This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofconservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpolitics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This template is within the scope ofWikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theUnited Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
HelloTrakking, do you think, we should keep Ruskin, Eliot, Scott, Conrad, Tolkien, Wordsworth and Hume at all, or is there no need in light of missing sections like "political views" in their respective articles? Every time I include the template, the edit gets reverted.Biohistorian15 (talk)09:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have encountered this problem as well; I usually just refrain from incorporating the template in the article, until someone writes a section on their social and political views. Otherwise it just looks awkward and people will remove it.
We ought to keep Ruskin, Eliot, Scott, Wordsworth, and Hume—without question. I know that Conrad and Tolkien were conservatives, but they were less ideologically orientated than the others, so I am more ambivalent to their inclusion.
As long as we can cite scholarly literature that certify their relevance, we are justified to keep them. For instance, Ruskin and Wordsworth are mentioned several times in Edmund Neill'sConservatism (2021). Hume is mentioned in the very title of a prominent work on the history of the ideology, namely Jerry Z. Muller'sConservatism: An Anthology of Social and Political Thought from David Hume to the Present (1997). The same is true of Eliot—Russell Kirk'sThe Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot (2001).Trakking (talk)12:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, we might also want to point to the Eliot essay already in the template.
Wordsworth, Ruskin, Conrad and Scott may be a bit much for the time being.
Trakking, you reverted my edit here[1]. You are familiar withWP:ONUS? It is challenged information and the onus is on you to arrive at a consensus that Lewis is seen as a political philosopher for UK conservatism, rather than a Christian philosopher whose forays into the political sphere were driven primarily by his religious beliefs. Sorry, but it is not good enough to add an edit summary that merely mentions one person mentions him. Indeed this is true of the selection here generally. What are the selection criteria for these conservative intellectuals? None appears to be espoused. The template say it is a series on UK conservatism. A massive subject that cannot be contained in one template, so there must surely be clear selection criteria by which the template will cover certain core aspects, no?Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)16:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy, "Conservatism" has been given various formal definitions that could be brought up here. At that, it is still arguably a lot less vague than "liberalism", the definition of which has filled dozens of interesting volumes in recent intellectual history.
A pragmatic definition of the term is something like: 'to the right of liberalism (broadly construed) and to the left of fascism (broadly construed).'
Neither I norTrakking agree with this definition, but itis the standard account.
I agree that the C.S. Lewis entry should be expanded to include more information about this, but please do not simply start making any broad removals here. As you can see in the thread above, wearealready discussing the possible removal of some more borderline cases...Biohistorian15 (talk)16:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have it backwards. We should not be adding anyone to the template until we know why. These names have been added and some removed at editor whim. The edsums are lacking. In particular, if the articles of these named individuals carry nothing carrying the point, then no, editor whim should not dictate they remain in the template. The reversions on the pages are reverted at both ends. Lack of reciprocity entails that the entries should be removed from the template. SeeWP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Also note the advice there that the discussion be on the relevant article talk page and not this talk page. That is, we can discuss the principle of what should be included here, but for each name, the relevant place to discuss inclusion is the relevant article talk page. A consensus to include Lewis cannot, therefore, be arrived at here. If it is rejected there, it is rejected here too, and that goes for all the others too.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)16:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy, I don't know what this is about. If you are suggesting we start a discussion at 5 dozen article talk pages, this is way out of line. Remove the C.S. Lewis one until someone writes a requisite paragraph detailing relevance.
Talk of "he was not primarily X" is very concerning though; I don't care for somebody's occupation, I care for their typically well-established legacies in some field. People can be notable for more than one reason.Biohistorian15 (talk)17:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think of it: you may as well delete Ruskin, Eliot, Scott, Conrad, Tolkien, Wordsworth and Hume until we found a clear consensus regarding their inclusion above/established relevance elsewhere. But let's not get tendentious either...Biohistorian15 (talk)17:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts on the best way to represent this? "Organisations" would get crowded with all of them, and we certainly ought to include "55 Tufton Street", although it isn't an org as such. It's an important article for showing how several notorious orgs are basically the same group publishing under different "brands", which is a significant theme in British Conservatism since 1980 (e.g. the IEA turning up on a BBC sofa to enthusiastically "endorse" a TPA study as if they were somehow an independent voice). ASI publications were heavily consumed by Thatcher, and the IEA were all in (to a cringeworthy sycophantic degree) on Liz Truss.
One route might be to follow theTemplate:Conservatism US lead with a distinct "Think Tanks" section, which the orgs themselves could go in (it would be great if there were some way of visually grouping them), with Tufton Street in the "Related" section?Hemmers (talk)Hemmers (talk)15:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Hemmers. I just performed an edit based on your helpful suggestion.[2] For now, only the very most notable think tanks from that list where included. If you could think of, say, four more of these, it would indeed make sense to also delineate a "Think tanks" section here. Kind regards,Biohistorian15 (talk)18:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)