Talk:Russell Kirk

message: "Kirk said that Christianity and Western Civilization are "unimaginable apart from one another."[7] and that "all culture arises out of religion. When religious faith decays, culture must decline, though often seeming to flourish for a space after the religion which has nourished it has sunk into disbelief." [8] ... "Kirk grounded his Burkean conservatism in ... the strong religious faith of his later years..." ---- Can anybody add a note on exactly what Kirk's beliefs were? -- 201.51.211.130 14:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of Kirk's beliefs, other than the Catholicism he adopted when he married, are well documented and perfectly accessible in his The Conservative Mind. In my opinion, that Catholicism remained a rather private matter. The public face of Kirk was overwhelmingly one of Anglophile Toryism, much more Burke and Mallock, than Lord Acton or Chesterton. It is supremely ironic that this admirer of a settled hierarchical order was himself the son of a railway worker, and the area around Piety Hill was one of near rural poverty.132.181.160.42 03:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Let's make this relevant info "well documented and perfectly accessible" in the Wikipedia article as well!  :-) -- 201.51.211.130 14:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kirk's religion, please 

message: Russell Kirk is a somewhat controversial figure, and we want to be sure that the cites here are of the highest quality. As of today, we have cites for quotes which are links to Web pages that don't cite their sources, as well as "quoted in Russell Kirk and territorial democracy. Publius September 22, 2004" (no hyperlink, and appears as though it may be slightly innaccurate, though I'm not sure). Can we please tidy up the cites in this article? -- 201.51.211.130 15:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a bibliography. The best introduction remains Nash's book. Rjensen 15:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cites need work 

message: The subject of anti-Semitism does not belong on Kirk's bio page, period. Any individual who introduces politicized content of subtly disparaging type shall not proceed unopposed. Kirk opposed ZIONISM, not JUDAISM. I cannot for the life of me understand how this encyclopedia allows such academic malfeasance.
I am more than willing to listen to opposing viewpoints if emanating from disinterested and scholarly motives. 
Not one single person has ever implied or subtly insinuated, let alone SUBSTANTIATED, Kirk was a bigoted anti-Semite -- except the very ultra-radical Zionist fanatics he was referring to in his "controversial" words. Is it Wikipedia policy to conceptually identify anti-Semitism as somehow the very same thing as anti-Zionism? If so, I would be shocked beyond description.
Thank you.
Words concerning Kirk's anti-Zionist stance of rather unpacific psychological background itself, even, I can understand. But by indirect subtle insinuation denigrating his name with the whole "anti-Semitism" slur and associated stigma, without further ado, and citing as evidence only the very Zionists he directed his comments to as an anti-Zionist -- no disinterested lab scientists in any corner here -- does not constitute responsible scholarship.
Cite opponents of LEGITIMATE standing, if you can, proponents of the misidentification between Russell Kirk and anti-Semitism.
::Kirk was not antisemitic. See Pafford's very recent discussion at  where he made a comment to the effect that Neocons have lost perspective in their support for Israel. Rjensen (talk) 03:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Semitism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Russell Kirk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060105051211/http://theoccidentalquarterly.com:80/vol5no2/52-griffin.html to http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol5no2/52-griffin.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060615062035/http://cofcc.org:80/foundation/neoconservatism.htm to http://www.cofcc.org/foundation/neoconservatism.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Russell Kirk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927183443/http://www.claremont.org/blogs/blogid.4852/blog_detail.asp to http://www.claremont.org/blogs/blogid.4852/blog_detail.asp
*Added  tag to http://www.mmisi.org/ma/25_04/kirk.pdf.
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303105630/http://users.etown.edu/m/mcdonaldw/Lect321.html to http://users.etown.edu/m/mcdonaldw/Lect321.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303105630/http://users.etown.edu/m/mcdonaldw/Lect321.html to http://users.etown.edu/m/mcdonaldw/Lect321.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100222043707/http://phillysoc.org/kirktrib.htm to http://phillysoc.org/kirktrib.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I was shocked to see Kirk's claims about South Africa in National Review, and so tried to track down the cited article, but was unable to. Can anyone confirm whether this article is real or not? I am concerned that this citation is inappropriate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.83.119.115 (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Africa Claims 

message: Dear Wikipedia participants, I hope you are doing well. Accompanying the edition of some philosophers of my interest, I noticed the recent exclusion/inclusion of Mr. Olavo de Carvalho among those "influenced" by the thoughts of Russell Kirk. In this regard, I would like to know the criteria for including people in this section. Considering how obscure and controversial Carvalho is, in addition to his rather extravagant participation in the public debate - just look at his declarations on vaccines, sweeteners in soft drinks, the sphericity of the Earth, the legacy of Albert Einstein and similar subjects -, perhaps it is a good idea to discuss whether this figure deserves to appear in such a select list. Although it is said of the possibility that Carvalho has some local relevance in Brazil, it does not seem that he has intellectual production relevant enough for such inclusion. Russell Kirk influenced a myriad of people around the world and I don't think it's the case to include each one of them among his "influenced". Therefore, I believe it is worth opening a debate on this matter. Of two, one: either we remove Mr. Carvalho from the list or I think we can select another 400 names of equal scope, to make company for him. Antropovaldo (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Olavo de Carvalho