earlier Guardian article tells us that Tony Blair refused to sign on to Kyoto and don't expect Kier Starmer to be any more receptive to fighting climate change.That doesn't mean that socialist ideology rejects climate change science. TFD (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Trakking, China emits half as much greenhouse gas per capita as the U.S. While the Soviet Union had higher levels of pollution per person as the U.S., it had only 80% as much overall. Bear in mind that what you see as a self-evident fact may not necessarily be seen as such by other editors. TFD (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * TFD: Excellent points. Rick is making the error of conflating traditional conservatism with modern neoliberalism, since there is no sharp distinction drawn between the two in the United States. We must consider the issue from a global and historical perspective, not a narrow American contemporary one. In fact, conservatism, as an ideology, arose in opposition to modern progressive industrialism, unrestrained capitalism, and individualist liberalism. Many of the early forefathers of conservatism were anti-capitalists, for instance Louis de Bonald and Adam Müller, and environmental concerns have been expressed by classical conservatives ever since Edmund Burke. Trakking (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Response to The Four Deuces: Thank you for actually responding to the points I am trying to raise instead of falling back on insults, false statements (repeated claims that The Guardian is unreliable), and deletion.

I have to go to work soon, but I would like to respond To what seems to be your main point, and to Trakking's repeated claims. You say "It's not that the authors are Americans, it's that they are writing about American conservatism which most experts do not consider to be a form of conservatism." But essentially all of the sources cited in the statements I've disagreed, essentially all of the articles cited sources, are American or British sources. How can you object to me citing American and British (and Australian) sources when you almost exclusively cite American or British sources in the sections of the article I've tried to edit. If you rule out American and British sources for my claims, you should also rule out American and British sources for your claims.

Trakking says: "We must consider the issue from a global and historical perspective, not a narrow American contemporary one." Please name one author who you think considers conservatism from a global and historical perspective. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources we use will be British or American, since most of the literature is. But this is what Ian Adams, who is British, wrote:
 * "Ideologically, all US parties are liberal and always have been. Essentially they espouse classical liberalism, that is a form of democratised Whig constitutionalism plus the free market. The point of difference comes with the influence of social liberalism. How far should the free market be left alone; how far should tbe state regulate or manage; and how far should government at federal or local level provide social security and welfare services?"
 * Brendon O'Connor, who is American, explains how the U.S. adopted the terms liberal and conservative in the 1930s to describe two different approaches to liberalism. Both Roosevelt and Hoover had identified as liberals.
 * Therefore, when someone writes about American conservatism we cannot assume that their comments apply to conservatism elsewhere.
 * Furthermore, the Conservative and Unionist Party of Great Britain is a result of the merger of the Conservative and Liberal Unionist parties. You cannot necessarily interpret comments about its actions as pertaining to conservative ideology.
 * There is of course a school of thought that classifies U.S. conservatism as a branch of conservatism rather than liberalism. See for example The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin. But articles are supposed to be neutral, to explain opinions not endorse them.
 * TFD (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Does conservatism support a free society
TFD: It is really good to have someone rational to talk to.

You quote Ian Adams. "Ideologically, all US parties are liberal and always have been." When did Adams write this, before or after the conservative denial of Covid and global warming? Before or after Donald Trump?

But, let that be for the time being. I agree that this article should distinguish between American conservatism and "real" conservatism, even though American conservatism, Turmp conservatism, is by far the most influential in the world today, and while Trakking calls denial of global warming and Covid "trivial", my guess is that you do not agree, and would say denial of global warming and Covid are not conservative, and that Trump is not conservative.

This is the main point I want to discuss now: You say, "to explain opinions is not to endorse them". I agree. The article, as it stands, says right up front that "Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself." I disagree that conservatism supports a "free society" and have tried to post a few sources who say that conservatism does not support a free society but supports a society which the upper class rules. These attempts have been deleted, on the grounds that The Guardian is unreliable and that American sources are unreliable.

I have voted for both liberals and for conservatives. But I agree with you that "to explain opinions is not to endorse them". I think this section needs a second quote, from some neutral source, that does not agree that conservatism supports a "free society", but rather states that conservatism supports a society ruled by the upper class. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

 * I thought the article should begin by mentioning the main defintions of conservatism. Positional conservatism supports tradition for its own sake whether it is feudalism, capitalism or communism. Aristocratic conservatism supports a specific set of traditions, such as the established church. As those traditions die out it becomes less relevant. Autonomous conservatism assumes that there is a set of values that conservatives follow regardless of the time and place in which they live. So Confucius might have been an autonomous conservative.
 * Basically the description in the lead describes how some self-described conservatives explain their philosophy. But of course they define the terms and the result is always to the advantage of some groups and the disadvantage of others. Presenting it as a true, unambigous statement is misleading.
 * So I think the first thing that needs to change is the lead.
 * I don't know to what extend Trump has departed from the right-wing liberal paradigm. But if he has moved, it's more toward right-wing populism or fascism than conservatism. Then again under the current definition, virtually anyone could claim to be a conservative.
 * Essentially Trump takes advantage of the suffering inflicted on Americans beginning with reforms in the late 1970s and accelerating under Reagan. But instead of blaming the system, he blames minorities, foreign countries and the supposed enemy within. He follows the Karl Rove playbook of energizing the base rather than fighting for the (increasingly small) centre. TFD (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "But instead of blaming the system, he blames minorities, foreign countries and the supposed enemy within." That is not unique to conservatives, or to Americans. That is the nature of scapegoating, "singling out a person or group for unmerited blame and consequent negative treatment." ... "The scapegoat theory of intergroup conflict provides an explanation for the correlation between times of relative economic despair and increases in prejudice and violence toward outgroups." Dimadick (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's why I wrote, "I don't know to what extend Trump has departed from the right-wing liberal paradigm. But if he has moved, it's more toward right-wing populism or fascism than conservatism." TFD (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

 * "conservatism supports a society ruled by the upper class." I thought that was Tory ideology, royalists who were willing to support autocracy. Dimadick (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That is how conservatism is normally defined in the literature. But like liberalism and socialism, it has evolved since the 19th century. In fact toryism has not been royalist since the 1600s. It has evolved by accepting the Bill of Rights 1689, the Great Reform Act of 1832, Catholic emancipation and universal suffrage, among other changes. Most conservative parties were unable to adapt which is why they died out. TFD (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but given that almost every change I've tried to make has been deleted, I want to move cautiously. Today I plan to add one carefully referenced paragraph including a quote, and we'll see what happens.Rick Norwood (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

First, I need to make it clear that my "I agree" above should have been "I agree with TFD". The intermediate comment, by Dimadick, refers to a common rationalization: attribute all negative comments to human nature, and all positive comments to reason. I'm afraid that doesn't work in this case, since most conservatives are or say they are followers of Burke.Rick Norwood (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a typical bias filled page and the icing on the cake was labeling Donald Trump with authoritarian leaders from around the world. It is totally rediculous and so is a lot of the US explinations of conserviatism. It is run through the filter of an extreme leftist. I've lost all hope in Wikipedia. I don't even bother using my account here when making comments because opposing viewpoints showing many points of bias are completely ignored. The far leftists with override powers control what stays and goes. May you all be ashamed of yourselves. 12.4.246.194 (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

 * See the top of the page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conservatism article." This is not an appropriate forum for attacking Wikipedia editors and voicing your opinions. Do you have any constructive comments about what specific changes you would like to see? Otherwise, I will again remove your comments. TFD (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Conservatism


text:
Cofinality

In mathematics, especially in order theory, the cofinality cf(A) of a partially ordered set A is the least of the cardinalities of the cofinal subsets of A.

This definition of cofinality relies on the axiom of choice, as it uses the fact that every non-empty set of cardinal numbers has a least member. The cofinality of a partially ordered set A can alternatively be defined as the least ordinal x such that there is a function from x to A with cofinal image. This second definition makes sense without the axiom of choice. If the axiom of choice is assumed, as will be the case in the rest of this article, then the two definitions are equivalent.

Cofinality can be similarly defined for a directed set and is used to generalize the notion of a subsequence in a net.

Examples

 * The cofinality of a partially ordered set with greatest element is 1 as the set consisting only of the greatest element is cofinal (and must be contained in every other cofinal subset).
 * In particular, the cofinality of any nonzero finite ordinal, or indeed any finite directed set, is 1, since such sets have a greatest element.
 * Every cofinal subset of a partially ordered set must contain all maximal elements of that set. Thus the cofinality of a finite partially ordered set is equal to the number of its maximal elements.
 * In particular, let $$A$$ be a set of size $$n,$$ and consider the set of subsets of $$A$$ containing no more than $$m$$ elements. This is partially ordered under inclusion and the subsets with $$m$$ elements are maximal.  Thus the cofinality of this poset is $$n$$ choose $$m.$$
 * A subset of the natural numbers $$\N$$ is cofinal in $$\N$$ if and only if it is infinite, and therefore the cofinality of $$\aleph_0$$ is $$\aleph_0.$$ Thus $$\aleph_0$$ is a regular cardinal.
 * The cofinality of the real numbers with their usual ordering is $$\aleph_0,$$ since $$\N$$ is cofinal in $$\R.$$ The usual ordering of $$\R$$ is not order isomorphic to $$c,$$ the cardinality of the real numbers, which has cofinality strictly greater than $$\aleph_0.$$  This demonstrates that the cofinality depends on the order; different orders on the same set may have different cofinality.

Properties
If $$A$$ admits a totally ordered cofinal subset, then we can find a subset $$B$$ that is well-ordered and cofinal in $$A.$$ Any subset of $$B$$ is also well-ordered. Two cofinal subsets of $$B$$ with minimal cardinality (that is, their cardinality is the cofinality of $$B$$) need not be order isomorphic (for example if $$B = \omega + \omega,$$ then both $$\omega + \omega$$ and $$\{\omega + n : n < \omega\}$$ viewed as subsets of $$B$$ have the countable cardinality of the cofinality of $$B$$ but are not order isomorphic.) But cofinal subsets of $$B$$ with minimal order type will be order isomorphic.

Cofinality of ordinals and other well-ordered sets
The cofinality of an ordinal $$\alpha$$ is the smallest ordinal $$\delta$$ that is the order type of a cofinal subset of $$\alpha.$$ The cofinality of a set of ordinals or any other well-ordered set is the cofinality of the order type of that set.

Thus for a limit ordinal $$\alpha,$$ there exists a $$\delta$$-indexed strictly increasing sequence with limit $$\alpha.$$ For example, the cofinality of $$\omega^2$$ is $$\omega,$$ because the sequence $$\omega \cdot m$$ (where $$m$$ ranges over the natural numbers) tends to $$\omega^2;$$ but, more generally, any countable limit ordinal has cofinality $$\omega.$$  An uncountable limit ordinal may have either cofinality $$\omega$$ as does $$\omega_\omega$$ or an uncountable cofinality.

The cofinality of 0 is 0. The cofinality of any successor ordinal is 1. The cofinality of any nonzero limit ordinal is an infinite regular cardinal.

Regular and singular ordinals
A regular ordinal is an ordinal that is equal to its cofinality. A singular ordinal is any ordinal that is not regular.

Every regular ordinal is the initial ordinal of a cardinal. Any limit of regular ordinals is a limit of initial ordinals and thus is also initial but need not be regular. Assuming the axiom of choice, $$\omega_{\alpha+1}$$ is regular for each $$\alpha.$$ In this case, the ordinals $$0, 1, \omega, \omega_1,$$ and $$\omega_2$$ are regular, whereas $$2, 3, \omega_\omega,$$ and $$\omega_{\omega \cdot 2}$$ are initial ordinals that are not regular.

The cofinality of any ordinal $$\alpha$$ is a regular ordinal, that is, the cofinality of the cofinality of $$\alpha$$ is the same as the cofinality of $$\alpha.$$ So the cofinality operation is idempotent.

Cofinality of cardinals
If $$\kappa$$ is an infinite cardinal number, then $$\operatorname{cf}(\kappa)$$ is the least cardinal such that there is an unbounded function from $$\operatorname{cf}(\kappa)$$ to $$\kappa;$$ $$\operatorname{cf}(\kappa)$$ is also the cardinality of the smallest set of strictly smaller cardinals whose sum is $$\kappa;$$ more precisely $$\mathrm{cf}(\kappa) = \min \left\{ |I|\ :\ \kappa = \sum_{i \in I} \lambda_i\ \land\ \text{ for all such } i \, \lambda_i < \kappa\right\}$$

That the set above is nonempty comes from the fact that $$\kappa = \bigcup_{i \in \kappa} \{i\}$$ that is, the disjoint union of $$\kappa$$ singleton sets. This implies immediately that $$\operatorname{cf}(\kappa) \leq \kappa.$$ The cofinality of any totally ordered set is regular, so $$\operatorname{cf}(\kappa) = \operatorname{cf}(\operatorname{cf}(\kappa)).$$

Using König's theorem, one can prove $$\kappa < \kappa^{\operatorname{cf}(\kappa)}$$ and $$\kappa < \operatorname{cf}\left(2^\kappa\right)$$ for any infinite cardinal $$\kappa.$$

The last inequality implies that the cofinality of the cardinality of the continuum must be uncountable. On the other hand, $$\aleph_\omega = \bigcup_{n < \omega} \aleph_n.$$

The ordinal number ω being the first infinite ordinal, so that the cofinality of $$\aleph_\omega$$ is card(ω) = $$\aleph_0.$$ (In particular, $$\aleph_\omega$$ is singular.) Therefore, $$2^{\aleph_0} \neq \aleph_\omega.$$

(Compare to the continuum hypothesis, which states $$2^{\aleph_0} = \aleph_1.$$)

Generalizing this argument, one can prove that for a limit ordinal $$\delta$$ $$\mathrm{cf} (\aleph_\delta) = \mathrm{cf} (\delta).$$

On the other hand, if the axiom of choice holds, then for a successor or zero ordinal $$\delta$$ $$\mathrm{cf} (\aleph_\delta) = \aleph_\delta.$$

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Cofinality


text:
Citadel

A citadel is the most fortified area of a town or city. It may be a castle, fortress, or fortified center. The term is a diminutive of city, meaning "little city", because it is a smaller part of the city of which it is the defensive core.

In a fortification with bastions, the citadel is the strongest part of the system, sometimes well inside the outer walls and bastions, but often forming part of the outer wall for the sake of economy. It is positioned to be the last line of defence, should the enemy breach the other components of the fortification system.

3300–1300 BC
Some of the oldest known structures which have served as citadels were built by the Indus Valley civilisation, where citadels represented a centralised authority. Citadels in Indus Valley were almost 12 meters tall. The purpose of these structures, however, remains debated. Though the structures found in the ruins of Mohenjo-daro were walled, it is far from clear that these structures were defensive against enemy attacks. Rather, they may have been built to divert flood waters.

Several settlements in Anatolia, including the Assyrian city of Kaneš in modern-day Kültepe, featured citadels. Kaneš' citadel contained the city's palace, temples, and official buildings. The citadel of the Greek city of Mycenae was built atop a highly-defensible rectangular hill and was later surrounded by walls in order to increase its defensive capabilities.

800 BC – 400 AD
In Ancient Greece, the Acropolis, which literally means "high city", placed on a commanding eminence, was important in the life of the people, serving as a lookout, a refuge, and a stronghold in peril, as well as containing military and food supplies, the shrine of the god and a royal palace. The most well known is the Acropolis of Athens, but nearly every Greek city-state had one – the Acrocorinth famed as a particularly strong fortress. In a much later period, when Greece was ruled by the Latin Empire, the same strong points were used by the new feudal rulers for much the same purpose.

In the first millennium BC, the Castro culture emerged in northwestern Portugal and Spain in the region extending from the Douro river up to the Minho, but soon expanding north along the coast, and east following the river valleys. It was an autochthonous evolution of Atlantic Bronze Age communities. In 2008, the origins of the Celts were attributed to this period by John T. Koch and supported by Barry Cunliffe. The Ave River Valley in Portugal was the core region of this culture, with a large number of small settlements (the castros), but also settlements known as citadels or oppida by the Roman conquerors. These had several rings of walls and the Roman conquest of the citadels of Abobriga, Lambriaca and Cinania around 138 BC was possible only by prolonged siege. Ruins of notable citadels still exist, and are known by archaeologists as Citânia de Briteiros, Citânia de Sanfins, Cividade de Terroso and Cividade de Bagunte.

167–160 BC
Rebels who took power in a city, but with the citadel still held by the former rulers, could by no means regard their tenure of power as secure. One such incident played an important part in the history of the Maccabean Revolt against the Seleucid Empire. The Hellenistic garrison of Jerusalem and local supporters of the Seleucids held out for many years in the Acra citadel, making Maccabean rule in the rest of Jerusalem precarious. When finally gaining possession of the place, the Maccabeans pointedly destroyed and razed the Acra, though they constructed another citadel for their own use in a different part of Jerusalem.

400–1600
At various periods, and particularly during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the citadel – having its own fortifications, independent of the city walls – was the last defence of a besieged army, often held after the town had been conquered. Locals and defending armies have often held out citadels long after the city had fallen. For example, in the 1543 Siege of Nice the Ottoman forces led by Barbarossa conquered and pillaged the town and took many captives, but the citadel held out.

In the Philippines, the Ivatan people of the northern islands of Batanes often built fortifications to protect themselves during times of war. They built their so-called idjangs on hills and elevated areas. These fortifications were likened to European castles because of their purpose. Usually, the only entrance to the castles would be via a rope ladder that would only be lowered for the villagers and could be kept away when invaders arrived.

1600 to the present
In times of war, the citadel in many cases afforded retreat to the people living in the areas around the town. However, citadels were often used also to protect a garrison or political power from the inhabitants of the town where it was located, being designed to ensure loyalty from the town that they defended. This was used, for example, during the Dutch Wars of 1664–1667, King Charles II of England constructed a Royal Citadel at Plymouth, an important channel port which needed to be defended from a possible naval attack. However, due to Plymouth's support for the Parliamentarians, in the then-recent English Civil War, the Plymouth Citadel was so designed that its guns could fire on the town as well as on the sea approaches.

Barcelona had a great citadel built in 1714 to intimidate the Catalans against repeating their mid-17th- and early-18th-century rebellions against the Spanish central government. In the 19th century, when the political climate had liberalized enough to permit it, the people of Barcelona had the citadel torn down, and replaced it with the city's main central park, the Parc de la Ciutadella. A similar example is the Citadella in Budapest, Hungary.

The attack on the Bastille in the French Revolution – though afterwards remembered mainly for the release of the handful of prisoners incarcerated there – was to considerable degree motivated by the structure's being a Royal citadel in the midst of revolutionary Paris.

Similarly, after Garibaldi's overthrow of Bourbon rule in Palermo, during the 1860 Unification of Italy, Palermo's Castellamare Citadel – a symbol of the hated and oppressive former rule – was ceremoniously demolished.

Following Belgium gaining its independence in 1830, a Dutch garrison under General David Hendrik Chassé held out in Antwerp Citadel between 1830 and 1832, while the city had already become part of independent Belgium.

The Siege of the Alcázar in the Spanish Civil War, in which the Nationalists held out against a much larger Republican force for two months until relieved, shows that in some cases a citadel can be effective even in modern warfare; a similar case is the Battle of Huế during the Vietnam War, where a North Vietnamese Army division held the citadel of Huế for 26 days against roughly their own numbers of much better-equipped US and South Vietnamese troops.

Modern usage
The Citadelle of Québec (the construction was started in 1673 and completed in 1820) still survives as the largest citadel still in official military operation in North America. It is home to the Royal 22nd Regiment of the Canadian Army and forms part of the Ramparts of Quebec City dating back to 1620s.

Since the mid 20th century, citadels have commonly enclosed military command and control centres, rather than cities or strategic points of defence on the boundaries of a country. These modern citadels are built to protect the command centre from heavy attacks, such as aerial or nuclear bombardment. The military citadels under London in the UK, including the massive underground complex Pindar beneath the Ministry of Defence, are examples, as is the Cheyenne Mountain nuclear bunker in the US.

Naval term
On armoured warships, the heavily armoured section of the ship that protects the ammunition and machinery spaces is called the armoured citadel.

A modern naval interpretation refers to the heaviest protected part of the hull as "the vitals", and the citadel is the semi-armoured freeboard above the vitals. Generally, Anglo-American and German languages follow this while Russian sources/language refer to "the vitals" as цитадель "citadel". Likewise, Russian literature often refers to the turret of a tank as the 'tower'.

The safe room on a ship is also called a citadel.

title: Citadel


text:
Chain mail

Chain mail (also known as chain-mail, mail or maille) is a type of armour consisting of small metal rings linked together in a pattern to form a mesh. It was in common military use between the 3rd century BC and the 16th century AD in Europe, while it continued to be used in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East as late as the 17th century. A coat of this armour is often called a hauberk or sometimes a byrnie.

History

The earliest examples of surviving mail were found in the Carpathian Basin at a burial in Horný Jatov, Slovakia dated in the 3rd century BC, and in a chieftain's burial located in Ciumești, Romania. Its invention is commonly credited to the Celts, but there are examples of Etruscan pattern mail dating from at least the 4th century BC. Mail may have been inspired by the much earlier scale armour. Mail spread to North Africa, West Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, India, Tibet, South East Asia, and Japan.

Herodotus wrote that the ancient Persians wore scale armour, but mail is also distinctly mentioned in the Avesta, the ancient holy scripture of the Persian religion of Zoroastrianism that was founded by the prophet Zoroaster in the 5th century BC.

Mail continues to be used in the 21st century as a component of stab-resistant body armour, cut-resistant gloves for butchers and woodworkers, shark-resistant wet-suits for defense against shark bites, and a number of other applications.

Etymology
The origin of the word mail are not fully known. One theory is that it originally derives from the Latin word macula, meaning 'spot' or 'opacity' (as in macula of retina). Another theory relates the word to the old French maillier, meaning 'to hammer' (related to the modern English word malleable). In modern French, maille refers to a loop or stitch. The Arabic words burnus (برنوس 'burnoose, a hooded cloak', also a chasuble worn by Coptic priests) and barnaza (برنز 'to bronze') suggest an Arabic influence for the Carolingian armour known as byrnie (see below).

The first attestations of the word mail are in Old French and Anglo-Norman: maille, maile, or male or other variants, which became mailye, maille, maile, male, or meile in Middle English.

Civilizations that used mail invented specific terms for each garment made from it. The standard terms for European mail armour derive from French: leggings are called chausses, a hood is a mail coif, and mittens, mitons. A mail collar hanging from a helmet is a camail or aventail. A shirt made from mail is a hauberk if knee-length and a haubergeon if mid-thigh length. A layer (or multiple layers) of mail sandwiched between layers of fabric is called a jazerant.

A waist-length coat in medieval Europe was called a byrnie, although the exact construction of a byrnie is unclear, including whether it was constructed of mail or other armour types. Noting that the byrnie was the "most highly valued piece of armour" to the Carolingian soldier, Bennet, Bradbury, DeVries, Dickie, and Jestice indicate that: There is some dispute among historians as to what exactly constituted the Carolingian byrnie. Relying... only on artistic and some literary sources because of the lack of archaeological examples, some believe that it was a heavy leather jacket with metal scales sewn onto it with strong thred. It was also quite long, reaching below the hips and covering most of the arms. Other historians claim instead that the Carolingian byrnie was nothing more than a coat of mail, but longer and perhaps heavier than traditional early medieval mail. Without more certain evidence, this dispute will continue.

In Europe
The use of mail as battlefield armour was common during the Iron Age and the Middle Ages, becoming less common over the course of the 16th and 17th centuries when plate armour and more advanced firearms were developed. It is believed that the Roman Republic first came into contact with mail fighting the Gauls in Cisalpine Gaul, now Northern Italy. The Roman army adopted the technology for their troops in the form of the lorica hamata which was used as a primary form of armour through the Imperial period.

After the fall of the Western Empire, much of the infrastructure needed to create plate armour diminished. Eventually the word "mail" came to be synonymous with armour. It was typically an extremely prized commodity, as it was expensive and time-consuming to produce and could mean the difference between life and death in a battle. Mail from dead combatants was frequently looted and was used by the new owner or sold for a lucrative price. As time went on and infrastructure improved, it came to be used by more soldiers. The oldest intact mail hauberk still in existence is thought to have been worn by Leopold III, Duke of Austria, who died in 1386 during the Battle of Sempach.

By the 14th century, articulated plate armour was commonly used to supplement mail. Eventually mail was supplanted by plate for the most part, as it provided greater protection against windlass crossbows, bludgeoning weapons, and lance charges while maintaining most of the mobility of mail. However, it was still widely used by many soldiers, along with brigandines and padded jacks. These three types of armour made up the bulk of the equipment used by soldiers, with mail being the most expensive. It was sometimes more expensive than plate armour. Mail typically persisted longer in less technologically advanced areas such as Eastern Europe but was in use throughout Europe into the 16th century.

During the late 19th and early 20th century, mail was used as a material for bulletproof vests, most notably by the Wilkinson Sword Company. Results were unsatisfactory; Wilkinson mail worn by the Khedive of Egypt's regiment of "Iron Men" was manufactured from split rings which proved to be too brittle, and the rings would fragment when struck by bullets and aggravate the injury. The riveted mail armour worn by the opposing Sudanese Madhists did not have the same problem but also proved to be relatively useless against the firearms of British forces at the battle of Omdurman. During World War I, Wilkinson Sword transitioned from mail to a lamellar design which was the precursor to the flak jacket.

Mail was also used for face protection in World War I. Oculist Captain Cruise of the British Infantry designed a mail fringe to be attached to helmets to protect the upper face. This proved unpopular with soldiers, in spite of being proven to defend against a 3 oz shrapnel round fired at a distance of 100 yd. Another invention, a "splatter mask" or "splinter mask", consisted of rigid upper face protection and a mail veil to protect the lower face, and was used by early tank crews as a measure against flying steel fragments (spalling) inside the vehicle.

In Asia
Mail armour was introduced to the Middle East and Asia through the Romans and was adopted by the Sassanid Persians starting in the 3rd century AD, where it was supplemental to the scale and lamellar armour already used. Mail was commonly also used as horse armour for cataphracts and heavy cavalry as well as armour for the soldiers themselves. Asian mail could be just as heavy as the European variety and sometimes had prayer symbols stamped on the rings as a sign of their craftsmanship as well as for divine protection.

Mail armour is mentioned in the Quran as being a gift revealed by Allah to David:

"21:80 It was We Who taught him the making of coats of mail for your benefit, to guard you from each other's violence: will ye then be grateful? (Yusuf Ali's translation)"

From the Abbasid Caliphate, mail was quickly adopted in Central Asia by Timur (Tamerlane) and the Sogdians and by India's Delhi Sultanate. Mail armour was introduced by the Turks in late 12th century and commonly used by Turk and the Mughal and Suri armies where it eventually became the armour of choice in India. Indian mail was constructed with alternating rows of solid links and round riveted links and it was often integrated with plate protection (mail and plate armour).

China
Mail was introduced to China when its allies in Central Asia paid tribute to the Tang Emperor in 718 by giving him a coat of "link armour" assumed to be mail. Earliest assumed reference to mail can be found in early 3rd century record by Cao Zhi, being called "chained ring armor". China first encountered the armour in 384 when its allies in the nation of Kuchi arrived wearing "armour similar to chains". Once in China, mail was imported but was not produced widely. Due to its flexibility, comfort, and rarity, it was typically the armour of high-ranking guards and those who could afford the exotic import (to show off their social status) rather than the armour of the rank and file, who used more common brigandine, scale, and lamellar types. However, it was one of the few military products that China imported from foreigners. Mail spread to Korea slightly later where it was imported as the armour of imperial guards and generals.

Japan

In Japan, mail is called kusari which means chain. When the word kusari is used in conjunction with an armoured item it usually means that mail makes up the majority of the armour composition. An example of this would be kusari gusoku which means chain armour. Kusari jackets, hoods, gloves, vests, shin guards, shoulder guards, thigh guards, and other armoured clothing were produced, even kusari tabi socks.

Kusari was used in samurai armour at least from the time of the Mongol invasion (1270s) but particularly from the Nambokucho Period (1336–1392). The Japanese used many different weave methods including a square 4-in-1 pattern (so gusari), a hexagonal 6-in-1 pattern (hana gusari) and a European 4-in-1 (nanban gusari). The rings of Japanese mail were much smaller than their European counterparts; they would be used in patches to link together plates and to drape over vulnerable areas such as the armpits.

Riveted kusari was known and used in Japan. On page 58 of the book Japanese Arms & Armor: Introduction by H. Russell Robinson, there is a picture of Japanese riveted kusari, and this quote from the translated reference of Sakakibara Kozan's 1800 book, The Manufacture of Armour and Helmets in Sixteenth-Century Japan, shows that the Japanese not only knew of and used riveted kusari but that they manufactured it as well.

"... karakuri-namban (riveted namban), with stout links each closed by a rivet. Its invention is credited to Fukushima Dembei Kunitaka, pupil, of Hojo Awa no Kami Ujifusa, but it is also said to be derived directly from foreign models. It is heavy because the links are tinned (biakuro-nagashi) and these are also sharp-edged because they are punched out of iron plate"

Butted or split (twisted) links made up the majority of kusari links used by the Japanese. Links were either butted together meaning that the ends touched each other and were not riveted, or the kusari was constructed with links where the wire was turned or twisted two or more times; these split links are similar to the modern split ring commonly used on keychains. The rings were lacquered black to prevent rusting, and were always stitched onto a backing of cloth or leather. The kusari was sometimes concealed entirely between layers of cloth.

Kusari gusoku or chain armour was commonly used during the Edo period 1603 to 1868 as a stand-alone defense. According to George Cameron Stone

"Entire suits of mail kusari gusoku were worn on occasions, sometimes under the ordinary clothing"

In his book Arms and Armor of the Samurai: The History of Weaponry in Ancient Japan, Ian Bottomley shows a picture of a kusari armour and mentions kusari katabira (chain jackets) with detachable arms being worn by samurai police officials during the Edo period. The end of the samurai era in the 1860s, along with the 1876 ban on wearing swords in public, marked the end of any practical use for mail and other armour in Japan. Japan turned to a conscription army and uniforms replaced armour.

Effectiveness

Mail's resistance to weapons is determined by four factors: linkage type (riveted, butted, or welded), material used (iron versus bronze or steel), weave density (a tighter weave needs a thinner weapon to surpass), and ring thickness (generally ranging from 1.0–1.6 mm diameter (18 to 14 gauge) wire in most examples). Mail, if a warrior could afford it, provided a significant advantage when combined with competent fighting techniques.

When the mail was not riveted, a thrust from most sharp weapons could penetrate it. However, when mail was riveted, only a strong well-placed thrust from certain spears, or thin or dedicated mail-piercing swords like the estoc, could penetrate, and a pollaxe or halberd blow could break through the armour. Strong projectile weapons such as stronger self bows, recurve bows, and crossbows could also penetrate riveted mail. Some evidence indicates that during armoured combat, the intention was to actually get around the armour rather than through it—according to a study of skeletons found at the battle of Visby, Gotland, a majority of the skeletons showed wounds on less well protected legs. Although mail was a formidable protection, due to technological advances as time progressed, mail worn under plate armour (and stand-alone mail as well) could be penetrated by the conventional weaponry of another knight.

The flexibility of mail meant that a blow would often injure the wearer, potentially causing serious bruising or fractures, and it was a poor defence against head trauma. Mail-clad warriors typically wore separate rigid helms over their mail coifs for head protection. Likewise, blunt weapons such as maces and warhammers could harm the wearer by their impact without penetrating the armour; usually a soft armour, such as gambeson, was worn under the hauberk. Medieval surgeons were very well capable of setting and caring for bone fractures resulting from blunt weapons. With the poor understanding of hygiene, however, cuts that could get infected were much more of a problem. Thus mail armour proved to be sufficient protection in most situations.

Manufacture
Several patterns of linking the rings together have been known since ancient times, with the most common being the 4-to-1 pattern (where each ring is linked with four others). In Europe, the 4-to-1 pattern was completely dominant. Mail was also common in East Asia, primarily Japan, with several more patterns being utilised and an entire nomenclature developing around them.

Historically, in Europe, from the pre-Roman period on, the rings composing a piece of mail would be riveted closed to reduce the chance of the rings splitting open when subjected to a thrusting attack or a hit by an arrow.

Up until the 14th century European mail was made of alternating rows of round riveted rings and solid rings. Sometime during the 14th century European mail makers started to transition from round rivets to wedge-shaped rivets, but continued using alternating rows of solid rings. Eventually European mail makers stopped using solid rings and almost all European mail was made from wedge riveted rings only with no solid rings. Both were commonly made of wrought iron, but some later pieces were made of heat-treated steel. Wire for the riveted rings was formed by either of two methods. One was to hammer out wrought iron into plates and cut or slit the plates. These thin pieces were then pulled through a draw plate repeatedly until the desired diameter was achieved. Waterwheel-powered drawing mills are pictured in several period manuscripts. Another method was to simply forge down an iron billet into a rod and then proceed to draw it out into wire. The solid links would have been made by punching from a sheet. Guild marks were often stamped on the rings to show their origin and craftsmanship. Forge welding was also used to create solid links, but there are few possible examples known; the only well-documented example from Europe is that of the camail (mail neck-defence) of the 7th-century Coppergate Helmet found in York (it was also “well documented” as it was found in a well). Outside of Europe this practice was more common such as "theta" links from India. Very few examples of historic butted mail have been found, and it is generally accepted that butted mail was never in wide use historically except in Japan, where mail (kusari) was commonly made from butted links. Butted link mail was also used by the Moros of the Philippines in their mail and plate armours.

Practical uses
Mail is used as protective clothing for butchers against meat-packing equipment. Workers may wear up to 8.8 lb of mail under their white coats. Butchers also commonly wear a single mail glove to protect themselves from self-inflicted injury while cutting meat, as do many oyster shuckers.

Scuba divers sometimes use mail to protect them from sharkbite, as do animal control officers for protection against the animals they handle. In 1980, marine biologist Jeremiah Sullivan patented his design for Neptunic full coverage chain mail shark resistant suits which he had developed for close encounters with sharks. Shark expert and underwater filmmaker Valerie Taylor was among the first to develop and test shark suits in 1979 while diving with sharks.

Mail is widely used in industrial settings as shrapnel guards and splash guards in metal working operations.

Electrical applications for mail include RF leakage testing and being worn as a Faraday cage suit by tesla coil enthusiasts and high voltage electrical workers.

Stab-proof vests
Conventional textile-based ballistic vests are designed to stop soft-nosed bullets but offer little defense from knife attacks. Knife-resistant armour is designed to defend against knife attacks; some of these use layers of metal plates, mail and metallic wires.

Historical re-enactment
Many historical reenactment groups, especially those whose focus is Antiquity or the Middle Ages, commonly use mail both as practical armour and for costuming. Mail is especially popular amongst those groups which use steel weapons. A modern hauberk made from 1.5 mm diameter wire with 10 mm inner diameter rings weighs roughly 10 kg and contains 15,000–45,000 rings.

One of the drawbacks of mail is the uneven weight distribution; the stress falls mainly on shoulders. Weight can be better distributed by wearing a belt over the mail, which provides another point of support.

Mail worn today for re-enactment and recreational use can be made in a variety of styles and materials. Most recreational mail today is made of butted links which are galvanised or stainless steel. This is historically inaccurate but is much less expensive to procure and especially to maintain than historically accurate reproductions. Mail can also be made of titanium, aluminium, bronze, or copper. Riveted mail offers significantly better protection ability as well as historical accuracy than mail constructed with butted links. Japanese mail (kusari) is one of the few historically correct examples of mail being constructed with such butted links.

Decorative uses
Mail remained in use as a decorative and possibly high-status symbol with military overtones long after its practical usefulness had passed. It was frequently used for the epaulettes of military uniforms. It is still used in this form by some regiments of the British Army.

Mail has applications in sculpture and jewellery, especially when made out of precious metals or colourful anodized metals. Mail artwork includes headdresses, decorative wall hangings, ornaments, chess sets, macramé, and jewelry. For these non-traditional applications, hundreds of patterns (commonly referred to as "weaves") have been invented.

Large-linked mail is occasionally used as BDSM clothing material, with the large links intended for fetishistic purposes.

In film
In some films, knitted string spray-painted with a metallic paint is used instead of actual mail in order to cut down on cost (an example being Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which was filmed on a very small budget). Films more dedicated to costume accuracy often use ABS plastic rings, for the lower cost and weight. Such ABS mail coats were made for The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, in addition to many metal coats. The metal coats are used rarely because of their weight, except in close-up filming where the appearance of ABS rings is distinguishable. A large scale example of the ABS mail used in the Lord of the Rings can be seen in the entrance to the Royal Armouries museum in Leeds in the form of a large curtain bearing the logo of the museum. It was acquired from the makers of the film's armour, Weta Workshop, when the museum hosted an exhibition of WETA armour from their films. For the film Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, Tina Turner is said to have worn actual mail and she complained how heavy this was. Game of Thrones makes use of mail, notably during the "Red Wedding" scene.

Mail-based armour

 * Banded mail
 * Hauberk
 * Mail and plate armour
 * Kusari (Japanese mail armour)
 * Lorica hamata
 * Lorica plumata with scales attached to a backing of mail
 * Tatami (Japanese armour)
 * Baju Rantai, type of mail from the Nusantara archipelago

Armour supplementary to mail
Typically worn under mail armour if thin or over mail armour if thick:
 * Gambeson (also known as quilted armour or a padded jack)

Can be worn over mail armour:
 * Brigandine
 * Coat of plates
 * Lamellar armour
 * Mirror armour (supplementary plates worn over mail)
 * Scale armour
 * Splint armour
 * Transitional armour

Others:
 * Cataphract
 * Proofing (armour)
 * Ring armour

title: Chain mail