Talk:Russell Kirk

Kirk's religion, please
"Kirk said that Christianity and Western Civilization are "unimaginable apart from one another."[7] and that "all culture arises out of religion. When religious faith decays, culture must decline, though often seeming to flourish for a space after the religion which has nourished it has sunk into disbelief." [8] ... "Kirk grounded his Burkean conservatism in ... the strong religious faith of his later years..." Can anybody add a note on exactly what Kirk's beliefs were? -- 201.51.211.130 14:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of Kirk's beliefs, other than the Catholicism he adopted when he married, are well documented and perfectly accessible in his The Conservative Mind. In my opinion, that Catholicism remained a rather private matter. The public face of Kirk was overwhelmingly one of Anglophile Toryism, much more Burke and Mallock, than Lord Acton or Chesterton. It is supremely ironic that this admirer of a settled hierarchical order was himself the son of a railway worker, and the area around Piety Hill was one of near rural poverty.132.181.160.42 03:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Let's make this relevant info "well documented and perfectly accessible" in the Wikipedia article as well! :-) -- 201.51.211.130 14:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Cites need work
Russell Kirk is a somewhat controversial figure, and we want to be sure that the cites here are of the highest quality. As of today, we have cites for quotes which are links to Web pages that don't cite their sources, as well as "quoted in Russell Kirk and territorial democracy. Publius September 22, 2004" (no hyperlink, and appears as though it may be slightly innaccurate, though I'm not sure). Can we please tidy up the cites in this article? -- 201.51.211.130 15:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a bibliography. The best introduction remains Nash's book. Rjensen 15:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ten Conservative Principles or Six canons?
In The Politics of Prudence, Kirk states that they are ten conservative principles (which are awfully familiar to the "six canons" listed in the Wikipedia article.) First the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. Second the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectibility. Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Eigth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. Shouldn't we use this text (since it is a primary source) than deriving it from what Russello states? --Goldendroplets 23:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No; use secondary sources rather than cherry-picking primary ones. If you can cast doubt on the reliability of the secondary source, that's another matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Aren't we "cherry-picking" secondary sources too, and how is this cherry picking? His explanation of the ten conservative principles fill an entire chapter. Why should we use a secondary source over a primary source that more explicitly states the author's views? --Goldendroplets 06:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Because we are deferring to the secondary source's judgment, rather than imposing our own; if they disagree, we include both versions. If the secondary source simply cites the Ten Principles, fine; then say what they are. But digging them out ourselves is OR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Under the section, Wikipedia is directly quoting Kirk:


 * Kirk said that Christianity and Western Civilization are "unimaginable apart from one another."[7] and that "all culture arises out of religion. When religious faith decays, culture must decline, though often seeming to flourish for a space after the religion which has nourished it has sunk into disbelief." [8]


 * Isn't this also considered "digging them out ourselves" and thus is out of reach? --Goldendroplets 00:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Largely; there is a countervailing principle: WP:V says "challenged or likely to be challenged". If nobody objects, a sentence may well be saying the obvious consensus of readers of Kirk; don't borrow trouble. On the other hand, secondary sources are worth reading; they say things no Wikipedian has yet thought of. (Here one may well point out that this is hardly original with Kirk; a search on Kirk and Toynbee, or Kirk and Eliot, may be helpful here.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Chilton Williamson Jr. in his book, The Conservative Bookshelf states the following concerning Kirk: "Kirk identifies (in 'the Idea of Conservatism') 'six canons of conservative thought,' as the conservative tradition is generally understood: 1. 'Belief that a divine intent rules society as well as conscience, forging and eternal chain of right and duty which links great and obscure, living and dead. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems. 2. 'Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of traditional life, as distinguished from narrowing uniformity and equalitarianism and utilitarian aims of most radical systems.' 3. 'Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes.' 4. 'Persuasion that property and freedom are inseparably connected, and that economic leveling is not economic progress.' 5. 'Faith in prescription and distrust of 'sophisters and calculators.'' 6. 'recognition that change and reform are not identical, it is a torch of progress....Providence is the proper instrument for change, and the test of a statesman is his cognizance of the real tendency of providential social forces." Do secondary sources usurp the validity of primary sources? Nevertheless, these "six canons" are significantly different from the ones Russello states, should we leave the six canons as they are? Wikipedia already cites Rusello in the previous paragraph, should we add variety to our sources? --Goldendroplets 01:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism
The subject of anti-Semitism does not belong on Kirk's bio page, period. Any individual who introduces politicized content of subtly disparaging type shall not proceed unopposed. Kirk opposed ZIONISM, not JUDAISM. I cannot for the life of me understand how this encyclopedia allows such academic malfeasance.

I am more than willing to listen to opposing viewpoints if emanating from disinterested and scholarly motives.

Not one single person has ever implied or subtly insinuated, let alone SUBSTANTIATED, Kirk was a bigoted anti-Semite -- except the very ultra-radical Zionist fanatics he was referring to in his "controversial" words. Is it Wikipedia policy to conceptually identify anti-Semitism as somehow the very same thing as anti-Zionism? If so, I would be shocked beyond description.

Thank you.

Words concerning Kirk's anti-Zionist stance of rather unpacific psychological background itself, even, I can understand. But by indirect subtle insinuation denigrating his name with the whole "anti-Semitism" slur and associated stigma, without further ado, and citing as evidence only the very Zionists he directed his comments to as an anti-Zionist -- no disinterested lab scientists in any corner here -- does not constitute responsible scholarship.

Cite opponents of LEGITIMATE standing, if you can, proponents of the misidentification between Russell Kirk and anti-Semitism.


 * Kirk was not antisemitic. See Pafford's very recent discussion at where he made a comment to the effect that Neocons have lost perspective in their support for Israel. Rjensen (talk) 03:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Russell Kirk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060105051211/http://theoccidentalquarterly.com:80/vol5no2/52-griffin.html to http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol5no2/52-griffin.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060615062035/http://cofcc.org:80/foundation/neoconservatism.htm to http://www.cofcc.org/foundation/neoconservatism.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Russell Kirk. 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/20070927183443/http://www.claremont.org/blogs/blogid.4852/blog_detail.asp to http://www.claremont.org/blogs/blogid.4852/blog_detail.asp
 * Added tag to http://www.mmisi.org/ma/25_04/kirk.pdf.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303105630/http://users.etown.edu/m/mcdonaldw/Lect321.html to http://users.etown.edu/m/mcdonaldw/Lect321.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303105630/http://users.etown.edu/m/mcdonaldw/Lect321.html to http://users.etown.edu/m/mcdonaldw/Lect321.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100222043707/http://phillysoc.org/kirktrib.htm to http://phillysoc.org/kirktrib.htm

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) 04:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

South Africa Claims
I was shocked to see Kirk's claims about South Africa in National Review, and so tried to track down the cited article, but was unable to. Can anyone confirm whether this article is real or not? I am concerned that this citation is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.83.119.115 (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

About Olavo de Carvalho
Dear Wikipedia participants, I hope you are doing well. Accompanying the edition of some philosophers of my interest, I noticed the recent exclusion/inclusion of Mr. Olavo de Carvalho among those "influenced" by the thoughts of Russell Kirk. In this regard, I would like to know the criteria for including people in this section. Considering how obscure and controversial Carvalho is, in addition to his rather extravagant participation in the public debate - just look at his declarations on vaccines, sweeteners in soft drinks, the sphericity of the Earth, the legacy of Albert Einstein and similar subjects -, perhaps it is a good idea to discuss whether this figure deserves to appear in such a select list. Although it is said of the possibility that Carvalho has some local relevance in Brazil, it does not seem that he has intellectual production relevant enough for such inclusion. Russell Kirk influenced a myriad of people around the world and I don't think it's the case to include each one of them among his "influenced". Therefore, I believe it is worth opening a debate on this matter. Of two, one: either we remove Mr. Carvalho from the list or I think we can select another 400 names of equal scope, to make company for him. Antropovaldo (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)