Template talk:Toryism
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Toryism of the American Revolution would in all likelihood be rejected by the Cavalier ideology of legitimism. I don't think Toryism fits groups like the Carlists, Vendeans, Chuoans, Cristeros, etc. which are counter-revolutionary in nature as opposed to the idealogy of an American Revolutionary Tory, who represents an older revolutionary ideology (the Round Tops) who were being opposed by a newer revolutionary ideology (the American revolutionaries).
(Be careful in the use and destinguishing of terms such as ideology and revolution - especially when it comes to ideological revoultion, such of the French Revolution).— Precedingunsigned comment added by62.61.142.24 (talk)20:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the criteria by which this template includes certain Tories in the "people" section? The current prime ministers on the list are somewhat odd picks in my opinion. Bute and Wellington are included despite their premierships being short and mostly unremarkable, while North, Pitt the Younger, Liverpool, and Salisbury are not on the list despite these men having long and significant Tory/Conservative governments. Churchill was undeniably an important leader of the Conservative party, but he spent a good portion of his parliamentary career as a radical Liberal, so I'm skeptical about his place on the list. The inclusion of George Grant also raises another point. While I very much appreciate his being on the list, does this mean other prominent Canadian Conservatives such as John A. Macdonald ought to be there as well?— Precedingunsigned comment added byNevManning (talk •contribs)20:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wabbuh FYI: your recent edit[1] made the template unreadable.— HTGS (talk)03:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)