Template talk:Conservatism in Germany

Constantin Fehrenbach

@Trakking I'm currently working on expanding the Constantin Fehrenbach article, mostly with translation from the German wiki. All of the quite liberal actions I noted will be included in the update, with no conservative stances to be found there or any other sources I'm aware of. I don't see that one statement in the current article, which is not supported by any detail in the source quoted, overrides the specifics I noted. There's also the point that with the possible exception of Stresemann, Fehrenbach was decidedly not in the same camp as the other Weimar era politicians in the conservatism template (Hugenberg, Papen, Schleicher).

I'd like you to reconsider your revert. GHStPaulMN (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello. There are other strands of conservatism that seem to fit Fehrenbach's profile—for example liberal conservatism, anti-extremist moderate conservatism, and anti-leftist versions of Christian democracy. Fehrenbach seems to be a classical conservative in the same vein of people like Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. Trakking (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

OK. This is outside my knowledge base, so I'll bow out at this point. Thanks. GHStPaulMN (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Jurists

@Biohistorian15: Hello, I readded the jurists among the intellectuals. There's a "Jurists" section on the US template, but that's because of the prominent status of the Supreme Court in the US. Indeed, some conservative scholars such as Peter Viereck have argued that the Supreme Court is the US substitute of a monarchy—a venerated institution beyond party politics. Constitutionalism has also played a more central role in the US than in Europe.

(Law is a right-wing dominated subject though, and one in which I myself had considered getting an education, so your rationale for adding it is valid.)

The "Commentator" section is a nice addition. Whereas the jurists also qualify as intellectuals, the same thing cannot necessarily be said about commentators, who should have a separate section. Trakking (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Trakking. Interesting take. I'm not sure if this is entirely correct though. The "Grundgesetz" actually has about the same moral weight in Germany as does the US constitution. It is commonly invoked in political discourse of all varities.

This is not well-known to foreigners for some reason. I actually dislike how extreme this constitutionalism is, since e.g. new biotechnologies are now reflexively barred as violations of our first amendment; this one being some kind of Kantian/Christian axiom. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the elucidation. We may ought to keep it after all. I am just wondering what you think of these possible problems:

• Schmitt and Jünger are included in two lists at once.
• Some scholars such as von Savigny are not only jurists but also historians etc. and deserve representation among the intellectuals as well, which leads back to problem 1.

Trakking (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I just thought them to be sufficiently notable... but then I also removed duplicate mentions from the politicians section, haha. Maybe we should just remove them here as well.

Your point about the historians is actually a very valid point I didn't consider. At the same time, I would only add such cases to intellectuals as well/instead if their scholarship had a firmly conservative grasp (consider e.g. Edward Gibbon). If it is mostly unrelated, this aspect might not be notable enough. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

BSW

Brat Forelli In regards to what you said here there's no requirement that says a party has to be only labelled as conservative to be listed in this template. Cultural conservatism and social conservatism are both forms of conservatism and multiple sources can be provided that call the party both. Helper201 (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The same can be said for the Free Voters in regards to their liberal conservatism. Which again is still a form of conservatism. Helper201 (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

No, their reversion was justified. It is a left-wing party with some minor conservative traits—not the other way around. Trakking (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The reason I said that is because it is not shown how the BSW is conservative. It is a far-left and socialist party, and any sources that elaborate on the party's conservatism only mention either its immigration and gender issues. There is also the curious label of "left-conservatism" commonly applied to the party, but whether it refers to 'conservatism' per se or left-wing authoritarianism (defined as having left-wing economic positions while being “authoritarian, conservative and nationalist on cultural policy issues”).

So the simple issue is that we need to be sure that the party is actually conservative. Because the way it is, if we go by the sources gathered for their article, is that it is a left-wing party with some conservative views - as Trakking observed. Brat Forelli🦊 04:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Style

Hello @Biohistorian15,

The darker shade looks very nice, I think, creating a contrast between the template and the white background of Wikipedia in general. Such a contrast existed in the prior format as well. As for now, a few templates have this style, while the rest do not. Could you change to this background for all templates? Trakking (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I usually like to do stuff when I'm already there for some other reason; I'll get them all covered eventually. Until then, how about you help out in that regard? Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Great. I tried to fix it by changing some parameters, but they weren’t the right ones, haha. I can try again though. Trakking (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)