Note: for inclusion criteria see Template:Conservatism_sidebar#Content

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.

Conservatism Template‑class

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 Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

- Why is it that the pages for every other political doctrine, whether Liberalism or Marxism or Anarchism, include only their prominent theorists while the Conservative page is loaded with statesmen who left little to no philosophical works behind them, including goofballs like Reagan and Thatcher? Someone like Buckley was more of an organizer than a thinker -- as a "philosopher" he's a total lightweight. I'd even say the same, albeit to a somewhat lesser extent, about Russell Kirk. The other pages don't include such people, e.g. the Liberalism page doesn't include FDR, although he was obviously as influential on the political level as Reagan.

- This is a page on Conservative thought. Therefore, the page should focus mainly on Conservative thinkers and not simply famous or influential people who happened to call themselves conservative. Exceptions can be made for statesmen who left some substantial literature behind, like Disraeli and Churchill.

- Neither should Anglo-American be the sole tradition represented. People like Taine and Maurras were both *extremely* important to the French right in their time. I don't care if some undercultured schmuck has never read or heard of them. Inclusion should not be based on how well-known a certain thinker is among the rank-and-file. I don't claim that abominations like Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin are influenced by Taine. I would bet money that neither have ever heard of him. I just claim that it is irrelevant for the purposes of this article. The average American liberal has probably never waded through Rawls's 'A Theory of Justice' in its entirety, and yet he's still important to liberal theory.

- The current GOP does not have a monopoly on the word "Conservatism" and in fact I'd argue many of its current stances run in stark opposition to certain core conservative principles, even after one takes into account that those principles can shift with given circumstances. E.g., the idea of "Conservatives" launching a war to "spread democracy" (!!) strikes me as ridiculous as Communists launching a war to defend private property.

- The main article contains this claim: "They have, however, been accused of selectivity in choosing writers who present a moderate and defensible view of conservatism. For example, Hooker lived before the emergence of conservatism, Halifax did not belong to any party, Hume was not involved in politics, and Burke was a Whig. In the 19th century, Conservatives rejected Burke because of his defense of Catholic emancipation, and found inspiration in Bolingbroke instead. John Reeves, who wrote a Tory response to the French Revolution, is ignored."

This is absolutely ridiculous. WHICH 19th century Conservatives rejected Burke? Because it was Burke's Reflections, not Reeve's scribblings, which were immediately translated and spread throughout continental Europe. It was Burke, not Reeves, who influenced other counter-revolutionaries like Joseph de Maistre and Friedrich von Getz. It was Burke, not Reeves, who was cited by Samuel Taylor Coleridge as his spiritual mentor, and it was Coleridge who trained an entire generation of British Conservatives. The Conservatives who claim Burke as their forefather are not engaging in revisionist history, but the author of the above piece is.

- I realize Newman might be a debatable inclusion. I think he belongs. 1) He self-identified as a Tory and attacks Liberalism in his writings. 2) He's probably the most eloquent exponent of certain important strands of conservative Catholicism, i.e., the important of dogma, papal infallibility, etc. 3) He shares the distrust of rationalism and the need for authority found in other conservatives. 4) Both Russell Kirk and Peter Viereck included Newman in their anthologies of Conservative thought, so obviously some scholars on the topic agree with me on this.

- The inclusion of Viereck over Russell Kirk might also strike others as bizarre but 1) Viereck came first. It was really Viereck and not Kirk who first articulated "Conservatism" in American even if he later faded into the background while Kirk got all the think-tank positions. Google Viereck's NY Times obituary for proof. 2) They cover many of the same thinkers in their anthologies, but Viereck is also conversant with the continental tradition whereas Kirk is not. 3) Viereck is just clearly the more learned and more sophisticated of the two, and including both would be excessive.

- For the record, I'm not a "Conservative" in the strict sense of the term and I've no sympathy for the contemporary Anglo-American Right, as should be evident from my comments above, but I still think conservative political philosophy (and yes, there is some strong philosophical content there) should be treated with the same seriousness as any other. I also think that, given the limited space, the best and most sophisticated intellectual representatives should be chosen. Thus someone with the some real philosophical heft like Roger Scruton should be included over someone like Buckley even if Scruton didn't have the same influence on a practical level. Again, I acknowledge that average-Republican-idiot-congressman is probably not referencing Scruton during floor debates. But I also doubt that the average Democratic congressman has read Keynes or Rawls or has anything beyond a cutaneous knowledge of their ideas. And anyway, if Republican politicians or pundits cite an intellectual at all, it will probably be either Hayek or Friedman, both of whom are in another section, so I don't think "is this person an important influence on actual Conservative politicians?" should be a decisive factor.

- Besides, how wonderful it would be if some soi-disant "Conservatives" stumbled upon this page and decided to educate themselves on some of these authors! It might even cause them to re-evaluate some of their beliefs and positions. Even non-Conservatives should delight at that prospect. On the other hand, if you insist on treating Conservatism as a joke, then you shouldn't be surprised when it attracts all the low hanging fruit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.201.194 (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You make good points. I think the people of Wikiproject Conservative need to read this. They have labeled articles like Donald Rumsfeld and Bush Tax Cuts as of high importance and Compassionate conservatism and Reaganomics as top importance!!!!!

I hope you'll support me at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism. LittleJerry (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm removing Reaganomics, Thatcherism and Tea Party movement from the "see also" section. See also sections are from general topics and not listing of conservative policies. In additon, these are not even the best examples of conservativism. There is a despite over whether the "conservatism" of Thatacher is true conservtism since she differed from the traditional conservatives, the Tories. The Tea party movement is also relatively unimportant historically and is not worthy of the see also section. Such additions are nothing more than giving undue weight to modern Anglo-American politics. LittleJerry (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree. None of these subjects are about conservatism. TFD (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay let me state this again, Reaganomics, Thatcherism and Tea Party movement are narrow topics and do not belong in the "see also" section. The last one in particular is an example of WP:RECENT. All three are nothing more than giving undue to modern Anglo-American politcs. LittleJerry (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no policy which excludes "narrow topics" in a nav box. The Tea Party has been around for 2 years so RECENT doesn't apply; anyway it passes WP:10YT. I'm not persuaded that these are UNDUE. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW this is not a "See also" section so the whole starting point for your argument is unfounded.– Lionel ^(talk) 09:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two years is still recent. What makes the Tea party movement so important that it needs to be there? Can you point to an academic book on Conservatism (not just in America) that gives imporantance to the Tea Party? The probelm is, you've seem to be pay attention more to modern American politics and current events, that you think certain movements are more important them they are. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Tea Party appropriate under "Related topics?" Well, it is related, so the answer is yes. Your argument based on recentism and importance is not persuasive. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are plenty of topics that are relate to conservatism, positive and negative. One should then be able to put in any one of them. LittleJerry (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One can do anything they want as long as they have consensus. However in this case, based on the edit sum you left, you have violated WP:POINT. – Lionel ^(talk) 17:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template is too long vertically. We should wrap the entries in the People group. Any objections? – Lionel ^(talk) 02:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lionel: My objection is a practical one: Unless someone is constantly re-wrapping the names as more names are added, the list will begin to have gaps between names. Look at the People group now and you'll see what I mean. Other groups are also in need of such touch-up. - Babel41 (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I switched the template over to hlist, so it should automatically wrap. Frietjes (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christian Right · Jewish Right
Hindu Nationalism · Islamism
Traditionalist Catholics

How did we arrive at this list? Some of them are political and some are purely theological. Two are Christian. What's the rhyme or reason for picking these five?   Will Beback  talk  01:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like there are only three politicians on the template: Benjamin Disraeli, Winston Churchill, and Margaret Thatcher. I believe all of the other entries are primarily theorists or philosophers. Are these really the three most important politicians in the history of conservatism?   Will Beback  talk  04:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to me the people section needs an overhaul; at the moment the list is sprawling and seemingly random. Perhaps it should reflect, say, the notable people mentioned in the Conservatism article, or maybe the (more conservative) list in Template:Conservatism footer. ‑‑xensyria^T 18:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Somebody invented an imaginary blue flag--no reliable source is given (and no unreliable source either). Perhaps the assumption that if Reds have a red flag then conservatives should have a flag too, and maybe it ought to be blue. (In US political color imagery, as invented by the TV networks decades ago, blue stands for the Democratic Party and red for the GOP.) That is unencyclopedic imagination, of the sort that is not allows in Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I came here wondering whether anybody would get upset enough to comment on the color of the flag image used in the template and I was not disappointed. Do some Wikipedians have too much time on their hands? Did it ever occur to you that the television networks in the United States are run mostly by people who promote the Democratic Party, whose policies in recent decades have become indistinguishable from those of the Communist Party prior to 1970? What better way to deflect scrutiny than apply the color red to their opponents, the color favoured by Communists for over 150 years? — Quicksilver^{T @} 17:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the blue used on the "conservatism flag" (& apparently in the general conservatism-themed colour-sceme) is far too "turquoise"; i'd suggest a darker blue, but even a baby-sky blue would be better & more appropriate than turquoise(!) Lx 121 (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

or, how about no flag, per the section above? Frietjes (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User: FalconKnight88, about this revision, you wrote "US Centric". Looking at other entries - Paleoconservatism is a US thing, Christian right is primarily a US thing as is Christian fundamentalism, Carlism is a Spanish thing, Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists is European, etc. What is the basis for the justification? Jytdog (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question: Is the alt-right a conservative movement? It is surely right-wing, but is it conservative? A number of commentators seem to vigorously reject the idea that the alt-right is conservative (e.g., this, this, and this). Neutrality^talk 03:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am in agreement that it is dubious that the alt-right is a "conservative" movement. Right-wing to be sure but putting it under conservatism seems dubious. I would say it's closer to fascism myself. It's also not really a coherent ideology, more a grouping of already existing far-right movements.

So should it be on the template? I'd say no. I'll leave this here for a few days to see if anyone gets back to me. If nobody does (people often don't respond to stuff I've said on talk pages), I'll remove it.Sdio7 (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since there have been no responses, I'm going to go ahead and remove it. I'll leave a note to see the talk page in my edit.Sdio7 (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternative facts is not a concept in conservatism. The term has popped up recently as a buzz-word and nothing more. Unless the community speaks otherwise, it will not be included in this template. – S. Rich (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not even a concept in criticism of conservatism. It's a new catchphrase used to accuse certain politicians of lying. Eperoton (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Judging by its content, this template is about conservatism, as the term is understood in the scholarly and international sense – the world's best known contemporary conservative politician is Angela Merkel. Just having a name which happens to include the word "conservatism" doesn't make something part of this specific ideology, when it has absolutely nothing in common with conservatism as an ideology internationally. Having an ideology ("American Conservatism"/Trump/"alt-right") noted for its strong affinity for the authoritarian self-proclaimed heirs of Soviet communism in the same template which includes the European People's Party, Pope Benedict and proper conservatives is absurd. In fact, these alt-right Trump guys have explicitly stated that their main enemies are the conservatives. It would be better to move everyhing about "alt-right", Trump and "American Conservatism" to a template on Trumpism or "American Conservatism". --Tataral (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion at Talk:Conservatism#The_list_of_people_is_inaccurate may be of interest here. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe I could come up with a smaller list and post it here to see what people think. Hisokathorongil (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, here's my initial stab at a new list of figures in rough chronological order (people with a better knowledge of Russian/Spanish/etc conservatism can round out the list with the most important figures of those countries and/or add in the most important hyper-reactionaries from the previous list, if they feel they must):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Mandeville
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quincy_Adams
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois-Ren%C3%A9_de_Chateaubriand
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Fitzjames_Stephen
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Santayana
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_M._Weaver
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Voegelin
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Oakeshott
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Barzun
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_von_Kuehnelt-Leddihn
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicol%C3%A1s_G%C3%B3mez_D%C3%A1vila
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Nisbet
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Kirk
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley_Jr.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leszek_Ko%C5%82akowski
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_P._George
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_Arkes
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryszard_Legutko
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell

Hisokathorongil (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

KUMAR1011 (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

—Syama Prasad Mukherjee^[1]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a sidebar, and a top level template for a topic area. For inclusion criteria, we can look to WP:SIDEBAR "should be treated with special attention, because they are so prominently displayed to readers. The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related... If the articles are not tightly related, a footer template (located at the bottom of the article) may be more appropriate." How does this work in the real world? Let's look at the WPConservatism Importance scale for Top-importance which says "Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to the Conservatism topic area. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within Conservatism. Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia. Subject is a candidate for ((Conservatism}.}" So articles in the sidebar must have a broad, international and lasting impact on conservatism.– Lionel^(talk) 11:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People in the sidebar

I boldly added 5 people who I think everyone will agree had a profound effect on conservatism. Going forward, I propose that we set a limit of 20 people (not my idea). Then we can either (1) use a list of top conservatives from a RS (easiest) or (2) nominate people who RS unarguably describe as crucial to conservatism and then vote (much funner lol). – Lionel^(talk) 12:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Hello,

I don't know why, but the number of people in the "People" section of the conservatism sidebar has been greatly reduced to only five people from the lengthy list it had earlier.

Could you please add back more people to the "people" section of the Conservatism sidebar to reflect the version from April 17, 2018? Here is a link that has all of the people from the sidebar on that date: https://web.archive.org/web/20180417224835/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

Thank you very much,

WolftheLionheart WolftheLionheart (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging User:Power~enwiki as the one who made this change. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed all of them, and Lionelt added 5 people back. Until there's some consensus on what to re-add, I'd prefer not to revert my change in its entirety. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Understood. @WolftheLionheart: Please feel free to continue the discussion here. If a consensus emerges for who to add back, reactivate this request (though when that happens, there will probably be someone directly involved here who can make the change). ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The People section had gotten out of control, as these things are prone to do, power-enwiki put an end to the madness lol. I made 2 proposals regarding adding People here Template_talk:Conservatism_sidebar#People_in_the_sidebar. – Lionel^(talk) 15:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Socialism template has the title on a red strip, while the one for Liberalism has it on yellow. So, for the conservatism template, why not have the name on a blue one? Lamp301 (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Inside the section on influential conservative thinkers, I think people like Russell Kirk, Roger Scruton and Thomas Sowell. 109.152.72.78 (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Add a reference to Cicero's page

Add a reference to Aristotle's page

Add a reference to Cato the Younger's page

Add a reference to Thomas Aquinas' page

Add a reference to Jose Ortega y Gasset's page

Add a reference to Johann Gottfried Herder' page 148.83.134.33 (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done – no apparent reason for this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How does Jordan Peterson qualify as a "Conservative philosopher"? Has there been discussion of this somewhere? Is there any sourcing for this? Thanks. --Tsavage (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jordan Peterson has done more to spread conservative philosophy in our age than anyone else. Yoram Hazony wrote in The Wall Street Journal that "the startling success of his elevated arguments for the importance of order has made him the most significant conservative thinker to appear in the English-speaking world in a generation." Conservatism is dealing with themes such as family values, healthy relationships, and individual spirituality—all of which are Petersonian. The political dimension is secondary, not only in Peterson as a specific thinker but often also in conservatism as a philosophy. - Trakking (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's your opinion, plus one other person's opinion in an op-ed. Are there reliable secondary sources indicating that Wikipedia should categorize Peterson as a conservative philosopher? I'm not sure how Portals work, this is still a BLP issue. It's one thing to say that some sources call Peterson a conservative philospher/thinker, and another for Wikipedia to definitively present him as such. --Tsavage (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Add David Starkey to the list of conservative thinkers; he is much more significant in the history of conservative theory than Peter Hitchens. 2.103.150.188 (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((edit semi-protected)) template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

TOO Eurocentric. Conservatism is a universal doctrine. I suggest adding Dai Jitao as a thinker, and Lee Kuan Yew, Chiang Kai-shek as two politicians. 升财膏叶轶外挣 (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done for now: None of those articles label them as conservatives. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Add Hegel to the list of conservative thinkers. After Burke, he is perhaps the most significant of all. 88.104.208.46 (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And exactly who is Hegel, may I ask? We at Wikipedia are not mind readers. Also, do you have a Reliable Source for this? MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((edit semi-protected)) template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish: Since you have been asking for this, here are some solid sources indicating that Hegel is, indeed, a major exponent of Conservatism:

• Robert Nisbet, Conservatism: Dream & Reality, pp. 20, 35, 52–53
• Sidney Hook, "Hegel Rehabilitated?", in Hegel's Political Philosophy, pp. 61, 64
• Roger Scruton, "Hegel as a Conservative Thinker", in The Philosopher on Dover Beach, pp. 41—42
• David Edward Rose, "The Relevance of Hegelian Social Thought to Contemporary Conservatism", in Reflections on Conservatism, pp. 110, 122

Trakking (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't ask for the sources, I procedurally closed the edit request as consensus needed because MadGuy7023 had questions about the edit. Per the template instructions, the request should be closed while awaiting user input. I have no opinion on the inclusion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This talk page is not the place to include sources. This information needs to be summarized at the linked article, with consensus there, before the article is added to this template. This template is intended to summarize existing, already-sourced content.

Further, as I mentioned elsewhere, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservatism/Assessment#Overview has specific guidelines for inclusion in this template, as well as Template:Conservatism navbox. Since Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel is not part of that project at all, as it stands, neither template appears appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grayfell: What you wrote makes no sense. We are several people who think Hegel ought to be included on the template. And there are sources that certify that he's qualified for the addition. He's been added before but removed without consensus. Trakking (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I'll try to explain some of these issues in another way, so that they make sense.

First, consensus is not a popular vote, it's the product of discussions which are based on policy and guideline. Two people want to include this, but that is not consensus, because policy and guideline do not support inclusion, at least not yet. In order for this to change, some additional changes will need to be made.

So that brings us to sources: As editors, we do not expect readers to look on talk pages to find sources. It's not enough for sources to exist, they have to be actually cited. Further, they have to be cited for this exact point. This problem is made worse by placing sources on only one of two different template talk pages, which can be harder to notice even for experienced editors. So if these sources are usable, they need to be cited.

Templates do not support citations, so these citations need to be added to the linked article. Merely mentioning the existence of these citations in isolation is not helpful to readers, so they need to be summarized. If these sources support that Hegel is vitally important to any understanding of conservatism, use those sources to explain how he is vitally important to readers. (I would hope any reliable source for this would also explain the existence of Left Hegelians, but that discussion belongs elsewhere).

Consensus for inclusion of this content needs to be made at that linked article. Forming that consensus here, and then imposing it on the article by adding a template, is inappropriate. To put it another way, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at this template cannot over-ride consensus at the linked article, and navigation templates need consensus at both articles.

Next is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservatism/Assessment#Overview. Per Wikiproject Conservatism, "Top" importance articles are those for which Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to the Conservatism topic area. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within Conservatism. Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia. Subject is a candidate for [the Conservatism navbox]. The examples given are Conservatism and Margaret Thatcher.

So this page is not the place to discuss whether or not Hegel meets this standard. Talk:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel is the place. Once the article itself has been expanded to make this importance clear, with consensus, then it makes sense to reevaluate that article's tanking with Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism.

Finally, once it makes sense to include the article in the template (but not before), the template should also be added to the article itself, per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Grayfell (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your authoritative answer: that was meticulous. I will take your comments into consideration. For now, I will just mention that others have wanted to add Hegel as well. I remember @Kanclerz K-Tech adding him on the navbox. Also, as an expert on Conservatism, who owns a great deal of literature on the topic, I would argue that Hegel has exerted a greater influence on Conservatism than even has Thatcher, making him a crucial addition to the list. I will continue this discussion later and/or hope for more people to chime in. Trakking (talk) 11:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I never added remember Hegel. Kanclerz K-Tech (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• never remembered adding Hegel Kanclerz K-Tech (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Trakking:, I would strongly advise you to read Wikipedia:Expert editors:

The mission of Wikipedia is to provide articles that summarize accepted knowledge regarding their subjects, working in a community of editors who can be anonymous if they wish. We generally find "accepted knowledge" in high quality secondary sources like literature reviews and books.

Wikipedia has no formal structure with which to determine whether an editor is a subject-matter expert, and does not grant users privileges based on expertise; what matters in Wikipedia is what you do, not who you are. Previously published reliable sources, not Wikipedia editors, have authority for the content of this encyclopedia.

To put it another way, the best way for you to use your expertise to improve Wikipedia is to cite the sources that made you an expert in the first place. Wikipedia is doesn't publish original research, so your assessment of who is and is not crucial is not directly usable. Instead, use your knowledge of sources to summarize and explain what those sources are saying to readers. This is, very simply, how Wikipedia works as a tertiary source and as an encyclopedia. Grayfell (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to see the concept of original sin being given a highlight on this page. The notion of original sin or in its secularised form 'human imperfection' has impacted both conservative tendencies as well as conservative philosophical systems, this fact has been distinguished by the Polish political scientist and scholar of conservatism Adam Wielomski.

To quote the following article: https://konserwatyzm.pl/wielomski-idea-wolnosci-u-josepha-de-maistrea/ >'Wolność absolutna nie jest możliwa z powodu o charakterze teologiczno-antropologicznym. Jest nim grzech pierworodny. Refleksja konserwatywna zawsze przykładała do niego wielką wagę (nazywając ten problem wprost w ten sposób lub rozważając kwestię ułomności ludzkiej)' >'Absolute freedom is not possible due to a problem of a theologico-anthrological character. That being original sin. Conservative introspection always attached to it a great weight ([either] calling this problem by this name or by considering the question of human defection).'

He is not alone in defining conservatism in terms of original sin and mentions the work of José Rafael Hernández Arias in the form of Donoso Cortés und Carl Schmitt. Eine Untersuchung über die Staats- und rechtsphilosophische Bedeutung von Donoso Cortés im Werk Carl Schmitts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanclerz K-Tech (talk • contribs) 19:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seriously? As above, this template is absolutely not the appropriate place to provide this kind of information. The article Original sin barely even mentions conservatism, so you must first discuss any such additions at Talk:Original sin instead. Once that article properly supports that original sin is specifically central to conservatism, then discuss there whether or not this template belongs. Until this change has consensus at that article, I block consensus on adding it to this template. Grayfell (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

alright Kanclerz K-Tech (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

2800:200:E630:106E:C1C4:8F81:6E4F:9FE8 (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding "Fujimorism" as a Peruvian variant of conservatism

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]