Talk:Conservatism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conservatism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 90 days

Template:Vital article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Conservatism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Conservatism at the Reference desk.

Sociology C‑class Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Social and political C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy

Politics C‑class Top‑importance

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

Conservatism C‑class Top‑importance

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

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Conservative psychology

This article seems to imply that the consensus among psychologists is that reason for the happiness gap between conservatives and liberals is the rationalization of injustices. However, some literature I have read gives me a reason to believe that this might not be 100% true. This study has been cited 266 times, and offers an alternative explanation for the happiness gap. This study supports the article's current explanation, but it seems to partially accept the results of the previous study. I am no expert in political psychology, so my interpretation of what little I have read may be flawed. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This study states that religiosity can also explain the happiness gap. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent lead changes.

This lead change (which has plainly been contested since shortly after it was added, given the edit-wars over it) is completely unacceptable and sharply decreased both the quality of the relevant text and the extent to which it summarized the article. "Things" is incredibly vague and does not accurately reflect the majority of sources (most of which were removed, I'll noted, in the change, with almost no explanation) - it would imply that eg. environmentalism is a commonly-accepted form of conservatism, when the article text mentions it only to note conservative opposition to it. The article as a whole talks entirely and near-exclusively about conservatives defending institutions; if an editor thinks that that is insufficient (a stance that I do not think the sources support), the appropriate place to begin expanding is in the body, not in the first sentence of the lead. More generally, this is the first sentence of the lead - some WP:BOLDness is fine, but once it was reverted it shouldn't have been restored until there was a clear consensus for it on talk. --Aquillion (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Criticism section

This article still lacks a criticism or analysis section, which many other Wikipedia articles about political ideologies have. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Conservatism does have a criticism section, which could be a good start for creating one here. X-Editor (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good articles in Wikipedia do not have criticism sections because they are inherently POV. Instead, criticism should be incorporated into the article where they arise. I do not see the point anyway. If we say for example that conservatives believe society should be governed by an hereditary elite, why do we need a separate section that says conservatives has been criticized for saying that society should be governed by an hereditary elite? We could also say it has been praised for saying this. TFD (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From a encyclopedic (and NPOV position as long as it is obvious that it is subjective or at best objective criticism) perspective it actually would be interesting to have such a section on this article as well as the Liberalism article. Obviously such criticism is quite subjective but then again what form of criticism is not? Like with many articles, a "Criticism" section at the end of the article can be to the benefit of the reader, especially for readers that would like to get independent perspectives on political ideologies.

Kind regards Locaf1985 (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Thomas Carlyle

Considering that there is no mention of Thomas Carlyle in the body of this page, and that the question of whether or not he is conservative is contentious, I propose his removal from the "Thinkers" section. Sinopecynic (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove the entire section. They really only belong in stub articles. Once an article is developed, the most important people should be mentioned in the text. TFD (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

A bibliography is more useful if it is selective rather than exhaustive. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'The conservative case'

Please add page. Its on page 16. 81.0.166.183 (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should read "nuclear family"

"Other major priorities within American conservatism include support for the traditional family, law and order, the right to bear arms, Christian values, anti-communism and a defense of Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments'." The above quote should say "nuclear family" and not "traditional." Traditional is an entirely subjective term placing one tradition over others. The link goes to the "Family" page, which itself discourages the use of such a politically loaded term. 4Tildes 208.125.143.178 (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]