Talk:Conservatism

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Bibliography

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

'The conservative case'

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

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)