Template talk:Conservatism US

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia.
 Template  Quality: rating not applicable


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)

Elephant symbol[edit]

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)

Trump is not a conservative[edit]

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. (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)


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)

Criteria for inclusion[edit]

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)

Convenience: Clickable Pictures Suggestion[edit]

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)