Template talk:Conservatism sidebar

message: 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)
replies: text: Agree.  None of these subjects are about conservatism.  TFD (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  See also section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I switched the template over to hlist, so it should automatically wrap. Frietjes (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name wrapping 

message: Christian RightJewish RightHindu NationalismIslamismTraditionalist 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)
thread_title: Religion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. ‑‑xensyriaT 18:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: People

message: 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)
replies: text: 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? — QuicksilverT @ 17:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imaginary flag 

message: 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)
replies: text: or, how about no flag, per the section above? Frietjes (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  shades of blue 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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). Neutralitytalk 03:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Alt-right 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Alternative facts 

message: 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)
thread_title: "American Conservatism" doesn't belong here

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Adjustment to names in sidebar? 

message: KUMAR1011 (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2018 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sidebar Inclusion criteria 

message: 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)
thread_title:  People in the sidebar 

message: 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)
replies: text: Pinging User:Power~enwiki as the one who made this change. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed all of them, and  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)
replies: text: Understood.  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2018 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Title style 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2018 

message: 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)
replies: text: – no apparent reason for this.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2019 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Jordan Peterson as conservative philosopher? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2021 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done for now: None of those articles label them as conservatives. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2022 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: alright Kanclerz K-Tech (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original sin as a central theme in Conservatism 

message: 2800:200:E630:106E:C1C4:8F81:6E4F:9FE8 (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2022