![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Portal:Conservatism has been promoted to WP:Featured Portal. It is the first WPConservatism content substantially edited by a project member (yours truly) to become Featured. The portal was created in May, 2011. It was first nominated in July, but failed. Someone thought it would be a good idea to delete the portal and it went to MFD in Oct. Just a month later it was again nominated for FP and the second time was the trick. – Lionel ( talk) 10:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The Index of Economic Freedom article needs some updating, particularly under "Ratings", to include a summary of the 2012 findings. I've drafted up a paragraph to add to this section, based on the Associated Press coverage of the Index and the Edwin Feulner op-ed pieces from the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times. As I work for The Heritage Foundation, I potentially have a conflict of interest in making additions to the article, so I'd like to run this by others first. If you think that this paragraph looks ok, I'd be grateful if you'd add it to the article. I'm also introducing myself here as I hope in the future to be a resource to others (where I'm able) and to get advice and assistance. Thanks, Kalkaska sand ( talk) 19:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Here's my draft:
It's hard to see why this article was added to the project, much less why it would deemed to have "high" importance. CLE is opposed to capital punishment and most wars. While it was originated by a Catholic cardinal, its exponents are more liberal than conservative: Eileen Egan, Daniel Berrigan, Philip Berrigan, actress Patricia Heaton, novelist Wendell Berry, the current Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso, activist Jim Wallis and Village Voice columnist Nat Hentoff. The article was tagged without explanation. [1] Will Beback talk 22:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Reading the discussions as to "scope" above, and the project page, I do not see any requirement that all topics be called "conservative" nor any requirement that all topics which are called "conservative" by someone automatically fall into the scope of the project. Using either non-version as some sort of absolute seems contrary to how projects are run on Wikipedia. The only requirement is that the members of the project find the topic to be of "interest" to them and nothing else.
This means that if someone called the "Gnarph Really Evil Party" "conservative" somewhere, there is no need for the members of the project to agree to having it fall into the range of the project. Nor is there a reason to say that the "Gnarph Nice Liberal Party" which is not uniformly called "conservative" can not fall into the area of the project if the members of the project so determine. The discussions to the contrary, the project page and the project members are the determinants of what is, and is not, in the project. Cheers - I hope this makes my opinion on this muddying quite clear. Collect ( talk) 12:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Conservatism will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in conservative history. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch ( talk) 20:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Editors interested in the WikiCup have a couple more weeks to sign up. It's a tremendous opportunity to hone your editing skills, and have a lot of fun too! Members Toa Nidhiki05 and Ruby2010 have signed up. Hopefully they'll enter a few {{ WikiProject Conservatism}} articles in the competition. Good luck to them both! – Lionel ( talk) 01:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Tomorrow is Ronald Reagan Day and considering that this is WikiProjectConservatism it would be great to organize some kind of event to commemorate the holiday. Oh, wait!!! The Conservatism Portal, a newly featured portal, will automatically celebrate the holiday by displaying Reagan-centric content. This is incredible!!! That means we can all watch the Super Bowl and get drunk knowing that back in Wikiland our very own Reagan celebration is taking place! – Lionel ( talk) 03:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about you, but I'm hungry for another bronze star. I checked Timeline of modern American conservatism against the featured list criteria and the timeline is close. Who wants to join me in a collaboration to promote the timeline to FL? – Lionel ( talk) 05:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed this esteemed editor from WPUS is having a total meltdown. I made an attempt to intervene, but things aren't looking good. I think we may be looking at a resignation. Anyway he has this amazing bot. This thing can find your slippers for you, light your pipe and make martinis. Can you imagine what we could do with the bot? We could tag hundreds thousands millions of articles. We could classify all of the BLPs. Add portal links. Assessments. Statistics. YOU NAME IT! If any of you are friends with him maybe you could ask him to let us have it. Afterall, if he resigns, what will he do with a bot? Tell him we promise to take good care of it: we'll feed it and take it for a walk every day. –
Lionel (
talk) 03:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem is this: We conservatives think liberals are silly; they think we're evil.
Now, there are examples of conservatives calling liberals or moderates as evil, often reported by left or left-of-center reporters, however given that there appears (at least to me) to be an effort to scientifically back the position that Conservatives are somehow defective this reminds me of attacks against Jewish persons that they are evil and scientifically less-human that had once occurred openly. There must be room here on Wikipedia for an article or a section regarding this. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
For instance there is an article Anti-communism, perhaps there is sufficient reliable sourced references to write an article Anti-conservatism?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Here is the reverse also to be found in the LA Times:
I don't agree. I don't want to be friends with someone who is a member of the tea party or is a Newt Gingrich Republican. We are not the same. I equate their political views with thoughtlessness, intolerance and narcissism. I think they are not kind or empathetic. And my neighbor made it clear that he does not respect my opinions or me.
-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 00:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#WikiProject_Conservatism. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 01:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that, maybe, it would be beneficial if the project had a few independent sources which clearly outline the intended scope of the project. I know of a reference book/encyclopedia on the American right, although I can't remember the exact title right now, which might be useful in helping to define the scope. But I do think personally that, maybe, the project would work a bit better as a unit of Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Liberalism, particularly given the different usage of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in other countries, like Australia. John Carter ( talk) 20:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Placing WPLiberalism under the umbrella of WPPolitics hasn't done much for WPLib. WPLib has a paltry 442 articles and a mere 9 members. One of them the infamous POV edit warrior/banned user WikiManOne/BelloWello. The project is moribund and the talk page a ghost town. This project on the other hand is growing, vibrant and productive. Over 4000 articles, almost 100 members, a newsletter--The Right Stuff, an incubator, a Featured portal, and a host of other resources, benefits and features--too many to enumerate. The project is nurturing conservatism satellites on Commons and WikiSource. Just as WPLib has received nothing from WPPolitics, the same would be true for WPConservatism. Currently our banner enjoys equal placement with all other projects. Becoming part of WPPolitics would mean our banner would be absorbed and would catastrophically impair our ability to recruit new members. To place WPConservatism under WPPolitics would undoubtedly kill the momentum and retard our ability to grow: it would be be a death sentence for us all. – Lionel ( talk) 22:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
WPConservatism has just reached yet another milestone: with the tagging of Paul Gosar we now have 4000 pages within the project. Gosar is a Republican Member of the US House of Representatives. Keep up the great work! – Lionel ( talk) 21:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Margaret Thatcher, a TOP importance article, was recently delisted as a Good Article in an individual GAR. The delisting was contentious and the article is now undergoing community GAR. The discussion is here: Wikipedia:GAR#Margaret_Thatcher. Your participation is welcome. – Lionel ( talk) 07:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Conservatism Project editors -
I don't know if this falls within your purview, but there have been some disruptive POV edits of late to John Cornyn, and though I have reverted many of them, my sense is that there is still a bias in the article and that to some degree at least Cornyn is not being fairly or completely represented. For example, the article attempts to juxtapose Cornyn's support for the Bush tax cuts against his opposition to the extension of the payroll tax hiatus. My reversions have attempted to remove the WP:OR bit about this indicating a "catering" to the wealthy and a disregard for the middle class. However - the why of Cornyn's positions on those issues, preferably in his own words, strikes me as important in understanding them - and ditto that for lots of other stuff in the article.
The fact is that, as a liberal progressive who dislikes Cornyn and his policies, I would have a tough time finding really good sources to present an adequate picture of the senator, his positions, and his political thinking. But while I may not like Cornyn, I really despise political axe-grinding disguised in an encyclopedia article as fact. Any help from responsible conservatism project editors would be appreciated. And if you know of any good admins...we may need to invoke some help from one to adjudicate some of this. regards, Sensei48 ( talk) 10:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I recently WP:SPLIT off the Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy article from Sandra Fluke (which is at AfD).
I also created Contraceptive mandates, which was instantly marked for speedy deletion but survived somehow.
My article on the Democratic narrative War on Women is also at AfD.
Would anyone like to work on these with me, or create a Conscience protection article? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 01:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I work for Heritage, and I've recently made two requests to add new information to The Heritage Foundation article that I'd prefer not to add myself. Since it seems like the Talk page there isn't being watched and my request edit templates haven't brought any response, I was hoping that someone here would be able to take a look. The two requests are regarding the November GOP debate on foreign policy and Heritage's blog and social media presence. Also, I am new to Wikipedia and new to this WikiProject, but I would like to help in other ways. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help improve conservatism-related articles on Wikipedia! Thanks, Kalkaska sand ( talk) 21:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I am proposing that the article Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy be checked against WP:BLP & WP:NPOV. Please see the discussion I have started here. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 02:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
A single editor appears to be editing the BLP to increase the weight of controversy sections increasing a negative POV of the subject. This is not keeping with WP:CRIT; additionally the edits have added unnecessary multiple or lengthy quotes, which is not keeping with WP:QUOTEFARM. Assistance and additional opinions are requested, as the editor is not responding significantly on the talk page. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 00:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I attempted to assess the 9-9-9 Plan article, and it looks right, but it didn't show up here under the assessment log, so I was wondering if I did it correctly. Thanks for your help. Light-jet pilot ( talk) 03:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I've built a bot to help out with odd jobs around the project. Check it out here: LioneltBot. (When you see its capabilities you'll see why it's probably best that we don't tell the anti-conservatism editors about this.) – Lionel ( talk) 23:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
For a free HighBeam account go here: [2]. You're welcome. – Lionel ( talk) 07:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
It is requested that a member review the following Good article nominee:
Page:
Krista Branch (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Nominator:
User:The Devil's Advocate
Comments:
Anyone willing to take this up?--
The Devil's Advocate (
talk) 23:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
A couple of weeks ago, I added a new section to The Path to Prosperity, providing a few details about Ryan's budget proposal for 2013, titled The Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal. At the same time, I drafted a short paragraph to add some commentary from The Heritage Foundation and the Center for American Progress (for a balance of viewpoints). As I've mentioned in requests here before, I work for Heritage and rather than directly adding anything that cites to Heritage I'd prefer to run it by other editors first. On that basis, I made an edit request on the Talk page there, but it doesn't look like anyone has been able to review my material just yet. I'd be grateful if an editor from this WikiProject could take a look, and add the information if they think it looks ok.
This is also a good opportunity to mention that while I've made some updates to the Path to Prosperity article, I think more may need doing to include information on the 2013 proposal and generally bring the article up to date. Would any editors here be interested in helping with this process? Thanks, Kalkaska sand ( talk) 19:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Yahoo! News did an analysis of the editing of 4 GOP presidential candidates and NYyankees51 made the article! Read full the article here: "The Republican primary, as told by Wikipedia edits". – Lionel ( talk) 23:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Wasted Time R has nominated Mitt Romney for FA. Add your evaluation here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mitt Romney/archive1. – Lionel ( talk) 05:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to help improve the content of Heritage Foundation president Edwin Feulner's article and have placed a request on the article's Talk page to suggest some changes, including adding some citations. Some of the edits I've suggested have been made by an editor who was working on the article, but not all, and there's been no reply to my edit request on the Talk page. As I've noted here before, I work for Heritage, so I'd have a conflict of interest in editing the article myself. Could anyone here take a look and add the other citations I provided? Thanks, Kalkaska sand ( talk) 21:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Specifically, Talk:List of Tea Party politicians#Post-AfD clarification and possible slimming down. Input would be much appreciated. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 14:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
It is requested that a member review the following Good article nominee:
Page:
Scottish Conservative Party leadership election, 2011 (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Nominator:
Mwhite148
Comments:
It is requested that a member review the following Good article nominee:
Page:
The Broken Compass: How British Politics Lost its Way (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Nominator:
Jprw
Comments:
It is requested that members participate in a Peer Review of the following article:
Page:
Krista Branch (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Nominator:
User:The Devil's Advocate
Comments:
I have nominated Read my lips: no new taxes for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Peter Talk page 17:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
On the Bush tax cuts article I've suggested a new section and it would be helpful if members of this WikiProject could provide their input. The addition I've written includes discussion of the news coverage and ongoing debate surrounding what has become known as "Taxmageddon", and I believe this may be of interest to editors here. I haven't added it into the article yet because a source I've used is from The Heritage Foundation, where I work, so I would prefer to have some feedback, if possible. Thanks! Thurmant ( talk) 19:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Krista Branch has been up for GA for over 3 months and urgently needs a reviewer. She is known for "I am America" which is the anthem of the TEA Party. Do you need any more motivation than that? If anyone has GA experience please click here: Talk:Krista Branch/GA1. Let's git er done! – Lionel ( talk) 07:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi folks. List of Tea Party politicians comfortably survived AfD in May, but it has been nominated again. You may want to comment on the AfD and/or work on the article itself. Best, BDD ( talk) 21:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I propose that we change our logo from Edmund Burke to the most ferrocious and tenacious animal on the planet, he's ruthless and determined and always gets his way, usually, I give you... the honey badger. LMFAO. – Lionel ( talk) 08:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
An editor is changing the ledes of pro-family/pro-life articles from " social conservative" to " traditional values." I've reverted where the new sentence is ungrammatical, but left the others for the time being. IMO the "social conservatism" article is the better wikilink because it best describes the orgs & people at issue. Other thoughts? – Lionel ( talk) 10:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. I think this is a valuable project, but I do have one concern which I've seen a few times, which is the extension of 'conservatism' to countries with political systems very different from those in America and Europe. For example, I've seen political groups in Russia tagged as part of WikiProject Conservatism - but who are the 'conservatives' in modern Russia? Those who want to restore the Soviet Union? Supporters of Putin's government? Those who support right-wing politics in general? It's not obviously clear. Likewise, in countries like Egypt or Iran - does 'conservatism' refer to supporters of the old regime, or religious conservatives, or what? Taiwanese politics is based around the division between closer and further relations with China - who are the 'conservatives' there?
All I'm asking for a little restraint in tagging people and groups as part of this project. Not every country has a political system like that of the United States, and not every political system has a faction that corresponds to what we think of as 'conservatism'. I'm not saying this template can't be used to tag groups outside of the US and Europe, but think carefully before you do. Robofish ( talk) 15:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a really cool list with lots of cool info about Reagan. Did you know "Throughout his film career, his mother often answered much of his fan mail"? You can help get this to Featured List by clicking here. – Lionel ( talk) 10:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I work on Bob Corker's campaign and I'm looking for help in improving weaker areas of his Wikipedia article. Currently there is little information about his tenure as Mayor of Chattanooga. I have proposed a few paragraphs on the article's discussion page that I think could work in the article under the heading about his mayorship. Here is the link to that request: Talk:Bob_Corker#Information_to_add_to_Mayor_of_Chattanooga Since there have not been any replies yet I've come here to see if anyone can help. Please see my message on the discussion page for more details. Thanks. Mark from tn ( talk) 17:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:List of Tea Party politicians#List needs scrubbing that could do with broader input. Thanks in advance! – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 23:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Barack Obama#.
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk) 20:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The quest for getting Wikipedia editors the sources they need for articles related to conservatism and other subjects is gaining momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for right now:
In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the next-generation idea to create a central Wikipedia Library where approved editors would have access to all participating resource donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea, add your feedback to the Community Fellowship proposal to start developing the project. Drop by the talk page of User:Ocaasi, who is overseeing these projects, if you have any questions.-- JayJasper ( talk) 17:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Contrary to the overwhelming consensus of the members of this wikiproject, it is the right wingers who are running this sanitarium, according to Marc McDonald. He writes, "Increasingly over the years, literally thousands of Wikipedia’s political articles have gradually and quietly been given a right-wing spin" and explains "the right-wing “contributors” are ferociously tenacious. They will go in and sanitize and slant an article over and over until it reads the way they want it to. These people are well-organized, ruthless and determined and they usually eventually get their way, via sheer blunt force." For evidence he offers the "sanitized" George Bush and what he describes as extremely unflattering Bill Clinton article. IMO Mr. McDonald should be blocked for fostering a WP:Battleground mentality. McDonald's ridiculous and irrational "analysis" makes fascinating reading. But the piece de resistance comes by way of the first post in the Reader Comments section (emph. mine):
You don't know the half of it. The editors at WikiProject Conservatism have teamed up with the exiles and wikihaters at Wikipediocracy to oust administrators they think are too liberal. There's an ongoing effort to purge Wikipedia of liberal editors and entrap them in time consuming arbitration processes. This, along with off-site coordination of editors paid through advocacy groups like the Susan B. Anthony List has been steadily eroding Wikipedia's ability to remain an impartial resource. --Scarb
My jaw dropped in disbelief when I read that. Maybe he should've interviewed LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, or NYYankees, or Haymaker, or any of the dozen other editors banned in the Abortion arbom case. Ironic to be sure. I'll paraphrase our VP and leave you with this 3-letter word: LMFAO. –
Lionel (
talk) 08:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
PS: WTF is "Wikipediocracy?"
Can anyone confirm that the US lost 500,000 private sector jobs under Bush? Should this be added to the encyclopedia article on the Bush admin? Viriditas ( talk) 03:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Where can I find the members list? Thanks in advance, ``` Buster Seven Talk 02:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
You can find it in the about us tab or simply click here be sure to scroll down to find the list it is right under the Right stuff newspaper, I hope this means your joining we love new members John D. Rockerduck ( talk) 02:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
You can find it here; evidently this user decided he wanted to file an RfC about this Project. He must have neglected to read the 'Before requesting comment' section of the Requests for Comment page, where it notes:
Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the talk page first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to the other parties involved".
Accordingly, I doubt this will be taken seriously, but project members may be interested in watching it. Toa Nidhiki05 14:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Duly noted, thank you. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
God forbid an editor create a scratch page to work on a sincere RfC after being hounded, WP:HARASSed, and Wikistalked by members of your little POV-pushing clique. He's under no obligation to notify you till it's filed. You've harassed so many editors it's a wonder nobody has filed one sooner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.86.32 ( talk) 02:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC) |
Actually, I do believe that, prior to actually filing the RFC, we should talk about it here to see if the filing can be avoided. However, we're still putting it together, so we don't have anything concrete to talk about. I do want to say that, contrary to what Toa suggests, this is an RFC about this organization, not its members. It is not our goal to shut down the project or to penalize its members. Rather, we would like the project to comply with the greater goals of Wikipedia through organization changes. StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 02:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I did notice the hatting. It's not exactly nice of you. StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 02:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Toa Nidhiki05, you are wrong. As the RFC states, we have discussed this for six-years with no change in behavior by this project. Furthermore, it was recommended on ANI in February that the next step is an RFC. Viriditas ( talk) 03:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, the project has actively added project tags to articles for the purposes of inserting a conservative talking point, reaction, or POV. According to the project, conceivably every article on Wikipedia could be tagged under the aegis of WikiProject Conservatism provided that at least one conservative somewhere on planet Earth has an opinion about it.
Holly cow! I Just read this WikiProject_Conservatism#.22How_right-wingers_took_over_Wikipedia.22 and I am shocked at the animosity. Can't people just get along? Or is it that real world conflicts are not different in Wikipedia? Cwobeel ( talk) 22:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Input is needed at an RfC regarding tea party: Talk:List_of_Tea_Party_politicians#RfC:_What_is_criterion_for_inclusion_in_this_list.3F. -- Noleander ( talk) 18:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
In light of this discussion, I'd like anyone who knows anything about the existence of this alleged WikiProject Conservatism IRC channel to share it publicly. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 07:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Just to be clear, it appears that the IP making the accusations was SkepticAnonymous and that the claims were false. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 20:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Portal:Conservatism has been promoted to WP:Featured Portal. It is the first WPConservatism content substantially edited by a project member (yours truly) to become Featured. The portal was created in May, 2011. It was first nominated in July, but failed. Someone thought it would be a good idea to delete the portal and it went to MFD in Oct. Just a month later it was again nominated for FP and the second time was the trick. – Lionel ( talk) 10:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The Index of Economic Freedom article needs some updating, particularly under "Ratings", to include a summary of the 2012 findings. I've drafted up a paragraph to add to this section, based on the Associated Press coverage of the Index and the Edwin Feulner op-ed pieces from the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times. As I work for The Heritage Foundation, I potentially have a conflict of interest in making additions to the article, so I'd like to run this by others first. If you think that this paragraph looks ok, I'd be grateful if you'd add it to the article. I'm also introducing myself here as I hope in the future to be a resource to others (where I'm able) and to get advice and assistance. Thanks, Kalkaska sand ( talk) 19:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Here's my draft:
It's hard to see why this article was added to the project, much less why it would deemed to have "high" importance. CLE is opposed to capital punishment and most wars. While it was originated by a Catholic cardinal, its exponents are more liberal than conservative: Eileen Egan, Daniel Berrigan, Philip Berrigan, actress Patricia Heaton, novelist Wendell Berry, the current Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso, activist Jim Wallis and Village Voice columnist Nat Hentoff. The article was tagged without explanation. [1] Will Beback talk 22:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Reading the discussions as to "scope" above, and the project page, I do not see any requirement that all topics be called "conservative" nor any requirement that all topics which are called "conservative" by someone automatically fall into the scope of the project. Using either non-version as some sort of absolute seems contrary to how projects are run on Wikipedia. The only requirement is that the members of the project find the topic to be of "interest" to them and nothing else.
This means that if someone called the "Gnarph Really Evil Party" "conservative" somewhere, there is no need for the members of the project to agree to having it fall into the range of the project. Nor is there a reason to say that the "Gnarph Nice Liberal Party" which is not uniformly called "conservative" can not fall into the area of the project if the members of the project so determine. The discussions to the contrary, the project page and the project members are the determinants of what is, and is not, in the project. Cheers - I hope this makes my opinion on this muddying quite clear. Collect ( talk) 12:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Conservatism will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in conservative history. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch ( talk) 20:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Editors interested in the WikiCup have a couple more weeks to sign up. It's a tremendous opportunity to hone your editing skills, and have a lot of fun too! Members Toa Nidhiki05 and Ruby2010 have signed up. Hopefully they'll enter a few {{ WikiProject Conservatism}} articles in the competition. Good luck to them both! – Lionel ( talk) 01:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Tomorrow is Ronald Reagan Day and considering that this is WikiProjectConservatism it would be great to organize some kind of event to commemorate the holiday. Oh, wait!!! The Conservatism Portal, a newly featured portal, will automatically celebrate the holiday by displaying Reagan-centric content. This is incredible!!! That means we can all watch the Super Bowl and get drunk knowing that back in Wikiland our very own Reagan celebration is taking place! – Lionel ( talk) 03:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about you, but I'm hungry for another bronze star. I checked Timeline of modern American conservatism against the featured list criteria and the timeline is close. Who wants to join me in a collaboration to promote the timeline to FL? – Lionel ( talk) 05:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed this esteemed editor from WPUS is having a total meltdown. I made an attempt to intervene, but things aren't looking good. I think we may be looking at a resignation. Anyway he has this amazing bot. This thing can find your slippers for you, light your pipe and make martinis. Can you imagine what we could do with the bot? We could tag hundreds thousands millions of articles. We could classify all of the BLPs. Add portal links. Assessments. Statistics. YOU NAME IT! If any of you are friends with him maybe you could ask him to let us have it. Afterall, if he resigns, what will he do with a bot? Tell him we promise to take good care of it: we'll feed it and take it for a walk every day. –
Lionel (
talk) 03:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem is this: We conservatives think liberals are silly; they think we're evil.
Now, there are examples of conservatives calling liberals or moderates as evil, often reported by left or left-of-center reporters, however given that there appears (at least to me) to be an effort to scientifically back the position that Conservatives are somehow defective this reminds me of attacks against Jewish persons that they are evil and scientifically less-human that had once occurred openly. There must be room here on Wikipedia for an article or a section regarding this. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
For instance there is an article Anti-communism, perhaps there is sufficient reliable sourced references to write an article Anti-conservatism?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Here is the reverse also to be found in the LA Times:
I don't agree. I don't want to be friends with someone who is a member of the tea party or is a Newt Gingrich Republican. We are not the same. I equate their political views with thoughtlessness, intolerance and narcissism. I think they are not kind or empathetic. And my neighbor made it clear that he does not respect my opinions or me.
-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 00:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#WikiProject_Conservatism. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 01:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that, maybe, it would be beneficial if the project had a few independent sources which clearly outline the intended scope of the project. I know of a reference book/encyclopedia on the American right, although I can't remember the exact title right now, which might be useful in helping to define the scope. But I do think personally that, maybe, the project would work a bit better as a unit of Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Liberalism, particularly given the different usage of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in other countries, like Australia. John Carter ( talk) 20:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Placing WPLiberalism under the umbrella of WPPolitics hasn't done much for WPLib. WPLib has a paltry 442 articles and a mere 9 members. One of them the infamous POV edit warrior/banned user WikiManOne/BelloWello. The project is moribund and the talk page a ghost town. This project on the other hand is growing, vibrant and productive. Over 4000 articles, almost 100 members, a newsletter--The Right Stuff, an incubator, a Featured portal, and a host of other resources, benefits and features--too many to enumerate. The project is nurturing conservatism satellites on Commons and WikiSource. Just as WPLib has received nothing from WPPolitics, the same would be true for WPConservatism. Currently our banner enjoys equal placement with all other projects. Becoming part of WPPolitics would mean our banner would be absorbed and would catastrophically impair our ability to recruit new members. To place WPConservatism under WPPolitics would undoubtedly kill the momentum and retard our ability to grow: it would be be a death sentence for us all. – Lionel ( talk) 22:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
WPConservatism has just reached yet another milestone: with the tagging of Paul Gosar we now have 4000 pages within the project. Gosar is a Republican Member of the US House of Representatives. Keep up the great work! – Lionel ( talk) 21:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Margaret Thatcher, a TOP importance article, was recently delisted as a Good Article in an individual GAR. The delisting was contentious and the article is now undergoing community GAR. The discussion is here: Wikipedia:GAR#Margaret_Thatcher. Your participation is welcome. – Lionel ( talk) 07:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Conservatism Project editors -
I don't know if this falls within your purview, but there have been some disruptive POV edits of late to John Cornyn, and though I have reverted many of them, my sense is that there is still a bias in the article and that to some degree at least Cornyn is not being fairly or completely represented. For example, the article attempts to juxtapose Cornyn's support for the Bush tax cuts against his opposition to the extension of the payroll tax hiatus. My reversions have attempted to remove the WP:OR bit about this indicating a "catering" to the wealthy and a disregard for the middle class. However - the why of Cornyn's positions on those issues, preferably in his own words, strikes me as important in understanding them - and ditto that for lots of other stuff in the article.
The fact is that, as a liberal progressive who dislikes Cornyn and his policies, I would have a tough time finding really good sources to present an adequate picture of the senator, his positions, and his political thinking. But while I may not like Cornyn, I really despise political axe-grinding disguised in an encyclopedia article as fact. Any help from responsible conservatism project editors would be appreciated. And if you know of any good admins...we may need to invoke some help from one to adjudicate some of this. regards, Sensei48 ( talk) 10:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I recently WP:SPLIT off the Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy article from Sandra Fluke (which is at AfD).
I also created Contraceptive mandates, which was instantly marked for speedy deletion but survived somehow.
My article on the Democratic narrative War on Women is also at AfD.
Would anyone like to work on these with me, or create a Conscience protection article? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 01:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I work for Heritage, and I've recently made two requests to add new information to The Heritage Foundation article that I'd prefer not to add myself. Since it seems like the Talk page there isn't being watched and my request edit templates haven't brought any response, I was hoping that someone here would be able to take a look. The two requests are regarding the November GOP debate on foreign policy and Heritage's blog and social media presence. Also, I am new to Wikipedia and new to this WikiProject, but I would like to help in other ways. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help improve conservatism-related articles on Wikipedia! Thanks, Kalkaska sand ( talk) 21:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I am proposing that the article Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy be checked against WP:BLP & WP:NPOV. Please see the discussion I have started here. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 02:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
A single editor appears to be editing the BLP to increase the weight of controversy sections increasing a negative POV of the subject. This is not keeping with WP:CRIT; additionally the edits have added unnecessary multiple or lengthy quotes, which is not keeping with WP:QUOTEFARM. Assistance and additional opinions are requested, as the editor is not responding significantly on the talk page. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 00:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I attempted to assess the 9-9-9 Plan article, and it looks right, but it didn't show up here under the assessment log, so I was wondering if I did it correctly. Thanks for your help. Light-jet pilot ( talk) 03:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I've built a bot to help out with odd jobs around the project. Check it out here: LioneltBot. (When you see its capabilities you'll see why it's probably best that we don't tell the anti-conservatism editors about this.) – Lionel ( talk) 23:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
For a free HighBeam account go here: [2]. You're welcome. – Lionel ( talk) 07:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
It is requested that a member review the following Good article nominee:
Page:
Krista Branch (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Nominator:
User:The Devil's Advocate
Comments:
Anyone willing to take this up?--
The Devil's Advocate (
talk) 23:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
A couple of weeks ago, I added a new section to The Path to Prosperity, providing a few details about Ryan's budget proposal for 2013, titled The Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal. At the same time, I drafted a short paragraph to add some commentary from The Heritage Foundation and the Center for American Progress (for a balance of viewpoints). As I've mentioned in requests here before, I work for Heritage and rather than directly adding anything that cites to Heritage I'd prefer to run it by other editors first. On that basis, I made an edit request on the Talk page there, but it doesn't look like anyone has been able to review my material just yet. I'd be grateful if an editor from this WikiProject could take a look, and add the information if they think it looks ok.
This is also a good opportunity to mention that while I've made some updates to the Path to Prosperity article, I think more may need doing to include information on the 2013 proposal and generally bring the article up to date. Would any editors here be interested in helping with this process? Thanks, Kalkaska sand ( talk) 19:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Yahoo! News did an analysis of the editing of 4 GOP presidential candidates and NYyankees51 made the article! Read full the article here: "The Republican primary, as told by Wikipedia edits". – Lionel ( talk) 23:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Wasted Time R has nominated Mitt Romney for FA. Add your evaluation here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mitt Romney/archive1. – Lionel ( talk) 05:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to help improve the content of Heritage Foundation president Edwin Feulner's article and have placed a request on the article's Talk page to suggest some changes, including adding some citations. Some of the edits I've suggested have been made by an editor who was working on the article, but not all, and there's been no reply to my edit request on the Talk page. As I've noted here before, I work for Heritage, so I'd have a conflict of interest in editing the article myself. Could anyone here take a look and add the other citations I provided? Thanks, Kalkaska sand ( talk) 21:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Specifically, Talk:List of Tea Party politicians#Post-AfD clarification and possible slimming down. Input would be much appreciated. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 14:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
It is requested that a member review the following Good article nominee:
Page:
Scottish Conservative Party leadership election, 2011 (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Nominator:
Mwhite148
Comments:
It is requested that a member review the following Good article nominee:
Page:
The Broken Compass: How British Politics Lost its Way (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Nominator:
Jprw
Comments:
It is requested that members participate in a Peer Review of the following article:
Page:
Krista Branch (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Nominator:
User:The Devil's Advocate
Comments:
I have nominated Read my lips: no new taxes for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Peter Talk page 17:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
On the Bush tax cuts article I've suggested a new section and it would be helpful if members of this WikiProject could provide their input. The addition I've written includes discussion of the news coverage and ongoing debate surrounding what has become known as "Taxmageddon", and I believe this may be of interest to editors here. I haven't added it into the article yet because a source I've used is from The Heritage Foundation, where I work, so I would prefer to have some feedback, if possible. Thanks! Thurmant ( talk) 19:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Krista Branch has been up for GA for over 3 months and urgently needs a reviewer. She is known for "I am America" which is the anthem of the TEA Party. Do you need any more motivation than that? If anyone has GA experience please click here: Talk:Krista Branch/GA1. Let's git er done! – Lionel ( talk) 07:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi folks. List of Tea Party politicians comfortably survived AfD in May, but it has been nominated again. You may want to comment on the AfD and/or work on the article itself. Best, BDD ( talk) 21:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I propose that we change our logo from Edmund Burke to the most ferrocious and tenacious animal on the planet, he's ruthless and determined and always gets his way, usually, I give you... the honey badger. LMFAO. – Lionel ( talk) 08:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
An editor is changing the ledes of pro-family/pro-life articles from " social conservative" to " traditional values." I've reverted where the new sentence is ungrammatical, but left the others for the time being. IMO the "social conservatism" article is the better wikilink because it best describes the orgs & people at issue. Other thoughts? – Lionel ( talk) 10:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. I think this is a valuable project, but I do have one concern which I've seen a few times, which is the extension of 'conservatism' to countries with political systems very different from those in America and Europe. For example, I've seen political groups in Russia tagged as part of WikiProject Conservatism - but who are the 'conservatives' in modern Russia? Those who want to restore the Soviet Union? Supporters of Putin's government? Those who support right-wing politics in general? It's not obviously clear. Likewise, in countries like Egypt or Iran - does 'conservatism' refer to supporters of the old regime, or religious conservatives, or what? Taiwanese politics is based around the division between closer and further relations with China - who are the 'conservatives' there?
All I'm asking for a little restraint in tagging people and groups as part of this project. Not every country has a political system like that of the United States, and not every political system has a faction that corresponds to what we think of as 'conservatism'. I'm not saying this template can't be used to tag groups outside of the US and Europe, but think carefully before you do. Robofish ( talk) 15:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a really cool list with lots of cool info about Reagan. Did you know "Throughout his film career, his mother often answered much of his fan mail"? You can help get this to Featured List by clicking here. – Lionel ( talk) 10:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I work on Bob Corker's campaign and I'm looking for help in improving weaker areas of his Wikipedia article. Currently there is little information about his tenure as Mayor of Chattanooga. I have proposed a few paragraphs on the article's discussion page that I think could work in the article under the heading about his mayorship. Here is the link to that request: Talk:Bob_Corker#Information_to_add_to_Mayor_of_Chattanooga Since there have not been any replies yet I've come here to see if anyone can help. Please see my message on the discussion page for more details. Thanks. Mark from tn ( talk) 17:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:List of Tea Party politicians#List needs scrubbing that could do with broader input. Thanks in advance! – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 23:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Barack Obama#.
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk) 20:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The quest for getting Wikipedia editors the sources they need for articles related to conservatism and other subjects is gaining momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for right now:
In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the next-generation idea to create a central Wikipedia Library where approved editors would have access to all participating resource donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea, add your feedback to the Community Fellowship proposal to start developing the project. Drop by the talk page of User:Ocaasi, who is overseeing these projects, if you have any questions.-- JayJasper ( talk) 17:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Contrary to the overwhelming consensus of the members of this wikiproject, it is the right wingers who are running this sanitarium, according to Marc McDonald. He writes, "Increasingly over the years, literally thousands of Wikipedia’s political articles have gradually and quietly been given a right-wing spin" and explains "the right-wing “contributors” are ferociously tenacious. They will go in and sanitize and slant an article over and over until it reads the way they want it to. These people are well-organized, ruthless and determined and they usually eventually get their way, via sheer blunt force." For evidence he offers the "sanitized" George Bush and what he describes as extremely unflattering Bill Clinton article. IMO Mr. McDonald should be blocked for fostering a WP:Battleground mentality. McDonald's ridiculous and irrational "analysis" makes fascinating reading. But the piece de resistance comes by way of the first post in the Reader Comments section (emph. mine):
You don't know the half of it. The editors at WikiProject Conservatism have teamed up with the exiles and wikihaters at Wikipediocracy to oust administrators they think are too liberal. There's an ongoing effort to purge Wikipedia of liberal editors and entrap them in time consuming arbitration processes. This, along with off-site coordination of editors paid through advocacy groups like the Susan B. Anthony List has been steadily eroding Wikipedia's ability to remain an impartial resource. --Scarb
My jaw dropped in disbelief when I read that. Maybe he should've interviewed LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, or NYYankees, or Haymaker, or any of the dozen other editors banned in the Abortion arbom case. Ironic to be sure. I'll paraphrase our VP and leave you with this 3-letter word: LMFAO. –
Lionel (
talk) 08:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
PS: WTF is "Wikipediocracy?"
Can anyone confirm that the US lost 500,000 private sector jobs under Bush? Should this be added to the encyclopedia article on the Bush admin? Viriditas ( talk) 03:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Where can I find the members list? Thanks in advance, ``` Buster Seven Talk 02:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
You can find it in the about us tab or simply click here be sure to scroll down to find the list it is right under the Right stuff newspaper, I hope this means your joining we love new members John D. Rockerduck ( talk) 02:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
You can find it here; evidently this user decided he wanted to file an RfC about this Project. He must have neglected to read the 'Before requesting comment' section of the Requests for Comment page, where it notes:
Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the talk page first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to the other parties involved".
Accordingly, I doubt this will be taken seriously, but project members may be interested in watching it. Toa Nidhiki05 14:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Duly noted, thank you. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
God forbid an editor create a scratch page to work on a sincere RfC after being hounded, WP:HARASSed, and Wikistalked by members of your little POV-pushing clique. He's under no obligation to notify you till it's filed. You've harassed so many editors it's a wonder nobody has filed one sooner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.86.32 ( talk) 02:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC) |
Actually, I do believe that, prior to actually filing the RFC, we should talk about it here to see if the filing can be avoided. However, we're still putting it together, so we don't have anything concrete to talk about. I do want to say that, contrary to what Toa suggests, this is an RFC about this organization, not its members. It is not our goal to shut down the project or to penalize its members. Rather, we would like the project to comply with the greater goals of Wikipedia through organization changes. StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 02:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I did notice the hatting. It's not exactly nice of you. StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 02:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Toa Nidhiki05, you are wrong. As the RFC states, we have discussed this for six-years with no change in behavior by this project. Furthermore, it was recommended on ANI in February that the next step is an RFC. Viriditas ( talk) 03:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, the project has actively added project tags to articles for the purposes of inserting a conservative talking point, reaction, or POV. According to the project, conceivably every article on Wikipedia could be tagged under the aegis of WikiProject Conservatism provided that at least one conservative somewhere on planet Earth has an opinion about it.
Holly cow! I Just read this WikiProject_Conservatism#.22How_right-wingers_took_over_Wikipedia.22 and I am shocked at the animosity. Can't people just get along? Or is it that real world conflicts are not different in Wikipedia? Cwobeel ( talk) 22:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Input is needed at an RfC regarding tea party: Talk:List_of_Tea_Party_politicians#RfC:_What_is_criterion_for_inclusion_in_this_list.3F. -- Noleander ( talk) 18:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
In light of this discussion, I'd like anyone who knows anything about the existence of this alleged WikiProject Conservatism IRC channel to share it publicly. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 07:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Just to be clear, it appears that the IP making the accusations was SkepticAnonymous and that the claims were false. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 20:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)