Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Sarah Palin

Some editors have expressed an interest in collaborating on the Sarah Palin and/or Political positions of Sarah Palin articles in an effort to get them to Good Article WP:GAN. I'm interested in gauging interest for this. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I might try to help, but I have school and haven't really tried to get anything other than music articles to GA status. The 'political positions' list might be easier to get done first, IMO. Toa Nidhiki05 02:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lionel, I am definitely interested in helping out with the parent article. However, my time is very limited right now. After winter gets good and underway, I'll have more time to look into it. It'd be a nice change to see some serious effort put toward improving the quality of the article. Zaereth (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Conservative Party (UK)

Some editors have expressed an interest in UK politics. Conservative Party (UK) is an excellent candidate for Good Article WP:GAN because it's already B class, it's Top priority for 3 wikiprojects including WP:RIGHT, and it received 47222 page views. Let's see if we can form a team and go in there and make this happen. Green plusses will be handed out. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It might be considered offensive that you are proposing both Sarah Palin and the Conservative Party. TFD (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about?– Lionel ^(talk) 03:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Supporters of the Conservative Party may consider it offensive that we are grouping them with Sarah Palin. TFD (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong. Not one member has mentioned it in 8 months. Are you trying to be divisive?– Lionel ^(talk) 03:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The Conservative Party has a long history and is well respected, and its membership may find it offensive to be grouped with an airhead American politician. TFD (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This attack on a living person is unacceptable and has been reported.– Lionel ^(talk) 04:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

And the report has been dealt with appropriately. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, Lionel, what happened to free speech? And to whom was it "reported"? Gosh! Sincerely, still your pal, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have uncollapsed the dialogue above in the interests of free speech, but can everybody please keep on topic and remember AGF? Some restraint would be appreciated. --Kleinzach 06:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This section is about promoting Conservative Party to GA. What does TFDs speculation about how Conservative supporters feel about an effort to promote Palin to GA in the preceding section have to do with anything? AGF? Do you not see how his behavior is divisive? WP:FREESPEECH is not a policy and in any event is not applicable. However WP:SOAP does apply. If you have a policy which supercedes WP:SOAP I'll entertain it. Otherwise WP:SOAP requires this ridiculous thread be collapsed.– Lionel ^(talk) 06:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

We don't cater to any particular group, TFD. For that matter, why are you opposed to mobilizing the members of this project to improve an article? Why do you feel so opposed to this project trying to improve, well, anything? Those type of comments add nothing to this project, or more importantly, this entire encyclopedia. When editors like you come on here just to disrupt, it really hurts the users trying to improve articles. Toa Nidhiki05 14:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

What are we all bickering about, if you guys actually spent this energy into editing articles we would get through so much more. Concerning the Tory party article, when i get time i get some research going and attempt to improve the article. Afterall i DO work for a Conservative MP. User:Goldblooded ^{(Return Fire)} 14:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

My general comments would be that the article is too long, much of what it includes is trivial or recent, and it is lacking in citations. It should also have more analysis. TFD (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

TFD, please be constructive and stop trolling. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

TFD, you are being divisive by invoking Sarah Palin to create a wedge between editors interested in British conservatism and American conservatism. You are being disruptive by taking this thread off topic by insulting Palin. In the thread above you saboutaged Klein's proposal by suggesting that Reagan and Thatcher could be ejected. Your actions are counterproductive, inflammatory and serve no useful purpose. It is readily apparent that you have absolutely nothing of value to add. Isn't time that you took your trolling elsewhere?– Lionel ^(talk) 18:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

TFD actually seems quite knowledgeable about conservatism, and has the potential to be a great asset to any effort to improve coverage of the topic on Wikipedia. I agree that the Sarah Palin commentary was unnecessarily inflammatory, but beyond that single comment I haven't seen the pattern of "trolling" you describe. We should probably try to draw a more scrupulous line between "trolling" and "saying things someone else doesn't agree with". MastCell ^Talk 18:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

How many diffs will satisfy you that he's trolling? Because I got 'em.– Lionel ^(talk) 00:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the project talk page, not a forum for what appears to be a smear campaign against a participant someone disagrees with. I have posted my response on my talk page. [1] Writegeist (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

TFD was certainly not trolling. MastCell is absolutely right when he/she says we should "draw a more scrupulous line between "trolling" and "saying things someone else doesn't agree with" ". --Kleinzach 04:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

TFD won't be the only member of this project that used divisive language. As Mastcell has pointed out in the deletion discussion, some of the other members have stated divisive reasons for joining the project. Reasons like: "The Wikipedia is full of Fabian gradualists and Alinskyite confrontationalists, so when they push left, it is good to be among editors who push right back", "interested in improving Australian conservatism-related articles and clearing up policially correct and leftist-dominated claims and analyses" and "Enlightening conservative people & topics in a world darkening with liberalism" [2]. LittleJerry (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Unsuccessful deletion attempt chronicled in The Signpost

Binksternet's ill advised attempt to exterminate our group made front page news! Read about it here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-10-17/News_and_notes. Now the entire Community will learn about this heinous and reprehensible act. The story neglected to mention the sad circumstance of 2 members voting against the group. Those members who were welcomed and accepted by us into our project and decided to try to eradicate us are Binksternet and TFD. You can read the untold story of the WikiProject Conservatism MFD here.– Lionel ^(talk) 02:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

They lost. Is holding them up to collective ridicule as if we were some Leninist cell group necessary? Let's leave demonisation to the demons.μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That is indeed the case. Yet TFD's Palin remark demonstrates that he intends to continue being divisive.– Lionel ^(talk) 02:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Lionelt, your reprehensible demonstration in this talk page post shows that you hold no cards beyond ad hominem attacks. The MfD served to inform the project and those outside of the project. Much discussion ensued, and lessons were hopefully learned. You crowing that the MfD "failed" suggests that you failed to learn from the experience. I am certain others have learned, which heartens me.

I am here as a member of the project just like your car has brakes. Not all forward movement is valuable progress. Binksternet (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

If you really wanted a discussion, there are other means besides deletion. You nominated and pursued deletion to get rid of this project, not to advertise or help it. It would be akin to me nominating Barack Obama for deletion to gain 'discussion', despite the fact there is peer review and many other means to do so. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is almost always a duck. Toa Nidhiki05 02:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't deny that I wanted to delete the project. In this thread I am merely pointing out that the MfD was not a binary affair—it did not have a simple pass/fail outcome. It also had discussion, ideally discussion leading to appreciation of others' points of view. If core members of the project choose to focus on the binary-style outcome of "fail" then all the discussion was wasted on them. The boomerang effect of Lionelt's victory dance is that MfD participants from outside the project will likely remain watchful to see if the project is problematic. Binksternet (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. This is a just a re-run of some undesirable invective. This kind of behaviour will bring the project into disrepute — assuming it hasn't happened already. Lionel, in particular, should not have started this off again. Please read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Kleinzach 04:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup. I don't think anyone would be so silly as to try to demonstrate that the points raised against the project's existence at the MfD were justified - by harassing non-conservative members, for example, and encouraging battleground behavior - but that does seem to be what Lionelt has been continually doing for the past couple of days, with "help" from Toa. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Noone at MFD made any point about "harassing non-conservative members." Is TFD non-conservative? How do you know? And warning TFD about making remarks using Palin to divide editors is not harassment. In fact TFDs remark could be construed as creating a battleground between editors interested in British conservatism versus American. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I want to make it perfectly clear that this is not a victory party. And yes Kleinzach this project has been severly damaged. Damaged by 6 months of Binksternet's misrepresentations of advocacy and vote-stacking. And it will continue to be dysfunctional as long as TFD persists in his efforts to divide and break up the project. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• May I make a suggestion? Let's stop talking about each other. Let's stop using each other's usernames, let's stop using the word "you", let's stop making references to other editors entirely. Instead, let's just focus on the project. That's the only appropriate topic for this talk page.   Will Beback  talk  07:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

My right honorable friend Will Beback is correct. There is a tradition in the parliamentary system (very conservative places) not to address the other members directly, but only obliquely through the chair, or Speaker. One could pretend there is an invisible Speaker to whom one is talking; then some of the calumny might go away. It would help also, Mr. Speaker, if the other honorable members of this Society could pause for, oh, at least twenty seconds and read over their postings before hitting the "Save Page" key. Anyway, as a liberal (in the American sense), I am amused and gratified by this gallimaufry of cantankerous conservatism I find here behind the scenes. I do feel, though, Mr. Speaker, that this project will turn out just fine when everybody settles down. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

As someone who has been watching with interest, and supported keeping the project, I'm afraid that I have to observe that this talk thread does sound like a victory party. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Incubator update

Have you visited the Incubator lately? We have a new addition: CitizenLink. With a little bit of work this article will be ready for mainspace in no time. Be sure to stop by and lend a hand improving it. Unfortunately the first article to graduate from the Incubator, Raymond A. Watson, was deleted at the 2nd AfD. The creator, GeorgeLouis, has indicated we'll be seeing Watson again--we wish him luck! Feel free to recommend incubation for articles Deleted at CSD or AfD. You can also add new drafts to the Incubator that you feel would benefit from the expertise in our group. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There is already an article on Focus on the Family. So you ought to be working on that rather than writing a Wikipedia:Content forking article on CitizenLink. JRSpriggs (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Most of the content in "CitizenLink" is sourced to the organization itself, which means a lot of work needs to be done. However I could find no extensive writing in mainstream media, books or articles in the sources provided. It probably would be best to keep it as a re-direct to FOF. TFD (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Er, why was this incubated? It was deleted on grounds of copyright infringement. Having it in project space rather than mainspace won't solve that problem. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The incubator is for articles that are "not ready for mainspace." – Lionel ^(talk) 19:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You can't host copyrighted content on Wikipedia, period. (Fair use excepted, obviously.) G12 applies across all namespaces. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Notifed article creator to get their posterior over here and rewrite it.[3] – Lionel ^(talk) 01:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Are copyright violations allowed to exist in the old versions listed under revision-history? Or must those be suppressed also? JRSpriggs (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

They're supposed to be revdeleted. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Definition of the scope of this project/proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing discussion. Proposal garnered no support.– Lionel ^(talk) 07:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

---

I trust we can now stop the personal attacks and get to work! During the Mfd, I suggested renaming the project as "WikiProject:American social conservatism or similar", thinking that most editors were primarily interested in American society/politics. This didn't receive any backing. Meanwhile there was an effort to internationalize Portal:Conservatism (also the subject of an Mfd, though it is certain to be kept).

So can we assume that most members want the scope of this project to be broadly international? The present article on Conservatism is essentially based on English conservatism, so perhaps it would be more accurate to say we should be 'international — with a Tory flavour'?

Proposal

How about this definition — based on the Conservatism article lead — for the main page:

WikiProject Conservatism is a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to conservatism, a political and social philosophy that promotes maintaining traditional institutions, while supporting limited and gradual social change.

Please support, oppose, suggest or whatever! Thank you. --Kleinzach 01:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I honestly don't see an issue with this, but I think there should be a disclaimer to note that we don't discriminate based on national variety, something like this:

WikiProject Conservatism is a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to conservatism, a political and social philosophy that promotes maintaining traditional institutions, while supporting limited and gradual social change. We are not limited to any particular national scope or variety of conservatism.

Toa Nidhiki05 02:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we should try to find a quotation which (for us) sums up the essence of conservatism. For example, we might consider this line from the Declaration of Independence — "...Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes...". The project would deal with articles related to the people and causes which embody that principle. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The ongoing contention regarding the scope was used as a rationale by Binsternet to delete the group to which he belongs. It was also used as a premise by TFD in an attempt to break up the project and orphan the Brits and others. Now that it is obvious that Bink, nor anyone else, can use the scope as a weapon to disband this group, I speculate that this issue will subside. This proposal is a solution in search of a problem. The purpose of a scope is to determine what articles fall under the purview of the project. Even with the so-called "problem" with the scope, believe it or not there has never been an issue in determining if an article is within scope. The most advantageous course of action is to continue evaluating articles on a case-by-case basis, which has worked, and implement "swift closure" for scope discussions. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

And before anyone keel hauls and attacks JR for "pro-American bias" remember that he is entitled to express his own opinion. Editors are not evil because they have an American perspective. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. We can eject Reagan and Thatcher and others who advocated radical social change. TFD (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Klein: TFD just killed your proposal. Editors interested in American conservatism won't eject Reagan, and the Brits won't eject Thatcher. If there are no objections I'm going to close this. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Lionel: Remember that Wikipedia works by consensus. No one can arbitrarily 'close' down a discussion. Let everyone express themselves freely. --Kleinzach 06:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)--

Yes someone can close down a discussion. If there are no objections.– Lionel ^(talk) 06:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thatcher of course was a big opponent of conservatism. Read Ian Gilmour's Dancing with dogma. TFD (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thatcher and Reagan are arguably offtopic. Perhaps we can reach agreement here — probably on the basis of the Toa Nidhiki05 version which seems to have good support — and then look at the scope of the project in practice in a later discussion, where Thatcher and Reagan may be more relevant. --Kleinzach 06:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I thought you were proposing a scope. So this is a definition? Why do we need a definition? – Lionel ^(talk) 06:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Just want to note that I will not support either definition if it can be possibly construed to reject Reagan, Thatcher, or any other notable 'conservative' leader - and by TFD's comment, it looks like both can. Removing my support of both. Toa Nidhiki05 14:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "...that promotes maintaining traditional institutions, while supporting limited and gradual social change.", I think one would have to add qualifiers to get something like conservatism promotes maintaining most traditional institutions, while supporting some kinds of limited and gradual social change. But I think this still avoids the question of the purpose of opposing most changes while supporting some others. If we do not know why it is done we cannot determine which institutions will be supported and which would be changed by conservatives.

Neither Reagan nor Thatcher were radical, they merely felt very strongly that a return to the status quo ante (in certain areas) was needed. Both would have agreed with the Declaration of Independence that "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.". In any case, this was just intended to be an example. I believe we can find a better quotation to summarize conservatism.
The criteria for selecting a quotation should be:

• It should be accepted as true by all true conservatives.
• Other people should be able to 'channel' their 'inner conservative' by supposing for a time that the quotation is true (and that any notions inconsistent with it are false) and contemplating the consequences. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your positive response. Any text of 30-odd words (like my original proposal) is bound to be simplistic, though we are only defining the project here, not Conservatism itself.

Re quotations: Obviously conservatism doesn't have a Karl Marx-like figurehead. So who represents modern conservative thinking? Perhaps someone like Karl Popper, Friedrich Hayek or Milton Friedman? Could we could search them for a good sentence or two? (BTW I don't think the Declaration of Independence quote is relevant — it's justifying a revolution!)

Re. 'true conservatives', that needs explaining. What is a 'true' conservative? Or for that matter, what is a 'false' conservative? Do we know any? --Kleinzach 10:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

From Wikiquote, Friedrich Hayek said "Many of the greatest things man has achieved are not the result of consciously directed thought, and still less the product of a deliberately coordinated effort of many individuals, but of a process in which the individual plays a part which he can never fully understand." in "Scientism and The Study of Society" (1944), p. 67. JRSpriggs (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Conservatism does have "Karl Marx-like figureheads", specifically Joseph de Maistre and Edmund Burke. The argument about Thatcher is highly original. If she wanted to return to a status quo ante, she was choosing 19th century liberalism rather than 19th century conservatism which, as Ian Gilmour pointed out, made her a neoliberal. And of course Popper, Hayek and Friedman were all liberals, members of the Mont Pelerin Society. See for example Hayek's article, "Why I am not a conservative". Incidentally, Peter Viereck explained what a false conservative was in his article "The pseudo-conservatives". TFD (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, but if you take that line of reasoning we are back with the conservativism/liberalism conundrum. Do you think that liberalism should be outside the scope of this project? (I'm slightly disappointed the discussion is going in this direction, because I hoped we could nail down a short definition of conservatism acceptable to all, and then get to grips with the thorny question of practical scope — what should be in and what should be out — but we can do that way round if you like.) --Kleinzach 23:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Depends on what type, to me. Liberal conservatism and neoliberalism certainly fit, along with perhaps conservative liberalism and classical liberalism. Social liberalism, American liberalism, and other left-leaning liberal variants don't belong, obviously. By-and-large, liberals are the right in most of the world (particularly conservative liberals and liberal conservatives), except in the US where social liberalism is dominant, and we reflect a worldwide scope. Toa Nidhiki05 00:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Attempting to define the term conservatism for use by this project is now problematic. TFD has sewn the seeds of suspicion into this process. We're making this way more complicated than it has to be. We need to go back to basics...

If a reliable source states that the subject of an article is conservative or related to conservatism then the article is a candidate for this project. If a source says an article is conservative, and another contradicts, the conservative source takes precedence. Challenges to individual articles can be resolved here. For example Classical liberalism. This article is "related" to conservatism per RS, but almost all of the articles categorized as classical liberalism are not. Take the Republican and Conservative parties. Reliable sources consider them to be "conservative parties." It would be reasonable for the project to take stewardship of articles related to these parties. Note that some RS do not consider the Republican party to be conservative. That RS would be set aside for determining inclusion.

Using RS eliminates the so called "confusion" that plagues certain editors like TFD. The only thing that confuses me is why he is trying to saboutage this thread. Additionally using RS removes the issue of scope from subjective, "confused" editors and places it into the hands of reliable sources. This is the way Wikipedia works. This is the way Wikiproject Conservatism should work.– Lionel ^(talk) 01:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The reliable sources test doesn't work. Sources may be reliable — in the Wikipedia sense — but the word conservative is used so generally, and so loosely — especially adjectivally — that it only has meaning within particular textual contexts. RS may tell us that Rana pirica is a frog, but they can't define general concepts. --Kleinzach 05:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC) P.S. Moreover it would be an open invitation to 'Google trawling': searching for 'X + conservatism'. --Kleinzach 06:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully I disagree. RS does work. It has worked for 8 months. It is within Wikiproject guidelines which say "The statement of scope need not be elaborate or detailed." Ah, but you say the scope is problematic and has caused contention. And I say to you: look at which 2 members are the most vocal critics of the scope. One earnestly believes the project is a vote-stacking engine and must be destroyed and the other wrote "there is no reason for a project [conservatism to exist]." They obviously do not have the best interest of this group at heart. When these 2 members criticize the scope their past behavior has to be taken into account. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Has this project ever seen any editorial collaborations? I've looked through the archives but I can't see any evidence of it taking place. What's the evidence? This is important because of the criticism, per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BATTLE, that the project is being misused as a soapbox rather than for working on the encyclopedia. --Kleinzach 05:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources classify the Republican party as a liberal party. See for example, Political ideology today that says, "Ideologically, all US parties are liberal and always have been".[4] See also Alan Ware's chart of political parties that groups both Democrats and Republicans as liberal parties.[5] On the other hand there are sources that describe the New Deal as conservative and Conrad Black calls Franklin Roosevelt a conservative. TFD (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal comments

TFD, after you speculated that Reagan and Thatcher could be ejected I observed that you had derailed Klein's proposal. Right on que Toa wrote, "I will not support either definition if it can be possibly construed to reject Reagan, Thatcher..." This project is a group of editors working together: collegiality is crucial. The other editors in the group are reacting negatively to your behavior. Is this something you can fix? – Lionel ^(talk) 18:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. One editor posited a possible outcome of the change, and another apparently said if that were the case he would not accept the change. What behavioral issue are you talking about? Wouldn't this be better dealt with on user talk pages?   Will Beback  talk  00:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

He wrote "sounds good..." When placed in the context of his history of attempts to break up the project it is obvious he is being divisive. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw in that "sounds good" comment a full dose of sarcasm. He was saying that the proposed definition did not match the expectations of typical project members in that Thatcher and Reagan must be conservative. He was saying that the concept of conservatism is not so simply defined. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Was he being sarcastic when he wrote "merge them all into a politics project", or "there is no reason for a project [conservatism to exist]" or "Supporters of the Conservative Party may consider it offensive that we are grouping them with Sarah Palin"? Was he being sarcastic when he voted Delete at MFD? Maybe it isn't sarcasm. Maybe it's confusion, like when he mentioned his own confusion at MFD regarding "different ideologies." – Lionel ^(talk) 04:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

What about this [6]? – Lionel ^(talk) 07:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I was quoting Ian Gilmour, who headed the Conservative Research Department and, along with Hailsham, was one of the foremost theorists of the Conservative Party in the 20th century, author of Inside Right: a study of conservatism (1977), Whatever happened to the Tories: the Conservative Party since 1945 (1997), and of course his book about the Thatcher administration, Dancing with Dogma (1992). In the last book he claimed that Thatcher had abandoned conservatism for liberalism or "neo-liberalism". She was in the tradition of Gladstone, not Disraeli. TFD (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Summary

The Proposal above was neither supported or opposed, and the only suggested alternative was disowned by its advocate. Members of this project evidently see no pressing need to define the scope of the project. --Kleinzach 04:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conservative parties

I have started a discussion thread about the Swiss People's Party (SVP) at Talk:Conservatism#RfC: Is the SVP still a conservative party? The SVP was an historic conservative party that in recent years has moved to the extreme right and sources I found on comparative politics do not consider it still to be a conservative party, although it is sometimes called conservative. A broader issue is whether we should redefine conservatism so that it includes extreme right-wing parties. TFD (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

New portal launch

I'm pleased to report that there is a new portal within our scope. But not on Wikipedia, it's on WikiSource! Our appreciation is extended to the creator, AdamBMorgan. If you want to lend a hand improving it you can find it here: s:Portal:Conservatism.– Lionel ^(talk) 23:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This is why we need this project

After getting the notice about the incubator, I took a look at the Star Parker article in the incubator, and did some editing. I also noted that she was deleted for lack of notability, which struck me as odd; she is clearly notable. The discussion on her notability was frankly, a travesty; it would appear that Conservative articles are being held to a much higher standard than the rest of Wikipedia.

This, I think, is one important need for this project; the next time this occurs, a notice could be put on the noticeboard, and more voices would be added to the discussion - so that we can try to improve Wikipedia my minimizing the left-wing bias. My experience in the Judaism project tells me that this is very useful.Mzk1 (talk) 06:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting, Mzk1. It is a good idea to post issues related to articles here. Not just AFDs, but GANs, moves, etc. Wanted to mention that AFDs (as well as PRODs) are listed at WP:WikiProject Conservatism#Alerts--so be sure to check there regularly. The good news is that we should have enough sources now to graduate Star to mainspace! Be sure to make room on your userpage for a DYK template! – Lionel ^(talk) 11:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

On the one hand, removing any kind of POV/bias from articles is a good thing. On the other hand, no project is needed to remove POV only from one point of view and not from the opposing point of view. I would hope that editors in this WikiProject are also attentive to removing conservative bias, to presenting conservatism in a neutral, encyclopedic manner. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any lack of people on the lookout for the other side. This is how you get NPOV, by people of different POV's collaborating. I can work with someone of a different POV, but not with someone who denies his own, or worse, that their POV is NPOV. I've seen this already, a suggestion (I think on WP:IRS) that "Reality has a Liberal bias". At any rate, I am not speaking of POV content, but of egregious acts like removing people because they don't like them.

Of course I try to be NPOV, but I write about things I am qualified to write about, and those are things I understand. When I write about Judaism, I give the traditional viewpoint. I welcome other viewpoints, soemtimes even solicit them, but I am not qualified to describe them.Mzk1 (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the further explanation. Welcoming and working with other viewpoints is exactly the right thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

GREAT NEWS! Star has graduated from the incubator and is now back in mainspace! Well done, everyone. Did you know she has a free pic on Flickr? Lucky break. Who wants to get a WP:DYK for her? The clock is ticking... – Lionel ^(talk) 22:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

NOTICE: Article alerts

There is a bug in Article Alerts which has prevented it from updating our Dashboard. Here are important discussions in which you may want to participate:

National Organization for Marriage

Should a section regarding photo manipulation be included RFC here

Conservatism

Is the Swiss People's Party a conservative party? RFC here

First Amendment

RFC regarding inclusion of the conservative interpretation of the Establishment clause RFC here

– Lionel ^(talk) 08:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

New Incubator Article - Steven Crowder

It started when Steven Crowder's article got tapped for deletion, due to no notable secondary sources. After greatly improving the article, I appealed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_June_25#Steven_Crowder with negative results again after the 3-4 people who wanted to delete the article to begin with shockingly wanted it to stay deleted (regardless of any improvements - and no, Fox News is not an acceptable source). However, I did get them to restore the page and its history to my personal page so that I could (when I had the time) get updated information.

Now, after 5 months, BlackKite (the deleter) finally moved the old version of this article over here. I updated it with my updates and it's now available at the incubator for your editing enjoyment. 5minutes (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." In this case the source is the either the subject himself or blogs that do not meet rs. While Fox News is rs, the article cites no articles published on the Fox News cite about the subject. TFD (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

How far does this go? If a person is mentioned, say, on PJMedia (formerly Pajamas Media) this is not useful? Author's reliablility is more complex, see the relevant page. A couple of things to look for references to are the tiff with Jon and the trip to the Cancun Environmanetal conference.(MZK1)62.219.96.2 (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It can go pretty far. A "mention" does not usually qualify as "significant coverage." Also there may be an issue with PJMedia because it is considered a blog and blogs are not generally reliable for BLPs.– Lionel ^(talk) 08:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Green GA plus sign at the top

Should the Project collect and display green GA plus signs at the top of the page? I think not. I consider them to be for user pages, not project pages. Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think it is only for user pages? Is this part of your plan to delete the group of editors here? – Lionel ^(talk) 05:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is for user pages because that is where it is often used (besides on GA article pages). Show me another project that does this... I couldn't find one. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Look over this page. Many article pages make use of the green GA plus sign:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Symbol_support_vote.svg#filelinks

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DonaldRichardSands (talk • contribs)

The list has a bunch of artticles and talk pages on it, and it has project pages. None of the projects use the circled green plus sign in the manner that Lionelt wishes to use it. I think it is too promotional, except for the boomerang effect of showing that the project has only been able to produce one GA. If the project advances a lot more articles to GA and FA, the decorative scheme does not scale neatly—it ends up littering the top of the page with symbols. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Binksternet, each of the links have a green plus on their talk pages. If you are aware of these, I don't understand how this differs from Lionel's interest. Each of those in that long list have a green plus indicating they are good articles. Correct me if I am wrong. That list is long and each of those articles are green plussed showing they are GA rated. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated. There are no projects which display a circled green plus sign at the top of the page, and I am against this project becoming the first to do so. Moreover, the article in question is Southern Adventist University which does not have any more relevance to conservatism than it has to liberalism. Binksternet (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Note that the Green Plus sign has been moved down from the top of the page and that the Green Plus wording does not include any mention of the Conservative project. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

David Bahati

• David Bahati (born 6 August 1973) is a Ugandan politician and MP in the Ugandan parliament. He is the MP for the constituency of Ndorwa West and is a member of the National Resistance Movement, the ruling party of Uganda. He is Chief of the Scout Board of Uganda. Bahati is becoming increasingly influential in Uganda. However he was portrayed by an unnamed diplomat in a cable leaked by Wikileaks as an outspoken homophobe and racist.'

What's the thinking of tagging the article about this politician for the project? Is National Resistance Movement a conservative movement? Is anyone involved in Scouting part of conservatism? Are we considering homophobes and racists to be part of conservatism? What's the connection between Bahati and conservatism?   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

He's of interest to the project from a Christian Right perspective: "Bahati is a core member of The Family, a powerful Christian evangelical political organization. Mr. Sharlet described Mr. Bahati as a "rising star" in the Fellowship." (ital. mine) He's also a social conservative.– Lionel ^(talk) 23:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Are political evangelicals all part of conservatism? Who calls Bahati a social conservative?   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the only mention of conservatism in The Fellowship (Christian organization) (AKA The Family) is this line: Newsweek reported that the Fellowship has often been criticized by conservative and fundamentalist Christian groups for being too inclusive and not putting enough emphasis on doctrine or church attendance.   Will Beback  talk  23:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

RSs decribe them as conservative: "One of the things that makes them different from other Christian conservative organizations"[7]; "a very conservative, fundamentalist organization"[8]– Lionel ^(talk) 23:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks for finding those. The first link is a quote from an interview with Jeff Sharlet. Are his views of The Fellowship reliable? The second link is an article in the Huffington Post. Is that a reliable source for conservatism? If so we can add both to Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/References‎.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah. So you found my little side project, huh? It's still in the inception stage at this point, but my thinking was that the list would focus on sources, some little known, which provide balance to articles dominated by certain POVs. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, we can get to that in a separate thread.   Will Beback  talk  00:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As for Bahati, it seems kind of indirect- he belongs to an American organization which some people call conservative? Is that his only connection to conservatism?   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There has always been a strong "social conservative" element in socialism in English-speaking countries. Prohibitionism, the Lord's Day Act, opposition to abortion and adherence to Methodism, and a preponderance of evangelicals in leadership roles. Do we then re-classify the socialist parties in Canada, the UK, Australia etc. as conservative? To use an American example, was William Jennings Bryan a conservative? Note too that Communists were strongly opposed to homosexuality, does that make them conservatives? TFD (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Surely it would be better to leave articles like David Bahati within the scope of more relevant projects? In view of the comments of Will Beback and TFD, I will remove the banner. Thank you. --Kleinzach 23:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/References

• Jeff Sharlet
• Huffington Post

Are Sharlet's books, articles, and interviews reliable sources for conservatism? How about the Huffington Post?   Will Beback  talk  00:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a specialized list of References focused on articles related to this WikiProject in the same vein as Category:WikiProject reference libraries. There are ample lists of general sources. There is no shortage of derogatory sources. However there appears to be a lack of awareness of sources which provide balance for derogatory claims. IMO general and derogatory sources should be excluded. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The header says:

• The following are references available for use when sourcing conservatism-related articles so that they meet the verifiability, notability and neutral point of view requirements. Members that are willing to share resources that are difficult to find or are cost-prohibitive should add themselves to the resource.

Do I understand that it is really meant to be a list of sources that are biased in favor of conservatism or that give a conservative POV? Do other projects have lists of POV sources to use? wouldn't it be better to use more neutral sources?   Will Beback  talk  01:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

WP LGBT has one: Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Resources. Libertarianism Wikipedia:WikiProject_Libertarianism/Sourcing_Guide– Lionel ^(talk) 01:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anyone saying that only biased sources should be included on those pages. If that's the intent of this list then let's modify the header to properly describe its contents and purpose.   Will Beback  talk  01:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good.– Lionel ^(talk) 01:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. Let's see of there's consensus for creating a list of biased sources which we want to use.Can you propose some text?   Will Beback  talk  02:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we should avoid using opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, which bring up problems of rs and weight. For factual information on current events, it does not matter whether a publication is perceived as liberal or conservative, so long as it is a reliable source. Identifying books about conservatism is however worthwhile. It may be helpful however to categorize them. Looking at the current list, Eccleshall's book is about English conservatism, Frohnen et al.'s and Sharlet's books are about modern American conservatism. I would question including Sharlet's book since it is a book by a journalist and could cause POV issues. Suggest we break it down by country. Some sources will cover more than one country and will therefore need a separate category. TFD (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. The list should be of sources about conservatism, not sources on general topics which give a conservative point of view.   Will Beback  talk  02:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with TFD's approach. Given the large number of possible sources, strict inclusion criteria and categorization would be good. --Kleinzach 23:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Another reason why we need this project

Southern Adventist University in the gorgeous Tennessee River Valley

The first article within the scope of this project and substantially edited by a member of this project has been promoted to GA. Congrats to Kenatipo, WP:SDA member DonaldRichardSands and yours truly, Lionelt for a job well done in promoting Southern Adventist University to GA! The first GA/FA by these editors, btw. Donald primarily contributed to research, Kenatipo was essential in copy editing, prose and citation cleanup and Lionelt kept a particularly bothersome indef banned editor at bay. This is the first of what will become a long list of articles promoted to GA and FA by this project. Fountain wherever you are this one's for you!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 22:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• What's next?  :)   DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Good work.

However I again have to question what connection there is between the project on conservatism and a medium-sized college attached to the Seventh-day Adventists.   Will Beback  talk  23:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

@Donald, what about GAN for Creationism? It may qualify as a "low" importance article for this project due to this item in the article: "In 1985 the conservative political party then in control of the country’s education ministry added creationist explanations..." A prominent creationist who is related to conservatism would also do.

@Will: Southern's inclusion could go either way. I think this "It is known for its emphasis on conservative religious and social practices,[6] and is considered the most conservative" is just enough to qualify as a "low" article.– Lionel ^(talk) 00:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Is "conservatism" a religious or political movement? If religious, then we should definiteley include all Catholic colleges the world over.

What does Creationism have to do with Conservatism? Is conservatism anti-science?   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

conservatism here is political--HOWEVER in many countries esp USA there is a powerful overlap. (and creationism is a POLITICAL issue re being taught in public schools). Rjensen (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

So again, why is Southern Adventist University, which has virtually nothing to do with politics, tagged for this project?

As for Creationism, there are countless issues in politics today. Teaching Creationism (or more likely, Intelligent Design) in schools is a (minor) political issue, but Creationism itself is not. Even within conservatism, creationism is a small, local topic. Should this project include every topic upon which some conservatives have a stance? If so, every social and economic issue in contemporary America (and every other country with conservative political movements) would be included. 30,000 article here we come.   Will Beback  talk  06:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

As an article watcher and an image contributor, I am surprised to see Lionelt's mention of this article here. I think it is far fetched to label articles on Seventh-day Adventist educational institutions, formerly missionary colleges, as part of WikiProject Conservatism. Fortunately similar articles on Pacific Union College, La Sierra University, Andrews University, etc, have not been tagged and I hope it remains that way. The tagging in this case appeared to be a reaction to the disruption by Bello Wello, who from all I can tell continues to contribute to the article on his own SDA university. The community ban of Bello Wello was not initiated by Lionelt, nor most of the SPI requests, and had nothing whatsoever to do with this WikiProject. Mathsci (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

What about the University of King's College and the University of Trinity College? They certainly were founded on conservative prinicples and King's still has a holdiay for George III's birthday. TFD (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless someone can show that this university has a significant connection to political conservatism I'll remove the tag. I'm sure we all agree that this project is not intended to include every article with the word "conservative" in the text. There needs to be an actual connection to Conservatism.   Will Beback  talk  00:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Beback here. Rjensen (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The reason for putting a banner on an article is to include it in a set of pages for quality control etc. Bannering a large number of tangentially relevant articles defeats this purpose. It's also a waste of good editorial time. Will Beback is right in saying "There needs to be an actual connection to Conservatism.". --Kleinzach 00:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the project tag from Billy Sunday. That evangelist had no particular involvement in politics or social issues. Being a theologically conservative Christian is not enough, unless we're going to include all notable fundamentalists or religious conservatives of whatever religion.   Will Beback  talk  02:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sunday was famous as a leading spokesman for prohibition, which was a central political issue of the day. Whether prohibition was "conservative" is another matter; most historians count it part of the Progressive Movement. Rjensen (talk) 02:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Why the Cold War as part of the WikiProject?

Just curious...Hires an editor (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Anti-communism is related to conservatism.– Lionel ^(talk) 02:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Many of the 20th century wars, including civil wars, were anti-communist in some significant way. The Russian Revolution, Russian Civil War, Polish–Soviet War, Finnish Civil War, Spanish Civil War, Chinese Civil War, WWII, Greek Civil War, Korean War, Hungarian Revolution of 1956, Cuban Revolution, Vietnam War, Salvadoran Civil War‎, Nepalese Civil War, etc. I suppose we could add all of those too, but including all anti-communist activities and personalities might be too broad a net, even for this project.   Will Beback  talk  08:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The strongest cold warriors in the U.S. were liberals, while Robert Taft opposed the Cold War and Eisenhower and Nixon were seen as less extreme. Nixon of course would eventually achieve detente with the Communist world. TFD (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, there were some prominent anti-communists in Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s. Maybe it'd be better to leave off the anti-communist-related articles, unless they have some other connection to conservatism.   Will Beback  talk  03:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Having lived through the last 50 years, I will just say that this is a very unrealistic view. Since Nixon, the anti-Communist stance was associated more and more with the Right, and the Left became more and more against it. Thus neo-conservatism, a move of anti-communist Leftists into the Right. The catalyst was the VietNam war, and the radicalization of the congressional Democrats in the wake of Watergate. Cold War belongs here, as does VietNam. I won't try to get into the earlier stuff.

Honestly, I have never seen a project with so many members determined to commit suicide in cause of ideological purity or Wikipedia purity. I live in Israel; I understand the impulse, but please, let's live in the world as it is, not as we would like it to be.Mzk1 (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Kennedy and Johnson got the US into Vietnam, and Nixon abandoned South Vietnam to the communist North Vietnamese after making overtures to the communist regime in mainland China. I think we need to avoid over-simplifying history.

Unless we're willing to add all wars that had anti-communist elements, along with all prominent anti-communists, I'm going to remove the tag from this one anti-communist conflict.   Will Beback  talk  21:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This thread is to determine whether the members are interested in improving Cold War. By the comments it appears they are. This isn't a general pronouncement on the relevance of anti-communism, because we determine article inclusion on a case-by-case basis--when an article's inclusion is brought up here. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. When asked, you originally said that you tagged the article because "Anti-communism is related to conservatism". But it sounds like you're now saying that you tagged it simply because you're interested in improving it. Does it need to be tagged in order to be improved? If anti-communism is related closely enough to conservatism to include one war, then why not other wars and significant anti-communist figures?   Will Beback  talk  07:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the tag, since there isn't a clear consensus here that we should include all "anti-communist" -related articles.   Will Beback  talk  02:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

2 members, myself and Mzk1 support inclusion of Cold War, no members oppose. That is the consensus regarding this particular article. If you want to start another thread about the scope feel free. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Make that three. Toa Nidhiki05 02:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

TFD seems to oppose it, Hires an editor found it inexplicable, and I think it is inapropriate to include just one anti-communist article unless we include all of them. So there's no consensus. OTOH, if we agree to extend the scope of the project to anti-communism then we can add it and many more articles.   Will Beback  talk  03:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] I agree the Cold War is one of the central issues for conservatism in the US and also for Europe and Latin America--while those are three quite different conservatisms with little in common otherwise. Rjensen (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

If we include the Cold War, then is there any reason to exclude the other wars I listed above?   Will Beback  talk  04:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The Cold War was a worldwide event that lasted many years--it was a gigantic confrontation rather than a war, with ideology playing a much more important role than combat operations. Rjensen (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Few of those were "conventional" wars. But the ideological conflict was not communism versus conservatism. It was the Warsaw Pact and its allies versus NATO and its allies.   Will

Beback  talk  06:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Warsaw Pact & NATO were military alliances. at a deeper lever they reflected ideologies: Communism vs anti-Communism, and "conservatism" in various forms was a major component of antiCommunism (allowing that there were also liberal anti-Communists in US and Socialist ones in Britain).Rjensen (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

NATO was not part of the conservative movement. It had no more to do with conservatism than with liberalism or any of the other political movements active in Europe which were opposed to totalitarianism.   Will Beback  talk  07:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

NATO was created and continued because of anti-communism, and conservatism played a role in fueling anti-Communism for many years. Think Goldwater, Reagan. Rjensen (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that Democrats and other non-conservative parties were less anti-communist than Republicans and monarchists? NATO was created during a Democratic presidency.

If we're adding Cold War because of the anti-communist aspect then, as I proposed before, we should include other anti-communist conflicts and personalities.   Will Beback  talk  07:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I already said, "(allowing that there were also liberal anti-Communists in US and Socialist ones in Britain)". The Cold War was a hundred times more important than the other little, short-term events. It's a matter of giving readers the most important five facts rather than 150 also-true-but-minor-facts (which each get one line) in which most readers will lose sight of the big picture. Rjensen (talk) 07:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This project includes thousands of articles, almost every one if which is less significant than the Cold War. If we used proportionality as a test then the Vietnam War or the Cuban Revolution would be much better fits than most insignificant politicians. The purpose of this project has little to do with readers, at least directly, so that's really a side issue. Projects exist for the convenience of editors. Shall we de-tag 1500 also-anti-communist-but-minor-topics so that editors can won't lose sight of the purpose of building an NPOV reference work? Or, shall we add another 1500 tags for anti-communist topics which have been left off so far?   Will Beback  talk  08:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] nobody can handle hundreds or thousands of links. It's like my student who had a term paper to write on World War I and went to the electronic catalog and came up with over a thousand books in alphabetical order. "But I only wanted three good ones," he lamented. Rjensen (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This project has already achieved overkill. The Libertarianism and Liberalism projects each have around 400 or 500 articles tagged. This project has over 3,000. Yet even the tagging of a tangentially connected topic is defended at length. So I say let's go for broke and see if we can get the project up to 30,000 articles. Anything connected to anti-communism seems like the next area in which to exert project hegemony, based on this discussion. Then we can move on to monarchies and aristocrats, since they are generally conservative. For some reason the US constitution, and many of its amendments are tagged, so we might as well tag all of the other national constitutions and amendments, because tyey must have some connection to conservatism too. After that, there's all of the conservation articles, since they're obviously closely connected. There's no reason why this shouldn't be the largest project on Wikipedia, maybe even larger than all other projects combined.   Will Beback  talk  02:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Goodness, Beback has a liberal--or dare say I, radical--proposal. :) Let's be more conservative. Really big events like the Cold War will still make the cut, I believe. 03:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The conservative approach has already been rejected. Tagging a few hundred articles would have been conservative. Tagging 3000 articles was more extreme. But if that's what folks want then that's the approach we can take.   Will Beback  talk  05:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The argument seems to be that conservatives took a position on the Cold War. However, conservatives take positions on all political issues. The logical conclusion is that we should tag all articles about political issues with the tags of all political projects. TFD (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The argument is that the Cold War was a central redefining moment for conservatives re foreign policy; before they had been isolationist (Taft, Dirksen, Hoover) and because of Cold War most reversed themselves 180 degrees (Goldwater, Scoop Jackson & neocons, Reagan). Rjensen (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that noted conservative Winston Churchill had always been an interventionist.   Will Beback  talk  21:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

yes Churchill was personally, but his Conservative Party supported appeasement and Churchill was kept out of power in 1930s for that reason. Rjensen (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

And many conservatives continued to be non-interventionists. Conservatives were always anti-communist - it didn't take the Cold War to make them take a position.   Will Beback  talk  01:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

9 days later we have consensus to tag Cold War and no consensus to modify the scope. If editors start tagging hundreds of anti-communism articles we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I'm going to close this discussion before it becomes a WP:DEADHORSE (some might say it already has). – Lionel ^(talk) 21:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There certainly isn't a consensus. It's an even split. I think the pushy way this project is being operated is a poor omen for the future.   Will Beback  talk  09:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"Pushy"? Will: you are way out of line. Four members want the banner to stay. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Three editors appear to disagree, which is why I don't think there's a clear consensus for this. I won't remove it again, but I expect that a conservative approach will be taken to tagging articles.

I don't think "pushy" is incorrect. But I hope that I will be proven wrong in the future.   Will Beback  talk  23:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry not to have noticed this before. I'm opposed to bannering this type of marginally related article. We are here to write an encyclopedia — not to mark territory. As there is no consensus for including the banner I will remove it. Regards. --Kleinzach 23:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverted as there is no consensus to remove. I will further note it is tagged by WikiProject:Socialism and WikiProject:Liberalism. Toa Nidhiki05 00:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

For articles that are borderline within scope and have the support of multiple members we must include the article. It is ludicrous to deny members the enjoyment of working collaboratively on articles of their choice merely because it is borderline. Why piss off people when we don't have to? If we remove Cold War it will piss people off. And leaving it does not harm the project, nor does it harm Wikipedia. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe anyone would suggest removing Cold War from this project. The Cold War is the biggest Conservative versus Communist event ever. The free world versus the non-free. Free markets versus state run "markets" that rationed toilet paper and put the outspoken in Gulags. The Berlin Wall and the Berlin Airlift. People dug tunnels under the Berlin wall to escape the Communists. How many people dig tunnels to get out of Britain and America and Western Europe? If any article deserves to come under the WikiProject Conservatism it's the Cold War. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It was not as if American conservatives rallied around the Cold War, while liberals opposed it. Some conservatives, such as Robert Taft, opposed the Cold War, while liberal senator Henry M. Jackson was the leading cold warrior. Note that it was also a Communist issue. It was not a specifically conservative issue. TFD (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Are Adventists part of the Religious Conservatism movement?

Is Adventism, including Southern Adventist University, part of the Religious Conservatism movement? Below I include a description of the religious conservative movement. Adventists often resemble religious conservatives, especially a school like Southern. But, there are distinct lines which separate Adventists from religious conservatives.

1. They are not consistently in line with the values of the religious conservative movement.
2. They do not consider political power to be something to be grasped. Adventists are pleased if a member should get elected to office, but they don't expect that member to advocate a particular ideology.
3. Adventists believe that the political power of religious conservatives is a sign of the last days. Many believe that religious conservatives will bring on the persecution of the last days. It could be said that Adventists "fear" religious conservatives and their misguided interests in uniting church and state.
4. Most Adventists are not intense anti-abortionists or anti-science creationists. Abortions are performed in some Adventist hospitals.
5. Regarding science, most believe that scientific findings should be examined and discussed without denying the truth of scripture as understood literally. Contemporary Adventist health teachings are founded in science.
6. They do not strongly advocate the teaching of the Bible in public schools and consider "official prayer" in public schools to be a violation of religious liberty issue rather than a violation of religious rights.

Compare these Adventist points with the religious conservative movement: Anderson and Taylor write:

"The New Religious Conservatism

"Perhaps one of the most significant changes in religion in recent years is the rise in religious conservatism. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of people who say they are born again or evangelical...

"The evangelical movement consists of diverse groups, including Faith Assemblies of God, Churches of Christ, and the Jehovah's Witnesses, to name only a few. In the past, conservative religious groups had largely distanced themselves from politics. Beginning in the 1970s, however, conservative activists realized they could have an enormous impact on national politics if they mobilized the growing numbers of conservative Christian groups. Their affiliation with each other and with conservative political causes has resulted in a movement known as the "new Christian right" (Liebman and Wuthnow 1983) - most evident in the presidential election of 2004.

"The conservative Christian movement has fueled antiabortion activism, revived the effort to teach creationism in the schools, and supported so-called pro-family legislation that promotes a variety of conservative values. The Christian right sees the changing role of women in society and the influence of the feminist movement as threatening traditional "family values" and undermining what they see as "natural" arragnements between women and men (Gallagher 2003)."

Sociology: understanding a diverse society Margaret L. Andersen, Howard Francis Taylor , Cengage Learning, 2005 ISBN 978-0-534-61716-5, 9780534617165

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DonaldRichardSands (talk • contribs)

Even if the Adventists were part of a "Religious Conservatism movement", this is not the "Religious Conservatism movement project". If it were it'd include a vast swath of articles on Islam, Catholicism, Hinduism, Judaism, and other religions with conservative movements.   Will Beback  talk  23:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Will Beback, I have underlined a sentence or two from Anderson and Taylor where they connect religious groups to political causes. Where is the line drawn? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Virtually every topic has some connection to politics: education, religion, economics, energy policy, space exploration, military strategy, diplomacy, etc. If we include all of those in this project then we'll end up with 300,000 articles tagged instead of just 3,000.   Will Beback  talk  02:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• I understand your concern. I am just getting acquainted with the Conservatism Project. The one article highlighted for further work is the Bill Whatcott article. Mr. Whatcott doesn't seem to be part of a conservative group per se, but his behavior can certainly be classified as conservative. What criteria are used to determine if an article should have a conservative classification? It seems somewhat illusive. Whatcott behaved from religious conviction. He was tried in the courts. The human rights tribunal found him guilty. The appeal courts reversed that. A conservative facing the judiciary. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Whatcott is a political activist, not just a preacher or a professor.   Will Beback  talk  04:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Do we include Christian socialists as well? They were strong on fundamental Christian views and temperance, but they did not consider themselves to be conservatives. TFD (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• It seems that conservative political activism is the common thread of this project. It may have religious flavour but it must have political activism. Consider the Moral Majority of Jerry Falwell. It was religious to its very core but also politically active. Creationism is not always politically active. Some Creationists are Fundamentalists, thus conservative. Christian fundamentalists are Biblically conservative by definition, aren't they? Can a person be Biblically conservative but politically liberal? Some Fundamentalists are politically active and thus should be included in this Project. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Just because someone is a religious conservative does not make them a political conservative. For example, the Catholic Church is theologically conservative, but many practicing Catholics are not political conservatives. From what I understand, Osama bin Laden was religiously conservative and was active in quasi-political activities. Should we include him? I don't think so, but if we're including people just because they're religious conservatives then we need to consider a lot of new entries.   Will Beback  talk  07:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Religious conservatism

"Religious conservatism" IS conservatism. There is absolutely no reason to restrain, stifle and inhibit this group of editors. In fact there is ample evidence that religious conservatism is conservatism:

Conservatism#Religious conservatism	{{Conservatism}}	category:Conservatism
Religious conservatism See also: Religious right (disambiguation), Christian Right, and Fundamentalist Islam Religious conservatives principally seek to apply the teachings of particular religions to politics, sometimes by merely proclaiming the value of those teachings, at other times by having those teachings influence laws.		Conservatism Conservatism by continent Conservatism by country Conservatism templates Conservative Anabaptists Anti-abortion movements Books about conservatism Christian democracy Conservatism-related lists Conservative Mennonites Conservative parties Fiscal conservatism LGBTQ conservatism Liberal conservatism Conservative media National conservatism Paternalistic conservatism Progressive conservatism Reactionary Religious fundamentalism Sadaejuui Social conservatism Religious fundamentalism Religious fundamentalism by country Armed priests Buddhist fundamentalism Christian fundamentalism Hindu fundamentalism Islamic fundamentalism Jewish fundamentalism Psychology and religious fundamentalism Religious fundamentalists Religious nationalism Sikh fundamentalism Religiously motivated violence

Religious conservatism is covered in the main article of this project, Conservatism, the main template has a group "Religious" and the main category has a subcat "Religious fundamentalism." The evidence that religious conservatism is conservatism is irrefutable. Whatever this group stands for, at the very least we must support the integral sections of our namesake article and template. The group's vast resources and talent will only benefit these articles.

The bigger question is: How is Wikipedia harmed by this group improving religious conservatism-related articles? Why all of a sudden are religious conservatism articles being removed? Is there a policy that says a wikiproject can only work on political or religious articles but not both?

Wikiprojects have high attrition rates. The most successful strategy for recruiting new members is by tagging articles. We need these articles to combat member attrition. We must be wary of arbitrarily restricting our growth. There is no valid rationale for excluding religious conservatism. On the contrary these articles benefit from having this group's resources focused on their improvement. To exclude religious conservatism is ludicrous and short-sighted. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The Conservatism article devotes a couple of sentences to religious fundamentalism. It appears that you wish to use that scant material as a justification for adding the entire Category:Religious conservatism to the project. IIRC, you argued that the Oklahoma City Bombing was not connected to conservatism, but this decision would place the Al-Qaeda WTC bombing into this project.

The larger the project, the less focused it is. What's the point in having a "to do" list which is far beyond the ability of the project to ever accomplish? The project has a long list of unassessed articles, for example. I joked with RJensen about this project expanding from its already large 3,000 articles to 30,000, but that appears to be the goal.

There is already a religion project - this enlargement would be entirely redundant with their work. How would Wikipedia be helped by adding thousands of articles to a list where nothing more will happen to them?   Will Beback  talk  20:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Response:

1. "adding the entire category..." Religious conservatism has always been part of this project by virtue of the namesake article, nav box and cat. Just because someone hasn't gotten around to tagging those articles doesn't automatically negate the future interest of members nor this group's duty to responsd to inquiries and support that article and nav box.
2. "I joked about 30,000" There is no reason to believe that the project will mushroom to 30,000 articles or anything near that number. Religious conservatism has been a part of this project for 9 months and those articles represent a small percentage of total articles. And 3,000 articles is not large. WPSocialism has 4,667 and only 8 members to improve them. We're approaching 70 members.
3. "There is already a religion project." And we also overlap with them at Religious right and Wikipedia has survived. We also overlap with WPLibertarianism, WPCapitalism, MILHIST, LGBT, WPAbortion, and I could go on and on. Overlap has never been an issue with any of the numerous projects where it exists. In fact WP:PROJGUIDE states "it is beneficial for an article to be actively collaborated upon by multiple projects." – Lionel ^(talk) 23:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Surely religious conservatism means accepting the doctrine of the Church. But most of the religious groups added do not accept religious authority and believe that individuals may decide their own religious beliefs. TFD (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC

There's only a single, unsourced sentence on religious conservatism in conservatism. That's a thin reed from which to hang several thousand additions. Category:Religious fundamentalism includes about 20,000 articles, and Category:Roman Catholic schools in the United States includes over 11,000 articles. 30,000 may have been a "conservative" estimate.

Do you think that WPSocialism is a well-run project which we should emulate? Bloat doesn't seem to ensure success. As for number of members, that doesn't really mean much. It's the number of active member that matters. What has this project managed to accomplish on behalf of the 3,000 articles already tagged? We've managed to take credit for a number of FAs, GAs, and DYKs which occurred before the project began, and brought one article of low importance (and a tangential connection) to GA status.

WP:PROJGUIDE warns about "Too much overlap: If the scope is too closely related to an existing project, then having separate projects is usually inefficient and counterproductive, because you wind up dividing the few interested editors across multiple projects. This approach maximizes administrative hassles and minimizes collaboration. However, there is no rule that prohibits two separate groups of editors from being interested in the same articles."

Is there any topic which this project does not include?   Will Beback  talk  06:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It must be nice sitting in a room somewhere dreaming up hypotheticals that are improbable, implausable and highly unlikely. After 9 mos. we have at most 10 religious conservatism articles. What on Earth makes you think that we'll wake up tomorrow and find 30,000 newly tagged articles? Religious conservatism is a small niche area of WPReligion and WPConservatism. To describe this intersection as "too much overlap" is an unsupportable and gross exaggeration. This project has been operating for 9 mos. and overlaps with a great many projects. Do you have any proof of "administrative hassles"? These fears which have hold of you are irrational. I'm worried about you, Will.

Back in Wikipedia... we have an article, a nav box and a category which are titled Conservatism. These pages proudly display the banner of this group. Editors are directed to this group to ask questions and make inquiries about the content of those pages. And this group bettter be prepared to assist in any way it can: be it political conservatism or religious conservatism.– Lionel ^(talk) 11:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You want to exclude all religious conservatism articles. I want to include all religious conserevatism articles. In the interest of collegialism I'd like to propose a compromise: taking into account that religious conservatism is an interest of the group, let's evaluate the suitability of individual articles on a case by case basis. – Lionel ^(talk) 21:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

On what basis would we make this evaluation? Since thousands of articles are involved evaluating them individually would be a huge time-sink. The scope of this Wikiproject is purportedly inclusion the conservatism category. If that is indeed the scope, then this project covers a minimum of 17,000 articles. If we choose to include schools and colleges associated with conservative religions then that number might double. A project of that size would be absurd.   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm against including religious conservatism articles, except in special cases. WikiProjects should be oriented towards serving WP readers, not marking ownership. A small project with a limited editorial record, such as this one, should concentrate on developing core articles. As the project develops the scope can be gradually widened and specialist editors can contribute to particular areas. (I also think this ddiscussion illustrates the dangers of lapsing back into American-centricity.) --Kleinzach 00:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

'Small project'? This project has over 70 freaking members. In comparison, Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism has 22 members and they have tagged over 4,600 articles! Toa Nidhiki05 00:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There are only a dozen editors ('freaking' or not) taking part in these discussions. --Kleinzach 00:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I use the word 'freaking' as a replacement for the obscene f-word, which I have the decency to abstain from using. We have a total of seventy members, like it or not, and that is not small - that is rather large for a WP. Toa Nidhiki05 00:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

@Klein--"WikiProjects should be oriented towards serving WP readers" nothing could be further from the stated purpose of wikiprojects. A wikiproject is "group of editors that want to work together as a team." While it may be a byproduct, we are not here to serve readers. We are here for camaraderie, fellowship, collaboration, fun. A main function of most wikiprojects is tagging articles related to the scope. Merely tagging articles is in no way "ownership." This project has never exerted ownership over any article. Please be more careful in your word selection when you describe the behaviour of the members of this group. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

While I note an almost complete absence here of "camaraderie, fellowship, collaboration, fun', it should be pointed out that — with the important exception of collaboration — this is not what WP is all about. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which explains that Wikipedia "is not a social networking site etc." --Kleinzach 03:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Collaboration is the only purpose of a wikiproject, with the ultimate aim of providing readers with better articles. Comradery, fellowship and fun can be found at the corner bar and have little to do with writing an encyclopedia.  Will Beback  talk  05:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Religious conservatism should be part of the project because it is a subset of conservatism that is very intertwined with politics. Since WikiProject Conservatism concerns such issues, it would be fitting for religious conservatism to play a role in this project. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 08:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't think it would be better handled separately? The larger this project grows the less attention it can pay to each of the articles within its scope.   Will Beback  talk  05:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Further analysis re: Religious Conservatism articles

• Analysis by DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• I am new to the Conservatism project. To find out what range is involved, I looked over the current articles and found a common political conservatism thread. Even the religion related articles had some political angle. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• The term "conservative" has been applied to Southern Adventist University. Adventists imbibe in the ways of "conservatives" but they don't stand with them united in concerns. Southern Adventist seems to have set its sights on maintaining a conservative (the established world perspective of earlier Adventist generations) stance. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• The other article recently associated with conservatism is "Creationism". This seems too broad a topic. Within the creationist movement are many avant-garde thinkers, by no means conservative with respect to explanation of origins. On the other hand, Young Earth creationists can almost always be described as conservative (fundamentalist). Within Adventism, the current leadership seek to maintain long held views within the church. This is a conservative development. It probably reflects both the neo-conservative rise in society and a reaction to liberal developments within the church. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• The vast majority of conservative articles seem obviously conservative. I can't see too much of a difficulty in simply allowing the article subject to convince us either way as to its suitability. The discussion here helps members of the project clarify their meaning re: Conservativism. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This is another ambiguous concept. The conservative view of religion is that the church should be exempt from secular laws and taxation, should be responsible for social services and should be able to prosecute heretics. The liberal view is that man has a direct relationship with God and church and state should be separate. There is also Christian Socialism that holds that government should protect the Christian religion. TFD (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Hi TFD. I agree. Conservatism has some ambiguous aspects. This makes it necessary for WP editors to discuss some articles and reach a consensus, sometimes hard won. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Labelling of foreign political parties

I noticed that a number of foreign political parties have been added to the project, for example the United Democratic Party (Belize).[9] The party website does not called it "conservative" and in fact traces its origins to the Liberal Party and a renegade faction of the governing party. It does not appear to have developed from anti-independence factions.[10] The book Political parties of the Americas does not call it conservative.[11] It seems we are trying to shoehorn the diversity of foreign political parties into a U.S.-style liberal-conservative dichotomy. Can we establish some criteria for inclusion in the project? TFD (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

We have a criteria for inclusion. Toa Nidhiki05 20:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What is it? TFD (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Read the scope. Toa Nidhiki05 21:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The officisl scope is here:

• WikiProject Conservatism is a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to conservatism.

However the de facto scope appears to be any article with the word "conservative" in the text, or any article included in a broad array of categories which are themselves in Category:Conservatism.

As for the United Democratic Party (Belize), it was labeled "conservative" four years ago.[12] But there's no source for it. Any editor may remove unsourced material.   Will Beback  talk  22:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems that Lionelt's definition of "conservative parties" includes all far right parties except Nazi and fascist parties, except for Nazi and fascist parties outside Germany and Italy, but including fascist successor parties including the Italian Social Movement and the Social Democratic Party (Portugal), some liberal parties including for example the Liberal Party of British Columbia but not including the Liberal Party of Canada, some Christian democratic parties including the Christian Democratic Union (Germany) but not including Latin American Christian Democratic parties and presumably including conservative parties but excluding Tory socialists. Could we please have criteria for inclusion of conservative parties. TFD (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed the description. Notice that the UDP's color is red, while their opponent's color is blue. Normally blue is a conservative color while red is either liberal or socialist. TFD (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It is conservative [13]. The criteria is simple: if a party is conservative then it is a candidate for inclusion. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"Their first move was to forge the formation of a united front including the NIP, PDM and Liberal Party. The merger took place in 1973. It was the birth of the United Democratic Party."[14] Is the criterion to include any party, whether fascist, conservative, liberal or socialist, that has been described as conservative? Here is a source that describes hardline Communist opponents of Gorbachev as "conservatives", a description that is frequently used. Should we add hardline Communists to the project? TFD (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Conservative, per the source just added by myself to the article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That is just Google-searching for sources. Note that your source says they were formed out of "a fusion of the Liberal Party" etc. It seems wacky that conservatives would call themselves liberals. I notice that you are adamant on articles about far-right parties that they not be labelled as such based on similar sources and wonder if you have any consistent view on this. TFD (talk) 06:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Strange how Wikipedia works is it not? A source is asked for or content is removed, when the source is given then you complain about that. I know what the source says, The source says they are conservative. Do you have a problem with the source? I do not recall saying a far right party should not be called such if there is reliable sourcing for it, to which article do you refer? The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, "UDP has been described as conservative" by at least one RS. That is more than enough for this project. We're not writing a doctoral dissertaton here where the highest quality scholarly sources are needed. If there are no objections I'll close this before it becomes WP:DEADHORSE.– Lionel ^(talk) 21:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Are we saying that the standard for inclusion is a single, reliable source calling an entity "conservative", regardless of how other sources may describe it?   Will Beback  talk  23:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

There are more than one sources calling this group conservative. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Will, just let it go. Toa Nidhiki05 23:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It's going to come up again so we might as well get it straight now. Does anyone disagree with my statement above? If not, we might add it to the project statement of scope.   Will Beback  talk  23:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please elaborate on how this whole dispute aids this project at all. The only argument against it is a party that merged with it was called 'The Liberal Party', but 'Liberalism' and 'Conservatism' are not necessarily opposing in much of the world. Further, this entire argument against it reeks of original research. I second Lionelt's argument to close. Toa Nidhiki05 23:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This project flunked the issue of definition (see here), hence we are stuck with this problem. TFD asks "Could we please have criteria for inclusion of conservative parties." Can we have a serious response to his question? (I object to closing this discussion without addressing this.) --Kleinzach 00:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That idea fell through when TFD declared he could use it to remove Reagan and Thatcher. Our current criteria is reliable sources and our defined scope. Question answered. Toa Nidhiki05 00:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

In every country in the world, there is always one or more party that is more conservative than the others and consequently we may find passing references to them as "conservtive". For example, Hugo Chavez's opponents, who are primarily Socialists, and Gorbachev's opponents, who were primarily hard-line Communists, are routinely called conservatives. Toa mentions "liberal conservatism", but the article says the term is ambiguous but usually means support for tradition and tolerance of free markets. But there are no sources describing Belize liberalism that way. We should be using a source similar to "The party families of Western Europe" that defines the categories and explains which parties belong to which family.[15] Conservatism in the British Caribbean was linked to family compacts, but white colonial elites have been largely unable to maintain political organizations in predominantly non-white nations. TFD (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Toa. The scope adequately covers parties. If there are any questions about a particilar party that is what this noticeboard is for. @Klein--this project didn't flunk anything. Your arguments weren't persuasive. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed the irony of TFD objecting to tagging non-American articles? For months he has accused this group of pro-American bias and now he objects to, of all things, non-American articles. Unbelievable. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I asked what criteria were being used to label parties as conservative and your reply is clear - you have no definition but choose to personally decide which parties to include. You do not even present literature that supports your viewpoint. BTW, please avoid personal attacks on other editors. TFD (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I would love to know how you arrived at "you...personally decide" from "that is what this noticeboard is for"? You do know that a noticeboard is where a group consensus is formed? That's just Wikipedia 101. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

IOW the criteria for inclusion is what a majority of people agree should be included rather than any clearly stated standard. TFD (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone interested on reading this article?

Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, is widely regarded as Brazil's greatest soldier. He was also one of the key members of the Brazilian Conservative Party. I have plans to nominate his article to FAC. If someone is interested, please share your thoughts on the peer review I opened. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone willing to improve this article to avoid deletion? Help appreciated: Matthew Nye.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Nye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoliticalJunkie2012 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There should be extensive coverage of individuals to support articles, which is not the case here. TFD (talk) 05:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Help with Images

Hello - following a recent exchange on "Non-free rationale for File:RowanRobertsonDC4Facebook.jpg" (My Talk section) I was wondering if I could ask what I am doing wrong with the images I am uploading. They all seem to be in the public domain and all seem to be of public figures. I literally just learned about the existence of Wikimedia Commons but what if the public figures we are writing about are not included in there? I don't think I am selecting the correct usage option - but it seems to be like it's quite circular. No matter what I choose I end up getting flagged even if these are public figures whose photographs are out there in public use, in more than one place, and clearly for non-commercial use. Any feedback appreciated. --Wkstrategies (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wk and welcome! While not suggesting that we expand the scope to rock musicians, hahahaha, it appears the basic problem with the upload is that it is for "non-commercial" purposes. Believe it or not, Wikipedia requires "commercial use permitted." You note that "http://dc4rocks.com/ Has agreed to allow use of this content upon request." At this point you need to ask them if they'll donate the pic to Wikipedia under CC-BY-SA. Note that this is the same situation with Corie: you're going to have to ask for a donation. More info here: WP:DCM, and good luck! – Lionel ^(talk) 02:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you want to fix the 134 articles with POV and balance problems?

Most of these articles suffer from lack of viewpoints and could improved by adding viewpoints. From NPOV: articles should represent "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" and when sources "contradict one another ... describe both approaches." But we need a list of reliable sources to accomplish this. Mainstream and left-leaning sources are readily available. Just type Google in your browser. To achieve balance we need a list of conservatism-related sources. Is there a predecent for this? Many wikiprojects have targeted lists of sources. E.g. see

• WP:Libertarianism and
• WP:LGBT.

Do you Support/Oppose focusing WikiProject Conservatism/References on conservatism-related sources and excluding mainstream and left-leaning sources? – Lionel ^(talk) 04:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources should be evaluated on whether they are reliable or not reliable. As I mentioned elsewhere I used anti-Left reliable sources to support an NPOV article on the Left. TFD (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support: this will help address POV problems. Other wikiprojects have specialized, targeted reference lists, so this is nothing out of the ordinary. We certainly won't be the first. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose You cannot exclude a source because you think it is not conservative. To do so would introduce a bias in all articles, were would your critiques come from? All sources which meet WP:RS can be used. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The References page is not an article which falls under WP:NPOV. It is not in mainspace. It is a project-specific list which provides sources for articles which already have POV issues, to counter existing bias and to provide critiques to articles which are not balanced. This list is specifically designed to address your issues. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose We need all the RS we can get. Rjensen (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The LGBT Reference list only contains LGBT sources. Why can't we have a list of conservatism sources? There already is a list of all RS. It is Wikipedia:List of free online resources. I don't see the value in creating a resource from scratch when one already exists. On the other hand a list of conservatism resources would be unique, but not unprecedented. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

that is not a list of RS, it is a list of free resources, with many biases of all sorts and in general is a week reed for serious work. Rjensen (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. However it is in a central location, it linked on major nav boxes and easily accessible to all. The Conservatism References list is relegated to a subpage of a smaller wikiproject in Bumf*ck Egypt. It makes sense to put all RS in the centralized list, and specialized sources in the Conservatism list.

  Compromise: expand the centralized List of Free Online Resources to include non-free sources and designate the Conservatism References list as a specialized list.– Lionel ^(talk) 22:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The reliability of a source is independent of the viewpoint of the author and defends on the neutrality of the editing process. As a New York senator once said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts". That includes facts about which the degree of acceptance that various opinions have. Ironically much if not most academic rs about conservatism is written by conservatives. TFD (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support According to WP:NPOV, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." In order to fulfill this injunction, it is appropriate to include viewpoints from conservative references as well. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• I think this proposal stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of how neutrality is achieved. To produce a neutral article, one needs to be committed to using the best available reputable, scholarly, independent sources, and to avoiding overtly partisan sources as much as possible. If an article appears biased, then the solution is to remove partisan sources and add high-quality sources, not to artificially "balance" the bias with partisan sources from the other side of the political spectrum.

  I support the idea of tackling biased sourcing or biased articles, but I don't think that a list of counter-biased sources is the best way to proceed. In fact, I think it will be actively counterproductive. As a thought experiment, imagine if a group of editors maintained a list of "liberal" sources and made an organized effort to insert these sources into articles they perceived as biased. I think many of the members of this group would (rightly) object to such an endeavor.

  Finally, I'm not sure it's appropriate to consistently compare this project to WP:LGBT. That's an apples-to-oranges comparison. LGBT is not a political philosophy or partisan orientation; there are LGBT individuals of all political stripes. Admittedly, the U.S. conservative movement has generally embraced opposition to gay rights as fundamental to its platform, but that's an aberration. Elsewhere, conservatism and LGBT issues are orthogonal or even congruent; for example, David Cameron has been outspoken in his support of gay marriage (framing his position explicitly as an extension of his conservatism). But I digress. MastCell ^Talk 19:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Your point is well taken. So perhaps it would behove us to locate the highest quality conservatism-related sources. There is another aspect where this list could provide value. And that is in providing additional viewpoints per WP:DUE. In some articles the issue is not so much POV, but balance. For example consider a film article which only contains positive reviews. The article should present positive and negative views in proportion to their weight in reliable sources. This list would efficiently provide sources for additional viewpoints. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The best-quality sources for conservatism are the same as the best-quality sources for any topic: reputable scholarly material and mainstream news (as opposed to opinion) pieces published in outlets with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If the goal is collect those kinds of sources, then I don't think anyone could object. But it sounded like the idea here was to balance "left-leaning" sources by collecting a bunch of right-leaning sources, and I'm not sure that's the road to neutrality.

      To take your film review analogy, the best approach is to start by looking for the most reputable reviews, and then convey the positive and negative contained therein. That seems preferable to sorting reviews by whether they're "positive" or "negative" and then trying to editorially "balance" them. Does that make sense? MastCell ^Talk 00:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comparisons to the LGBT project's list are valid, and this could be useful. Toa Nidhiki05 20:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. The assumption that sources in contradiction should be represented equally is only applicable to situations where both sources are already equally respected. It does not apply to situations in which a scholarly viewpoint is contradicted by a non-scholarly one. This puts in Limbo the whole suggestion of using the same general strategy to fix 134 articles, until each and every one of the target articles is evaluated uniquely to see if left-leaning sources are or are not the most respected sources. There is no blanket fix. Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The library should hold all the most respected sources. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I worked on the article American Left and most of the sources are anti-Left, for example, American Extremists, why socialism failed in the United States, and the failure of American Communism. But that does not matter because they are good sources and the facts are correct and no one complains that the article is anti-Left. TFD (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, comparisons to LGBT are valid and this is a legitimate source of refs and information for the project. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. We have to follow the general 'reliable sources' guidelines and policies when we write articles. Any project-based list of sources should be made on a similar basis. To do otherwise would be to encourage biased POV-based entries. --Kleinzach 02:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Filtering sources according to their political stance, in order that we only need pay attention to the ones at the right end of the spectrum, is a sure way to perpetuate this wikiproject's problems. bobrayner (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Problems? Pray tell which wikipedia policies have been violated by this group? Feel free to provide diffs. – Lionel ^(talk) 13:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any problem with the existence of the project. One might opine that scope is a bit broad, but that's not really a big deal. To the extent there is any problem, it's not with the project itself, but members of the project. Projects can't partake in disruptive editing, get blocked, or topic banned. But individual editors certainly can engage in disruptive editing. aprock (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Some of our members who are new users have had problems. I have signed up to become a mentor primarily to help them become productive contributors. And so far it has worked beautifully. My mentee has not been blocked, has nominated a DYK and is working on a GAN. I am in the perfect position to help new users. I have never been blocked, and even though I am a Democrat, I understand the conservative ideology, which some members expouse.

On the other hand, veteran editors with long block histories are another matter. The disruption is often ingrained. One member with numerous blocks, Binksternet, is just coming off of a 1 week block. I asked for his resignation regarding another matter, and he refused. The membership will have to figure out what to do with disruptive members.– Lionel ^(talk) 00:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• bobrayner has deleted a whole lot of comments and opinions here — presumably by accident? See [16]. I'll try to restore them. --Kleinzach 04:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm rather surprised to see that legitimate references (like The New York Times) were removed and fringe sources were added. Does anyone really think that American Free Press and The Spotlight represent the best available sources for any topic?   Will Beback  talk  00:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Depends on what the New York Times is spinning about a topic, but generally they are not a publication with conservative views or even any tolerance for conservative points of view. Every article, every Op-Ed is couched in terms of the left point of view with a thick overlay of disdain, even outright hostility, for any view that challenges or diverges. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Not true. There's a big difference between not having a conservative point of view, and being hostile to conservatism. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Let's not be Sisyphus pushing that stone up the hill over and over. (Feels like that already on judging by this talk page.) Absolutely support having a list of reliable conservative sources. Reliable conservative publications will have far more fact and less spin than liberal, left wing pubs. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What exactly leads you to believe that on conservative topics "conservative publications will have far more fact and less spin than liberal, left wing pubs"? Writegeist (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Conservative Party UK taskforce

I'm really excited by the mere fact that the project has grown to the point where this proposal is legitimate. Our project meets the size recommendation to have our own taskforce, and we have a number of members who are interested in the Conservative Party. I'd like to gauge interest in a taskforce for editors who want to specialize on articles related to this party. It's really a great deal. The wikiproject does all of the admin and maintenance, all the taskforce members do is collaborate on the articles. Would you participate in a Conservative Party taskforce? – Lionel ^(talk) 02:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Judging by past experience, the taskforce would need 12-15 members to be viable. --Kleinzach 01:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes

Comments