Talk:Carl Schmitt

Citation needed

"His ideas remain highly influential, with many scholars arguing he has influenced modern governance in China and Russia, as well as the movements of neoconservatism and Trumpism."

Citation(s) needed for this statement. You cannot just say "many scholars argue [x]" without providing evidence. Who are these "many scholars?" A citation to a specific scholar or scholars who make this claim would greatly benefit the article -- as it stands now it is merely anecdotal.

Thank you. 2601:CF:0:BEB0:28C8:551C:907C:C296 (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

The citations are provided in the body per WP:MOSLEAD. JDiala (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Not fixed

The statement is still not fixed. This is an assertion without providing the facts to back it up. What is the Who, What, When, Where, Why, How? This cannot be a general consensus of academics. The facts and the historical record does not support it and requires a discussion of the nuances of Romantic and German idealist philosophy surrounding Schmidt’s ideas. For example an argument can be made that neoconservativism was an out growth of left wing Progressivism since many members were previously Progressive but found conservatism later in life. Further, the philosophical father of the movement, Francis Fukuyama, was a Hegelian. Example Fukuyama’s “End of History” theory. Hegel, who was partially inspired by Rousseau, was an inspiration for Karl Marx, Lenin, Mao, Bakunin. All promenant politically Left thinkers. therefore, there is either a connection between Schmidt and Progressive thinkers found in the nuances or this statement is The Statement is still not fixed. This is an assertion without providing the facts to back it up. What is the Who, What, When, Where, Why, How? This cannot be a general consensus of academics. The facts and the historical record does not support it with out discussing the nuances of Romantic and German idealist philosophy. For example an argument can be made that neoconservativism was an out growth of left wing Progressivism since many members were previously Progressive but found conservatism later in life. Further, the philosophical father of the movement, “Francis Fukuyama, was a Hegelian. Example his his end of History theory.” Hegel, who was partially inspired by Rousseau, was an inspiration for Karl Marx, Lenin, Mao, Bakunin. All promenant politically Left thinkers. therefore, there is either a connection between Schmidt and Progressive thinkers found in the nuances or this statement is not entirely true. Either way, there is no consensus and needs a citation. entirely true. Either way, there is no academic consensus and needs a citation. 2600:8806:3402:3E00:3D4B:979C:57DA:1CB3 (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Briar patch sentence

This sentence is a grammatical briar patch:

Most notably the legal opinions offered by Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo et al. by invoking the unitary executive theory to justify the Bush administration's legally controversial decisions during the War on terror (such as introducing unlawful combatant status which purportedly would eliminate protection by the Geneva Conventions, the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, the National Security Agency's electronic surveillance program and various excesses of the Patriot Act) mimic his writings.

The actual core sentence: [Certain recent] legal opinions minic his writings.

Ideally, "which purportedly would eliminate protection by the Geneva Conventions" would be parenthetical to "introducing unlawful combatant status", but this is already nested inside a parenthetical detour of extreme duration. This would help to make it clear that the verb "eliminate" does not also govern "the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse" which follows (where only semantics guides the reader, not the grammatical frame or the orthographic rails). The writer was quick and clever, while the reader is left to suffer. — MaxEnt 06:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Carl Schmitt Ideological Designation, Conservative or Fascist?

@Irruptive Creditor: This discussion regards the most accurate ideological designation of Carl Schmitt. If we apply the argument that 'most of his work was wrote before he was a Nazi, hence he was a Conservative', you would have to do the same for figures like Benito Mussolini, which would not make sense. That would manifest like 'most of his work was wrote before he was a Fascist*, hence he was a Socialist'. This at the top of Mussolini's Wikipedia page would look like 'Benito Mussolini was the Socialist dictator of Italy from 1922 to 1943...' Or, when applied to Ronald Reagan who was a Democrat and supporter of Franklin Delano Roosevelt until becoming a Conservative Republican in the 50s/60s, it would be wrong to designate him as anything other than a Conservative. Or someone closer to Schmitt, Nick Fuentes. Given his open embrace of Neo-Nazism, the top of his Wikipedia should say 'Nick Fuentes is an American Far Right, White Nationalist and Neo-Nazi political commentator...' Any mention of his Conservative origins should be in his 'Early Life' or 'Political Development' section, as should be the case with Schmitt.

I understand completely how in the Weimar Republic and unfortunately more broadly, Fascists and Nazis recruit and appeal most effectively among Conservatives. This is a fact, given Fascism's appeal to traditionalists and anti-Leftist messaging. This does not mean however, that Schmitt should be designated a thinker of Conservatism. Yes, his ideas remain influential in Conservative circles like in Russia and elements of MAGA. If you look back to Schmitt himself, from 1933 he ideologically shifted. If Schmitt had repudiated Fascism/Nazism after the war, there would be more weight to the argument above. But he did not, Schmitt in Francoist Spain until 1985 when he died spoke as a vindicator of Fascism, believing it to be a more desirable alternative to in his view, the ills of Liberalism and Internationalism. Considering this, why should his once-Conservatism matter more so than this?

My logic is clear. Interrogate it as you please. In fact, I would encourage you to do so. I'm not here to prove anyone right or wrong, or to 'war' with anyone. All I want is to contribute to knowledge and to free it from ideological predation. The position of others is as clear as mine. I invite everyone who reads this to make up their own mind.

• Mussolini was a Socialist until he embraced the ideas of Giovanni Gentile and Gabriel D'Annunzio. Like Schmitt, his ideological stance evolved throughout his life. Most importantly though, he was the first Fascist dictator and a Fascist for most of his life.

Aalexflood14 (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Uncited claims by JDiala

Over the course of a few days, JDiala has repeatedly edited to re-insert unverified claims to the lede, as shown here, and reverted revisions to that information which did include citations, as shown here, and whenever confronted, have attempted to shift the burden to others to prove their claims, which those users already have done with including citations, by citing Wikipedia:ONUS, even when JDiala has not shown the verifiability of the information which they wish to re-insert to the lede. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The claims are verified in the body. The lead is a summary of the body and usually does not require citations when they exist in the body. See WP:LEADCITE. I reverted your edits because I felt that were adding too much information to the lead which, again, is a summary. I would not object to your adding your material into the body. JDiala (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Whether they were adding 'too much' information to the lead is irrelevant, as the information you seek to revert my edits in order to add has no citations in support, and seeing that you referenced WP:LEADCITE, please remember that, "all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports". As for your claim that, "[t]he lead is a summary of the body and usually does not require citations", this is false, and WP:LEADCITE itself directly refutes that stating: "[T]here is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads." Insofar as the material you seek to add itself, to begin, I would like to know who these "many scholars" are that you spoke of when trying to revert to this version of the final sentence in the lead, since so far no name or citation has been provided there. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Read the article body, specifically the Influence section for citations re: Schmitt and neocons/Trump/China. Leads do not normally have citations already included in the body unless it’s for disputed claims, that’s the gist of LEADCITE. This claim isn’t really disputed (in fact the material you yourself are adding supports it). Why not open up a featured article to see the conventions editors normally use on our best articles? Also, edit warring during a discussion to get your preferred version is disruptive. JDiala (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, you don't have citations for that information you want to add in the lead. WP:LEADCITE does not exempt that content from WP:VERIFIABILITY. And this is not the first time your addition of that uncited information has been contested. As shown above under the talk page topic, "Citation needed", another editor, User:2601:CF:0:BEB0:28C8:551C:907C:C296, stated as follows on May 17, 2025:

"'His ideas remain highly influential, with many scholars arguing he has influenced modern governance in China and Russia, as well as the movements of neoconservatism and Trumpism.' Citation(s) needed for this statement. You cannot just say 'many scholars argue [x]' without providing evidence. Who are these 'many scholars?' A citation to a specific scholar or scholars who make this claim would greatly benefit the article -- as it stands now it is merely anecdotal.Thank you..."

Also, as it appears you may have some confusion over Wikipedia policy about edit warring, I kindly ask that you read or re-read WP:3RR because, there is no apparent edit war here. Neither you, I, nor any other recent editor has made more than three reverts to the article over the course of a 24 period, and in any event, WP:ANEW, not this article, is the place to go for perceived edit warring that occurs "with or without 3RR being breached" See WP:3RR; see also WP:ASPERSIONS. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

An IP user making an edit a year ago isn’t evidence of something seriously in contention. Once again, you do not need citations for claims made in the lead which are adequately cited in the body. This is precisely the redundancy LEADCITE talks about. I would encourage you to read featured articles to get a better sense of the rules surrounding this. 3RR isn’t the definition of edit-warring per se it’s just the bright-line rule for edit warring. Edit warring is a pattern of conduct. JDiala (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@JDiala, if you have citations for the claim then add a citation there, since you have still not provided a single citation for the claim other than vague gesturing to "the body." As to edit warring, you have not provided any proof of that either, and per WP:ASPERSIONS, "[d]o not make accusations of misconduct without evidence." Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@JDiala, if you believe I am edit warring, you can go to WP:ANEW. The article main space isn't the best place for that, seeing both of us are in a content dispute, and we both appear to disagree as to whether there is any edit warring, so more neutral forum is appropriate. Until we either come to agreement or other editors chime in one way or another, it is best that neither my claim (with citations) nor your claim (without citations) appears in the article at this time. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 04:47, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

There’s nothing vague about what I said. The 'Influence' section in the body has several clearly defined paragraphs talking about Schmitt vis-a-vis Russia, Trump, China and neoconservatism. They are right there for you to see and they are cited. JDiala (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@JDiala, then adding a single citation at the end of the final sentence in the lede shouldn't be too difficult, and in fact, I provided three there, until you reverted. Besides, what issues did you have with my version anyway, which read:

His ideas remain highly influential, especially in China since the 1990s.[11] Russia and the United States have also seen renewed interest in Schmitt since the 2000s.[12][13]

All that I or the IP user, have ever asked is that you provide a citation there, since again, WP:LEADCITE does not provide an exception to citation requirements for ledes. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

LEADCITE talks at length about how citations in the body are often adequate as otherwise redundancy arises. It’s not a hard requirement. I’m sorry but this is simply a reading comprehension failure on your part. As I mentioned, you can read many featured articles and good articles and they will typically have few to no citations in the lead because of this, it’s a standard copy editing practice. Having too many citations in the lead is ugly and redundant. It’s not a VERIFIABILITY issue as the citations are in the body anyway.

To your other point: your version is bad because it adds in additional information (‘since the 2000s’, ‘since the 1990s’) which is inelegant and unnecessary for a lead which is supposed to summarize. JDiala (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@JDiala, where in the body though? Coming from someone who has helped two articles get two articles, Chae Chan Ping v. United States and Propylhexedrine to WP:GA status (mentioning this for context since you brought up GAs and FAs), I still do not see the merit of the point you are making, since you haven't actually pointed to a specific citation yet, and also this article has ten citations elsewhere in the lede, so there is no reason that the final sentence should be considered exempt or too much effort to provide a citation for the claim there. As to your second point, on what you perceived as bad with my version, would this work for you: "His ideas remain highly influential, especially in China, Russia, and the United States."? Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Why don’t you read the paragraphs talking about China, Trump and neoconservatism in the “Influence” section and get back to me? JDiala (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@JDiala, I already have, now, which specific citations, are you relying on, since I see plenty for China, Russia, and Trumpism, but there is only one set of citations (citation list [111]), all rather dated, for the claim regarding neoconservatism, so emphasizing that in the lede as "highly influential" seems WP:UNDUE, especially as the cites aren't very recent, unless you have other evidence, which isn't nearly 20-years-old on average, as to why that specifically is more notable for the lede. I add this as the citations surrounding neoconservatism are focused mainly on John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, and George W. Bush rather than a Schmittian influence on neoconservatism in general, setting aside the dated-ness, which I already addressed. Simply stating he is "[h]ighly influential in China, Russia, and the United States" would thus seem to be better than the sentence you had. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Well yes, because the 2000s were neoconservatism’s heyday in the US. That was when the War on Terror happened. You would expect most citations to be from then. Scholarly work from the 2000s is completely acceptable and not “dated” as you claim. JDiala (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@JDiala, it is dated, as the newest such citation is 18 years old, whereas the latest citations for China, Russia, and Trumpism are all within the last five years, so the citations are less reliable because WP:AGEMATTERS. Also, neoconservatism stretches back to at least the 1960s, with Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and others, so emphasizing Schmitt's influence in its supposed "heyday" during the early 2000s literally skips 40 years and is WP:UNDUE for the lede. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

So I ask, where is your proof, @JDiala, that Schmitt's ideas are "highly influential" upon neoconservatism in general, not just the isolated instances of John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, and George W. Bush within the meager time span of about five years? You seem eager to put the WP:ONUS on others to support their claims while I had to find some sources for you because apparently that was not something you could be bothered to do so yourself and you still have not shown any evidence I have edit warred, so pony up. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Scholarship from the 2000s is not dated. Most citations on this article and the article on neoconservatism are from the 2000s or earlier. To your other point: your argument would imply bringing up Schmitt on the article on neoconservatism based on this 2000s scholarship is UNDUE. It wouldn’t imply bringing up neoconservatism in this article on Schmitt is undue. Discussing Schmitt’s significant influence on various ideologies and movements, even if those influences were not entirely decisive or preeminent for those movements, is very much DUE.

My version of the lead does not state that his ideas were highly influential for neoconservatism. What was written is “[his] ideas remain highly influential, with many scholars arguing he has influenced modern governance in China and Russia, as well as the movements of neoconservatism and Trumpism.” so I’m stating that he is highly influential in the aggregate, with various examples furnished to substantiate this, but this does not necessitate him being highly influential for any one of this individual examples. More simply: a sum of small influences can still be a large influence. Many of the misunderstandings here are arising from reading comprehension issues. JDiala (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@JDiala, who are these scholars then? I want names, not "the body", not the "the article", etc.. Many of the issues you have here, whether with me or other editors, like this one, are largely are the product of your repeatedly vaguery, whether knowingly or unknowingly, as to stating the specifics of your claims, such as who these scholars are you speak of, what these sources are that you speak of, where this support you speak of is in this article, how come you speak of the content I want to add as being too lengthy, why you speak of these sources as not being dated, etc. Reading comprehension issues would naturally seen to arise when so little content is being offered for another to comprehend. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Liu Xiaofeng, John Yoo, Stefan Auer, William Sheurman, Roberta Adams. These are all in the section I instructed you to read. JDiala (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, but John Yoo is a subject of the scholarship there in citation set 111, he is not the scholar themself. Xiafeng and Auer are about China and Russia, not neoconservatism in the United States while Roberta Adams is about Trumpism, so still no new neoconservatism scholarship, but I digress. Now, what would you believe could or should be added or removed to reconcile our two proposed versions? For reference, you had:

His ideas remain highly influential, with many scholars arguing he has influenced modern governance in China and Russia, as well as the movements of neoconservatism and Trumpism.

I had:

His ideas remain highly influential, especially in China since the 1990s. Russia and the United States have also seen renewed interest in Schmitt since the 2000s.

On the issues I believe you had with my version, and correct me if I am wrong or otherwise, but nonetheless I list those as:

1. Use temporal marker, such as "since the 1990s" or "since the 2000s", which you appear to see as clutter;
2. use of citations, which you appear to see as un-needed;
3. omission of neoconservatism relevance, which you appear to see as timely and due.

On the issues I had with your version, and correct me if you do not see things the same I, but nonetheless I list those as:

1. Lack of citations, such as this, this, and this, which I had added; and
2. lack of relevance for neoconservatism, which I argued was dated and lacking specifics.

I believe that citations should be at least added to such sentence, since they appear elsewhere in the lede, but I hesitant to go further as to what could be done because I would like to hear your thoughts. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Yoo is a legal scholar who specifically cited Schmitt in justifying Bush administration policies in the War on Terror (whose ideological backdrop was neoconservatism). We don’t specifically need to cite Yoo. It’s sufficient to cite other RS which talk about Yoo’s work. That we have, see Levinson, Kutz, Horton citations. On the issues, you seem to have correctly summarized our dispute. As I have repeatedly stated, I don’t think citations are paramount in the lead here as they are in present in the body. The reader wishing to verify can simply scroll down to the body to find our citations. This is a normal practice on Wikipedia and is permitted by LEADCITE. JDiala (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@JDiala, there is no consensus in favor of either our positions, so leaving out the matter is what should be done in the interim Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

If you continue with your disruptive conduct, I will be forced to escalate. You did not have adequate replies to my points in the discussion so you quit and you’re edit warring maintaining your new version rather than the longstanding one. I interacted with you in good faith during our discussion (notice that I stopped reverting during that time) but then you quit. Yet you’re still insisting on maintaining your version by reverting. This is nonsense. Since you’re the one wanting a change to the article, it is your responsibility to convince other editors or to invite other editors into the discussion. JDiala (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

That is untrue, prior to your edits, I had not edited the page in over four days, it’s time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

You didn’t edit because the version during those four days was already yours because as a courtesy I let you keep that version during our discussion. Your conduct is NOTHERE and you frequently don’t understand the policies you’re citing (BLP). Stop it. JDiala (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Insofar as maintaining “my version”, that is likewise false. I have not reverted to the version I wrote, which had three sources and that condensed down lede to points about Russia, China, and the United States. On the contrary, you have reverted to your version discussing neoconservatism. Again, correct me if I am wrong, but I have not reverted to:

”His ideas remain highly influential, especially in China since the 1990s. Russia and the United States have also seen renewed interest in Schmitt since the 2000s.”

Whereas, you have repeatedly reverted to your preferred version:

“His ideas remain highly influential, with many scholars arguing he has influenced modern governance in China and Russia, as well as the movements of neoconservatism and Trumpism.”

As for WP:NOTHERE, do not cast WP:ASPERSIONS without evidence, I have contributed more than 4,000 edits, contributed to getting two articles to WP:GA status, participated in numerous move, merge, and deletion discussions. Please assume good faith, stray remarks help nobody. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

As I see that our views about the necessity of sources has been the biggest point of dispute, I would like to ask your opinion as to the following proposed sentence:

His ideas remain highly influential, with many scholars arguing he has influenced modern governance in China, Russia, and the United States.

This sentence would seem to split the difference between the omission and addition of sources to the final sentence in the lede, as users would be able to navigate directly to the relevant portion by clicking to a wikilink in the sentence, similar to how larger articles often use footnotes, spin-off to other articles, and citation lists. In addition, it would seem to solve our dispute as to the relevance of neoconservatism by simplifying to reference the United States generally as opposed to specific movements in the United States. Finally, it would remove the use of date-marks such as "since the 1990s" and "since the 2000s". Thoughts? Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

You violated 3RR, best to resolve that first by self reverting. JDiala (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

No, as I am necessarily required to do so, and in any event: "Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page..." Also, pardon me, but while I understand the good intentions, I decline the invitation to follow advice on edit warring from someone who has been blocked for that behavior three times, since the track record of my approach has led me only to being blocked once for edit warring. Regardless, I ask, what is your view as to the above proposal. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

It’s a stretch to claim he motivated governance in the United States broadly. American governance is anyway more fluid as it is a democracy.

I think as a compromise I’m willing to support dropping neoconservatism and Trumpism from the lead. Instead, what we could say is “strands of American conservatism”.

"His ideas remain highly influential, with many scholars arguing he has influenced modern governance in China and Russia, as well as various strands of modern American conservatism." JDiala (talk) 06:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated reply, as I have been very busy lately, yes, I would agree that would work. What do you think about the idea to add in-text links to portions of the body as above. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Done. And you know what: I’m starting to have something of a change of heart. I don’t feel all that strongly about the LEADCITE thing anymore. We can have some citations as this material is potentially contentious. Have one citation (no more) after each of “China”, “Russia” and “American conservatism” respectively, if you want. In-text links to portions of the body I'm not a fan of as we don't normally do that. JDiala (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Done, added sources to final sentence. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2026 (UTC)