This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conservatism US template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 366 days

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Conservatism Top‑importance This template 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 Top This template has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American High‑importance This template 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 High This template has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This template is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance). United States High‑importance This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles High This template has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for the ((Conservatism US)) sidebar and ((Conservatism US footer)) templates. Changes to one template should be reflected in the other as well. If your message only relates to one of the templates, please specify sidebar or footer.

This page is under the stewardship of WikiProject Conservatism; changes to it should reflect consensus. If you are planning to make any significant changes, please discuss them first.

Seems to’ve become quite the spokesperson for the position. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of God and Man at Yale, A Choice Not an Echo, and The Closing of the American Mind I understand. These are extremely well-known, still in print, and referenced even today. Some of the others, though, left me scratching my head. Hillbilly Elegy? The Benedict Option? You might as well go back to including It Take a Family and other forgettable election-season memoirs and how-tos that get churned out, chewed up, and forgotten. I think if this template is going to have a list of works, they should be self-evidently recognizable as bastions of argument and philosophy—the kinds of books that leave everyone both speechless and scrambling for some way to react to it. It doesn't have to be universally acclaimed, but it shouldn't be something that you go "what was that book about, again?" five years after you read it. Honestly, I don't think any works within the last 25 years should be included unless they meet that criteria. -- Veggies (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Rothbard to the Intellectuals list, OR replace Hoppe with Rothbard. Rothbard should be part of the "Intellectuals" list, if necessary replacing Hoppe. Rothbard was Hoppe's mentor and it is straightforward to prove that he has exerted much more intellectual and institutional relevance than Hoppe. If only one of the two were to be included in the intellectual's list, it's Rothbard. 189.93.247.59 (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that if Hoppe is on the list, Rothbard belongs there too. OTOH, I could argue that neither of them belong as I more associate them with libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism--and specifically the Austrian school--than I do American conservatism. That said, libertarian conservatism is under the "schools" section of this template, so it's not a stretch. There was an earlier discussion on this page about bloat, so we might be in one or the other territory, but I have only passing familiarity with either of them--not enough to choose.

TL;DR: I think this change requires consensus to make, and technically I should close the request on that basis. But I'll leave it open for a bit to attract other opinions. Xan747 (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Xan747 is absolutely right that Rothbard is a libertarian, not a conservative. The most prominent American conservative intellectual, Russell Kirk, drew clear distinctions between the two ideologies in Libertarians: Chirping Sectaries (1981):

"What else do conservatives and libertarians profess in common? The answer to that question is simple: nothing. Nor will they ever. To talk of forming a league or coalition between these two is like advocating a union of ice and fire."
"Conservatives have no intention of compromising with socialists, but even such an alliance, ridiculous though it would be, is more conceivable than the coalition of conservatives and libertarians."
"When heaven and earth have passed away, perhaps the conservative mind and the libertarian mind may be joined in synthesis, but not until then."

Hoppe, however, is a classical conservative on many issues: he preaches family values, speaks of a "natural aristocracy," thinks monarchism is superior to majoritarianism, criticizes postmodern liberal norms etc. And unlike Rothbard, he was influenced by conservative philosophers such as Karl Ludwig von Haller and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. Trakking (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No, do not add. Rothbard represents the very essence of Libertarianism in the United States (and worldwide). There already exists a perfectly good info-box template (Libertarianism in the US) for people like Rothbard and his friends. We should be taking steps to separate Libertarianism from Conservatism however we can, rather than mixing them up. Yes, there is some (perhaps in some cases, a good bit) of overlap (here and there). I can understand the appeal of Rothbard as being somehow conservative, but he is not really at all what is considered conservative for the United States. Rather than facilitating mixing up political philosophies to the point that there are only two polar opposites (Liberalism and Conservatism) we should be trying to separate out different political philosophies as much as we can. Separating the philosophies serves the encyclopedic readership much more so than fixing everything and everyone into only two polar opposite philosophies. In my view, there is already a good bit of philosophical mixup already within the this template (Conservatism in the US). Adding Rothbard to this template is like adding Adolf Hitler to this template as an intellectual. Using this add-Rothbard thinking, since Adolf Hitler shared one or two points with conservatism (like an element of nationalism), he should therefore be added to the conservatism (in the US) template. That is ridiculous thinking. Yes, conservatism already has a -- so-called -- school of libertarianism within it. But totally conflating all of Libertarianism with Conservatism (by including the central figure of Libertarianism into Conservatism) is over-the-top counterproductive to readership understanding of the different philosophies. Rothbard is already in the template Libertarianism in the US. That is where he belongs and I think that is where he should exclusively stay. --L.Smithfield (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Not done: Closing request on the basis there are objections, which precludes the edit request process. A consensus or compromise will be needed to implement this material. —Sirdog (talk) 12:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

“Add Supreme Court Justice Pierce Butler To The List Of Jurists” 24.179.241.58 (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by GreenLoeb. Thanks, all. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 01:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's apparently "controversial" to say Leonard Leo, a man who has never tried a case or sat on a bench, is accurately described as a "jurist" and trying to find a broader term like "legal movement" is something worth reverting. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And Ed Meese described as a "jurist"?? Honestly think he'd be surprised by that. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A jurist is an expert at law, a person who is educated in law. What makes you believe these people do not qualify for the term? Trakking (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Movement conservatism pushing a political agenda through the court system is not legal expertise or scholarship, and it's insulting to legal scholarship to say it is. Therequiembellishere (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"A person educated in the law" is every lawyer ever. Every lawyer is decidedly not a jurist. Therequiembellishere (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

just asking because i intend to add him StrongALPHA (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fuentes is a very fringe person. He does not sympathize with American conservatism. Trakking (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now another person has added 24-year-old Jackson Hinkle, who is described as a communist pro-Russian troll in his article. (I will assume it is not one user making this addition with a sock puppet.) I am not allowed to revert more than once. @GreenLoeb: Could you please make the reversion? Trakking (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help, I have reverted this addition, which to me seems disingenuous and nonconstructive. GreenLoeb (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to WP:AFG? I even checked the last page of edits in case he had already been added. There was no mention as @Trakking failed to reference the individual removed, given that StrongALPHA didn't provide follow WP:FIES which wasn't really factored into WP:REVEXP. The reason I added him is because I added the template to his page [1], because he's an AC so it makes sense to have this.

StrongALPHA hasn't made a single edit on the Hinkle page, so not sure where that came from either. [2]

As for Hinkle, sure he has crank-politics, but is otherwise an American conservative with them, but I do understand if he remains too obscure for now given he only reached notability in the past month or so. I'll leave it at that, maybe someone else will bring it up another time if he continues to gain notability. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have made several edits on the Jackson Hinkle page, but not very many. StrongALPHA (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]