Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

United Russia

I don't normally oppose entries to this project, but I do not believe United Russia, which is currently tagged, belongs in this project. The article was tagged by a bot, but I believe the party is not conservative by any means of the word - if anything, the reliable sources show a centrist bent. Honestly, there aren't really many modern Russian politics pages we can add, and UR certainly isn't one of them. Toa Nidhiki05 01:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The article says that UR's ideology is 'Conservatism' and its political position is 'centre to centre-right'. Does this project include centre-right parties? I believe I've asked this question before. --Kleinzach 08:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Sources?   Will Beback  talk  23:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't read Russian, but the article gives this one: "United Russia, centre-right social-conservative party . . . ." [1]. --Kleinzach 00:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
That seems pretty straight forward.   Will Beback  talk  12:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Conservatives can be centrist, for example One nation conservatism. But Putin's party is considered to be on the right. TFD (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
This might be a bit of OR on my part, but for what its worth, United Russia is not ideological party. United Russia is just a corrupt machine for upholding the power of the Kremlin, it does not really have an ideology; left, right or centre, whatever. Since United Russia has only a sham ideology, and its only purpose is to support those who hold power, I'm not certain where one can properly classify it.--A.S. Brown (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012

To whom it may concern: I'm Joe DeSantis, the communications director for Newt Gingrich's campaign. I have noticed the Gingrich 2012 article does not currently have a section about the caucus and primary results, although similar articles for the Romney, Santorum and Paul campaigns do. I've put together a paragraph that I think would work here, and have posted this and an explanation to the article's talk page for editors to consider its inclusion, as I am hesitant to add it myself. Since this project focuses on conservatism, I thought to ask here in case any editors watching this page would be interested in responding to my request. Thanks. Joedesantis (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Conservatism in the Philippines

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Conservatism in the Philippines. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Scope (Part II): Endorsements

It's my understanding that we now have four main versions to consider. (Anyone, of course, is free to add extra ones). Please endorse the version (or versions) that you think are appropriate. Please don't oppose. Suggested closure date: 30 December. --Kleinzach 02:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Please make comments at the foot of this topic. Hostile comments added to the endorsements may be considered disruptive while we are establishing a consensus. --Kleinzach 03:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice: The WikiProject Council Guide notes that 'WikiProjects have sole and absolute authority to define their scopes'. While most WikiProjects consider anyone actively working as a member, if someone has declared themselves as 'not a member', they are unequivocally not a member. Thus, the input and votes of non-members should be disregarded in determining the consensus of WP:Conservatism's membership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toa_Nidhiki05 (talk • contribs)

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

Members who endorse this (sign with~~~~):

  1. Support - Only definition that actually keeps the broad scope of this project. All the others would cause the project to decrease. Toa Nidhiki05 02:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  2. Support: this scope fully complies with WP:PROJGUIDE, protects the interests of all members and includes all currently tagged articles. – Lionel (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  3. Broadly construed. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  4. close second choice --Guerillero | My Talk 01:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC) - Non-member
  5. --NYyankees51 (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  6. - First choice. No reason to limit where members should coordinate their improvement efforts. - Haymaker (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  7. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  8. Support Conservatism, just like Liberalism, is a broad term and consequently, a broad statement is needed to account for the scope of the project. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  9. pro forma to make clear that the !vote status for any change in WP:CONSENSUS applies here Collect (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
2. The scope of Project:Conservatism lies in the interest of consolidating diverse Conservative thought and various Conservative Movements and Conservative social expressions that have existed over time throughout the world.

Members who endorse this (sign with~~~~):

3. The scope of Project:Conservatism lies in the interest of consolidating diverse conservative thought and various conservative movements that have existed over time throughout the world.

Members who endorse this (sign with~~~~):


4. Project:Conservatism aims to provide coverage to all political organizations and movements that refer to themselves as "conservative", whilst recognizing the diverse interpretations of what that appellation refers to.

Members who endorse this (sign with~~~~):


5. Project:Conservatism aims to provide coverage to all social and political entities that refer to themselves as "conservative", whilst recognizing the diverse interpretations of what that appellation refers to.

Members who endorse this (sign with~~~~):


6. Project:Conservatism aims to provide coverage to all social and political entities (and products of those entities) that refer to themselves as "conservative". It also includes entities, thought, theories etc, that are incontestably labeled "conservative" by verifiable 3rd party sources, i.e. academic journals. Whilst doing this, the project recognises the diverse interpretations of what that appellation may refer to.

Members who endorse this (sign with~~~~):


7. Project:Conservatism aims to provide coverage to all political, social and religious topics that are either self-described as "conservative", described as "conservative" by reliable sources, or are otherwise closely connected to conservatism, recognising the diverse interpretations of what that appellation may refer to.

Members who endorse this (sign with~~~~):


8. Project Conservatism aims to provide coverage to all political and social topics that are either: self-described as "conservative", described as "conservative" by multiple reliable sources in the context of their nation of origin, are commonly-held to be "conservative" in their nation of origin, or are otherwise closely connected to some form of conservatism. While doing this, the project recognizes the diverse interpretations of what the appellation "conservative" may refer to.

Members who endorse this (sign with~~~~):

  1. --Buster Seven Talk 04:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)..Provides the broadness of scope that this project requires to cover the many-layered topics that Conservatism is.
  2. --RGloucester (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC) - Gesture of non-member support, not a vote
  3. --Guerillero | My Talk 14:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC) - Gesture of non-member support, not a vote
  4. —Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  5. --Kleinzach 23:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC) Best definition for a single conservatism project.
  6. -Mike Cline (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC) - Gesture of non-member support, not a vote
  7. --Writegeist (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Non-member support
  8. This scope also fully complies with WP:PROJGUIDE, protects the interests of all members and includes all currently tagged articles. By making the definition clearer, it should result in fewer arguments on this page over which articles should be tagged.   Will Beback  talk  22:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
    That's just plain wrong. This scope would exclude Traditionalist Catholic, an article which is on the primary {{Conservatism}} nav box. How do you know it will result in fewer arguments? Another point where you are wrong. The opponents will just start posting proposals ad nauseum to put the scope back. If making continual propsoals works for Kleinzach et al why wouldn't it work for the opposition? And of course Kleinzach et al will continue to argue into perpetuity about shrinking the project to include only American conservatism at the expense of everything else. – Lionel (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
    I've replied below at #Scope #8   Will Beback  talk  02:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  9. --TFD (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Best proposal presented.
  10. Second choice. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
9. Project American conservatism aims to provide coverage of topics related to the modern American Conservative movement.

Members who endorse this (sign with~~~~):

  1. --Kleinzach 02:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  2. --Writegeist (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Non-member support
  3. First choice—calls a spade a spade. I realize, however, there is minimal support for this proposal. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

  • @Guerillero - So you don't want to be a member. Fine. But stop pretending you are anything more than an observer, and stop pretending you have the members-only right to define the scope. Part of not being a member is, well, not being able to define the scope. It is your choice not to join, so don't blame me for your problems. Toa Nidhiki05 20:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • We welcome the input of Guerillero and anyone else who wants to express an opinion here. The more people are involved the more progress we'll make in sorting out the problems of this project. If anyone disagrees with this, please make a reasoned objection based on specific linked WP policies.--Kleinzach 23:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I added them because they were never rejected and because the full range of options should be available - my question would be, why did you pick only four of them? What was the point? Tactical? Toa Nidhiki05 23:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The one originally listed were the current latest versions that had emerged from the discussion. --Kleinzach 01:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Question: On The Founder's talk page, an editor has asserted that "Conservatism may not be the most popular opinion here on wiki, that is why it should be protected". The assertion has gone unchallenged.[2] Is protecting conservatism a purpose of this project? If so, I think it should be explicitly defined in any statement of scope. Writegeist (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Question - Klein, you mention above that 'the more people are involved the more progress we'll make in sorting out the problems of this project - is your goal with this to 'expose' problems, not figure out a scope? This really brings your methods and bias into question, combined with Lionelt's stated issues he has with your edits related to this project. Toa Nidhiki05 21:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the problem with decreasing the size of a project?

Toa, I asked this before but didn't get an answer: what is the problem with decreasing the size of the project?   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That dead horse has been beaten far too many times, Will. You know the answer. Toa Nidhiki05 16:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The scope of the project isn't a dead horse. It's what we're here to discuss. And no, I don't know why a larger project is better. The larger a project is the less focused it is. For example, I see that an article in the project "incubator" hasn't been edited in over a month. If the project had a more narrowly defined scope then it might actually be able to improve articles rather than just tagging them.   Will Beback  talk  21:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
When you keep proposing the same junk over and over and over again, it is a dead horse. Your repeated attempts to fundamentally change this project (which isn't by any means 'large' compared to WP:MILHIST, one of the more effective projects despite having almost 118,00 pages, WP:FILM, and WP:ALBUMS to name a few) are the things disrupting this project - not size. Have you ever considered that if you and your friends would stop disrupting this project every other week with repeated BS scope/move/deletion requests, work might actually be able to get done here? Instead, you and them insist on disrupting and filibustering this project with ideas that have already been rejected! Toa Nidhiki05 16:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Please don't use blustery exclamations instead of factual statements. I have never before made the proposals which I made in this discussion. Discussions on talk pages do not disrupt anything. No one here is my friend, or my enemy. Everyone here is my colleague. Let's keep the discussion collegial.
The three other projects you mention are fundamentally different from this one because they are content-neutral. MILHIST does not seek to promote the military of one country over another, FILM does not focus on only one kind of film, and ALBUMS is not limited to one genre of music. By comparison, this project is focused on one political movement which is in opposition with other political movements.
Getting back to the original question, what would improving the focus of this project be a negative thing? Is the project better just because it tags more articles?   Will Beback  talk  00:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Will's words cut to the heart of all of the Project's problems: "this project is focused on one political movement which is in opposition with other political movements." Exactly. Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
@Will - Yes, they do. When the same BS is posted over and over again, it disrupts interest, moving interest from actual work to having to defend against the comments.
As to you're argument about the project - it is self-defeating. Does WikiProject Military History limit itself to either 'American Military History' or 'Non-American Military History' because there 'could be a US-centric bias' or people from other countries 'may feel alienated' by the Americans? Do WikiProject Films and WikiProject Albums prohibit American entires, as America holds to different standards of morality in art than the rest of the world? No. They allow all types of military history, all nationalities of film, all forms of albums. Similarly, this project covers all forms of conservatism - US, Canadian, British, etc. Splitting it up implies conflict between 'conservatism' and editors on this project, and actually reduces so-called 'content neutrality'.
A good example of something similar is WikiProject Hip hop, a project of similar size and scope - there are many different forms of hip hop, be it regionally (East Coast and West Coast) or nationally (British), as well as fusion genres combined with other genres of music (Rap metal, country rap). Additionally, it exists as both a form of music and a culture. There is even conflict between rappers of different genres. Yet, is it split up into 'WikiProject American hip hop' or 'WikiProject East Coast hip hop'? Nope. By being as broad as possible, the project is as neutral as possible. It allows Americans and British people, East Coast rappers and West Coast fans, and rap-metal junkies to collaborate and work together, rather than splitting them up.
To conclude, splitting this project is not an 'improvement' - it is not a benefit at all. The benefit of the large scope is to allow editors interested in all conservative forms to mingle and collaborate, rather than separate them. This type of benefit would be entirely absent in a smaller project. Our foreign members would inevitably leave, and, with less articles, the remaining editors may get bored with the smaller amount of material and leave. In short, having a large scope allows both more articles and more members, both of which are needed for a successful WikiProject.
Finally, why are you only targeting this project? There are many other project covering a broad scope. Why not demand WikiProject Socialism split up into 'WikiProject Marxist Socialism' or 'WikiProject European Socialism'? Why not demand WikiProject Libertarianism split up into 'WikiProject Right-Libertarianism'? Why not demand WikiProject Capitalism split up into 'WikiProject Austrian School Capitalism'? All of those are ideologies with differences between adherents as well, and if you and the other users targeting this project went after those as well, I might take your claims of wanting 'content-neutrality' more seriously. As you are not, I see nothing but repeated, targeted attempts to break up this (and only this) project.
@Bink - Explain why splitting this project up somehow solves that 'issue', and also explain why you do not care about other projects that have the exact same issue. If anything, every WikiProject has the issue of covering a 'divisive' subject. Toa Nidhiki05 01:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Would anyone object if I moved this conversation to the Comments section? This is really for endorsements. Thank you. --Kleinzach 01:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't object. Toa Nidhiki05 01:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Toa, I was not talking about splitting the project, I was simply agreeing with Will about the project's main problem, that of being in opposition to other political aims. We get far less conflict over at the military history wikiproject, and our topics are actual battles complete with killing and maiming. We get editors from all sides of the conflict coming in to help with accuracy and neutrality. WikiProject Conservatism invites friction rather than collaboration because of the activism associated with current politics. Binksternet (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Similar 'problems' exist with the Socialism, Libertarianism, and Hip hop. All of those promote an idea or genre over others. Bias exists, let's not deny that - it only becomes a problem when there is activism, which there isn't here. Toa Nidhiki05 01:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Once again, I have not heard any actual answer to the original question, concerning why a larger project is better.
Regarding the Socialism and Libertarianism projects, no one here is defending those. Other stuff exists, but we're just discussing this project here. As for the Hip Hop project, that's fundamentally unlike politics, which is a zero-sum equation.
As for the assertion that this project covers all kinds of conservatism equally, that stopped being the case when some members voted to remove Ku Klux Klan from the project despite numerous reliable sources which have characterized one or more of its iterations as a conservative movement. In fact, the de facto scope is to include selected articles on conservative topics.   Will Beback  talk  02:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll be frank here, but the reason this project has been targeted, as opposed to Socialism, is simple: socialism, while a diverse moniker is held together by similar threads the world over. It is not based on domestic political systems.Conservatism, on the other hand, means entirely different things in different places. Conservatism in the US v. Conservatism in Europe and the Commonwealth is an excellent example. Lumping them together kind of conflates things that are not really similar. Regardless, I still don't think it is worth it to try and reduce the scope at this point. Instead, I think it would be much more productive to produce an inclusive scope that recognizes that conservatism is not a monolithic entity that exists. It is a bunch of things that may appear to have no relation to one another. That's what should be done. RGloucester (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
@Will - You obviously didn't read over my comments, where I devoted an entire paragraph as to why a larger project is better. You know why we got rid of the Klan - we have no obligation to cover it, no willingness to cover it, and there were few, if any, sources that described it as anything other than a far-right group.
@RG - Are you saying socialism, communism, social capitalism, libertarian socialism, and anarcho-socialism are all the same? Of course they aren't. Socialism is just as broad as conservatism. Toa Nidhiki05 20:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
No, they are not the same, of course. But they all have tenants that hold them together that are not diametrically opposed. And these exist, regardless of the country one is in. Conservatism, on the other hand, has entities, like American conservatism, that are not at all compatible with traditional conservatism, and various other types. There is no one real thing that is "conservatism" if you include American conservatism in the mix. You have a mess, with multiple things that don't make sense being combined. Sure, social democracy and communism are different, but certain threads are the same, i.e. public ownership of some means of production, proletariat first, establishment of a strong welfare state etc. But you just can't do that with conservatism, and that's why it is fundamentally different. The project, can, however still do this. Very easily, in fact. All it needs to do is recognize that there is no monolithic entity that is conservatism. I.e. you can't use American standards to judge conservatism anywhere else in the world. That's all I'm asking. RGloucester (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Personal Comment Just to stop a little bit of controversy here, among allegations of bias and what not. I will admit that I am a social democrat. I believe in state ownership of utilities, transport. I believe in a healthcare system like the UK's NHS, a comprehensive national insurance program, "live and let live" social liberalism, etc...I benefit from all these policies as I currently live in Scotland. Luckily, David Cameron's shakeup of the NHS doesn't affect me up here (thank god for the Scottish Parliament)! I'd implement all these policies in the US if I had the chance. But that's another matter for another day. Regardless, I am very interested in conservatism in its traditional form, that is, I'm a bit of a monarchist (I know, contradictory, right?), among other things. I also think that if this project makes a nice clean definition of the scope, it could go places. That's why I've done what I have. The move request was my way of getting the conversation rolling. In hindsight, not the best idea. However, I'm not an obstinate fool. I think discussion is key, and I am open to anything. So hear me out, and I'll do the same. RGloucester (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Shrinking WikiProject Conservatism will lead to its collapse

  • There is no policy which supports or recommends shrinking a project
Nowhere in the guidelines do they recommend shrinking a project. In fact wikiproject guidelines explicitly and repeatedly warn against projects which are too small here Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Identify the best scope and here Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject#Having an overly narrow scope. The guideline actually contradicts Will's assertion:

Successful WikiProjects have a scope that is natural and broad enough to attract and sustain editor interest.

The guideline states that a "broad" scope will attract and sustain editor interest. Will is saying that a "narrow" scope will attract and sustain editor interest. This is the opposite of the guideline. It is contrary to the guideline.
  • There is no evidence indicating that shrinking a project increases its effectiveness
This suggestion is completely false and unsubstantiated. It is a fabrication, a fanciful invention. Nowhere is there a correlation between size and effectiveness. This has revealed Will's fundamental misunderstanding of what is a "wikiproject." A wikiproject is not a collection of articles, but a group of people. The main problem that wikiprojects face is not their size, but attrition of members.

One of the most basic aspects of keeping a WikiProject active is recruiting editors. A WikiProject must recruit new members to make up for attrition; any project that fails to do this will eventually collapse.

One of the primary methods for recruiting new members is through the advertising generated from adding project banners to articles. Tag more articles: and you will recruit more members. These new members are critical as they replace retiring and inactive members. Reduce the number of articles in a wikiproject and you have reduced the advertising, thereby limiting recruitment. There is no evidence that reducing the articles in a project and/or limiting the scope will increase effectiveness. On the other hand, it will reduce visibility, lead to fewer recruits, and cause the project to fail. To willfully shrink WPConservatism is not in the best interest of this group of people: it is suicide.– Lionel (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Suicide? Let's get this in perspective. The advice about 'overly narrow scope' was primarily written to persuade fans not to start WikiProjects for ephemeral pop bands and TV programmes. --Kleinzach 02:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Scope #8

Scope #8: This scope also fully complies with WP:PROJGUIDE, protects the interests of all members and includes all currently tagged articles. By making the definition clearer, it should result in fewer arguments on this page over which articles should be tagged.   Will Beback  talk  22:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That's just plain wrong. This scope would exclude Traditionalist Catholic, an article which is on the primary {{Conservatism}} nav box. How do you know it will result in fewer arguments? Another point where you are wrong. The opponents will just start posting proposals ad nauseum to put the scope back. If making continual propsoals works for Kleinzach et al why wouldn't it work for the opposition? And of course Kleinzach et al will continue to argue into perpetuity about shrinking the project to include only American conservatism at the expense of everything else. – Lionel (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

[Comments moved here for discussion]

(edit conflict) Speaking for Kleinzach — but not 'et al' — Number 8 offers the best defined scope if the project attempts international coverage. That's why I've endorsed it. It may well be appropriate to look at dividing the project into task forces — as Lionel himself has suggested — after the project has been shored up. --Kleinzach 01:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Please explain why Traditionalist Catholic would be excluded from scope #8.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Because it is religious conservatism. – Lionel (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Traditonalist Catholic would be included under social topics that are commonly held to be conservative, and thus would be included without a doubt. The definition was made to be inclusive. RGloucester (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Traditionalist Catholic should be on the Conservatism template. I'll raise that issue on the template page.   Will Beback  talk  01:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've restored RGloucester's comment above. It was removed by Lionel [[3]]. I assume this was an accident. Please be careful not to do this again. --Kleinzach 01:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the Traditionalist Catholic article it seems to be entirely about theology, not really about society or conservatism either. --Kleinzach 01:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
So much for reducing arguments. This isn't even a scope and it is generating arguments, contention and confusion---ironically amongst its advocates!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Promotion of false premises: American conservatism is a "problem"

The notion that combining American conservatism with other variants is problematic is unsubstantiated, false and contrary to wikiproject guidelines. Editors have stated among other things that American conservatism is in fact liberalism and that including it is confusing. Whether or not that is true, per WP:PROJGUIDE this "problem" has absolutely nothing to do with the scope:

WikiProjects are allowed to have strange, arbitrary, or unpredictable scopes...

There is nothing to support these allegations that this is a problem. To propose that the scope needs to be changed because American conservatism is a confusing or incompatible is a false premise because the guidelines specifically permit this. This "problem" manifests itself only in the minds of the complainers. It's a made-up fiction. In fact the issue with American conservatism is a red herring. The actual objective, based on statements by proponents, is to delete the project; failing that to stop the growth of the group, and furthermore to shrink the group. This is a convenient tactic to break up the project. Perpetually promoting a proposal based on a rationale that is invalid and which violates policy is disruptive. – Lionel (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Many of these users supported deletion or moving in the debate, and I have serious doubts these users would remain after their goals get accomplished. The fact these users ignore similar 'issues' in other similar project is the ultimate proof of their true motives. Toa Nidhiki05 01:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
OK. Let's have the real quotation from WP:PROJGUIDE, which is:

WikiProjects are allowed to have strange, arbitrary, or unpredictable scopes ("Tulips, except for my least favorite species, plus my favorite photo software"), but we strongly recommend that you adjust or expand the scope to be more sensible.

Lionel, when you refer to WP policies (1) give the link, and (2) give the whole text. Thank you. --Kleinzach 01:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The only portion that was relevant to his comment was the part he included - you're attacking of our scope is irrational and disrupting, particularly in absence of any guidelines that require it to be changed. Toa Nidhiki05 02:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Just because we're allowed to be irrational doesn't mean it's advisable.   Will Beback  talk  02:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Irrational to you, but not to the 60+ other members that joined and haven't shared your view. Toa Nidhiki05 02:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't addressing any specific issue, just the fact that irrationality is not a virtue. And, FWIW, 60 different people haven't commented on anything on this page. Also, there seems to be a very aggressive approach on this talk page which is unconducive to collegial discussions. It'd be helpful if it could be toned down. I'd assume we want this to be a welcoming project.   Will Beback  talk  02:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
We remain welcoming to those who do not wish to destroy us. Toa Nidhiki05 02:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
"Destroy us"? That's a little over-dramatic. I've never made any proposals to "destroy" this Wikiproject. On the contrary, all of my suggestions have been on how to improve it. Demonizing those with whom you disagree is unhelpful and uncivil.   Will Beback  talk  02:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
That statement is demonstratively false, Will. Maybe you didn't hear waht Lionelt was saying? Toa Nidhiki05 02:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
What didn't I hear?   Will Beback  talk  04:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Lionelt's entire proof against you're 'smaller projects are better' BS. Toa Nidhiki05 20:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Aggressive approach? Are you referring to the filibustering, WP:DEADHORSE, WP:IDONTLIKETHAT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? – Lionel (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What? Anyway thank you for changing the punctuation[4]. --Kleinzach 02:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
This debate is useless, and not constructive. I've proposed a definition that will include ALL articles currently included by the project. At the same time, this definition is clearer and more precise, so people know what's going on. That's better that referring to "conservatism" or a "conservatism movement" when neither of those things really exist in coherent and universal forms. This debate should not be about arguing over things that have already been debated and considered unacceptable by the project. Compromises must be made, and I think that the scope we came up with does everything it needs to do. That's what we should be debating. I don't want to shrink the project. That ship has sailed. Vitriol doesn't help anyone, so can we just be civil, here, perhaps? RGloucester (talk) 11:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Wait, so you all can attack the current scope and pretty much everything about this project, but we can't oppose or critique you're proposal? That is total BS. If you aren't willing to take criticism or opposition to your scope proposal, don't propose it. Toa Nidhiki05 20:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem is not the current scope, but how it is "labeled". The plan was to maintain it, and have a nice write-up. I haven't attacked anything about the project, and of course you can criticize the proposal. But the thing is, the proposal isn't to make it American conservatism or whatever. And I wasn't aiming that comment at you, but at those trying to "split" the project. I was trying to make them think about a compromise, rather than argue about American conservatism etc. In other words, I wanted them to focus on defining the CURRENT SCOPE, rather than trying to change it to something unacceptable to you. Please just listen, rather than being dismissive off the bat. RGloucester (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
All the editors who think that American conservatism would be more viable than international conservatism, have nevertheless endorsed the compromise Scope 8 as a step forward to clarifying what the project is about — and perhaps even restoring some collegiality around here. --Kleinzach 22:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
...And that is very much part of the reason I am more than suspicious. If all of the people who supported something for months suddenly jump ship and support something else, I am very suspicious immediately. You have all made it clear you don't support this project as-is, so I have no reason to believe you support anything different. Toa Nidhiki05 01:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight, I don't think anyone here has said that "American conservatism is a "problem" ", so the topic heading is misleading. I suggest we change it to 'Promotion of false premises: combining American conservatism with other variants is a problem'. I think this is what Lionel meant. --Kleinzach 02:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Request Good article nomination: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012

It is requested that a member review the following Good article nominee:

Page: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator: User:Screwball23


Comments:


One of the requirements for a Good Article is stability. Since the primaries will be going on for a few more months it'd probably be better to wait until they're over.   Will Beback  talk  17:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Revertion of closure of project definition discussion

After the usual 2 week period (16-30 December), I joined Scope: Part II and Endorsements (above), and closed them down, noting that No. 8 had been approved by the project.

Regrettably, Toa Nidhiki05 has reverted my closure (including routine headings, archive tags, etc) — and moreover even deleted what I had written under my own signature. See the diffs:here and here. This is directly contrary to the consensus we have established. Toa Nidhiki05 should reflect on what he has done and (I hope) very promptly undo his action. --Kleinzach 12:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not common practice for an involved editor to, in a heated dispute, close a dispute in his favor, even in the extreme of snowball (which isn't the case here). This is exactly what Klein did (in the middle of the night, to boot). Further, this is not a standard RfC - this is not an RfC, and thus different options may be needed. Unilaterally closing a heated discussion after two weeks seems a bit rushed to me. If it is going to be closed (which nobody ever agreed on 'two weeks'), there should be a motion to do so.
Further, there is not consensus. Six members (only counting members because only members can define the scope) supported 8, while five supported 1 - that is not consensus, that is barely even a plurality. We haven't decided anything - the same people still support/oppose the same thing. There is no broad agreement over what this project should do If this is closed, it should be closed as 'no consensus', to reflect what actually happened - declaring consensus where none exists is misleading and incorrect. I am not undoing my edit,
Finally, the 'content under your signature' was this:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This isn't personal comment, it is related to the closure, which was incorrectly applied without consensus to do so. Toa Nidhiki05 15:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Closure was properly reverted on 2 counts: (1) Klein cannot close as he is an involved editor (2) Klein closed on the wrong option: the consensus of the membership is #1.

Most wikiproject discussions are open. Scope discussions, in particular, are the absolute and exclusive realm of project members per the guideline. Editors who participate in a project are generally assumed to be members. However if an editor declares and self-describes themself as "non-member" then this assumption is replaced with certainty that they are not a member. It is ludicrous to change a project scope based on the dictates of editors who have no desire to be part of the group and no vested interest in the project by their own admission. It is obvious from the guideline that their !vote must be discounted in a Scope discussion. – Lionel (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I called for endorsements of the scope proposals on 16 December, and suggested closure on 30 December. No one objected to this. Accordingly I closed the discussion on 30 December. It's normal for the organiser to close and in this case there was no doubt at all about the outcome. Only Number 8 had widespread support. (Note that No. 10 was my personal preferred option not No. 8.). There were extra iVotes for No. 1 immediately after Toa Nidhiki05 reopened the discussion. WP:DUCK. --Kleinzach 04:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

First off, there was no clear consensus. Second off, vote stacking is a very serious allegation, Klein - I would suggest you abstain from such brash claims. It doesn't help your case, The fact that some editors actually did vote after proves, to me, that the matter has not been concluded and there is no consensus. The vote is, in reality, split 7-7 among members, which cannot possibly indicate a consensus to change - particularly when the voting actually includes only 20% of project members. Toa Nidhiki05 05:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Non closure of project definition discussion

Three weeks have passed and we still have no resolution of the project definition discussion.

Regarding comments about the non-eligibility of some editors to give an opinion, please see WikiProject Council's policy on Inappropriate exclusivity specifically "All editors that approach a project with comments, questions, or suggestions should be welcome and treated courteously, as valuable potential members or real members that simply haven't taken the step of signing a designated page." --Kleinzach 03:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Note now that I disagree with the closure and interpretation thereof. Note also that I have found absolutely no evidence of CANVASS on this, and I looked. Note that I am not a member of this project, but an outside observer thereon. Further that WP:CONSENSUS notes the possibility of those who are not in support of a clear consensus (the MfD discussion) to be considered as disruptive in discussions aimed at changing the consensus ( if a subject has been discussed recently, it can be disruptive to bring it up again), with fully four or five of those supporting 8 falling into that specific category. Thus no consensus for any change in project scope is present. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. Collect: can you explain why those who participated in the Mfd Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism — a discussion which prompted many different ideas from different people — should be ineligible to participate here in discussing an entirely different subject (the scope of the project). --Kleinzach 04:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I made no such claim - only that the CONSENSUS reached at MfD is still a WP:CONSENSUS and changing it at the three month mark is possibly an overly early such attempt to change. Also note that consensus is not a vote, meaning the narrow edge, if any, is quite insufficient to assert any substantial change. The fact is that this is not "new people" entering into the discussion, which would be a sound reason for re-examining consensus. Cheers - but !vote is a strong argument here as well. Collect (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense. The result of the Mfd was Keep. The consensus for 'Keep' has never been challenged in any way since the Mfd, certainly not by any of the proposals above, which were about the scope of the project. --Kleinzach 05:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Which still means that CONSENSUS to alter the scope is not present in any case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
By Collect's reasoning is that no article that survives AfD can ever be changed. Could he please point to a policy or guideline that supports this approach. TFD (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
No, his reasoning is that a large number of the editors supporting option 8 had supported the deletion nomination, which was aimed at either deleting the project or decreasing its scope. The nomination failed by massive consensus to keep things as-is. Thus, a large portion of editor supporting 8 can be considered disruptive, as they are supporting a similar attempt to change the current consensus scope despite only a short period of tine passing.
Quite frankly, I'd argue that consensus has developed numerous times to not reduce the scope, and that these same few editors are being disruptive by repeatedly bringing up plans to change it, despite consensus otherwise. Collect is right - there is no consensus to change. Toa Nidhiki05 16:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I suspect there may be some confusion between the words "disagreements" and "disruptions" at play here. The idea that simply participating in the process indicates disruption is nothing less than silly. If you have diffs of disruptive behavior, the best thing to do would be to take them to WP:ANI or another appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

@Editor Toa. Please provide a list of the editors you consider disruptive. I can guess who they are but I would rather have a roster for future reference. I'm sure other new members (and potential members) would also like to know who the culprits are. Plus, some non-member users may feel that consensus may not exist yet, but it's knocking on the door. Buster Seven Talk 01:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

RGloucester, Klein, Bink, Will Beback and TFD have all consistently and persistently attempted to shrink or delete this project. Toa Nidhiki05 01:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing the block logs of those editors, it looks like only one of them has a serious history of disruptive editing. It does seem you are for the most part confusing good faith editing with disruption. It might be a good opportunity for you to reread WP:AGF when you have a moment. aprock (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Toa Nidhiki05 himself has been blocked three times in the past for edit-warring [5]. --Kleinzach 03:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I've been blocked. My last block was in April (of 2011), seven months ago. Why? I wasn't very mature as an editor. Since April, I've focused less on controversial subjects and more on useful editing - I have ten GAs since late October. I've matured and am a better, more proficient editor. I've made mistakes, as any editor has. But my only issue has ever been edit warring, specifically 3RR. It isn't now. Toa Nidhiki05 03:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Then you should have total understanding of how the particulars of a block are lost in the history. All that remains is the stained credibility. The editors you have listed are quality editors that are striving for the same thing you are...a quality project developed for the information distribution to our visitors. They are not here to destroy. They are here to help you, and the project, develope. Your challenge is to not see the gorilla in the closet but to focus on the guests at the dining table. Consensus, at Wikipedia, is not single-mindedness. We are all deserving of good faith, including you. Buster Seven Talk 04:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Define the Scope states WikiProjects have sole and absolute authority to define their scopes. It is reasonable to infer that the strong tone of Define the Scope supercedes Inappropriate Exclusivity. Thus the will of the project members as it relates to the scope takes precedence over "potential members." An editor who self-describes themself as "non-member", i.e. not part of the group, cannot impact a discussion to change the scope. We have to acknowledge and appreciate a "Gesture of non-member support", but at the end of the day we have to recognize that it does not factor in the outcome of a discussion to change the scope.– Lionel (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

New move to close project definition discussion

Option 8 ("Project Conservatism aims to provide coverage to all political and social topics that are either: self-described as "conservative", described as "conservative" by multiple reliable sources in the context of their nation of origin, are commonly-held to be "conservative" in their nation of origin, or are otherwise closely connected to some form of conservatism. While doing this, the project recognizes the diverse interpretations of what the appellation "conservative" may refer to.") was put forward by RGloucester on 16 December [6]. It was the revision of a previous version by Will Beback. (See the whole discussion here.) Those concerned put a lot of thought in the wording of Option 8 and it clearly had, and still has, more support than the alternatives. --Kleinzach 06:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Why conservatism is too ambiguous, and why American conservatism is an outlier that should not dominate....

See this lovely article done by the BBC today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16386176

It proves the point above...American conservatism doesn't make any sense in the rest of the world.... 24.44.136.139 (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This is an opinion piece and not the reporting of news or statement of facts. It has no place here IMHO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect. This is the talk page, a place for opinion....Buster Seven Talk 13:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Uncomfortable with potential bias

I don't want to start hitting a hornets nest but I am quite uncomfortable. It seems that the communicatios director of the Ginrich campaign is directing and shaping the communication into a Wikipedia article about his boss. I appreciate his candor and honesty for being forthright in identifying himself.But there is no way that I can see that he can be the impartial editor required to present ALL sides of the candidate, warts and all. He is duty bound to apply make-up to the warts and turn the facts so the camera (article) captures Newt's best side. That's his job!!!! Going forward this article will become a puff piece and be relatively useless as a source of information for our readers but extremelly useful as a political sales pitch for Mr. Gingrich's campaign. Wikipedia MUST stay impartial...above the fray!!! This is not about politics. Its about building an encyclopedia that ALL the public can trust...Buster Seven Talk 13:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Is any specific editor violating WP:COI? If so, the COI/N board is the place to post it. I fail to see how your post above gives anyone here sufficient information to act, though I am sure those people who are memebers of the group are as interested as anyone is developing NPOV encyclopedia articles. Collect (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
He has not edited the article in over 2 years and editors are free to accept or reject his suggestions on the talk page. I don't see a problem anyway. All editors have viewpoints, it is only a problem if they choose to ignore Wikipedia guidelines. Before posting to COIN, read WP:COI first. There appears to be no violation of the guidelines and if you disagree with the them, then you should discuss changing them. TFD (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Will he always introduce talk page comments with the Introduction that he is the Communications Manager? Is it not possible that the entries he suggests or the input he has in discussions will have a campaign intent rather than an Encyclopedic intent? To me it is a foregone conclusion that he can do nothing but put the election of his candidate at the top of his priority list. Creating a fair article may not be high on that list...I'll take it to WP:COI/N.Buster Seven Talk 17:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Added comment: So this article will have the Communications Manager for the Gingrich Campaign managing communications to the unaware general public and you two don't see a problem with that?...Buster Seven Talk 17:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
If you post you need to explain how WP:COI policy has been broken. As far as I can see, it has not been. TFD (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
If TFD and I agree, you may rest quite assured that WP:COI/N is unlikely to back your concerns. Collect (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
My concerns are just that...my concerns. I don't need WP:COI/N to back them. The issue has been resolved to my satisfaction without your help which was not asked for or desired. The fact that you and Editor TFD agree on anything is a NEW concern but, as you know, I am open to change. In the future please do me the professional courtesy of not being the first to respond to any question I have. Your extreme magnetism and pervasive arguments may influence other editors to forego logic and agree with you. Buster Seven Talk 23:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually it is the province of any editor to post here - and not up to you to say you do not wish such advice. When the advice is the same from TFD and me, I suggest that few would dispute it. And at the COI/N board, the question was whether to award the editor you are concerned about a barnstar for how well he has acted. Cheers -- now go and post more asides about me to other editors on their talk pages <g>. I don't care. Collect (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
1) I asked you not to be the first to respond. I'm sure you can restrain your eagerness that much. 2) I have given Editor de Santos a well deserved barnstar rather than posting an aside.Buster Seven Talk 13:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I post when I see a post I feel merits a response. Asking me to wait for a day or so is absurd. Cheers. And say hi to your favorite editors whom you always post to. Collect (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If anything the editor making the suggestion here, rather than editing the article outright shows a level of maturity and understanding that should be complemented, IMHO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Conservatism/Archive_6&oldid=1142515649"