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.
Can any of the editors supporting Lionelt's essay, "Countering liberal bias", please explain what he means by "liberal bias". It is not defined in the essay. It seems though that he means the viewpoint most commonly expressed in newspaper articles and academic writing, as explained in this Conservapedia article. The problem is that what it calls liberal bias is in Wikipedia called the mainstream view. The proper way to fight this bias is to have Wikipedia change its NPOV policy. Attempts to disregard policy in individual articles because one objects to the inherent liberal bias is disruptive. TFD (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
If it means "mainstream scholarly viewpoint" or even "mainstream news agency consensus" then of course this project should not work against it in any way—it would be against Wikipedia policy which rates these things as high quality reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I've been aware of Lionelt's activities for some time. The more I've looked, the more concerned I've grown. The essay listed above is without a doubt against Wiki policies, and when paired with the instructions in the "How to counter liberal bias section:
“
Alternative references and search engines such as the Western Center for Journalism search engine can be found at "WikiProject Conservatism/References". The References page is also invaluable for adding reliable sources to express minority viewpoints and add opposing views. If you find liberal bias in an article that needs to be corrected the NPOV Tutorial recommends that you "Be bold in editing pages that are biased."
”
Of particular concern is the "reference page"(which is the only link I left in the quote), which despite a few scattered mainstream sources is mostly just a list of conservative POV links, a portion of those would be considered fringe. I don't think there is any doubt that Lionelt's instructions, along with using this project to canvass are serious problems for Wikipedia. Add to that the fact that Lionel has recruited many problem editors to this project, of which all seem to fit Lionelt's own POV. His claims of mentor-ship seem one-sided and it's obvious he looks for editors with a conservative POV to try and add numbers to this project, but has not(afaik) reached out to editors with an opposing POV in the same manner. In any case, if there is a RFC or Arb case, I will gather the oddities I've found and try to present them as best I can. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I am glad to find the LA Times, NY Times, Ottawa Sun, and Washington Post are now all conservative periodicals. I suspect almost all "projects" have similar biases in their lists of references, so I am unsure exactly what you think this proves? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Collect, the reason that those periodicals are on that page is that I reverted, twice, Lionelt's efforts to delete them. The fact that he was so eager to delete them is actually quite disturbing to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC) I'm referring to the ones other than the Ottawa Sun. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
The Ottawa Sun is a conservative newspaper, as are its four sister publications that Lionelt also listed along with their television affiliate, the Sun News Network. Since they are regional newspapers, reasonable editors would probably only look to them for regional stories. TFD (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
The Canadian Conservatives are not the same as the US conservatives, TFD. Perhaps you did not notice that. Moreover, Ottawa is the capital of Canada. You could also call the Ottawa Citizen "Conservative" if you wished to - but major newspapers in a national capital are not generally so readily dismissed as "regional newspapers". They are just as "regional" as the Washington Post. Collect (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
It’s a tabloid. This is not the Washington Post we are dealing with here....honestly... RGloucester (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Regional newspapers obtain all their outside news stories from news wire services and have no circulation outside their region. The "conservatism" represented by the Sun is the same as US conservatism. TFD (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Even if all the bias in articles were that of the mainstream against the fringe, though that is definitely not the case with an article such as Roe v. Wade, it would not mean bias is not possible. Wikipedia is for describing subjects in an objective and encyclopedia manner based on an accurate and balanced (due weight) representation of what is stated in reliable sources. Articles are not for attacking fringe theories or fringe theorists and that certainly can and does happen on matters that would be of "conservative" interest such as Intelligent Design or Global Warming. Some editors seem to think that WP:FRINGE entitles them to use strongly dismissive language, but such language is often not reflective of the sources provided.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Just to return to a question from above, what makes “intelligent design” or “global warming” of “conservative” interest? RGloucester (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
That's a good question. In the US, intelligent design is closely associated with the Christian right, and denial of global warming has been associated with some energy business interests that fund Republicans. So the question then becomes one of how much conservatism generally would equate to the present-day US Christian right and Republican party. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it's fair to say that this project is most interested in American conservatism. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)As this wikiproject covers all forms of conservatism, including (but not limited to) American conservatism, and as the scope of this wikiproject can also include articles that are related to those multiple forms of conservatism, it can be argued that those may fall into the scope of this wikiproject. That is not to say that they cannot fall into the scope of other wikiprojects as well. Therefore, such diverse articles such as Monarchy of Australia to Neoconservatism in Japan to European People's Party to La Violencia could theoretically fall within this project's scope.
As for allegations of this project mainly being about American conservatism, I think that maybe a systematic bias that most editors of Wikipedia are from North America and Europe may have something to with it. However, that doesn't mean that there are not editors who are interested in other forms of conservatism. This is the same as how, as Jimmy Wales has stated:
If averages mattered, and due to the nature of the wiki software (no voting) they almost certainly don’t, I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population
Additionally, what this means is that recruiting potential editors with interest in conservatism outside of North America and Europe maybe a potential goal for this wikiproject. I for one have asked about the possibility of a Conservatism in the Philippines article, however although it exist, haven't gotten around to creating such an article, or have found sufficient reliable sources to create the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Uhm, Jimbo just said it almost certainly doesn't matter, so there is no such bias. You'd have to be far from neutral to read this as an endorsement of Lionelt's thesis that Wikipedia is plagued by liberal bias that he can repair. For that matter, you said nothing to refute the notion that this project is primarily concerned with American Conservativism -- particularly as manifested in the GOP. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that part of the problem of defining a scope is defining what exactly the word conservatism means wrt WP:C. If the scope of the project is conservatism in general this poses a problem because the word means something entirely different to Americans than it does the rest of the world (mostly). For instance, while I've heard American conservatives refer to Obama as a socialist or leftist, in Britain he would fit in nicely as a Tory (British conservative party). Does this then mean that Obama's BLP is within the scope of WP:C?
If conservatism is used only as a label then the scope of this project is enormous and will cover topics that (i)are not of interest to conservatism outside of the US and (ii) not related to US conservatism but included because they may be related to other forms of conservatism. For an example of the former, consider gay rights. While some American conservatives attempt to restrict gay people's right to marry, in other parts of the world this isn't considered a conservative stance, just a bigoted and/or theocratic one - not seriously discussed. For an example of the latter, I refer to my previous example regarding Obama's BLP (note that I don't know whether his BLP is part of WP:C, I'm just pointing out that using broad definitions logically leads to broad scope).
So when you say that recruiting editors outside of the US may be a solution, I would have to disagree simply based on the idea that if this project were a mix of nationalities you would have a mix of people who can't agree on what the word means in the first place. As a corollary to this, when you only have American editors then you have a much more focused definition, but it's not the definition used by most English speaking people. Perhaps retitling the project to WP:American conservatism and then creating other projects to deal with non-American conservatism is the solution here, but I'll leave that for others to decide! Sædontalk 01:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that limiting the focus to something self-consistent might be helpful, but the focus is itself problematic. Once we admit that this project is about American conservatism, we have to ask what the goal of the project is. Is it to neutrally improve articles in its scope or to "combat liberal bias" (or, in plain English, insert conservative bias)? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
In response to Gloucester, the science of intelligent design and global warming pertain to conservatism due to the implications of each issue. With intelligent design one finds issues of separation of church and state and the influence of government in education. Global warming has been used to advance increased government intervention in various fields of business and legislation designed to force a specific economic decision on the populace. In each case you have obvious issues where general conservatism, not just American conservatism, might be involved.—The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Many conservatives, for example, many Europeans, are rooted in the notion of “big government” and hierarchical structure. Benjamin Disraeli was the proponent of much government intervention, and happily accepted an Earldom after his premiership. When a Prime Minister can give out hereditary titles that forever give the heirs to that title the rights to sit in parliament, is that “small government” ? It was actually the Liberals who were opposed to government intervention in the economy, and who somewhat challenged that structure. Oh wait? Is this confusing? YES!!!! Conservatism does not mean small government. It does not mean social conservatism. It means every possible political policy in the world combined. It would take anyone two seconds to go through some books and find out that there are so many contradictions, so many variables. Nothing is clean cut, and I think that is a problem. The “general conservatism” you talk about does not exist. And from you describe, it sounds like you are referring to American conservatism. Oh dear!? How shall we clean up this mess? RGloucester (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
While I don't discuss details, it's no secret that America's not the only country I've lived in. As you say, the meaning of "conservatism" elsewhere differs from the American version. What bothers me is that active participants of "WikiProject Conservatism" seem to be entirely ignorant of this (or, worse, unwilling to accept it). I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
That's painting the entire project, and its members, with a very broad brush. Although the scope is huge, that doesn't mean that is a bad thing. For instance some other wikiprojects have HUGE scopes see WikiProject United States or WikiProject Biography just to name two. To say that active participants are ignorant is being ignorant of post above, and in the archive, that recognize that this wikiproject has a wide scope; that due to the multiple national variants of how conservatism is defined that they may differ slightly to greatly, but still fall within the scope of this WikiProject. Thus as I said, one possible solution to this is to reduce the systematic bias by gaining more interested editors from areas outside of North America and Europe, and once this has occurred, perhaps as Biography has done, task forces can be created that will focus on certain sub-topics. That is not to say that recruiting isn't the only possible solution.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
These are not parallel at all because "United States" and "Biography" each have a self-consistent meaning. In contrast, American conservatism seems to have little to do with conservatism worldwide. The problem isn't just the ambiguity, but that so many of the project members do not recognize this ambiguity. This really isn't WikiProject Conservatism. At most, it's WikiProject American Conservatism. But, more accurately, it's the old Conservative Noticeboard all over again, with all the same vote-stacking problems. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The US is unique in that the mainstream political range falls entirely within the liberal tradition. A result of this has been to paint opponents in extreme terms. Hence Roosevelt called his opponents "conservatives" as a slur. They claimed they were the real liberals[1] and he was a "socialist". Eventually they came to call themselves conservatives and liberal became a term of abuse. The National Review editor, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, called this the "Great American Semantic Confusion". TFD (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Before FDR, the word "liberal" was identified with Britain's Liberal Party, which was a relatively conservative party in modern terms. FDR didn't created the political spectrum, just adjusted the terminology. In the 1920s, Woodrow Wilson was "progressive", Calvin Coolidge "conservative". In the 1912 election, Taft and TR argued about who was the "true conservative".[2] It certainly wasn't a term of abuse. Kauffner (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually StillStanding, you are missing the point. The trouble isn't the 'inaccurate' definition of the Wikiproject. The problem is that this Wikiproject is defined so as to split a field of knowledge (contemporary politics) into two adversarial halves (Conservative and Liberals), and conceived of as a way to favor one side (as we can see from Lionelt's 'Countering liberal bias' essay). This is not true for WikiProject History or WikiProject Biography (there is no anti-biography side). Suppose someone posts at those Wikiprojects that there is edit-warring going on at an article. We know that he is not canvasing for support, because the way those topics are defined there are no 'sides'. This Wikiproject should be set up the same way, say as, 'Wikiproject American Politics'. FurrySings (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
@Gloucester, please keep your demeaning rhetoric to yourself. I am quite knowledgeable about international politics and need no instruction from you. While conservatives in Europe are often more favorable to big government than those in the United States, the actual form of government intervention I was talking about is a position of the left and not generally associated with conservatives in any country.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
It isn't meant to be demeaning, just merely explain that it is confusing. It is as confusing to me as anyone else. It is just that humans, and specifically, those humans who speak English, have a tendency to create semantic confusion. We are left ruins that our forbears provided us. Perhaps it is time that we started using more understandable terms... RGloucester (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Let us all admit one point: playing the game of politics gets in the way of quality editing. One point of agreement moves us closer to our true purpose, collaboration. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Statements such as this require some evidence. It doesn't stand on its own that editors who perceive a specific bias in a group of articles and seek to correct that bias are themselves engaged in biased editing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
In his essay, Lionelt recommended using the Western Journalism Center (WJC) search engine and tried to have mainstream newspapers removed from the sources section. The WJC is a conspiracy theory website which currently is featuring articles such as "Did Arabs Fund Obama At Harvard?" and "Will An Obama Victory Spark A Civil War In The US?" It appears to violate WP:FRINGE: "And for writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality." TFD (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
What I see are sites listed for editors looking to find a good source for the conservative POV on a subject. This much is stated in the essay: "The References page is also invaluable for adding reliable sources to express minority viewpoints and add opposing views." It is not like The New York Times, Washington Post, and MSNBC are unknown to editors, but you would generally not look to them to find a conservative take on an issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Normally, we look for reliable sources to provide an NPOV take on issues. If one is searching out minority opinions, why limit them to conservative minority opinions? There are also leftist sources that represent minority views. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Right, and as the WJC entry shows, if the goal is to bring in conservative views at any cost, the end result is that fringe views will be considered. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The criterion for inclusion is neutrality. Views may be included if they are notable. If they are notable they will be mentioned in reliable third party sources. For example intelligent design and climate change scepticism are both covered in mainstream sources. Lionelt however writes, "When a liberal point of view is challenged or contradicted by a reliable source, that opposition must be reflected in the article." TFD (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and that's exacrtly wrong. It's a recipe for inserting conservative POV through fringe sources. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The foundation of the essay on “Liberal bias” is based on a serious distortion of Jimbo’s statements.
Jimbo Wales: “The Wikipedia community is very diverse, from liberal to conservative to libertarian and beyond. If averages mattered, and due to the nature of the wiki software (no voting) they almost certainly don’t, I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population...The idea that neutrality can only be achieved if we have some exact demographic matchup to United States of America is preposterous.” [3]
Jimbo seems to more or less dismiss the idea that the WP editorial community is significantly more liberal than the U.S. as a whole. But more importantly, even if the demographics do/did lean slightly liberal, that would not constitute evidence that WP articles themselves have a systemic liberal bias, for that would require a baseless assumption that so-called “liberal” editors are incapable of editing with a NPOV, and that “conservative” editors, even if in the minority on WP, would be incapable of injecting systemic conservative bias into articles. Even a cursory inspection of the interview from which Jimbo’s quote was excerpted shows that he quite adamantly dismisses the notion of systemic liberal bias on WP.
Aside from that glaring and fundamental flaw in the central premise of the essay, the essay's guidance to remedy the non-problem is what really disturbs me. The essay makes a push for rooting out bias only when it is liberal bias, while ignoring other types of political bias (e.g. conservative bias). What the essay argues for essentially amounts to “political profiling”, and seems akin to racial profiling – e.g., go after transgressions only when they are committed by a particular identifiable group. In the case of racial profiling, it’s people of color; in the essay it’s liberal ideology. Going after liberal bias exclusively seems antithetical to WP:NPOV -- rather than fix a POV problem (one that doesn’t seem to exist in reality), the proposed actions would quite likely create a POV problem, by letting conservative bias stand uncontested while taking extraordinary measures to purge liberal bias alone. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
It's nice to see that User:Tao has improved his position in the pecking order of this rather authoritarian project. The question becomes...can he (or any other member) clearly see what liberal bias really looks like? The purge by this project of so-called liberal bias in WP articles and the resulting restructuring of those articles undercuts the Pillar of Neutrality. Dictatorships like this have a natural obsession and aversion to the “enemy within” and therefore they sanction unbridled interference with a blessing from on high. (see Countering liberal bias). The failure of this project’s activists to recognize the potential for harm to the Encyclopedia has become evident and has prevented them from forming a real partnership with their Liberal counterparts. Perhaps project members only see them as "the Opposition". Naturally, both sides are suspicious of each other’s political goals and each other’s capacities and drive to influence the real life voting public rather than on an accurate analysis of specific situations. While some may fear a dismantling of this project others like myself feel that, at the very least, a restructuring is necessary.```Buster Seven Talk 06:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Buster, thank you for making everything so clear. The solution isn't to restrict this project to American conservatism, but to extend it past conservatism. The project should focus on American politics and accept conservatives, liberals and whatever else shows up. That's the real solution; not destruction but reconstruction. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
A widening of the project will also have the beneficial effect of bringing people together rather then forcing them apart with a combative mindset. FurrySings (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
And it'll allow reasonable debate on issues with articles rather than nodding along to issues and applications for back-up in the aim of controlling articles. It's a world Conservatism project at the moment anyway, not an American one. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 11:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Widening the scope of this project will lessen the polarization that makes American Politics so aggressive. We will be able to bond with each other and connect to larger ideas. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I have to object to this idea. We cover all forms of conservatism, in the US and internationally, and switching this project to cover all types of American politics, while a perfectly good idea for a separate project, would result in us losing those articles and, by extension, our international editors - it isn't an increase in scope, it is shrinking and a fundamental change to the idea that this project was created for and the project that our editors joined; a project covering conservatism of all types. We don't divide editors based on political belief or what they are interested in and we never have, and I hope we never will.
A counteridea could be to create several task forces of this project - for example, one covering US conservatism and international conservatism, or one covering figures and groups and the other covering ideas and thought. I think that raises a lot of issues, however - it segregates editors from working together and could actually intensify any bias. But it is still a much better solution than de facto deleting this project and replacing it with something completely different. ToaNidhiki05 19:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
The conversation that has occurred in the past day is rather enlightening, and reveals that a group of editors are forming a consensus that this wikiproject must be torn down, and that it is not here to improve wikipedia, or achieve neutrality ... even though members have stated that we are, and mostly dismissed. I can understand why any potential liberal bias would not be observed if the standard reliable sources are themselves leaning towards that bias, as that bias would be "normal", whereas other reliably sourced viewpoints would be considered fringe because they don't contain that standard leaning.
For instance, as a hypothetical, if something was written in a pro-Chocolate POV and the majority of mainstream reliable sources available were written as containing pro-Vanilla POV, then surely that pro-Chocolate POV is fringe and those who attempting to add neutrally worded balanced content reflecting that view are not there to improve content and are pushing a POV.
Therefore, I can understand the mindset of these group of editors, and their POV that they are doing it in the best interest of the project, while disagreeing with their conclusion as to what is trying to be achieved within this wikiproject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Well of course we would have to give more weight to the pro-vanilla POV, and may even ignore the pre-chocolate POV in most articles. That anyway is the policy. Even if it were not, we would need some criterion for determining what weight to provide to differing views. I suppose in this case you might want to provide equal weight, but remember there are other flavors of and alternatives to eating icecream, all of would have to be balanced. Political disputes cannot be evenly divided into liberal and conservative because there are ranges of views with that range and others that that fall outside. TFD (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that the community as a whole will be in favor of getting rid of this WikiProject. Rather, I think that the community will want to fix it, so that it functions according to community norms. Up until very recently, the lead of WP:Verifiability said that Wikipedia writes what is verifiable, not what is true. That was because I might think one thing is true but RightCowLeftCoast might think the opposite is true, and we might both be acting in good faith. The way Wikipedia deals with such differences of editor opinion is to rely on what the preponderance of mainstream sources say. If those sources lean "chocolate", then so should Wikipedia; if they instead lean "vanilla", then Wikipedia should follow. I realize that some editors, in good faith, may feel that Wikipedia is short-changing certain conservative perspectives when Wikipedia follows mainstream sourcing, but that's a complaint to take up with the larger society, not with Wikipedia that simply tries to report on that society. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree; the bottom line is that Wikipedia has specific criteria to determine which sources are appropriate. One may wish that one's viewpoint was more prominently featured in those sources, but that doesn't change our obligation to follow this site's sourcing criteria while we edit here.
I suppose one could try to amend the sourcing criteria to deprecate the mainstream media because of its supposed liberal bias - that would be unlikely to succeed, but would at least be above-board. And there are instances where a group of editors interested in a specific subject have successfully drafted specialized sourcing guidelines. It's much more problematic to gather a group of like-minded editors and develop an "alternate" list of sources which contradict this site's sourcing guidelines. MastCellTalk 21:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, this is not how things actually work. Most articles where I see an apparent "liberal" bias, it is precisely because editors are giving undue weight to certain views or because editors are writing the material in a slanted manner that sometimes even misrepresents what is in those sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
So is it time yet for an RfC about changing the name and focus of this project? Perhaps we could start with the simplest and most obvious suggestion based on the current membership's large American makeup: Wikipedia:WikiProject American politics. Or is more discussion needed? Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I recall that discussion, but this was an entirely different proposal - to rename the project to 'WikiProject American politics'. If he verbally opposed it here I'd be more than happy to count it, but he hasn't said anything yet. ToaNidhiki05 01:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
(EC) Re:The truth. The tools we have at hand, words, are pitifully inadequate in order to "tell the truth". Our righteous (and left-eous) self-defining gets in the way. Sometimes we humans grasp a truth and then make the mistake of believing (and promoting) it is "the whole truth and nothing but....". The real truth is that "chocolate chip" should be the dominant POV. My apologies to "strawberry" editors.```Buster Seven Talk 00:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC).
I was also a member at one time and left the project. Not for political reasons but for the tyranically manner in which the project was being manipulated. Am I a part of the "exclusive right'?```Buster Seven Talk 01:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
If you are a current member of the project, you would presumably be able to vote. But the Council is very clear that the WikiProject itself has the sole right to define their scope - there isn't really any room for debate. It is clearly worded to imply such. ToaNidhiki05 00:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The guideline you cite allows for common sense exceptions. When a WikiProject has become disruptive or harmful then of course outside interference is required. Binksternet (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't mean the scope needs to be determined by outsiders. The idea of renaming the project is silly enough, but it simply isn't justified here. ToaNidhiki05 01:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
There have been serious suggestions of renaming and thus redefining the focus. The suggestions are not silly. Outsiders will deal with a harmful project as needed, up to and including fully locking it down for archival reference only. Renaming it is one of the options. Binksternet (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
It is a silly idea because other options that are not nearly as drastic have not even been discussed. The main goal here is seeming to trend towards 'blood' (as Still put it rather nicely) rather than actually fixing issues. There hasn't even been any real evidence presented to warrant a move. ToaNidhiki05 01:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment This is getting tiresome. Either file an RfC or don't. I will point out that the lack of evidence presented here will undoubtably be raised during any RfC. littlegreen rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer 00:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)As to discussions about sources, even if Vanilla is the predominant POV of the mainstream reliable sources, that does not mean that Chocolate (or Strawberry (or any other flavor for that matter)) reliable sources should be totally excluded or content supported by those sources not be given due weight (and neutrally worded) inclusion.
Dennis, I was replying to Bink and others who want to move forward with an RfC. And I think short of Arbcom turning into a star chamber, there is no actionable evidence (at least presented so far). I'm not poo-pooing concerns, but I think the claims of malfeasance coupled with politics makes this look like a witchunt. littlegreen rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer 02:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Look, we can rename this project or we can just shut it down and let someone open up a new Wikiproject: American Politics to replace the American part of it. And if we want to make room for non-Americans, we just create WikiProject: Politics and let American Politics be a task force of it.
But the lesson we've learned here is that partisan wikiprojects are, unsurprisingly, magnets for partisan editors who band together to violate the basic purpose of Wikipedia. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Despite your claims that this project coordinates to fight (supposed) liberal bias by injecting conservative bias, there is zero evidence to support this claim. littlegreen rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer 02:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Right, and that explains Lionelt's essay, for example, or his practice of inviting conservatives to join. The more you deny what's everyone else takes for granted, the less well this is going to end. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, the essay, none of it supports your thesis. If thats your Perry Mason moment then don't waste any more of our time. littlegreen rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer 05:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Above, I and others pointed out how Wikipedia depends on the preponderance of reliable sourcing. It disappoints me how the subsequent discussion dances around the issue without really engaging with it. I realize that some editors may believe in good faith that they have seen pages where sources with one POV are accepted as reliable while sources with an opposing POV are resisted. But the solution to that is to follow existing procedures for resolving content conflicts, and for dispute resolution if need be. It isn't to form a project that is designed to focus only on one subset of source material. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Intentions of WP ConservatismI got into reading this because Dennis pointed it out to me. I don't have much to say. I lean conservative I suppose (more Libertarian) but I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of intentions here. I created a graph to explain what I think it is. I think the perceived intentions and the intended intentions (ha) are getting mixed up. I am not saying the project's ideas are correct, but I think this is what they see as them doing. That's not to say the bias exists or not, but their targets arn't neutral articles. Their targets are articles that have a strong liberal bias and bringing it back to center. Whether that is what actually happens or not, I can't say. I haven't even read most of the comments on this page let alone looked into the articles. I can say that my experience on Paul Ryan is that there are strong points of view both directions and very little spirit of cooperation.--v/r - TP 16:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
If I'm reading this chart correctly, it (the chart) states the goal is not to improve articles by moving them to the right of center, but improve articles that are left of center by moving them to the center. An admirable goal no matter which direction off kilter an article may be from center. What my beef is that there are some making unfounded accusations that this project is attempting to pull wikipedia (not articles) from the left to center by making some articles right of center. Besides being a preposterous notion (one slanted convservative article does not balance a slanted liberal article), there is nothing in the project documents that suggests doing this, nor are there any diffs of anyone attempting to do this. littlegreen rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer 17:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Good diagram. The problem I see is that it sees neutrality as evenly balancing liberal and conservative views. Lionelt et al consider mainstream views to be "liberal". But while currently science articles may mention conservative views such as intelligent design and climate change skepticism, they report as factual the liberal view that the species evolved and human actions are leading to climate change. Providing parity to these two sides is against policy. TFD (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrary break 1
Observation - There is a certain irony on display here. There is a view, outside view if you prefer, that this project is "bad" for wikipedia. A possible "solution" to this is to close down the project, or rename and change the scope by those on the outside (presumably non-conservatives). Paradoxly, if this is successful by those that believe this project is "bad" for wikipedia; they will have successfully proven those that have started this project were correct all along. The underlying belief, by many, is that WP has a certain liberal bias. Here comes along a project which is hoping to make WP more neutral (the methods for which are debatable). The outside view is that this project, which aims to reduce liberal bias, was effectively destroyed by liberals because it threatens the liberal bias of WP, thus re-enforcing the belief that WP is biased to the point that even disenting language is rooted out and removed. If the more liberal members of WP really thought about it they would let this project alone as "Proof!" that WP is not liberaly biased. :) Arzel (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a "mainstream" bias, it just happens that conservatives believe (possibly correctly) that the mainsteam has a liberal bias. So you have two legitimate options. Get the mainstream to be unbiased or get Wikipedia to change its policy. Get them to say that every political article must evenly balance liberal and conservative views. And when you do that do not forget to define what these two concepts mean. In the meantime, targeting thousands of articles to rebalance them to what you consider to be neutral is against policy. TFD (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. WP is a reflection of the main stream liberal bias, either way the bias is clear, if anything WP is the perfect Meta-analysis which proves the case. You certainly don't see a need for Liberalpedia. The underlying point is the same. As for this project, I am not a member and have had nothing to do with the targeting of any articles for rebalance. Arzel (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't see a need for Liberalpedia. I don't see a need for Conservapedia either. For that matter, I see no need for either Democratipedia, Republicapedia, Libertaripedia, Greenpedia, or any other such pedia that I may have overlooked here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Such a position is indefensible. I'm not a "liberal", whatever that means, I'm a socialist, though I don't play the politics game, as I think it is waste of time. There, you now know what I am. This has nothing to do with me challenging "conservative" beliefs. Everyone can believe what they wish, and that is the way humans work. Respect of beliefs is critical to any proper human interaction. What am I trying to do? I genuinely think the concept that Wikipedia has a "liberal bias" is nonsense. Perhaps, as Toa said, there is a bias in coverage. But certainly not in the articles' content. I don't want to shut down the project. I want this culture of vitriol and "us versus them" attitude to get the hell off the encyclopedia, because, quite frankly, it makes life hard. The problem with this project? By its very nature, it facilitates the "potential" (inadvertently or not) for NPOV violations to occur. When Lionel writes an essay about "countering liberal bias", that's nonsense. I have no problem with most of the content of the essay. The problem is that it only targets LIBERAL bias. There is no point in that. We already have policies and essays dealing with NPOV. There is no need for Lionel's essay, and furthermore, it entrenches this "us versus them" attitude. Wikipedia is not about fighting "liberal" or "conservative" bias. It is about fighting all bias, one way or the other. Then you have academic concern of conflating disparate entities called "conservatism" under one banner, which in of it self is a regional bias that shouldn't be tolerating, especially since this is the "English language" encyclopedia that is supposed to represent Canadians, Indians, Australians, New Zealanders, etcetera. I'll reply more later, this is an unfinished thought...but what the user says above me sounds like tosh to me. RGloucester (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Bias is bias, regardless of which part of the political spectrum it comes from, and WP already has mechanisms for dealing with bias. Any additional effort to selectively purge so-called "liberal bias" is pretty much guaranteed to create bias; i.e. take extraordinary measures only to purge liberal bias but don't do the same when it comes to conservative bias. I was also a bit taken aback by the charge at the beginning of the section break above that refers to the possibility that there may be an outside perception of the project as having been "effectively destroyed by liberals". That's really not something we need be concerned with. We can't anticipate what outsider perceptions will be, nor should we care as long as we uphold the rules and spirit of WP. Anything that even hints that the only opposition to this group is coming from liberals makes me very uncomfortable. No one knows for sure the political ideology of anyone else on WP, and it shouldn't matter as long as they toe the line. (Unsigned comment 22:01, 2 October 2012 by User:Rhode Island Red)
Apparently there's some confusion about whether the purpose of this project is, as stated, to improve Wikipedia's coverage of conservatism-related topics, or alternately to be a place for conservatives to coordinate work to make Wikipedia better serve their politics. That is, whether conservatism is this WikiProject's topic or its ideology. If the latter, then there is a term for the situation: WP:COI. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Until the larger group comes to grips with reality then your view of my observation will continue to be viewed as troubling. The mainstream bias is dominated by Democrats in the US. Studies of media bias have shown that the news in general is slanted to the left in both commission and ommission. WP is simply a reflection of this, there is no point in ignoring the obvious. There is a Reason why conservapedia was created and there is no obvious counter of liberalpedia (at least nothing that has any actual content). Arzel (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Conservapedia was created because an editor was outraged by (among other things) our use of BCE rather than AD (which he viewed as clear evidence of an anti-religious bias) and our intermittent use of British English (which he viewed as clear evidence of an anti-American bias) [5]. I think most people would be hard-pressed to see that as evidence of a "liberal bias" on Wikipedia, although that's what you're implying. Conservapedia was founded by and for people who see literally every subject and every content decision in ideological terms. And it's probably a useful outlet; hyper-partisan types generally don't thrive in this environment, where such an approach are proscribed. I don't think that the existence of Conservapedia proves anything except that some people are incapable of viewing any subject in anything other than ideologically divisive terms. MastCellTalk 20:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Those people exist on both sides. The point is that there is no reason for those on the left to go somewhere else. The view is that their POV is already here with very little restriction. The impression of WP is that Extreme Left=Left, Left=Center, Center=Right, Right=Extreme Right, Extreme Right=Crazy. This is reflected EVERYWHERE. Sources are called either Center or Right, there is almost no acknowledgement of left sources. Is the NYT a center publication? Is NBC center? MSNBC is actively campaigning for Obama all day long and is reluctantly being recognized as biased to the left, yet I bet you still think FNC is more biased to the right than MSNBC is to the left. MMfA is actively trying to destroy what it feels are conservative outlets, yet is still viewed by most as a reliable source, yet Newsbusters/MRC (which is pretty much the exact opposite) is correctly identified as not a reliable source. I am not sure what is more annoying, that the bias exists as a reflection of the larger media, or that so many here refuse to even acknowledge it as a possibility when the evidence is so clearly apparent. Arzel (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
This isn't left/right, it's mainstream/fringe. If you consider the mainstream to be liberal, then WP will naturally be liberally biased by design. Your argument has been made by legions of Creationists and Flat Eathers and such, all of whom are angry that their fringe views are not given the credibility that the mainstream enjoys. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
It has been said in the length of our (thankfully) civil conversation that wikipedia has a mainstream bias, and as that is what is the majority of what is reported that those sources are given more due weight. Some agree, or disagree, that because of this the view that wikipedia has a bias towards any political spectrum is a non-starter, as it is keeping with NEU and DUE WEIGHT if it continues to follow mainstream RSs to verify content. Therefore, may I present the following: This NewsBusters, an organ of the Media Research Center (a conservative content analysis organization), reports (dated 2008) that there is a higher percentage of reporters that see themselves as liberal or very liberal compared to those who see themselves as conservative or very conservative. This compares to a gallup poll that shows that there is a higher percentage of individuals who self identify as conservatives than moderates or liberals. Therefore, if the biases of these reporters effect what is reported or how things are reported, although the majority of reporters are moderate, if there are biases in articles, more articles will have a liberal bias than a conservative bias. Since Wikipedia usually uses mainstream sources, and as there is a higher percentage of liberal reporters than conservative reporters, the mainstream will naturally have a slight liberal bias. Thus I have to say I agree with the chart above. Those editors here (the wikiproject) who are interested in NPOV in articles do not wish to make articles PRO-conservative, we understand that isn't in the best interest of NPOV or Wikipedia at large; rather given that there are articles that have a liberal bias, those articles should be moderated BECAUSE of NPOV to become evenly balanced. As I said above, that may take different forms of solutions, but it keeps with the pillar of NPOV.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the news media show bias, not by misrepresenting facts, but by their choice of stories to cover, the facts they present and the opinions they report. Even so, they are less liberal than the typical Democratic voter, although far more liberal than the average Republican. I suspect the academic world is more liberal than the news media. Since Wikipedia is based on news and academic sources, it will reflect that bias. But the only way to change that is to change policy. TFD (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
With that I would agree. Academic sources are also biased, but at least most of the hard sciences are less so. The biggest problem, today, is groupthink in academic circles. A bias which feeds itself because of the manner in which research funding is granted. Just try to get some funding if you have a dissenting opinion, and if your funding then comes from industry it is disregarding as being bought (as if government funding is somehow free of influence!). Arzel (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think most of those arguments make sense. "Groupthink" is less of a problem in academia than in most other areas of life, largely because academia is geared to reward novel thinking. Of course, you have to actually convince your peers - whose default attitude will likely be skeptical - of the validity of your ideas. When people fail to do so, they sometimes blame "groupthink" - sort of like on Wikipedia.
Research funding proposals are generally reviewed, scored, and selected for funding through peer review by groups of scientists, not by political appointees. The process is necessarily "political", I suppose, in that any activity involving groups of people making subjective judgements is political. But I can tell you that you've got it completely backwards in terms of "dissent". The number-one reason that grant applications are rejected is because they don't dissent enough. You need to prove that your idea in some way extends or challenges existing knowledge in order to have any chance of obtaining research funding. And so on... MastCellTalk 18:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Let me get this straight
So based on the above sections, am I to understand that this project views its goal as countering a pervasive liberal bias on Wikipedia? A bias which exists, in part, because mainstream sources are liberally biased as well? MastCellTalk 20:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a member and don't wish to speak for them, but I certainly hope that is not the case. I would vehemently oppose such a goal. littlegreen rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer 21:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
It is not the Wikiprojects primary goal to counter "countering a pervasive liberal bias on Wikipedia (sic)". It's primary goal is to improve articles within its wide self-defined scope. However, the majority of the discussions so far is to whether this wikiproject is being used to change existing POVs in articles.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not my goal - I don't think any such bias exists. The only bias there might be is in regards to well-written, high-quality articles in certain topics while poor articles are in the opposite, but that isn't even real bias. As for the reference page, it serves the exact same purpose as Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Resources - to offer sources that cover or are written from a conservative perspective if such a perspective is needed - it isn't a depository of mainstream sources and is not designed as such. This doesn't mean its goal is to be used to delete 'liberal bias', it simply is designed to be an easy-to-access page with notable and reliable (at least in regards to conservatism and conservative opion) conservative newspapers, periodicals, and websites, if such a perspective is needed. It offers both US and international sources, which it actually needs more of from South American countries. This isn't any different than, say, WikiProject Socialism, which defines in its scope the goal of using socialist-oriented academics - the goal is improvement, not slanting or preventing slanting. ToaNidhiki05 22:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Let me again state, that some editors in this discussion are painting this project with a wide brush. There have been several editors who are members of this Wikiproject who have stated our willingness to work with others to address those concerns, have suggested good faith solutions to address those concerns, and that by painting this wikiproject and editors involved as attempting to push a POV in an attempt not to create neutral articles (or improve articles to neutrality) does not show good faith of the wikiproject or its editors, or stated solutions to address concerns.
Again, primary purpose of this wikiproject is to improve articles within its wide self-defined scope.
Concerns about POV are the concerns of those individual editors, and it is my belief that all editors should be concerned if articles do not have a neutral presentation (keeping with WP:NPOV).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
There are concerns about individual editors, but we agree that those are outside the scope of this discussion. There is also the concern that the project itself is organized along lines which promote ideologically driven and partisan editing. You keep saying that you're willing to work with others to address those concerns, but then you refuse to acknowledge them as anything other than "bad faith" or "painting with a broad brush" - which makes it rather hard to address them constructively. MastCellTalk 23:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The socialist project is wrong, but I have not seen its members have followed that and it appears to be inactive. LGBT merely provides links to books about the subject. TFD (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I think we need to consider the possibility that the mainstream bias is not the sole reason for perceived liberal bias on Wikipedia. What if conservative sources exist but are not being used because editors are choosing liberal sources over conservative sources? Would this project's goal - then - to include conservative sourcing, when it exists in equal parts in the mainstream media but not in equal parts on Wikipedia, be acceptable? Does the possibility that this is happening exist?--v/r - TP 00:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
If editors are excessively reliant on partisan sourcing - liberal or conservative - then that problem is remedied by using high-quality non-partisan sources, not by multiplying the number of low-quality partisan sources in use. Even if one accepts the dubiously sourced premise that Wikipedia has a "liberal bias", this project's approach is at odds with basic site policy and compounds the problem of ideologically driven editing. MastCellTalk 00:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
So let me repeat back to you what I think I heard. Not trying to bait you here, this will probably be my last comment on the subject. If I understand you right, you are saying the possibility exists but this project isn't the way to handle it? If so, I might agree.--v/r - TP 00:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Partisan editing exists, some of it "liberal" and some of it "conservative". That's more than a possibility; it's a fact. Whether there's "more" of one than the other is a question which I don't think can be answered in any meaningful sense (although not for lack of trying). All of it is a problem. And this project has tended to exacerbate that problem. MastCellTalk 00:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
If the members of members of this project wanted to make a reasoned case that this is a real concern, what sort of evidence would be neccessary? Would a survey of Wikipedia readers be helpful? Finally, if it were shown that it is real, or at least a real concern, then what steps would you find acceptable to ensure WP:NPOV by the project or by the community?--v/r - TP 00:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I think it's probably impossible to make a reasoned case that Wikipedia is, in aggregate, biased in a "liberal" or "conservative" direction - because there are no robust, validated analytical tools for making such a determination. Any effort would have to be automated - to process the massive corpus of articles - and the metrics available are almost shockingly crude (e.g. [11]). Basically, you could produce a quantitative analysis saying whatever you want - that Wikipedia is radically leftist, rightist, or anywhere in between - and then everyone will (legitimately) dismiss your methodology as flawed.
It is possible to identify individual articles which are biased, either because they use low-quality partisan sourcing or because editors have failed to convey accurately the content of cited high-quality sources. And it's possible to fix those articles by seeking out higher-quality non-partisan sourcing and accurately representing its content. The problem is that this project has espoused the leaning-tower-of-Pisa approach, where a perceived slant to one side necessitates an intentional slant to the other side. That's never been a recipe for WP:NPOV - quite the opposite. MastCellTalk 01:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
A reliable source, whatever the viewpoint of the author, provides the facts and explains the relative acceptance of the different views. Since we normally do not report opinion directly, but use summaries provided in secondary sources, it is quite possible to write a WP:NEUTRAL article without paying attention to the specific views of the writers. For example, when writing about Chomsky's views on the US, we should use a source that explains them and their relative acceptance. The best way to avoid bias is to use the highest quality sources available, viz., academic books and articles and, for recent information, news from quality newspapers. TFD (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
And the opposite holds just as much truth. I'm only asking if it's possible that it is happening or exists, not making any comment that it truly is or giving any examples.--v/r - TP 00:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
There is no "opposite". The choice is not between liberal bias vs. conservative bias, it's between attempted neutrality and intentional bias. Anyone who says that Wikipedia as a whole is "biased" and claims we should fix it is just saying they want to bias it in the direction of their choosing.
You personally attacked me[12] for restoring an edit that called Paul Ryan a liar[13] but you ignored the fact that this version included eight mainstream sources as support. It is a perfect example of how you and other conservatives are opposed to attempted neutrality: you will not accept negatives even when our reliable sources insist upon them.
Ultimately, this is why the project as we know it is over. I would like to replace it with one focused on American politics from all sides, but if we can't do that then let's just replace it with nothing. Then we can go back to making sure articles follow our sources, no matter what we personally believe. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Can you please quote the personal attack? I don't see it. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
...It is a perfect example of how you and other conservatives are opposed to attempted neutrality is par for the course with ISS. Ignoring the labeling (which in of itself is wrong too, as he has been warned before), this is an ad hominem Oh yeah, let's throw in failure to AGF at the same time. littlegreen rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer 13:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Your(TP) comments here and your chart shows exactly why this project and some of it's members are set out to damage this project. In order for an article to have a "liberal bias", it would have to be deemed as such by an editor. Who better to deem an article biased than an editor/project designed to combat liberal bias, and whom believes mainstream sources are liberal biased? You don't see the problem here? If not, then there is no use discussing this further. Let's just go to the archives and start the RFC already. This page seems to be heading into a direction that's not constructive. Dave Dial (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The Daily Telegraph is a daily morning broadsheet conservative-leaning newspaper distributed throughout the United Kingdom and internationally.
The Times has characterized IBD as a "right-wing newspaper".
(NR) America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion.
Since its inception, Reader's Digest has maintained a conservative and anti-communist perspective on political and social issues.
Some former The Wall Street Journal reporters have said that since Rupert Murdoch bought the paper, news stories have been edited to adopt a more conservative tone, critical of Democrats.
In 1994, the (Washington) Times introduced a weekly national edition, especially targeted to conservative readers nationwide
Founded by conservative commentator Tucker Carlson and Republican politician Neil Patel, former adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney, The Daily Caller launched on January 11, 2010.
Townhall.com is a web-based publication and a print magazine, primarily dedicated to conservative United States politics.
Critics have stated that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions and biased reporting.
Not saying these are neutral sources, but that they are mainstream news sources as reliable as those commonly seen as "liberal" news sources. I am responding to the suggestion by several editors that the WikiProject is rejecting the mainstream media as biased towards a "liberal" perspective.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I see it as confirming the suggestion that the WikiProject is cherry-picking sources so as to push a conservative POV onto articles. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Dear TDA, please explain what you personally think the word "liberal" means. I'm not asking for an academic definition, but what you yourself believe, since this is a subjective topic. For example, do you consider the BBC to be neutral? And so on, and so forth. RGloucester (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I think the word liberal means what it literally means and that is why I keep it in quotes when I use the term in an American context because its use here is inconsistent with its us literal meaning. Here liberal has basically become a term for the left. As to whether I think the BBC is neutral, no I don't, but I would be hard-pressed to come up with a single news source that is actually neutral. That is just a consequence of the reality that most people are not actually neutral.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
If you believe that the term liberal is misused in the U.S., is it not probable that so is the term conservative? Hence should the scope not be limited to the US? Or better, why not merge this project with the one for liberalism. TFD (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Not really. The term conservative isn't misused in the American context. Individuals identified as conservative are identified as such because they adhere to values that harken back to the traditional values of the nation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
That statement is seriously disputed by historians and constitutional scholars. The fact that notable members of the conservative movement in America have gone on record trying to rewrite the history of the nation to match their disputed view is the problem. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Members here simply should define the projects scope as being international or just American. Will have to agree the terms "conservative" and "liberal" does not have the same political connotation in all English speaking countries. The terms conservative and liberal have a scudded meaning in the United States vs the rest of the world. In the USA its generally used in a "social context" were most of the world see the terms more related to "economic position" (markets).Moxy (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
This is why we toyed with the notion of limiting the project to American conservatism, which would at least be a single type of thing. Having said that, it's still a recipe for a battlefield, which is why American politics makes more sense as a focus. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
TDA, are not the "traditional values of the [American} nation" liberal, i.e., limited government, free markets, freedom of religion and constitutional republicanism? TFD (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but in the United States many identified as "liberals" adhere to views that are not consistent with the idea of limited government and free markets. One could say that conservatism changes because traditional views differ from country to country, but most of these differences are not entirely significant. Conservative views on social issues are pretty consistent internationally and conservative economic views are also pretty consistent.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I would like to see some evidence for that statement. If you have a room full of conservatives, for example, from Australia, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States, their positions will not be "consistent" on most, if not all issues. In fact, the majority of positions held by American conservatives today are considered fringe within conservative ideology. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
As far as conservatives from the English-speaking nations you mention I think that the difference would largely be one of degree in that some would take a harder line on some issues than others. Germany probably shouldn't even be noted as the closest thing they have to a major conservative party is the CDU, who would not rightly be described as a conservative party.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
There has been in recent years a convergence between the main right-wing parties in the UK, Canada, and Australia, and some other countries. However in both the UK and Canada this is seen as a rejection of traditional conservatism. As George Grant wrote, "Americans who call themselves 'conservatives' have the right to that title only in a particular sense. [...] Their concentration on freedom of governmental interference has more to do with nineteenth century liberalism than with traditional conservatism, which asserts the right of the community to restrain freedom in the name of the common good." TFD (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
So you are saying that if American conservatives support liberalism because that is their tradition and if the lived in Afghanistan they would support the Taliban. In most countries by the way there is a clear distinction between "traditional conservatives" and free market liberals, who usually belong to different parties. The traditional conservatives btw often hold views on social and economic matters that Americans would consider liberal. BTW, Viriditas, they would probably mostly agree on support of the monarchy. TFD (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
2012 Conservative Asian American infobox representatives open nomination period
I'm looking for help adding information about the radio show Istook Live! to three Wikipedia articles related to the show. The show is hosted by Ernest Istook and broadcasts live from The Heritage Foundation with the support of Heritage Action for America. As an employee of The Heritage Foundation, I'll refrain from adding this information myself. Is there an editor here who would be interested in reviewing the material I've put forward and making the additions if they look ok? I've made three requests, one on the Ernest Istook talk page, one on The Heritage Foundation talk page and one on the Heritage Action for America talk page. Thanks. Thurmant (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I commented at the various pages. But The Heritage Foundation's web site does not seem to mention him at all, which seems a little odd. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Left-wing activism
WikiProject Left-wing activism, which will support WikiProject Labor initiative, is an exciting, new project that will work towards righting wrongs, correcting inaccuracies, and making Wikipedia more friendly to Big Labor’s cause. By bringing left-wing activism tactics into the digital space, the project will work to restore entries to reality and push the slant so articles are able to stand straight. Ladies and gentlemen, a call to arms![14] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Good as long as Wikipedia policies are followed. Collect (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
This is worrying. We don’t need anymore of this… RGloucester (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
We should welcome the new editors. And if they follow policy as Collect suggests, there should be no problem. We are likely to get a lot of POV editors, but maybe some of them will get the bug and edit neutrally. The others will either get bored and leave or will be blocked. littlegreen rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer 16:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Uzma Gamal, I have to admit that you had me going for a moment! But WP:WikiProject Left-wing activism appears to be in a, um, red state. The link cited goes to the Heritage Foundation. I guess April 1 came a little early this time. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a Heritage Foundation article about a blog by Wade Rathke[15] commenting on a column in a Canadian labor magazine.[16] I do not see that this project is the proper place to discuss this issue however. TFD (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You didn't build that until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Cleaning out some files
I found this thought:
"Conservatism has assummed a variety of forms because it has been chiefly reactive, responding to perceived threats and challenges at different times in America's history". I add it here for what it's worth. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The problem then becomes identifying them. Were Washington, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt conservatives trying to preserve liberty, the Union and capitalism or were they anti-conservative supporters of republicanism, emancipation and social reform? Who is a conservative today? TFD (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The article on Islamism needs to change. I made some comments about that over on the article's talk page. I hope that some editors with more knowledge on the topic will come weigh in. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
What does this article have to do with Conservatism? Wikiprojects are not supposed to be for canvassing like-minded people to disputed articles. FurrySings (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Are there other editors who can help on this article? I have no interest in an editing war, and it feels like I'm alone in trying to find facts. I don't have a deep, deep knowledge of every single policy of Wikipedia--POV, article splitting, etc.--and it feels like I'm currently outnumbered. Please jump in to help, if you can. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
What does this article have to do with Conservatism? Wikiprojects are not supposed to be for canvassing like-minded people to disputed articles. FurrySings (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith.
Take note of what Cirrus Editor is asking for: "help finding facts". Take note of what he specifically doesn't want: "an editing war". There is nothing wrong with his request.
I find it highly uncivil - in fact, I find it downright offensive - for you to come here and impugn his motives this way, when he is very clearly asking for legitimate help. Your messages here are prima facie evidence of a battleground attitude. Please dial it down a few notches. ► Belchfire-TALK 13:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
It's pretty clear who is displaying battleground mentality here. Those who yell most about goodfaith are usually those who assume it the least. FurrySings (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Please be reminded that WP:CIVIL is a pillar of Wikipedia. FurrySings (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
So you can accuse multiple people of severe policy violations, but if somebody accuses you of policy violations they are violating WP:CIVIL? Interesting policy interpretation, there. ToaNidhiki05 16:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I had really hoped that things would quiet down around here following the US election. I can see two sides to this argument, and I invite other editors to try to see both sides as well. Clearly, there is nothing wrong, and nothing bad faith, about an editor asking for other editors to help finding facts and to help editing constructively, without an edit war. That's fine, even commendable. But I can also see how asking for that help here, on this talk page, raises legitimate concerns. The 2012 Benghazi attack is something that is seen, within the US, very differently by conservative sources compared to non-conservative sources. And that difference has, in the real world, been a matter of political controversy. By asking for help from editors who, arguably, are associated more with one POV than the other, it's inevitable that other editors are going to question whether there might be canvassing. It's something that this WikiProject still needs to deal with. If it's a perception problem, you have to fix it, and if it's a reality, the community will. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Talk:2012 Benghazi attack indicates that the article is covered by 5 WikiProjects (Africa/Libya, International Relations, Terrorism, U.S./Government, and Islam). Cirrus Editor (talk·contribs) chose to contact only this WikiProject - which is not among those listed on the talkpage - with his request for help in the face of superior numbers. The likely conclusion is that he chose this WikiProject in hopes of finding editors of a particular ideological outlook.
Moreover, asking like-minded editors to "jump in" to an edit-war because one feels "outnumbered" is essentially the definition of inappropriate canvassing. Assuming this is an isolated incident on the part of Cirrus Editor, the proper response is simply to point him toward the guidelines on canvassing and ask him not to repeat this approach in the future.
Finally, as Tryptofish notes, this is not the first time that this WikiProject has been used to canvas support on ideological grounds. In general, the project's response has not been to police itself, but rather to hit back aggressively and inappropriately at anyone who points out the ongoing abuse of this page for ideologically driven canvassing. MastCellTalk 19:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Cirrus Editor was incorrectly calling for like-minded reinforcements by canvassing here. Binksternet (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The only 'same old story' here is that, once again, people who dislike or hate this project jump on something that didn't even get a response. Somebody asked the project for assistance and (despite receiving no help from the project or even a response) was viciously accused of bad-faith editing by a user, who then accused the project of canvassing. Upon being told that the user specifically said he did not want to edit war, he declared that such a response was that a violation of WP:CIVIL and that accusing him of violations is wrong. Now, tell me who is in the wrong here - an editor who asked for help that doesn't involve edit warring, a project that didn't even respond, or a user who accused another of severe policy violations and then accused another of violating WP:CIVIL when he was accused of violations?
Of course, you will ignore that stuff and instead accuse everyone in this project of canvassing and edit-warring without any actual proof. With all due respect, the reason this project pushes back against people who question it is because of editors like you, MastCell and Binksternet - people who come in and repeatedly accuse us of major policy violations without a single shred of evidence and then get testy when we dare fight back. Well guess what - if you level charges, we'll respond, and quite frankly the project did nothing wrong here. We are open to dialogue but accusing our membership and the project as a whole of (imaginary) policy violations is not a way to start conversation. ToaNidhiki05 19:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems like canvassing to me. Posting to any of the projects that watch the article would have received notice from editors who are familiar with terrorism, the Middle East, etc. TFD (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I will reiterate - the project did nothing wrong here, and neither did any member. Nobody responded to the request. If you can find something the project and its members did wrong here, please elaborate - I'll be more than happy to respond. But frankly a non-response to a non-issue doesn't warrant the type of accusations being leveled against the project and its members here. ToaNidhiki05 19:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The Project is at fault only insofar as its members once again responded aggressively and defensively to an appropriate expression of concern about ideologically driven canvassing. MastCellTalk 19:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
"appropriate expression of concern about ideologically driven canvassing"? Since when is accusing a group of people (that even didn't do anything) of severe policy violations 'appropriate'? If you can give me something we did wrong in regards to this request, by all means do so. But if you expect to baselessly attack us and us and not have any sort of response, you really need to think again - if you make an aggressive claim of policy violation about me and I am going to respond aggressively. ToaNidhiki05 20:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Since the attack was not carried out by conservatives (unless you call Islamic terrorists conservatives), can you explain what it has to do with this project. TFD (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Is the editor who asked for help a member of the project? No. What he did has nothing to do with us, and it certainly doesn't warrant accusing us of canvassing since we didn't even give a response. ToaNidhiki05 20:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
FurrySings raised an appropriate concern about canvassing - which was directed at the original poster, and not at the project itself or its members. Belchfire responded by lecturing FurrySings on AGF, BATTLE, etc etc, which is a disappointing response from someone who is a project member. Project members should be ignoring inappropriate canvassing (which you did), or helping to call it out - not berating people who point it out. MastCellTalk 20:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Mast Cell. Look, I saw the opening post before the response from FurrySings was made. At the time, I thought to myself pretty much the same thing that FurrySings said. But I figured there was nothing constructive to be accomplished by saying it out loud. I have two pieces of sincere advice to the editors of this project. (1) Don't respond angrily to posts like these. It only reinforces the perception that you actually do have an agenda contrary to NPOV. (2) When you see something like the opening post, respond politely that this wasn't the right place to post it, because that's not what this project is here for. And make a strong effort to rid the project pages of anything that would mislead other users into thinking otherwise. You did the right thing by not allowing yourselves to be canvassed. Now, make what you say here consistent with that stance. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I know you are reasonable, Tryptofish, as we've have some constructive dialogue here - however, it needs to be recognized that there has been an effort to eliminate this project since it first began. That is the simple truth of it and we would not be suspicious and defensive if there hadn't been a group of editors trying to undo the project ever since it was made.
With that out of the way, I didn't see the post until this conversation. Activity has been down lately so I wasn't paying much attention to the talk page, and the fact nobody even responded proves that even those that did see it didn't feel inclined to respond. I've made suggestions as to ways to stop posts that might violate CANVASS (such as a message at the top, for instance) but these have never been confirmed and have largely been lost in the overall debate. The truth is, stuff like that is not going to happen until some people stop trying to destroy the project through deletion or merging; it presents a bad image as a whole of people who think there are issues here and does not convey any sort of trust or respect to the Project and its members. I'm sure other level-headed members would agree that we are open to positive ideas that improve (not radically change) the project and help create a more inclusive and less divisive attitude, both among the project members and among outsiders, because we aren't here to push an ideology but rather to improve pages related to it. However, the other side needs to step up to the plate, admit that this Project exists and does not want to merged or be deleted, and stop making proposals that would accomplish either of those. That would go a long way towards improving relations. ToaNidhiki05 23:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but I meant what I said. Actually, I'm reminded of the US House of Representatives in recent days (your mileage may differ). This isn't about who has to compromise first. Down that road lies... the US House of Representatives in recent days (your mileage may differ). Instead, it's about this project doing what is right, according to Wikipedia's norms, and not acting defensive in the face of sincere advice. Assume that there are other editors who flat-out have it in for you. That's life. It's not an excuse to fail to be the best editors that you can be. It's not an excuse to fail to make things better when you have the opportunity to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
And I meant what I said - it will be extremely difficult to have a productive discussion about this WikiProject with people who are bent on destroying it. I'm more or less reminded of the Israel-Hamas dispute (you're interpretation may differ) in that regard. Thus, it is extremely difficult to assume that users like TFD of Binkerstarnet, who voted to delete this project and have not changed their views since, are making solid good-faith proposals because their stated goal is destruction, not improvement. As for improvements, I've offered suggestions to make things better and they are ignored every time, and it is not from a lack of trying on my part that they weren't discussed. ToaNidhiki05 16:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm disappointed with your sarcastic answer. You haven't done yourself any favors with that. But let me try to respond to the last part of what you said: are there things that you've asked the other members of the project to implement, that would have improved relations with editors outside the project, that were ignored? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
My answer was not sarcastic, yours was. If I recall correctly my idea was ignored by hard-line deletionists and barely discussed by the people willing to talk. Among project members, I'm not sure because activity has been low for a while, but I was not stopped by any project member. ToaNidhiki05 01:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Try turning the situation around. Suppose I posted on the WikiProject Barack Obama talkpage that I was involved in an edit war at same-sex marriage, and I felt outnumbered and would like others to jump in and help if they can. Would you think that I was canvassing, or would that be a proper use of that wikiproject talkpage? FurrySings (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't accuse the Barack Obama WikiProject of canvassing, certainly. However, your example isn't quite what happened here because this user explicitly said he has "no interest in an editing war", thus making it very clear that he is not requesting help in an edit war. You can certainly argue it was inappropriate, but I think it is a stretch to call it canvassing. ToaNidhiki05 16:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Cirrus Editor says "I have no interest in an editing war" but that can also be interpreted as saying "I don't want to be blocked for 3RR". Cirrus Editor is absolutely canvassing for like-minded editors to beat the opposition with quantity rather than quality: "it feels like I'm alone... it feels like I'm currently outnumbered." Cirrus Editor chose this project's talk page for a purpose. This project apparently has that kind of reputation. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
If there has been such a grievous violation of policy, how come nobody has taken it to ANI for resolution? Maybe it's time to put up or shut up. ► Belchfire-TALK 18:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
As I said at the top of this thread, the proper response to an isolated incident of inappropriate canvassing is to educate and remind the canvasser of the relevant policies. That's been done. There's nothing to warrant administrative action or a post to WP:AN/I. There is a separate and ongoing concern about the belligerent responses of some project members to outside input, but that issue is long-standing and unlikely to be resolved in this venue or by WP:AN/I. MastCellTalk 18:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
However, having been on the receiving end this week, I think a RfC on Belchfire's behavior would be warranted. FurrySings (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Furry, was there any reason you didn't just go to Cirrus Editor's talk page and explain to him that his request might be perceived as canvassing? He is fairly new around here. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think that 108 makes a good point. Subsequently, MastCell left a message there, and that's the best way to have handled it. I've made it clear that I think that some of the editors here didn't respond very helpfully to the concerns expressed, but it also hasn't really accomplished any good to have provoked those responses. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
My apologies to all concerned. My intention was to get help, not start a storm. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The community can help
I do recognize that the editors of this project did not, in fact, respond to the opening post of this discussion by allowing themselves to be canvassed, and that's a good thing. I'm disappointed that those same editors, when faced with a comment questioning the opening post, responded by escalating, rather than deescalating the situation. All that was really needed was a calm reply that the project isn't here to be canvassed for a particular political POV. But, this being an open Wiki, anyone (including me) can try to help this project do better in the future. For that reason, I added an information box near the top of this talk page, and I hope that editors can point to it in the future. If you want, you can just link to #No canvass, and the link will go directly to the box. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Conservative Asian American infobox representative nominees. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
