Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism

WikiProject Conservatism

Discussion

Alerts

Assessment

Showcase

Resources

Have a question? Just ask

Archives

Banners

Welcome to the Discussion page for WikiProject Conservatism. Here you can find discussions, notices, and requests for articles that deal with conservatism. If you would like to discuss, place a notice about, or if you have a request about, an article within the scope of this project, please include it here. Note that posting here in order to try to recruit editors with a particular political point of view is contrary to the intent of this project. Make sure to keep up-to-date on happenings at the project Watch

Good article reassessment for Michael Savage

Michael Savage has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for George W. Bush

George W. Bush has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

PublicSquare

I recently created an article for the company PublicSquare. It may be of interest to the members of this project. Thriley (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Edward Heath has an RfC

Edward Heath has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

what are the social issues of conservatism

what are the social issues of conservatism 134.41.12.175 (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Internal Quasi-RfC

I would like to hereby ping the main contributors to various templates in our project's scope, i.e. @Trakking and @User:GreenLoeb to help evaluate the following idea of mine: should be enframe all other templates with the same blue lining as seen in Template:Conservatism in Europe?

In other words: should we add the parameter: "|style = border: 4px double #36c; border-spacing:0.2em 0; background:var(--background-color-base, #fff );color: var(--color-base, #000);"? Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. I think this would be fine for most templates. But I remain hesitant to do it with US conservatism related things; the rest of the world associates blue with the right and red with the left, but in the United States, the association is just the opposite. Even if it's historically recent (I think the colors got their current associations during Bush v Gore), the association is at this point solid and likely not going anywhere. GreenLoeb (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes perfect sense. I'll update them accordingly. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The blue lining is very nice. Could you please change the parameter for all templates though? If you visit the main article for Conservatism, you will see that most templates are not updated. You could also visit "Category:Conservatism templates" for a list of all templates. Trakking (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2024 The Republicans alliance crisis#Requested move 7 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 The Republicans alliance crisis#Requested move 7 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Political positions of Jeb Bush#Article size, structure, and focus

Would appreciate some eyes on this. Pasting what I wrote there for context:

This article needs pruning, but I am unsure of where to begin, or what the end result should ultimately look like. If there is a policy for what "Political positions of ______" pages should look like, I am unaware of it (and would appreciate a link to). However, I think we can all agree that there is no reason why the article on Jeb Bush's political positions should be 605.99% larger than his brother's.

Jeb Bush hasn't been in a position to directly influence American policy since leaving gubernatorial office in 2007. Since then, he had an infamously unsuccessful presidential campaign in 2016, has been involved with a number of lobbyist groups (e.g. Foundation for Excellence in Education, United Against Nuclear Iran, the James Madison Institute), and occasionally contributes to media outlets as an op-ed columnist. This article gives WP:UNDUE weight to his stated positions on the 2016 campaign trail; eight years down the line and three presidential elections later, it is safe to say that they ultimately fail the WP:10YEARTEST.

By the end of this discussion, I'd like to set up an outline for how the article should be restructured and discuss what should or should not remain. My immediate thoughts:

• I'd like to avoid splitting the article into sub-subsections unless absolutely necessary to avoid MOS:OVERSECTION.
• I believe the most weight should be given to his political positions during his tenure as governor, followed by his post-gubernatorial career as a lobbyist and op-ed columnist, followed by comments made on the 2016 campaign trail.
• Anything that did not influence public policy probably does not deserve a section unto itself. For example, his opinion on the Confederate flag, the name of the Washington Commanders (né Redskins), or his comments about the "French workweek" seem particularly superfluous.

Discuss.
— User:Kodiak Blackjack 20:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

— Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)