Jump to content

Template talk:Conservatism US/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Elephant symbol

I have to question the use of the elephant symbol in this template. It's a partisan symbol the Republican Party, which of course tends to be the more conservative major party, especially recently, but conservatism is not the same as being a Republican. There are conservative Democrats, there are liberal Republicans, and there are conservative independents and members of third parties. Many conservatives have serious disagreements with the GOP. This template links to 4 other political parties besides the Republicans.

If an image is necessary in the template, a assemblage of American conservative intellectuals such as Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley Jr. would be better. —D Monack (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The elephant has never been a general symbol of conservatism. It is specifically a symbol of the Republican Party, which does not embody all conservativism in the US. I've removed it from the template. Kaldari (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Cluttered

The "People" section is absurdly oversized. Compare to corresponding template "Liberalism in the Unites States." If the field isn't going to be limited, than at least consider further sivisng into sections for Politicians, Jurists, Academics, etc. 2602:306:365A:2F30:BD2C:994F:4A8D:2859 (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Way too big. Most of these names I never heard of. Need to scale it down to people who actually made a significant contribution to US conservatism. Sovietmessiah (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to remove "People" section

There are way too many people on the list for it to be useful, IMO. Before taking further steps, I'd like to float this proposal here first. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. There are especially far too many contemporary figures. Jamee999 (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Trump is not a conservative

Donald Trump is not considered a conservative by many mainstream pundits both whom are conservative and those who are not. He may need to be removed. 161.185.151.51 (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

->No-one who is embraced by the alt-right deserves to be on this list.2602:306:365A:2F30:1DC6:C41D:2DE6:1C1 (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

This reads a lot like a No True Scotsman; not to express an opinion—for or against—the man (believe me, I have them, they just don't belong here), he's currently the leading figure of the Republican Party,[citation not needed] which is the Conservative party in the United States.[citation only sorta needed] The fact that he got the support of a large portion of American conservatives implies that he appeals to American conservatives; so either he's a conservative or, if he's not, he's at least an extremely relevant person to the topic of Conservatism in the United States.
...and yeah, I know I'm a bit late to the show. Hppavilion1 (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Convenience: Clickable Pictures Suggestion

Could someone edit the template make the pictures at the top link-clickable in the same style as Template:Automatic taxobox (seen in action on the Mammals page)? The image is a lot of generic faces—some I recognize, some I don't—and I was annoyed to find that it's just a static collage. (I got Reagan plus Justices Scalia and Thomas without help, and Coolidge with some luck, but I think I'm slightly more tuned into these things than average). Hppavilion1 (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hppavilion1: I'd support that but don't have the technical/artistic know-how. Regarding the people listed, Alito and Kemp seem less important than the others. I'd favor swapping them out for, perhaps, Newt Gingrich, Dwight Eisenhower, or Ayn Rand. - Sdkb (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2019

The addition of Nikki Haley, former conservative governor of South Carolina and former United States ambassador to the United Nations. 68.6.131.238 (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. See discussion of inclusion criteria above; it would seem that adding Haley would be a step in the wrong direction. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2020

There are many, Many women and minority conservatives. Why does is collage of conservatives pictures pick all males? Sandra Day O'Connor is one!! Do some research. C. Rice and Colon Powell???? 70.109.129.129 (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Edit requests are for requests to make specific, precise edits, not for general complaints about the template. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2020

There is a typo in the "Conservatism in the United States" sidebar. Under "Other Organizations", the hyperlink to The Fellowship is misspelled as "Th Fellowship". 4.31.182.182 (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

Please note that this template falls under WP:SIDEBAR which requires that "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related." In practice and by convention this means that articles on the sidebar should be assessed as Importance=High on their WikiProject Conservatism banner on the talkpage. Inclusion on the footer is not as tightly related. For more info on importance ratings see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservatism/Assessment#Importance_scale. – Lionel(talk) 09:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

A few of the lists are out of control. The sidebar template is supposed to be concise. Entries on this template should have made a profound, lasting impact on American conservatism. The footer template has plenty of room for lesser importance entries. And there's also the Social conservatism footer too. I propose that we establish the following limitations for the sidebar. Which entries to include can be !voted in our usual fashion, or better would be just to use a list compiled by RS.
  • People: 20 (we should probably start with the 9 people on the image lol)
  • Think tanks: 10
  • Other orgs: 15
  • Media: 15
– Lionel(talk) 10:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think that some substantial criteria should be applied for new entries on this list (especially for the list of people) -- and somewhat diligently! While I do not object to having many tens (or over one hundred) people named, they should indeed have made a major and long contribution to the associated ideology.
For example, was the recent addition of CJ Pearson really warranted? Come on now, the guy is 17 years old. What the flip has this guy really done in his life? Now he is one of the major representatives of some ideology in the history of the United States of America? Hard to believe. Yes, I read his page. So what? I think that this list should be limited to those people who actually made the major contributions to this ideology in the United States. Further, if someone like CJ Pearson is put on the list (of people), then there should probably be another one hundred thousand or two hundred thousand more representative people who should have been put on the list before him! --L.Smithfield (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Echo the above. It appears anyone remotely Conservative is now being added to the Sidebar. Koncorde (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Also the addition of moderate or liberal Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller and Thomas Dewey are barely considered conservatives in their pages and Rockefeller himself is in the "Liberalism in the United States" template. Guess we should expand upon the template with every single person in the Category: American conservative people which has 1,500+ pages. If that's the case, we should also expand upon the other political belief templates as well, they are all 4-5 times shorter than Conservatism. 2605:E000:1126:42A9:CC43:B85C:DC08:CE5F (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


Entries

I'm a bit mystified by the choice of entries. The "core principles" seem to focus on social issues, but have nothing about low taxes or support of businesses versus labor. Why Jerry Falwell and George W. Bush but not Fulton Sheen or Eisenhower? Why include insignificant parties like America First Party (2002) but not the better known America First Party (1944)? What criteria was used to select these entries?   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Core principles & people were culled from Conservatism in the United States. Parties was copied from [1]. The template by no means a finished product. Why can't we use the eagle? – Lionel (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems like a bunch of random links. I'm guessing that the list of parties is supposed to represent active parties, but since the rest of the template includes historical figures I think it'd make more sense to include important past parties and leave off the current insignificant ones. But I can't see any logic to the list of principles or people.
I don't see what informative purpose a blurry cartoon of an eagle's head serves. I don't think any particular image is associated with conservatism, so let's just avoid complicating things.   Will Beback  talk  05:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, the Timeline of conservatism does not seem to be focused on conservatism in the US. If anyone ever does a special US version then that'd be relevant, but I suggest removing the international timeline.   Will Beback  talk  07:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
So again, why do we have these particular people on the list? The implication is that these are the most important figures in the history of conservatism in the United States. Are all Republican presidents major figures? OTOH, Democrat Woodrow Wilson may have been more conservative in some respects than Republican Richard Nixon. Has Irving Babbitt had more influence than Rush Limbaugh? I think this list needs careful consideration. I'd be inclined to stub it down to something much shorter pending a sensible list. The alternative is to delete it.   Will Beback  talk  00:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Reasoning behind selection of individuals, quotes taken from Conservatism in US article:

  • Daniel Webster: "Giants Of American Conservatism"
  • Calvin Coolidge: "high tide of American conservatism"
  • Irving Babbitt: "conservative writing of the period includes Democracy and Leadership"
  • Dwight Eisenhower: ?
  • Russell Kirk: 2 sections in article
  • Barry Goldwater: "conservatives united behind the unsuccessful 1964 presidential campaign "
  • Irving Kristol: "major founders of the movement"
  • Jerry Falwell: "preached traditional moral and religious social values"
  • Ronald Reagan: "solidified conservative Republican strength ..."
  • George W. Bush: "brought a new generation of conservative activists to power in Washington"

– Lionel (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether these people have some connection to conservatism. The issue is there are perhaps hundreds of people who have as much of a claim to importance as the listed ones. Are you really prepared to say that Jerry Falwell is one of the 12 most important figures in the history of American Conservatism?   Will Beback  talk  06:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
It might be easier to put together a solid template if we refocused on 'modern conservatism'- recent events, from the time of Coolidge on perhaps. The minor local parties should really all go. As linking to the 'Prohibition Party' article- the early 20th century party the bulk of that article refers to was hardly 'conservative'. Nevard (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Consistent with that, I'll remove Daniel Webster. I'll also add the Republican presidents since Coolidge. Then we should consider which parties and principles to add.   Will Beback  talk  01:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm writing this almost nine years after the above users raised their concerns with the length of the list, and in that time it certainly has gotten longer. The list is far too long. We need to pare it substantially. For example, can anyone make a real argument as to why Steve Wynn is listed? Anyone? Thenextprez 11:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Image

Does anyone else wonder why the collage includes three recent Supreme Court justices, one third of all of the images? Could there be a broader representation of other fields? Alternatively, is it really necessary to have the collage? See Template:Liberalism US. Sundayclose (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice Needed to Editors

New people tend not to read the talk page before editing. Is there a way to have a notice show up on this page so anyone who wants to add someone sees the purpose? "Entries on this template should have made a profound, lasting impact on American conservatism." A notice may stop people from adding unnecessarily. --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

Adding Arnold Schwarzenegger in the list of people. Righanred (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please discuss this with the members of WikiProject Conservatism at WT:RYT, if they agree then a member of that project can easily make this edit. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 02:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

I would recommend, for your consideration, these names to add to the list of "People" within the template: Conservatism US:

Phil Robertson Josh Hawley Tom Cotton S.I. Hayakawa Hiram Fong

I recommend the inclusion of Phil Robertson, Josh Hawley and Tom Cotton under the names of prominent conservative people within the template. Hawley and Cotton are prominent conservatives within the Republican Party, often times with voting patterns similar to the already mentioned senator Ted Cruz. Phil Robertson is a conservative commentator and host of both a TV program and a podcast and a religious conservative figure, akin to the already-mentioned Billy Graham, Franklin Graham and Jerry Falwell, Jr.

I would also recommend the inclusion of more conservative figures of color (particularly given the times we live in and acknowledging the contributions of our people of color to many causes America), for your consideration: former senators S.I. Hayakawa of California and Hiram Fong of Hawaii for inclusion on the basis of both their maverick streaks akin to Barry Goldwater and John McCain, while also remaining conservative in ways akin to Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan. Hayakawa and Fong were from historically-marginalized minority groups (Japanese and Cantonese, respectively) and adding their names can display more racial diversity in this template as exemplified by the previous inclusions of Charles Curtis (Native American), Dinesh D'Souza (Indian), Ben Carson and Justice Clarence Thomas (both African American). 68.6.131.238 (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Tartan357  (Talk) 00:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2020

Add a link to white supremacy under the principles section of the template. 76.200.133.195 (talk) 07:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Not done. – Thjarkur (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Using the template

Would it be appropriate to add Ryan T. Anderson to the template or is he not a major enough figure? Also, even if he is too minor and doesn't warrant a place on the template, would it still be appropriate to add the template to the article?  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 23:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Thinking perhaps we need separate templates for US social conservatism and US economic conservatism. This person strikes me as solely of significance in the first camp. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Image

Are there no prominent female figures in conservatism? Right now, the images are entirely masculine which I don't believe reflects reality in the United States. Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Trump as the most central figure ever in US conservatism?

Seems odd, Trump's picture in the center spot, as if he's a most formative and important figure in conservatism. His overriding first instinct seems more toward imposing populist federal government solutions to most every problem. Bump stock ban, tariffs, welfare spending by executive order. Not denying altogether that he has some conservative instincts as well, but has certainly contributed nothing at all that is new or innovative to the ideology of conservatism, and has at times in the view of many muddled and done more harm than good to it. If kept in the template at all, his picture should be bottom left. Reagan would be much better for the center spot, especially with the trend of late diminishing Reagan historically. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hyperbolick: Trump as a central figure in conservatism is a very strange choice. I wouldn't consider him a conservative at all, although clearly his presidency will have a place in the history of US conservatism.
I answered your question at the TVP (Conservatism_US_puzzle). To make the change you need to change image (e.g. version 2 of the jpg file) and the imagemap (the links). If you want Reagan central (a reasonable choice compared to Jack Kemp) you need a new image or to construct a mosaic using the {{Multiple image}} template. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Calvin Coolidge
Barry Goldwater
Ayn Rand
William F. Buckley Jr.
Ronald Reagan
Milton Friedman
William Rehnquist
Donald Trump official portrait
Phyllis Schlafly
Here is a mosaic using {{Multiple image}}. It needs alt taxt and links adding. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
For a minimum of complication I have gone back to image two, until there is a real discussion of what images most centrally represent the philosophy of conservatism. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
That seems the sensible choice for now.
I must say I find the selections in both images rather strange. Of the images shown, none of Coolidge, Kemp, Thomas or Alito are mentioned in the article on Conservatism in the United States. Kemp in the middle is particularly bizarre. I'd suggest picking images for people in the article or changing the article to explain their importance. Someone like Irving Kristol for the neocons or Samuel Huntington for the paleoconservatives or William Rehnquist for the conservative judges seem better picks. That said, I'll help with any technical template issues and leave that discussion for others. —  Jts1882 | talk  19:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Current template does have more than a width of recentism, yes. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Coming from the East Coast where Trump was a big donor to Democratic candidates for ages, it's still hard to see him as a notable conservative. He wasn't a Republican for most of his life. Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Replace Samuel Alito or Clarence Thomas with Condoleezza Rice

This would allow one woman to be included in the collage. I'm not sure that Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are all needed. I think Rice may have changed the direction of conservatism more than Alito, or possibly Thomas. 2601:640:4000:3170:2555:197A:AD61:EA87 (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Has she, though? For a woman influential of conservatism, I'd immediately go to Ayn Rand. Maybe Phyllis Schlafly. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I was also thinking Ayn Rand, but I wasn't sure if that was allowed, because all the others are holders of public offices. (Oh, sorry, not Milton Friedman). 2601:640:4000:3170:2555:197A:AD61:EA87 (talk) 07:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
And why dos Jack Kemp have the central place? Or any place, for that matter. I can't see why Kemp, Thomas or Alito are even in consideration as one of nine important representatives of American conservatism. None are mentioned in Conservatism in the United States. That leaves three places. Ayn Rand is a good call. In the previous discussion I suggested Irving Kristol for the neocons, Samuel Huntington for the paleoconservatives, and William Rehnquist for the conservative judges (a more significant figure than Alito or Thomas). So I'd say Rand, Rehnquist, and one other would be an improvement on the current selection. Perhaps a discussion at the main article should be started. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I note that someone recently asked about adding a religious figure to the template at Talk:Conservatism in the United States, suggesting Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Francis Spellman, and also mentioned the lack of women, suggesting Phyllis Schlafly and Jeane Kirkpatrick. Anyway, I've edited the collage above to include Rand and Schlafly. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I think Rehnquist and Scalia are probably the best representatives of Supreme Court Justices. Another question: are they different enough such that they both belong in the gallery? If so, does Trump even belong? Otherwise, I suppose we could replace Schlafly with Rehnquist if he's more important.2601:640:4000:3170:F4F5:C8B5:99B8:8855 (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Trump decidedly does not belong. He is a transactional populist whose first reaction to situations is big government big spending solutions. He was a lifelong Democrat, and has never shaken those instincts. He has contributed absolutely nothing to conservative thought, philosophy, or ideology. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Remove the collage

The collage was added only a few years ago. There's no need for making the highly subjective and controversial picks of the Nine True Conservatives, which no two editors will ever agree on. No image is better than such a choice. It's not even helpful for the sidebar - the helpful part is "Conservatism in the United States", very few readers will recognize any of the scaled-down portraits at a glance other than maybe Reagan. Any objections to just removing it? (See also MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES ; while conservatism is not an ethnicity, it is a large and hetrogenous group and thus faces many similar problems of attempting to reduce a huge group to Just Nine People.) SnowFire (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Attempts to discuss who should be in the collage went nowhere (Kemp central was bizarre), so I think removing it is the best solution. It's unnecessary. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the collage should be removed. It is particularly strange to have pictures of Reagan and Scalia transcluded into articles about subjects that have nothing to do with them. — Goszei (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2021

I want to edit this template because I need to add more conservatives on here to show other people who are the conservatives in American politics and how that is the case. TruthfulDemocrat (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Please include the exact change or changes you'd like to make in your edit request. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Joe Manchin

Why is Joe Manchin on here? Yes, he is a Democrat, and a moderate one at that, but I don't get why he is linked on this sidebar. Unknown0124 (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Chalcedon

As someone who is very liberal, I have to say, it seems unfair to conservatives to include the Chalcedon Institute in this list. They are unquestionably an extremist group whose founder supported the execution of gays, non-Christians, women who have sex outside of marriage, and children who talk back to their parents(!). 108.18.179.237 (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2022

Add George Wallace to list Squidward214558 (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ji11720 (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2022

Remove Alex Jones. He doesn't even call himself conservative, let alone anyone in conservative academia. 216.154.28.93 (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: From jones' article: Mainstream sources have described Jones as far-right[30][31] and a conspiracy theorist.[32][33][34][35] Jones has described himself as a paleoconservative[36] Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Oath Keepers

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Oath Keepers to determine if this template should be included on that page. Please read the previous discussion, and if you have an opinion add it and !vote in the poll. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Protectionism in the template

I wanted to give a notice that I removed a reference to "protectionism" as a conservative ideology in the template. KlayCax (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2022

BadNuts (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC) The Conservatives in US is support Interventionist politics. It should add to principles.

This is an area of dispute among different subgroups of conservatives. For example, paleoconservatives such as Pat Buchanan are against international interventions. So that doesn't seem likely to be a consensus addition. --RL0919 (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, It's hard to tell exactly what you want changed, but I'm interpreting this as a request to add Interventionism (politics) as a link in the 'Principles' section of the template. Even if we're describing the broadly interventionist core of American conservatism, I don't think it makes the cut on the ~10 most important principles we mention. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Bloat

The current list of people is too long. Please expand the list to see what I mean:

very long list

I think this is excessive and somewhat arbitrary. Is this informaton-dump helpful to readers? Is every one of these people so important to the topic that they need to be included? Are important figures getting lost among recentism and celebrities?

As the example that prompted this, Sebastian Gorka's listing here give him equal space with former presidents and historically important figures such as William Rehnquist. Even if the implication is not that these people are equally important, the implication is still that they are vitally important to the topic "Conservatism in the US". This is editorializing. It is, to put it mildly, premature to say that Gorka, etc. have shaped modern US conservatism. Some historical figure also seem out-of-place. Why, exactly, is Norman Vincent Peale included? It's not strictly incorrect to say he influenced many conservatives, but the linked article doesn't explain how this influenced conservatism itself. The linked article does not even actually say he was a conservative. Likewise does the inclusion of John Wayne mean every republican celebrity belongs? Gary Sinese actually probably does belong, but where do we draw the line? Category:Republicans (United States) and subcats include a lot of people.

There is also an issue with WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Many articles linked here do not have the template, and the template is included in many articles which are not listed. Before fixing this, the list should be trimmed so that it is actually useful to people researching the topic. Grayfell (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@MB: Perhaps you can explain why Gorka belongs in this list. Grayfell (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Gorka is belongs because he is in the same class as Beck, Buchanan, Coulter, D'Souza, Levin, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Shapiro, and maybe some others I missed. It might make sense to move them to another category or otherwise sub-divide "people". I would agree that John Wayne is out of place here, as is John McCain. McCain only "generally adhered to conservative principles" (from the article). MB 00:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I would include Owens, Charlie Kirk, Brietbart, Falwell Jr., Hannity, and I still also probably missed some. Gorka shares at least one category with them, which explains my larger point. We could subdivide the template to include "pundits" and "politicians" or something, but will readers benefit from this? Will this actually be helpful to readers if we include all those people? I guess it would be an improvement, but... An additional problem is that this will invite even more entries, making the template even longer. Per #Criteria for inclusion, this is not a new issue, and the template has gotten significantly longer since that was raised in 2018. Grayfell (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
As for the Koch bros. I would not object to either of them being restored, but my goal her is to be concise and helpful. It would be silly to pretend they are not often linked by sources to conservatism, but neither article is especially clear on this connection. Charles Koch Institute is still linked, and "conservative" is not the same as "right-wing" which is not the same as "libertarian", which is not the same as "opposed to progressiveness" so ideally this should be clarified, per sources, before being included.
I suspect there is more work to be done here, but I will edit incrementally to allow time for consensus to be formed. Grayfell (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Grayfell removing Owens, Kirk , Breitbart seem a little overkill. Considering they meet #Criteria for inclusion, Kirk being on Forbes Politics 30 under 30 list , yet still getting removed is baffling, , its a list, doesn't matter how long it is if people meet the criteria for the list. Removing people who meet criteria just based off the fact the list looks too long is withholding information from people who are seeking it. I am gonna need a much better reason than "list is too long" to remove those people. MaximusEditor (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:OWN, what you should be asking for is consensus. Forbes has thousands of people in individual "30 Under 30" lists. These lists are not even enough for WP:NBIO, so the are not automatically significant for a topic as broad as "conservatism in the US". Further, this template is not an accolade and should not be used as such. Every entries success or importance must be established first, not as an afterthought, so if people want to know what some editor at Forbes thought in any given year, they can go go to Forbes.com.
The purpose is to make this template useful. Having too many entries makes it much, much less useful. If you want to discuss specific proposals for who to include and who to exclude, do so without relying on flimsy sources like listicles that will be completely forgotten in a couple of months. Grayfell (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I guess [[u|Grayfell}} , we have a different fundamental idea of what useful means. Accuracy to me is useful. What looks like cherry picking isn't useful to people seeking information. Sure a Forbes list isnt a stand alone reason to give somebody notability, but every person you removed has many contributed WP:RS that meet criteria for inclusion. Which means ultimately they should be on the list. Not a popularity contest its an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias publish facts and the fact is if criteria is met they belong on the template.MaximusEditor (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Belated, I realize this conversation is dormant, but I'd honestly be in favor of removing the list of "People" entirely, and replacing with a link to List of American conservatives. There's simply too many to all list here - best admit defeat and not attempt it at all, and let the list article handle it. (Alternatively, the template could be split and there could be a new separate "American Conservatives" template - but I suspect that would just continue the endless debate on who qualifies.) SnowFire (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The list seems far too long, and the inclusivity of all the members may better be represented in linking a list to American conservatives. GuardianH (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

This entire template is too long. Compare this to something like Template:Conservatism in the United Kingdom and you'll see a huge size difference. --Wow (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Weeding out campaign books from the template

The "Works" section of the template, as is, suffers from bloat because of its inclusion of campaign books (to be precise, A Republic, Not an Empire, Crippled America, It Takes a Family, The Way Forward: Renewing the American Idea, and The Courage to Be Free. I’m not sure these works are relevant enough to be entitled to inclusion here. The template ought to reflect some editorial discretion in terms of what is important—these books belong on a category or list page for American conservative books, but the template is not an omnium gatherum.

My point is that these books, by and large, are books written for the purpose of bolstering a candidacy, and their shelf-life, as it were, is very short. Paul Ryan and the late-Reaganism he represented are important in telling the story of American conservatism, but his campaign book is not. Pat Buchanan’s clear-eyed vision of the effects of free trade on American life are important, but his is not a major text. Trump’s candidacy in 2016 is of phenomenal importance, but we all know that Crippled America is not a major work, was not a defining part of his candidacy or presidency, and played no real part in propelling him to the nomination. Books need not be intellectual or "heady" to be included here, and when historical consensus shows a campaign book to be of importance, I am more than okay with its inclusion (hence I am not objecting to the inclusion of L. Brent Bozell’s ghostwritten book for Goldwater). But as is, I see no reason to include the campaign books of Pat Buchanan, Paul Ryan, or Trump.

I am curious to hear how others feel. I’m willing to budge more on some of these than others—for instance, I can see a case being made for Buchanan’s book. I do not see a case for Trump’s or Ryan’s. And certainly, I do not think DeSantis’s should be included—after all, it came out last month. How can we say yet that it will be of any lasting importance? GreenLoeb (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your nuanced and authoritative answer.
I am fine with removing the books mentioned above due to the ephemeral nature of campaign books—with a few exceptions. Buchanan’s book ought to be included since it deals with an extremely important and highly controversial topic within the conservative movement, namely that of isolationism versus interventionism. This makes the book rather timeless.
Santorum's work ought to be included as well, I think, since it is an extensive work on family values, which is a truly timeless conservative theme. I also read an encyclopedic work on conservatism in which this book was referenced as a prominent work on the subject.
As for the books by Trump, Ryan, and DeSantis, I had already thought about removing them from the list, so I’m glad you brought up the topic. It shall be done. Trakking (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Great, I’m happy with this—no objections from me to keeping Buchanan's and Santorum's books. GreenLoeb (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

removal of US flag from the template

Someone (User:Flyedit32) removed the US flag from the template. He argues that the US flag does not belong on a US-based national topic, as opposed to some other internationally based topic. This template does not address a general international ideology, but rather a US-specific ideology. It could be argued that the US flag should accompany all US-based ideological templates. Should this removal of the flag be more generally discussed (here) before action is taken? Maybe as a compromise, the US flag could be placed beside the template title rather than below it. Or maybe the prior arrangement is preferred (flag below the template title). But it is not clear that the removal of the flag altogether is appropriate for a US-based template. Comments are welcome. L.Smithfield (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

UPDATE: The flag image (icon) has been restored to this particular template, but there remains a legitimate open question about achieving some sort of possible uniformity across all US-specific or even all national-specific templates of this type (or purpose). Should the issue of some form of uniformity of the specific national identification for templates still be pursued? L.Smithfield (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

What constitutes an "intellectual"?

There is an ongoing dispute over whether several figures currently included under the "intellectuals" header are intellectuals, in particular Dennis Prager, Ben Shapiro, and Mark Levin. Of course, it must be noted, I am not disputing that these figures are important in American conservatism—they are, and that is why I have left them under the commentators section. But I’m not convinced they are intellectuals. I think this problem is also tied in to the still unresolved issue of bloat in the template, not only in the intellectuals list but in the politicians lists and others. We ought to have a way of determining significance for the sake of inclusion/exclusion.

I think the question at bottom is this: For the purposes of this sidebar, what is an intellectual? This question seemingly has not come up in the past on this sidebar or on related ones, so consensus doesn't exist (if I am mistaken, though, please correct me). I would contend that being included as an intellectual here would necessitate that at least most of the following criteria are met: The figure must be primarily known for their work as an intellectual (this does not necessitate that they be an academic in any official capacity, of course, but that their mark on conservatism is their work as a writer and thinker first and foremost). They must have books or papers that are positively reviewed in reputable sources by members of the field in which they are working; their contributions to their field, and to conservatism more broadly, must be considered original contributions (so, for instance, Burnham's idea of a managerial elite is an original concept; Levin referring to universal healthcare as a Marxist plot is not original, and belies an astonishing ignorance of what "Marxism" signifies).

I am willing to discuss the validity of these criteria. However, if they are accepted, I do not see how Shapiro, Levin, or Prager can qualify. The fact that the lede for all of these three men notes that they are some variant of commentator or TV/radio hosts rather than scholars is, I think, confirmation of my point.

Shapiro's "Right Side of History," to take only one example, has been subjected to scathing criticism for very basic failings in understanding the history of philosophy and theology, in sources as sympathetic to conservatism as Law & Liberty. See here: https://lawliberty.org/getting-right-side-history-shapiro/

Levin’s grasp of Marxism is less than elementary, and like many right-wing provocateurs, he uses the term so haphazardly that it comes to signify nothing whatsoever: Everything from universal healthcare, to sex change operations, to black nationalism falls under the label of "Marxism" for him. See here: https://www.thenation.com/article/society/mark-levin-american-marxism/ and here: https://jacobin.com/2022/06/mark-levin-american-marxism-conservative-right-wing-book-review . That these reviews are from liberal and left-wing sources is, I think, beside the point. The authors of both reviews note, correctly, that it is possible to rigorously critique Marxism as well as postmodern relativism (two things which Levin erroneously conflates, and in so doing prevents himself from saying anything of value or originality). Kolakowski and Bloom have produced works of the highest intellectual rigor taking these things on. Levin most certainly has not; Levin has produced a best selling book, but "The Da Vinci Code," the best selling book of our century, was not considered to have intellectual rigor merely based on its sales figures.

I will add more later from actually important Bible scholars who have discounted the value of Prager's numerous commentaries.

Thank you for reading. I look forward to reaching consensus on these issues and making this a better template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenLoeb (talk • contribs) 17:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for laying out your arguments. I believe that we are mainly on the same track.
There's a broad definition of "intellectual" that includes everything from journalists to poets—basically including everyone that deals with abstract ideas rather than anything practical or material. This definition, however, is not very useful for this kind of list. As we both have concluded, the people in question need qualifications, and the most distinctive marks of a true intellectual are 1) that they have written serious works, 2) that they discuss philosophical concepts [from fundamental ones like 'liberty' to complex ones like 'managerial elite'], and 3) that they present their arguments and ideas in a sophisticated manner.
With these criteria in mind, Prager ought to qualify representation. Shapiro's Right Side of History seems rather ambitious, but since his production as a whole is less respectable and more "popular" and "provocative," we may remove him from the list. As for Levin, there seems to be arguments for and against. I propose keeping him. Trakking (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Did I read this commentary above correctly? Whoever (author unknown) is severely mistaken about Mark Levin being the author of the book "The Da Vinci Code," a book indeed being a highly successful international bestseller. Dan Brown was the author of that book. How did this commenter above possibly get that wrong? L.Smithfield (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
No, I did not get that wrong. I was drawing an analogy. I know Dan Brown wrote the Da Vinci Code. I am not an idiot. What I am saying is that producing a bestseller is no grounds for being considered an "intellectual." Levin makes elementary mistakes in "American Marxism," and clearly does not know what Marxism is, beyond a spooky palceholder term for whatever he dislikes. Similarly, the Da Vinci Code makes very basic errors in its knowledge of Catholicism (I know it is a work of fiction, but that is beside the point). With regards to this matter, I still don’t think he belongs here (he is not an intellectual, and no reputable source considers him so to be), as per my initial post, but I imagine in time a consensus will emerge that will vindicate my position. GreenLoeb (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I apologize for not getting your "analogy." You certainly could have introduced your analogy better with clearer wording (like with language "for example"). But to your point that publishing success in and of itself does not translate into "intellectual," well of course I have to agree with you. I think you made your point adequately. I have the same concern as you do (too many faux intellectuals in the list). Of the three people you mentioned (Prager, Shapiro, and Levin), Prager has been moved to "Commentators." And I agree with you that Shapiro and Levin should be moved there also. Nothing against Shapiro, but I was quite surprised that he even made that list (intellectuals) in the first place. I would very much support moving several other, so called, intellectuals to the commentators list (as I think you would also). It has been about a month and a half since you first brought up this question and besides myself (only now) substantially responding to you, there has only been editor Trakking with an opinion to retain Levin on the intellectuals list. Maybe it is time for action rather than the status quo. I do not really know how to proceed, but perhaps an approach can be adopted whereby faux individual intellectuals can be taken, one by one (of your choosing), and proposed more formally to be moved from one list to another. Perhaps a new section here in Talk can be created where there is a proposal for a person at a time to be moved -- asking for objections. Then if there are no objections after some period of time -- just move the individual. Then someone who later objects can make the case why someone should be considered an intellectual rather than a (mere) commentator (or whatever). Perhaps even someone might suggest a fifth list to be created if someone deemed to be important does not fit into the existing four lists for individuals (intellectuals, politicians, jurists, and commentators). Maybe "writers," "advocates," "expositors"? OK, maybe I am starting to stretch a bit, but you get the idea. Would you be willing to lead that sort of effort (proposing individuals to be moved)? Thanks for any consideration along these lines. L.Smithfield (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
@L.smithfield: They qualify as intellectuals in the sense that they have written some serious works, although they may not primarily be known as intellectuals. And Prager was not "moved" to commentators, he was included on two lists at once, which is perfectly fine.
Still there may be a point to make. Wise and brilliant scholars like Harvey Mansfield, Thomas Sowell, and Richard Weaver kind of overshadow Shapiro and Levin. For that reason I revise my position and agree on removing the latter two. Their role as commentators is very prominent in American conservatism and that should be enough. Trakking (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Someone may have removed Prager from intellectuals list, since I do not see him there currently. He is still listed among the commentators though (where I think he best fits).
I do not pretend to be knowledgable about who is a real intellectual or not, but I still do not see how any of Prager, Levin, or Shapiro are intellectuals in my (old) sense of that meaning. I also do not see even someone like George Will as an intellectual. I think I am just not getting what are considered intellectuals now-a-days. To kind of illiterate where I would come down on the dividing line, I would allow for Irving Kristol to be an intellectual (maybe barely), while I would consider Bill Kristol to not be (Bill Kristol being more like a George Will or Prager, I think). I would consider someone like Thomas Sowell to be more in the flavor of what I would call an intellectual for our time (which is still a somewhat qualified statement on my part). I would have no problem with a fairly (or very) small intellectuals list. There is no shame in having few modern-day intellectuals, at least as far as I am concerned. L.Smithfield (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I apologize for coming off rudely—that was my bad, please forgive me. Long week at work. I could have indeed made my analogy clearer.
I am more than fine with keeping Shapiro, Levin, etc. in the template, I’ve never objected to that. Indeed, as I said up in the thread, "I am not disputing that these figures are important in American conservatism—they are, and that is why I have left them under the commentators section." I have two more suggestions for removals from the "intellectuals" list. One is David Horowitz. No disrespect to the man, but his work is much in the vein of Mark Levin’s, in that it plays rough and loose with intellectual integrity for the sake of producing polemical books for popular audiences. He’s certainly a major figure in the movement, but he isn’t primarily known as an intellectual or scholar. So I think he should be moved to commentator.
The other is Phyllis Schlafly. In no way do I mean to downgrade her importance—few figures are more important in the transformation of the conservative movement, from its beginnings in the Goldwater campaigns through to Pat Buchanan’s 1992 candidacy. But I think her main work, what she is far and away best known for, is her role as an activist and strategist. From leading the charge against the ERA to seeing ahead towards the importance of populism in the Buchanan and later Trump campaigns, she was undoubtedly very important. Yes, yes, she wrote A Choice Not an Echo, but that is effectively a hoo-rah campaign book. By my understanding, she is not primarily relevant as an intellectual—her role is not comparable to, say, Harvey Mansfield or Leo Strauss. GreenLoeb (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Please, no need on your part to apologize. Rather, it was I who did not read your statements carefully enough (jumping to an unwarranted conclusion). Beyond me getting blocked mentally by my own confusion, I would tend to agree with everything that you said. I think that we three (you, Trakking, and I) seem to be essentially in agreement that the intellectuals list might have been made too hastily, with at least some (and perhaps too many) non-intellectuals in it. Since it has only been the three of us who have both noticed and commented on this issue, should some action just be taken to begin to deliberate on who should be moved from one list to another. Oh, and just to make my own position clear also: like the both of you, I do not advocate removing any of these people from the template. Yes, as far as I have paid attention so far, they are all important people in at least the broader conservative movement (of various flavors). Do either of you (GreenLoeb or Trakking) have suggestions on how to move forward from here? It may be just the three of us who are even interested in this.
Idea: should additional lists be created, or at least considered to be created? Greenloeb's mention of Phyllis Schlafly made me think of perhaps there being a list named activists (still all within the same template). I had already mentioned lists like writers, advocates, and expositors. Maybe one or more new lists would serve to better clarify the real contributions that the people in the template really made (or might still be making). Other ideas? L.Smithfield (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I just created a new list for prominent activists. Smithfield suggested it and I had already thought of creating it myself. Schlafly and a few others, who did not really belong under either Intellectuals or Commentators, have been moved to this list. Yet, once again, it is perfectly fine for a person to be included under several lists at once—for example Ben Shapiro, who is a prominent commentator and activist, simultaneously. Trakking (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you to Trakking for this new list. I think it is a very appropriate new addition. There was the difficulty of properly fitting some of these people -- who are (or were) important historically -- but not easily placed into the existing list categories. Thanks again. L.Smithfield (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

change from US flag to US coat of arms

Yes, I see that nations other than the US use their coat-of-arms (or something similar), but should we not then change all of the US-specific political templates to the same coat-of-arms image? Specifically:

This change (although marginally justified) is a rather small improvement. I think that the world could have gotten by with seeing the US flag. But OK. But it would seem that the other templates above should also be changed to match? No? Yes? L.Smithfield (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Scott Adams?

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

What's the criteria for book inclusion?

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)

Add Murray Rothbard to the "Intellectuals" list

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)

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)
@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)
  • 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)
  •  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)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2023

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

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

"Jurist"

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)

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

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)
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)
"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)

why not fuentes?

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

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

Removal of Jackson Hinkle

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)

Happy to help, I have reverted this addition, which to me seems disingenuous and nonconstructive. GreenLoeb (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
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 [2], 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. [3]
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)
I have made several edits on the Jackson Hinkle page, but not very many. StrongALPHA (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Conservatism_US/Archive_1&oldid=1258021764"