Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Why these two?

Why have the John McCain and Nancy Reagan articles been put under this project? Both are more known for being viewed with suspicion and distrust by conservatives than actually being conservatives. Is this an attempt to bolster the project's FA count? Just wondering ... Wasted Time R (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

McCain held some conservative position in the past and tried to declare them in Republican primaries of United States Senate election in Arizona, 2010. --Dezidor (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
That is a great question. I was the one who tagged those articles, and wondered the same thing myself. The Republican Party is the largest conservative party in the U.S. Generally, Republican issues and personalities fall under the project's scope. Nancy's appropriateness for the project is debateable. This is reflected in the importance assessment of "Mid" importance. Are there any good reasons why she should be "Low" importance, or not in the project at all? Lionel (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The relationship between Republicans and conservatives is a little more complicated than that, and has varied considerably over time. One approach would be to focus on those Republicans who have played a significant role in shaping the direction of American conservatism. McCain isn't one of them. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that McCain's bio should not fall under the scope of this project, however, I would argue that his 2008 presidential campaign was conservative in substance similar to the Presidency of Bill Clinton.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing politics

The recent changes & alerts tools are great. I noticed a RfC on Right wing politics, and went over and put my 2¢ in. Well, maybe more like $2! Anyway, there's a discussion currently underway concerning changes to the lede. Lionel (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Con

There is currently a discussion underway to surrender the shortcut WP:CON in favor of WP:CNSV. Lionel (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Benjiboi attacks Conservatism

Thanks to the quick work of Jclemons, a sockpuppet attack by Benjiboi has been stopped dead in it's tracks. Benjiboi is/was a prolific anti-Conservatism/LGBT/porn editor with over 50,000 edits. He attacked our shortcut WP:RIGHT and removed invitations to join the project. There is currently a range-block on San Francisco, but I have no doubt he'll be back. Lionel (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Prolithic? He is in favor of stones? Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of Rick Santorum on BLPN

There is currently a discussion about Rick Santorum on the BLPN. Drrll (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Americans Against Hate (Stephen Marks)

This Conservatism-related article is up for deletion. I've tagged it rescue. Lionel (talk) 07:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Bot article tagging

I propose using the Xenobot to tag articles for the project. These seem to be logical cats to start with:

Comments? Lionel (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Those categories are decidedly neocon. I would hope that this project would emphasize Category:Paleoconservatism and the Old Right. Also, please see Classical liberalism (which should also fall under the scope of this project).--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Those cats were picked as a starting point. Paleo & class lib are definitely within the scope. I'm adding the paleo cat, and feel free to suggest more cats to submit to the bot. Lionel (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
More cats for the bot, let me know if any problems...
  • FYI it was also requested to auto-assess the articles based on the Xenobot's default logic. This task should run shortly, barring any objections. –xenotalk 13:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What is the scope of this project?

Should it cover all conservative legislators and laws? Because Wikipedia has many, many articles on state legislators like our friend Bobby Franklin - should all of those be tagged? (Is it generally only WikiProject members who tag things for projects? Or do uninvolved parties usually do so as well?) Likewise Protect Life Act, which I created - it's certainly a conservative topic, are y'all thinking laws will be within the scope of the project? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey R! Thanks for stopping by. That is a great question. I've been thinking a lot about that lately, especially in light of "Why these two?" above. Well, we're just getting setup over here, so a formal scope hasn't been ironed-out yet. I think I'm safe in saying that the Conservatism article is our Bible. I think a good scope would cover center-right, stopping just short of far-right/fascism. In general, the project covers anything that aids in understanding conservatism, including laws, politicians, orgs, books, pics, maps. Anyone can put our {{WikiProject Conservatism|class=}} banner on an article. If the article isn't a good fit for us, don't worry we'll fix it later. We'd really appreciate any help you can provide, thanks!!! Lionel (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll try to remember to add tags on particularly conservative things I come across, then. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Mark Steyn

There is a dispute over whether Mark Steyn is a human rights activist or whether he just calls himself one. Editors may wish to comment on the dispute here: Talk:Mark Steyn.

(I tried, but could not figure out how to put this on the project page.)

μηδείς (talk) 06:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This is where you post these items, and thanks! Don't forget to put {{WikiProject Conservatism}} on talk pages of articles you visit. That way if this escalates to RfC we'll know about. Thanks again! Lionel (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I will keep that template in mind.
At this point, Steyn is being compared to neo-Nazis on the talk page, and the same people who are arguing that Steyn is not a rights activist are removing references that call him just that. Are there any other wikiprojects or pages where this dispute would be noteworthy? μηδείς (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
This is the best Wikiproject for this issue, unfortunately we are relatively new and just getting up to speed. However, you might try Politics. Regarding Steyn, there seems to be about an even split over the activist issue. A better source would resolve this. Btw I don't see the RfC that you listed. Lionel (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Getting more eyes on an ongoing RfC under this project's scope

Heh, I'm not sure how much this will do as a disproportionate number of members of WP:RIGHT are already editors at the article in question, but let's see.

Replies to an ongoing RfC at Talk:Crisis pregnancy center have been sparser than might be helpful. We're trying to decide whether, based on our sources' description of CPCs' religious affiliation, personnel, and behavior (detailed in a paragraph in the article for your easy consumption) it is best to describe them as "Christian," "run by Christians" (one user had also suggested "conservative Christians" but that is probably a point that can be worked out if this option is selected), or "affiliated with a Christian organization." Thanks!

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Still getting setup over here. Going to have a huge membership drive soon--maybe some more editors for the RfC. Thanks for stopping by! Lionel (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Hopefully the newbies will check the talk page for outstanding questions. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Mitt Romney GA

Congrats to user:Wasted Time R for promoting Mitt Romney to GA! Really a great save. Check out the GA1 review for details. Rumors are circulating that there is a FA in Mitt's future. We'll be watching... And honorable mention goes to user:Anythingyouwant. Lionel (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have to say that a) I am not a conservative; b) Mitt Romney may or may not be a conservative; c) this wasn't a "save" (the GA1 was by a notorious erratic editor or sock who does bad reviews) but rather a complete rewrite/expansion of the article that I started a year ago; d) if I try any Romney article at FAC in the near future it'll be George Romney (definitely not a conservative). Wasted Time R (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

'Southern Strategy' article needs work

The article, Southern Strategy, is really biased against the Republican Party. For one thing, the article ignores lots of subsequent scholarship. For example, NYT Article, Claremont Institute, Lassiter. Also, the article lacks any "Controversy" section.

Jeff.younger (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

American Social Conservatism is up for deletion

This nav box {{American Social Conservatism}} is up for deletion. It is a nav box for important articles where Christianity and politics intersect such as Judeo-Christian values, Pro-life, School prayer, National Right to Life Committee, Christian Right. You can join the discussion here. Lionel (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations Conservatism

Congrats to Conservatism for tagging out 1000th article! It is a huge milestone and we could not have achieved this major accomplishment without the hard work of our dedicated members and non-members. Thank you to every editor who put a {{WikiProject Conservatism}} on a talk page. We're well on our way to becoming the recognized world wide resource for documenting the conservative movement. Let's get this party started... Lionel (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, good work. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups

It appears that this is a list of 926 "hate groups." A number of them fall under our purview in the area of social conservatism. The list itself has virtually no rebuttal from "accused" organizations, making it unbalanced. The article doesn't address the notable controversy surrounding the list. Some of the links are Easter eggs and point to living people, so there may be BLP issues. There appears to be an effort underway to insert a link to this list in the See also sections of "accused" organizations. Considering many of these organizations already have SPLC sections, placing a link in See also is making these articles unbalanced. It is important that this list, and affected articles of "accused" organizations be checked for POV and balance. Lionel (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not see how hate groups come under "conservatism". Why do you think that any of these groups are conservative? TFD (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
E.g. American Family Association and Family Research Council state it in their ledes. Traditional Values Coalition is a Christian Right org and Christian Right is described as social conservatism. Lionel (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Cherry picking three out of 926+? I don't see how that gets us to "falling under [your] purview" (or what that even means). The SPLC is a favorite battleground for conservatives; I find it no small surprise that they've formed an official group to coordinate ideological advocacy. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
There are several established ideology WikiProjects, Libertarianism and Socialism come to mind, and to my knowledge they do not advocate. They identify and improve, in a neutral manner, articles in their scope... just like WPConservatism. Speaking of identifying articles, if you wouldn't mind, it would be great if you could tag articles with {{WikiProject Conservatism}} when the opportunity arises. Thanks ! Lionel (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
This has come up in regard to other projects. Project tags can be applied to any articles that have even a tangential connection.   Will Beback  talk  02:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

We now have our very own barnstar. Check it out here: {{Burkie Barnstar}}. Lionel (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It already has its first recipient.[1]   Will Beback  talk  04:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
LOL... I hope he doesn't report you to WQA. Btw, TFD was second, ObjectivelyWise received the first one. Lionel (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations to ObjectivelyWise and The Four Deuces! I don't see any irony... TFD has been doing fantastic yeoman work in political articles, and his efforts have benefited many conservatism articles. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to Lionelt for the creation of the project and this barnstar, and to the past and future recipients of it for their improvements to these articles.   Will Beback  talk  11:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. I have edited a number of articles related to conservatism, creating several biographical articles and re-writing major sections of the Conservatism article. TFD (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Will.Lionel (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Most popular Conservatism article?

What is the mosy popular Conservatism article? I have no idea! The only way to find out is to request a Popular Pages report. They're produced by the Toolserver. Any questions? Lionel (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Recognized world wide resource?

Under "Vision and goals", it reads, "WikiProject Conservatism is the recognized world wide resource for documenting the conservative movement..." From whence such recognition?

One goal is "Identifying conservative articles". Does that mean identifying articles that have a conservative POV? Another goal is "Striving for a neutral point of view and balance in articles that fall under our purview." Does that mean making conservative articles more neutral, i.e., less conservative?

Just askin'. Thanks. --Art Smart Chart/Heart 09:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

IMO the vision statement was written from an aspirational perspective. Conservative articles are those related to the Conservatism movement, generally, those in Cat Conservatism. Regarding making articles less conservative, that is a good question. The best articles are balanced, and I hope every editor would work toward NPOV whether that means elimiating a conservative POV or a leftist POV. This project is going to be very successfull. It's going to promote many articles to FA. That won't happen if editors are hung up on POV. Lionel (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
"WikiProject Conservatism is the recognized world wide resource for documenting the conservative movement ..." is a bald-faced lie, and it appears that User:Lionelt is that lie's chief perpetrator. Is Truth itself inconsistent with Conservatism? It certainly appears that way from this project page. --Art Smart Chart/Heart 09:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Your outburst is disgusting. Your anti-conservative bigotry is repugnant. Your accusations are baseless and without any merit whatsoever. This is a blatant, unwarranted personal attack on myself and your edit sum is an attack on conservatives. If you had taken a minute to look up vision statement you would've learned what is a vision statement. But because you are blinded by bigotry you allowed your ignorance to get the better of you. Allow me to increase your knowledge: a vision statement "Defines the way an organization or enterprise will look in the future. Vision is a long-term view, sometimes describing how the organization would like the world to be in which it operates." Emphasis mine. STOP NPA and STOP disrupting Wikiproject Conservatism.Lionel (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
How is Art Smart's supposed "outburst" an example of "anti-conservative" "bigotry"? Your comments look quite a bit like a personal attack, and I would advise you to have a cup of WP:TEA. — Rickyrab | Talk 06:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Wrong. The so-called mission statement does not say that the project hopes to attain a certain goal, it says baldly that the hoped-for goal is true now. That is misleading and false. Binksternet (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching this, and without getting involved in the personal stuff here, I'd like to try to help. I just made an edit, removing the self-promotional language, and just framing it in terms of the objectives. There's really no need to boast about being the best in the world; better to let readers decide that for themselves. And you shouldn't say "recognized" unless a reliable source says that about you. You may, perhaps, find WP:WikiProject Liberalism useful to look at, in terms of the tone you should adopt. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Let the readers decide for themselves? This is a wikiproject. Not an article. We have no readers. This subpage is, you know, behind the scenes. And we don't cite reliable sources on a wikiproject. The only readers of this page are prospective members, i.e customers, prospects. You want to forego our best sales tool: self-promotion? Are you kidding me? WPLiberalism? Again, excuse my incredulity. 6 members and 381 tagged articles? It's a joke. Died a long time ago. No way I'd recommend following in their footsteps. We're pushing 1000 articles and 20 members. I know something about marketing, and the self-promotion is working. "Sell the sizzle." "ABC: always be closing." It's working like a charm. Do you really want to help?????? How about going out and tagging some articles. Lionel (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid that response says a lot more about you than it does about me. I see I'm not welcome here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Tryp, I didn't mean to come off as dismissive. I guess I was operating under a full head of steam, I don't share a name with a train for nothing. I was just trying to make the point that (1) a wikiproject is not an article--it's a completely different animal and (2) wikiprojects have to be promoted else they die. Lionel (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
There's no freekin' way that the project's mission statement should include peacock wording or optimistic untruths. What sort of conservativism does that promote? I support Tryp's conservative rewording. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest changing "Identifying conservative articles" to "Identifying articles about or of interest to the conservative movement," or something similar. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You make a good point: the articles should be NPOV, not conservative. But they should also be of potential interest to all readers, so maybe "about or related to" instead of "about or of interest to". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
@Bink, we're not discussing a mission statement, we're discussing the vision statement. And there is a difference. A mission statement is grounded in the present; a vision statement is a picture of the future, a future which may never come to pass. By definition a vision statement is always false because the target goal hasn't yet been achieved. The operative word here is: vision. This confusion with mission statement may be at the root of the issue here. Perhaps this will help everyone understand what a vision statement is:

Defines the way an organization or enterprise will look in the future. Vision is a long-term view, sometimes describing how the organization would like the world to be in which it operates. For example, a charity working with the poor might have a vision statement which reads "A World without Poverty."

Is "A World without Poverty" a bald-faced lie? Is it saying that the hoped-for goal is true now? Is it misleading? Is is optimisticly untrue? Yes, yes, yes to all! So, why is it offered as an example in the strategic planning wikipedia article? Did you notice that the objections you have raised are the defining characteristics of a vision statement. The problem isn't my vision statement, it's your understanding of what constitutes a vision statement, and confusing it with a mission statement. Lionel (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
You have hold of the crux of the matter. I feel that the project should not use peacock terms or optimistic untruths in a vision statement, if it has one. I would rather see the project have a mission statement, as all vision statements are prescriptive rather than descriptive. In an encyclopedia project I don't quite see the need for overblown prose to describe the project's "vision". A mission is enough. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
there is only one appropriate vision statement for any project at Wikipedia , which is to build a comprehensive free encyclopedia, one to which anyone in the world can contribute. The specific mission of this within that goal for a project like this is to help this improvement within a particular group of present and possible articles. Neither the purpose or the mission can be to promote a point of view, or incline the encyclopedia in any particular ideological direction. There is not the least incompatibility with the project on Liberalism, except that normally people prefer to work on articles about which they have an interest. I suppose my political orientation is well enough known here, but I would expect to feel at home in any Wikipedia project, . I must admit to a certain puzzlement that there is in the US a conservative movement; I see rather many movements, sometimes converging for common political goals. And I certainly agree there should be no such thing on Wikipedia as a politically "conservative article." There are only NPOV articles, and as far as I can tell in several years here, there is an equal likelihood of people regardless of orientation to introduce conscious or unconscious bias. An article about a conservative politician should be as much interest to those who seek information to support them or to oppose--that's their lookout, as long as they do it outside of Wikipedia. The rather astounding statement ""WikiProject Conservatism is the recognized world wide resource for documenting the conservative movement ..." is only true to the extent it is the recognized world wide resource for documenting everything. And it's not quite true even so, because we are not here to document--to provide a primary resource or collect sources--nor to be the fullest possible source of information, but to provide basic information as expected of an encyclopedia. I'd expect that those of a conservative political philosophy of some sort would reasonably expect such information to support the movement; those of an opposite philosophy must equally reasonably expect the information to support the opposition to it. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

White nationalists

There are currently some white nationalist individuals/organizations with this project's template on their talk pages (namely David Duke, James C. Russell, Samuel T. Francis, the White Citizen's Council and its successor the Council of Conservative Citizens). All were tagged by User: Dezidor, who is in the habit of making edits like this, this, this, and this.

I'm not sure those white nationalists are really within the scope of WPConservatism (which I'm pretty sure is supposed to specialize in centre-right and anti-fascist conservative topics, rather than the far-right, fascist and/or racist ideologies of Duke et al). Perhaps those articles should be untagged. Difluoroethene (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by Difluor. The Conservatism article has generally been used as an informal guidebook to the scope. (I also checked right wing.) Conservatism doesn't encompass far right politics. However they both fall under right wing on the political scale. So the white nationalists would fit better under WikiProject Far Right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionelt (talk • contribs)
As we discussed above, (#List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups) projects cast wide nets. Multiple projects can include the same pages. While some may categorize Sam Francis as far right, others might not. I wouldn't worry about it too much.   Will Beback  talk  04:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, a wide net. I tagged and assessed a passel of articles recently for this project and my criterion for deciding whether this project had an interest was simply whether conservatism was discussed by editors on the talk page relative to the article's topic. Binksternet (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that all white nationalists are within the scope of WPConservatism (also known as wp:right). Some of them like Council of Conservative Citizens are obviously not only pro-white but also conservative or/and right wing. White nationalist groups that advocate the ideology of socialism should not be included. --Dezidor (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a problem with terminology, as conservatism can mean different things. TFD (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the analogy is helpful, but I'll mention it anyway... I'm active with WikiProject Socialism and we don't make any attempt to separate the sheep from the goats. The project encompasses everyone from Allan L. Benson to Pol Pot. Inclusion in the project does not constitute an endorsement of any particular set of views. Failing to include the radical right in this project will present a persistent and divisive problem of where to draw the line. I urge that the potential problem be sidestepped entirely by making clear from the outset that this project's purview is broad to the extreme — and that inclusion in the project in no way constitutes an endorsement of any particular individual, party, or ideological concept. Carrite (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion here. Conservative and right-wing are not synonymous terms.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Strictly speaking conservatism is an ideology that developed in reaction to liberalism, and supported king, aristocracy and established church. It is usually distinguishable from (for want of a better term) the extreme Right. But in the U.S. where conservatism never developed, the term is used to describe right-liberalism and the extreme Right, e.g., both mainstream Republicanism and the Tea Party, including its fringe elements. But in other countries the divisions would be more clear. TFD (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I have in mind very practical questions. Is Pat Robertson in or out? In, of course. Okay, what about Charles Coughlin? Leading opponent of FDR, after all. That's in, too, right. Okay, what about Gerald L. K. Smith? America-Firster in World War II, right? And so on... Where does one draw the line between him and David Duke, for example? Or between Smith and Coughlin? Or Coughlin and Robertson? Or between Robertson and Mike Huckabee? You can either spend endless hours debating where the line is drawn and who is in or out — or you can just say, screw it, including a person in the project doesn't constitute an endorsement, they're all in... Carrite (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
In articles about politics outside the U.S., the lines would be more clear. The right-wing populist parties and the conservative parties are distinct. There is also the same problem in drawing the line on the other side. Outside the U.S., conservatism and conservative liberal parties are distinct. We will also encounter difficulty with historical figures. Grover Cleveland and William Jennings Bryan for example - were they liberals or conservatives? TFD (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Help!

My name is John Ziegler a conservative whose page is rife with errors and distortions clearly as a part of an agenda against me. I have tried to fix the page ut failed. I finally got two tags to at least identify the article as suspect, but I don't know how long that will last. This entire process is incredibly frustrating and it is really having a negative impact on my life.

Can you help? Any suggestions?68.111.92.53 (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If you e-mail Wikipedia they will remove any libellous material. If you believe that parts of the article are inaccurate then please explain what they are. I assume you are John Ziegler (talk show host). Will look at the article and provide my input. TFD (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I've been working with user:Talktozig on the talk page. I've addressed all the concerns he's raised there.   Will Beback  talk  02:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
There's also the IP address seen above. Binksternet (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The named account also claims to be Ziegler. I assume they're the same person. If they're not then we've got a problem. We could ask him to establish his identity with OTRS.   Will Beback  talk  03:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it could be improved. The article does not explain why people listen to him or why as someone from a minority group he would be a super-patriot. TFD (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Congrats patsw

It give me great pleasure to announce that we currently, as of today, have TWENTY-FIVE MEMBERS! Our 25th member is User:Patsw aka Patrick Sweeney. He hails from New York, is obedient to His Holiness Pope Benedict, and is employed in investment banking. As the 25th member patsw is the winner of an all-expense paid trip to beautiful Cabo San Lucas. Just print out this thread and take it to the nearest Delta Airlines ticket window and an agent will take care of you. Lionel (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

J. C. Watts

Could I get some editors' input at Talk:J. C. Watts#Name? I have provided a significant amount of evidence (reliable web sources, like his official Congressional biography) that his full name is actually "Julius Caesar Watts, Jr.", which I added to the article at two appropriate points. There is also evidence in his autobiography. Clearly, this meets the threshold of verifiability. The other editor argues that a source which is no longer available for free says this is not really his name. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC) (reworded neutrally below)

Needless to say, the case is not quite as it is presented here. Btw wouldn't Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography be the better place for this, as this has nothing to do with conservatism but with biographical information? Hekerui (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to post a link to the discussion there as well. I just thought this would be a good place as there would be editors interested specifically in J. C. Watts here. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Reworded neutrally

Could I get some editors to comment on the discussion at Talk:J. C. Watts#Name? There is a dispute as to whether his birth name is actually "Julius Caesar Watts, Jr." Thanks. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Santorum (neologism)

Santorum (neologism)

This article has recently been expanded with additional sources and referencing improvements. There is also some ongoing discussion about that, at the article's talk page. If you are interested, please have a look at Santorum (neologism) and the associated talk page discussion at Talk:Santorum (neologism). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources

For those interested there is a discussion regarding the reliability of certain news source(s) that have a conservative editorial lean. The discussion can be found at WP:RSN. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Southern Conservative

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Conservatism in the United States#Southern conservatism. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

reliable source?

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:RSN#littlegreenfootballs. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

There is also a discussion regarding FoxNews. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Conservatism in the United States

There is a newly offered proposal to rewrite this Top importance article. (Top is the highest.) You can join the discussion here. Lionel (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been monitoring this article since my pls see template add to this talk page; it's getting very involved, and interested editors from this WP should at least monitor it, if not get directly involved in it. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia Importance

I disagree that conservapedia is an article of high importance to conservatism. Conservapedia is a horrible representation of conservatism, and maybe it should be downgraded to mid or low importance. I have posted this proposal on the conservapedia talk page.Shon Lee (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't see why it can't be mid importance, as it is a reaction to the perception that our community is overly liberal in lean, and editorial process. That being said, I don't believe that it is of low importance either. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Not high importance. Mid or low. Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Changed to mid.Lionel (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Politics related navigational template nominated for deletion

The navigational template {{Political neologisms}} has been nominated for deletion. Please see discussion, at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_25#Template:Political_neologisms. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Bot tagging

A request has been made to tag & auto-assess articles. To auto-assess, the bot looks for a {{stub}} template on the article, or inherits the class rating from other project banners. Any questions? Lionel (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment - Santorum (neologism)

Request for Comment discussion started, please see Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal_to_rename.2C_redirect.2C_and_merge_content.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Mission creep

While this project's purpose is to improve articles about conservatism, some editors have added numerous articles that are unrelated. This project should not be used as a lobbying group for providing a conservative viewpoint into unrelated articles. I notice that the following articles have been added as "top importance": Milton Friedman, classical liberalism, Laffer curve, Laissez-faire, and Christian democracy. These are probably better addressed through liberalism and Christian projects, which all editors are free to join. TFD (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, why was Prohibition Party added? Prohibition sprang from Progressivism, which was not a conservative movement.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I think you raise an excellent point: staying focused is paramount. Let's look at the basis for these additions to the project:
  • Milton Friedman: "Friedman's political philosophy, which he considered classically liberal and libertarian, emphasized the advantages of free market economics and the disadvantages of government intervention and regulation, strongly influencing the opinions of American conservatives"
  • classical liberalism: "The phrase classical liberalism is also sometimes used to refer to all forms of liberalism before the 20th century, and some conservatives and libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government"
  • Laffer curve: "The Laffer curve and supply-side economics inspired Reaganomics"
  • Laissez-faire: from [2] "Reagan implemented policies based on supply-side economics and advocated a classical liberal and laissez-faire philosophy, seeking to stimulate the economy with large, across-the-board tax cuts. Citing the economic theories of Arthur Laffer..."
  • Christian democracy: "Christian democracy is a political ideology that seeks to apply Christian principles to public policy. It emerged in nineteenth-century Europe under the influence of conservatism"
  • Prohibition Party: "The Prohibition Party advocates a variety of socially conservative causes"
I think it reasonable to include the subjects upon which conservative thought is based. If "laissez-faire" is requisite for an understanding of "Reaganomics," then why not include it? And let's keep in mind that this project specifically includes fiscal and social conservatism. I'll be the first to admit that this isn't going to be easy. Conservative, and liberal, mean different things during different eras and even different parts of the world. Lionel (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The problem as I see it is that what Americans call conservatism is actually liberalism (which is how Friedman and Hayek described themselves) It has nothing to do with monarchy, aristocracy, the established church, paternalism, etc., but more to do with limited government and free markets. But grouping non-U.S. liberal topics into conservatism really makes no sense. TFD (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Let's take a step back for a moment. Conservatism "promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society." With this we should be able to accomodate American conservatism as well as classical liberalism. Ensuring that conservatism articles compare and contrast the 2 philosophies is a desirable goal of the project.Lionel (talk) 07:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Rubbish. While that is part of the definition of conservatism, it could equally be applied to Communist countries. But reliable sources state that conservatism, liberalism and communism are separate ideologies. TFD (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
From classical liberalism: "The phrase classical liberalism is also sometimes used to refer to all forms of liberalism before the 20th century, and some conservatives and libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government." Lionel (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
That sentence means some conservatives sometimes use the term differently from the way it is used in the article, which is about 19th entury liberalism as represented by the Liberal Party of the United Kingdom and Jacksonian Democracy. Also, WP is not a reliable source. TFD (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Why was <article> tagged?

Wondering why an article was tagged? ask about it in this section...

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The article on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the "LDS" or "Mormon" church) was marked just now — apparently by a bot — as being within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism. I question the appropriateness of this action and would like to know what the people who are working on this project think. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As radical as they were in the beginning of the religion, Mormons are now generally conservative, holding many of the beliefs common to U.S. conservatives, such as being against gay marriage. The LDS was significantly involved in the legislative and legal battle against gay marriage. Binksternet (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how the bot works but I don't think it's appropriate either. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Bot reverted.Lionel (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Republican Moderate Party of Alaska

Same concern exists with the Republican Moderate Party of Alaska, which BTW is defunct. Ray Metcalfe spoke of the party's history in 2004. He contends that he conceived the party when he was a member of the Alaska House of Representatives, after Jerry Falwell walked into his office and stated that the Moral Majority would be taking over the Republican Party of Alaska. Metcalfe was roughly the equivalent of what they call today a RINO, anyway. While some individuals who are conservative may have run under the party label, the party in general seems pretty far removed from what could be considered conservative.RadioKAOS (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Bot reverted. Lionel (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Pro-life

The effort to rename Pro-life continues unabated. The discussion to rename Pro-life for the month of June is here. It is in mediation. The mediator said "I feel mediation could bring a final resolution to this matter." His idea of final is renaming Pro-life. – Lionel (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

What a POV notice! The right way to notify project members is to simply say that there is a mediation case open regarding renaming Pro-life and Pro-choice. Don't interject your disapproval. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Richard Nixon FA

Efforts are getting underway to promote Nixon (currently GA) to FA by user:Wehwalt. As everyone knows the main goal of this Wikiproject is to promote conservatism articles to FA. If you have anything to contribute to this undertaking I encourage you to make you way to the talk page. This is a prime opportunity for newer editors to observe a maestro at work doing what he does best: putting bronze stars on articles. – Lionel (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Classification of anti-conservative pages

What do you think about the tagging of topics that are definitely not conservative, but integrally related to conservatism, as part of the project? A prime example would be Media Matters for America, dedicated to fighting conservatism so much that such is part of their mission statement: "...dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" (see http://mediamatters.org/p/about_us/). Drrll (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really sure... They relate to it, and the project is designed to improve articles relating to conservatism, but it may cause a bit of confusion among editors. Any other views? Toa Nidhiki05 13:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
MMfA is better handled under a project for American liberalism/progressivism, which editors here are free to create/join. My concern is that a broad understanding of the mission of projects on political topics is that we will have a number of projects with an identical list of articles. Why not just merge them all into a politics project? TFD (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
It definitely relates to conservatism, i.e. criticism of conservatism, and thus falls within the scope of the project. I have no objections to tagging it for WPConservatism. – Lionel (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Again, this is not a lobbying forum to defend U.S. "conservative" politics, but a project to improve articles about conservatism. TFD (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
This project has been operating now for 4 months, has 40 members and almost 3000 tagged articles. Every right wing nut job knows about this project and yet this has not become Redneck Central. In fact the members have made a good accounting of themselves. Quite frankly your incessant insinuations of advocacy smack of a failure to assume good faith.– Lionel (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Article or redirect?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sexual preference#Own article. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Any idea what Edmund Burke or Joseph de Maistre had to say about the subject? TFD (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Breitbart on Anthony Weiner and Anthony Weiner photo scandal

Editors are repeatedly removing cited references to Breitbart as a commentator and activist in order to refer to him merely as a "blogger", as if he were some unemployed guy in his parents' basement with a blogspot.com account. Please see this edit [3] at the scandal page and this edit [4] at Congressman Weiner's page. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with you in principle, without RS that refer to him that way it'll be an uphill struggle to change his description. The talk page seems to be leaning toward "blogger." Lionel (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
It's sad that this is the case, it only furthers the arguments of those opposed to our greater community that there is a liberal bias. The only thing one can do is to revert, and begin a discussion on the appropriate talk pages in order to get consensus to support the reversion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The liberal bias in WP only exists because of the liberal media. It's true that Breitbart is more than a blogger. But WP is not interested in truth. It's standard in verifiability. And the prevailing label for Breitbart in the MSM is "blogger." Lionel (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The problem is not lack of sources (I added sources and his article has more) or sources that contradict. There is no problem retaining the term blogger or saying "in his blog", but there are plenty of refs calling him an internet publisher and conservative commentator and none denying that he owns lucrative websites. μηδείς (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I only see the LA Times ref, which refers to him as "conservative rabble-rouser." Do you have more sources that call him "correspondent and mogul"?Lionel (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Wiener is not a conservative and therefore the conversation is irrelevant to the project. TFD (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
This discussion is about Andrew Breitbart, who "describes himself as 'a Reagan conservative.'"Lionel (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Neither of the references are to the article about Breitbart. Why not include Obama because there are "Reagan conservative" opponents of his mentioned in his article. Again, the project is supposed to support articles about conservative-related articles, not be a lobbying page. TFD (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

<-----

I don't see why not. Promoting NPOV by balancing out systemic bias is also important. I've already seen it argued that "reality has a liberal bias". It is important to get Wikipedia as NPOV as possible, using other sources and simple common sense.Mzk1 (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Conservatism to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mr.Z! The list is great. Hold the iphone... Michele Bachman averaged 25,369 views per day? Woa!!! – Lionel (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Could you explain why Osama bin Laden is included in this wikiproject?--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't he an MP for the UK Conservative Party? – Lionel (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
So is this project just a big joke?--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The project is not a joke---but I joke at what some might deem inopportune moments. Bin laden probably isn't in the scope of the project. – Lionel (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Should we untag OBL/UBL from this WikiProject? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Done. – Lionel (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Osama bin Laden may be considered a conservative because he advocated the role of religion and traditional values. TFD (talk) 04:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
@TFD - No, he did not advocate conservatism as the western world defines it - more like Pan-Arabism and Islamofascism. Toa Nidhiki05 12:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Americans also do not define conservatism as the western world defines it. TFD (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Bin Laden cannot be conservative because he wanted to radically shift a society to Sharia law - conservatism opposes radical change in society. In addition, he never showed any support for free market capitalism. Bin Laden is an Islamist, not conservative, and you have no sources to even confirm your statement. Toa Nidhiki05 16:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
However, the project is more than happy to tag American people who wish to radically shift a society to Biblical law, even when those people have no demonstrated interest in free market capitalism. It seems to me like this has to do with a desire to avoid suggesting that OBL is conservative rather than a considered belief that he does not fall within the scope of this project. (As a side note, Toa, OBL opposed pan-Arabism - and socialism and communism, for that matter - but nice try.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Political views of the academia

There is a dispute regarding if the Academia article should include a section regarding the political views of the academia and conservative criticisms on this issue. The disputed text is currently removed but can be seen here: User:Miradre/sandbox. The issue is further discussed on Talk:Academia. Please give further views on this issue. Miradre (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Goodbye

I've decided to leave this Wikiproject. There's more bickering on the project's definition than anything useful being done. I ask members interested in limited government topics to consider joining WP:Libertarianism. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Establishing a guideline for inviting members

I am concerned that the templates {{WikiProject Conservatism invite}} and {{RightWelcome}} are not being employed in a neutral manner. I feel that the editors receiving invitations are primarily ones who have demonstrated a friendliness to U.S.-style neoconservative issues such as anti-gay, pro-Tea Party, and pro-Religious Right. Also, new editors have been invited far more often than experienced editors. I would rather see anyone interested in a conservative topic invited, welcoming those across a broad swath of beliefs. The danger in welcoming only those at one end of the political continuum is that a political party or activist interest group will be formed on Wikipedia; an action that is not allowed, per WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND.

To settle the question, I would like to propose a guideline for inviting new members:

  1. Any person involved in significant changes to content on an article marked as being under project purview can be invited.
  2. If one editor of an article is sent an invitation, all other recent, significant editors of that article will also be sent an invitation, unless they have previously received one or are already a member. Such invitations will be drawn as appropriate from the two templates, one intended for veteran editors and one for new editors.
  3. Anonymous editors will not be invited.

Thoughts? Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll supplement your first paragraph with the observation that the Conservative Noticeboard was deleted as an attempt to stack votes, so we've been over this stretch of water before. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
@Bink - Seems this is a solution in search of a problem. The project has been up and running for quite a while now--has almost 50 members--and the advocacy and battleground you keep ranting about has yet to materialize. There is no vast right wing conspiracy. – Lionel (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Lionelt; there is no problem. Toa Nidhiki05
This is a preventive solution, to guide invitations along a more productive line. My suggestion will prevent a project member from inviting members who show friendliness to only one point of view.
It is necessary because there already is a problem. Lionelt has skewed invitations toward new socially conservative editors on multiple occasions such as at the Alan Seabaugh article. Billy Hathorn created the article on July 8. Princeton1982 appeared on July 9 and added pro-Tea Party and pro-family pro-Christian text. Billy Hathorn characterized these poor-quality and slanted additions as "sabotage", but Lionelt welcomed and invited Princeton1982. Lionelt did not invite veteran editor Billy Hathorn. Binksternet (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
If someone seems interested in these topics and improving WP pages about them, I see no issue with someone inviting them. Toa Nidhiki05 17:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Exactly! So why did Billy Hathorn not get invited? He's a high-output editor, one of the most productive we have, and he often creates articles that are of interest to the Project. I would like to establish a guideline to make certain that good editors of every stripe are invited. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Further, it appears you are accusing Lionelt of bad faith - a violation of one of the founding pillars of this project. Extending invitations is not an issue here at all. Toa Nidhiki05 17:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
You are missing an important element of the guideline at WP:AGF. It says, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary." It also says, "Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism." Here, we are discussing a series of invitations that Lionelt made, ones which ignored liberal or centrist editors but favored socially conservative editors. We are discussing a remedy to prevent a battleground mentality wherein the Project becomes a platform for advocacy of a point of view. I always assume good faith until evidence shows me otherwise. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
This hasn't become a battleground mentality and has been around for months with no issues - ever. Once again, inviting people that contribute to conservative-related pages is not a crime - if anything, it is good, as contributors that frequently edit and improve these pages are likely to be interested in a WikiProject related to them. Lionelt is working to improve this project from the most obvious point - inviting people that might be interested in it. Further, liberals and centrists have never been banned from here - anyone is welcome if they wish to improve pages. Toa Nidhiki05 18:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like you have no problem with the proposed guideline for inviting members. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Really? Well he said "I agree with Lionelt." I used to invite veteran editors. But when I started getting barnstars for WPRight out of the blue from editors (one who is a lefty) I'd never invited nor had any contact with I concluded the regulars knew about the project. Billy must have come across the project banner a hundred times: he knows where we are. My focus now is on new editors. There is no nefarious plot behind Billy not getting invited. – Lionel (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing anybody show a reason why this proposal should not be implemented. Billy Hathorn and his peers may or may not appreciate an invitation but I think we should make the offer. It helps prevent skewed membership, helps bring stronger, more experienced editors on board. Regarding new editors, let's invite any with an interest in the article, except for anon IPs. This is basic stuff, and should be part of the project. Binksternet (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

<-Who needs guidelines on who to welcome? Just welcome anyone you please. We don't need guidelines to tell us how to run our lives. Big fuss about nothing. Spalds (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What is WikiProject Conservatism?

WikiProject Conservatism, first, foremost and most importantly, is a group of editors. It is a social structure. It is essential that we develop and foster the social component, the most important component, of this group. The scope, importance, and all of these other issues are bureaucratic and do nothing to create cohesiveness. If you are not here to collaborate with your fellow members on conservatism articles then why are you here? Have you introduced yourself to fellow members? Have you nominated/voted for an article at the Collaboration? Have you helped out at a FAC or a GAR? Have you checked in with new member-users? If we don't create a vibrant collaborative environment we'll continue to lose great editors like William. Right now there is an ongoing debate about the demise of Wikiprojects. Our challenge is not to end up like WikiProject Abortion, but to become the next WikiProject Military History. If you're only here to bitch and complain about minutiae, please relocate to talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism. – Lionel (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I was with you until the last sentence. Your role as project founder is to raise esprit de corps by offering encouragement, not create divisiveness by exclusion. A good Wikiproject is inclusive. This Project should be inclusive. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
How is he arguing against an inclusive project? That seems an awful lot like a straw man argument to me, and is funny coming from the person that complained that he was inviting people that happened to be interested in conservatism. Toa Nidhiki05 18:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This should be Project Conservatism not Project Modern American Conservatism

Why are Donald Rumsfeld and Bush tax cuts given high priorities? How about giving imporantance to people who have contributed to the development of conservatism as a philosophy? This WikiProject gives undue weight to popular modern American conserative politicans and modern American policies that are relatively umimportant when looking at the history of conservatism as a whole. No way should Sarah Palin be ranked like Edmund Burke. LittleJerry (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to add more international articles. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Am I also welcome to downgrade the imporantance rankings for the above mentioned? LittleJerry (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Any editor, inside or outside of a project, can change a project's importance rating. If you are reverted, please start a discussion about the rating.
Regarding the Amerocentric emphasis of this project, it is a reflection of its founder but it is not cast in concrete. Lionelt is a huge fan of Ronald Reagan and appears to conflate the topic of conservatism with Reaganism and all that followed it in US politics. Of course, the topic is much larger than that! Feel free to broaden the project's scope in whatever way you deem fit. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The US is the beacon of conservatism in the world, so obviously there are a lot of US articles and Lionelt isn't wrong in adding them. But as Binksternet said, you're welcome to broaden it to other countries as long as they qualify. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
It is not about adding more, but giving overrated importance to relatively unimportant people. People like Palin and Reagan should not be put on the same level as Burke, de Maistre or other pioneers of conservative thought. LittleJerry (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The project is not just about the philosophers. They can and should be of top importance, but that doesn't mean others can't. Certainly Reagan, at least, had a huge impact on conservatism, if not in the philosophy of it but certainly in the practice of it. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow, "the beacon"? Really? Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow, so you haven't read Mark Steyn, Michael Portillo or Ayn Rand? μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Rand works better than syrup of ipecac. :P
Binksternet (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Obama paying you 75c a post? If anything, you should have said she hates conservatives. μηδείς (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll give Big O a call and see if he's good for about $30k—the approximate number of posts I've made since he moved into the White House multiplied by your suggested price. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

My point is, when ranking the importantance of a subject, we must consider it from a global and historical prospective. It seems to me that for many of the subjects, the ranker only considered modern American politics. LittleJerry (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No serious scholar would group Reagan, Palin and Rand with Burke and De Maistre. They belong to two totally different ideological families. Reagan said that the Tories in the American Revolution were liberals (thereby reversing the meaning of the terms) and Rand, like Hayek and Friedman, were strong opponents of conservatism. Conservatism in the United States is not in the conservative tradition of Matthew Arnold, Otto von Bismarck, Benjamin Disraeli or Harold MacMillan, but in the tradition of John Locke, Adam Smith,William Ewart Gladstone and Herbert Spencer. TFD (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The problem being of course that the word conservative is relative and contextual, and, in most cases, what Rand would describe as an anti-concept. μηδείς (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
This project is not about early conservative thinkers; if it was, we'd have five or six articles. We need the people who practiced conservatism, not just theorized about it. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, but those who practiced it should have significent historical and global impact like Bismark and Churchill and I'll accept Reagan. Hannity and O'Reilly however are barely footnotes. Thus they at the most deserve a low importance rating. LittleJerry (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
If the term conservatism is merely relative, then there is no reason for a project. TFD (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Prefect, I state on their talk pages why certain people should not be rated high imporantance and yet any changes to assessment arestamped as edit warring and the reverter can simply argue the discussion without haqve to justify the accessment. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The reality is there are far more American conservatism articles than any other variant, and Reagan-related articles are the most numerous. It has nothing to do with the US place in conservatism it has everything to do with editors prefer to create and improve articles about US conservatism. To correct LittleJerry, Burke and Palin were not given the same importance. Burke inarguably is Top. Palin I would consider High. Why? "Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent [5]." Based on notability she is High importance. – Lionel (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I do not think someone like Palin should be considered low importance due to the simple fact that she has become very well known over the last few years, however I also do not agree with her being of high importance. I think high importance should be reserved for presidents and prime ministers; like Stephen Harper for instance. Palin should be of mid importance. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
N&L makes a good point. Took the liberty and changed Palin to Mid. – Lionel (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"The reality is there are far more American conservatism articles than any other variant". Or maybe you just pay more attention to them? However I can accept some elements of what you're saying. How about this suggestion when rating importance of article, atleast for articles on people?

  • Top: Intellectuals and Philosophers whom have contributed to the philosophy of Conservativism and had substantial followers. (Burke, De Maistre)
  • High: Heads of State who were conservative and of historical importantance. (Bismark, Reagan)
  • Mid: Lower ranking leaders who are/were conservative. (Palin)
  • Low: Conservative non-intellectuals and non-leaders who are of little importance outside their countries. (Beck, Hannity)

Thoughts? LittleJerry (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Now Ron Paul is more imporant than Hippolyte Taine? By the importance scale's own critera, they both should be Mid. This may sound harsh but this Project needs to be run by people who know the history of conservatism around the world and not just some Americentric Reaganites. LittleJerry (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jerry! You may not be aware of this but there are a number of editors tagging and rating articles. Each pretty much does their own thing. At the end of the day what difference does it make if Paul is High and Taine is Mid? Most readers will never see the ratings. I can tell you this: the only thing that matters, or should matter to a member of this project is does an article in the scope have a bronze star (FA)? If not then we have work to do.
That said the ratings are a mess. And as a matter of fact I agree with you about Paul and Taine. I applaud your initiative in refining the importance scale. However reserving Top for intellectuals and philos. and High for leaders seems arbitrary. Note that the scale is based on notability, and geographical influence (I also consider historical impact when I rate). IMO Reagan is Top because he is extremely notable and his influence was international. Hannity is an extremely notable pundit and has influence within his country. IMO, per scale, he is Mid. Now if you downgrade Reagan to High and Hannity to Low and editors object is it worth getting blocked? – Lionel (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Expect people like Hannity have no historical imporantance. Put in this way, when academics write about the history and development of conservatism, is there be any mention of "notable pundits"? No. Pundits like Hannity are on the same level as celebrites and such and are only notable in the subject of popular media. People who have actually make a historical impact like pioneering philosophers or statesmen will get mentioned. I've read the chapter on conservatism in Ian Adam's Political ideology today and guess what? No mention of Hannity, O'Reilly, the Bush Tax cuts or the American Enterprise Institute. Also, if it doesn't make a difference what the rating say, then why did you revert my reasessments? LittleJerry (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Conservatism/Archive_1&oldid=1140107220"