Talk:List of American conservatives

Who deserves to be on the list?
I do not see any real discussion or consensus on moving the list in the talk page of Conservatism in the United States, just a brief agreement between RightCowLeftCoast and GHCool. However, I agree that the article (and the list) are much too long. Now that I've read CHCool's reasons, I thank him for reverting my edit restoring the list and withdraw my objection to the move.

I do wonder if the list is still too long, and wonder about the choices. The first two names on the list, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, were bitter enemies. Adams made some decisions that were, at the time, conservative -- he initially opposed the American Revolution, he signed the Alien and Sedition Acts. But far more often he fought the conservatives. As for Hamilton, he is "conservative" in the sense that he supported big banks and big government, but the people who were considered conservative at the time (there was no American conservative party) strongly opposed Hamilton, and today he has become something of a hero for the liberals. I'm not taking sides -- I have no interest in going over this long list name by name -- just pointing out an inconsistency. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Would William F. Knowland qualify on the list since he was a prominet conservative Senator during the 1950's ?Thanos54! (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to create a list of criteria for which a person or organization may be included on this list and remove anybody who does not apply. Here is my suggestion: If nobody disagrees with this criteria, I will begin to weed out and cite sources within the next few days. --GHcool (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) The person or organization must have done their major work in the United States or have attempted to influence American politics.
 * 2) At least one reliable source must describe the person or organization by using the word "conservative." This source must be cited.
 * 3) The person or organization must be have done their major work in the 20th or 21st century.

Okay, so I put William F. Knowland on the list as a prominent conservative and cited my source.Thanos54! (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the list should be limited to Americans. If it turns out that Valdimir Putin "attempted to influence American politics" that would still not make him a conservative. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Updated criteria:
 * The person or organization must be an American citizen or be composed primarily of American citizens who have done their major work in the United States or have attempted to influence American politics.
 * At least one reliable source must describe the person or organization by using the word "conservative." This source must be cited.
 * The person or organization must be have done their major work in the 20th or 21st century. --GHcool (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Why limit it to only the 20th and 21st centuries? That is rather bold, and was not done with consensus. As the History of conservatism in the United States verifies there was conservatism in the United States prior to the beginning of the 20th century. I understand removing a bunch of names per WP:VER, however I find it interesting that certain names were retained, and new sources added, while others were allowed to just be deleted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem with adding Americans from before the 20th century to this list: do we add someone to the list if they were conservative in the sense that the word conservative was understood at the time they lived; or do we add someone to the list if they were conservative in the sense that the word conservative is understood today? Rick Norwood (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I arbitrarily added sources to names. Feel free to re-add the names I deleted and add sources.
 * As for the 20th-21st century, I'm with Rick Norwood on this one. I took my jumping off point from the lead of Conservatism in the United States, specifically this sentence: "an organized conservative movement has played a key role in politics only since the 1950s." According to that lead, much of conservatism is a reaction to 20th century forces such as communism, socialism,  moral relativism, multiculturalism and liberal internationalism.  Furthermore, pre-20th century figures who used to be on the list are cherry picked so that they seem more conservative than they are.  Can anyone really say that John Adams favored small government or feared too much secularism? Best to keep 20th century ideas in the 20th century.  --GHcool (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The above opinions appear to disagree with the verified content at History of conservatism in the United States, while an organized "movement" did not coalesce until the mid-20th century, that doesn't mean that there wasn't conservatism in the United States, and thus conservatives.
 * I get that there is a debate as to how to add pre-20th century American conservatives, but perhaps it would be best to see what the sources verify and come to the consensus down the list of pre-20th century previously listed individuals. As many of the individuals listed had numerous reliable sources verifying that the individual is considered a conservative.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Additionally, has drawn the re-additions that they have added, largely to a single news source, this one. While it maybe a reliable source, I have tried to draw significantly from what books can verify. Not that news sources are not also valid, but published books (especially academic books) perhaps can be seen as having more weighty opinions on the subject of this list.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The list GHcool used seems a) authoritative and b) referencing names that belong on this list, the most important American conservatives currently. A book is unlikely to do that. Of course, books are a better source for important conservatives not currently in the news. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

There's an ongoing edit war re: Trump's entry on the list. The entry is properly cited per the criterion for inclusion on this list, but one anon user has repeatedly deleted it citing Trump's "alt-right affiliations" and most recently his DACA deal with Pelosi and Schumer. The criteria for inclusion on this list either needs to be defined more narrowly or that user should be restricted from editing. Thoughts? -Publius100 (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The user should be restricted. --GHcool (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

There MUST be a distinction made between the alt-right and traditional conservatives. It is disrespectful to the philosophers, philanthropists, and heroes of the past century to be equated with the likes of Ann Coulter or the white-power blogosphere. Also, "Business and Religious Leaders needs to be two different sections.2602:306:365A:2F30:1DC6:C41D:2DE6:1C1 (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The list has a number of liberals and left-wing extremists on it. The likes of Bush, Scalia, and Bill Graham are not conservatives in any shape or form.

Conservative Media Establishment?
In June 2018, Politico published this list. For those on this list, who are not already on the list, should they be added?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say no. Most of the people mentioned by Politico are already on the list anyway. It depends on whether you think Politico is a reliable source on this question, I guess. SunCrow (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with SunCrow. Most are already on the list.  If the ones who aren't on the list are still relevant in 10 years, we can talk about adding them at that time.  --GHcool (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of American conservatives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060515023544/http://www.nerve.com/dispatches/clark/citizenanschutz/printcopy.asp to http://www.nerve.com/dispatches/clark/citizenanschutz/printcopy.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Dubious entries
I tagged the following entries as dubious:


 * Dinesh D'Souza. I don't believe he's prominent enough to be listed here, especially following his tumultuous exit from The King's College and his criminal conviction.


 * Breitbart. Not conservative anymore. If Breitbart is listed here at all, there should be some kind of date limitation. During Andrew Breitbart's life, Breitbart was a prominent conservative publication. After Breitbart passed away and Steve Bannon took over, Breitbart became an alt-right hangout.


 * Ann Coulter. Ann is too far "out there" to make this list.

Also, I see that the John Birch Society is tagged as dubious. JBS is a conspiracy-mongering outfit that is outside the mainstream of conservatism.

Thoughts?

SunCrow (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the question is what can be verified. This is not what one person's opinion is or anothers. While I may agree about the date limit for Breitbart unless it can be verified to a reliable source, such a change cannot be done.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

when to start?
The list ignores almost all conservatives before 1933, apart from a dozen or so top-level politicians. so I suggest we say that, and why. ie the list ''focuses on the the last 80 years, since the New Deal coalition established liberalism as a powerful force. Rjensen (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. This also seems to be the case at Timeline_of_modern_American_conservatism. I like continuity. – Lionel(talk) 08:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The previously added wikilinks added to see also were not to like list of say libertarian whatevers or socialist whatevers and what not.
 * If we limit the scope to post-1933, should there be a list for pre-1933?
 * What is the purpose of changing the scope of this article? Just cause it doesn't list a lot of pre-1933 conservative Americans, doesn't mean it shouldn't per WP:WIP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * RightCow raises a good point. What is definitive about the year 1933 to the extent that it justifies being a cutoff? – Lionel(talk) 06:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

An editor has just changed the hidden comment to "Emphasis is on the period since 1950." I thought we were discussing 1933? Coincidentally, the ArbCom discretionary sanctions starts at 1932 based on the Fifth Party System.

As a matter of practice, we should designate the Talk page for the display of the criteria. This is where most article place criteria. It's hard to see the hidden comment in the article. Also, if someone scrolls down and edits a subsection they won't even see the criteria If there are no objections, I will delete the hidden comment in the article.– Lionel(talk) 02:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

US Conservatism Category, List, Nav template
Out of all of the US Conservative templates, lists and cats currently this page seems to be the most active, so I'll post this here for initial input, then get the WikiProject involved. These 3 areas Templates--Lists--Categories need a serious overhaul. The sidebar & footer templates are bloated. The root category Category:Conservatism_in_the_United_States has 480 pages in it! Any ideas on synchronizing the three methods of organizing articles? – Lionel(talk) 12:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Lionel, I see what you mean about templates, and about the Conservatism in the United States category. I see that the sidebar on the Conservatism in the United States Wikipedia page lists several subcategories that might be helpful. I would tweak that list and propose the following subcategories:


 * History
 * Media
 * Organizations
 * Parties
 * People
 * Terms
 * Variations


 * Under "People," I would propose the following subcategories:


 * Activists
 * Intellectuals
 * Judges
 * Media personalities
 * Politicians


 * What do you think?

SunCrow (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Suncrow, I think we're off to a great start. Just so we're all on the same page, I added a table of all of the subsections. IMHO the nav template/sidebar--being that it's the most visible--is the most important. That said, the List seems to have the best organization. Here's the guideline that talks about this Categories, lists, and navigation templates.– Lionel(talk) 09:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

, looking at the table, I think the List organization is in good shape. The Nav template/sidebar looks good too. The only problem with the sidebar is too many entries in the subsections.

The category is in bad shape, but with 500 pages it will take a bot to sort it out. The bot will only be able to identify "people" and "organizations" but no specific occupations. Most of the subcategories e.g. judges, politicians, will have to be populated manually. So this is what I think we should do for the category: Most of the subcategories will be moved into one of the meta categories e.g. Fox News -> Media, Barry Goldwater -> People. Ok, what do you think?– Lionel(talk) 07:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Lionel, I don't quite follow everything you said, but that's probably because I'm not experienced with this aspect of Wikipedia. It sounds like you know what you're doing. SunCrow (talk) 09:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Phyllis Schlafly
In which section does Phyllis Schlafly belong? "... American constitutional lawyer and conservative political activist. She was known for staunchly conservative social and political views, antifeminism, opposition to legal abortion, and her successful campaign against ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution." – Lionel(talk) 09:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. She's in Activists.– Lionel(talk) 12:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

1776
From the lead: "Historians argue that the conservative tradition has played a major role in American politics and culture since 1776." Who are these historians? What was conservatism's role from 1776 until the 20th century? That a handful of sources call a handful of pre-20th century defenders of slavery "conservative" does not mean that conservatism as we define the term today played a role in the culture since 1776. I propose that the sentence be stricken from the lead. --GHcool (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The lead was copied from Conservatism. Primarily as a starting point, since this list didn't have a lead. Some things may not work without the context of the complete article (Conservatism). So no need to tag anything--just change it based on your best judgment. – Lionel(talk) 12:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Is there any utility to the paragraph added here being in the lead for this list? This information is duplicated elsewhere on Wikipedia and should stay elsewhere. I propose that the entire paragraph be removed from this article. --GHcool (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * History starts in 1900 for some people--but ask an American conservative andf they will talk not about Teddy Roosevelt but about the Founding Fathers. Conservatives on the Supreme Court are real keen about ' originalism' and they mean 1780s, not 1900 or 1950.  So I added this:
 * Historians argue that the conservative tradition has played a major role in American politics and culture since 1776. For example, Russell Kirk saw the American Revolution itself as "a conservative reaction, in the English political tradition, against royal innovation". [Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind (1950), pp. 6, 63. David Lefer, The Founding Conservatives: How a Group of Unsung Heroes Saved the American Revolution (2013) Harry V. Jaffa, American conservatism and the American founding (1984)  Bruce Frohnen says, "conservatives conceive of the War for Independence as a successful conservative reaction in America."  American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia (2006) p 33.
 * We can add Clinton Rossiter as a major historian who won his big prizes for sturies of 18th and 19th century conservatives. As for John Adams, people ought to read Conservative Thinkers: From John Adams to Winston Churchill (1978) by Peter Viereck.   Russell Kirk calls John Adams "the real conservative." [The Conservative Mind p 86]  Ronald Lora devotes a chapter of Conservative minds in America (1979) to Adams; Frohnen, Encyclopedia p 11 states "some writers regard him as America's most important conservative public man."-- so who says he does not belong? Rjensen (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if all of that were true, it is irrelevant to the article. This is simply a list of people and groups who are conservative.  This should not be a historical analysis.  We have other articles where that belongs.  --GHcool (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * it in fact is 50% history right now. why the urge to deny history--to deny the Founding Fathers--to deny the Constitution?  that's not the spirit of Buckley, Goldwater Reagan or Scalia. Rjensen (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying anything. I'm simply affirming that this information belongs somewhere else (for example, in the Conservatism in the United States from where it is copied).  There is no need to duplicate it here.  --GHcool (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * GHcool, Featured Articles similar to this one have historical context in the lead. It is not uncommon for a List, especially when it is a spin-off like this one, to have text copied from the parent. In fact, this is a recommended practice at WP:SUMMARY. The fact of the matter is, we need a lead. There is no wrong or right about having 1776 in the lead. It is an editorial decision. For now, I support 1776 in the lead. If you have ideas on how we can create about 3 paras of content let us know.
 * And yes, I think this article has potential to be a Featured List or at the least A-Class. – Lionel(talk) 02:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is my proposal for what the lead should look like:
 * [First paragraph unchanged]
 * Although conservative historians such as Russell Kirk argue that the conservative tradition has played a major role in American politics and culture since 1776,[relevant footnotes here] all scholars agree that an organized conservative movement has played a key role in politics only since the 1950s.[relevant footnotes here] The recent movement is based in the Republican Party, though some Democrats were also important figures early in the movement's history.[relevant footnotes here]
 * [Last paragraph unchanged]
 * I see that my opinion that 1776 should not be involved in this article is the minority opinion. I won't press it further.  --GHcool (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, good job. Let me suggest this variation: The American conservative tradition has played a major role in American politics and culture since 1776,[relevant footnotes here]. The memory of the Founding Fathers continues to be revered. Their Constitution of 1787 remains practically a sacred text. Scholars agree that an organized conservative movement has played a key role in politics only since the 1950s.[relevant footnotes here] The recent movement is based in the Republican Party, though some Democrats were also important figures early in the movement's history.[relevant footnotes here] the changes make it clear that 1776-1789 remains important to the Conservative movement to this day. Rjensen (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * None of those additions to my proposal are relevant. The Founding Fathers are not a unified group that one might call "conservative" according to any definition of that word.  Furthermore the notion that the Founding Fathers and their Constitution are respected is not unique to American conservatism.  Conservatism, as defined in our article, is a 20th/21st century political philosophy.  Let's keep it focused on our century.  --GHcool (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Do conservatives honor the Founding Fathers and venerate the Constitution as almost sacred text?. Yes, I really think they do. And so do the RS: take a look at The Founding Conservatives: How a Group of Unsung Heroes Saved the American Revolution by David Lefer (Penguin, 2013). Some reviews of that book 1) " he shows that American conservatism has deep historical roots and that some of today’s ideological disputes were being waged in the early days of our republic." states Walter Isaacson; 2) “A compelling argument for a new appreciation of America’s founding conservatives." says Larry Schweikart.  3) George Nash The conservative intellectual movement in America shows how central to the conservative movement was veneration of the Constitution – for Barry Goldwater for example (Nash p 207); it was central to the attacks on the Warren court (nash p 217). Nash notes that Wilmore Kendall stressed the importance of the founding fathers  for conservatism (Nash p 238-40).  No historian I know claims American conservatism was invented in 20c. -I cited famous scholars like Rossiter, Viereck, Kirk from an older generation i are cites. See contemporary ones like Frohnen's encyclopedia. or Patrick Allitt, The Conservatives (2009) talks at length about John Adams, Washington, Hamilton, Marshall etc.  Meanwhile I invite GHcool to quote the scholars he is relying upon for his amazing claim that American Conservatism "is a 20th/21st century political philosophy"  Rjensen (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue about sources. I accept yours as legitimate.  Other sources (The Conscience of a Liberal by Paul Krugman comes to mind) support my opinion that conservatism as we define the term in our article was largely a reaction to the New Deal, the civil rights movement, and the Cold War.  I am at work right now, so I don't have the exact page numbers and books handy.
 * The question isn't whether 1776 belongs in the article's lead. The real question is how much of the article's lead should be occupied by 18th-19th century references and how much 20th-21st century? Should it be 50-50? My feeling is that 25% of the lead being about the 18th-19th centuries would be too high and run afoul of WP:UNDUE WEIGHT.  --GHcool (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Krugman --a liberal economist--emphasizes at length what calls "long Gilded age" from 1865 to 1932 from which he argues the ideas and goals of modern cons. movement are based. But this article is a spinoff of the long history article and that and this were never limited to the MODERN movement (which begins about 1950, not 1932). Rjensen (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You misread Krugman. I have the book at home.  The cutoff for inclusion is and ought to be 1932.  --GHcool (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's not conflate 2 issues: Regarding 1776 I suggest posting a comment at the project discussion page for more input. – Lionel(talk) 23:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) 1776 in the lead: this is regarding adding historical background. On this I have no preference. But we do need something in the lead and if we take it out we need to replace it with something else.
 * 2) 1932 cutoff for list entries: this is about list criteria and is independent of the 1776 background. And I support this.
 * [to GHcool]I read Krugman last night. why should we rely on a liberal economics theorist who focuses heavily on the history of economic inequality & ignores most all of conservatism? [to Lionelt] -- why pick 1932?? you have not cited a RS that supports you. As for MOVEMENT conservatism it starts about 1950.  But this article is not limited to MOVEMENT issues--it was a spinoff and carries the general title of the general History of conservatism in the United States.  Cutting off the intellectual foundations is not needed. The longer range is supported by numerous serious very well regarded specialists on the history of American conservatism: Russell Kirk, Clinton Rossiter, Peter Viereck, George H. Nash, Paul Gottfried, Patrick Allitt, Donald T. Critchlow, Bruce Frohnen, Gregory Schneider, Jennifer Burns etc etc None of them begin with 1932.  Rjensen (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * are you saying that there should be no cutoff for inclusion of entries on the list?
 * List criteria cutoffs fall under "scope of the article." There are no RS to tell us how to create this list and what to include. Just like the scope of any article, it's an editorial decision. From a practical perspective, the cutoff should be set to keep the list a reasonable length. If it gets too long then it has to be split. Anyway, I used 1932 because that's what the Timeline uses, also it's what ArbCom uses, and it seems like a good idea to me. – Lionel(talk) 02:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Another thing to consider... When the list is converted to a wikitable there will be ONE ENTRY PER LINE. And the borders between rows will add vertical length. It may be necessary to splitout the organizations. Something to consider when thinking about cutoffs. – Lionel(talk) 02:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We can retitle this as "a list of American conservatives since 1932" In my opinion that is misleading because it cuts off 160 years of very important history--most 21st century conservatives refer to that early history all the time because they think it's the foundation of what they stand for. For example the idea of compulsory unions is a big deal this week after the Supreme Court decision--its arguments are rooted in the 1880-1929 era with people like William Graham Sumner. Rjensen (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Lots of things are rooted in other things. To extend the analogy, the "blossom" of American conservatism grew on the "tree" of American history, which has its "roots" in the American revolution.  Many other blossoms grew from that same tree, but one must not include the roots in a list of features about one particular blossom.  --GHcool (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, to reiterate I'm neutral on 1776 in the lead. And I'm changing to neutral on 1932. That said, there are hundreds of conservative articles that could be added. I have a strong feeling that eventually the list will be split at 1932 or eev 1950s. – Lionel(talk) 02:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * After reading this IMHO makes a better argument for their version than . As for limiting this list to post-1932 I have mixed feelings about this which I have stated in another section before. If this article/list meets WP:TOOBIG then we consider splitting it, but not before then IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Taking into account that Suncrow deleted the 1776 content, and I'm primarily interested in A-class, I think this is where everyone stands: – Lionel(talk) 09:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Please change my "Include 1776 in intro (lead)" cell to "no" --GHcool (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)  ✅ – Lionel(talk) 08:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

A-Class
A lot of work has gone into this and it should be recognized. Let's think about nominating this for A-Class. For this to happen the lists will need to be converted to wikitables.– Lionel(talk) 07:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I converted to wikitables. All we need to do is populate some cells and add some pics and we're be ready to nominate. A-Class is a higher quality than GA but not as rigorous as Featured List. ,,, let me know if you'd like to help out and co-nominate. – Lionel(talk) 04:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

D'Souza
Some sort of error was committed when this edit was made. The rationale for the edit was "D'souza's notability as an american conservative predated his conviction. the conviction certainly belongs on d'souza's page, but it doesn't belong here." This demonstrates a misunderstanding of the purpose of the "Notability" column. That column is to summarize the key reasons for each listed person's notability. Since D'souza's status as a convicted felon is at least as notable as his status as an author and filmmaker, and because the felony for which he was convicted was motivated by his conservatism, it is reasonable to include this in his notability field. I intend on changing it back within the next couple of days unless I hear a good reason not to. --GHcool (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * GHcool, I disagree. I don't think D'Souza is notable because of his conviction. I think he would still be notable even if he had never been convicted. That is why I don't think the conviction should be mentioned here. SunCrow (talk) 06:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what "would have been," his conviction is incredibly salient and relevant to his conservatism. The sources cited in the article mention his conviction front and center (this one, for example).  A Google search for his name yields dozens of articles that do the same.  The second paragraph of his Wikipedia page is all about his conviction in service of his conservatism.  His conviction and pardon is at least as notable as anything he has ever written or produced.  We don't censor salient information that might be embarrassing to the subject.  --GHcool (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * GHcool, I was not censoring salient information that might be embarrassing to the subject. I just don't think the conviction is what makes him notable. He was notable before he got convicted. We just disagree on this. SunCrow (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Libertarians vs. Conservatives
Why are there prominent libertarians like Rand Paul, Peter Thiel and Charles Koch listed? Is Libertarianism some sort of Conservatism? I thought these would be two different philosophies, especially when it comes to sociopolitical issues such as gay marriage.--Einar Moses Wohltun (talk) 07:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Einar Moses Wohltun, there is overlap between the two. If you check out the Wikipedia article on conservatism, it notes libertarian conservatism as a branch of the conservative movement. SunCrow (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this makes no sense. There is also overlap between Libertarianism and liberalism. These are not the same things at all. Inf-in MD (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Beyond Libertarians, why does Wikipedia lack a "List of American liberals" entry? Is there something special about conservatives that stimulates a listing, or is there something special about liberals that inhibits a listing? Could it be that Wikipedia editors see something special about conservatives that requires a listing, but that something special is lacking in liberals?


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_liberals Rick Norwood (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Radio Hosts that may need to be included
There are a few radio hosts that may need to be added, such as Clyde Lewis (not really sure about him), Art Bell (pretty sure about him), and Pat Gray (absolutely positive about him). I need to know about the first two, but I will go ahead and add Pat Gray)--MilkFghy (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you add a person, it must be cited to a reliable secondary source. It cannot be a source published by the person being cited.  --GHcool (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The so called "source published by the person being cited" was published by TheBlaze, not Pat Gray, so he should be included--MilkFghy (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Mitt probably belongs on a "centrist" list
If this were the "list of liberals" or "list of progressives" then I'd be sure the list would have Bernie, but probably wouldn't have Hillary for instance because people in the comment section would contest it. Now imagine Hill was actually amicable about Trump while voting for her husband or Barack's impeachment in between Fox interviews? There'd be no way. I'm a huge supporter of objectivity, but Mitt probably belongs on a "list of centrist politicians". Not to mention his being a Senator from Utah isn't in his description though it is a part of his notability. J390 (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * One can be both a centrist and a conservative. The citation for Romney calls him a conservative.  --GHcool (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting article here, might help shed some light on the issue. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

David Dreier
I added a "citation needed" tag to David Dreier because the citation previously cited does not mention that he is a conservative. --GHcool (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding celebrities?
Should we make a section for celebrities who align to the Republican party? TheNYconservative (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think not. Celebrity is transitory and unlikely to have lasting influence. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)