Why this article is necessary and important I feel that it is extremely important to differentiate Originalism from Original intent and that this is best served by the existence of a separate article to address intentionalism There is an extremely prevalent movement to conflate original intent with originalism I think because there are many many valid criticisms of original intent which do not hold true against other originalist theories but can be made to stick if the two can be conflated for example the traditional exhoration that originalism is opposed to Brown v Board which is nonsensical intentionalism might well reject Brown but virtually all originalists ctegorically reject original intent s premise This is like arguing that sport is dumb because no grown adult should find gainfull employment hitting balls with bats it rests on the assumption that sport is a synomym for baseball and cricket and that baseball and cricket constitute not only some sports not even a majority if sports but all sport per se Likewise almost no serious originalists are intentionalists and all of the high profile originalists Scalia Thomas Bork Barnett Lasch and so on explicitly reject intentionalism and have done so for well over two decades Yet still the false conflation persists and if Wikipedia is to remain fact based it must find ways to break this fiction IMHO