This article 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 article is within the scope ofWikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofOrganizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofIllinois 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.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois
"Fair" isn't the issue. The better question would be: "is it verifiable and neutral"? I'd answer "yes". The institute's publication,Chonicles, has been described in many sources as a leading paleoconservative magazine. Here's one that uses the term for the institute itself:[1]. Further, it is not a derogatory term and I'm not aware of any significant disagreement. Will Bebacktalk21:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that this article claims that the John Randolph Club was dissolved in the 1990s. That is untrue, because it still has annual meetings, which the magazine advertises. Should that claim be changed?— Precedingunsigned comment added by67.142.114.34 (talk)06:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So who has won the prize? What has it been awarded for? You should probably have an article about it, or a more complete explanation of the prize in this article.— Precedingunsigned comment added by96.95.174.225 (talk)00:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This link is not operative: . Christian Kopff. Chronicles. First Principles. 2010 September 3. The article linked to is not there. The site itself appears to be abandoned but to have been taken over by a 'vampire' advertising site, which cleverly has included a couple of topics ('the Frankfurt School', a page on the neo-Confederate historian Thomas Woods, and a page on 'apophatic theology'... but I believe these were taken from the original, now dead, site.)
Yes, it looks like theFirst Principles Journal is gone (or at least its URL is gone)! The reference in the article was used to support the time of the peak volume of readership and use of theChronicles magazine. Perhaps this small topic can be removed from the article entirely if a new reference cannot be found. Or just remove the reference and leave the assertion about the peak usage of the magazine. I have left this in there for a future decision by someone (or consensus).L.Smithfield (talk)17:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you probably know, theRockford Institute merged with the formerIntellectual Takeout to form the newCharlemagne Institute (all in 2018 -- five years ago now). Should theChronicles magazine section be put into a new (Wiki) article of its own, or what? The magazine itself is still published (actively) by the new organization.L.Smithfield (talk)17:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HelloLlll5032, good question. What are the rules on something like this, an organization merging into another? I think that technically -- and legally -- this organization has ceased to exist. The new organization (Charlemagne Institute) has a different IRS Employment-ID number (EIN) than this one (just checked the IRS Form-990 yr2021 filing to confirm). Should this old article be kept around for historical reasons? I do not know the rules on something like this. You seem to have much more general experience on WikiPedia, so I pretty much defer to you on this. I would think that there should be an article on the new org (which is actually an older org already, formed in 2009). The fastest way to get a new article with the new name is to, YES, rename this article. The new name already has a redirect to this article, so someone already thought about that at least somewhat. So renaming this article does not seem to be unreasonably unwarranted. But I defer to your greater experience and knowledge on Wiki in general. Thank you. --L.Smithfield (talk)21:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks,L.Smithfield, also good questions. I have not renamed any articles, so you may want to ask at theHelp Desk orTeahouse. Renaming this article might be fastest, as you wrote, and would avoidWP:REDUNDANTFORK problems. If we decide to rename this article, perhaps we would keep all prior information about the Rockford Institute in this article under its own heading (perWP:PRESERVE andWP:CAREFUL). Another choice might be to to create a new "Charlemagne Institute" article includingChronicles, and keep this historical Rockford Institute article with links to them, but that could be more complicated.Llll5032 (talk)04:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am still thinking about the possible options. I think that a new article for theCharlemagne Institute (in addition to this present one) might be best. In that case (a new article) the history of both organizations would be preserved. But then again, I suppose that even if the present article is renamed (toCharlemagne Institute) a section of that could be the history of Rockford and its merger with Charlemagne. Maybe we do need some precedent on how to proceed from prior examples of merging organizations. Yes (as you point out above), any resolution should (carefully) preserve the history of both organizations before the merger (back in 2018). In either case (a new article or a single merged article), the history of theCharlemagne Institute would have to be researched and included in any resulting article. Can you take the lead on this issue (how best to preceed) and investigate the options? Also, thank you for your continued work on this article up to the present. --L.Smithfield (talk)03:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting to think that this present article on Rockford should not be renamed into Charlemagne, but rather a new article on Charlemagne should be created. The reason is because the old Rockford Institute seemed to have a significant (enough) international recognition that I tend to think makes it noteworthy enough to retain its own article even now that it has merged with Charlemagne. So I think a new article on Charlemagne is eventually warranted. Also (almost forgot), both Rockford and Charlemagne have distinct WikiData entries. So having two WikiPedia articles can each link back to their respective WikiData entries (although, YES, I understand that there is not an actual requirement for that). I am not yet completely dogmatic about this. I can still be persuaded otherwise. --L.Smithfield (talk)20:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In general NO. That is the problem with a new article on a relatively recently created organization (Charlemagne in 2009). There is reliable basic information like who leads it and their finances, and the primary source of their various websites (main websiteCharlemagne, and at least two subsidiary websites:Chronicles andIntellectual-Takeout), but beyond that not muchWP:RS is available (that I am aware of). As I mentioned above previously, some research would be needed to flesh out a new article. I do not feel like I can do this myself at the present time, but I might be able to formulate an article (albeit stub-like) over time. I assume that you also do not have the personal time and resources to devote to something as relatively obscure as this Charlemagne organization. Charlemagne does have some very minimal international recognition, but likely not enough to merit a WP article any time soon. I do not see any harm in just letting the status-quo lie for the time being (leave the present Rockford article and hold off on a new Charlemagne article for a while). You are still welcome to take the lead on this merger issue (one way or another). --L.Smithfield (talk)22:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank youLlll5032. And thanks again for your recent continued maintenance on the present article. If the article is going to be in abeyance now for some time (since nothing new should really be happening with the deceased organization), at least it is in a good and clean state (thanks to your recent efforts). Best regards. --L.Smithfield (talk)23:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree that there should be a Chronicles (magazine) page. The R-Institute is now defunct for many years. It seems illogical to report on the - still existing magazine - under the headline of a defunct institute. I therefore propose to open a new page specifically about the magazine.Pepe1979 (talk)12:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
