Template talk:Conservatism US

Does Marc Andreesen belong on the list of Conservative Activists?

@Therequiembellishere and I are having a difference of opinion as to whether this template belongs on Marc Andreessen. Since Andreessen is on the template's list of Conservative Activists, the real issue is whether he belongs on that list. So I thought I'd raise the issue here.

I guess the big objection would be that he was aligned with the Democratic Party until recently. But conservative Democrats are definitely a thing, and Andreesen has been expressing regressive opinions for some time. And nowadays he hangs out with Trump at Mar a Lago. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, he's certainly not an important conservative figure, so per WP:SIDEBAR should not go in here (articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related"). I would support removal. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

How is he not an "important conservative figure"? He's certainly important, given how often he's in the news, his partnership in the number one venture capital firm, and his relationship with Trump. So unless you can make a case that he's not conservative, he's an ICF. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, my issue is with the whole concept of these "ideological" sidebars, which (adapting from my edit summary) I think are just grab bag lists of random names that some editors string together. All of them are rife with SYNTH/OR and BIAS based on the subjective will on who is on or off and what section they get sloshed onto. To Andreesen's inclusion specifically, I'd personally say that he clearly is not a major figure in the arc of history and another reason none of these are especially helpful is a huge RECENTISM bias that stuffs them with the latest flash in the pan news figures (like Andreesen). But that's also just my opinion. There's no objective basis for distilling all these names down to one decontextualized and unreferenced list like an article's standards demand. And they're never materially relevant to the pages they're slapped on, they just take up an inordinate amount of space on the page. A sidebar of links collected around a specific person or event have a clear encyclopedic purpose and navigation aid to a casual reader. These are just a smorgasbord for someone clicking around a rabbit hole. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

If that's your central issue, then you should make a case for having the template deleted. But if you can't achieve a consensus that the sidebar shouldn't exist, then deleting it in places where it obviously fits is disruptive editing. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

It does not obviously fit, for an ideology as huge as conservatism this person is an incredibly minor player. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

And it doesn't "obviously fit" because it is entirely external to Andressen's page (and to every other page for if I want to slog thru the wiki bureaucracy of delating all of these). None of those people are related to Andressen at all, the reader learns nothing more about him by including it. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, I mean most if not all of the pages here: . Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Being on the news in the United States for a few years does not equate to an “important” figure when it comes to a political ideology held by millions of people over centuries in multiple countries. We do not include evry conservative with an article in this sidebar.PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, looking at just the Activists section, out of ~50 names, roughly 15-20 of them have only become notable and newsworthy since Trump, and a chunk of them not from just this administration. It cannot be that the history of conservatism in the US since its founding is weighted that heavily toward the last 10, 5, 2 years. And Andressen would be in the two year camp. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that Andreessen is in the "2 year camp," for reasons already stated. But if you think that a lot of people don't belong on the list, go ahead and delete them. If anyone objects to your deletion, we can have a healthy debate about who belongs. That makes more sense than saying, "It's a bad list, nobody should use it." Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

"We" having a "healthy debate" is fundamentally against what Wikipedia is. It's just a bunch of subjective editors foisting themselves and their thoughts, rather than following reliable sources for an encyclopedia, because it's not an article but a sidebar with no references. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll say it one more time: if you can't accept that these templates belong on Wikipedia, then propose their removal. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Same argument: if you think these templates shouldn't exist, your correct course of action is to get them deleted, not conduct a guerilla war against their use. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

You haven't made a single argument as to why this must be on Andressen's page nor why he "should" be on it. We've given many (directly on Andressen) for why not. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Can we focus on the template? Your argument is that the template is a mess, which means it needs to either be fixed or removed. Fixing it means paring down the list. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I came here for the exact same person. @Therequiembellishere:, it might be necessary to have a discussion about who is being included in these sidebar lists. Most of the people included in the Activists section should not be on there; to name a few, Jack Abramoff—who is primarily a lobbyist and is known for the scandal thereof, Robert Agostinelli—who simply has conservative views and capital, Kaitlin Bennett—who does not appear to be a significant figure, Yuri Bezmenov—who may not exactly be a conservative activist, L. Brent Bozell Jr.—who appears to only have any influence through Triumph, a short-lived magazine, and Roy Cohn—whose involvement in Republican politics is primarily through his relationship with Donald Trump. Conservatism in the United States is such a broad ideology, and it is seriously erroneous that there are few historical figures in this specific section in favor of recent figures. While I am not against, say, the inclusion of Stephen Miller, I am basing that off of his influence on the party as a whole. Miller was at the congressional forefront of a burgeoning movement surrounding Breitbart News and other sites that shared anti-immigration material; it is likely that the party would not be the same now had he not existed. What has Bennett done? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

A Disquisition on Government

Calhoun is mentioned twice, including under "Intellectuals" shouldn't, then, his A Disquisition on Government be included under "Literature"? 128.119.202.87 (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

John Thune

I have made attempts at adding incumbent Senate Majority Leader John Thune to this sidebar, but my edits continue to get reverted, first because the reverter claimed his political leanings are too similar to Mitch McConnell, and then because they claimed Thune was a "minor" figure, which, in my opinion, he is certainly not; if McConnell and Speaker Johnson are notable enough to be listed here, surely Thune qualifies as well. RideTheLightning99 (talk) 04:14, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Multiple different editors have reverted you for different reasons. Mine are:

1) There are too many people here and adding every single recent conservative figure violates WP:RECENTISM and WP:SIDEBAR

2) WP:BIDIRECTIONAL PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

1. I would disagree that there are "too many people" in this template. The US Liberalism sidebar has at least double the amount of people on it and no one has claimed that it is too many. Additionally, I didn't intend to add every single Conservative politician, just the most relevant ones, and Thune is very relevant.
2. This could very easily be resolved by adding the sidebar to Sen. Thune's own page.

RideTheLightning99 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

You have been replying to me on my personal talk page in regards to this matter so I thought that I'd bring it here instead. From your comments on my talk page it appears that you are trying to argue that Sen. Thune is only notable in the sense that some unknown Republican state representative is notable. Which is not what I am trying to argue. I am trying to argue that Thune is one of the most important conservatives in US politics at the moment and as such he should be included on this template. RideTheLightning99 (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

The US Liberalism template is also a train wreck in violation of WP:SIDEBAR. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that it exists doesn't mean that template is correct. This template is wildly out of compliance with the guidelines and IMO each new addition makes it worse. If we can't find some way to get it into compliance with the guidelines we should just delete it.

I didn't revert you on Thune the last time. I probably could have, because this is not a template for the HUNDREDS of notable conservative senators, but at least you added it to his article. I made that message on your talk page because you added Ono, a musician, as a major figure to an sidebar about politics. This shows a bad approach to sidebars, especially since that makes up most of your edits. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

You act like Thune is merely one of "HUNDREDS" of conservative Senators when he's literally the current leader of the Republican Party in the Senate. That alone makes him very important. I also don't know why you're bringing up Ono here as that was a different template and doing so seems as if you are trying to make this discussion here about my account instead of discussing the actual template. As per WP:SIDEBAR I don't see how they violate the rules; I looked over the guidelines and it says that templates with a "large number of links" (which you use as a grounds not to include certain figures) don't violate guidelines. RideTheLightning99 (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

The United States of America has hundreds of years of conservative political figures. Is he in the top, say, 100? If not, he should not be here.

WP:SIDEBAR "Navigation templates located in the top-right corner of articles (sometimes called a "sidebar" or "part of a series" template) should be treated with special attention, because they are so prominently displayed to readers. The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related, and the template should meet most or all of the preceding guidelines. If the articles are not tightly related, a footer template or navbox, located at the bottom of the article, may be more appropriate." all politicians of one ideology are not fairly rightly related.

I'm bringing this up here because you brought up my response on your talk page. That was what my response on your talk page is about. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Once again, I am not trying to add every single Republican politician ever to the sidebar, which you seem to be accusing me of. I have literally stated time and time again that Sen. Thune is an important figure in the current climate of American conservatism, is tightly related to other figures in the template like Sen. McConnell and Speaker Johnson, and as such he does make the "top 100". I am trying to add the top Republican Senator in the US currently, and yet you're acting like I'm trying to add some random Republican County Clerk who definitely doesn't belong on here. Also if you want to say something about what you've put on my talk page, bring it up there, not here. RideTheLightning99 (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

"The current climate" - yes. But this is not a sidebar for current American conservativism, but for all 250 years of American conservatism. See WP:RECENTISM. Would he be one of the most important American conservatives ever in 100 years? No. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

And yet Sen. McConnell and Speaker Johnson are also on this template, will they be remembered as important conservatives in 100 years? How is there any way of knowing that? RideTheLightning99 (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

They probably will not. The template also isn't even included in Johnson's articles, so per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL he should not be in here. As I said, this template needs a massive trim. But that doesn't mean we should make it worse.

We are currently having village pump discussions about eliminating sidebars entirely due to how mismanaged they are. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Could you link to the discussion please? I'd like to comment on that. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy Actually got archived but Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 71#Sidebars reform (preliminary discussion). I see a clear consensus that there is an issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I am trying to argue that Thune is one of the most important conservatives in US politics at the moment - but it is not for us to argue that. What sources are saying this? And what does "at the moment" even mean? Is he someone who will be permanently regarded as a key US conservative, worthy of reading about in a curated list of the most important conservatives ever? Who is saying that? It is not in his article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Speaker Hastert

I attempted to add former House Speaker Dennis Hastert to this template, though my edit was reverted, once again under the grounds that Hastert was a "minor" figure. Speaker of the House is not a "minor" position; it is literally the leader of the Legislative Branch. And if Gingrich, Boehner, Ryan, McCarthy, and Johnson can all get a mention on this navbox, surely Hastert should as well. RideTheLightning99 (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Not significant enough to conservatism as a movement. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Not significant enough? How is significance measured or justified in this regard? Are the other House Speakers listed more significant than Hastert? How so? RideTheLightning99 (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who is in there now, I wouldn't oppose those being removed, but people who are not significant to conservatism as a movement should not be added to this already overlong and problematic sidebar. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that Hastert is significant to American conservatism. He was a major figure in implementing conservative policies during George W. Bush's presidential administration. I'd also argue that his child molestation case and the controversy stirred by it make him a notable figure in politics. RideTheLightning99 (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

That he is notable does not make him one of the most significant conservative figures ever. This is not a sidebar for every conservative politician. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

You keep saying that this is not for "every conservative politician" like I'm trying to add some low-ranking Republican politician with very little impact as opposed to a head of the entire Legislative Branch. And unlessyou can come up with a counterpoint to the argument I made about what makes someone significant, your claim that certain figures are not "significant" enough is groundless. RideTheLightning99 (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Who is and isn't significant enough for this template?

My edit to add House Speaker Dennis Hastert was once again reverted on the same grounds that the list shouldn't include "every single conservative ever", even after making clear that Hastert is not just some random low-ranking politician with zero historical notability (see the thread above). Also, as for the argument that Hastert is "not influential on conservatism as a MOVEMENT at all", who says this? Is there any evidence to back up such a claim that he had no influence on the conservative ideology? Who considers who is and isn't significant or highly influential towards the ideology? Are similar figures listed such as Gingrich, Boehner, Speaker McCarthy, and Johnson highly significant in the almost 250 years of American conservatism? RideTheLightning99 (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Notability is not significance to a topic. Of course he’s notable, but being notable and conservative does not mean you are a significant figure to the ideological development of American conservatism. If we’re going to include every notable conservative politician, this template will have to be deleted for failing the relevant guidelines, because “every notable politician who is a conservative” is best dealt with in categories, and is out of scope of sidebars. And this template needs a massive cut, it is overlong and violates basically all our sidebar guidelines. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I have looked over the sidebar guidelines and do not see how this template violates them in the way that you claim. I have noticed that a lot of articles linked here don't transclude this template, which goes against WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, though to delete all of the articles linked has the potential to leave this entire navbox in a sorry state that appears unfinished. The guidelines don't seem to place a cap on how many articles can be linked in a navbox. RideTheLightning99 (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

But that's the thing: the template is not finished when it includes all pages on a topic. It should only include a subset of tightly related articles that walk a reader through a collated series on the designated topic. The topic is US Conservatism. You would need John Adams on that list, certainly. Who else though? Who is so important to conservatism in the US that you would want to call them out in an article. Suppose you were running a lesson on the subject - what would be the key figures who would have to be there? Do their pages support their major contribution to conservatism? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I think the page Conservatism in the United States would be a good place to start for the scenario that you have laid out as a theoretical lesson on the subject. However, most of the figures linked in this navbox do not appear on that page. However, I for one would not support removing all of the figures who aren't on that page, as, like I have said, it would leave the navbox in an unfinished-looking state that is visually unappealing. I think we need to have a deeper discussion about what should and shouldn't be included in navboxes like this one. RideTheLightning99 (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

That is not what sidebars are for, it is not supposed to be a comprehensive listing of everyone who has ever been related to an ideology. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@RideTheLightning99: The other two editors involved in this discussion have a significant amount of experience with navboxes. Having a deeper discussion about what should and shouldn't be included in navboxes like this one is unnecessary - they've already explained it to you. You'd be better served listening to their advice and direction rather than kick against the goads. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

JFK, Bill Clinton, and Harry Bird

Internet chatter modernly claims John F. Kennedy, as being an actual conservative, and Bill Clinton, as having positions during his presidency, which modernly would place it as a conservative. Harry Byrd is additionally sometimes identified as a conservative southern senator. Conservative and Republican are not the same thing. Template could include some conservative Dems. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:SIDEBAR, please centralize discussion at the article talk page, not that of the template. The editors on those pages will have a view and will not see this. You'll be aware, I'm sure, that we need some secondary sources making this case and not just "internet chatter". The template may (should) include links to any page where consensus is for inclusion of the template on that page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Inclusion of the "Trump era"

On this template, the Trump Era is mentioned. I work quite a bit on a page called History of the United States (2016–present) and it links to that page. It's not even called that on the page name itself even as a sub name and the sub name is instead called the "Contemporary Era" currently and it's a bit premature as this era is still ongoing and isn't dominated entirely by conservatism at the presidential level as Joe Biden was president during 4 of these years who was different ideologically than Donald Trump. The logic for including the Reagan Era make sense as during 12 of those years we had two conservative Republicans as the US President. For these reasons it should be removed. Skim127 (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I've removed it. The link is an Easter Egg, and per your comments, the template is not tightly integrated with that page's subject. I've removed the template from that page too (as is necessary - reverting at one end reverts at the other). Thanks for raising this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt

I do not think Theodore Roosevelt should be on here. He is definitely not a conservative, and having him on this template seems like an attempt for modern conservatives to claim him as one of their own, which is very much biased. ~2026-12764-63 (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Eyesore

This template creates alignment and WP:SANDWICH issues on almost every page it is included in. There is just way too much stuff in it. In many of its uses it manages to be longer than the rest of the page it is included in. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

i agree that {{Conservatism US footer}} is better for this reason. but, for some reason, others cling to these sidebars for dear life. Frietjes (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

It shouldn't be included on pages if it is going to be longer than the whole body of them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing really wrong with sidebars as such, but this one has been used really poorly. Per WP:SIDEBAR, it's supposed to be a concise list of the core and most important articles about a topic. For someone new to the subject it should be saying "here is the key and most important corpus of material at the heart of this subject". Some contributors seem to take the view that the sidebar needs to make everything accessible - but for a layperson, it's then impossible to distinguish which are the most important books, manifestos, politicians or activists in a field, and which are just passing fads (see also:WP:LAGGING).

Conservatism US has two specific issues:

• People slinging in anything that is even vaguely to do with US right wing politics, and also subsidiary articles like "Donald Trump Policies", when at most you need "Donald Trump", and people can find the other articles via the Donald Trump sidebar. It's neither feasible nor useful to sling every single presidential and president-adjacent article into the sidebar.
• It's not clear what it's for - is it about US Conservatism, or US Right-wing politics in 2026? There's been a vast churn on this template. If it's actually about US Conservatism, then it should be a pretty stable template with the same historic figures, key philosophers, jurists and seminal books. It should be a high bar to add a new article. Some contributors are treating it as the latter with any-and-every contemporary commentator and podcaster seemingly getting a turn. In relation to WP:LAGGING, notability guidelines apply to articles, not templates, but the same principle should be observed - inclusion should be stable and long-lasting. "The current Vice President" is not actually a core subject to the topic of "Conservatism in the US". Not unless they go on to redefine what Conservatism means or have some lasting impact in the field - which can necessarily only be defined in the future with hindsight based on what books are written about them and what their lasting legacy is (as discussed in WP:RELIABLE sources).

The other problem is that there is no discipline whatsoever in respecting the principle of WP:BIDI. If an article is removed from the template, then that contributor needs to go to the article and remove the sidebar. This sidebar in particular has been carelessly spammed across any tangentially right-wing article, which is giving it a bad reputation and contributing to the WP:SANDWICH issues. I have a maintenance script that identifies articles where sidebars are transcluded despite the article not being in the template. I routinely have to go through and remove this sidebar from a dozen-plus articles where it doesn't belong. It keeps popping up on a monthly basis like a bad penny.

People need to decide:

• What this sidebar is supposed to be doing. High-churn contemporary politics or stable core-topics about the subject?
• Writing up a precis in the Talk about what is eligible for inclusion.
• Sticking to that, and being disciplined in it's use and content (and imposing that discipline on other contributors).

Hemmers (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)