Talk:Paleoconservatism

Original research, SYNTH, and unreliable sources.

I have slashed-and-burned the article. I believe more is needed, but am through for now. There are several reasons I believe this was necessary:

• The article is currently built around a very large amount of sources used as examples. This is superficially reasonable, but was not neutral, because the article should first-and-foremost summarize reliable, independent sources. This is a key part of Wikipedia's mission. Using examples to suggest a trend or common thread is specifically inviting editors to perform WP:SYNTH by allowing them to elevate particular perspectives to prime importance based on personal assessment. Sources that are not, specifically, about the paleoconservative movement as a movement need to be handled with care, and the opinions of people within this movement are not encyclopedically significant just because they have been published somewhere. If a paleoconservative figure has an opinion on intelligent design, for example, we need a reliable, independent source which specifically links that opinion to paleoconservatism in order to justify a lengthy quote about this topic. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.
• Worse, many of these sources were blatantly unreliable. VDare, American Renaissance (magazine), and a random blog are just some of the examples. These are not reputable outlets and are only usable in extremely limited cases. These were not such cases. I suspect there are other unreliable sources mixed in here, as well. While it is permissible to use unreliable sources for attributed opinions in some cases, it is not acceptable to use these sources to perform original research, or to make implications about the movement, as this article is doing frequently.
• The article has a glut of filler-words, peacock terms, and general puffery. As just one example, calling paleoconservatives "intellectuals" is borderline. Calling them "luminaries" is over-the-top bad. This is not a word we should use without attribution, and we would need a specific reason to attribute this to someone.

I could go on, but hopefully that's enough to explain my edits and facilitate a discussion, if necessary. Grayfell (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, these issues are still here, and more work is needed. Grayfell (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey, just been looking at this page and it's a shocker, reads like a promo for Paleoconservatism. Bacondrum (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

"Paleoconservatism?" I don't believe that it's a useful or necessary term (nor one that is actually used, to any significant extent). Question probably doesn't interest me enough to engage, but really this article could possibly be eliminated at no loss. 32.221.207.102 (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

International scope

Does anyone know if this is basically an American concept, or if it has wider scope?

If it is, it should say so.

If not, "limited Federal government" is inappropriate in the definition as that is meaningless in most countries.

(Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus) TSP (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

I recently removed claims backed by blogs and Chronicles and profam, none of these are reliable sources, plus much of the content is completely undue. Whole sections lack citation and what citation there is is backed by these kinds of unreliable sources. These are not RS for anything other than direct quotes of the author. Bacondrum (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Dubious connection to Alt Right

The source cited in regards to paleoconservatism being linked to the Alt-Right movement neither mentions paleoconservatism, nor any central political ideas of the Alt-Right which could be considered paleoconservative, claiming the opposite, that the Alt-Right lacks core ideals outside of ethnic issues. Richard Spencer in interviews and debates has imparted ideals that more align with National Bolshevism than Paleoconservatism, including economic redistribution and restrictions on free speech. Spencer's politics entirely conflict with Paleoconservatism, including, support for abortions, and is against Christian morality, and has gone as far as to promote paganism, while claiming he is atheist. He had disavowed his previous works when working with libertarianism, and Ron Paul, rendering the influence of paleoconservatism in his ideology dubious, and there is failure to cite a source that actually shows the connection as is claimed. Katacles (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, mentioning the alt right is dubious, because this IS the alt right. I don't understand why it should be given treated as a separate article. It should be merged into the Alt-right article. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Alt right?

This article just describes the alt right but in more flattering and white washed terms. This shouldn't be a separate article. It might be prudent to merge them. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. The "alt-right" are sanitized white nationalists, who generally support either a whites-only America, or splitting the US up into racial zones. While Paleoconservatism can sometimes have cross-over with soft white nationalism, and a few individuals have a foot in both camps (Sam Francis, for instance), Paleoconservatism is generally fine with a multi-racial and multi-ethnic society - they just defend the white American majority culture, and support it being the dominant culture. Generally, they are fine with other racial groups, so long as they adopt the majority culture. Some, such as Thomas Fleming, have expressed support for blacks retaining their own subculture if they so choose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.8.31 (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Nick Fuentes

Why is Nick Fuentes on this list? He is a white nationalist who hides behind the paleoconservative label for respectability, not a true paleoconservative. Most paleo-cons are fine with a multi-racial, multi-ethnic society. What they oppose is a multicultural society, which is not the same thing.

I just reverted a removal of Fuentes, so I guess I should explain myself here. There is a citation for Fuentes—the same citation as on his own page. According to the cited source, Fuentes describes himself as a paleoconservative. Now, it isn't obvious that this alone merits his inclusion in the "Notable People" list. Maybe the list can be split into one of "self-described paleos" and others. Maybe Fuentes is just too non-central to include. I don't know. But I think this needs to be discussed first.

(The same person who removed Fuentes also removed Malkin. I don't know about Malkin, so I'm letting that one stay.)

--DIlARWzJXpwE (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Nick Fuentes adopts the paleoconservative label for optics. Including him in the list of paleoconservative commentators and columnists could mislead readers by suggesting an association between his views and paleoconservatism as a whole. His expressed views align more closely with antisemitism and white nationalism, fundamentally diverging from the tenets of paleoconservatism as an ideology and framework. 159.115.9.45 (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits to Commentators

I added NR citations for Tucker Carlson and Robert Novak. The Novak citation is an old one that used to be a dead link. Note that over at the Robert Novak page I also added a comment on how the "paleo" label is disputed.

I went ahead and deleted John T. Flynn as well. His name had been up there for a very long time, but we've discussed this before and it's apparent that he died before "paleoconservative" as a label even existed. This currently leaves Michelle Malkin as the only person on the list without a citation. I don't know anything about her. Maybe someone else can deal with her?

--DIlARWzJXpwE (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Remove Nick Fuentes and Alex Jones from list of commentators and columnists

Nick Fuentes adopts the paleoconservative label for optics. Including him in the list of paleoconservative commentators and columnists could mislead readers by suggesting an association between his views and paleoconservatism as a whole. His expressed views align more closely with antisemitism and white nationalism, fundamentally diverging from the tenets of paleoconservatism as an ideology and framework. Regarding Alex Jones, the same reasoning applies. Alex Jones's views align more with pushing overt conspiracy theories than with advocating for the principles of paleoconservatism. The cited commentators and columnists should be known for promoting paleoconservatism, rather than differing ideals and principles, such as white nationalism and conspiracy theories. 159.115.9.45 (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Some doubts

It is said that paleoconservatism and neoconservatism were coined during the debates about interventionism during Vietnam war.

a quick view in Google ngram plotter shows that if it is likely for neconservatism [1] it’s unlikely for paleoconservatism [2], that appears frequently in the 1990s and is more widely used since the mid 2010s.

unless there is a specific bias in the lexical data base used by Google the two terms do not appear as being jointly developped, but successively, and the success of the latter is very probably linked to the evolution of the GOP over the last 10-15 years.

Furthermore there is a reasonable possibility that the « paleo » qualificative bears a negative appreciation in the current it describes within the conservatism. This possibility is not considered.

The lack of source for the thesis of a joint origin does not help.

i suggest that this sentence be considered as dubious. And some additional sources be looked after. Diderot1 (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)