Talk:Adrian Vermeule

'Irish Catholics'

To avoid edit warring, I thought it might be best for me to raise the issue of this edit on the talk page.

The article doesn't say that Vermeule would give a preferential option for 'confirmed Catholics, except Irish Catholics'. It doesn't even mention confirmation at all. It says that 'actual' Catholics should be given a preferential option, which would as a consequence not extend to those with merely a historical connection to Catholicism and thereby exclude 'almost all' Irish Catholics. I don't see how this singles out Irish Catholics as the one group to be refused entry. It's very clearly a comment on the collapse of Catholic practice, and the dominance of cultural (rather than actual) Catholicism in Ireland.

I take the point on American vs British spelling, though.

Could we establish a consensus on how this sentence ought to be worded? I think it's gravely inadequate as is. —Matthew Benson (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The article specifically says:

The principle is to give lexical priority to confirmed Catholics, all of whom will jump immediately to the head of the queue.

Confirmed Catholics get bumped to the front of the line, but “actual Catholics” are the only ones approved, evidently. The brunt of it is that western Catholics in general are held out, particularly the Irish. Toa Nidhiki05 18:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I missed that re. confirmation. Still, would you not agree that the current wording of 'except Irish Catholics' a) elides his statement about the situation in all Western countries and b) implies that he thinks the Irish themselves, and no other ethnic group, ought to be excluded from the preferential option, even if they are 'actual' Catholics? -Matthew Benson (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The article written by Vermeule cited to represent his views that immigration should be for Catholics first and lead to the Empire of OurLady of Guadalupe is assureldly and without doubt satirical. He's making fun of progressives, he says anyone who resisted this policy would be "racist" and "classist". I'm surprised that slipped by the editors of this article, unless it was willfully ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.159.199 (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Not only does it appear to not be a serious proposal, as the IP points out, this is a blog post written by Vermeule. Where is the independent coverage that gives this any due weight in the article? Schazjmd (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Whether his post was serious or satire, the only coverage of it I can find is a Patheos (nonreliable source) piece that's been removed from that site[1], Crooked Timber (blog, nonreliable), The Spectator (nonreliable source), and AlterNet (another nonreliable source). For lack of any attention to his post by reliable sources, I think that brief paragraph should be removed as inconsequential to the biography. Schazjmd (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Vermeule's advocacy for a theocratic one-world government is inherently notable. Toa Nidhiki05 22:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Criticism

I think this article would make a good addition to the Criticism section https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-american-conservatism-becomes-un-american/2020/05/28/336a953a-a0f6-11ea-b5c9-570a91917d8d_story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.167.123 (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

It's already being used int he article. See directly above the "Criticism" section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Reliable source?

An editor wishes to use this as a source in the article. In particular, they wish to cite the opinions or analysis of the author, which requires that the author be an expert and a reliable source of information.

The author, Conor Casey, is listed in his SSRN profile page [[2] as the Max Weber Postdoctoral Fellow at the European University Institute. According to SSRN, Casey has 7 scholarly paper with 844 downloads, but has only been cited 1 time. Google Scholar [3] lists 10 papers with 4 citations for 2 papers (3 and 1), both in 2015.

The paper is to be published in 2021 by Public Law which (according to our article) focuses on "British constitutional and administrative law but it also publishes articles relating to other European and Commonwealth jurisdictions and the USA". The European University Institute is part of the European University, founded by the European Union to focus on European matters. The author -- judging by their Google Scholar page -- attended the School of Law of Trinity College Dublin.

Since the author's previous papers have been very sparsely cited, and the author's background and education is not in American Constitutional law, there does not appear to be any firm grounds to consider them an expert on American Constitutional law to the extent that their analysis of Vermeule's "Common Good Constitutionalism" can be used in this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I realize this is an older comment, but for those wondering in the future, Casey's work has been endorsed by Vermeule (insofar as it pertains to Common Good Constitutionalism). They have written together on the subject (see here). Jeffersonpayne (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Mirrors of Justice Blog Post

Since my removal of this just got reverted, this source is a three-paragraph blog Vermeule wrote in 2019. It includes the following line:

I venture to say that any opposition to this proposal almost necessarily defends some alternative principle of immigration priority that allocates fewer spots to non-whites and to the poor, and is thus a troubling indicator of racism and classism infesting whoever voices that opposition. We must overcome the know-nothing bigotry of the past.

Vermeule is definitely an integralist and illiberal, as the other sources make clear. But this specific source is obviously advancing a satirical proposal - Vermeule is aping the progressive idea of "disparate impact." Anyone with a passing familiarity with his other work understands this. Nor, as other editors pointed out, is it particularly notable or relevant. Why this one three-paragraph blog post? Vermeule is a prolific writer, blogger, Tweeter, etc. If his own thoughts are, as another editor pointed out, "inherently notable" than perhaps the entire article might be dramatically expanded.

96.2.192.210 (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

In fact, here is Vermeule himself stating the post is "Swiftian" satire.

https://web.archive.org/web/20191113232548/https://twitter.com/Vermeullarmine/status/1194633519059755008

96.2.192.210 (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Broader issues with this article

I am not a regular Wikipedia reader or editor, but I wanted to flag a few issues with this article:

• Common Good Constitutionalism now has its own page, and much of the debate about that idea (in the "Responses") section should probably be on that page, not here.
• The discussion of Common Good Constitutionalism on this page has little about the content of Vermeule's book or the more recent reviews of/debate about it, which is definitely a much fuller explication of the idea.
• This article says almost nothing about Vermeule's views and work on administrative law, which is his other major field of expertise and a subject on which he has been writing for a very long time.
• This article fails to clarly track and explain changes in Vermeule's views and work over time, including those associated with his conversion. For example, the article currently says that Vermeule "believes that legal change can only come about through cultural improvements." This is perhaps a fair reading of what he said in 2016, but more recently he has written exactly the opposite. 96.2.192.210 (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)